Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. 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

Outram Park MRT station

Nominator(s): Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a MRT station in Singapore. The station serves three lines, the East-West line, the North-East line and the Thomson-East Coast line.Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Felix M. Warburg House

Nominators: ♠Vamí_IV†♠ Epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about another of the great houses that once lined Fifth Avenue in New York. Specifically, this is the mansion of Felix M. Warburg, a Jewish financier who ignored fears of anti-Semitic reprisal to his decided to build himself a big Gothic manor in the middle of New York City. Although the Warburgs no longer remain, their legacy does: the museum is now the home of the Jewish Museum (Manhattan) and the building largely survives as they left it. It's a beautiful building and I hope you will all enjoy it. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll review later this week. Hog Farm _Talk 22:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Cane Hill

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This may seem familiar to those who reviewed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Van Buren/archive1 in 2022. Essentially, Confederate forces under Thomas C. Hindman made an abortive push into SW Missouri (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Battle of Newtonia/archive1) but fell back into Arkansas under Union pressure. Hindman tried again later than year in a campaign that had its first major action here at Cane Hill, met stalemate at the Battle of Prairie Grove, and then ended in the aforementioned Van Buren fiasco. Cane Hill itself was a running cavalry battle that stretched over miles of Arkansas forests and mountains. Hog Farm _Talk 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• The infobox image, why is it cited? (Usually such information goes on the details page in Commons.
• The last image's caption: why is it "A 19th-century engraving" rather than 'An 1866 engraving'?

And yes, I am aware that I didn't mention these at ACR.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "The Battle of Cane Hill". That upper-case B, do the HQ sources consistently use it?
  • Not consistently, changed to "battle of Cane Hill" in the lead
• The first paragraph of the lead: After the first sentence, events are not retold in chronological order are they? If that's so, it may be helpful if they were - I have just read it twice and am struggling to get a grip on what happened.
  • I've tried to rearrange this
• Should there be a hyphen in "rear guard action"?
  • Not for sure; I've added one as a caution

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - does the first paragraph of the lead look better now? Hog Farm _Talk 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• "In December 1860, the state of South Carolina ... occurred to the north in Missouri during 1861." This seems both over-detailed, and not detailed enough. in that it skips Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina seceding.
  • So - would you recommend I cut down the detail or just bring in another source that mentions TN, VA, and NC? I think some form of context as to why Americans started shooting Americans is necessary here
• "took most of the soldiers and military supplies in the state with him". Really? Or just those on the Confederate side?
  • I've added "Confederate" here, although it is largely true as well because Curtis's Yankees had fallen back to Missouri until late April, by which time Van Dorn had gotten his troops across the Mississippi
• "advanced his forces back". Well, yes, he did, but it reads funny.
  • I've removed "back"
• "

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Encyclopedia of Arkansas is a work title and should be italicized
  • Have swapped over to use {{cite encyclopedia}} instead of cite web
• Why is Further reading a subsection of References? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Have moved the heading up a level

@Nikkimaria: - thanks for the review! Comments have been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Vami

Quid pro quo –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The Structure of Literature

Nominator(s): czar 18:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

One of my favorite quotes is from the philosopher John Searle speaking in 2010 on French philosophy, in which he says that two famous French philosophers had confided to him that, in France, philosophical writing has to be at least 10 or 20 percent incomprehensible to be perceived as deep and to be taken seriously. I've yet to read a monograph that tackles obscurantism in academia but until then, we have this article.

I started out writing this article about Paul Goodman's disseration as part of a project to document his works. And Goodman's academic career is such a small, passed-over pocket of the very wide range of topics he covered (spanning 21 sections of the New York Public Library), that I had not seen previously written, with such singular clarity, a group of writers converging to say about his academic debut what could largely be said of his larger career, that this book was full of psychological insight and incisive asides, but he eclipsed his argument with impenetrable style issues and jargon.

I've been working on this Goodman project for nearly a decade now because sometimes incomprehensible sociological works have real-world impact, and writing clearly about unclear texts can be hard, interesting, and sometimes rewarding. Please have a look and let me know if the same applies to readers. czar 18:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Cite 35 has a p/pp error.
• Cite 39: no publisher location?
• Could we have the year of publication in the first sentence please.
• "were of mixed favor". What does mixed favor mean? And in the main article.
• "belles lettres". Foreign language words, other than proper nouns, should be in lang templates rather than italics.
• "The author Paul Goodman developed from this tradition". I am struggling to work out what this is trying to communicate.
• "In the type of writing practiced by Goodman—formal literary analysis—the author breaks". By "the author" do you mean Goodman, or any writer? If the former, perhaps 'he'; if the latter, perhaps 'an author'.
• "he author breaks the work into parts and describes how those parts interrelate to form a whole and create meaning." Suggest that one "and" is preceded by a serial comma.
  • I didn't add the serial comma between "parts and" because I thought it would be awkward. czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Is it actually possible to find a "work's formal structure in ... external factors alone"?
• It may be worth specifying in "Background" which type[s] of literature are considered susceptible to literary criticism.
• The Structure of Literature is a work of literary criticism." Is it? It seems to be a book about literary criticism. What do the sources actually say?
  • The reviews all cover Goodman's original literary analysis of over a dozen works as he attempts to introduce a form of analysis called "inductive formal analysis". The phrase "literary criticism" appears to be in wider circualtion now than it was at the time but that's definitely how it's categorized today.[1] czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Goodman's performs a close analysis of ..." Is the 's a typo? If not, what is he possessive of?
• "elements like word sound, weight, syntax, tone, and metaphor". Does this article use serial commas or not?
  • I'm not sure what gives the impression that it doesn't? czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• "to highlight its psychology of war". Suggest "its" → 'the plays'.

• "Goodman's early 1934 article". I am not sure that it is necessary to be told that the article was published in early 1934.
• Why does "Reception" start with an orphaned single sentence paragraph?
  • The other paragraphs are thematically organized, so I felt it more appropriate to have the sentence stand alone than attached to a different set of ideas. czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Goodman engaged some reviewers with psychological insight". Goodman or the book engaged? If the former, perhaps 'his psychological insight'; if the latter, perhaps 'its psychological insight'.

• "wrong judgments about "form" and "structure" into uncorrectable "abstracted schematisms". Have you missed the closing quote marks?
  • Yes, thank you czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• " with "a certain aridity and addiction to jargon",[3] and "dizzying and not always grammatical shifts from the gnomic to the off-hand" ". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original. Also elsewhere; in several it may be better to paraphrase into Wikipedia's voice. Eg " the author's tone frequently swaps between "high-falutin' critical terminology" and "quite excessively American colloquialisms"."
  • The spirit of that section it to make sure opinion is attributed, which it is with footnotes. It's paraphrasing from a parent guideline that asks for in-text attribution when the statement would come across in encyclopedic voice as biased. In this case, the quotation is clearly credited to the reviewers cited in that sentence and adds color that paraphrase would not. I could just cut the quote as the paragraph later covers his use of jargon and swings between highbrow and lowbrow, but I think that would make the paragraph weaker. czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Goodman's case for formalism, wrote Poetry, required better rhetoric." Why is this not attributed to the writer?
  • In articles on creative works, I use author names when they're independently notable and the publication's name when the reviewer is not independently notable. This helps the reader associate the opinion with the entity they're most likely to remember. This helps avoid distracting readers by introducing a half-dozen non-notable surnames only to never mention them again. czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• "In split opinion". I don't think this is grammatically correct.
  • Why not? It's like "split decision". czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Some of Goodman's plot definitions did not hold". Which citation supports this?
  • The latter part of the sentence cites multiple examples of reviewers showing what didn't hold: applied inconsitently, circularly defined, imprecise, etc. czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

That's the first quick read through completed. It is probably just me, but Goodman's book brings to mind a sentence from one of Peter Medawar's more aggresive reviews: (from memory) "In spite of all the obstecles the author perhaps wisely places in our way, it is possible to discern a chain of thought in the work." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks, @Gog the Mild! Appreciate the edits and have addressed all in the prose. Is there a script you use to find the p/pp errors? I've clarified "mixed favor" as "mixed favor and disfavor" as that's as far as Book Review Digest goes[2]: "The plus and minus signs preceding the name of the magazine indicate the degree of favor or disfavor of the entire review." In this case, most of the reviews had both plus and minus signs, indicating both favor and disfavor in the same review, for which I think the general term is "mixed". czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:The_Structure_of_Literature.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, @Nikkimaria. I've uploaded a PD replacement for the cover and fixed the alts. czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think that version is not original enough to warrant copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've added pd-textlogo too czar 00:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Lokrume helmet fragment

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The Lokrume helmet fragment is not, perhaps, what one would think of as a Viking helmet; note the absence of horns. But it is one of only five exemplars, and the first to have been identified as such. Like many artifacts, its significance outweighs its size.

This article was created in 2018, and, thanks to the input of Gog the Mild, brought to good-article status a year later. It has been refined and revised since, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Don't use fixed px size

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• File:Lokrume_helmet_fragment_(GFB1683)_1.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work

• File:Lokrume_helmet_fragment_-_1907.png: source link is dead.

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

UC

It's hard to get away from the obvious that this is a very short article. From reading the GA nomination, it's clear that to even pull out this much is a significant achievement and represents a lot of good work by the nominator. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

A question: given the very international nature of the Viking Age and of "Scandinavian" peoples during this period, I'm curious about the line "only two of which were found in Scandinavia". Is there an argument that this might be a red herring, since the peoples in the vaguely "Viking" cultural sphere definitely weren't limited to Scandinavia (I'm thinking especially of the example from Yarm, which is well within the Dane-est of the Danelaw)edit: I'm not sure I'm quite right as to whether it was in the Danelaw, but think the point stands: "Vikings" had been living in that general area for generations by the C10th). A number of the sources treat the Scandinavian ones as worthy of separate mention; Hjardar & Vike 2016, for example, writing a book titled Vikings at War, mention only the Scandinavian ones from the period. (Granted, they may not have known about the Yarm helmet then, but they very likely knew about the Kyiv fragment.) This also makes some conceptual sense. A "Viking Age helmet" found in Scandinavia is more likely to also be a "Viking helmet" in the sense that it was a helmet used by actual Vikings (as, it would appear, the Gjermundbu helmet is); a "Viking Age helmet" found in Ukraine or England may also be a "Viking helmet", but there's a higher probability that it was used by non-Vikings. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC) That's reasonable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC) the Tjele fragment was discovered in 1850, but mistaken for a saddle mounting until 1984: do we only have this at second hand, or do we have any idea of who corrected the record, and how? The story is told in some detail in the Tjele helmet fragment article. Do you think it needs a gloss here? --Usernameunique (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Ah: I had misunderstood, and thought that our fragment had also been mistaken for a saddle mounting -- on reading more carefully, I don't think that's true, and so the current presentation is good. UndercoverClassicist T·C 23:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC) The short description confidently calls the helmet tenth-century, whereas the article only says that its decoration dates to around the tenth century. Suggest cutting the date from the short desc, which is already not that short. Good point. You're the first person to call my attention to an article's short description! It's now Decorated fragment from a Viking Age helmet. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC) The Lokrume helmet fragment is the remnant of the eyebrow piece, and part of the nose guard, from a helmet: suggest cutting the first helmet, so that from a helmet sounds less redundant. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC) the others are the Gjermundbu helmet from Norway, the Yarm helmet from England, the Tjele helmet fragment from Denmark, and a fragment from Kyiv.: all but the last are named with countries; is the logic that all of those countries (more or less) existed when the helmets were worn, but Ukraine didn't? I'm open to suggestions, but the difference is mostly because it doesn't (yet) have its own article or established name, so "and the X helmet fragment from Kyiv [or Ukraine]" wouldn't work as well. Also, Kyiv is a major city, so needs less of a clarification about what country it's in. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC) No suggestion: it was a query, rather than a complaint. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC) The fragment's style of interlaced pattern dates to around the tenth century AD: This is pretty pedantic, but I think we could frame this a little more precisely. As presented, it sound as if the decoration "is" C10th, so the helmet must be too. However, it's a little less clear-cut than that: it sounds like we've got basically no decent evidence for the fragment's date, but it's decorated in a style that was used in the C10th, so the helmet itself is generally dated to the same period (by way of comparison, I've got papers on my desk written in Latin, which dates to the Roman period, but they were written last week). Perhaps something like "the helmet is considered to date to the 10th century BC, on the basis of its style of interlaced decoration: similar patterns appear on tenth-century swords..." Now The fragment is dated to around the tenth century AD, on the basis of its interlace pattern; similar designs appear on tenth-century swords. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Related to the above, I'd amend contemporaneous to tenth-century, since we're using this to make an argument for the helmet's tenth-century date; saying that they're contemporaneous with it assumes the conclusion before we've proven it. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Do we know that the helmet is Swedish, or simply that it was found in Sweden? Presumably it could have been a trade object, trophy or something similar from elsewhere? Fair point. Clarified that it was found in Sweden rather than that it is Swedish. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC) the earlier Scandinavian Vendel Period and Anglo-Saxon helmets: as phrased, this sounds as if the Anglo-Saxons were in Scandinavia. Now Like the other four, the Lokrume helmet appears to have been a descendant of the earlier Vendel Period and Anglo-Saxon helmets from Scandinavia and England, respectfully, and the final iteration of the "crested helmets" that appeared in Europe around the sixth century. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC) the end of the line of: I would rephrase this in a more literal way per MOS:IDIOM ("the final development of...")? Now the final iteration of the "crested helmets" that appeared in Europe around the sixth century. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC) In the same sentence: the subject here is "the fragment", but aren't we really talking about the helmet from which it came? Now Like the other four, the Lokrume helmet appears to have been a descendant. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Could we perhaps have an image of the Gjermundbu helmet to give us an idea of what the overall thing might have looked like?
• contemporaneous swords, including from Norway and one found near Lipiany in Poland: examples from Norway? I understand the Norwegian connection, but what makes people think that the Polish sword is likely to be connected? Seems a long way away.
  • Now "examples". I'm no expert on Viking Age trade routes, but is it so surprising that a parallel is found in Poland? Norway is next door to Sweden; Poland is right across the Baltic Sea, and Lipiany is near the coast. Indeed, the Kyiv fragment is the farthest afield, and (if its find spot is the result of trade or other travel) may well have gone through Poland. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, absolutely; I'm just mindful that, in my field, archaeologists often have a habit of throwing together evidence which is superficially similar and comes from about the right time/place, but may not actually have a direct causal link (particularly with patterns: there's quite a lot of simple designs that people hit upon independently and use because they're pretty!). I suppose I'm asking if we've got enough in the sources to say something like "contemporaneous Viking swords", "Scandinavian-style swords" or similar -- that is, to be explicit that the Polish sword and the helmet might have some sort of relation? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Could we have a quick sentence at the end to explain what came after these helmets?

Gog the Mild

This takes me back a bit. UC seems to be doing their usual classy job. Ping me once you have finished with their comments and I'll see what else I can find to poke at. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• How about adding File:Gjermundbu helmet - cropped.jpg, so a reader can more readily visualise where the fragment fits into a helmet, and what a complete helmet looks like? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Seven (1995 film)

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the 1995 crime thriller Seven/Se7en by David Fincher. An important and influential film that revived Fincher's career and helped Brad Pitt from movie eye candy to serious actor. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Trigger warning, while I'd love as many reviews as possible please bear in mind that Seven does touch on a lot of dark topics so it's something to consider before reading about it if you have any particular sensitivities. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

1. A better picture for both David Fincher and Kevin Spacey would help.

2. In the legacy section, perhaps find a prop of the box they used in the film.

3. A sound sample of Howard Shore’s phenomenal score.

Other than that, excellent article. I saw the movie because of your work on the article. Excellent film. Hdog1996 (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Hdog, I will take a look at these. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa

I'll take a look. It will likely take a bit longer than usual. TompaDompa (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've decided I'll do it piecemeal rather than all at once, so I'll start with a few comments below and add more as I go on. TompaDompa (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• I'll state for the record that I really dislike mixing explanatory footnotes and bundled references under the same heading of "Notes".

• To be fair I do too, I just don't know how to do it any other way, I have tried a few different methods without success such as the "group" function, so if you know the answer I'm happy to implement it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have tweaked it for you. Is this what you wanted? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I do believe that's what Tompa meant, thanks so much Gog. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed. TompaDompa (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• As usual, photos of actors should ideally be from as close in time to the movie as possible. This assumes that there are good images to use, of course.
• There are several instances of em dashes being surrounded by spaces. Em dashes—like these—should never be spaced.
• The article is very heavy on verbatim quotes, to the detriment of the overall prose quality.

• Sorry I didn't notice these, the current pictures were the oldest and best quality (and facing into the article) ones I could find. THere are ones from the year of release for Pitt but the quality is atrocious and Spacey but he's facing right which doesn't work with the current layout. In his favor he doesn't look drastically different in the used picture. I have done my best to reduce and translate to prose the bigger quotes, the ones I've now kept are ones I think add value or can't be translated without it coming across as my opinion, but again I'm open to suggestions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• There is a fair amount of what I would characterize as trivia, and a fair amount of listicles used as sources.

Lead

• "It stars Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, Gwyneth Paltrow, and John C. McGinley." – that seems off. McGinley has a much smaller role than the other three and there is of course a conspicuous omission that I can only assume is intentional.

• Yes this is based off the poster billing so it matches the infobox (I'm not sure why of all the characters McGinley is given such billing, he must have had a great agent) whereas Spacey was deliberately not credited for obvious reasons. I have tried to be faithful to the credits as intended but am open to suggestions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Despite their efforts, Fincher, eager to prove himself after a career setback, read Walker's original script, sent to him by mistake, and committed to directing the project on the condition that the ending remained intact." – rather choppy.

• Done as: "Fincher, determined to re-establish himself after a career setback, was mistakenly sent Walker's original script and, convinced of its merit, committed to directing the project if the original ending remained intact." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "It remains influential in filmmaking, inspiring many imitators of its aesthetic, style, and premise of detectives investigating serial killers with distinctive methods and motives." – "remains" seems like the wrong word here, if nothing else because it may get dated. "Has been" would be better.

• Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Plot

• "Doe momentarily holds Mills at gunpoint but soon flees." – Lord Vetinari, in the 1989 Discworld novel Guards! Guards!, makes a good point about the word "momentarily": it is useful if you want to make people unsure whether you mean "immediately" or "briefly". Equally, this means that the word should be avoided if such ambiguity is not wanted.
• "hundreds of notebooks revealing Doe's psychopathy" – I am not convinced "psychopathy" is the right word here. I would avoid being too specific about what the notebooks reveal about Doe.

Done, I could sadly never get into Discworld. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Cast

• It is well-documented that Spacey is not named in the opening credits (or the promotional material), but instead appears first in the end credits. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article (not necessarily in this section, though that is one option).
• "who Doe disfigures" – whom.

Done. The credit issue is discussed in detail in the Casting section so don't worry it is present, I try to avoid repeating information since it tends to get called out a lot during review that it should be focused in one section ideally. Plus with the formatting of the cast section a long spiel about the credits just would look out of place. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Production

• "which proved sufficient enough" – "sufficient enough" is tautological.
• "the bleak "head-in-the-box" conclusion, in which Tracy's severed head is delivered in a box" – either use the label or describe what happens. Not both.
• "Pitt joined Seven on condition the head-in-the-box ending was retained" – be retained.
• "He also insisted that Mills killed Doe" – kill Doe.
• "Walker said to change the dark tone of the ending would change the core of the story." – said changing.
• "Pitt had established himself as a credible film star" – "credible" does not seem like the right word here.
• "Kopelson was aware of Pitt's popularity and importance to Seven's potential success" – saying that he was aware of it turns an assessment into a fact, and this doesn't seem to be in the cited source?
• "Fincher preferred Paltrow but those involved believed" – "those involved"?

I've made these changes here, the Paltrow one I have tried an alternative since the "everyone" is vague, let me know how you feel about it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Assistant director Michael Alan Kahn recalled at the start of filming that Fincher was worried about bringing his vision for Seven into reality." – this seems like a rather inconsequential detail? The article is very lengthy at almost 10,000 words, and I can't say I see what this adds.
• https://www.shortlist.com/news/30-facts-about-se7en does not strike me as a high-quality source.
• "Cinematographer Darius Khondji named the crime thriller Klute (1971), as a significant influence" – why the comma?
• "He breathed rapidly between scenes to make himself hyperventilate on camera." – I'm not sure I understand what this means.
• "He breathed rapidly between scenes to make himself hyperventilate on camera." – this seems like a rather minor detail, no?
• https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/25-deadly-serious-facts-about-seven-129302690047.html does not strike me as a high-quality source.

Comments by Lankyant

Just tagging a place in this. And will do it in chunks.

Lead

• Is 'near-retirement' a functional term? Is the hyphen necessary? I would use 'nearly retired'
• I would link serial killer. Mainly because couldn't Doe be better characterised as a spree killer? So good to give the link so people can see the definition.
• "endeavour to thwart" - I take George Orwells advice and change to "try to stop" but not going to demand it.

Plot

• "Somerset, considering the case too extreme for his last investigation, asks to be reassigned to another case but his request is denied." Could you lose the 'to another case'?
• "Doe has no remorse for his victims, believing the shocking murders will force society to pay him attention.* The 'to pay him attention' seems off to me. Could be 'force society to pay attention to him'?
• "Somerset intercepts the vehicle, whose driver was instructed to deliver to Mills a package at this specific time." Change to 'instructed to deliver a package to Mills at this specific time and location'

Production

• Penta Film has an Italian wiki entry. I don't know what MoS is for that but if allowed Penta Film could be added at first instance. I will try and create the page for it in the next few days.

Lankyant (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• I've implemented all of these, I've added the internal Penta Film link for now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment from JM

It seems like there's a lot of scholarly literature on this film, but the article doesn't seem to engage with any of it. Has this been reviewed? An article that doesn't engage with the relevant research might (might) be OK at GA level, but I feel we should hope for more for an FA. For example, with a couple of minutes on Google Scholar, and including only the papers that explicitly name the film in their title, I came across this, JSTOR 40658383, JSTOR 30002692, JSTOR 43263574, JSTOR 25112430, ProQuest 2ab2c69216acac72, and the Oleson chapter in ISBN 9780567677983. I've not read any of them, but they're all in decent publications. I suspect that's just the tip of the iceberg. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I have researched academic articles but I do think we need to account that with pop culture articles, especially ones meant to be dissected like this one, it's fairly easy to find much more readibly accessible sources online. In addition to this I obtained the physical copies, at my own expense, of Richard Dyer's book by the British Film Institute on Seven, which is all about thematic breakdown and analysis of the film, and the Sight & Sound article by Amy Taubin, which has resulted in a fairly robust analysis section of about 1300 words so far that, I believe, does give a detailed and broad coverage of the elements in the film. I also have to be considerate that during these reviews some people can take issue with the article length and the longer I make the themes section the larger that issue becomes, with the analysis section currently accounting for over 12% of the article length. On this basis I would make it a point to say that I have thoroughly engaged in an analytical review of Seven, I've just not used as many academic articles because more easily accessible ones were already available.

That said, I will take a look at the ones you've posted, as you say you haven't read them, and I'm not 100% without reading them if they're ones I've already reviewed or not. The book is at minimum £90 which is beyond my means but reviewing the abstracts it is a main focus on the religious aspects and there is already existing discussion of the religious content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

George Town, Penang

Nominator(s): hundenvonPG (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the capital city of Penang, one of the most urbanised and economically-developed Malaysian states. I've substantially rewritten the article & improved citations, with meticulous selection of government statistics, academic literature, economic studies, news sources and other official websites. Following that, a peer review was initiated and amendments incorporated, leading to this nomination. Looking forward to further feedback to eventually elevate this article to FA status. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not a full review, but...

• The infobox is a real doorstopper and it is causing the images in the history section to sandwich, contrary to MOS:IMAGELOC. Try to see if some of the images or less important fields in the infobox can be removed and ensure that any image sandwiching is eliminated. Some of the infobox fields are not cited in the article (or in the infobox) meaning that they may not be important. (It's essential that they are cited somewhere, per WP:V).

• Done Infobox is trimmed & citations added, and photo & caption arrangements are less cluttered. I did what I could to reduce image sandwiching in the history section by cutting down images.hundenvonPG (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• There are sandwiching elsewhere in the article, such as between the "Historical population" and "Ethnicities of George Town in 2020" tables.

• Done Likewise, images have been trimmed throughout the article and most are aligned to the left. Hopefully this should take care of the sandwiching in most parts.hundenvonPG (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'd advise against image collages such as the one captioned " Clockwise from top left: Tanjong Bungah Floating Mosque, Kek Lok Si, St. George's Church and Arulmigu Sri Mahamariamman Temple". Additionally, why are these buildings so important that they must be pictured in the article? Two that I checked aren't even mentioned in the prose. If it is included, probably an architecture section would be more relevant.

• Done Collage is removed.hundenvonPG (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Citation style in the lead is inconsistent

• Done Citation styles in the lead amended where possible and more citations added for good measure, although I'm unsure if there are any more inconsistencies that exist and if this is consistent with MOS:LEADCITE.hundenvonPG (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

(t · c) buidhe 04:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sam Manekshaw

Nominator(s): Matarisvan (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Sam Manekshaw, one of the only two people to be promoted to Field Marshal rank in India, and the army commander during the 1971 war who executed what was arguably India's biggest military win ever. I've worked on the suggestions from the last two FARs in 2017 & 2018, and look forward to finally taking this article to FA status. Matarisvan (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Avoid sandwiching text between images/templates

• I've disabled the wrap text around image option, will that do? I'm not quite sure because I'm new to this vocab, but I guessed you meant there should be no text wrapped around. And what should I do for the templates?

• No, the issue isn't wrapping around - see MOS:SANDWICH. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Got it, apologies for the confusion. I've followed UC's comments below that the convention is to have right wrapped images and not alternate between left & right wrapping. Is this alright?

• Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• See MOS:ICON. If the icons are kept, they all need tags for the original designs.

• Done.

• Er, what was done? Neither seems to have changed? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• My bad, I did not understand that you were referring to copyright tags, I assumed you meant original sources. All of these works have the copyright tag, varying from CC 4.0 to CC Attribution Non Commercial. But I may have confused what you mean by tag again, so could you please confirm?

• MOS:ICON refers to the inclusion of icons in the article - I'm not sure your current usage is consistent with that. With regards to copyright tags, what we need is to make sure there is tagging to account for all relevant copyrights. For example, File:Field_Marshal_of_the_Indian_Army.svg has a CC tag representing the copyright of the uploader, but the source design is original enough to potentially qualify for copyright protection, so we need a tag for that as well. Compare for example File:Insignia_USA_Army_2nd_Cavalry_Regiment_V2.svg: it has tags for both the design and the version uploaded. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest adding alt text

• Done.

• Don't use fixed px size

• Done.

• File:Badge_of_12th_Frontier_Force_Regiment.jpg needs a tag for the original work

• Done.

• I see you have added a source link, but what is needed here is an additional copyright tag for the work - the existing one is for the photo only. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• This does seem to be original work. I have uploaded the public domain image from the National Army Museum and replaced the old icon with it.

• File:The_Owl_-_The_logo_of_DSSC,_Wellington.png: source link is dead; which of the rationales in the Indian tag is believed to apply?

• The source link is not accessible on your device and most devices because its HTTPS certificate has expired. Highly unusual for a government website, but I've added the Archive.org link. Will that be alright?

• That's fine for the source link - do you have a response on the other question? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Great coincidence on this one - it has just entered public domain. It was [published in 1964] and thus is copyright free as Indian law has a copyright period of 60 years.

• Okay, that's likely to present a problem with regards to US status, since it was still copyrighted in Indian on the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about how the URAA would apply here. The article on the URAA says it doesn't apply to works copyrighted by foreign governments or their institutions, it also doesn't apply to countries the USA has a copyright treaty with. Both conditions are true here. Would you agree? Matarisvan (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• File:Lt._Gen._Manekshaw_as_Eastern_Commander.jpg: the given source does not appear to be the Indian government - why is the given tag believed to apply?

• Added the appropriate source.

Nikkimaria (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, I've made the changes you recommended, does this article pass image review now? Matarisvan (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

UC

I'm afraid I'm a little way off a support here, at the moment. A few general (sorry) points stick out at the moment:

• I am not a fan of the centre-aligned images; they take up a lot of vertical screen space and demand attention that I'm not sure they really deserve. I can't think of another FA biography (admittedly, not having done more than a cursory look for one) that breaks the usual convention of right-aligned images with text wrapping around. What Nikki was talking about earlier with sandwiching was having an image on the left and another on the right at the same point, creating a "sandwich" of text which doesn't fully reach either the left or right margin.

• Changed all images to right-aligned. Is this alright?

• Similarly, the pullout quotes are journalistic rather than encyclopaedic; there's a case, sometimes, for them, but we generally avoid it in FAs. There needs to be a very clear WP:DUEWEIGHT argument for giving them such disproportionate prominence vis-a-vis the material around them, and I can't really see one at the moment.

• Would you have the quote with the call on Pakistani forces to surrender removed as well? The other quotes are not really necessary, I agree, I have removed them.

• Some sections are very short ("War of 1965" caught my eye) and don't seem very comprehensive: M. may have advised against attacking East Pakistan, but we don't find out that India chose to follow that advice, or that they largely did so due to Chinese pressure rather than deference to their general.

• India did follow that advice, though there is no official admission of this. There were no attacks on East Pakistan. Chinese pressure would not have had any impact as the conflict was fought in the winter and China did not have the abilities to deploy its troops in winter at that time.

• The article could do with a look over for MOS etc: why, for example, is Manekshaw Centre in italics? I've made a couple of copyedits for straightforward typos or mistakes.

• Removed italics.

• The "Legacy" section reads to me as a grab-bag of things named after M. -- did he have any impact on the Indian Army at all, as to its organisation, culture, doctrine...? Has there been any scholarly work as to whether he was, bluntly, any good? Compare for instance the way the FA on Sudirman handles the same section.

• I have added details on Manekshaw's impact on Doctrines, procurement, counter insurgency, triservice ops. I thought these details were too technical and thus had not put them in here.

• Parts of the article -- particularly the section Politically motivated sedition trial -- seem to suffer from a lack of WP:NPOV. The text here overwhelmingly presents the charges as baseless, but cites no source which does so. Details like Lt. Gen. Daulet Singh, known for his integrity point the reader towards a conclusion which is so far implied rather than referred to a source.

• Added some sources here. Are more sources needed here? I have added accounts of the people directly involved in the inquiry and an external source published by a researcher.

More line-by-line stuff, to which I might add later on:

• Having already commanded troops at the divisional, corps and regional levels: seems fairly trivial; don't Very Senior Officers generally hold more junior posts first? It would be more odd for a FM not to have commanded a division.

• This was filler, removed.

• Chetwode is mentioned only once, and never introduced.

• This mention was a leftover from a bunch of paragraphs on the IMA which were not relevant here. Removed.

• Manekshaw proved to be witty during his stay at IMA and went on to achieve a number of firsts: the first graduate to join one of the Gorkha regiments; first to serve as the chief of the Army Staff of India; and first to attain the rank of field marshal: this material seems oddly placed, coming as it does quite substantially before he's done any of that; moreover, I'm not sure how impressive it is for him to be the first IMA graduate to commission into a Gorka regiment when there hadn't been any IMA graduates before he commissioned at all.

• This choice of phrasing was incorrect on my part. The Gorkha regiments were the most elite units of the British Indian Army, and still have the same status in the British & Indian armies. King's Commissioned Indian officers had only been assigned to the Gorkha regiments in small numbers. Thus a new graduate, that too not from an academy in England, getting to join the Gorkha regiments was a big deal.

• The phrase "avoided political correctness" in the post-retirement section reads as a euphemism, and is pretty unhelpful: do we mean that he made a point of being sexist, racist, etc?

• Should have been "did not avoid political confrontation". Will change.

• More generally, there seems to be more to say in that section about his controversies: the part about his funeral implies that these were more serious than we've credited. We say that the Indian government denied that anything untoward had happened -- they would, wouldn't they?

• Not really. The ruling party when Sam died was famous for ignoring the army. The funeral of KM Cariappa, the only other field marshal ever, was not attended by the civilian establishment, the only representative was a minister of state, not even a full cabinet minister. The ruling party then believed there could be a coup at any point of time and thus they understaffed and underequipped the army. Sam's salary arrears were not even paid for multiple decades till another party came to power. But I cannot put this in, it would be too controversial. What should be done instead?

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi UC, thanks for looking into this one. I am afk at the moment, I will make the changes you recommend and respond to your points in the evening. Looking forward to working on this one. Matarisvan (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist I have made the changes you recommended.

Harrias

At the moment, I feel I have to oppose this nomination, based on some broad stroke MOS points:

• The In popular culture section is unnecessary in its current form; it is not written in an encyclopaedic form "Sam was portrayed", "He's mentioned" and comes across as trivia.
• The Awards section is completely unreferenced.
• The Dates of rank section is mostly unreferenced, and the table does not meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS, as laid out in MOS:DTT. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer may have found critical and popular acclaim, but the same cannot be said about this video game adaptation, which received generally negative reviews and has largely been forgotten. It is a fairly standard action platformer in which players navigate platforms while solving simple puzzles and fighting enemies. For the story, Buffy Summers must once again stop a big bad from ending the world, but this time the main villain is a demonic warlord. Although the game itself is fairly generic stuff, I still really enjoyed the process of researching, writing, and revising the article.

I originally worked on this article in 2019, when it received a very helpful GAN review from @Colin M:, and as evidenced from the talk page, I have had many, many false starts on doing further work on the article. Thank you to @FrB.TG:, @MaranoFan:, and @PanagiotisZois: for their help in the latest peer review. As always, any comments would be greatly appreciated. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review (pass)

• the images are licensed appropriately, include alt text, and provide context where appropriate. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review! Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Citations: why are some words in bold?

• I had use a citation similar to one from Paper Mario: The Origami King. I believe they put the items in bold as they appear that way in the credits, but I can see how it would be unnecessarily distracting so I had removed them. Thank you for pointing it out as I use Wikipedia in dark mode so it is not something I notice. Aoba47 (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I did wonder. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• " is a 2003 action platformer" will I suspect mean little to many readers. Possibly state that it is a video game before specifying the sub-genre? Similarly in the main article.

• I have added game after the "action platformer" descriptor as that is how video game FAs format this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Sadly Wikipedia doesn't do precedent, and is not a reliable source. The MoS "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." IMO the current one doesn't do this. (And "action platformer" does not IMO meet MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.")

For starters, I am not using Wikipedia as a source. What you are saying would mean that every single Wikipedia article about video games would have to define the genre in the first sentence. That would not only ruin the prose, but it has not been done in any of the video game FAs, see Oxenfree, Paper Mario: The Origami King, and Panzer Dragoon Saga for examples. In the first sentence, readers can understand that "action platformer" is a type of video game; if they want to know more and cannot access the link, they can go down to the "Gameplay" section to get further clarification on it. This is an unnecessarily strict application of MOS:NOFORCELINK. I doubt that any FA would meet this type of criteria. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Natsume Co., Ltd. and published by THQ". Why "Ltd" after Natsume, but no "Inc" after THQ?

• That would be a better question for @Emiya Mulzomdao: as they added this part to the article. I had a conversation with them on my talk page about it. I had originally used Natsume as that is used in the game and coverage, but Emiya Mulzomdao recommended Natsume Co., Ltd. to avoid any potential confusion between Natsume Atari and Natsume Inc.. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought that the Wikilink may do that. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Same, but I thought it might be best to see what other editors thought of the change as I did not want to force my own opinion on the article. I could revert it back if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but it leaves me querying the apparent inconsistency. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild I can confirm this was suggested by me. The problem is that when the game was released in 2003, there were two companies known as "Natsume": the Japanese company Natsume Co., Ltd. (currently Natsume Atari) and the American company Natsume Inc. Both of these companies are notable and it's a common mistake to attribute one's works to the other, even within Wikipedia. I spoke to Aoba47 over talk page and suggested an alternative to re-format the links as [[Natsume Co., Ltd.|Natsume]], which is what the article currently uses. As an extra measure, I'd also suggest rephrasing a few sentences to "the Japanese developer Natsume", which would let readers know which one the article is referring to. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Clever. Yes, inserting 'the Japanese developer/company' would do the trick.

Revised. It does create a redundancy in the first line though with "developed"/"developer" being used in the same sentence so that is less than ideal. Aoba47 (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes. Maybe replace "developer" with 'company'?

Replaced. Aoba47 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• "The player controls Buffy through 16 side-scrolling levels". Could this be unpacked a little for a more general audience?

• I am honestly not sure how to unpack it further without making the prose awkward. I am guess the side-scrolling part in particular needs to be unpacked the most. Do you have any ideas or suggestions on how to do so? Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Rereading, I think the sentence is trying to do a little too much. Maybe 'The player controls the Buffy character as it progresses through 16 levels, using side-scrolling screens'?

The suggestion is not correct and in my opinion, it would only introduce further confusion. There is only one screen being used in the game. The suggestion would imply that player is controlling Buffy across multiple screens or multiple Game Boy Advance machines. It may be best to remove "side-scrolling" altogether at this point. Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed "side-scrolling" from the lead, and I have added a brief descriptive phrase with appropriate citations to support, but to be honest, I think it is unnecessary. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Limited to four bosses in the game". MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Similarly in the main article.

• I am honestly not sure how to make this part clearer as I would think that the concept of a video game boss would be pretty well-understood, but I would be more than happy to hear any suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

When I read it I honestly had no clue what a boss meant. Before clicking on the link my best guess was a specialist meaning derived from Shield boss or Boss (architecture). 'There are just four computer-controlled opponents (bosses) in the game, Natsume ...'?

The suggestion would not work because bosses are not the only computer-controlled opponents in the game. I have removed this bit from the lead and added a short part to the first mention in the article, although I admittedly do not think it is the greatest. I do understand and appreciate MOS:NOFORCELINK, but it is not always possible to spell out everything in the prose. Wikipedia is a primarily online platform so I do not see the issue with using links. Different readers will come to different subjects with varying levels of expertise. For instance, I just find it rather odd that you would jump to far more niche meanings (i.e. Shield boss or Boss (architecture)) for a word that is not even presented in that context and not even to the broader supervisor meaning. I would never anticipate that kind of reading. I just find that this kind of stricter adherence to MOS:NOFORCELINK can get into a space that is more frustrating and less beneficial to the site and its readers. Aoba47 (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Natsume chose these enemies based on". Chose which enemies?

• I have modified this part. It is referencing "bosses", which was discussed earlier in the same sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "citing issues with character sprites." MOS:NOFORCELINK again.

• Would models be a clear word choice? Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That would work for me.

Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• "jumping and double jumping over pits, swimming, and using ladders, ropes, and metal bars." Optional: three times "and" in 11 words?

• I have replaced one instance with "or" instead. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Buffy solves puzzles ... She can also ... in certain areas, the player must". The switch from Buffy to the player jars.

• I have done it to avoid repeating either the player or Buffy ad nauseam throughout the "Gameplay" section. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have revised this part, and only kept one instance of "Buffy" when it is discussing the character's move-set. I still do not see how it would be jarring though as the prose had already set up that the player controls Buffy in the game. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "changes some level entrances". Could this be elaborated a little?

• Not really. This is the sentence from the lead that is being used to support this part: (The hard mode switches around a few cave entrances and changes most of the puzzle solutions, but it can be completed in an afternoon.) All it is saying that on a certain mode, players enter the level in different areas. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"on a certain mode, players enter the level in different areas" is a really good explanation. I now know what you mean. Any chance of using it in the article?

Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• "the Gentlemen's minions". Why the upper-case G?

• They use the upper-case G because they are both proper nouns that reference a specific set of demons from the show. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"A proper noun is a noun that identifies a single entity and is used to refer to that entity (Africa; Jupiter; Sarah; Tesla, Inc.) as distinguished from a common noun, which is a noun that refers to a class of entities". So you could, perhaps, have a Gentleman, but it is the gentlemen.

I am aware of what a proper noun is. These characters are referenced as "the Gentlemen" on the show. In the game, the player goes up against multiple of them so "a Gentleman" would not even make sense in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• The two images in Gameplay seem unduly small.

• I have made them slightly bigger and used the screenshot sizes from video game FAs to see how they do it. It may take a second for it to show in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Also, just to add a quick point, the screenshots are never going to be large as they are an example of non-free media so it would have to be limited by that. Aoba47 (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Enemies can be thrown ... through benches". As in Bench (furniture)?

• That is correct. I have added the link. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. It was clear, I was just surprised - it benches seem a bit arbitrary - and wanted to check.

• "In the levels, Buffy can find and use 16 types of weapons". Are the first three words necessary?

• Not really. I was likely being overly cautious. It is not like a reader would think that players could do this while looking at the settings. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "including a stake ... Vampires are primarily killed with stakes". Singular or plural stakes?

• They are used in two separate contexts. I used the singular in the first instance for consistency. One of the weapons, (a mystical gauntlet), is unique so I wanted to avoid having a list being predominantly plural and then switching to the singular at the end. The second instance is plural because multiple enemies are being referenced. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

If Buffy "can find and use" more than one stake, dagger, crossbow etc then they need to be plural in the list. I can see why you would like to be consistent, but it is at the expense of accuracy.

Again, this just seems unnecessary, but I have revised it. I doubt a reader would have walked away from that sentence thinking that was only one of each item in the game. Aoba47 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• "they can be upgraded, such as combining a torch and a dagger to make a flaming dagger." I am not sure this is the best exemplifier of an upgrade.

• Revised to "modified". Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Nice.

• "It was the third of six Buffy the Vampire Slayer video games". It would seem relevant say something about the other five games, or at least the two preceding this one.

• I disagree. All these games have the same source material. THQ published both this game and the first Buffy game, which is already noted in the article. Aside from that, there is nothing else to note in this article. Each game stands on its own. This particular game does not share anything story-wise or gameplay-wise, aside from the two things already discussed in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "a Slayer destined to fight vampires". Why the upper-case S? "after her Watcher Rupert Giles". And W.

• Because again, it is a proper noun that references something specific from the show. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

She the definition of proper noun above.

Again, I am aware of what a proper noun is. Words like "Watcher" and "Slayer" are presented with capital letters even in the coverage around the show, such as in this book by McFarland & Company or in this chapter published by Palgrave Macmillan. I am just not seeing the issue here. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Buffy encounters the Gentlemen and their minions and later kills them." The Gentlemen, the minions or both?

If it’s both, then I’d suggest "..encounters and kills the Gentlemen.." If one or the other, then "kills the former/latter". FrB.TG (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I have used FrB.TG's suggestion. Buffy does kill both the Gentlemen and the minions. I had used the original wording to avoid the impression that she first sees them and kills them in the same level. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Willow identifies the Baruk demons as". Baruk?

• I have revised this part to hopefully clarify this point, but that is the name of the demons in the story. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, good introduction.

• Plot: is this the plot of the video game?

• It is. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "excavating for the Scepter of Thelios and using it for a ritual along with the talisman." I am unsure how the demons can be both excavating for the Scepter and using it.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "While starting an extra credit assignment at the museum's Amelia Earhart exhibit". You can't refer to "the museum" at first mention. Introduce it.

• The game does not name the museum. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

So? '... at the Amelia Earhart exhibit in the museum in Buffy's hometown' or whatever.

I added local to the front of museum since Buffy's hometown, i.e. Sunnydale, is mentioned in the sentence right before this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, and apologies for any potential edit conflicts. I will get to your comments later today if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• "was published after Buffy the Vampire Slayer ended". Can we make it clear that we are talking about the television series. And "ended". Maybe 'after the series finale of BtVS had aired'?

• That is understandable. It doesn't help that two Buffy games have just used the title without a subtitle or anything to distinguish it from the show. I linked the series finale episode though since it has an article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Because of rules placed on developing GBA games". By whom, and why?

• The source does not go into further specifics. I tried to find further information on this topic, but unfortunately, I could not find anything. A lot of search ended up with people talking about rules for emulating GBA games. I am guessing these rules were put in place by Nintendo who developed and manufactured the Game Boy Advice. That's the vibe I get from the interview because it sounds like a blanket rule for all GBA game developers. Unfortunately, without a source that more explicitly says that, I cannot further elaborate on this part. As for the why, it may be a case where Nintendo (or whomever put these rules in place) thought that more boss enemies would push the console beyond its limitations, but that is also more speculation on my part. Apologies for not finding more as I would like to know more information myself, but it is also not the easiest thing to look up either. It could be a case where it was just a set of policies that was kept insular between Nintendo and whatever company was allowed to develop for the GBA, and that is why a clearer explanation for this rules are not provided. Aoba47 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a real shame, but I guess it can't be helped. Thanks for the diligent research.

• "GameSpot published a preview of Wrath of the Darkhul King on June 4, 2003. The game was released on June 24, 2003". No need to repeat the year in the same paragraph.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Some of them viewed it as adequate". Graphics is plural, which gives 'Some of them viewed them as adequate', which gives "them" twice in three words. Over to you. :-)

• I have revised this part to avoid the repetition, but let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It now reads fine, but you have changed the meaning. You sure it still accurately reflects the sources? Ie, that none of them consider the graphics less than adequate?

I have modified the sentence further, but I did not change the meaning with my original edit. All I did was combine two sentences. Aoba47 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• "a NES game". Abbreviations in full at first mention.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking good. Some comebacks above. If I haven't replied it usually means that I am content with your response. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• "who is one of the composers". Should "is" be 'was'?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Thank you for your help. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if I have either missed something or if something in the article could be improved further. Apologies if I came across as rude in my comments. I appreciate your comments as an outsider as it does help to make the article better for everyone. I hope you are having a good 2024 so far. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Great to see a Buffy FA candidate, even if this doesn't look like the game has received much attention in the Buffyology world! I made a few small fixes which I encourage you to check. My only other question: Is the Herald Sun a decent source? Our article calls it a tabloid, but I don't know. The article looks comprehensive (my efforts to find decent sources not drawn upon have failed...) and it's generally well-written. I'm normally not thrilled about multiple screenshots, but it looks OK in this case. (On my screen, the two screenshots bump into the infobox a little, but it's not the worst thing in the world.) So, once I'm clear about the Herald Sun, I'm happy to support. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits. Maybe one of these days, I will nominate a more impactful Buffy-related article for a FAC, but I wanted to start with something small. I can understand your concern about the Herald Sun source and its usage in a potential FA. I thought it would be appropriate for an entertainment-based topic, but after I did a brief search through the WP:RSN, I found mixed (and to be honest mostly negative) responses to it so I decided to remove it altogether. It is always best to err on the side of caution, and I do understand why a tabloid is not a high-quality source. I would be okay about removing one of the screenshots if necessary. My rationale for including a screenshot of the cutscene was that it was mentioned in some reviews, but it is so far removed from that section that I think the intended effect may be lost. I understand the importance of keeping non-free media usage to a minimum. I hope you are having a good weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Support. I think this is a worthy candidate for FA, and I'm happy to be the first supporter, assuming no issues I've overlooked are identified. While I encourage other reviewers to reflect upon the use of two screenshots, I do think that there is a case for it here. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and the kind words. I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Letterpress (video game)

Nominator(s): TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

When hearing the phrase "mobile games", you often think of tawdry knockoffs choked with blatantly inappropriate advertisements. It seems as though good mobile games are of short supply these days. But, looking far enough, past "offline" .io multiplayer games, and Homescapes-esque puzzles, you discover Letterpress, Loren Brichter's beautifully produced word game with a sleak user interface and tactical gameplay. From a simple dinner conversation, this game ended up ranking second place in the App Store's Best of 2012 list for an iPhone game. I'm very proud to nominate Letterpress as my first FA. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I have two comments about this sentence: (Some called the graphics "aesthetically pleasing" with "zero clutter."). The first is that quotes should be explicitly attributed in the prose to make it clear to readers who is saying what and the second is that punctuation should be on the outside of quotation marks unless you are pulling a full quote. I would look through the article to see if there are any other instances of either and revise accordingly.
  • Attributed authors. Moved punctuation for quotes.
    • I would avoid the following sentence construction, (with Dellinger saying that the game had "zero clutter"). I have seen repeated notes in FACs to avoid "with X verb-ing". I do not have a strong opinion about it, but I would avoid it. I would revise this one instance, and I would look throughout the article to make sure it is not used elsewhere. Aoba47 (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Does this work?
• I have prose concerns about the following sentence: (After leaving Twitter, Inc. in November 2011, the founder of Atebits 2.0, Loren Brichter, began developing side projects that he had little time to work on before leaving.) It reads rather awkwardly to me, with an example of this being the repetition of the "leaving". I also think the positioning of the descriptive phrase, (the founder of Atebits 2.0), contributes to me finding the prose awkward.
  • Cut "before leaving" and moved appositive to after "Loren Brichter".
• I have a similar prose concern with this sentence: (Brichter formulated the game design from Boggle, color wars, and SpellTower.) The word "formulated" seems off in this context.
  • Does "created" work?
    • I think something like (based the game design on ...) would be better. Aoba47 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Fixed.
• For the lead's second paragraph, I do not think it is necessary to list the full dates. From the video games that I have looked at, most of them just use the month and the year for release dates. I think these more specific dates are kept for the infobox and the article itself.
  • Changed.
• I would avoid repeating words twice in consecutive sentences, such as "developing"/"developed"/"develop" being used in three sentences in a row in the "Development and release" section.
  • Cut repeating words.
• I am uncertain about the placement of these sentences: (Reviewers found the strategic elements of Letterpress likable. However, some criticized the absence of a single-player mode.) The paragraph goes from an overview of positive reviews right to a negative review and then back to positive reviews in a way that is rather jarring.
  • This better?
    • It does look better. I have never read the "Reception" section super thoroughly so I will give more comments on it after I do that. WP:RECEPTION is a great resource for writing sections like this one as a lot of editors have trouble here, myself included. Aoba47 (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• I have a comment for this part, (and would fit with "word nerds and strategy-oriented thinkers"). I would put the citation at the end of the sentence, not at the end of the quote. The current placement is rather awkward, especially since it cuts off the only remaining word in the sentence, "respectively", in an odd way.
  • Moved citation.
• I would encourage you to integrate the "Awards" subsection into the overall "Reception" section as I do think having such a short subsection of two sentences is really beneficial for readers.
  • Integrated.
• Why is word game put in italics in some of the citation titles? It does not appear to be a part of the actual title. This review consistently just calls it Letterpress and the Google Play just uses Letterpress in the "About this game" section. I could be wrong, but I think the "word game" part is either just used as a descriptor or some sort of metadata tag.
  • Removed as many superfluous italics as I could find.
• For Citation 6, I would more clearly identify that this is a YouTube video in the citation with the via= parameter. I would also more clearly identify the website in Citation 8.
  • Added details.
• Why is a quote pulled out and place in the citation template for Citation 16?
  • Thought it was quite hard to find. The game's barely mentioned in the article, so I decided to put the quote in. Removed.

I hope this review is helpful. I will do a more thorough read-through of the article once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have addressed all your concerns. Gimme whatcha got! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I will re-read the article sometime over the weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have a comment about this part, (Being critically acclaimed for its design and strategic gameplay). I am not sure if that is really reflected in the article, which does not clearly and explicitly say "critically acclaimed". I could see some readers and reviewers finding that word choice to be too strong or it would need a source to support it. It seems reviewers praised the level design for its simplicity so I think that would be worthwhile to mention in the lead instead for further clarity. The criticism about the lack of a single-player mode should be mentioned in the lead for balance. Aoba47 (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Done.
• I would avoid linking graphics twice. Since the article is quite short, I would avoid linking items twice.
  • Unlinked.
• I would avoid having "criticized" in two sentences in a row as done in the second paragraph of the "Reception" section.
  • Removed repeating word.
• I know other editors disagree with me on this, but I never see the value of putting a rating in the prose as done here, (Rating the game 4.5 out of five stars). This information is already apparent in the table so I just do not think it adds much. However, I fully understand this is a matter of personal preference.
  • I tried adding the review score for another sentence, and it sounded so awkward that I ended up removing it. Cut rating.
    • Thank you for addressing everything so far. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• I am not sure "intricate" is necessarily the right word here, (intricate details). I get this is seemingly addressing the "nice touches" the reviewer enjoys, but I think there is a better way to convey this information. I just think of "intricate" as being something more complicated and detailed, and I do not think that really fits here.
  • Does "embellishments" work here, as in "...Friedman noticed and praised the embellishments"?
    • Not really. I get the impression that the reviewer just enjoys the details in the game (like the sound effects) that make it appear more polished and complicate. I would not think of this as either intricate or embellishments as I think it is making sound fancier than it is. I think just dropping "intricate" and keeping "details" by itself would do the trick just fine. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Cut "intricate".
• It seems that tiles that are surrounded turn a different shade compared to the others. Is that accurate? If so, would it be notable enough to reference in the prose with an appropriate citation?
  • Yes, and I believe there are a few reviews that mention this. Unfortunately, I am sleep deprived and looking at a wall of text for three hours during the night is the last thing I want to do in my life.
    • That's fair. Always good to know when to step away. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Tried this.
• I would expand on this sentence: (Nelson compared it to Clear, a productivity app.) What were these comparisons? Also, is this being positioned as a positive review? If so, it should be made clearer (and no pun intended there).
  • Planning to add an image of Clear if necessary.
    • That would not be necessary. I think it should be more clearly explained in the prose if possible. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Just to add on to my point, when I look at the citation, it says the two games both have a "minimalist style and smooth animation" so that would be worth pointing out in the prose. The quote would not be necessary though as you could paraphrase it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Tried this.
        • I am still not sure. I do not think the prose for that sentence is the greatest, and it could benefit from further revision. Aoba47 (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
      • I'll try waiting for other reviewers to see what they think. Tried this. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
        • I would go for something like (Nelson enjoyed the game's "minimalist style and smooth animation", which he compared to the productivity app Clear.) Aoba47 (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
          • Changed.

• It seems that several reviewers specifically mention the game being addictive. I think that might be worthy of highlighting in some sort of topic sentence. My biggest concern for the "Reception" section is that it can come across as quite list-y, such as the second paragraph primarily being individual sentences on individual critics and their reviews, and that can make the prose less engaging.
  • For the topic sentence, I've tried this.
    • It looks better, but I am still not entirely sure about the prose for this section, and I would like to see other reviewers respond to it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope this review is helpful. I think I would like to see how other reviewers respond to this FAC and the article in general. I do not mean that in a bad way just to be clear. I am just not as familiar with reviewing video game articles, although I wanted to help you as a first-time FAC nominator. I will keep a close eye on this nomination. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Morgan Bulkeley

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about... Morgan Bulkeley, a Gilded Age politician like many another, except that he's in the Baseball Hall of Fame because in 1876, when yet another baseball league was being organized, he was asked to be president, and this happened to be "the league that lasted", as one book about it puts it, the National League. He also had the guts to oppose Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft over the infamous Brownsville Affair, and he spent almost half a century as president of Aetna Life. What more can you ask?Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Eddie

• Interested in reviewing. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Vami

• Likewise. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Ian Carmichael

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Ian Carmichael was one of those who appeared in the Boulting brothers’ unofficial repertory company of actors that gave the cinema some wonderful and very British comedies in the 1950s - Private's Progress (1956), Brothers in Law (1957), Lucky Jim (1957) and I'm All Right Jack (1959), often appearing locked in a battle of wills with Terry-Thomas. He went on to play Wooster and Wimsey – two very different characters but with the same core that Carmichael had been honing for years. This has been through a recent re-write and had a solid PR with comments in from Tim riley and UndercoverClassicist. Any further comments are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Not much on rereading now to add to my comments – all duly addressed – at the peer review. Very minor quibbles from a further perusal, none of which affect my support:

• Lead

• "from June 1944 to May 1945 saw active service from France to Berlin" might benefit if you changed the first "from" to between (and the "to" to "and")

• Early life

• "an optician in a family firm of jewellers" – seems a bit odd, like being a fishmonger in a family firm of plumbers or a lepidopterist in a family firm of dentists: what did an optician do in a jewellery firm?

  He opticled! The sources all say the same thing, but that means none gives any more clarity, unfortunately, except that he was a trained optician who operated a practice within the family jewellery firm. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd guess the two went together -- presumably the skills/kit for cutting and setting gemstones overlapped pretty well with those needed to do the same to lenses? A bit like being a surgeon in a company of barbers? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

No further questions, m'lud! Tim riley talk 22:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Early career and war service, 1939–1946

• "he was informed he would have to wait until he was twenty—on 18 June 1940—before he commenced training" – a couple of rather refained words: a plain "told" and "started" might be preferable

• Early post-war career, 1946–1955

• "from October 1946, then ran at the Apollo Theatre" – in my book (being an old codger) "then" is not a conjunction and could do with "and" in front of it
• "hits the bull's-eye" for his comic performance in one sketch" – I suspected I knew what that sketch was, and The Stage cutting confirms it – the shy young man changing on the beach (he repeated it on television in the 1960s and it was very funny indeed). I don't press the point, but it might be nice if you gave us a few words saying what the "one sketch" was about.

• Wooster and Wimsey, 1962–1979

• "the run ended after 23 performances, since the farce not being to the taste of New York audiences" – you need to lose the "since" for this sentence to be grammatically OK.
• "No one was more delighted by the early close than Carmichael, who disliked his time in the US who said "I found New York a disturbing, violent city..." – should the second "who" be "and"? (And the implication that other people were also delighted by the early close seems a little strange.)
• "they were able to start filming the first programme Clouds of Witness" – a bit of punctuation needed?

• Semi-retirement, 1979–2009

• "the voice of Galahad Threepwood for two radio productions Pigs Have Wings and Galahad at Blandings" – ditto

That's my lot. I greatly enjoyed revisiting the article and reviewing it again. It seems to me clear, balanced, comprehensive, well and widely sourced and a very good read. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 21:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim! All sorted where possible (only the opticlling issue unaddressed). Thank you so much for all your comments at PR and again here: they are all much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

UC

As with Tim, not much from me here:

• audiences enjoyed seeing his portrayals: perhaps a slightly limp ending for the lead (and arguably unverifiable -- all of them?) Could we work in something a bit more concrete?
• in his early years he had a "privileged, pampered existence" in a home that included maids and a cook, according to Robert Fairclough, his biographer: the according is about the privilege and pampering, not the maids and cook; suggest sometihng like Robert Fairclough, his biographer, describes Carmichael's upbringing as a "privileged, pampered existence"; his parents employed maids and a cook (I'm not sure a home can include people, though a household definitely can).
• Would suggest rephrasing "infant education"; it sounds like this means Prep/primary school rather than actually being an infant (unless they had some very foul-mouthed toddlers in Yorkshire).

• Speaking as a Lancastrian I have no quarrel with the end of that sentence. Tim riley talk 22:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Will defer to you on Lancashire mores, though our own article suggests that "infant schools" have been considered under the umbrella of primary schools since the 1940s. There's also a MOS:COMMONALITY case that we should make concessions to our few non-Lancastrian readers. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Speaking as a child of Yorkshire (for all of four weeks, being shipped off to Germany while still a baby), I feel one should always ignore Lancastrians and Scousers whenever possible, particularly those named Riley! - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• On the main point, he was four, (which I've now added) - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Carmichael enjoyed his time at RADA, including being outnumbered by women on his course by five to one: this doesn't quite say what it means to: it's not that Carmichael was outnumbered, but that men were outnumbered. Suggest the fact that women outnumbered men on his course...
• Given the reference to the "Worsening European situation" in the blockquote, I'd put some (re)statement of the dates of Carmichael's time at RADA in the opening to that section (not all readers will have read or remembered the preceding one).
• At the end of training manoeuvres...: not a huge problem, but quite a long sentence. Is it relevant here that Whitby is by the sea?
• I'd go with a full stop after "Very much the amateur", partly for cadence and partly because the semicolon looks a bit odd after the quote marks.
• a twelve-week tour round Britain: should this be around? I can wear "a round-Britain tour", but I'm not sure that this usage works in formal writing -- but will defer if you disagree.

• Second oar-insertion by TR: When in doubt, turn to Fowler. This is what Butterfield says in the current (2015) edition: around, round: As both adverb and preposition these words are interchangeable in some contexts but not in others. In general, British English favours round and American English around. In AmE round is generally regarded as informal or nonstandard and is only standard in certain fixed expressions such as all (the) year round and they went round and round in circles. There's a lot more (pages 64-65) for them as wants to pursue the matter, but I think the present wording is OK. Tim riley talk 22:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Quibble withdrawn, in that case. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Between 1947 and 1951...: another long sentence, easily solved by swapping the semicolon for a full stop.
• Is it possible or workable to clarify that The Globe isn't the more famous theatre by the same name?

• How does that look? I don't want to over-egg the point in the text, but this should make it a bit clearer. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Would change the link on "officer in the Guards" to just cover "the Guards" per least astonishment.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• All done, aside from the first point - I'll work on that shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• That done too - how does that look? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. (I like "resplendent".) Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

2020 Seattle Sounders FC season

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 07:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is my first foray into a season article, describing the shortened and strange 2020 season for Seattle Sounders FC, an American soccer team and defending MLS champions. The season opened with a local COVID-19 outbreak and continued through lockdown bubbles and limited travel to finish with yet another MLS Cup appearance for the team, although one that ended differently. This article was massively expanded last year in the style of a few British season FAs with modifications to account for the league's American quirks; it has been a GA for a few months, but with some finishing touches I believe it's FA-ready. SounderBruce 07:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

• I will take a look at this one in the next few days - promise! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "while teams returned home a month later " => "and teams returned home a month later "
  • Fixed.
• "Brian Schmetzer, formerly an assistant under Sigi Schmid," - might be worth clarifying that he was assistant under Schmid at Seattle as technically it's not 100% clear as written
  • Fixed.
• "Manager Brian Schmetzer also led" - no need to restate his position or full name so soon after talking about his appointment
  • Fixed.
• "to fill in for Torres" - I would say "replace" rather than "fill in", as "fill in" makes it sound like it was only a temporary arrangement and that Torres et al would eventually return
  • Fixed.
• Lodeiro image caption needs a full stop
  • Added.
• "Jordan Morris scored two goals—the latter in stoppage time" - think that dash should be a comma
  • Fixed.
• Don't think the "see also" link to MLS is Back is needed, as it's linked in para 2 of the prose
  • Upgraded to a main link, as the section is solely about the tournament.
• " and was followed by two goals in the second half by Morris scored a minute apart" => " which was followed by two goals in the second half by Morris scored a minute apart"
  • Fixed.
• Stadium image caption needs a full stop
  • Added.
• "A home match against the Colorado Rapids on October 14 was initially postponed due to a COVID-19 outbreak in their squad" - Colorado's squad?
  • Fixed, and split up to avoid confusion.
• "Seattle played on Decision Day" - what's Decision Day?
  • Linked, will create an article soon-ish. It's the final day of the regular season, where all teams play their conference rivals in simultaneous matches while jockeying for playoff positions.
• IN some places a flag is accompanied by the country name (or trigram) but in others it isn't - would it be better to be consistent? Not 100% sure whether the use of flags without accompanying text violates MOS:FLAG.....
  • I think this might be a discussion better suited for WT:FOOTY given that there's so many articles that use flags in a similar manner to represent a team's nationality and player/staff nationalities. For example, {{Fb cs staff}} doesn't have an option for displaying the nationality in a separate column, so I've gone ahead and replaced it with a new table.
• That's what I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. I've addressed your comments above and will work on the flag issue. SounderBruce 07:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Stevie fae Scotland

• In the infobox, I'd add a note to the attendances explaining that only two matches were played with supporters and that the rest were behind closed doors due to Covid.
  • Added.
• Preseason and CONCACAF Champions League- could we link scrimmage at the first mention to Exhibition match? I wasn't aware it also had that meaning so it would help avoid confusion.
  • Linked, though a scrimmage in American English refers to a non-standard match format (such as 30-minute halves or unlimited subs) used for practice and training.
• You mention the Cascadia Cup not being awarded in the prose but there's no mention of the Heritage Cup. I see it's linked in the match list so it would probably be worth mentioning it in the prose as well.
  • I can't find a reliable source for the Heritage Cup being officially awarded in 2020, so I've decided to remove it entirely. It's a very minor "trophy" that isn't often acknowledged by either team, as they have more important rivalries; the Heritage Cup was essentially created to give Seattle a paper rival while waiting for Vancouver and Portland to join MLS two years later.
• There are a number of MOS:ACCESS concerns with the footballbox collapsible which makes it unsuitable for featured articles. These include some parameters not producing a caption element, column and row headers are omitted and the fact it uses tables for visual positioning of non-tabular content. There are a few other ways of displaying lists of match results that you can use, it's entirely up to you how you style it. A lot of the current featured season articles use this style or you could use this style to retain the colours. Template:Football result list league and Template:Football result list cup are also available.
  • This probably needs to be discussed at WT:FOOTY, but I think that making the existing footballbox ACCESS-compliant would be far easier to implement than changing hundreds of season articles and losing valuable information (namely cards [which accumulate and have knock-on effects], referees, and venues [as MLS teams can sometimes play in more than one home stadium]).
• I notice as well that the reference style is inconsistent. There are a lot of bare URLs which don't appear in the list of references at the bottom. You should have a full list of references so these should be changed to full citations.
  • The footer citations are built into various templates (including the standings table) and don't seem to support traditional citations. Again, probably needs to be discussed at the project level.
• The Roster table is sortable but it's impossible to tell that because of the colours in the header row. Same with the On loan table but there's only one player so the sortable function isn't necessary.
  • Looks like this is a known bug, but I used a solution outlined in WP:SORT.
• Appearances and goals- is there any point in the US Open Cup columns given the competition was cancelled?
  • Removed.
• Aftermath- Have Seattle reached the MLS Cup final since 2020? It would be worth mentioning if this season was the most recent for them to do so. That can be updated once they get there again.
  • Added, hopefully I will have to update it again in December.
• That's my thoughts. I enjoyed reading through that, it's well-written. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Stevie fae Scotland: Thanks for the review. I will need to work on a solution for the fixture tables and standings citations that is consistent with FOOTY standards, as I do think this will require some level of consensus, but re-litigating the earlier issues with converting footballbox into other styles is not something I want to dive into. SounderBruce 07:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Doom (2016 video game)

Nominator(s): –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a universally acclaimed reboot of one of the most legendary game franchises ever, and is itself hailed as one of the best games ever. This is also my comeback to FAC after many months' absence. DOOM, and yours truly, are glad to be back. Rip and tear, comrades, until is done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from NegativeMP1

Haha, hell yeah. Absolutely awesome that you were actually able to pull this off, I'll take a look at this soon. λ NegativeMP1 07:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead

I'll do this section by section.

• "The game also supports an online multiplayer component" I think this would read better if you said something on the lines of the game having online multiplayer.
  • Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• "It was the second best-selling video game in North America and the UK a few weeks after its release" Did it only become the best selling game in those regions after a few weeks, or did it stay the best selling game in those regions for a few weeks?
  • Moreso the latter. Adjusted accordingly. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Gameplay

• This might sound weird, but I think you have to have a citation that the game is a first-person shooter. I mean, it obviously is, but you still have to source it.
  • Added :) –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• "such as the chainsaw and BFG 9000" → "such as a chainsaw and the BFG 9000"
  • There's only one chainsaw in the game, though. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• "As in the original games, weapons do not need to reload, but can also be augmented with unlocked weapon mods purchased during the campaign." → "As in the original games, weapons do not need to be reloaded, but can be augmented with unlocked weapon mods purchased during the campaign."
  • Done. I've also broken the sentence in half because as it was I was implying that weapon mods were a thing in Doom 1993. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Plot

• I don't think we include plot details that aren't specifically stated in the game. A note specifying the year based on Doom Eternal's lore, however, I believe is acceptable.
  • Tweaked.
• Other than that this section seems fine.

Development

• Chronology issues are present here, maybe move the first sentence to after "which had 19 employees at the time of Doom 3's release, struggled to simultaneously develop Rage and Doom 4".
  • Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, you used a comma at the end of the sentence above instead of a period.
    • Oops. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• I think there's enough relevance to criticism of the Doom 4 prototype to mention that it ended up getting nicknames "Call of DOOM". It's in the sources, too. Maybe something on the lines of "and scripted cinematics; some fans and developers labeled the game as Call of DOOM.[35]"
  • Thought someone would suggest this. Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Rest of it seems fine.

Release and marketing

• You specified 2015 already, no need to add the year after June 14.
  • Removed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• No other issues.

Reception

• No issues here.

Sequel

• I recommend searching to see if there's material for some sort of a "Legacy" section since Doom 2016 has a strong relation with the boomer shooter trend.
  • Searches to this effect turned up bupkis, unfortunately. Scholarship about Doom concentrates on the original game(s). –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

And that's basically everything I was able to find. Overall a solid article nonetheless. λ NegativeMP1 19:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright that's about everything. Disappointed that there wasn't more boomer shooter info, but I support this candidate. λ NegativeMP1 04:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien (Support)

One of my favorites! I just finished replaying this one a few months ago. I'll have a review in the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Or I'll just do it now:

• Yay! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• "the first major installment in the Doom series since 2004's Doom 3" – This might be a good time to add that it's a reboot or that it's the first entry in the rebooted series.
  • Ahhh, that should have occurred to me before! Done now. —Vami
• "that have been unleashed by the Union Aerospace Corporation within their energy-mining facility on Mars" – This seems like the reader is supposed to know what the UAC is. Maybe just "unleashed in an energy-mining facility on Mars".
  • Done. —Vami
• "with reviewers crediting the game for recapturing the spirit of the classic Doom games and first-person shooters of the 1990s" – I only see one reviewer expressing this idea in the body.
  • Axed. —Vami

Gameplay

• "Doom is a first-person shooter." – Is this all that can be said about what type of game it is? This might be a good place to introduce the idea that it replicates the gameplay of Doom (1993 video game).
  • I do in #Development; following the logic of MOS:VG: "Write for a general audience. Assume that the reader has heard of a video game but has never played one." Thus, I cannot assume they know of/about the original Doom games. —Vami
• "with unlocked weapon mods purchased during the campaign" – The word "purchased" could be read as microtransactions.
  • Good point. Changed. —Vami
• "Throughout the campaign are easter egg references to... and Doom and Doom II" – Separating the first two Doom games like this makes it read awkwardly, especially since Doom 3 is listed up front.
  • Changed to "and the original Doom games". —Vami
• "player-versus-player multiplayer" is redundant.
  • Removed. —Vami
• "some of which are exclusive to the multiplayer" – Any more information about this? Is there anything about how these weapons play that makes them suitable for one mode but not the other (I mostly ignored the multiplayer so I can't answer that)?
• "that transform them into demons" – Should we clarify that these demons are the same ones you fight in the campaign?
  • Looking again, I found some details about this. Have added. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Doom includes a level creation tool called 'SnapMap'" – Are quotation marks necessary here?
  • Removed. —Vami
• "with their own structure and game logic" – More detail about what this means would be helpful.
  • I've instead trimmed this out; rereading the sources, I oversold SnapMap a bit. —Vami

Plot

• "Doom Eternal, is set in 2163, specifying a fourteen-year gap from the events of the 2016 game" – This is confusing. It would be better if there was a way to explicitly say "the game is set around 2149".
  • Done. —Vami
• This summary makes it seem like Doomguy is loyally working for Hayden until the ending. Could a sentence be added about when Doomguy defies Hayden?
  • Oh, hm. Yeah, can't have that. Rewritten now. —Vami

Development

• I don't like having "IP" written three times in the same sentence. Is it possible to reword this?
  • I only use IP here, so I've just deleted it. —Vami
• It's unclear what "rolling reboot" means in this context.
  • Me neither, but that's ok because it's a quote from Stratton. —Vami
• " id spoke with staff at Bethesda Game Studios because of their experience developing Fallout 3" – Maybe clarify how the development of Fallout 3 and Doom were similar.
  • Mmmmm cut instead. —Vami
• "push forward combat" is defined twice, once in gameplay and once in development.
  • Cut from #Gameplay. —Vami
• Footnote C could probably fit as part of the prose somewhere.
  • I tried to fit it in somewhere around the bit about the Glory Kill, but couldn't make it work. If you have suggestions, I'm all ears. —Vami
• What is "classic weapon pose"?
  • Clarified. —Vami
• "The soundtrack of Doom" – "Doom's soundtrack" is simpler.
  • Agreed. —Vami
• "Gordon also included easter eggs in the soundtrack." – Maybe this should end with a colon or semicolon to connect the related sentences. Also, Easter should be capitalized.
  • Done. —Vami

Release and marketing

• "and on Google Stadia on August 19, 2020" – This doesn't flow well grammatically with the other releases, since it follows an "except".
  • Oops. Corrected. —Vami
• "which prompted comment but not criticism from several gaming outlets" – This seems slightly WP:ORish unless there are sources saying that there wasn't really any criticism.
  • That is exactly what the sources are saying. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• "and released a non-VR demo of the first level" – I would move this up before VR is mentioned. Having to specify that it's a "non-VR demo" is confusing.
  • Cut instead. —Vami
• What's the difference between the 2016 Doom VR versus Doom VFR? (also "Doom VFR" has two spaces)
  • VFR is a spinoff; clarified now (and removed the double space). —Vami
• It's confusing having info about the trailers and testing come after the release dates.
  • I disagree and don't think there's anywhere better to put that content. Previous versions of the article had a very muddled #Release and marketing and I would like to avoid that. —Vami
• If an image of the original box art is available, I think there's a non-free use argument that it would benefit the article to be able to compare the two.
  • We have the original box art in the infobox. If you meant the cover of the original Doom, I've gone ahead and added that. —Vami
    • Nevermind, I cannot use the cover of the original game here. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 12:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Reception

• "second best in the UK behind Uncharted 4" and then "second best in the US behind Uncharted 4" feels a little repetitive, even if they're technically using different measurements.
  • Combined. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• The sentences about PC sales could be combined so they flow better.
  • Done. —Vami

Sequel

• This section feels really bare. Is there anything to be said about how Doom 2016 led to Doom Eternal, or what aspects were retained/changed?
  • Let me start working on that article since I was intending to anyway. I've seen a couple articles in which id talks about the challenges of following up DOOM. I'll ping you when I have an update about this. —Vami
    • Done. —Vami

References

• Footnote A is uncited.
  • Fixed. —Vami
• Does Screen Rant meet FA's expectation of high quality sources? I'm asking for myself as much as anything because I hope to use it in an FAC soon.
  • For a quotation of how the cover was received, yeah I think so, but that Polygon article accomplishes the same thing so I've just cut this reference and quote. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Vami IV, ping me if these are all addressed or if you have any questions/comments. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Thebiguglyalien: All done :) –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

A few more thoughts:

• It's still strange to have "Doom 3" and "the original Doom games" in the same list.
  • How. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    • I would think that anything prior to the reboot would be considered "the original Doom games", which would mean that Doom 3 is listed twice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Cut. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• I looked at the Polygon source to see if "some of which are exclusive to the multiplayer" could be expanded upon, and I couldn't verify that at all.
  • Blargh. I've dug up some sources for the multiplayer-only weapons and made the best of a famine in this area. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Is there a source for the year the game takes place?
  • No. Cut. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that should be it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi again. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. All of my concerns have been addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

2022–23 Notts County F.C. season

Nominator(s): Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a fairly remarkable club season in English football history. In 2022–23, Notts County achieved one of the highest points tallies ever accumulated in the English professional game, lost just three league matches all season, yet not only failed win the league title but also missed automatic promotion. Notts did eventually win promotion via the play-offs, but only after a 96th minute equaliser and 120th minute winner in the semi-final and a penalty shootout win in the final. Phew! I'm a Notts County supporter, but I hope I've been able to treat the subject comprehensively and fairly enough. All comments and feedback gratefully received. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

• I'm a bit tied up this evening getting read to take my son back to university and tomorrow actually taking him, but I will definitely review this one in the next few days -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "following their relegation in 2019" - wikilink relegation and say what they were relegated from

Done

• "the Magpies (as Notts County are nicknamed)" - I think this is excessive for the lead. Just refer to them by their proper name in the lead and leave the nicknames (and explanation thereof) for the body

Sentence amended and nickname/explanation moved to background.

• "featured in season two of Welcome to Wrexham" => "featured in season two of the television programme Welcome to Wrexham"

Done

• "The season was affected by tragedy" - while this was obviously a sad event, "tragedy" seems like a POV word to me

Sentence amended

• "A founding member of the EFL in 1888" - write name in full and link on first use in body

Done

• "Notts County were relegated to non-League" => "Notts County were relegated to non-League football"

Done

• "The 2022–23 season was the club's fourth consecutive season in the National League" - link NL on first use in body

Done

• "the fifth tier of the English football league system" - same with league system

Done

• "against Grimsby Town at Meadow Lane, Nottingham" - make clear that this is Notts' own ground

Done

• "However, Grimsby would find an equalising goal" => "However, Grimsby found an equalising goal "

Done

• "Burchnall was replaced as head coach by former Swindon Town manager Luke Williams" - link Williams

Done

• "all of whom featured in National League North's 2021–22 team of the season" = > "all of whom featured in the National League North's 2021–22 team of the season"

Done

• "Notts paid undisclosed fees for Gateshead duo Macaulay Langstaff " - link Langstaff

Done

• "winning National League North's player of the year award" => "winning the National League North's player of the year award"

Done

• "Connor Lemonheigh-Evans, who joined on loan from Stockport in February" - write the club's name in full and link it

Stockport is already linked earlier in the section when mentioning Kyle Wootton's transfer, do I still need to do this?

No, that's OK, I clearly just missed the earlier link -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• "ollowing a 1–1 draw at Boston United" - link Boston

Similar to above, Boston are linked in the section above when mentioning Tiernan Brooks' loan.

• "Notts hosted Chesterfield in their second home match of the season" - link Chesterfield

Done

• "with a 4–1 win at Halifax Town " => "with a 4–1 win at FC Halifax Town"

Done

• "caused firstly by Notts County's participation in the FA Trophy" - link FA Trophy

Done

• "and David Richardson of Sky Sports" - link Sky Sports

Done

• "Luke Williams told Rory Smith of The New York Times" - link NYT

Done

• "25-yards from their own goal" - no reason for that hyphen

Removed

• "Ben Foster was forced into a fine save" - POV?

Amended

• "as champions or at Wembley" - link Wembley

Done

• "Notts faced Boreham Wood in the play-off semi-final, the latter having beaten Barnet 2–1 in the quarter-final" - might be worth a few words explaning why BW had to play a quarter-final and Notts did not

Good idea! Explanation added.

• "when Lee Ndlouv pounced " - his surname is spelt incorrectly

Great spot! Corrected.

• "Discussing the immediate aftermath of his goal, Jones told Ben Fisher of The Guardian " - link Guardian

Done

• "The match was 1–1 at full time" => "The score was 1–1 at full time"

Done

• "but the Spireites lead 2–1 at half time" => "but the Spireites led 2–1 at half time"

Done

• " included youth team members Madou Cisse and Charlie Gill on bench" => " included youth team members Madou Cisse and Charlie Gill on the bench"

Done

• What's the basis of the order of players in the table? It seems completely random.....

It took me a few moments to remember why I'd ordered it like that myself, which is probably not a good sign. I think the order is by total starts, is there a guideline on how best to order tables like this?

I don't think there is. In the past I have used squad number order for seasons where those were used and simple alphabetical order otherwise -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I'll reorder alphabetically, likely tomorrow evening now. I will let you know once done. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ChrisTheDude: - table now reordered in alphabetical order. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Notts County's season was affected by tragedy" - as above

Amended

• "Notts County's season-long rivalry with Wrexham was the focus of several episodes of season two of Welcome to Wrexham" - wikilink the show

Done

• That's what I got. It may seem like a lot but they are all little things which should be quick fixes. Overall the quality of the article id fabulous and it's nice to see another team season article at FAC which isn't about bloody Gillingham ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: - thanks for the kind words and taking the time to go through this. I've now been through and made changes in line with most of the feedback. I just had a couple of queries about a handful before I take any action on those. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Breakdown (Mariah Carey song)

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a Mariah Carey song that had a great potential of becoming a number one single, but never even received a chance. I don't really listen to it that often as I haven't lived enough to appreciate the lyrics, but it is definitely a high quality song, and hopefully the article is too ;) I started working on this article in 2022, but then I procrastinated on writing the critical reception section for a year ..... so here we are in 2024! Thanks in advance for any comments, Heartfox (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

Recusing to review.

• "The track features rapping by two members of the group Bone Thugs-n-Harmony, Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone." This is a bit ambiguous at the moment. It reads as if two members of the group Bone Thugs-n-Harmony, Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone are four people. Would "features rapping by Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone, members of the group Bone Thugs-n-Harmony,.." make it better?

  Changed to your suggestion

• "Retrospectively, "Breakdown" is regarded as a turning point in Carey's musical direction" - in what sense is it considered a turning point?

  Added that this is in regard to a hip hop musical direction

• "Upon their arrival, Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone were provided with cannabis which they passed out from after getting high." "getting high" is too informal and idiomatic. How about: "Upon their arrival, Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone were given cannabis, leading them to become intoxicated and pass out."?

  Changed to "Upon their arrival, Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone were given cannabis which they passed out from after becoming intoxicated"

• "Some critics thought the song detailed the demise of Carey's marriage" - not sure it's common to refer to the end of a marriage as its "demise" when it's usually used to mean the death of a person. Why not just "end"?

  Changed to "end"

• "Had "Breakdown" been released to retail, the single would have broken Carey's streak of four consecutive number ones on the Billboard Hot 100." Not sure I understand this properly. What does its release to retail have to do with the single's potential failure to reach number one? Was it a sure thing that the song, if released as a single at the time, would not have topped the chart and hence broken Carey's streak?

  Changed "would have" to "likely would have". "Breakdown" had no airplay from pop radio so unless it sold an absurd amount of copies it wouldn't have gone to number one. The Hot 100 was still the "pop chart" until December 1998. I tried to explain this in the following sentence "chart rules stipulated that songs required retail releases to appear and that airplay from R&B radio stations was not a factor"

• Not a fan of the image caption in the music video section. Just saying that a certain scene was analyzed isn't very informative. FrB.TG (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Specified

FrB.TG, thanks for the helpful comments. Heartfox (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review from Vami

Source review to follow. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I have a question about this part, (Before they wrote and performed their raps). The "raps" phrasing seems a bit off to me. I am more accustomed to seeing this worded as "verses". Is "raps" a common descriptor for this kind of thing?

  In the liner notes their contributions are not listed as a verse but as "rap 1", "rap 2", etc, so I think labelling it as a verse would be inappropriate

  That makes sense. I tried to phrase my comment more as a question and less as a suggestion because I had guessed that it was just something that I was not familiar with. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• I am not sure about the wording in this part, (after it did not issue a standalone commercial single in the United States). It is not clear what is being referenced by "a standalone commercial single". I'd revise it to something like (after the label did not issue "Breakdown" as a standalone commercial single in the United States). I think the chronology for the lead is a bit odd though as readers would have already seen in the first paragraph that this song was released as a single and now it is being said that it was not.

  Clarified as "after it did not release the song to retail outlets in the United States"

• Did Carey only perform this song on Butterfly World Tour?

  No, but later performances were not mentioned in secondary sources aside from 2006 which I have now added to the article

  That is understandable. Not all performances of a specific song are mentioned in secondary, reliable sources. I had run into a similar issue while working on Tamar Braxton's songs. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have a question about this sentence: (It received the best critical reviews of her career up to that point.) The current placement seems to imply that Carey's choice to experiment with hip hop music lead to this praise and contributed to her confidence to continue doing so, but is this clearly stated in the source? If so, I think it would be best to more explicitly say this in the prose.

  It is not implied that the hip hop elements in Daydream were the reason for the praise, but the overall reception gave Carey the go-ahead to go further the next album. Shapiro says: "Butterfly was Mariah Carey's coming-of-age album. The creative rush of being out from under the control of her husband and record producers and the critical acceptance of Daydream had given Mariah the confidence to delve deeper into the hip-hop world." I have combined two sentences to establish the link more explicitly in the prose.

  I believe the edit has helped to clarify this point. Thank you for that. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• For this part, (and they began studying the rap group's discography), would a link to Bone Thugs-n-Harmony discography be helpful?

  Added

• I have a clarification question about this sentence: (Both he and Combs had already worked with Carey on another Butterfly track, "Honey".) I read this as saying that "Honey" was recorded before any work was done on "Breakdown". Would that be accurate?

  Yes, the wording is intentional. Stevie J says in the Essence article: "When we first met, we did 'Honey'", indicating that "Breakdown" was recorded after

  Thank you for the response. I just wanted to double-check that my reading of that part was correct. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• I am not sure what this part, (as they did not comprehend her career), means. Could you clarify this for me?

  "Changed "career" to "level of fame"

• I have a comment on this part, (Affected by reggae and doo-wop,). Would "influenced" be a better word choice than "affected"? I do not think I have heard "affected" in this context (i.e. a musician being affected by different genres).

  Changed to "influenced"

• I am not sure about this sentence: (Columbia did not issue a commercial single in the United States after the song failed to garner crossover success on contemporary hit radio.) It reads like they did not issue a single at all in the US after this, and it is rather vague. I think it should be clarified.

  Rephrased to "After 'Breakdown' failed to garner crossover success on contemporary hit radio, Columbia did not release it for sale in the United States"

I hope this review is helpful. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will read the article again just to make sure I have not missed anything. I will be keeping my review focused on the prose however. I am glad that you nominated this song for a FAC. I do enjoy this song on a technical level, but it is not one of my favorite Mariah Carey songs to be honest. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful review, Heartfox (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything! I will look through the article again momentarily just to make sure I did not miss anything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Carey references "Breakdown in "With You"; she talks about it in this interview with Genius around the 54:40 mark. This reference was also picked up on by NPR and Pitchfork. Is it notable enough for inclusion?

  I think it is better suited for the "With You" article. Heartfox (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Understandable. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I just have one very minor question, but other than that, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion once it is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Citigroup Center

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about yet another skyscraper in New York City. Completed in the 1970s for Citibank (which once occupied another building whose article I brought to FA status), this tower is known for the stilts at its base and the 45-degree angle of its roof. The tower was also, for a brief period after its completion, perhaps more alarmingly known for a structural flaw that made it vulnerable to collapse if a strong wind hit it from the wrong angle. The tower's strange design partially stems from the fact that it had to be structurally separate from a church building, which occupies one corner of the site and was rebuilt as the same time as the office building itself. Today, the tower is an official New York City landmark and is still partially occupied by Citibank.

This page became a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by A person in Georgia, for which I am very grateful. Following a much-appreciated copy edit from Dhtwiki, I think the page is now up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll take a look at this over the coming week. Hog Farm _Talk 19:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• "The land lot covers 70,572 sq ft (6,556.4 m2) with a frontage of 200 ft (61 m) on Lexington Avenue and a depth of 325 ft (99 m).[5] block with 880 Third Avenue, an 18-story structure at 53rd Street and Third Avenue." - something seems to have gone wrong with the beginning of the second sentence here
  • Oops. I have fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• "which allowed New York City developers a zoning "bonus" for including open space in front of their buildings" - this zoning bonus is mentioned here and in following sentences but it's unclear what this bonus is until I guess the next paragraph. I'd recommend addressing what the bonus was here
  • I have tried to clarify this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• "his subway entrance replaces two staircases from the street, which were demolished to make way for Citicorp Center" - I'm struggling to find this in the cited source, but I'm also trying to watch the Chiefs-Chargers game right now too, so I may just be missing it
  • The source says, "In addition, both subway entrances were eliminated from the sidewalk, giving the corner, adjacent to the stairs that lead to the plaza, a much more open feel". Although, I must say it might be verging on original research to say these are staircases (for all we know, these could've been escalators), so I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Following the Citicorp Center engineering crisis of 1978, workers installed 2 in-thick (5.1 cm) over each joint" - unclear what 2 inches worth of was installed
  • I have fixed that too. Thanks for your initial comments HF. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Stopping here for now; ready for the Interior section. Hog Farm _Talk 23:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• "From 1987 to 2009, the bank presented a model train exhibition in the space each December" - the source seems to indicate that the 2008 holiday season was the last one for it and that it wouldn't return in '09
  • Hmm, I could have sworn that I saw the exhibition in 2009 (I would've been about 10 at the time). But apparently the NYT and Financial Times also corroborate the 2008 date. I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "The block sits on a pool of oil within a steel plate" - the language in the source is a film of oil on a steel plate which doesn't quite seem to mean the same thing to me as what we have in the article
  • I have changed this to "an oil-coated steel plate", which I think is similar to what the source says.
• "The equipment cost $1 million to install.[101] By comparison, it would have cost $5 million[101] to reduce the tower's movement by adding 2,800 short tons (2,500 long tons; 2,500 t) of additional steel.[120]" - the [101] source refers to the installation in the future tense and expects that it would cost $1 million, while [120] is written after the installation and provides a cost figure of $1.5 million. I think the source from after the installation would be preferable for the cost figure
  • Oops, I have fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "The project was the first to be completed under the purview of the Mayor's Office of Midtown Planning since its establishment a decade prior." - sourced to page 113 of the listed source, but p. 113 is a full-page photograph of the interior of St. Peter's
  • My bad again. Page 111 says "the first project influenced and helped to fruition by the Mayor's Office of Midtown Planning that demonstrates convincingly what the Planning Commission's Urban Design Group has been trying to accomplish since its founding by former Mayor John V. Lindsay in 1967"... which I suppose is not exactly the same as what the article says, so I'll remove this for now and rephrase the article later. Epicgenius (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Stopping again for now, ready for the 1980s and 1990s section. Hog Farm _Talk 02:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a link for terrazzo?

I don't see anything else; I'll go ahead and support. Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed there is. Thanks for the review Hog Farm, I appreciate it. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

All images are properly licensed (contributions from editors + one Flickr image). Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review from Vami

Source review to follow. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources are reliable. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check

Because of the track record of the nominator, I'll be lazy keep this simple. I will be looking at every fifth citation, starting at a randomly selected citation.

• [3]: All good.
• [8]: Errors detected, noted below. All other instances good.
  • Semi supports "The metal panels were fitted with double the amount of insulation considered normal at the time of construction. The aluminum was polished to reflect heat from sunlight." Source reads, "The aluminum panels contained two inches of thermofiber insulation..."
  • Does not support "At the northwest corner of Citigroup Center is St. Peter's Lutheran Church"; not on cited page.
  • Does not support Footnote [a].
• [13]: All good.
• [18]: Ditto.
• [23]: Ditto.
  • Progressive Architecture 1978 lacks page numbers; please ensure all citations of journals and (physical) magazines have page numbers and use the relevant citation template.
• [28]: All good.
• [33]: Ditto.
• [38]: Ditto.
• [43]: Ditto.
• [48]: I can't access this.
• [53]: All good.
• [58]: Ditto.

I'm confident enough with this sample size to feel comfortable stopping at 58. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hö'elün

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I intend to write a series of articles on the leading women of the Mongol Empire. There is no better person to start with than Hö'elün, the mother of Genghis Khan and thus the progenitor of the House of Borjigin. Her life was tumultuous but very interesting. I hope you enjoy.

This article received a GA review from Grnrchst in October last year. If successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments from mujinga

• A series of articles on the leading women of the Mongol Empire sounds like an excellent project! I'll make some nonexpert prose comments to get the ball rolling on Hö'elün Mujinga (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• "When she grew up to be an "unusually beautiful" young woman" - who is being quoted here?
  • Anne Broadbridge: "She emerged in the historical record as an unusually beautiful young Olqunu’ut woman"
    • then it needs attribution in the text or rephrasing Mujinga (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Rephrased.
• "As the couple were travelling back to Chiledu's homelands, they were ambushed by Mongols who were out hawking. They had noticed Hö'elün's beauty and good health" - second they currently refers back to the couple not the Mongols. Also, if the couple are also Mongols it seems strange to say the ambushers were Mongols rather than identifying them by tribe?
  • Hö'elün and Chiledu were not Mongols, who at this point were just one of innumerable tribes on the steppe.
    • can you make that clear then? i was wondering if that was the case, but when you say "According to The Secret History of the Mongols, a mid-13th-century epic poem which retold the formation of the Mongol Empire, Hö'elün was born into the Olkhonud clan of the Qonggirad tribe. The Qonggirad lived along the Greater Khingan mountain range south of the Ergüne river, in modern-day Inner Mongolia, with the Olkhonud living near the source of the Khalkha River.[1]" it's easy (for a nonexpert like me) to infer that they are mongols since "mongol" is mentioned a few times Mujinga (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
      • I experimented different ways to say this in the main text, but none quite worked, so I've added a note instead. I hope that's good enough?
        • noice Mujinga (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "They had noticed Hö'elün's beauty and good health—the 17th-century Altan Tobchi chronicle notes" - noticed .. notes, suggest changing one
  • Done.
• "The date is similarly controversial, as historians favour different dates: 1155, 1162 or 1167.[12] The historian Paul Ratchnevsky notes that the date may not have been recorded at all.[13] The boy was named Temüjin, a word of uncertain meaning.[14] Several legends surround Temüjin's birth. " - this is rather stop/start, suggest running some sentences together
  • Done.
• "When Temüjin married Börte at around the age of fifteen, Hö'elün was gifted a black sable coat, which was immediately used to secure an alliance with Toghrul, khan of the Keraites." - this makes it sound like the coat is doing the work?
  • It was, to a certain extent. It was far more than your average wedding gift. Broadbridge again: [Börte] brought independent wealth into her marriage in the form of a luxurious sable coat, which she gave her mother-in-law as a gift...The coat immediately proved its worth, since Hö’elün let Temüjin use it to establish a political alliance with Ong Khan of the Kereits. Rephrased slightly nevertheless.
    • that works! Mujinga (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "During the difficult following years, when the locations and activities of Temüjin's family are near-completely unknown," - if not much is known how do we know they were difficult?
  • Well, we don't know for absolute certain, but Temüjin had been comprehensively defeated and forced to seek exile; it would be very improbable for their lives to be inexplicably easy.
    • what does the source say? Mujinga (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
      • It doesn't explicitly use a synonym for "difficult", so I've removed the word.
• "although some have criticised this as poetical melodrama" - some who?
  • Specified.
• I'm counting six "howevers", which seems like a lot especially considering WP:HOWEVER
  • Reduced to one.
• lead says " Hö'elün married Münglig, an old retainer of Yesügei, in thanks for his support after a damaging defeat in 1187", body says "After Jamuqa defeated Temüjin at Dalan Balzhut in 1187, many of his followers were repulsed by his cruel treatment of Temüjin's followers. These included Münglig and his sons; their earlier abandonment of the family was ignored and they were welcomed to such an extent that Hö'elün was given to Münglig in her third and final marriage.[31]" so I'm confused as to whether she was forced to marry Münglig or not
  • Don't worry, historians are too. Ratchnevsky says "given to", Broadbridge says "married". I've changed to "married" in both cases as I believe it also encompasses the first meaning.

  • great Mujinga (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• why not roll the lead into one paragraph?
  • I think that would make it slightly too long for my liking, especially as there isn't an image/infobox. Plus, the first paragraph works as an introductory summary at the moment.

  • not sure if that rationale is MOS:LEAD compliant, but happy to see what other people think Mujinga (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• you mention the House of Borjigin above but not in article?
  • It is mentioned thrice, beginning with: "an aristocratic ba'atur of the Borjigin clan".~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  • resolved Mujinga (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• nice work, made a few followup replies Mujinga (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• in one of those weird coincidences that make life fun I was telling a friend about Hö'elün and they said they recently listened to a podcast about her (in german) - the link is here. The podcast featured an academic, Veronika Veit, and it recommends some further reading which might be worth checking:
  • Frey-Näf, Barbara: “Compared with the women-folk, menfolk have little business of their own”. Gender division of labour in the history of the Mongols. In: V. Veit (Hg.), The Role of Women in the Altaic World, Harrassowitz, Wiebaden 2007, S. 69-76
  • Lane, George: Daily Life in the Mongol Empire. Hackett, Indianapolis/Cambridge, 2006
  • Taube, Manfred (Übers.): Geheime Geschichte der Mongolen, CH Beck, München 2005
  • Veit, Veronika: Die Stärke der Frau zur Zeit des Mongolischen Weltreiches, in: U. Barkmann, G. Altangerel (Hg.): Familie und gesellschaftlicher Transformationsprozess in der Mongolei, Lit Verlag Münster 2019, S. 107-130.
  • Veit, Veronika: „Mündliche Elemente in der traditionellen mongolischen Historiographie des 13.- 17. Jahrhunderts“, in: W. Heissig (Hrsg.), Fragen der mongolischen Heldendichtung V (= Asiatische Forschungen 120), Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1992, S. 188-191.
    • Ooh yes, the German school (I don't speak the language so I'm always a little behind on developments there).
      • Google Books is preventing me from seeing the last two pages of the Frey-Näf source, but it seems to be fairly general, with no specific references to Hö'elün (I don't want to be general and say "As a woman, she would have..." for SYNTH reasons)
      • Lane is good, but fairly conservative; he doesn't really say anything new.
      • The Taube source appears to be a German translation of the Secret History
      • Annoyingly, as they seemed to be the most promising, I can't find a way to access either of the Veit sources online, and as I'm not in Germany I doubt I'll find them lying around. If you or anyone else reading could send them to me, I'd be very grateful. Until then, I've posted at WP:RX
        • • I don't have them, but I see DocTaxon could provide, so I'll wait to see if there's anythig useful. Nice pic by the way! Mujinga (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
            • Thanks Mujinga; I've incorporated some information from one of the sources. I don't suppose you might be able to do the image review as well? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Looking through the different wikipedia pages on her, I started to wonder what the best way to refer to her is. I see Kusma had asked this more eloquently below as well.
  • I'll answer this below.
• a few more queries Mujinga (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Since I was looking at the sources anyway .. Mujinga (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• No need to link publisher locations such as Cambridge and this needs standardising
  • I've standardised according to MOS:OVERLINK

  • so you want to keep great barrington and wiesbaden? Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm asking because to me it seems more consistent to link none Mujinga (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• The Secret History of the Mongols: A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century needs publisher and location. Say it's an anonymous author? At the moment the author on the cite looks like "de Rachewiltz 2015". also on "de Rachewiltz 2015, §76–78." shiuldn't it be pp?
  • There is no publisher or location—it is an online-only summary of de Rachewiltz's much longer translation and commentary, released for free online in order to aid Mongolian studies. There are multiple translations available (Cleaves, Onon, de Rachewiltz, and just last year Atwood) so a citation of "de Rachewiltz 2015" is clearer than just "Secret History"; I could change to "Secret History, trans. de Rachewiltz 2015" if that's better?
    • Hmm, tricky. Well someone/something has published it online. The preface says "The pages below represent a shortened version of the three volumes — totaling over 1700 pages — of Igor de Rachewiltz’s similarly-titled work published by Brill in 2004 and 2013". I'd say the publisher here is either Western CEDAR or Western Washington University? Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
      • They're not the publishers—the document is under a CC by 4.0 license, so they just have as part of their Mongolia and Inner Asia Collection. If anything, the publisher is John C. Street, the editor. Personally, I don't think the parameter has any useful meaning in the context of this, and so I've changed the citation to {{cite web}}.
        • I'm still puzzling over this, I do think that somebody/thing published it since it isn't just a website. Further, would it not be worth marking the author as anonymous? And for the SfnRef your suggestion "Secret History, trans. de Rachewiltz 2015" or "Secret History, ed. John C. Street" would be clearer Mujinga (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
          • Yeah, it's not just a website, but that doesn't mean it needs a publisher. I can upload a pdf to the internet and display it on a blog, but that doesn't mean I'm publishing it. Anyway, I've changed the sfn. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  • And the § refers to the sections, not page numbers, as is conventional for literature such as this (you don't say Shakespeare page 42 or Iliad page 87, you say "Macbeth 2.1.45" or Iliad 22.178–81).
    • I'm not convinced that when page numbers are available we shouldn't give them, but I understand the rationale, thanks Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• page numbers for Brose chapter?
  • I only have access to the online version, so I can't provide that.
    • I'd suggest adding "|format=ebook" Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Done.
• what makes https://altaica.ru/ a highquality reliable source?
  • It's not the website, it's the author—Paul Pelliot remains one of the pivotal experts in the study of Mongolia. The website, as far as I can tell, is just a repository for Central Asian linguistic texts.
    • I get it that the source itself is reliable, but I am worried if the website is hosting it illegally. I can't make much out of the website with autotranslate and the "english" link is 404, can you find an about section or similar? Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
      • I'm fairly certain the work is in the public domain. Pelliot died in 1945, so French copyright law of both then (50 years after death) and now (70 years after death) has expired.
        • But that concerns the work not the link. Like I said, I'm not sure of the legality of the website hosting. I found https://altaica.ru/gruntov_publications.html, maybe this is the site of Ilya Alexandrovich Gruntov who does seem to be a subject area expert Mujinga (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
          • It would be great if a Russian speaker could help clear this up Mujinga (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
            • This is well outside my comfort zone, so I don't know. I'm perfectly happy to remove the link—it's for the reader's benefit, not mine.
• page numbers for Ratchnevsky, Paul (1993)?
  • Added.
• I assume you have done a decent sweep of the sources, but can you say something about that since there must be a lot of sources about genghis that at least mention Hö'elün. stopping here for now Mujinga (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Absolutely the vast majority mention her, but few provide any significant detail. The study of the Mongol Empire is itself a young discipline, and so Broadbridge's 2018 "Women and the Making of the Mongol Empire" is itself the first reliable, book-length English-language discussion of women in the empire. A half-chapter dedicated entirely to Hö'elün is by far the most in-depth discussion we have of her. I eagerly anticipate fresh developments in the field, but I don't think this article is incomplete in any way.

  • cool thanks that reassures me Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
    • by chance I found some more sources which might be worth checking, i put them above Mujinga (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for your comments, Mujinga. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• " Ratchnevsky 1991, pp. 22–3;" should be 22-23
• is there a reason for the lack of page numbers at " Broadbridge 2018, pp. 45–46; Ratchnevsky 1991." and "Broadbridge 2018, p. 47; May 2018."? Mujinga (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• added some replies, cheers and back to you AirshipJungleman29 Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  • All citation mistakes that have been fixed. Thanks again Mujinga. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Facts on File can be linked Mujinga (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oops. Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• A few more thoughts added Mujinga (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm still checking, just waiting on any additions, cheers Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Vami

• "However, the Tatars recognised their old enemy, and slipped poison into his food." First mention of any enmity between Yesügei and his people (or the Mongols generally?) and the Tatars.
• "Rashid al-Din and the Shengwu" Who and what?
• "during his break with Jamuqa" I know who Jamuqa is, but you can't assume that the reader does.
  • All hangovers from earlier versions of the article. Good catches all, Vami_IV; hopefully I have improved them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Sehr gutt. No other notes; Support! :) –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

An unexpectedly short review. Bravo on the article. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 18:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Grnrchst

I don't really have anything to add that I didn't already say in my GA review. Mujinga has already followed up quite nicely on some of the issues I spotted on my previous passes. You can consider me a support. Fantastic work on this article, I hope the rest of this FAC review proves helpful in improving it further. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Kusma

I'm planning to do a full review if I find the time. For the moment, I am curious about a factoid claimed by the German and Chinese Wikipedias, who say that Kublai Khan gave her the posthumous title of Empress Xuanyi 宣懿皇后 (not to be confused with Empress Fu the Elder, apparently, who is sometimes written with the same characters). The source given there is the History of Yuan, a Ming dynasty document in Classical Chinese that I have some trouble deciphering. Have you come across something like this about her posthumous recognition in any of your sources? —Kusma (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Found a modern tertiary source: [3] but it uses "Empress Dowager Xuanyi" (should be 宣懿太后). There are some further scholarly sources given for her article in that biographical encyclopaedia that may or may not be useful, for example [4] (TWL). —Kusma (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't actually read Chinese of any kind, so I rely upon the knowledge of others who do: Folly Mox, is it possible for you to have a look at the above? Posthumous recognition wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, and neither would a mention in the poorly-compiled History of Yuan, which both includes lots of detail and is often confused. I'll have an in-depth look to the best of my abilities tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The de.wp citation is in error. The source for this posthumous name is the New History of Yuan, a 20th century work by Ke Shaomin (zh.wp cites this correctly: it's at juan 104). The subject does not appear in the "Empresses I" chapter of History of Yuan (juan 114), which starts with Börte.

According to stuff I just read ibides, Kublai was the Yuan monarch who adopted the Chinese imperial custom of assigning posthumous names to his deceased ancestors, and also constructed an ancestral temple in the Chinese elite manner. Sources disagree on the exact year.

I haven't read this article, so I don't know if the subject outlived Ghengis Khan's dad, but even if she did any appellation as "Empress Dowager" would have been necessarily anachronistic, so it's not really more accurate than "Empress".

As to posthumous names being shared across multiple figures, the words they were allowed to pick from came from a closed set passed down from one of the ritual classics: either Liji or Zhouli, which circulated together in a compilation since relatively early anyway. In addition to the set being constrained, there were guidelines as to which posthumous name to use based on the character of the recipient and their accomplishments in life.

Often, different posthumous names were proposed by different people, and it was an honour (or occasionally political necessity) to have the emperor choose your proposal, and a chance to curry favour by talking up his dead relatives.

The later dynasties dealt with the closed set of imperial name words by piling a bunch of overblown claptrap on top of them to create original permutations, which is how Qianlong ended up as (*deep breath*) "法天隆運至誠先覺體元立極敷文奮武欽明孝慈神聖純皇帝".

Anyway, I'm not sure if I answered anybody's question, but yes according to the reliable source New History of Yuan, the subject's posthumous name was 宣懿皇后, granted by Kublai Khan. If there's any classical or literary Chinese someone wants help with in this thread, I'm very easily sidetracked from other tasks if it's put in front of me. Folly Mox (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I am happy to see confirmation (my Chinese is getting a bit rusty). It may be worth mentioning in the article, although this "he gave her a posthumous title" now sounds to me mostly to be part of the effort to turn Kublai Khan more into the sinicised Emperor Shizu of Yuan.

While we are on the topic of posthumous honours, there seems to be some modern Mongolian appreciation of her. For example, a statue close to the Equestrian statue of Genghis Khan, see ru:Файл:The Hoelun Monument to Genghis Khan's Mother at the Mother Hoelun Memorial Complex in Tsonjin Boldog 02.JPG. Whatever its significance, it seems to indicate to me that she isn't forgotten in Mongolia. —Kusma (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a nice image, I might use that. She certainly isn't forgotten in Mongolia—Genghis Khan is the symbol of the country, and so she's certainly well known, but I haven't found any RS talking about her. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

What's the best way to cite the New History of Yuan Folly Mox? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, after some snooping, I haven't been able to determine the publisher of the version present online either at Wikisource or at guoxue, but I do note that Zhonghua Shuju don't seem to have published a standard version, and Internet Archive have no copy available. The publisher can probably be omitted.

That said, I'd probably recommend:

{{cite book | script-title= zh:新元史 | title-link= :zh:新元史 | chapter= [[:zh:s:新元史/卷104#后妃|Vol. 104: Biographies 1: Empresses and consorts]] | trans-title= New History of Yuan | author-link= Ke Shaomin | date=1920 | last= Ke | first= Shaomin | author-mask= Ke Shaomin | series = [[Twenty-Four Histories#Related works|Twenty-Five Histories]] |language=zh}}

This produces:

Ke Shaomin (1920). "Vol. 104: Biographies 1: Empresses and consorts". 新元史 [New History of Yuan]. Twenty-Five Histories (in Chinese).

Pointing |title-link= to zh.wp avoids a redlink to the not yet created article New History of Yuan, but you could omit it entirely, also which produces Ke Shaomin (1920). "Vol. 104: Biographies 1: Empresses and consorts". 新元史 [New History of Yuan]. Twenty-Five Histories (in Chinese).

Using |last= |first= |author-mask= allows the author's name to be displayed in the normal Chinese name order while allowing the work to be cited intuitively with {{sfnp}} like {{sfnp|Ke|1920|loc=vol. 104}} (this can also be accomplished with |author=Ke Shaomin |ref={{sfnref|Ke|1920}}).

I usually just use |chapter= when I'm linking to a public domain Chinese history work at zh.s, but if you're really concerned with metadata it's possible to do with |script-chapter= |trans-chapter=. In this case it's pretty unnecessary because the juan in question will be referred to in most academic citations solely by number. (In fact, you could leave out Biographies 1: Empresses and consorts and no one would care.) "Vol. / volume" has been the en.wp standard translation of 卷 for as long as I can remember, although some English language sources prefer "fascicle" or rarely "roll".

Lastly, yes Kublai establishing a Chinese style ancestral temple and granting his ancestors posthumous names in the Chinese elite fashion was 💯 politicking, which he appears to have been pretty good at. I had a paragraph digressing into this in my initial comment above, which I removed during proofread. Reminder though that "Shizu" was Kublai's own posthumous name. I haven't looked into this period deeply enough in the historical literature to know whether Kublai could have been referred to in life as "Kublai Huangdi" (as Ghengis was) or whether his personal name was already taboo at the time of his accession (seems likelier), and he would have been referred to just as "the emperor" and other honourific synonyms. Folly Mox (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

If we really want a publisher for the source, I can try to steal a pdf from somewhere, which would also give us a page number, although verification will almost always be processed through an online version. Folly Mox (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

General review:

• I am surprised to see Mongolian script that isn't written vertically. I would prefer to see the name in vertical. If that is annoying, perhaps it could go into some box with all her names. (Is there a Mongolian variant of something like {{Infobox Chinese/Manchu}}?)
  • I don't think so; I had a play around with the basic infobox, but couldn't get it to do what I wanted; if you want to have a go feel free
    • I would really like to see her name in vertical somewhere, but I don't have a superb suggestion on how to do it.
• What is the transliteration system used for Mongolian here and why is it "Hö'elün" in the title and "Ö'elün" in the other transliteration?
  • There is no consistent transliteration system for Mongolian, to the eternal exasperation of myself and every other scholar who has to use words from the language. However, in this case, Hö'elün is by far the most common transliteration in reliable English-language scholarship (the common name is often different in other languages—another quirk of the field). However, I'm fairly certain Ö'elün is closer to the actual pronunciation (Atwood certainly thinks so). It's all a giant mess. (Mujinga also relevant for you) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Crazy thought: it might be easier to understand in Mongolian Cyrillic??
    • Less crazy thought: is it worth giving the Chinese transliteration as it is over at Genghis Khan?
      • You'd have to provide me with either of those two—again, languages are not my forte.
• "Knowing that her outnumbered husband would certainly be killed, Hö'elün urged Chiledu to flee" I don't fully understand: did she believe her husband would be killed no matter what he did, or did she believe he had a chance to flee? Later it seems he survived? I think I would prefer something like "As her husband was outnumbered and faced certain death if he stayed with her, Hö'elün urged him to flee".
  • Done.
• Do we know when the legends surrounding Temüjin's birth started to be spread?
  • Nope.
• Do we know who gave Hö'elün the black sable coat?
  • Clarified
• A word or two on what Temüjin did between his defeat in 1187 and his coronation in 1206 would be good; an unobservant reader (say, me with not enough sleep) could assume that he spent the entire time in China.
  • I've added a sentence; its brevity is because I don't want to get too bogged down in Temüjin's activities.
• "she also likely felt that her husband had been over-compensated" what compensation are we talking about here? Who compensated him for what?
  • Clarified

Very interesting article, I'll do another read through soon. —Kusma (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks Kusma; more of your comments are welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I am happy with answers above where I have not re-responded. Some more comments/observations to follow. —Kusma (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• The reliability of the Secret History of the Mongols should be at least touched upon in this article. While most readers will have read the Genghis Khan article, we should not assume that especially in a FA (people might come across the article from the Main Page and not from anything related) so it would be better to try to be as standalone as possible. You could also be explicit about this when you say "She also reportedly raised numerous foundlings as half-siblings for her children, although chronological problems seem to indicate that the most famous, Shigi Qutuqu, was in fact raised by Börte": as I understand it, in the Secret History it is claimed she was the one who raised Shigi Qutuqu, but later historians dismiss this as incompatible with other chronological assumptions.
  • Done and clarified.
• Is the battle at Dalan Balzhut the same as zh:十三翼之戰=ru:Битва при Далан-Балджутах? Might be worth an {{ill}}?
  • There was actually an existing en:wp article, so I've merged the wikidata items and added a link.
• "turmoil in Hö'elün's personal life" still confuses me a bit. She is disappointed that her husband gets compensated, and plots against some of her stepsons. Is this politics or a troubled personal life?
  • I have expanded that paragraph.
• The Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Women I linked to earlier [5] also claims that Genghis Khan gave a lot of credit to his mother for his success, and said "My mother is the cornerstone of the state". I don't know where this quote is from and how it has been mangled i n translation Mongol->Chinese->English, but if something like this could be verified better it might be worth including.
  • The closest I can get is the Secret History, when Genghis is granting a (too-few, according to her) number of followers to Hö'elün, he is depicted as saying: "Mother toiled most in rallying the people", or something.
• Overall my main (small) concern is how much it helps to read the Genghis Khan article to get background on all kinds of things (transliteration of Mongol, reliability of sources etc.) Some of this background would be good to include here, possibly as footnotes. —Kusma (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I have created a new "Name and sources" section, which addresses issues such as transliteration and source reliability. Hopefully that helps Kusma. Quite possibly, having recently rewritten Genghis Khan, I forget what has been adequately addressed in individual other articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper Stalks His Victims

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper Stalks His Victims is the groundbreaking Victorian-inspired first collection by British designer Alexander McQueen. Narratively, it drew on the famous serial killer, and aesthetically, it drew on Victorian clothing, erotica, and prostitution. Isabella Blow famously bought the entire collection practically on sight, and made herself McQueen's muse and mentor on the strength of it. Jack the Ripper was foundational for McQueen. It earned him a reputation for narratively-driven collections with wide-ranging inspiration, and many of the collection's aesthetic concepts resurfaced elsewhere in his work. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Editor Isabella Blow was" - I've run into issues with this sort of wording in the recent past. Apparently presented like this it creates a "false title" and it should be "The editor Isabella Blow"......
• "British designer Alexander McQueen" - same here I think. Best to check for this throughout

Yes, this gets called out at every McQueen FAC. It's a style variation, both are accepted on Wikipedia, and I continue to prefer it without the clunky additional "the".

Butting in, this is an ENGVAR matter; in British prose false titles sound very American and wrong. I doubt the The New Yorker would let you get away with it either. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Rendering false titles one way or another is not mandatory under the MOS. I hate the "the", and I'm not doing it. It would be inconsistent with every other McQueen FA, which have also passed without unnecessary "the"s. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

So we're just doing partly British English, then. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "McQueen told Bobby Hillson," - already mentioned above so no need to relink and use her full name

Redundancy removed

• "The show was photographed by Niall McInerney. Both his mother Joyce" - McInerney's mother.......?

Oops, victim of a sentence swap

• "accessorized" - UK spelling is with an S not a Z

No, actually it isn't, in Oxford English, which is fine. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

One day I will be a good Canadian and remember the British spellings first time, really

• "Hillson felt he would have" => "Hillson felt that McQueen would have"

Fixed

• "would have done better in a two-year program" - UK spelling is "programme"
• "but Blow recognised it" => "but that Blow recognised it"

SC kindly fixed the Brit spellings for me

• That's it, I think! Great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi ChrisTheDude, thanks as always for your comments. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

SC

A marker for me. I always enjoy these ones. - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I made a couple of BrEng and MOS tweaks here to finish off the last bits of BrEng. I will do my usual grumble about the false titles, but will still support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks always for doing those for me, I appreciate it, and your support :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review from Vami

All sources reliable or used acceptably. Spot-check to follow. No other comment at this time other than to say that it would be a good idea to emphasize Sussanah Frankel's friendship with McQueen to make her relevant as a primary source. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• • Despite what our article says, I don't recall Frankel being one of McQueen's personal friends. On a quick review, none of the major sources seem to support that either. She's a well-known fashion journalist and she covered him quite a bit throughout his career, but no more so than any other journalist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check

• [3]: Checks out.
• [14]: Checks out.
• [18]: Checks out.
• [25]: Feels like garnishing. Has a single sentence connecting McQueen and Hilson, which is serviceable but not useful as a sentence with another two references on it.
  • Yeah this is a relic, it was originally there to document that Hilson was the course founder, but I covered that with other sources without realizing it made that one redundant
• [31]: Checks out.
• [39]: Checks out.
• [42]: Checks out.
• [49]: Checks out; I would advise chasing "obsession" with an in-line citation so that its source is more immediately visible.
  • Per my usual, I prefer not to clutter my sentences with inline citations; end of sentence is MOS-accepted for quotes.

I'm satisfied with the text-source integrity at this point; supporting. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Replies to two above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review (pass)

• Images are appropriately licensed, have succinct captions, and provide context where appropriate.
• Suggest adding WP:ALT. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Alt text texted :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

Non-expert prose review, since I haven't dipped into a fashion-related article in the FAC space yet, although I have read your brilliant series of work on McQueen, and this one is no different. The article is grammatically perfect, well-researched and seems to present all viewpoints fairly. Not much to quibble.

• Suggest maybe linking macabre, for those who may be unfamiliar with the term.
  • Sure, done
• In the runway show subsection, perhaps the second para could me merged into the first, since it is only two sentences.
  • I see where you're coming from, but I think I prefer it separated since Costin's work is a separate thought
• That will be all from me. It's a very great read on McQueen's earlier work. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

(P.S. If you have spare time and interest, was wondering if I could ask for some feedback on a my current FAC)

• Support on prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• For this sentence, (In his early career, McQueen was often accused of misogyny for his extreme designs, a characterisation to which he consistently objected.), I'd recommend clearly attributing who made these accusations.
  • There's no one specific person who did this, it was a constant theme in reviews and early analysis of his work
• I would move masters link up to this part, (the founder and head of the masters course in fashion), as it is the first time it is mentioned in the article.
  • As we have the luxury of doing duplicate links now, I've done that rather than have to choose between linking the first instance and linking the more relevant instance :)
• I am not sure what "quietly providing" means in this part, (this meant quietly providing him with quality fabric from the CSM stores).
  • Basically, she was favoring McQueen a little bit on the down-low. None of the sources say so explicitly, but it appears that students were expected to supply their own fabric. McQueen was dirt poor so he always had cheap trash fabric. Hillson used her position to give him stuff which (again, not explicit, but implied) other students weren't getting.
• This may just be a matter of personal preference, but I am not sure about the placement of File:Mourning brooch containing the hair of a deceased relative. Wellcome L0036419.jpg so that it is cutting across section titles (at least in my browser).
  • I think it's generally okay if it's breaking the section on the right side, where it doesn't interfere with the section title on the left Oop, looks like Ceoil fixed it in their copyedit and I didn't notice, so my comment is irrelevant
• For this part, ( presented her Master's thesis project), I do not believe master's thesis needs to be capitalized.
  • Yup, fixed

I hope this review is helpful. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will read through the article again, but I doubt I will find anything major. Just to be clear, my review is focused on the prose, aside from a stray comment on image placement. I would be curious if this collection is ever brought up in the larger discussions on the fascination with serial killers and how they are represented in the media. Best of luck with this FAC! Apologies for not posting a review sooner. Aoba47 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Aoba you never need to apologize to me, I'm always happy to see your name at my FACs :) Thanks very much for your comments, I've replied above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for the responses and the kind words. I appreciate and agree with the explanations that you have provided. I am always glad to help whenever I can. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you are doing well and having a good 2024 so far. Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Ceoil

Support another pleasing addition to this fascinating series. Made a series of trival edits while reading through. As a quibble, I found the closing titbit on Tina Gorjanc confusing and bordering on irrelevant. But great work notwithstanding, the prose are gripping and fun to read. Moare pls. Ceoil (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Ceoil, thanks for your kind comments and your copyedit. I did revert one change, where you cut "to draw media attention in the hopes of attracting financial backers" down as "to draw media attention and thus financial backers". The "thus" wording, to me, reads like it's a sure thing. But getting a backer was really more like a gamble, which I think my wording communicates a little more clearly.
  I do see where you're coming from with Gorjanc. However, on balance, it feels fitting to me as the project would only be possible because McQueen put his hair into these specific items, and because McWade analysed it as part of McQueen's macabre legacy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Fine on both counts. Thanks for the considered reply. Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Dolly de Leon

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Having previously worked on Filipino related BLPs, here's my next work on actress Dolly de Leon. For the better part of her 3-decade career, De Leon was an obscure figure who predominantly appeared as a background actor with non-speaking roles or what she would call "a device to get the story moving or a sounding board for the lead". Then came 2022 when she achieved international breakthrough after being cast in Ruben Östlund's Triangle of Sadness, where she was described as the "breakout star", earning critical acclaim for her performance as the toilet cleaner, Abigail. She received significant awards attention, including nominations for a Golden Globe Award and BAFTA Award for Best Supporting Actress, becoming the first Filipino to be nominated for the awards. 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) 18:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Dolly de Leon 2023 (cropped).jpg has a clear purpose in the article and has an appropriate caption. The image should have some form of WP:ALT text. Everything looks good on the Wikimedia Commons side.
• I am not fully convinced that File:TriangleSadBFI151022 (2 of 5) (52448157459) (cropped).jpg really adds much to the article. Dolly de Leon is on the far edge and not really visible, especially when compared to the other two people, and it is a pretty low-quality image in general. I get that it is nice to have multiple images, but I just do not see this image being super helpful.

I hope this review is helpful. Apologies for not being more helpful, but I wanted to try and help with this FAC. Best of luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review Aoba47. Alt text added to the infobox image and I’ve removed the low quality image. Always appreciate your review and help. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the response and for addressing everything. This passes my image review. Please let me know if there are images added to the article so I could review them later on. Everything looks good to me. Have a Happy New Year! Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I will definitely let you know if I find some better quality images on Commons. Happy New Year! Pseud 14 (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "British Vogue named her one the 30 most famous stars" => "British Vogue named her one of the 30 most famous stars"

A silly error on my part. Thanks for catching

• "De Leon was cast in several screen roles, during which she also acted in plays," - she didn't act in plays during the screen roles. Maybe try "De Leon was cast in several screen roles, but also acted in plays,"

Revised as suggested

• "De Leon's career prospect improved" => "De Leon's career prospects improved"

Done

• "a television sequel of the 2013 film of the same name" => "a television sequel to the 2013 film of the same name"

Done

• "has a running time of 4 hours and 10 minutes" - is this really relevant?

Agree. Removed this and tweaked to include something more relevant. Hope that works.

• "De Leon stated that she is separated" => "De Leon stated in [year] that she was separated"

Added year

• That's what I got - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and review ChrisTheDude. Comments have been actioned. Let me know if I may have missed anything or if they have been all addressed satisfactorily. Pseud 14 (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I have a question about this part, (starring as a toilet manager), from the lead. What is a "toilet manager"? The article later on describes this role as a toilet cleaner and the Triangle of Sadness article calls the character a "cleaning woman". I do not understand what manager means in this context.

In the film, the part was actually called "toilet manager", and also mentioned in this article/interview: Abigail, the cleaning manager on a luxury cruise on a luxury yacht. Actually, you're called the toilet manager - that's the name that was used in the film. So the terms toilet manager, cleaning manager or toilet cleaner would all refer to her role and were used interchangeably in various articles/publications that I've read.

That may be true, but I still have no idea what it means. In my opinion, it is unclear, particularly to a reader who has either not seen the movie or really read anything about it like myself. If these titles are interchangeable, why not just use one of the titles that is more easily understood to a wider audience? Aoba47 (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I've switched to toilet cleaner consistent with the article prose

• I have a question about this part, (and credits Jose Estrella for teaching acting techniques). Who is Jose Estrella? I am guessing based on the context of the sentence that he was a professor at the University of the Philippines Diliman. If that is the case, I'd say something along the lines of "and credits professor Jose Estrella" as I was not fully certain who this person was when first reading this part.

He is a professor, along with Mabesa. I have added it now.

• Could you clarify this part for me, (by the prospect of financial security)? Based on the previous sentences, De Leon was not having much luck in her acting career so I would think that if financial security was one of her focuses, that she would be more motivated to look a career that is traditionally viewed as more stable. I do understand how her daughter helped her, but this part somewhat came out of left field for me.

I think I might have removed that when I copyedited it. Revised the sentence where it is now mentioned that she worked odd jobs to make ends meet while struggling to establish her career, as this is also supported in the source, which says: Since she had to sustain a regular income for her kids

That doesn't really answer my question though. I had read the parts about her working odd jobs and such, but my question would be why would she view auditioning and an acting career in general as a way to sustain a "regular income" and get "financial security" after almost quitting because she was struggling with her acting career. The part that I quoted above seems to say that she viewed acting as this "financial security" that is somewhat contradicted in earlier parts of the paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Understand what you mean, removed the financial security aspect, and stuck with just her being motivated by her daughter.

• I have a comment on this part, (Set in a dystopian future, Lav Diaz's science fiction drama The Halt (2019) featured De Leon as the education minister in a post-apocalyptic Manila). It seems rather repetitive to have both "dystopian future" and "post-apocalyptic" in the same sentence. I think you could drop the "Set in a dystopian future" beginning entirely without losing anything.

Done

• Why is Ryan Oquiza attributed in one sentence for her review (i.e. for Billie and Emma) but not in another sentence for another review (i.e. for Verdict)?

I've indented to have some sort of variation, so it doesn't become repetitive. I've added it otherwise, but also, only used the last name after the first instance, since his reviews have been used a few more times in the article.

That's fair. I prefer consistency, but I am also fully aware that this is a personal preference on my part and I know that others disagree so it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• I remember there was some talk about De Leon possibly getting nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for Triangle of Sadness. I am not sure if she was really "snubbed" for the nomination as it was not 100% expected by those who follow and gauge the chances for these awards, but was there any coverage about this? It may not be necessarily, especially since she did not get a nomination, but I was just curious as that is where I first heard of De Leon (i.e. in the Academy Awards-related discussions). There are already two paragraphs on this film though so it may be overkill.

I was bummed about that snub too, but from what I've gathered it was mostly Filipino publications that talked about the "snub" perhaps because they had higher expectations. Although I figured, since this was her breakout role and critically reviewed performance, and possibly her work which had the most coverage to this point, that I should focus on the critical ones to write about like how she got the role and the preparations she did, as well as the reviews and recognitions she has gotten, which hopefully I was able to succinctly cover in the two paras. To answer your question though, from a BLP perspective, snubs from Oscars or any awards organization for that matter, are generally trivial or insignificant IMO, so I would agree with you saying it's overkill. There have been plenty of notable actors that have been snubbed from an Academy Award (with FA or GA articles in wiki), but I have not seen such examples were them not being nominated or "snubbed" was ever discussed. Hopefully that makes sense, and sorry for the very long response.

No need to apologize. I appreciate the response. What you said makes perfect sense to me. I had similar thoughts, but I still wanted to get your opinion on it because I do remember a minor conversation leading up to the Oscar nominations about whether or not she would get nominated. I agree that it is better to focus on the other elements here, particularly since this "snub" was not widely reported and for the most part, it is not really something discussed on Wikipedia outside of the extreme cases. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have a comment for this sentence: (She played Carlo Aquino's mother, who prompts her son to track his uncle's disappearance.) If read literally, it says that she is playing Aquino's mother in the movie as if he is a character and not an actor in it.

You're right, I just realized that. I have tweaked it to say she played the mother of Aquino's character.

• For this part, (The critic for Rappler ), why not attribute the critic's name? Also the wording, "the critic", makes it sound like they are the only critic employed by that company. I would be consistent on whether or not critics are directly attributed in the prose or not.

I think I missed that. I've added the attribution to the reviewer's name.

• I am not exactly sure what this means, (the dark character of a powerful and demanding retail mogul), specifically the "dark character" bit. There are so many ways that could be interpreted so further clarification would be ideal.

I removed dark to avoid ambiguity.

• For this part, (she considers herself to be reticent and a "shy" person), I do not think the "shy" quote is necessary as it is already covered by describing her as reticent.

Removed

• I do not think University of the Philippines Diliman needs to be linked twice in the article.

Unlinked

• Is there a reason why the roles for If You Leave and Simula sa Gitna are left blank?

Unfortunately, there are no available online sources that I could find which provide her roles or names for the above work. I've learned in previous reviews, that in the absence of high-quality reliable source for roles, we should just leave in blank. (as far as I can remember)

That makes sense. I have run into similar cases myself so I completely understand that. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• In the "Acting Credits" section, shouldn't there be a table for her theatre work? It is mentioned in the lead as something she is known for, and it has been done in other actor's filmographies, such as Natalie Portman and Anne Baxter for two examples.

I actually intended to create a separate article/list for her performances on screen and stage, however, since her main article a bit shorter, I decided to include the tables on it. As for her theatre work, I've only been able to find articles that mention the plays she has done, which estimates around which period that happened, likely after she was done with university, based on interviews and articles I've read. Since most of her career, she was an obscure figure that played minor or sometimes uncredited roles, there wasn't much information on her stage roles as well. I just worked off on what was available and wrote it as part of her early work.

• That's fair. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again, but I doubt that I will find anything substantial. Just to be clear, I am focusing this review purely on the prose so I am not going into the sources really at all. Hopefully, other editors will participate in this review. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your review Aoba47. I have addressed and actioned your comments. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Appreciate you doing both an image and prose review. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I just have one point remaining with the "financial security" part. Apologies for getting stuck on such a minor point. It just felt a little jarring to read that she took all these odd jobs to support herself while acting and almost gave up on it because it was not going well to then read that she viewed it as a way to get "financial security". Hopefully, that makes sense, and apologies for typing a lot to try and convey what I am thinking. I am glad that I could help. I enjoyed reading the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47 No worries at all, I took that part out so it is conveyed better. Hopefully that improves the flow and structure. Let me know if that works. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

That looks better. Thank you for your patience. I will look through the article again sometime tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

After looking through the article again, I could not find anything further to discuss. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Wonderful work as always. Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and for doing the extra prose review. Very much appreciated. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

William Utermohlen

Nominator(s): Realmaxxver (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is about William Utermohlen, a figurative artist who was diagnosed with probable Alzheimer's disease, and decided to document his mental decline through self-portraits.

This article has been the subject of many failed attempts to get this article featured, and after a look through the sources cited in this article, and generally adding content where I could find it, I am decently sure that this will meet the FA criteria. I say decently because, if the previous four FACs have learned me anything, every single time I thought I was gonna get the star, I failed, so I should never be confident about if it will actually succeed.

Notes:

• Image review conducted by Premeditated Chaos in the previous FAC omits three images that weren't in the article at the time: They are placed in the Early life, Legacy and Exhibitions sections.
• Concerns about lack of comprehensiveness, based on use of the Laino source (called Neurology Today in previous FACs, in FACs 2 and 4) have been addressed. I have also added some extra content from other sources, which is around 700 words of added content. I have also added a new book source, Zausner 2022.

Thanks, Realmaxxver (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

UC

Thanks for bringing this up, and I admire your tenacity in persevering with it. It's a sad story and an interesting subject, particularly as an artist who never got to enjoy the considerable recognition he received. I'm not really qualified to comment either on medicine or on art, but will do my best to pick up MoS, prose, clarity and general polish.

• Diagnosed in 1995, he had developed progressive memory loss four years prior in 1991: any reason not to go with chronological order here: e.g. "he developed progressive memory loss in 1991 and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 1995"? Generally speaking, it's clearer to report things in the order that they happened.

• I did this, but Ceoil pretty much reverted it in the copyedit.

• Upon receiving his diagnosis he began a series of self-portraits influenced in part by the figurative painter Francis Bacon and cinematographers from the movement of German Expressionism.: I'd look at this one again: it's a bit long and it's not totally clear whether in part modifies just Bacon or both (in other words: was part Bacon and part German cinema, or was there a third part of something else?)

• Changed to "influenced by both the artist..." There wasn't really a third part.

• the last of his self-portraits were made circa 2001: I'm not a fan of circa in flowing text ("around 2001" is clearer to the minority of readers who don't speak fluent Latin), but should be italicised and linked if we're going to insist.

• Linked and italicised

• Something's gone wrong at the end of the lead: the semicolon either needs to become a full stop or the last sentence needs a more serious look.

• Fixed

• At the time, that section of Philadelphia was split along language lines; his family would have been in the German-speaking part of the city, but inward migration across the United States resulted in them living in the Italian bloc.: I don't quite understand this -- are we saying that when they moved there, everyone else spoke German, but then a bunch of Italian speakers moved in, leaving the German-speakers now a minority?

• The source states that it was the Germans that moved out of South Philadelphia, and I'm assuming that after that it was primarily Italians. I think inward migration is the wrong term for this, since the article it redirects to (Repatriation) is about when a person goes back to their country; and the source clearly states that these Germans spread out across the US. I have edited the text.

• Due to racial tensions, Utermohlen's parents did not allow him to venture outside of his immediate surrounding: not sure racial is quite the right word if we mean German-American vs. Italian-American.

• Ceoil also took care of this in the copyedit.

• Manu Sharma of the art magazine STIRworld speculates that his parents' protectiveness may have a factor in the development of his artistic creativity: may have been? Does Sharma elaborate at all on how it might have been such, or what it might have done for his art?

• Specified.

• Speaking to The Philadelphia Inquirer in 2001, Utermohlen said about his childhood: "If you weren't good at sports, you were no good at all".: is U. expressing his recollection of his parents' point of view here, or someone else's? It's not immediately clear how this quotation fits into the story.

• Removed

• Seems a bit of a shame; it sounds like a quote with a story behind it that could add a lot to our sense of where he came from, as an artist and a person. Was there really no context to it that could be found? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• I would restate U's name at least on first use in a section, and by preference on first use in each paragraph (that is, don't begin a section or paragraph with "he" or similar).

• Done. Will soon fix this in later sections.

• Utermohlen completed his military service in 1953: was he unlucky enough to be one of the last through the draft? Do we know anything about his time in uniform (I assume he didn't get sent to Korea?)

• where he was heavily influenced by the works of Giotto and Nicolas Poussin: per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I'd briefly introduce who/when these people were, as we did for Walter Stuempfig.

• Specified.

• everybody else... he: the MoS style is a space on either side: everybody else ... he

• Fixed

• The Ruskin School of Art is not just in Oxford, it's part of the university (which would have made U. an Oxford student). We would therefore say "at Oxford" rather than "at Ruskin" (but "at the Ruskin if we explicitly mean the building). Should this feature in his education in the infobox, and do we know what sort of degree he studied (I'm guessing something like an MFA?)

• Ceoil again took care of this in the copyedit he did on the article, I noticed that when I was going to fix it. Also none of the sources I could find specified the degree.

• There's no the in Amherst College.

• Fixed.

• What's the Marlborough Gallery and why should we be interested in it?

• I am pretty sure there was mention in one of the sources of it being his first major exhibition. I thought it was in the Studio 360 audio article, but it wasn't. I'll include that the second I find the source for it.

• From 1972, Utermohlen taught art at the Amherst College in Massachusetts, where Redmond received her master's degree.: as written, it sound as though these things happened at the same time: is that true?

• Yeah it isn't, Redmond got her master's degree in 1975 according to the source, reworded that part of the section.

• lived in London where he gained nationality in 1992: needs to be gained British nationality or dual nationality as appropriate.

• Fixed to British Nationality

I'm going to stop there for now -- at the moment I'm seeing a lot of spit-and-polish stuff that needs a look, and it wouldn't be fair to generate a colossal heap of it here. Would suggest a good look over the rest of the article for similar things once this lot is handled: please do ping me when you're ready for me to move forward. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• He taught art at the Amherst College in Massachusetts from 1972, where he spent his last year as an artist-in-residence. In 1975, Redmond received her master degree at Massachusetts: this is now a bit confused. From what I gather, U was a lecturer at Amherst (again, no the: just Amherst College like Oxford University) from 1972 until 1974, then (also?) an artist in residence for the 1974–1975 academic year, which was also the year where Redmond took her Master's (note spelling: it's a degree that belongs to a master) there. Could the chronology be a little clearer in the text? In particular, we've talked about "his last year" without being clear as to when that was. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Ceoil

Echoing UndercoverClassicist, am also very pleased to see the nominator's continued work on such a worthy subject, and noting the improvements based on feedback during and following the last FAC.

• As a first comment, the TOC could do with some re-organising; maybe merge life and work so it is fully chronological; currently we have "Early life" - "style" - "late works/death" - "late works". The only sub sect here would move to a second-level would be influences. In other words, suggest...."Early life/Six cycles/Alzheimers/Self-portraits/Influences/Legacy.
• Would cut down info on the early cycles; they are frankly very poor and individually not art historically significant; cover them off as a group, removing irrelevant statements like "Some of the Mummers paintings were stored at a house in Germantown that Utermohlen's parents moved to", "According to the French psychoanalyst Patrice Polini, the Dante and Mummers also alludes to the theme of war."

  Key points can be kept like, "cites the Dante cycle as making him into a mature and committed figurative artist", "the inclusion of isolated soldiers represented his feelings of being an outsider", "the cycle was created as a "vehicle for expressing my anxiety", "as an attempt to describe his life before memory loss"

• I think the article is too long, eg a lot of the quotes in the Legacy section could be paraphrased or removed, eg

  "caus[ed] a tremendous stir in the artistic and scientific world." replace "tremendous stir" with "media coverage within"

• "indicative of a process above and beyond normal aging, particularly given his relatively young age at onset" - could be reworded
• "a testament to the resilience of human creativity" - what does this mean
• "his willingness to work with The Lancet made his self-portraits "free from the diagnostic uncertainty which has made assessment of de Kooning's work so controversial" - - what does this mean Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello? Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Wildest Dreams (Taylor Swift song)

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a song by Taylor Swift. Except that the music video was lambasted for featuring an all-white cast in Africa, the song is pretty good imo. I believe this article satisfies FA criteria and hope to bring the bronze star to it. Ippantekina (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Image and media review:

• File:Taylor Swift - Wildest Dreams (Official Single Cover).png has an appropriate WP:FUR, a clear reason for inclusion in the article, and appropriate WP:ALT text.
• File:Mattias Bylund - bingolotto mars 2016.jpg has a clear caption and use in the article. I would recommend including the year that the photo was taken in the caption, but that is not required. I will assume good faith that this image is really the uploader's original work.
• File:Taylor Swift - Wildest Dreams.ogg has a clear reason for inclusion in the article as explained via the caption. The WP:FUR, however, is incomplete as there should not be areas that are "n.a." so those should be completed.
• File:Taylor Swift The Eras Tour 1989 Era Set (53109523971) (cropped2).jpg has a clear reason for inclusion in the article and appropriate WP:ALT text. All of the Flickr links work for the image.
• File:Wildest Dreams (Taylor's Version) - Taylor Swift.png has an appropriate WP:FUR, a clear reason for inclusion in the article, and appropriate WP:ALT text. My only question is about the lack of a link in the source parameter. The original cover has one so why not include one here to more clearly support that this is indeed an official cover?

I hope this review is helpful. Apologies in advance as I will not have the time to do a full review of either the prose or the sources, but I still wanted to help out where I could. There are only two points that needed to be addressed (i.e. the WP:FUR issue with the audio sample and the lack of a source link with the Taylor's version cover). Once those points are handled, I will be more than happy to pass this part of the review. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aoba47, many thanks for the media review. I have updated the FUR for the audio and the source for the Taylor's Version cover, so it should be good now imo. Also while I'm at it, would you mind leaving some comments at my current FTC for 1989? It received a few contrary opinions that I deem quite unfair despite my explanations... would be great if I can hear from an experienced editor like you. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my image and media review. Of course, please let me know if anything additional is added to the article during the course of the review. I will look at the FTC momentarily. Aoba47 (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• "it marked the third time he directed a music video for a 1989 single after "Blank Space" and "Bad Blood"" → not supported in Dyer
• "As the romance ends, the pair is seen shooting in front of a savanna backdrop in a California studio" → this is supported on Dyer page 308 not 307
• "wild animal conservation efforts through the African Parks Foundation of America" → close to the source text "animal conservation efforts through the African Parks Foundation of America"
• "who shoot a film in 1950s Africa" → "1950s" is supported on Dyer page 307 not 308
• "The pair gets involved romantically off-screen, as the video features shots of wildlife such as giraffes, zebras, and lions in a broad savanna" → this is on 308 not 307

(suggest reviewing the Dyer citations. I didn't find anything wrong with Keim or McNutt)

• associated press link is dead
• mtv news ref is missing author
• suggest finding a higher-quality source to replace the Good Morning America ref if possible
• zollo ref should be marked via Medium or Cuepoint

Heartfox (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review, I have addressed them accordingly. I found some other articles from Insider or Buzzfeed so I assume Good Morning America is the best we can go for now. Ippantekina (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Vami

Will review. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

John Littlejohn (preacher)

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

John Littlejohn was an American Methodist preacher, sheriff, judge, saddler, and quite a number of other things, who notably served as a circuit rider during the American Revolution, and as a brief protector of the National Archives during the War of 1812. He left quite the paper trail about his life, so he has luckily been the subject of some very thorough academic biographies and historical coverage. I hope you all enjoy reading my article! I had quite some fun writing it. - Generalissima (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Is there no image of the subject?

• Suggest adding alt text

Also suggest work on consistency in citation formatting before a full source review is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, no images exist of John Littlejohn (at least, that I could find). Totally forgot alt-text, my bad; fixed. I'm unsure what you mean in terms of citation formatting. Generalissima (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The formatting needs to be consistent across different citations of the same type. For example, sometimes you include location for books and other times not, sometimes you have access dates for online news and other times not, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

All the books have locations, except those for whom the name of the publisher is the location they were published (Princeton and Oxford). Just changed it to make it consistent in terms of access dates, however. Generalissima (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Were you planning on doing an image review? Generalissima (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I did - there are no remaining issues to address. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, rad. Is the citation situation sufficiently resolved? Generalissima (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't do a full source review and will leave doing one to another reviewer. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, a source review has already been done by another reviewer - I was just checking if the citation style is okay after clarification. Generalissima (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Ajpolino comments

Thanks for the interesting read. A nice article on a figure I wasn't familiar with. Some notes below. Will add more as I have time.

Criterion 1a ("well-written"): A quick coat of polish on the prose would help. Prose comments below, all gentle suggestions to improve clarity:

• Lead - "he traveled across hundreds of miles of the early United States"
  • Fixed. -G
• Lead - "Settling after several years in Leesburg, Virginia, he served..." I initially misread the "several years" as having been spent in Leesburg, VA. Can it be rephrased to be more clear?
  • Fixed. -G
• Lead - "he served as [jobs] for several decades, as well as [other jobs]" a slightly choppy read. I presume he didn't do [other jobs] for as long? Anything that can be done here?
  • Fixed. -G
• Lead - "During the 1814 British raid on Washington, the Treasury entrusted custody... to Sheriff Littlejohn" There's something about this summary that made me think Littlejohn's role in this affair was greater than what the main article text led me to believe. If I understand correctly, perhaps I'd rephrase slightly to "As sheriff of Leesburg, Littlejohn oversaw a safehouse that contained the National Archives, including [founding documents], for the two weeks following the 1814 British capture of Washington." Your call, of course.
  • Fixed. -G
• Lead - "they were collected and returned to Washington"
  • Rephrased sentence to no longer need this. - G
• EL - "in Penrith, an English town within the county of Cumberland." → "in Penrith, an English town in Cumberland", "in the town of Penrith, Cumberland", or even "in Penrith, Cumberland"
  • Fixed. -G
• EL - "Following the collapse of his father's business and relocation to London," who was relocated to London? His father's business, his father, or just young John?
  • Both him and his father, clarified this.
• EL - "Within a year, he ran away from London, walking..."
  • Fixed. -G
• EL - "During the passage...falling overboard." Reads as irrelevant to his life. Cut?
• EL - "after a lengthy twenty-one week passage" unless that's particularly unusually lengthy, in which you could instead add more about why (if it's known).
  • Rewrote this sentence to resolve both points; sadly, I couldn't find information for why this was delayed beyond possibly disease (but that seems unlikely to delay travel if only a couple servants died.). 21 weeks appears excessively long; Royal Museums Greenwich describes 4 week passages between London and New York as of the 1830s, and the National Park Service describes the Middle Passage (from West Africa to Boston in this case) as roughly 80 days, or about 11-12 weeks. I guess I should add a footnote explaining this! -G
• EL - "Writing retrospectively...instilled by his mother" - should this be moved later in the section? It's before a sentence that begins, "In 1769" a time at which he'd be 12 or 13. Is that the time he was frequently gambling? Or was the gambling time later?
  • Yeah, it seems a little zany but the sources (ultimately via his diaries) describe him beginning to play cards and gamble at 12. - G
• EL - "Northumberland County on the Northern Neck of Virginia with a local saddler" unless that bit of geography is important for reasons not clear to me?
  • Probably not important, you're right. - G
• EL - "Littlejohn began selling "the private [pornographic] adventures of Sailors"[4]" - love the title, though the nature of what he's selling is a bit unclear. Is this work a pamphlet? Book? Puppet show?
  • The source sadly doesn't specify, but I believe these are going to be cheaply printed paperback books. - G
• EL - "Littlejohn took interest... I will go & see him.'" The quote isn't doing much for me.
  • I thought it was funny but most likely not needed. - G
• EL - "Littlejohn read The Pilgrim's Progress" - is this important?
  • It's a very important book in terms of early American revivalism, but not ultimately necessary. - G
• EL - "despite ridicule from a Catholic coworker." is this important?
  • Probably not. - G
• RA - "Sigman's preaching especially affected Littlejohn, writing..." a bit unclear who is doing the writing here. Perhaps "writing" → "who wrote" would help?
  • Good idea. Fixed. - G
• RA - "although still struggled with doubts" missing a word (though perhaps this could be cut instead).
  • Fixed this up a bit. - G
• RA - "Christian, Littlejohn confided in Sigman. He wrote that" - odd wording. Is it true to say "Christian. Little wrote Sigman that..."?
  • Rephrased this. - G
• RA - "Methodist practices and wished to join them" - unclear who "them" refers to. The Methodist church? Sigman's followers?
  • Also rephrased this. -G
• RA - "William Duke at Alexandria, Virginia, to found the town's first..." → "William Duke to found Alexandria's first..."
  • Ooh, good fix. - G
• RA - "class leader" I don't know the significance of this position. Is there any way to clarify?
  • I think it's a fairly low level preaching position. I removed it, as I think what's most important is that he was appointed to a specific circuit. - G
• RA - "he began to travel across much of Virginia" → "he traveled much of Virginia"
• RA - "He preached to Quakers at Winchester, before traveling through Fredericksburg. Here, he was denied shelter, and rode 30 miles (48 km) before he was able to find rest at a sympathetic inn in Hanover County, before continuing onward to Petersburg" - Is this important?
  • I wanted to include the places he traveled through, but seems good to cut it. - G
• RA - "...his mother's displeasure in his conversion to Methodism" - is there any way to add a bit of context for this? Is his mother not Methodist? Were Methodists viewed with particular skepticism? You note in the lead "While not particularly religious as a youth..." but his family's religious leanings aren't discussed in another section (or did I miss it)?
  • - His parents were almost certainly members of the Church of England, as this predated disestablishment. All that is explicitly stated in the sources is that his mother was strongly religious. - G
    • Scratch this, I just realized he describes his parents as "Part of the Church of Engl'd" in the first page of Andrews. Fixed. - G
• RA - "1777 by the Maryland legislature required an" at least the way I read this sentence, it was asking for a comma after "legislature".
  • Fixed! - G
• RA - "as well as issuing a tax on their property" I assume the law issued a tax on refusers' property? It reads as if those who refuse are barred from issuing a tax. I don't have a clever way to fix it, just flagging that it reads a bit weird.
  • Reworded this. -G
• RA - "1782, a year after many other restrictions were lifted" just making sure I understood this. Were "many other restrictions" lifted in 1781 or 1783? I understood the former meaning, but if the latter was intended you could change to "a year later..."
  • I meant that restrictions were lifted in 1781. Should this be clarified more? - G
• Lee - "Littlejohn refused, but continued positive relations with the Anglican church, the two officially separated..." Is the intended meaning that "the two" refers to the Anglican church and the Methodist church (which makes the most sense to me)? Or is it intended to refer to Littlejohn and the Anglican church (which the text implies, and I guess makes sense if there was some "official" separation between man and church).
  • The Methodist and Anglican church. I reworded this. -G
• Lee - "property which had been revived" reads as if the property had been revived, though I assume its the federal revenue tax that was revived? Can this be gently rephrased to clarify?
  • Fixed! -G
• Kentucky - "In June 1821... reduced" in Lawrenceburg." It's not obvious that this is important...
  • Yeah, I can shorten this to one sentence. - G
• Kentucky - "In June 1830, he..." I assume the "he" is Littlejohn? Two other men are mentioned more recently, making the sentence a bit confusing.
  • Fixed this. - G
• Kentucky - "Here he was granted readmission to the Baltimore Conference, with Littlejohn seeking to rejoin the conference where he had begun preaching" - Are the two halves of this redundant? Or is the second part referring to a different conference (early in the article you mention a circuit in Fairfax...)?
  • Tightened this sentence a bit. - G

That's all my prose comments. More to come. With the holidays I have time in bits and pieces. Will get through everything as soon as possible. Ajpolino (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: I made fixes based off your comments; were you able to look that over? Thank you so much for sucha thorough review! Generalissima (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Pardon the radio silence. I've given the article another readover, and the prose looks good to me. As to the "comprehensive", "well-researched", and "neutral" criteria, I read the top two pages worth of Google results and skimmed the JSTOR article I had access to and didn't find anything new and surprising. So I'm happy to support FA status for the article. Thanks again for the interesting read! Ajpolino (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "he was transferred to a trade school and became the apprentice of a London tin manufacturer" At the same time? This seems awfully early for a school that teaches trades, and I would not expect an apprentice to have enough free time to attend school as well (or his master's leave).
  • The source says the school taught reading and writing, so I guess it might not have been much of a trade school after all. In any case, yes, he attended school and then was apprenticed. Thank you for catching this. -G
• Do the sources discuss how it was he crossed the Atlantic? This was not a cheap undertaking, people basically mortgaged themselves and became indentured servants to have the opportunity.
  • No information beyond that it was a ship carrying indentured servants, and that he had been sponsored in some way by the shopkeeper. - G
• "Within a year, he ran away from London, walking 284 miles (457 km) back to his mother's home in Penrith. At around twelve, he became the apprentice of a shopkeeper in Port Tobacco, Maryland. He crossed the Atlantic without his family in 1766 or 1767, ..." the second sentence seems out of place chronologically.
  • From what I can glean from this source, the shopkeeper was based in Maryland but was in London at the time, and arranged for Littlejohn to come over as an apprentice. - G
• "Fisher died in 1772, and Littlejohn briefly stayed in Baltimore " Baltimore is not in Prince George's County, where you told us his mother "settled".
  • Ah, I clarified his mother moved to Baltimore after his father's death. - G
• Can we account for Littlejohn's constant moving between apprenticeships? I realize labor was probably scarce and he could get away with things he probably could not have in England.
  • I'm not quite sure what you would like me to fix here? - G
• "William Duke at Alexandria, Virginia," No need to repeat the state name.
  • - Fixed.
• "as a class leader in the Fairfax County circuit in 1775 or early 1776." Well, yes, but the reader may be a bit misled as to the limits of Fairfax County if they follow the links, since Fairfax County at the time included both Alexandria and Falls Church.
  • Oh, good point. Let me correct that. - G
• "Although Methodists were not pacifists, emphasis on "passive nonresistance" led to many refusing military service." Does this refer to service in the local militia rather than joining the revolutionary army?
  • It refers to military on either side; reworded to clarify this. - G
• "during the incipient phase of the revolution" Huh?
  • Ditched that part of the sentence, you're right it doesn't make sense here. - G
• "Methodists were officially exempted from bans on preaching in 1782, a year after many other restrictions were lifted.[23]" In which state was this? And the earlier restrictions were on Methodist preachers or someone else?
  • Reworked this sentence and added a more direct source. - G

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll be back to this as soon as I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Any updates? Generalissima (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, am traveling.

• "to confess his love to Monica Talbott" Is this phrased in an encyclopedic manner?
  • I put in less flowery language here. - G
• "Anglican nobleman Bryan Fairfax". I'm not quite certain if "Anglican nobleman" is unambiguous but in any event, Fairfax had not yet become a peer.
• "promising material benefits from glebe and ordination within the Church of England in return for assuming responsibility for two local parishes." This feels in the wrong order since Littlejohn could not have benefited from glebe lands unless he had become an Anglican clergyman.
  • Good catch, fixed both of these. -G
• "the twenty-second district of Virginia" The congressional district? Virginia's 22nd congressional district? Do we know who appointed him?
• "a Virginia gristmill adjacent to Chain Bridge." Well, let's hold on a minute here. The Chain Bridge runs from DC to Arlington County today, so in 1814, before the retrocession of the Virginia portion of the District of Columbia, it would not have been in Virginia if it was "adjacent" to the Chain Bridge, but within the District of Columbia.
  • Ooh, very good point. Clarified it was an Alexandria County gristmill. - G
• "On August 25, the day following the British capture of Washington, Littlejohn was given the keys to the home and tasked with supervising them. Littlejohn supervised the documents for two weeks before they were collected and returned to Washington.[36]" Supervising the keys or the documents (at end of first sentence). It might be worth mentioning that the British departure preceded the return of the documents to DC.
  • Good point. - G
• What is a stationed preacher?
  • Preacher who isn't an itinerant. I added some clarification. - G
• You refer to Washington City, which I have no objection to because that's how it was often referred to, especially the governmental area of today. But in the next paragraph, you're talking about "Washington, D.C." so it all reads a bit oddly.
  • Good idea, edited for clarity. - G
• "Each slave was proscribed" Prescribed?
  • Oof, yeah. -G
• Any more info on gravestone/markers, perhaps the text or photos?
  • I can't find a copyright-free image of either, or a non-user generated source which says what they say :( -G

That's it. Sorry to be so slow.

@Wehwalt: No worries! I took a long time on yours so I feel it's fair lol. Made changes as requested. :3 Generalissima (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review by Vami

References are from reputable publishers and meet the requirements of WP:THESIS. Spot check to follow. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check:

• 4: Wrong pages; the obituary for Littlejohn actually appears over pages 486–87 in the linked book.
  • Fixed this and SFN'ed the source! Thank you for catching.
• 11: No problem here.
• 12: I cannot access Andrews 2000, but confirmed that is citation is above-board via Google Books.
• 19: No problem here. Text mentions Littlejohn coming over with a Broomfield to whom he was apprenticed. Was this borne out by other sources? If so, include it.
  • Good call, I included it to help resolve confusion about how he was able to come over. - G
• 26: No problem here.
• 30: No problem here.

• Investigating for the possibility of WP:SYNTH, I found that citation [29] does not support the text "While regarding it as temptation," but does support the sentence before that. I believe you meant to cite another source here.

• This citation correct, it's just buried in the footnote on this page, referencing Weiss' Preecher and Patriot (which I sadly have no access to). -G

• Ah, oops, I missed it. It is as you say: at the bottom of the page. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• 37: No problem here.
• 46: No problem here.

All in all, the citations accurately summarize the references they are drawn from. However, in light of the discrepancies I have discovered, I encourage the nominator to immediately and comprehensively re-review the article and the citations and references within to fix these and other, possible issues. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Vami IV: I did a source look-over myself to catch mistakes. Should be good-to-go now. Generalissima (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Support –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by voorts

• In general, could you please clarify in text when the following events/periods of time occurred (I've bolded the things that need time frames):
  • His father died soon after immigrating.
    • Sadly it's not specified in the sources when this occurred beyond "shortly after".
  • Littlejohn began to regularly attend revival preaching, after hearing a sermon by Robert Williams, an Irish Methodist preacher. The mayor of Norfolk issued a ban on revivalist preaching, claiming that it would incite a slave rebellion.
    • Added a date for when Williams preached, however the others are not specified in the sources. - G
  • Fisher died in 1772, and Littlejohn briefly stayed in Baltimore, where his mother had relocated following his father's death. He then began an apprenticeship under Joseph Selby in Annapolis, Maryland. In Annapolis, he began regular church attendance ...
    • This is not specified in the sources. -G
  • Soon after, he partnered with two other young Methodists ...
    • Not specified in source beyond "soon after his conversion, on the eve of independence." This is presumably 1775, but it could be December 1774. -G
  • He was dismayed to find his mother's displeasure in his conversion to Methodism. Depressed, he began to fear that his preaching had disgraced the gospel and considered drowning himself.
    • This is not specified in the sources. Presumably 1775-1776. -G
  • He was soon appointed as an itinerant in training, and accompanied Watters on the Berkeley circuit, now part of West Virginia.
    • Added date for this. -G
  • He met with his mother in Baltimore, who threatened to disown him if he did not stop itinerant preaching and return with her to England. Littlejohn refused, and traveled to confess his love to Monica Talbott, the daughter of a Fairfax class leader he had first met several years prior.
    • This is not specified in the sources. - G
  • Monica initially refused his advances, asking that his affections be abandoned. Staying at the Talbott residence the following day due to a storm, Littlejohn was able to eventually convince Monica to marry him.
    • This took place in August 1778. Added this. - G
• "At around twelve, he became the apprentice of Thomas Broomfield, a shopkeeper based in Port Tobacco, Maryland. He crossed the Atlantic with Broomfield in 1766 or 1767 ..." - It's not clear if Broomfield was already a shopkeeper before he took Littlejohn to the colonies, or after. If after, what was Broomfield doing in England?
  • Sadly, the sources don't say what he was doing overseas, but he is referred to as "shopkeeper in Maryland" while in England. - G
• "Littlejohn was among eleven Methodist preachers listed in a 1779 General Court docket, but all were able to evade attendance due to the public unpopularity of the General Court." - It's not clear to me how one can "evade attendance" due to "general unpopularity". Couldn't they have compelled his appearance in court?
  • Local magistrates and the general public were unwilling to turn preachers over to the court. I'll clarify this. - G
• "Despite legal difficulties, Methodist preachers saw large growth in church membership during the war. In 1777, over 6,000 Americans were members of Methodist societies, with around half in Virginia and roughly a third in Delaware and Maryland. By the end of the war in 1782, membership had doubled to nearly 12,000. Repression of revivals and circuit riders was lightened as the war continued, with lower courts seldom indicting the preachers. Maryland Methodists were officially exempted from oath requirements and bans on preaching by an act of the Maryland General Assembly in November, 1782." - I think this should be footnoted, rather than in the body, since it isn't directly related to Littlejohn and provides background.
• I'll footnote the figures on growth; the rest is however important background for Littlejohn's legal difficulties, which would not make sense to a reader otherwise. - G
• "While regarding it as temptation ..." - It's not clear to me what "temptation" means here.
  • Temptation to sin. Added a clarification for this. - G
• "From there on, Littlejohn traveled to Christian County, where he discovered land acquired from a fellow Methodist was unsuitable and falsely advertised." - I assume this means unsuitable for farming, but that should be clarified.
  • Good point, thank you! - G
• "Despite previous opposition to the practice, Littlejohn purchased several slaves in his old age." - Do we know why his views changed?
  • Sadly no; he most likely just stopped being able to maintain his farming in old age, but otherwise no info. - G

Nice work. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Voorts: Responded to your feedback - thank you very much! Generalissima (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  A new error was introduced in your last edit: "He was attend school". voorts (talk/contributions) 04:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ope, fixed that. Thank you for catching it. Generalissima (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  With that, I support on prose. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Anarchtye

Reserving a place. Anarchyte (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay.

Lead

• Is the fact he walked relevant for the lead? It's very interesting, but would it be better to keep it in the body?
  • Yeah, fair point. Removed from lede. - G
• Based on our article Itinerant preacher, itinerancy may lead some to the wrong conclusion. Perhaps a different synonym would be better.
  • The sources all describe him as an itinerant preacher, so I feel this is important phrasing to keep. -G
• Any date for when he began his preaching? The lead ends saying "sixty years", but there's no commencement year.
  • @Anarchyte: Good points all around. Made fixes to lede! Generalissima (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Sawyer-mcdonell

First of all, I'm so glad to see that you've taken this article this far! Per all the above reviews, it's an excellent article. I'm going to do a small review today on the religious history aspects, since that's what I know about. sawyer * he/they * talk 15:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

1. When referring to an English Anglican, like Littlejohn's mother, it makes more sense to wikilink the Church of England, rather than the broader Anglican category. However, I think wikilinking Anglicanism when referring to a colonial American Anglican makes sense, as there isn't a specific article about Anglicanism in colonial America (although there should be), and at this time Anglicanism was going through a major shift, particularly in colonial America.
2. "In Annapolis, he began regular church attendance" - Is there any information about what church he attended in Annapolis?
3. "Depressed, he began to fear that his preaching had disgraced the gospel and considered drowning himself." - "gospel" could probably be wikilinked to The gospel#In the Bible and Christianity.
4. "Beyond Littlejohn, few Methodist preachers actively supported the revolutionary movement." Why was this the case? Opposition to military service, Loyalist sympathies, or something else?
5. "Monica Littlejohn died on January 16, 1828, and was buried at Russellville. His son Lewis died that August" - "His son" should probably be switched to "their son" since the preceding sentence discusses Mrs. Littlejohn.

This is pretty much all I've got after reading through it multiple times; I think the above reviews have covered it very well. sawyer * he/they * talk 16:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Sadly no info on what church he attended in Annapolis. I have made the other requested changes though, good ideas :3 Generalissima (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I figured as much about Annapolis. Happy to support FA status. Awesome work! :) sawyer * he/they * talk 17:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations

2022 Tour de France Femmes

Nominator(s): Turini2 (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The first edition of the Tour de France Femmes (a cycling race) - held in 2022 after years of campaigning for a women's Tour de France race. This is my first FAC, it's a GA and has been through the WP:GOCE process. Wish me luck, I'm looking forward to this. Turini2 (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Airship

As always in my reviews, these are recommendations, not demands; feel free to refuse with justifications. Welcome to FAC, and best of luck.

Lead

• The first paragraph notes "[it] followed years of campaigning by the women's professional peloton for an equivalent race to the men's Tour de France." Per WP:LEAD, the opening paragraph should define the topic. If the years of campaigning were important enough to highlight in the first paragraph (or indeed elsewhere in the lead) I would think that adding a "Background" subsection to the body would help.
  • I'm thinking a two paragraph summary of Tour de France Femmes#Historic French races and the first paragraph of the following section.

• I don't quite get the organisation of the lead, with the focus on van Vleuten's race from start to finish coming before anything else. It seems much more logical to me to follow the whole of the race chronologically, especially as it had "only" eight stages. As it is, the person who led three-quarters of the race is only mentioned in the third paragraph.
• You may also want to summarize the "Route and stages" section, otherwise sentences like "She was able to recover as the race reached the mountains" mean nothing to the casual reader—what mountains? how far into the race was this? etc.
• I think you could trim your use of the jersey metonyms: "moving into the yellow jersey in the process" is only vaguely grammatically correct (surely "taking the yellow jersey" is better, but also just "taking the lead" [if you want, "...of the general classification"]?); "...won the green jersey for points classification" is essentially saying the same thing twice. The three other stage winners are surely also worthy of a lead mention, particularly Lorena Wiebes who won two?
  • Try and focus on concision. Look at other FA-class cycling articles, e.g. 2012 Tour de France.

Body

• I'm fairly sure you don't capitalise both words in "The Netherlands".
  • 20% of 144 is not a whole number of people. Better to just say the number of riders.
• The "Route and stages" section can be specific about each individual stage in the prose. What stages are in the "Champagne vineyards" (unnecessarily poetic imo), where do the stages in the Vosges begin, and is the summit finish still in the Vosges?
• "Campaigners such as Kathryn Bertine also welcomed the route." since Bertine's welcome also appears to be due to the variety of stages, you could merge with the previous sentence à la "The variety of stages was welcomed by riders in the professional peloton and by campaigners such as Kathryn Bertine", for example.
• In general, parentheses in the article (when not containing team names/acronyms/etc.) would be better as commas.
• Gerritse winning the QoM classification in stage 3 is not in the cited sources.

Will continue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Airship ? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The nominator doesn't appear to have made any edits to the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I was waiting for you to finish sorry! You said "Will continue" and I thought I would wait until you were done. Very happy to get going on this! Turini2 (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. Tbh, the rest of the article is rather high-quality, especially the "Results and reception" subsection (the "Mountain stages" subsection is perhaps just a touch too detailed), so I'll have a quick run-through after you've addressed the comments above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

The map in the infobox - what is the source of the information on it? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It was requested at Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop/Archive/Jun_2022#Tour de France Femmes 2022 using the official map as a base to create a free version. Does it need a source? Turini2 (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It does, like any information on Wikipedia :-) . Eg see the Source section of the Details page of a map I recently commissioned: File:Battle of the Trebia, opening manoeuvres.png. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed! Hope that's okay, happy to tweak as required. Turini2 (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Pachysentis

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This is my fourth featured article nomination for parasitic worms, which were chosen as they are the first animals listed alphabetically using the taxonomy system (Animalia, Acanthocephala...). This article has went through an excellent GA review by User:Mike Christie and a peer review by User:SilverTiger12. I've done by best to incorporate both user's suggestions and I've also added a bit more depth recently. I believe I've captured all relevant literature (there is not much), but am ready to make any and all suggestions here. Thanks in advance! Mattximus (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Images in this version of the article are ok. (t · c) buidhe 01:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with the removal of the images of the hosts due to the nature of the Pachysentis species. As parasites their entire existence is dependent on the hosts, and with this removal there are no images of the hosts. As it is a list of Pachysentis species, a gallery of hosts does not run afoul of WP:NOTGALLERY. However your suggestion of citations in figure captions can certainly be addressed if you would permit a revert of the gallery deletion. Mattximus (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Passerby comment. I hope that this debate doesn't occur at every single FAC with a gallery, but I'll just echo what I wrote in the somewhat contentious Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inuit clothing/archive1 - galleries are not a problem, and I disagree with buidhe's belief that they violate the MOS. The gallery in this specific article improves the article, and should be restored IMO. SnowFire (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, I also think that the gallery makes a lot of sense here; please restore. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, I also agree that images of hosts for a parasite article are critical, and I have restored the deleted gallery. Mattximus (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  The captions still fail WP:VER. If they were relevant, I would expect that information to be in the article already. I suspect that it's not in the article because the sources needed to source them would not be about the genus. Contrary to what the other commentators said, I am not opposed to all galleries, but all images in an article need to be of encyclopedic relevance and connected to the sourced article text. If the picture is relevant, I would expect that what is depicted in the picture is (at a minimum) mentioned in the article's prose. Otherwise it would seem that the subject of the picture is not important to understanding the article topic. (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Buidhe, as far as I can see the information is in the article -- in the "Species" section each species includes a list of the hosts found. I recall spotchecking some of these when I did the GA review. I think that means the gallery is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  In that case the gallery should be moved to where the information is mentioned. I was expecting the information on hosts to be in the "hosts" section. (t · c) buidhe 17:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment on humans as hosts

Congratulations on the good work that has been put here. As an occasional contributor to WikiProject:Medicine, I wonder if the question whether Pachysentis infects humans cannot be avoided. One's eye falls on the CDC image on the life cycle of the phylum Acanthocephala, with human as an occasional host; and the parasite is mentioned right at the beginning of the article as a pathogen to primates, which include humans. I have not been able to locate a human infection cited anywhere. But lists of acanthocephala that infect humans do not include Pachysentis. I leave to the consensus of the contributors to decide whether something like "Humans have not been reported as hosts of Pachysentis species" can be cited to a review article like this, which does not include it in a list of reported causes of acanthocephaliasis.NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to add this sentence to the end of the "host" section: "There are no reported cases of any Pachysentis species infesting humans in the English language medical literature." and use the citation you provided. If you like this wording I can add this to the other featured acanthocephalan featured articles for consistency. Mattximus (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Cheers. And you'd be welcome to add this further. This leaves a discrepancy between the text and the CDC image. Maybe also add the sentence to the image description? NikosGouliaros (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Added the sentence, your reference, and also a note to the image. I will also repeat these facts for the other FA acanthocephalans, thanks for the suggestions!

References

Running Out of Time (song)

Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

A hit Paramore song about time management and social anxiety. Thanks to NØ for a great GA review and for helping to prep this for FAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment

Just wanted to note that I have not looked at this article in a long time. I had posted a list of additional things that the FA criteria would require after passing the GAN but have not gotten the opportunity to see if they have been addressed. Sorry for not being more help with this and best of luck.--NØ 19:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I addressed most of your comments that you made at the time and now that I have two FAs under my belt, I think this is ready for review here. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

• Per WP:CONFORMTITLE, the album title This is Why should be in italics in the citation titles. An example would be Citation 18 (i.e. the Helen Brown review in The Independent).

  • Done.

• For this part, (which is described as a pop-rock and dance-rock song), I would clarify who is doing the describing. I would assume that it is critics so I'd re-word it to something like, (which critics described as a pop-rock and dance-rock song), but it is unclear and could also mean that either Paramore or fans or someone else entirely described the song this way. I have the same comment for this part, (has been described as a pop-rock and dance-rock song). Just best to avoid any potential misinterpretations.

  • Done.

• I have a comment on this sentence: (Williams said when writing the song, she "wanted to challenge [herself] to write about ordinary things".) There is quite a bit of repetition of "writing" and various versions of it around this area, which is unavoidable since it is about songwriting, but I think this part could be cut down to (Williams said that she "wanted to challenge [herself] to write about ordinary things".). Previous sentences have already conveyed Williams was one of the songwriters on the song so I find "when writing the song" repetitive and it cuts down on the repetition of "writing" a bit.

  • Done.

• I am uncertain about the change to the quote, ("mundane thing[s]"). I looked at the source, and it is singular on purpose as Williams is specifically referencing time management as the "mundane thing" she is writing about so I feel that the additional [s] does change the meaning quite a bit as Williams is referencing a specific thing while the Wikipedia article broadens that out.

  • Changed to "ordinary things", which is also quoted in the article.

• This is just a clarification question, but was there any further information on the remix, such as reviews or coverage on how it differed from the original? I am guessing that this is not the case, but I just wanted to make sure.

  • Not that I have found.

• I wanted to point out there is at least one area that the citations are not in numeric order (i.e. the first sentence of the "Composition and themes" section). It is not required to put them in order so it does not need to be changed. I still wanted to draw your attention to it just in case.

  • Done.

• Why is Sowing not attributed in the prose for the Sputnik Music review while other reviewers and publications are explicitly stated in the prose? I would be consistent with that.

  • Done.

• I would avoid linking pop-punk twice in the "Composition and themes" section.

  • Done.

• I do not think the "standout tracks" quote is necessary. It could be easily paraphrased without losing any meaning. I have been told in the past to avoid quotes like this as it could take away from the more meaningful ones, and I agree with that sentiment.

  • Done.

• I would link anacrusis as I could see readers not being familiar with that term.

  • Done.

• I am uncertain about this part, (and released by Paramore). It is really released by the band and the record company. It was not just a release completely handled by the band itself.

  • Done.

• Apologies in advance as this is a very random question, but when I was reading about the Alice in Wonderland-themed video, it did remind me a lot of the video for Gwen Stefani's "What You Waiting For?", which also involved a person being pulled from a recording studio into a Alice in Wonderland-themed world. Both even involve time management as Stefani's song is all about the pressures of going solo. Did any critics make these comparisons? I highly doubt it, but it was just something that came to my mind while reading it.

  • I have not seen any critical comparisons, but that's interesting. I guess Alice In Wonderland and time management are part of the cultural milieu.

• I am not sure about the prose quality for this sentence: (After entering the world through a guitar case, Williams, along with guitarist Taylor York and drummer Zac Farro, navigate through a colorful world that reflects the anxieties of the song's lyrics.) I think it is the repetition of "entering the world"/"navigate through a colorful world", but something about this sentence just seems off to me.

  • Done.

• Couldn't this part, (then run on a running track), be condensed to (then run on a track)? The current version seems repetitious.

  • Done.

• Did Adrian Garro go into any further detail on how this video was like those by Nirvana and The Smashing Pumpkins?

  • Nope. Just that the "aesthetics" are similar.

• The music video's release date is mentioned in the "Background and release" section, in this sentence: (The release of the music video followed on February 16.) It is not mentioned at all in the actual "Music video" section. I'd move this information down there as that is the more relevant section. In its current form, readers who want to learn more about the video would go to the "Music video" section and then have to search for the actual release date in an earlier part of the article.

  • Done.

I hope this review is helpful. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will read through the article again to make sure that I have not missed anything. Apologies for the nitpicks and the random Gwen Stefani question. I look forward to reading the article again. I hope you have a great rest of the year! Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I've addressed everything above. Thanks for taking a look. Happy New Year! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Realized I missed a couple. Addressing those shortly. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

And done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. It all looks good to me, and I appreciate that you took the time to respond to everything. I agree with all of your responses. I will read the article tomorrow, but I do not imagine that I will find anything major. Thank you for the kind words. Here's to a great 2024! Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Citation 9 has the title as (This Is Why Review: Paramore Fight for the Present on Sixth Album), but the source's title is (On This Is Why, Paramore Fight for the Present Moment) when I click on it. Also the album title should be in italics.

  • Changed.

• This is Why should be in italics in Citation 20, Citation 27, Citation 28, and Citation 43.

  • Fixed.

• Any further information on their performance of this song on the This Is Why Tour beyond the Rodarte clothing?

  • Not that I have found.

This should be everything. Once all of my comments are addressed, I would be more than happy to support this FAC based on the prose. I hope you are having a good week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Everything should be good. Thank you again for taking the time to review. Happy New Year! voorts (talk/contributions) 18:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything and for the kind words. I support this FAC for promotion. Happy New Year to you too! Aoba47 (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Link music video in the lead?

  • Do you mean to wikilink to music video? If so, I think that would be overlinking.

  • Why? It's not currently linked anywhere, so it would be useful to link it in both the lead and the body..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Per MOS:OL, I think that "music video" constitutes "Everyday words understood by most readers in context". I'm happy to reconsider though if you have a different read or think it's particularly important to wikilink to it. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• "The band premiered the song on February 7, 2023, at a concert at the Grand Ole Opry " - I would suggest that "The band premiered the song at a concert at the Grand Ole Opry on February 7, 2023" would flow more naturally

  • Done.

• "In September 2022, Paramore announced their sixth studio album" - I am British so talk differently and am no expert, but is it not the norm in US English to refer to bands in the singular? So it would be "Paramore announced its".....?

  • Done.

• "Williams said that "wanted to...." =? "Williams said that she "wanted to...."

  • Done.

• "She also stated writing about "ordinary things" had" => "She also stated that writing about "ordinary things" had"

  • Done.

• "Writing for Rolling Stone, Larisha Paul said the song's" => "Writing for Rolling Stone, Larisha Paul said that the song's"

  • Done.

• "In The Line of Best Fit, Steven Loftin said the song" => "In The Line of Best Fit, Steven Loftin said that the song"
• "concluding they reflect the song's themes" => "concluding that they reflect the song's themes"

  • Done.

• "Other critics have noted "Running Out of Time" addresses" => "Other critics have noted that "Running Out of Time" addresses"

  • Done.

• "Alexis Petridis wrote in The Guardian the song captures" => "Alexis Petridis wrote in The Guardian that the song captures"

  • Done.

• "Writing for The New Yorker, Carrie Battan said the song" => "Writing for The New Yorker, Carrie Battan said that the song"

  • Done.

• "Williams has said "Running Out of Time" is about" => "Williams has said thar "Running Out of Time" is about"

  • Done.

• "Williams said the song was also influenced" => "Williams said that the song was also influenced"

  • Done.

• "He described it as "a sequel to Afroman's 'Because I Got High'"" - nothing to do with the article, but this amused me as I am not sure anyone would take that as a compliment! :-)

  • "Because I Got High" is a classic!

• "Writing for NPR Music, Clarissa Brooks said the song" => "Writing for NPR Music, Clarissa Brooks said that the song"

  • Done.

• "In Paste, Grant Sharples said the track" => "In Paste, Grant Sharples said that the track"

  • Done.

• "and stated it is "accessible" and a "standout"" => "and stated that it is "accessible" and a "standout""

  • Done.

• "where it is revealed Williams has been daydreaming" => "where it is revealed that Williams has been daydreaming"

  • Done.

• "the band's stylist, said Westwood was her" => "the band's stylist, said that Westwood was her"

  • Done.

• Again, nothing to do with the article, but really surprised it only got to 74 in the UK as I recall BBC Radio 1 absolutely playing it to death

  • That's odd. It's a banger of a song.

• That's what I got - nice read! Paramore are/is one of my son's favourite bands so he will be pleased to know that I reviewed this one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your review. I believe I've addressed everything. Happy New Year! voorts (talk/contributions) 18:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Heartfox

• "fourth single" → not supported in the body
• praising its playful lyrics and well-balanced composition → praising its lyrics as playful and its composition as well-balanced
  • Done
• The album's lead single "This Is Why" was released on September 16, 2022 → The sources support September 28, not September 16.
  • Done (I think I must have accidentally used 9/16 since that was the date of the Pitchfork article).
• paramore.net URLS should be marked as dead
  • Done (must've gone down recently because it was live just a couple of months ago).
• "Atlantic Records released "Running Out of Time" as a single on May 23, 2023" → seems to be odd to omit the specifics of the release, ie to American alternative radio
  • Clarified
• "The song was written by..." → three "and" in one sentence doesn't feel nice to read
  • Split into two sentences.
• YouTube video needs timestamps
  • Done
• a one-sentence paragraph is discouraged
  • Fixed
• There should be a sentence or so about where they are in their career, when they're last album was released etc. The background shouldn't just be about the current album.
  • Done.
• "Other critics have noted", "best on the album and noted" → "noted" implies that something is a fact when it is actually an opinion
  • Changed
• "Critics positively reviewed "Running Out of Time" for its tone" → I think "'Running Out of Time' received positive critical reviews for its tone" reads better
  • Done
• critical reception and commercial performance in same paragraph (the third one) is jarring
  • Done
• "As of December 2023" → is this expected to change? the access dates show July and September 2023.
  • Probably will not change at this point. Removed the as of.
• should specify that Billboard charts referred to are US
  • Done
• flexi disc May 29, 2023, release date not supported
  • Removed the date since the only source I can find for that date is Amazon, which I'm guessing wouldn't cut it for FA?
• release history table needs row scopes, row headers, col scopes per MOS:DTAB
  • Done
• suggest moving band image to background section, not as music sample image
  • Can I think about this? I put it as a music sample image because I didn't want a huge wall of infobox and then image on the right through the background section.
    • At least for mobile view it would work fine, it's just that there hasn't been an established relevance for the image in the "composition and themes" section
      • @Heartfox: Ippantekina is suggesting removing the image so I'm going to hold off on doing anything for the moment. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Heartfox (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Heartfox Responded above. Still thinking about your last suggestion. Thank you for the review! voorts (talk/contributions) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox @Ippantekina: image moved. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Anything else to work on? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Almost none of the first sentence in "background in release" is supported by the Billboard citation. Is there a mistake here? Heartfox (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it does support the sentence: "According to the band, the hiatus — taken after the release of their 2017 record After Laughter — was set into motion by the death of one of York's family friends, which happened while Paramore was filming a music video. 'I just started bawling,” the guitarist shared. 'I didn’t know I had this capacity until that moment. We realized nothing is worth risking our health.' Afterward, Paramore scaled back their touring plans for After Laughter before deciding to take their first-ever break." The article mentions that the band was formed in 2004. I removed the date of the fifth album since I don't think it's important for the background here, and just changed it to 2017, which is supported in that source, and also clarified that they cut their tour short to take their hiatus. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ippantekina

I will do a prose review.

• "Williams said the song is influenced by her personal struggle with punctuality and was inspired by her friendship with Taylor Swift" convoluted and confusing tense switch; why not "... was influenced by her personal struggle with punctuality and her friendship with Taylor Swift"
  • Done
• "and it peaked on several music charts in 2023" I'd specify which charts as there are only four anyway
  • Done
• Is the "See also" link to This Is Why necessary?
  • Nope. Removed.
• "Atlantic Records released "Running Out of Time" as a single on May 23, 2023" I would add the radio format according to the source
  • Done
• "The song was written by Paramore's lead singer Hayley Williams, guitarist Taylor York, and drummer Zac Farro, and Carlos de la Garza recorded and produced the song in Los Angeles" suggest splitting into two sentences
  • Done
• Avoid one-sentence paragraphs
  • Done
• I'm confused with the organisation of the "Background and release" section; why are the February performances mentioned after the May single release?
  • Reorganized
• I would remove the image of Paramore performing per WP:IRELEV
  • My thinking was that showing the band performing on the tour supporting the album/song is relevant to an article on the song itself. Do you feel strongly about removing it?
    • I would leave it for the "Background and release" section instead. Ippantekina (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

More to come.. Ippantekina (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ippantekina Responded to your suggestions. Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions)

• Repetition: "In May 2020, the band's lead singer Hayley Williams stated that" "The song was written by Paramore's lead singer Hayley Williams," "The music video depicts lead singer Hayley Williams"
  • Fixed
• "Critical reception"; this section reads a little WP:QUOTEFARM-ish. I would paraphrase some reviews to avoid excessive quoting.
  • Do you have suggestions? I'm not really sure how to paraphrase most of these quotes.
• Can the Billboard and Consequence reviews be merged into the preceding paragraph?
  • Done
• Inconsistent tenses: "The song had peaked at number 18 [...] The song ranked 43rd"
  • Removed "had".
• Repetition: "The music video for "Running Out of Time", directed by Ivanna Bori [...] The music video depicts lead singer Hayley Williams being pulled"
  • Fixed
• Repetition: "Williams, along with guitarist Taylor York and drummer Zac Farro" (these people are already introduced in the "Background" section)
  • Fixed
• Redundant: "In the "Running Out of Time" music video, Williams wears several outfits"
  • Done.
• "British designer Vivienne Westwood" adding the to fix false title
  • Done (although I don't think false titles are an issue, and I appear to be in the minority of editors).
• Suggest adding rowheaders for the "Release history" table.
  • What would you add to the headers?
    • I added them; per MOS:DTAB. Ippantekina (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

— Ippantekina (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: A couple of questions above RE paraphrasing and row headers. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the row headers; any feedback on those quotes you asked me to paraphrase? I included those quotes as is because I found them difficult to paraphrase without significantly changing the meaning. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support on prose. I agree that paraphrasing is a challenge; couldn't have done it better myself. Great work on this article :) By the way, it would be great if you could leave some comments at my current FAC for Wildest Dreams (Taylor Swift song)-- Ippantekina (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to take a look in the coming days. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review

Licence, rationale, use, ALT and image placement seem fine. Source-wise I am reviewing this version, spot-check upon request. Looks like most of the sources are magazines which are somewhat prominent but which I am for the most part not very familiar with. I wonder if Sputnik Music has any affiliation with the Russian newsgroup notorious for disinformation. It seems like source formatting is consistent throughout. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

No relation to the Russian Sputnik. They're professional music journalists (with reviews indexed by Metacritic) and the website has been around since 2005. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems OK, with the caveat of no spot check and little familiarity with sauces. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 04:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

1964 Illinois House of Representatives election

Nominator(s): Elli (talk | contribs) 19:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the time in 1964 when Illinois elected their entire State House at-large. In a twist no one expected, politicians played politics, leading to a redistricting deadlock and this fascinating election, the only one of its type. This is my first FA nomination and I hope y'all enjoy reading and reviewing it as much as I enjoyed researching and writing it :) I'm on holiday break the next few weeks so I should have plenty of time to respond to comments; also happy to provide digital copies of the offline sources if anyone needs them. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Airship's flyby

Welcome to FAC. Quick note: is it possible to format that lengthy table in the analysis section so that it is collapsible? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure; did that now. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Generalissima's review

I'll take a look at this and see what problems or issues I can find.

• I know you use inline page numbers for some of them, but Improving the State Legislature: A Report of the Illinois Commission on the Organization of the General Assembly, the Illinois Blue Book, and Legislative Redistricting in Illinois: An Historical Analysis are lacking page numbers within the citations themselves.
  • I used inline page numbers for all of those (every book source). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
    • I know, I meant the pages used in the books itself. (Or the page count of the entire book, if you're using it all.)Generalissima (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
      • Not sure if that makes sense to add? Could do it if that would be better though. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

        Yeah, that'd be nice. Generalissima (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• One thing stands out in the lede as unnecessary. The ballot being 33 inches long is noteworthy enough, but why is the orange paper important? All four election ballots were on different colored paper, so it doesn't seem like this was particularly unusual. If this was a one-time-only instance of the paper being colored orange, find a source for that and mention it in the Ballot subsection
  • Just something that was reported in most coverage? Can remove it though. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Looks good! Generalissima (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• You need a source on footnote C.
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Nice. Generalissima (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Prose is generally tight and high-quality. American politics articles have a very particular tone of voice to them and I think you're spot-on at capturing it. Skimming through, I don't see any major prose issues springing out.
  • Only one I could find that irks me any. At the bottom of Constitutional procedure; "Overall, though, the maps were considered a significant improvement." You can avoid needing the 'though' here. "The maps were however considered a significant improvement" perhaps?
    • I've edited this. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
      • Nice! Generalissima (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• I feel this generally meets the Featured article criteria, albeit with some minor mistakes which I outlined. It is certainly well-written and comprehensive, and I do not see anything which would go against NPOV. Its of a good but non-excessive length. The images are well-used. (Ah, if only there was a picture of someone holding the ballot! That'd be good, but probably does not exist.) Obviously, someone needs to do a proper source review, especially on that monster of a citation #1. Good work! Hope to see this polished up a little so it can firmly pass. - Generalissima (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! I've addressed your suggestions above. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Looking pretty good, thank you for the fast work! I elaborated on my first point. Generalissima (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
      • Looking back at everything, I can say Support. Good job! Generalissima (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Suggest adding alt text

• See MOS:COLOUR

• File:1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_Sample_Ballot.jpg is marked as lacking a description and author, and the tagging is contradictory. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I've added a description and clarified the authorship. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Eddie891

• I'll have a read through hopefully in the next week ish. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• " it did not provide any method of enforcement" What would a method of enforcement been? Do you mean it didn't specify when/how the redistricting would occur?
  • Basically, if the legislature didn't redistrict, there was no recourse in the courts, and no other mechanism for redistricting to take place. So, the legislature could choose not to redistrict and they would not be forced to. I've added "should the legislature fail to do so" to the end of the sentence -- hopefully that's good enough? Not sure how to phrase this best without being clunky. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "with courts continuing to allow this practice" What does this mean? How did the courts 'allow it?
  • I've rewritten this as "with courts choosing not to intervene to force redistricting". Elli (talk | contribs) 03:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "A constitutional convention, approved by voters in 1918, aimed to deal with the issue" Where does this appear in the source? It's also not clear to me which issue you mean by 'the issue' here-- the broader lack of redistricting, or just the under-representation of Cook County. I see "allowing cook county representation in the State House of representatives on the Basis of Voting Strength" which would, I guess, address the latter but not the former
  • The relevant part of the source is on page 292: "...the 1921 general assembly was content to allow the constitutional convention then meeting to wrestle with the difficult problem of representation. Voters overwhelmingly rejected the proposed constitution in 1922...". Elli (talk | contribs) 03:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Is there a reason Keogh is red-linked and Fergus is not?
  • Yes! Keogh murdered an attorney and that case is probably notable, though I haven't been able to find quite enough sources for it to write a satisfactory article yet. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "for periodic reapportionment of the Senate, but it did provide that for the House's 59 districts." periodic being?
  • I've clarified this to explain the practice of redistricting after each census. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "in one legislative chamber, but limit its representation in the other, but these proposals died due to strong bipartisan opposition from downstate politicians." I don't believe you've mentioned or established another chamber yet.
  • I've clarified this to list both chambers. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "for if the legislature failed to redistrict." was there a timeframe on this?
  • Yeah. Am not sure it's necessary to spell that out explicitly though? Elli (talk | contribs) 03:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "have districts that would cross include parts of both Chicago and its suburbs" Maybe just "...would include parts..."
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Democrats responded on the same day with a plan to instead have districts" I think the relevance of this is predicated on understanding that democrats are concentrated in cities, so would have been in favor of this, but that would not be clear to someone just reading the article-- if that was the case in Chicago at this time
  • Yeah, this was the case. I guess the thing is, it's so self-evident to political observers that it's often not described explicitly? So mentioning that this would give Democrats a political advantage would be SYNTHy given that the sources I'm using don't explicitly say it (though obviously a party isn't going to propose a plan that wouldn't give them some advantage). So not sure how best to deal with this. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "that would only remove one district from there, at the expense of a district in Lake County" meaning that Lake County lost a district, or a district that would have been added to Lake County was not?
  • The latter. I've changed "in" to "planned for"; not sure if this is the clearest it can be but not sure how to better word it. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "deliberate under-representation of Republican areas" I don't think it's clear what is being referred to as 'Republican areas'
  • The area here is particularly Lake County. Newspapers from the time mention this, though I haven't found one that makes the connection that the secondary source I'm using does (while that secondary source doesn't explicitly mention Lake County here). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "of which Kerner appointed five of each " the "of which...of each" phrasing is a bit awkward. I would maybe rephrase to "Each party's state central committee nominated ten candidates for the redistricting commission. Kerner appointed five from each party on August 14, 1963"
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Starting on November 14, the Republicans on the commission began boycotting the meetings" raising the questions: When did meetings begin? How often were they?
  • Sadly there isn't great secondary coverage on this. I think most of the meetings received some coverage in newspapers but I'm not sure if there's an easy way to find out how many they were. They started after the commission was appointed in August. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "two days before the final deadline" consider adding something along the lines of "... to agree on a map"
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "party to nominate 118 candidates for the 177 seats available." So was there no consideration for third party candidates?
  • There was, though it wasn't initially expected for third parties to run; they needed 25k signatures to do so (see this newspaper source cited later in the article. However, coverage about the election procedure doesn't mention the signature requirement, presumably because no one was seriously expecting a third-party run, and it was obvious that both major parties would qualify. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• You never state the date of the election in the body of the article
  • Added a mention in the "Election procedure and campaign" section. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Maybe just "stating that they still believed they had a chance of victory" -> "believing they still had a chance of victory"
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "were reported on November 26" Do you know why the delay?
  • I think it was because of the extremely long ballot (and in general results can take a few weeks to fully count, even nowadays). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "claiming that there were more votes cast than voters registered in five precincts" did they ever decide whether this was actually the case?
  • The recount didn't, and that's the most decisive thing that happened (and is mentioned). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "releasing the DuPage results only hours before legislators were sworn in" Were vote counts not typically released?
  • Nope! The results couldn't be sent to the secretary of state for certification due to the injunction. I think some partial results were released, but not in an official way if that makes sense? Elli (talk | contribs) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• How do the sources determine that "The results were strongly influenced by endorsements... [endorsements] were mostly responsible for the results"? That seems like something that would be hard to quantify
  • The results almost perfectly correlated with newspaper endorsements, and didn't really correlate with anything else. The sources on this are mainly just one guy's analysis (whose writing I've used as a source for much of this article), but he seems pretty reliable and there aren't any other theories mentioned in other sources that I've found. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• I think it might be good to somewhere explicitly state the seat balance after the election
  • I've added a mention of the Dem seat number in the first Analysis paragraph (the Republican seat number was already mentioned there). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "The resulting maps were relatively fair to both parties, though caused a significant shift of power from downstate to the Chicago area" feels like there's maybe a missing word in here?
  • Fixed. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• The two paragraphs beginning "The legislative process was not successful for redistricting" feel only tangentially related to this article. Could maybe be condensed?
  • I've tried to tighten the wording a bit here. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• "In 2000, Pat Quinn" maybe define who Pat Quinn is?
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting article. That's a first pass. Not wedded to any of these points at all. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eddie891: thanks again for your review! I've implemented many of your suggestions and explained my thinking regarding the rest. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, only a couple of responses which I'll put here:

• Suggest adding the process for third party to make the slate, as you later say "that they had failed to gather enough signatures"
  • I've expanded upon this. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• "legislature was required to redistrict the state, it did not provide any method of enforcement should the legislature fail to do so" Maybe just "...it did not provide any method of enforcement if the legislature did not"
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• I can't think of a great way to handle the Chicago/Democratic thing without being synth-y, so probably best to leave it out.
• RE: "The two paragraphs beginning "The legislative process was not successful for redistricting" feel only tangentially related to this article. Could maybe be condensed?" I'm not sure why the sentences about happenings in 1991 or 2001 are really relevant here at all.
  • I get where you're coming from here. The problem is that it's relevant to mention the failure through the entire period (I definitely want to keep the "The failure of the legislature to redistrict in every cycle between 1965 and 2001" sentence), and if I only mentioned the 1990s and 2000s failures in passing, I think it could leave a reader wanting ("what happened in 2001 that caused the legislature to fail?"). I agree that it's a bit detailed for something that isn't super closely related but I don't see a better way of doing it. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to have another read through before supporting, but I doubt much else will come up Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Think I've addressed all of your comments now :) Elli (talk | contribs) 20:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think you cite the 87 / 90 seats in the previous election anywhere?
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• I'd expect to see two-thirds or supermajority mentioned in the article body
  • Added a mention. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• I generally think of the past tense of veto as vetoed, not veto'd
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• 33 inches should have a conversion factor
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• "which were made up of delegates elected on the old legislative lines" Do you cite this in the body?
  • Yep. "The emergency bill passed by the legislature in the special session allowed each party to nominate up to 118 candidates at their party convention.[13] Delegates to each party's convention were elected using the previous districts during the state's April primary.[1]: 301–302" (start of "Election procedure and campaign" section). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• " Both political parties received significant criticism for their failure to redistrict." Do you cite this in the article body?
  • I've added a sentence for this in the body, and changed the wording to "Politicians in both political parties...". Elli (talk | contribs) 20:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Vami

I will also review this shortly. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 18:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Will wait for replies to Eddie's comments (don't want to reinvent the wheel). –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vami IV: I've replied to all of his comments now. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vami IV: I've addressed all of your comments now, though there are a few that aren't totally resolved (where I would like your opinion). Thanks for the review btw :) Elli (talk | contribs) 18:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• Why are there two paragraphs to expand on a single sentence in the first sentence?
  • Not sure exactly what you're asking here? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    • OK. Should have clarified. The second sentence of the lead first mentions a failure to redistrict. Paragraphs 2 and 3 walk us through the history of failure to redistrict in Illinois. The result is a lead of five paragraphs; that should not be. A more concise summary of no more than four but optimally three paragraphs is optimal. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
      • I've consolidated those two paragraphs into one and removed some less-relevant details. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• There are several possible links missing from the lead. The Democratic and Republican parties. The Illinois Supreme Court. The office of the Governor of Illinois.
  • Linked these. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Everything else

• Recommend linking the Constitution of Illinois.
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• "While the Constitution of Illinois stated that the legislature was required to redistrict the state" How often?
  • Clarified. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• "and downstate legislators did not want their region of the state to lose influence." "downstate" already implies that the state (of Illinois) is shared; delete "of the state".
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• "legislators chose not to redistrict the state, with courts choosing not to intervene to force redistricting." The change of tense here is unnecessary; suggest "chose not to redistrict the state and the courts chose not..."
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Worth mentioning that Cook County is where Chicago is, I think.
  • Done (not sure how I like the wording on this? couldn't think of something better though). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• "requiring redistricting after every decennial U.S. census." Recommend a Wiktionary link for "decennial".
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Each chamber created their own map, and passed the proposed map of the other chamber," I'm confused; is this supposed to be "to the other chamber" or is this correct?
  • Basically, each chamber created a map only for their own chamber, but since the maps needed to be passed by both chambers to go into effect, they each passed the map that the other chamber came up with as well. Not sure of a better way to phrase this? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    • "Each chamber created their own map and passed the proposed map to the other chamber..." as a start, I think. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Hm, I've changed up the wording a bit; think it's more clear now. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• "The map used for the House of Representatives map was fairly apportioned" Too many maps here.
  • Fixed. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Edward Jenison, a former congressman" State or federal?
  • Clarified (federal). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Is there a need for repeating that there was a maximum of 118 candidates per party and their endorsements of straight-ticket voting in #Election procedure and campaign?
  • Probably not, but I'd like to keep that first sentence for flow reasons. Could remove the number (just say "allowed each party to nominate candidates") but not sure if that would be an improvement. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• #Analysis has duplicate links for Stevenson and Eisenhower. Stevenson has another duplink in #Aftermath.
  • I usually link relevant terms in each section (even if linked earlier in different sections). I think this is compliant with DUPLINK? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Mmmmm okay; checks out. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• "and Eisenhower 79th Republican" Recommend a "the" between Eisenhower and 79th.
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Duplicate link for Touhy in #Aftermath.
  • Same here as above. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• "especially regarding improving how the legislature operated." Revise; too much happening at once, verb-wise. Suggest "especially improvements to the operation of the legislature."
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• "while new maps for the State Senate had to be passed to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in Reynolds v. Sims" Clarify that this is the Federal Supreme Court; link the Supreme Court of the United States.
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• "and would be randomly chosen by the Secretary of State" link this
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• "However, the Supreme Court, controlled by Democrats," State or Federal?
  • Clarified. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

All my comments have been addressed. Pleased to support now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 20:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose from Hurricanehink

Drive-by reviewing. This one intrigued me. It's a lot of small quibbles that add up to an oppose from me (for now).

Lead

• You should probably wikilink "redistrict" in its first usage in the first paragraph of the lead.
  • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Speaking of leaking, I feel like the lead needs to mention U.S. state at least somewhere. It takes until the end of the lead to mention the US, and not that "Illinois" is terribly ambiguous, but I feel like the country would be listed if it was in any other country.
• "There were expectations of widespread voter confusion before the election, and a high number of undervotes, but this did not happen. " - just to pick this apart a bit, there's no mention of the word "confuse" or "confusion" anywhere else in the article but the lead. So, I gotta ask, is there a source for that part? I see the undervote part mentioned later, when it says:

• Before the election, the sheer number of ballots to be voted on led to predictions of a high number of undervotes in the House of Representatives election, but post-election analysis revealed that this did not take place."

I see that this is sourced, but I also notice that a lot of the lead was written in passive voice, and this sentence doesn't say who even made these predictions. Pundits? Election officials? This is me being picky, but it's something that I'm looking out for, now that I finished the lead and did a spotcheck.

Background

• I got a bit confused for a minute in "1960 redistricting cycle" over the year. You first mention 1962, then 1964, then 1960 census, then "April 23", without any reference to the year. I believe it's 1963, but please double check.
• "The commission faced harsh criticism for its failure to agree on a map, with particularly strong criticism directed at the Democratic members for insisting on more Chicago-based districts than the city's population warranted." - this I think could be expanded a bit. "Criticism" is a pretty broad to be used twice without saying who criticized. Were there any opinion polls?
• " This lawsuit was initially dismissed in Sangamon County Circuit Court before being appealed to the state's Supreme Court, which also ruled against Williams." - when? This is an example where passive voice can be eliminated to make it that much stronger, "The Sangamon County Circuit Court dismissed the lawsuit on X date"
  • I've expanded and rephrased this a bit to include the dates. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• "The bill was signed by Kerner on January 29 after it passed 161–0 in the House and 46–6 in the Senate." - the six defections in the Senate is mildly interesting to me, and I wonder who they were, if there was a pattern. I'd imagine someone disaffected, but I'm not sure who.
  • Did some searching; seems to be that some Senators were unhappy over the limitations on the number of members of each party that could run in the election as they viewed it as corrupt. [6] has some who objected to an earlier vote and [7] mentions the bill's passing as well as some in the opposition. Looking for more comprehensive sources though to add more details. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Election procedure and campaign

• "The emergency bill passed by the legislature in the special session allowed each party to nominate up to 118 candidates at their party convention." - here is a great example where a bit of reordering makes for a stronger sentence. In its current form, it's a long sentence without a lot of structure.
• "Third-party and independent candidates could also run, though they needed to gather 25k signatures to make the ballot." - "25k" is weird here, considering every other instance in the article writes the digits up to the hundreds of millions.
• "The election was held on November 3, 1964, as part of the 1964 Illinois elections." - and also the 1964 presidential election. If you want to flesh that out, maybe mention why Election Day for president is on the first Tuesday of November? (Presidential Election Day Act of 1845)
• "Delegates loyal to Percy refused to renominate nine incumbent legislators from the Chicago area, a part of the so-called "West Side bloc", who were viewed as loyal to the Democratic political machine in Cook County.[" Who?
• "Incumbent legislators were placed at the top, ordered by seniority, alternating between candidates from Cook County and downstate. "

• I'd love if you could add something like - "Accordingly, the Republicans nominated [Majority leader XX] first, and the Democrats nominated [Minority leader YY] first."

• "Before the election, the sheer number of ballots to be voted on led to predictions of a high number of undervotes in the House of Representatives election, but post-election analysis revealed that this did not take place." - was there an exact percentage given? Was it exactly zero? If you don't have the numbers for this, it's ok, I was just curious.
• "ensure representation from every district in Illinois". - I see this is in quotation marks. Did someone say this? Was this an official policy/slogan?

Aftermath

• " However, at-large elections have been held for all of a state's congressional seats due to similar failures to redistrict." - what do you mean?

All in all, a really good read, and I kept wanting more. I hope that my issues are fairly minor to address. I'm not sure which parts I brought up can be expanded, but I hope it's not too arduous. I do believe this article is close to FA standards. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! You've definitely caught some things I've overlooked and I'll get to addressing them soon; shouldn't be too hard. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

1982–83 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Season's greetings, O denizens of FAC. Here is my holiday gift to you - yet another bloomin' Gillingham F.C. season article. I hope you enjoy it. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! Ho ho ho!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Suggest merging the 2nd paragraph of the background section into the 3rd, since it seems to be two sentences only.
• the reporter for the Sunday Mercury contended that -- maybe this can be a separate sentence.
• Three days later they beat Orient -- comma after Three days later
• Two days later they began a run -- same as above
• Brilliant work on your Gillingham series, as always. Not much to quibble and very well-written as we would expect. Hope you're enjoying the holidays! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Pseud 14: - thanks for your review - all done! And yes, the out of office went on yesterday lunchtime and all is good. Hope all is well with you too! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

HF

I'll review this later this week. Hog Farm _Talk 19:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• The number formatting for the 16 October '82 attendance at Cardiff City is different than the others
• "Bruce and Adams were both voted into the Professional Footballers' Association Team of the Year for the Third Division by his fellow professionals" - by their fellow professionals?
• Recommend consistency with linking publishers in the sources and with linking or not linking the publishing locations
• Recommend including publishing locations for all sources if feasible
• I see no obvious concerns with source reliability (although I did not conduct a source review)
• No red flags for images

I'm going to go ahead and support; none of the minor issues I noticed would keep me from supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 03:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

And for those who are wondering, I did cross-reference the results table to the article body for consistency, and also recalculated the goals for and against; noted no issues. Hog Farm _Talk 03:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: - thanks for your review - all addressed! Re: the works cited, all publishers are linked which have articles, and all locations are linked bar London, which I believe doesn't need to be linked per whichever guideline it is that says not to link extremely well-known places -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

SC

Nice to see some big names early in their careers. Very little for me to complain about here:

• ”one victory in the first 14 games” -> fourteen games, per WP:NUMBERS
• ”Six wins in the final 11 games” -> eleven games

Third Div

• ”A week later, Ken Price...” This is a bit of a run-on sentence that could be split after “remaining”: either full stop or semi-colon would work well.

That’s my lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@SchroCat: - thanks for your review, all done!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support - SchroCat (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Image and source review

Reviewing this version: Is there a source for the kits in the infobox (not for the images, but that these are the actual kits). Otherwise, image licence and use seem fine for me. I think the ALT text needs some work; I don't think you mean to describe the appearance of the players in this context. Source spot-check upon request. Who published the "Gillingham Vs Oxford United Matchday Programme"? https://www.newspapers.com/article/western-daily-press/136096230/ and https://www.newspapers.com/article/reading-evening-post/137167991/ are given without a date. Is https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-guardian/136845998/ really untitled? Sometimes sfn references are given with p despite there being multiple pagenumbers, and sometimes with pp despite only one page number. I guess these local newspapers are just about adequate sources for this type of topic. Nothing among the books jumps out as unreliable, but note that this isn't a field where I am deeply familiar with source reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus::

1. The kits are sourced in paragraph 2 of the "background" section.
2. I am not really an expert on alt text, how should I improve it?
3. The match-day programme was published by the club
4. https://www.newspapers.com/article/western-daily-press/136096230/ has a date, not sure what the issue is there
5. So does https://www.newspapers.com/article/reading-evening-post/137167991/
6. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-guardian/136845998/ is an "insert" below an article about an unrelated match and has no specific title of its own
7. Fixed the p/pp issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The rule of thumb I use for ALT text is "ALT text should substitute the function the image has in the article". So unless the looks/appearance of a player is important, it doesn't need to be in the ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - altered the only one where this seemed to be an issue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I didn't notice that the dates were already there for 4 and 5, mea culpa. With the caveat of no source spot-check, this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Harper J. Cole

Hi there, a few thoughts.

• Six wins in the final eleven games of the season, however, meant that Gillingham finished the campaign in 13th place. Maybe mention how many teams were in the division here, to give context to their finishing position.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• The highest attendance recorded at the club's home ground, Priestfield Stadium, was 14,446 for the League Cup game against Tottenham. A bit ambiguous—this could be read as meaning it was either the highest attendance in 82–83, or the highest attendance in the history of the stadium.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• It's not something needed for FA status, but I see that current football season articles, e.g. 2023–24 Gillingham F.C. season, have a different style of listing results. The colour coding makes it quite easy to see how the results went at a glance. Is that something you might look to change in the future? Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • This is something like the 30th Gillingham season article I have brought to FAC and personally I would prefer to keep it consistent with all the previous ones. It's also worth noting that all those collapsible boxes on the 23/24 article are not compliant with accessibility requirements...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Harper J. Cole: - many thanks for your review, responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - support. Harper J. Cole (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number

Nominator(s): NegativeMP1 23:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number, a top-down shooter indie game released in 2015. While not being influential to indie games as a whole like its predecessor, this game is still particularly for being refused classification in Australia due to a scene which depicted sexual assault, where it remains banned to this day. I've been working on this article basically since I started editing Wikipedia, and got it to GA status with Jaguar back in October with an additional pre-FAC peer review being done by ProtoDrake earlier this month. After eight months of work, exhausting all sources of substance that I have been able to find, and two reviews being conducted from other editors, I believe that this article meets the FA criteria. This is my first time nominating an article for FAC, and I look forward to reading and addressing any comments. NegativeMP1 23:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Panini!

I don't know anything about this game going in, so I should give good insight on making sure explanations make sense. I did play this game called SUPERHOTline Miami in middle school which was a blend of Superhot and Hotline Miami. I remember it being fun. I played a few technology classes that had a row of computers in the back to play on. It was pretty difficult game, probably not because it was actually hard, but the computers were just so slow. And computers were doing real good around this time, they just had some cruddy, outdated computers. Some of their DVD slots were busted and couldn't even eject. Unlike computers, however, those weren't doing real good, and we never used DVDs for educational purposes. I did in elementary school, though.

What am I doing here? Oh, right.

Lead

• "The game takes place before, during, and after the events of Hotline Miami..." - Oh boy. I hope I don't get a headache.
• "...the player is tasked with defeating every single enemy inside through any means possible..." - But the couples are fine. "single" can be dropped.
  • Done.
• "...and was confirmed to be in development via Twitter..." - I suggest specifying when (what year, or both year month if you need to discern dates) instead of how ("via Twitter"), since the means of announcement isn't as important.
  • Done.
• "A localized version released in Japan on June 25, as part of Hotline Miami: Collected Edition. An Android port was released on August 4 of the same year." Is there any gameplay or quality changes in these ports that need to be specified?
  • Besides Collected Edition being localized into Japanese, to my knowledge no.
• "...received generally positive reviews from critics, with reviewers praising the soundtrack, but having divisive opinions on the story and gameplay..." - Story and gameplay are pretty much what makes a game a game. Metaritic reads "generally positive reviews" and whatever they say is always used in video game leads; stating "mixed reviews on story and gameplay" suggests a 50/50, so if the game were attending school it would fail. In short what I suggest is getting more specific with what was liked and disliked: when it comes to story, did critics like the characters but hate the plot? With gameplay, did they like the mechanics but not the combat? Stuff like that. For example, my first FA reads "Critical reception of the combat system was mixed; while praised for its innovation, there was criticism for its lack of difficulty and purpose."
  • As weird as this sounds when the game has a 74/100 on Metacritic, this is basically how the game was received by the major outlets that I included in the Reception section. I've specified that critics were more divisive towards the ending than the story itself though.
    • Okay no, scratch that, I reread the section and I don't know why I did this. Reverting that part but the point remains the same.
• I haven't read the rest of the article yet (I'm reading top to the bottom because that's how you read) but from a quick glance there seems to be more development info that can be mentioned in the lead. Most people usually give a detailed announcement to release timeline in their leads but I think that doesn't give enough WP:DUEWEIGHT to the development section, which usually details why the developers made certain design choices. Does this game introduce any new mechanics? If so, why did they add it? Stuff like that. Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon's third lead paragraph details development details if you need an example, but keep in mind the development section of that article is like a mile long and you might not have nearly as much details.
  • Yeah there's nothing I can really place into the lead except that the game was designed to be the last in the series, which I've added. The game doesn't have that much specific development information.
• Infobox looks like it's fully cited in the body from a glance.

Gameplay

• Yuck, too much blood in that image. I hate it! Get rid of it.
  • I can't tell if this is a legitimate review comment or not, but this game and its predecessor are known for violence, so having a gameplay screenshot that does not show blood may as well not be possible.
• You do not need to write out Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number in every instance it appears outside the first; just Wrong Number will suffice. It looks like you only do that at the beginning of every section though, which is fine. I think I do that too? I can't remember. I haven't written about video games in a while.
• I think you should link level (video game) on "broken down into several stages" instead of "divided into several chapters". Unless I'm missing something about how these levels are organized?
  • Stages and Chapters refer to two different things here. A chapter is the actual level, which typically takes place in a building, whilst a stage is an individual floor of the building.
    • Interesting. What you've specified here about the floors in the building I think would be good to specify in the article, since it's not the the traditional "video game stage" per se.
      • Made the specification, hopefully that doesn't count as original research.
• This section is very solid.

Synopsis

• "The plot of Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number is told out of order, before, and after the events of the original, focusing on events in 1985, 1989, and 1991." - Following "out of order" should be a colon. Also, the lead specifies the game also takes place "during".
• I suggest linking Russian mafia and neo-nationalism.

• Done.
• You do link the former eventually, but it should be linked in its first instance.

• Delinked in this instance.

• Is the fact that Jake is obese necessary to understanding his character? As in, is it important to the plot?
  • No, it was a description of the character himself. Removed this bit.
• Following "...member of 50 Blessings" should be one more semicolon, not a comma
  • Done.
• "As they make their way through the building, they're Colonel - having apparently gone insane - murders..." - You should use em-dashes (—) here instead of regular ol' dashes. What's the difference? I don't know, they're longer or something. Why does it matter? I don't know, they're longer or something.
  • Done.

Development

• I feel "patching" is too jargon-y compared to "fixing bugs"
  • Changed to the latter.
• The sentence at the end of paragraph one is pretty long and full of a lot of engine names. Can you split it in two?
  • Done.
• "The game was designed to be the final game in the series" -> "The game was designed to be last in the series
  • Done.
• Remove the hyperlink from cutscene at the end of "Music" as it is linked above.
  • Done.

Reception

• Specify "Steven Burns" in his first mention, not just Burns.
  • Done.
• Merge ref 49 and 54, they are the same
  • See below response.
• Actually, it looks like most if not all of the review sources have two duplicates: one for the table and one for the body. Most of the table refs already have ref names so hopefully this will be an easy fix.
  • Opposite of that actually because I edit in visual editor. I'll fix this soon but not in the same edit as where I'm changing everything else.
• This section consists of individual opinion after individual opinion. It's okay to summarize similar reviewer thoughts into one sentence or two with multiple refs if they share the same opinion, similar to what you do in the intro sentence to each paragraph. For an example of what I mean here's this format I made a while back for reference. It's pretty outdated to me nowadays (and in general, USGamer no longer exists), but it shows what I mean by summarizing. See also this essay that does a much better job.
  • I attempted to follow that essay as much as I could, but I can make some adjustments or rewrites to the section to follow it better shortly.
• I'm unsure what "Rezzed" is.
  • Specified that it's an expo.
• "Many viewed it as a "deeply troubling moment in an otherwise excellent demo" - This implies many said this exact sentence. I would change it to "Many viewed it as what ____ referred to as a..."
  • Done.

I publish my section reviews in real time. More coming. Panini! • 🥪 23:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Alongside all adjustments I made yesterday, I just did a full article restructure to define sources with source mode in Reflist instead of the visual editor format (defining sources as ":1" or etc.), which should eliminate the duplicated references in the Reception section. I've also made some adjustments to the Reception section writing. NegativeMP1 05:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If I had noticed your note about the visual editor earlier I would have offered to fix them for you! Sorry to leave you with a hard job. But, hey, FAC is hard.

I wish I could sit down and do a bit more thorough review but I've been short on time recently, and I'm just about to fly upstate very soon. One more note about references; Destructoid is listed as situational per WP:VG/RS and goes on a case-by-case basis when it comes to the author of the review. If the author is a credited and reliable one it can be kept, but is rarely is. If you can prove they're a credible source then it can stay at a FA level, but in FAC Destructoid is usually cut. This isn't too big of a deal for you since the only use of them outside the review table is a one-off statement. Other than that, the article is rad! I also left one comment above. Panini! • 🥪 23:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! As for the visual editor thing, no worries as it was honestly long overdue to convert the references over to source, I don't think I'm going back to visual editing after seeing how much more convenient the 2017 wikitext editor is. Anyways, the only Destructoid reference in use here is a review from Chris Carter, whom isn't just a staff editor, but is the managing editor/reviews director of the site. The review is probably acceptable to include because of that, but if more people review this article and object to the use of it then I can supplement it, the review is only used for the soundtrack section at the moment anyways. NegativeMP1 00:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

For holiday reasons I can't verify Chris Carter, but I won't wait for someone else to do so. I support this nomination. Panini! • 🥪 21:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Vami!

me review me review –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:26, 12 January 2024‎ (UTC)

Welcome to FAC, comrade! I'm glad to simultaneously be helping this great game get more much-earned recognition, pay tribute to a dearly departed friend who loved it by doing so, and helping out a new friend take the next big step of his Wikipedia journey. At first, I was going to limit this to a source review, since those are usually the biggest hangup for FACs—at least in my experience. But since it's your first time here and I was doing a complete text-source integrity check rather than just spot checks, I was looking at the prose anyway so I thought, "why not just do a prose review too?" Usually I don't do this since it feels like taking two bites out of the apple, you know? Anyway. Uh. I hope you can forgive this mountain of comments! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 12:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Prose comments

Lead

• allowing them to create their own levels and share them around the world. Every word after "them" can be cut with no loss in quality.
  • Done.
• Dennaton began work on creating downloadable content. Recommend addition of "for the game" at the end.
  • Done.
• After the proposed length... You started the previous sentence very similarly, with "Shortly after..." Consider "When the proposed length..."
  • Done.
• with Dennaton incorporating all concepts they had from the development of the first game into the sequel. This is one of those funny little moments in English where the grammatically correct form of the sentence is to have a double had. "all the concepts they had had from..." Or you could tweak this sentence a bit, something like "had during/leftover/cut/etc."
  • Done.
• but having divisive opinions on the level design and ending. Having looked at the reviews myself now, I remember the bugginess of the game being criticized, too.
  • I do not remember any discussions about the game being glitchy in substansive amounts to warrant a mention in the lead or a unique reception paragraph.

Gameplay

• Additional methods of killing available to the player include knocking-out enemies with a door or kicking them against the wall. Knocking out is not killing. Not immediately, anyway. The fix here perhaps is probably to revisit the preceding sentence and render it as In most chapters, the player is tasked with defeating every enemy, usually lethally...
  • I think I fixed this?
• composed of large open rooms Comma required between large and open.
  • Done.
• Some characters have the ability to choose from a selection of weapons or masks, the latter of which will modify the player's abilities depending on the mask chosen. The player's abilities or the player character's?
  • Done.
• allowing the player to rethink and fine-tune their strategy until succeeding. "until succeeding" here is superfluous here since the alternative to success in this game is death.
  • Done.
• Alongside this, Delete.
  • Done.
• the enemy AI is unpredictable and will respond arbitrarily. See spot-check.

Synopsis

• "Beard", the basis of the shopkeeper from Jacket's hallucinations in the first game who is part of a commando squad with Jacket in Hawaii; I think I would have used "was" here since most of the game takes place later. The war chapters give context to the not-war chapters.
  • Done.
• Jake, a violent and nativist member of 50 Blessings That Jake is violent is obvious just by being one of the playable characters. Suggest cutting "violent and".
  • Done.

Development

• Ten days after Dennaton announced downloadable content What? This is the first use of a kind of date in the article. And when did he announce any DLC?
  • Fixed this by stating a date (which I assume is what you're asking for)
• Ten days after Dennaton announced downloadable content, Söderström announced Hotline Miami 2 to be in development through Twitter and that a preliminary soundtrack for the game was already completed, though the developers were still focused on fixing bugs in the original game. The whole sentence feels unwieldy.
  • Fixed up.
• Similarly to the predecessor, the sequel was made in Game Maker 7. Rewrite this.
  • Done.
• Dennaton prioritized developing the game specifically for the fans of the original, comparing their development strategy to the Mega Man series, being unconcerned with trying to attract a larger audience and to "just give people that like the first game another game that they will enjoy." Very long.
  • Chopped up.
• Expanding the universe of Hotline Miami was a primary focus of the sequel's development, with several new characters being created that were noted to be given far more personality than Jacket from the first game, as making characters like Jacket would have made them "all be bland" in the words of Söderström. Also overly long and unwieldy.
  • Condensed.
• leading artists to scramble to send their music to Dennaton Games to try and get their music in the sequel. Rewrite in a way that deletes "to scramble".
  • Rewritten.
• By the time the slots for the full soundtrack of Hotline Miami 2 were finalized, How about By the time the soundtrack of Hotline Miami 2 was finalized,"?
  • Done.

Marketing and release

• It was announced here that the game would be the last in the series Replace "here" with "at E3 2013.
  • Done.
• and a gameplay showcase followed in a trailer across the street from the Los Angeles Convention Center. ...what kind of trailer? A promotional trailer or a physical trailer parked outside the venue?
  • I think I made this more clear?
• A month later, the game was given an official release date slated for next month. Specify.
  • Don't know what specifically to specify so I specified both.
• As a promotion, Jacket was added to Payday 2 as a playable character Pretend that the reader does not know what Payday 2 is. What is Payday 2?
  • I feel as if it'd be implied by "playable character" that it's a video game. Either way I specified "video game", assuming that's what you're asking for.
• A mask pack was included in the game for both the standard and digital special editions. You should clarify that "the game" here is Payday 2.
  • Done.
• featuring a digital download code for the game as well the game's soundtrack on featuring the game's soundtrack on vinyl. Huh?
  • I think this just happens where my brain fails and I end up leaving leftovers from past rewrites. I've fixed this.
• On 19 August 2019, the game alongside the original Hotline Miami were rereleased as part of the Hotline Miami Collection for Nintendo Switch. Suggest On 19 August 2019, Hotline Miami and Hotline Miami 2 were rereleased...
  • Done.

Reception

• with it being considered that the ambition of the narrative had rubbed onto the gameplay This simultaneously confuses me and does not feel encyclopedic.
  • I think I fixed this?
• These larger levels were reported by Alex Carlson of Hardcore Gamer as making levels feel more realistic in their design and delivering more diverse level design. This can be condensed.
  • Done.
• The second paragraph generally needs to be whipped into shape.
  • Done, I think?
• As I note below, the claim Several critics considered the soundtrack the best aspect of the game; is not representative of the sources cited. I suggest, instead, Several critics considered the soundtrack one of the best aspects of the game;
  • Done.

Sexual assault scene

I must apologize, but I'm going to rip this section to pieces.

• • Completely fine with me, I wrote this section whilst short on time.

• In the game's opening tutorial where the player plays as the Pig Butcher, after clearing out all other enemies the player must knock out a girl, where the game afterwards the game instructs the player to "finish her". As the player "finishes her", control of the Pig Butcher is taken away from the player as a cutscene plays he attempts to assault a woman sexually whilst she struggles to escape her situation. Rewrite, too many words and some contradiction. If the rape victim is knocked out, she must be unconscious; how then does she resist? Rather than mention her waking up or something, I would instead advise cutting "knock her out". This will open the door to further shrinking of this prose to something better.
  • Trimmed up a bit to hopefully make it better.
• Many viewed it as what Nathan Grayson was Huh?
  • Fixed.
• No need to give Wedin's first name here.
  • Removed.
• to demonstrate that sexual violence was not what the Hotline Miami series is about. Use a quotation here, rather than seeming to take a side.
  • Done.
• they mentioned that they have added a cut and uncut option for the scene. Cut "they have", the sentence will be more clinical without it.
  • Done.
• Dennaton also reconfirmed that the context of the scene is important Why is it important? Why are you saying this in Wikipedia's voice?
  • I'm relaying what the source says, I don't know why it's important either.
    • Then you've reflected the bias of the source. Rephrase. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
      • I just completely removed it since I literally could not think of a way to make it sound any better.
• Burns of VideoGamer described the scene as "merely existing for throwaway shock value", calling it a grave mistake in the game that didn't feature into the narrative. "Grave mistake" needs to be in quotations; it is lifted from Reference [6].
  • Done.
• Myers of Paste was indifferent, criticizing the scene for giving "no narrative pay-off" and further mocking it by saying that the fact it was in an in-universe movie justified the player's actions. The back half of this needs to be rewritten. See my note on Reference [49] below.
  • Will do this when I tackle the source review.
• In contrast to other critics, Astrid Budgor of Kill Screen took into account what they viewed as the developers' true intentions with the scene; to develop the narrative of the Pig Butcher as a psychopath and positively viewing the option to skip the scene for those that find the topic sensitive. Rewrite this. Let Budgor speak for her(?)self; use quotations to communicate her(?) thoughts on the game.
  • Done.
    • Pleased to Support now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review

All references are from reliable sources, barring the YouTube one which is a trailer and a Steam forum conversation(???). I advise removing this (see below). Otherwise, all good. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 12:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• • I'll have to get to this on a different edit but for now I have infact removed the Steam community post. The YouTube video however is from Eurogamer and I believe should be acceptable. λ NegativeMP1 18:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

As I said, here is the complete spot check of every in-line citation to/for all 61 in-line citations in the article.

1. Both uses are legit.
2. The source doesn't really support the passage, "Both the player and enemies are not resilient, and it may take only one attack from one to kill the other immediately. To compensate, the player is able to quickly restart the current stage after death, allowing the player to rethink and fine-tune their strategy until succeeding." It's more of an expansion of what the source says on the topic of the gameplay, which is not good. It also doesn't support the passage about the AI being unpredictable, but does support the clause after that about enemy types like the dogs. Danny O'Dwyer (hello old friend) does not say that the game's ST is "just as good as the first game's."; he says the music is "absolutely outstanding". When he does refer back to the first game's ST, it's to mention returning contributors like Perturbator. O'Dwyer also does not identify the ST as "the best aspect of the game", but he does specifically praise it and mention it at the end of his review in the pros/cons. Additionally, the bit about the possibility of non-lethal takedowns is supported by [4], so the use of [2] with [3] can also be removed. Thus, I recommend cutting [3].
3. Like [2], this source does not support an unpredictable and arbitrary AI. It says that AI is "inconsistent" and that there are a lot of bugs; it does not imply that either is intentional and it certainly isn't a compliment. Does not identify the ST as "the best aspect of the game."
4. Only in passing supports the existence of a letter-grade for levels.
5. Doesn't mention any letter-grade at all; instead points out flaws in the scoring system. Quotations do not adhere to MOS:PMC, which states, "Quotations ... must be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Where there is good reason to change the wording, bracket the changed text".
6. No mention of letter-grading; just that the game grades your performance.
7. No mention of character or weapon unlocks.
8. Source says nothing about weapons having less ammo.
9. Only thing this source supports unfortunately is that a level editor exists as part of the game.
10. Both uses are legit.
11. Supports everything it's used for except the clause "with Dennaton focusing on including ideas they were unable to use in the first game".
12. Both uses are legit.
13. All good here.
14. All good here. However, I think the wording "which sold 130,000 copies in its first seven weeks," is a little close to the source article and could be cut, since the very next sentence talks about the financial success of the first game.
15. Both uses are legit. They are also right next to each other, with no other reference/in-line citation between them.
16. All good here.
17. I'll give a pass for this one.
18. Delete this. [19] has everything this has without being a Steam forum thread.
19. No problems here.
20. All good here.
21. I am not jazzed about using the store page to prove how many tracks are on the ST but beggars can't be choosers. Replace with something better if you can.
22. McCarthy describes the use of "You Are the Blood" as "harrowing", not "unforgettable". Compare: "One that's always stayed with me is Hotline Miami 2's harrowing use of Castanets' "You Are The Blood" in its end credits" versus "But rarely do video games have excellent musical moments: a point in time punctuated with music to make it unforgettable." Please change this.
23. All good here. Like [15], there are two uses of [23] that are right next to each other without an in-between citation.
24. This is legit.
25. This too.
26. This too.
27. Doesn't mention a delay; this mentions the possibility of a delay.
28. All good here.
29. Ditto.
30. Ditto.
31. Ditto.
32. All good. Same note to this as [15] and [23], though.
33. All good here.
34. Ditto.
35. I'm just going to assume good conduct with this one :)
36. Good enough.
37. All good here.
38. Ditto.
39. Ditto.
40. Ditto.
41. Ditto.
42. Ditto.
43. Ditto.
44. Ditto.
45. Ditto.
46. Ditto.
47. Ditto.
48. Ditto.
49. Mostly good. Myers does not say the player's actions as the Pig Butcher are justified. Myers is mocking the game for a lazy copout.
50. Good enough.
51. Checks out.
52. Good, but you lifted a line from the source without quoting it. Please revise.
53. Good, but as the article presently is you close-paraphrase from this source. It would be better to just quote it.
54. The source does not mention a red light over a black background. It does mention red underwear, though, and other details of the rape.
55. Ditto.
56. Ditto.
57. Ditto.
58. Ditto.
59. Ditto, but move this to the end of "the game became briefly available in Australia via the Nintendo eShop,".
60. All good here.
61. What I can say of the usage of this source is that at least the thesis of the source is communicated.

I believe all issues have been patched (most of them just boiled down to me completely cutting text due to lack of better sourcing, though) except the following:

There is unfortunately no alternative for 21.

from 54: "This visual depiction of implied sexual violence is emphasised by it being mid-screen, with a red backdrop pulsating and the remainder of the screen being surrounded by black." what's in the article is simply just paraphrasing.

Please tell me if I missed any issues pointed out in the source review that needed fixing but I think I got what needed to be fixed. λ NegativeMP1 05:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

All good on this front now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

OneShot

Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 23:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is about OneShot, a popular indie game released in 2016 known for its fourth-wall-breaking narrative. This article was first written and expanded by Mir Novov, and I later did many edits to make it reach the current GA status and opened peer reviews. I believe the article now meets the FA criteria. Skyshiftertalk 23:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments and Support from NegativeMP1

Okay, I find it kinda funny how two video game FACs went up on the same day, in the same hour, both about indie games. I'll take a look at this article soon. NegativeMP1 23:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• Looks fine.

Gameplay

• What exactly do these dreams contain, or do for the gameplay?

• Added.

Plot

• Looks fine.

Development and release

• Don't think specifying 2022 is necessary when you already said "the next year".

• Removed.

Reception

• Looks fine.

Article overall is solid. Since the two issues I pointed out aren't that major, gonna go ahead and give this my support. NegativeMP1 19:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 19:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "in other ways, which includes" => "in other ways, which include"
• "In there, they encounter" => "There, they encounter"
• "Niko's goal is to carry the sun through its three areas" => "Niko's goal is to carry the sun through the world's three areas"
• " Nafria stated that it is generic" => " Nafria stated that it was generic" (to be consistent with the previous sentence) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Done Skyshiftertalk 12:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Skyshifter, as per the instructions at WP:FAC, please avoid using graphic templates like {{done}} as they are known to cause issues with the loading time of FAC page. FrB.TG (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am sorry. Skyshiftertalk 14:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

We meet again, Skyshifter! I've been looking for a good FAC to review, and this seems like an excellent choice, especially since I still feel like I didn't completely hold up my end of the quid pro quo bargain. I'll be back with a review shortly. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay! I always forget just how much the holidays throw my schedule off. Anyways, have a review. Citations numbers from this revision.

• I think the details of which websites distrubute the game is a bit too much for the second sentence in the lead. I would cut it down to just "... it was released for Windows on December 8, 2016.".
  • Done
• Unlink "player"
  • Done
• In the lead and § Gameplay: the player is a separate character → the player is separate
  • Done
• Related to the above, I'd probably mention somewhere that this is unusual for video games of this kind, as a layperson is not guaranteed to know that.
  • Will try to find a source for it.
• Unlink "lightbulb"
  • Done
• the user account they have signed in with → the name provided in their user account
  • Done
• § Plot is currently at 797 words, and I feel it can easily be brought below the 700-word mark recommended by WP:VG/PLOT. In fact, I don't feel the game's plot is of sufficient complexity to require the maximum length, and should probably be even shorter — especially the pre-Solstice section.
  • I've reduced its size quite a bit in a previous PR, so I'm unsure how I would reduce it even more (Glen is at a sentence and a half...) I also see some people who count sub-sections as another separate Plot section instead of summing both for the 700 words length, but I don't know if this is correct or not. Either way, specific comments on what to remove would be appreciated.

  As a general note, I feel like the section is too focused on maintaining the strict chronological order of how the player discovers information. This might be important in some contexts, but take something like "... emerging in a barren wasteland" and then "They are currently in the Barrens." a sentence later. I understand that we only find out the name of the place after talking to the robot, but maintaining that narrative flow is not helpful to someone reading an encyclopedia, so I would merge these. Also, rather than cutting whole parts out, I feel like there are several individual sentences that could be tightened up instead. Semi-arbitrarily picking an example again, "three phosphoric items ... the final one." could easily be "three phosphoric items: the amber, the feather, and a third one gifted by George." (11 words shorter). Hopefully that gives you some ideas; let me know if you'd like any additional feedback. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: Done Skyshiftertalk 20:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• In § Plot: Niko, a catlike child → Niko; it's already mentioned in § Gameplay
  • Done
• which addresses ... their computer., as above
  • I think this, or something similar, is necessary because "player" could still be interpreted as Niko here.
• Remove quotation marks from terms like "Solstice" and "Glen" throughout the article
  • Done
• Nightmargin (Casey Gu) → Casey Gu (under the pseudonym Nightmargin), since the rest of the article subsquently refers to them as "Gu"
  • I'm changing Gu to Nightmargin throughout the article instead, since she is better known by that name.
• I would get rid of citation 15 since citation 16 already verifies the statement.
  • Done
• The gender of Niko → Niko's gender
  • Done
• Optionally, I would add a statement like "This article uses singular they for consistency." to justify the placement of the footnote in the prose.
  • Done
• Italicize and correct capitalization for all instances of the game's title in the references
  • Done
• In citation 1: OneShot on Steam → OneShot
  • Done
• In citations 1, (15), 21, 22, 25, 26, 32, and 33: use |publisher= so the website isn't italicized
  • Done
• In citation 2: [INTERVIEW] OneShot → [Interview] OneShot
  • Done
• In citation 7: Edition - A → Edition {{endash}} A or whatever alternative you prefer per MOS:DASH
  • Done
• Similarly as above in citation 16
  • Done

More comments to come. Feel free to reply in line, and let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

More comments are here. Use the same revision for citation numbers.

• The comment about Psycho Mantis feels too detailed for the lead, I'd remove it and just mention the fourth-wall-breaking narrative.
  • Done
• In § Gameplay: With these concepts, OneShot was officially described as a game where "the world knows [the player exists]"; this quote doesn't add very much to the description of the gameplay and feels almost promotional in this context.
  • Done; also removed from the lead
• I'd prefer a couple of words explaining what RPGMakerWeb is.
  • Rephrased.
• "finalized product ... original version" is too closely paraphrased. I would rephrase the first sentence and just turn the second one back into a direct quote.
  • Paraphrased
• "The game's atmosphere was inspired by the RGB color model" This statement is so vague it means nearly nothing. I'd prefer removal but wouldn't mind if it was paraphrased carefully, though I have no idea how you'd do that.
  • This makes sense, actually. The game is separated into three areas: Refuge (which is mainly red-toned), Glen (which is mainly green-toned), and Barrens (which is mainly blue-toned). Unfortunately, this isn't explicitly stated by the source, but that's what it means with RGB color model inspiration. Maybe I could do something like "The game's areas were inspired by the RGB color model"?

  Ah, that makes more sense. I suppose I wouldn't know since I never actually played past the Barrens myself. Anyways, I found this source that briefly mentions that the areas go in "reverse RGB order"; maybe that's enough to clarify the statement for a general audience. Also, do you know if the color palette gets brought up at all in that "interview" video? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Don't know if I'm allowed to comment under others reviews or not, but I want to point out that Gaming Trend is marked as an unreliable source at WP:VG/RS. λ NegativeMP1 17:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  You're definitely allowed, and I appreciate the note! I guess I should have looked at the perennial sources lists first... —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm changing to "game's world", should be slighly better. Skyshiftertalk 20:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• along with Metal Gear Solid
  • Previous sentence (and source) only talked about Psycho Mantis specifically, while in this other interview they mentioned the entire game.
• "they wanted to do a unique take on the story ..." This phrasing almost makes me think Undertale and OneShot are two interpretations of the same story. Rephrase as you see fit.
  • Done
• OneShot's fifth anniversary
  • It's a relevant date, in my opinion, to show that they had a reason to announce it at that specific date.
• review aggregator Metacritic → review aggregator site Metacritic (MOS:SEAOFBLUE)
  • Done
• In § Reception: remove the duplicate link "operating system"
  • Done
• No other comments for this section; good work here!
  • Thank you! Reception sections are always a hurdle for me, so it's good to hear this!
• In citation 19: add |via=[[YouTube]]
  • Done; also added channel name as publisher
• In citation 24: link IGN
  • Done

Also, I'm refraining from giving any more detailed feedback on § Plot until it's been whittled down per my previous comments; could you ping me once you're all done with that? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: I'm honestly not sure how to reduce the plot even more, as I said above. If you have any suggestions feel free to post them. Skyshiftertalk 16:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Last round of comments. I'm not going to conduct a full source review for this candidate — I'd prefer to leave that to a more experienced FAC contributor — but I'm taking a closer look at some of these websites and have concerns about whether they're "high-quality reliable sources", as required by criterion 1c. Here are the ones that are sticking out the most to me:

• Heavy: I'm not seeing that this publication has an editorial process, and the writer appears to be a student.
  • This is an interview, and I'm exclusively using the developer's words.
• KOMODO (livestream): This is not a formal interview, and is basically just unedited footage of the developers answering random questions from viewers in the chat.
  • It's still what the developers said, correctly attributed to them. This should count as a self-published source.
• Tumblr and Tumblr: Yes, the blogs are run by the developers, but what's the rationale for accepting self-published sources in this case?
  • It's important to confirm that Niko's gender is ambiguous, and the developers are the only ones who do it; secondary sources use either "he" or "she" randomly for Niko.
• rpgmaker.net: Another blog, and it's not clear whether this post was written by the developers or a community member. I'm pretty sure both of the statements this source verifies are covered in other sources, so I would get rid of it in a hurry.
  • This is written by the developers; I went through other games in the website and found descriptions like this one.

Great work on the prose, by the way — § Plot is looking a lot better! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 12:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Cool, it seems most of the questions about the sources I had fall under the WP:ABOUTSELF umbrella, so I have no further concerns that can't be addressed during a source review. Really nice work on this candidate, Skyshifter; I'm happy to support! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 17:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment from NatwonTSG

I'm not sure is this should be removed or not because I never work on a featured article before so, some of the links here such as "items" and "lightbulb" should not be link because according on WP:OL, it say that everyday words should not be linked like items for examples so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

"Item" is linked to Item (game terminology), which is an important link IMO.

Removed lightbulb. Skyshiftertalk 20:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay and thank you for that @Skyshifter. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from the Night Watch

Saving a spot, probably will get some in within the next week or so. The Night Watch (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments are still forthcoming, should be able to get them in today. The Night Watch (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Just a standard notification, but as a first time FAC nominator you need to go through a spot-check on the sources before this article can be promoted. I will make a few checks sometime after I've finished my other points.
• Steam is not a high-quality reliable source and should be replaced as the source for the Linux release if possible. Even the developer's own website would be alright as a source for this release, but Steam just will not do.

• I couldn't find a replacement. This is an official post by the developers, though; would it really be necessary to change?

• Yes, it should be changed. Steam is a storefront and not a reliable source. At this point a primary source from social media or an official website would be a better alternative.

• WRT Steam, I think it's a reliable source for what is on Steam, and they are kinda prominent so if we are supposed to include such content at all they'd be a suitable source for it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I digress, but if that is truly the only source that contains such information, you can cite it. The Night Watch (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• "The game received positive reviews from critics, who praised aspects including the story, art, and gameplay" is confusingly worded and doesn't provide a significant amount of information on how the game was received. Perhaps something more like "The game received positive reviews from critics, who praised the story, art, and metafictional aspects of gameplay" and then add an interesting factoid about how the game was received. For example, in The Longing, critics compared the game to life under COVID-19 quarantine.

• Tried something.

• The Development seems to be heavily based upon primary sources which are not used sparingly, as per the source analysis by TechnoSquirrel above. Since the sources are of dubious reliability and are mostly primary/self-published, I would say the development section is currently not up to the sourcing standards for FA.

• I've removed the "Oneshot Livestream" source. I'd like to keep most of these if possible. OneShot's development was almost exclusively discussed in primary sources or interviews. If I were to remove them, the "Development" section would extensively lose information, something that I want to avoid. (necessary reminder that I'm new to FAC so if I'm completely wrong here just tell me, but I thought WP:ABOUTSELF would apply here)

• ABOUTSELF would be fine if the cited content is overall used sparingly, but since there are several primary sources not of high-quality making up the bulk of this section, some information would have to be cut to meet the sourcing requirement. The potential problem would be that the ensuing development section would not be comprehensive enough for the criteria, but at the moment I would suggest culling some information and see what is left over afterwards.

• I've removed "Heavy" and removed one of the usages for RPGMaker. Now the section is mostly formed by interviews published in reliable sources per WP:VG/S.

• The Reception section has many scare quotes that could easily be paraphrased and currently take away the quality of the prose. Doing so would greatly improve the writing quality and make it more engaging to read.

• Made some changes.

• There is some word choices that should be changed, such as using "awakens" rather than "awakes". I will go over a deeper check later, but that was one wording issue that showed up at first glance.

The Night Watch (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I will work on spot-checks starting this Wednesday. The Night Watch (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review

I kinda wonder if all of these nonfree images are necessary, I see the rationales but currently it's a bit of an edge case. There isn't consistent ALT text. Source-wise, reviewing this version and spot-check upon request. Going to list out some of the sources:

• https://heavymag.com.au/interview-oneshot/ not finding good information on whether this is reliable. I mean, the interviewed person probably is but the interviewer?
  • Removed.
• https://www.nintendolife.com/reviews/switch-eshop/oneshot-world-machine-edition not sure who writes and checks this.
  • Responded below.
• https://www.destructoid.com/the-key-to-beating-oneshot-probably-wont-be-in-the-game/ is apparently only reliable if its author Brett Makedonski is - are they?
  • Responded below.
• Gematsu seems reliable but needs a byline
• Kotaku apparently is an unreliable source except for 2010-2023 publications; this article apparently falls into the reliable range and the author seems to have continued working at Washington Post so I guess it works.
• Are Rutledge, Spencer, Delahunty-Light, Zoe and Tekaia, Pascal prominent reviewers?
  • I am not sure how to confirm this, or what makes a reviewer proeminent.
    • Well, are they commonly cited in the wider world? I am sure there are millions of video game reviewers out there, there should be some standard of inclusion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Their reviews were written for Hardcore Gamer, GamesMaster and Adventure Gamers respectively, which are listed as reliable by WP:VG/S. I thought this would be sufficient for inclusion, but if needed I will search for the reviewers' proeminency. Skyshiftertalk 20:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

        My personal opinion (which may not be commonly shared) is that since reviews are an opinion, they tend to all have the same "reliability". Since they are an opinion, they may either be widely shared or only held by a few. Hence prominence of reviewer is a better metric for gauging the inclusion of reviewers than reliability per se. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• What makes https://rpgmaker.net/games/6560/ a reliable source? I can't find much information on who writes it.
  • This is a primary source; it was published and written by the developers. I've confirmed this in a response to TechnoSquirrel69 above.
• Not seeing what makes https://toucharcade.com/2022/09/27/penko-park-switch-review-beacon-pines-eshop-no-more-heroes-viki-spotter-deals-prices-sales/ a reliable source?
  • Responded below.
• Is "Anonymous" the username in https://nightmargin.tumblr.com/post/140577597251/what-is-nikos-gender-if-they-have-one-i-heard?
  • An anonymous user made the question.
• Is there any indication that https://nightmargin.tumblr.com/ and https://elizavq.tumblr.com/ are affiliated with the developers?
  • Nightmargin's Tumblr is linked on her official website [8]. Trying to find explicit indication for Eliza Velasquez, though it really is her account.

Source formatting is mostly consistent except as noted above. Some of the article seems to be sourced to the videogame itself, nothing overly interpretative that I see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Few quick notes: I intend to perform the spot-check after the sourcing is cleaned up. TouchArcade, Gematsu and Nintendo Life are considered generally reliable per the WP:VG/S. Not sure if Brett Makedonski is considered a reliable author, haven't looked into their history. RPGMaker appears to be a blog and would not consider it high quality. The Night Watch (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree for TouchArcade, Gematsu and Nintendo Life. Brett Makedonski was an official writer for Destructoid, so it's not WP:USERG. RPGMaker is a primary source; it was written by the developers. I've removed one of its uses to make the usage as minimal as possible. Skyshiftertalk 00:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the non-free use images:

• The image presented in the infobox is the main logo/identification for the subject of the article.
• The image in the Plot section presents the game's main gameplay atmosphere (top-down perspective, etc.) This is comparable to many video game articles which have an image illustrating the Gameplay section. Most of the game is played in that perspective and presents similar elements.
• The GIF currently in Gameplay is a necessary image because of the game's unusual fourth-wall-breaking nature, which I'm not sure can be explained with text only. Having to drag the actual window of the game around your screen to solve a puzzle is something unusual that in my view require a non-free illustration.

Skyshiftertalk 00:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Speechless (Lady Gaga song)

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

To have some mercy on my fellow reviewers, here's one of those rare articles by me with less than 5k words. I'm attempting my fifth FA on a track from Lady Gaga's megahit album The Fame Monster. Get ready for Gaga's "Speechless"—a track that might just leave you without words. It's more than just music; it's a journey that'll have you, well, speechless! FrB.TG (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Infobox: "from the EP The Fame Monster". As the MoS suggests "Wikipedia uses sentence case for ... and entries in infoboxes" should that be an upper-case f? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it's part of the phrase "Song by x, from the album x" but I see (and agree with) your point. That said, it's automatically generated by the infobox template and something that would need to be discussed at Template talk:Infobox song as it would affect all song articles on Wikipedia. FrB.TG (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, but Wikipedia not being a reliable source, a usage in other articles cannot be used as a reason for the same usage in this one. As you say you agree with my "point" (I was trying to tactfully phrase it as a question. :-) Ah well.) then why not change it?

I'll start a discussion there soon.

• " "Speechless" represents Gaga's fear of death." I am not sure that "represents" is the word you want here. (If you think it is, which usage of the word in which dictionary are you trying to convey?)
• "who praised it for its emotional depth and influences from the band Queen but some criticized it as weak and insincere." The "who ... but some ..." suggests that all of the second group also fell into the first; is that the case?
• Just my opinion, but I think running the last two paragraphs of the lead together would improve it.
• " "Speechless" charted in the US, the UK, Canada and Scotland." "Scotland": Is it usual to include sub-national regions in these articles? If so, why are US states and Canadian provinces not similarly treated?

The Official Charts Company is the official reporter of charts in the UK, reporting album and song performances separately in Scotland since 1994. It has coverage by major music websites like AllMusic (one example) but as Chris has mentioned below, it may not be considered a major market, thus not warranting a mention in the lead. For the US, Billboard is responsible for reporting charts and they do not have any state-based chart.

• " "Speechless" is a track from the extended play (EP) The Fame Monster (2009), the reissue of Lady Gaga's debut studio album, The Fame (2008)." If TFM is a "reissue" of TF, then why is "Speechless" not described as being from TF? Or is the issue around how we are defining "reissue"?

The Fame was released in 2008, whereas "Speechless" in 2009 as one of the eight additional tracks in TFM. It's not unusual for a reissue to have original tracks. See reissue: "a reissue ... is the release of an album or single which has been released at least once before, sometimes with alterations or additions." Other such popular examples include Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection and Thriller 25. But I can clarify it in the article if needed.

• "The song was recorded at Record Plant Studios". I am unclear as to whether this happened in 2008 or 2009, it would be nice to be told. In either case, is a more precise date known?

The interview where she discusses the song took place in 2009 but it doesn't give us any specific info on when the song was recorded.

• I don't think that one can use the word "conduction" in the sense you do. (It means 'lead', as in to physically guide.)
• "Fair did the song's arrangement and conduction." The link for "arrangement and conduction" is just to arrangement, which starts "In music, an arrangement is a musical adaptation of an existing composition." So did this take place sometime after the events retailed in the previous four sentences?

Yes, the arrangement typically takes place after the initial recording of the live instruments and vocals. Arranging involves organizing and adapting the recorded elements to create the final structure and form of the song. In the provided sentences, the recording process, including live instruments and Gaga's piano playing, is described first, followed by the mention of Ron Fair doing the arrangement. Therefore, the arrangement phase would occur after the recording of the live instruments at Record Plant Studios.

Much to my surprise, I am actually struggling to follow the thread of this article, and I have barely started it. So I am going to pause and await responses, which may elucidate things. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Cheers Gog. The ones I haven't replied to are done as suggested. Let me know if issues persist on your further reading and I'll see what can be done to prevent it from turning into a PR. Perhaps working on an article during the stress of holidays wasn't a good idea after all. ;) FrB.TG (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• The problem seems to be around "the reissue of" in the first line of the main article. The lead as it currently is fine (in this respect). While aware that the track lists of both TF and TFM are movable feasts, I think that both the 13 tracks original "international" version of TF and the 14 tracks of the revised US version have zero correspondence with the standard edition of TFM. This seems to me to stretch the use of "reissue" beyond breaking point. Assuming that there is some correspondence between TF and TFM, perhaps what it is could be spelt out. I would suggest that MOS:NOFORCELINK ("Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links") requires this anyway.

I anticipate that somewhere between a couple of sentences and a paragraph will be required, but as a subject expert you may have a more elegant solution. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The standalone standard edition was not supposed to exist but it was Gaga who insisted that they be sold separately to avoid "ripping off" the fans who had already bought TF. That is the only explanation behind it. While it might not strictly adhere to the definition of a reissue, TF and TFM still charted as one album in many countries. I think the Release and artwork section already does a pretty good job at why the standard edition without the TF tracks exists. I've also gone ahead and added in the "Speechless" article that TFM consists of eight new tracks, it being one of them. FrB.TG (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Gog the Mild in case you have more to add. FrB.TG (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

More

Apologies for the delay on this. I was away over Christmas which precluded doing much of anything that involved more than light cognition, and came back to an unusually busy RL and a backlog of Wikipedia activities. I don't think I am going to manage a full review, but let's see if we can sign off on what I have looked at so far.

• I completely fail to see how "Lady Gaga reissued her debut studio album, The Fame (2008), as The Fame Monster, an extended play that consisted of eight new tracks" makes sense. We have agreed that that the difficulty is around "reissued". All dictionaries I have consulted agree that "reissue" means to issue a thing again. I can, just about, accept that a reissue may include a bonus track or two. To use it to mean to issue something with nothing in common with what is purportedly the thing being "reissued" seems perverse. So, which part of the phrase am I misunderstanding? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Gog, but she did reissue the album on that exact date. The album's earliest release was on 18 November 2009 in Italy and Japan and in both countries, the reissue included The Fame tracks. The standard edition was released only later on by Gaga for reasons I mentioned above. That it may not meet the definition of a reissue is not something that has ever been disputed by sources (since I guess they found Gaga's reasoning plausible, which is very well explained in TFM article). And if I write up something like "although a reissue includes original tracks, this was not the case with TFM standard edition", it would be a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH since I cannot find a source that says this. Perhaps editors like SNUGGUMS, Sricsi or IndianBio, who are all major contributors to Gaga-related articles, can better explain this or have a better solution in mind. FrB.TG (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding on this conversation, but would an end note clarifying what a reissue is in this context be an appropriate compromise? This style of reissue was decently popular in the early 2010s (with Kesha reissuing Animal as Cannibal and Katy Perry reissuing Teenage Dream as Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection as two other examples), but I do not think it is really done anymore so I could see some room for potential confusion for unfamiliar readers. Here is a source from Vanity Fair that discusses this phenomenon, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were other sources about this. So maybe add in a endnote that defines this type of reissue with an appropriate citation? Again, apologies for the intrusion. I just wanted to suggest a potential compromise. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that kind of clarification is needed for "Speechless" as it's more of a TFM issue, and the album article already goes into great details how reissue is defined. I also want to emphasize that TFM was not the only album to have this many new tracks. Albums like OK Computer OKNOTOK 1997 2017 and the 2017 reissue of Purple Rain had almost as many new tracks as their originals. Also, I think Gog's main issue is with the standard edition not quite meeting the definition of a reissue since it doesn't contain the original tracks, but like I said above the deluxe version is the main one and the standard one was only added later on by Gaga to not resell TF tracks to fans who'd already bought the debut album. Whether or not that explanation is enough, it's all we have and it's been accepted by sources. Anything else we add would be serious WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations. FrB.TG (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That is fair and I agree. Heartfox's suggestion below is a far better option. I was over-thinking it and I agree further information could lead to violations. Just to be clear, I am aware of this style of reissue or the fact that reissues can come with a substantial amount of new material. I was not aware of more recent examples, but I do not really keep up with contemporary music. But long story short, I agree with your rationale and I want to thank Heartfox for their suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I think a rewording to "Lady Gaga reissued her debut studio album, The Fame (2008), as with The Fame Monster, an extended play" would clear things up, at least for me. Heartfox (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Done FrB.TG (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• I am not sure that we are getting anywhere. The issue, I think is around the ordinary English use of the word "reissue", as defined in dictionaries. Wikipedia is supposed to explain things, that's why it is an encyclopedia. You are, I think, using "reissue" in a sense which will only be comprehensible to aficionados, and which according to Aoba only to those familiar with "reissues" from the early 2010s. Does "Lady Gaga reissued her debut studio album, The Fame (2008), with The Fame Monster, an extended play that consisted of eight new tracks" mean that the original The Fame (or some version of it) was reissued together with eight additional tracks. If it doesn't, then IMO the sentence is not an accurate statement of fact. As I said above, you manage to avoid this in the lead, and I don't see why it has become an issue here. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  "Does ... mean that the original The Fame (or some version of it) was reissued together with eight additional tracks"? Yes, it does (if you check source 3, you will see that both the TF and new tracks are present), but it was also released as a standalone EP later on, which I think is the cause of confusion here. And while TFM article does explain that in great details, I don't think the same can be done for "Speechless". In any case, I have removed the use of "reissue" from the main body of "Speechless" as well. PS reissues of this kind (ones with additional tracks) have been around since forever and not just since the early 2010s, e.g. Thriller 25 (2008). FrB.TG (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• @WP:FAC coordinators: I haven't done a full review, but the bits I have looked are all IMO well up to FAC standard and criteria and from this partial review I see no reason why the article should not be promoted. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I'd spell out extended play in the lead for readers unfamiliar with this type of music jargon. I'd go with how it's done in "Bad Romance" and "Alejandro".
• I have a comment on this part, (to convince her father to undergo open-heart surgery for his malfunctioning aortic valve, and to remind her younger fans to appreciate their parents.). I was initially uncertain about the comma. I believe this part could be trimmed down to, (to convince her father to undergo open-heart surgery for his malfunctioning aortic valve remind her younger fans to appreciate their parents.) Admittedly, I've never been good with commas, and this is mostly a suggestion.
• I have a question about this part, (Gaga wrote "Speechless" to convey her "fear of death"). Gaga has talked about how each song on The Fame Monster represents a certain fear. I think it would be beneficial to briefly add that here to give some further context and to tie into the overall EP, but I could also understand if this type of information is left in the EP's main article. What do you think?
• At the risk of sounding completely heartless, I do not think the tweet, ("My Daddy had open-heart surgery today. And after long hours, and lots of tears, they healed his broken heart, and mine,"), is necessary. All the reader needs to know is that Gaga's father had the surgery.
• Is there any particular reason why the Musicnotes.com source does not have a link to the website?
• For the File:GagaKoh Speechless 2.jpg, I would add the year that the photo was taken to the image caption as it would help readers to better contextualize it at a glance rather than having to either find this part in the section or click on the image for the further information.
• I am uncertain about the prose for the last three paragraphs of the "Music and lyrics" section. It has great information, but I find the phrasing to be clunky at points, like how the analysts are introduced/referenced in the prose. I am also less certain about how spots like (The introduction, characterized by theatrical "ohs", immediately draws the listener into heightened emotional landscapes.) is done in Wikipedia's voice. This kind of analysis is difficult to write about on Wikipedia. For whatever reason, I'm struggling with how to clearly express my prose concerns so I will come back to this later. Apologies for that. I still thought it was worth bringing up. I'd be curious to see how other reviewers respond to this section.

I have tried to write an introductory sentence in each paragraph that conveys what it is about. You're right about certain sentences written in Wikipedia's voice. I wanted to avoid starting each sentence with "x opined that.." but I guess there's no way around it. (Too bad we don't have the "conjunctive" in English like in German where the form of a verb is different for indirect speech, making it immediately clear that these are not your own words.) See if it reads better now.

I hope these comments are helpful. Apologies again for not being clearer with my last point, and I will try to think of ways to phrase it better in the near future. It probably does not help that I am writing this review up after midnight. This is everything that I noticed after doing a first read-through. I will make sure to read the article more thoroughly several more times to try and do my best as a reviewer. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Aoba. I have taken on board all of your suggestions. Let me know in particular how you feel about the last three paras in music and lyrics section. FrB.TG (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I appreciate the improvements to the section. I will read through the article in the near future. As always, you have done wonderful work with the article, and I am happy to see it nominated for a FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• I do not think drums and guitar need links as a majority of readers are familiar with both. If the links need to be kept, they both should be moved up to the first instance.
• Would the King Princess cover be notable enough for inclusion? It was covered by Billboard, MTV News, and Consequence as published in Yahoo! Entertainment.
• I am probably just being dense, but could you clarify how "Speechless" is interpreted as an Oedipal-complex ballad? I thought the Oedipus complex involved some sort of hatred/aggression toward a parental figure, whether it be boys toward their fathers and girls toward their mothers, but I do not really see that type of emotion present in this song. I looked at the source, which makes it about seeing her father as an equal, but this wording left a bit confused. Not saying it needs to be changed, but I still wanted to ask.

I have altered my wording a bit in the song to add the "seeing him as an equal" part. From my understanding, the complex is used metaphorically in this context to capture the emotional depth and significant shift in Gaga's perception of her father. While the traditional Oedipal complex involves elements of aggression or rivalry like you say, the term here highlights a profound transformation in the dynamics of their relationship, where Gaga expresses deep emotions and addresses her father with a newfound sense of equality and heartbroken candor. It's not a strict adherence to the classic Oedipal complex but rather a poetic expression of the emotional journey depicted in the song.

Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That is all I've got after a second read-through. The third point is more of a clarification question than anything. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a second look, Aoba. FrB.TG (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Media review - pass

The article uses 3 images. They are relevant and fulfill the licensing criteria. The article has one non-free content in the form of a sample from a song. It has a fair use rationale and fulfills the requirements at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music_samples. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "was written by Gaga to convince her father to undergo open-heart surgery for his malfunctioning aortic valve and remind her younger fans to appreciate their parents" - I'd be tempted to go for "was written by Gaga to convince her father to undergo open-heart surgery for his malfunctioning aortic valve and to remind her younger fans to appreciate their parents"
• "A rock power balald" - typo
• ""Speechless" initially received mixed reviews from critics, who praised it for its emotional depth and influences from the band Queen but some criticized it as weak and insincere." => ""Speechless" initially received mixed reviews from critics, some of whom praised it for its emotional depth and influences from the band Queen while others criticized it as weak and insincere."
• ""Speechless" charted in the US, the UK, Canada and Scotland." - I appreciate that Scotland does have its own separate chart, but as it's part of the UK, saying "the UK and Scotland" sounds a bit weird (at least who someone who lives in the UK). It would be like saying "it charted in the USA and California". I would be tempted to solve the problem by just not mentioning Scotland here, given that by itself it isn't a major market.
• "She wrote "Speechless" and produced it with Ron Fair and Tal Herzberg." - this reads like she co-wrote it with those guys as well as co-producing it with them, which doesn't seem to be the case, so maybe "She wrote "Speechless" and co-produced it with Ron Fair and Tal Herzberg."
• ""Speechless" is a rock power balald" - there's that typo again
• "Robert J. Benton wrote although the song is dedicated to Gaga's father" => "Robert J. Benton wrote that although the song is dedicated to Gaga's father
• " As of August 2010, the song has sold" - August 2010 was more than 13 years ago, so this really should be " As of August 2010, the song had sold"
• That's it, I think - great work! I distinctly remember watching that Royal Variety Performance performance when it was originally broadcast. Funnily enough this year's RVP is on television in a couple of hours...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Chris. All done as suggested. FrB.TG (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review (Pass)

• Is the IGN review reliable? The website is oriented toward video games I believe.

Well, as per WP:RSP is acceptable for popular culture. And the critic who reviewed the song has reviewed more films/songs/albums than video games so it should be acceptable IMO.

• Consequence is not italicized but Idolator, which is usually not italicized, is.
• Musicnotes is not my favorite source, but according to this discussion any usage should be clearly attributed within the prose; so it should be preceded by something like "According to the sheet music on Musicnotes.com" like it is on Bad Romance, for example.
• The others are all the usual reliable sources used on pop music articles. Spotcheck upon request.--NØ 02:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Support from NØ

Addressed comments from NØ 15:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I will get to this soon. It is always exciting to see Gaga stuff at FAC.--NØ 20:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC) The inclusion of "power ballad" in the genre field of the infobox is a bit unusual. Wouldn't the genre be rock and power ballad the musical style? The song duration and labels do not appear to occur outside the infobox and thus seem to be presently unsourced I'd say the external link of the audio is the "source" for the duration. :-) "Retrospective reviewers described it as one of Gaga's best songs, praising her vocals" - Some editors don't like the ", ing" phrasing and have suggested this type of phrasing to me in the past: "Retrospective reviewers described it as one of Gaga's best songs and praised her vocals" The 52nd Grammys happened in 2010, in case the last sentence of the lead is meant to be in chronological order The November 2009 quote is a really good one but does it need to be a blockquote? The whitespace could be avoided if it was placed within the rest of the text. Since the "Exploring Gaga's ... sociomusical activism piece" paragraph is discussing the songwriting, it might be a good idea to avoid describing the artists mentioned as "vocalists". This might confuse some readers that Gaga's vocal performance is being compared to Mercury, Lennon and John which does not seem to be the case. The first paragraph of Critical reception seems entirely positive so I was a bit confused about the opening sentence saying initial reviews were mixed. Is this more of a general summary statement for the entire section? It's meant to convey the overall early reception of the song. The third paragraph should open by indicating these are retrospective reviews "Speechless" topped the Billboard Hot Singles Sales chart, with sales of 7,000 units according to Nielsen Soundscan, becoming Gaga's third number-one single on this chart" - "on this chart" can probably be removed since it is sufficiently implied by the rest of the sentence "It also shifted an additional 13,000 digital downloads to bubble under the main Hot Digital Songs chart" - Is it possible to swap "bubble under" with something more formal? The usage would be acceptable if there are no alternatives, obviously. "performed" is used in three consecutive sentences in the beginning of the Live performances section. "Reprised" and "sang" are good alternatives to mix it up. "Credits adapted from the liner notes of The Fame Monster." - This does not need a period. If you want to use it, though, this could be converted to a full sentence by adding "are" after "Credits". Also, it is generally fine to unlink the main artist's name from the Credits. Vevo should not be all caps in the External link. But the inclusion of the link itself is probably redundant given the official audio is present in the infobox. Apologies for this running a bit long. I am open to hatting this after the review comments are addressed if you like. Cheers!--NØ 02:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for the source and prose reviews. Unless stated otherwise, I've taken on board all your suggestions. FrB.TG (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing everything. The only other thing I noticed was that the release date also doesn't occur outside the infobox and doesn't have a source. I believe this might work.--NØ 15:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Done FrB.TG (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Heartfox

• I'm not really a fan of musicnotes. For example, there is no way to verify if there is a key change; we don't know if it is C major throughout the whole song. One of the reviews with 40 likes says "This is not the original sheet music published by lady gaga and hal leonard". I really don't think a random sheet music preview on musicnotes.com is a high-quality reliable source. It should really be citing the official book by Hal Leonard, the digital one published by hal leonard on sheetmusicdirect.com, or not given at all. For example musicnotes.com cited source has 76 bpm and sheetmusicdiret.com has 74bpm...

Musicnotes.com source removed. Not sure about the hallenoard.com one since the question remains whether or not this is the original one or an altered version.

• "underscoring the "performativity" in using vocal damage." → I don't understand what "vocal damage" means here
• "She was the sole musical accompaniment" → I don't get this

It just means that Gaga was the only one providing the musical background for the performance, in this case, by playing the piano but I think it's redundant anyway so removed.

Heartfox (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, Heartfox. Let me know if they have been resolved. FrB.TG (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Support. If you are interested, my current FAC would benefit from your insight. Best, Heartfox (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

GagaNutella

I have made few adjusts and run a bot. The article is really great and ready for FA status. Support. GagaNutella^talk 01:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Pseudastacus

Nominator(s): Olmagon (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is about an extinct decapod crustacean. Olmagon (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by RoySmith

• General comment: avoid two adjacent links per WP:SEAOFBLUE: extinct genus, decapod crustaceans, etc
• Is there any way we can run this on WP:TFA on April 1st with a picture of Dr. Zoidberg?

Lead

• "decapod" is mentioned in the lead and the infobox, but not in the main body.
• " Jurassic period of Europe" and "Cretaceous period of Lebanon." of -> in in both places
• "frontmost" seems like an odd word to me. Maybe "foremost"? Of course, if "frontmost" is the standard term used for this, by all means keep it.
• "potential evidence of gregarious behavior" I'm not sure "potential" is the right word here. The evidence exists, it's just not clear that it indicates gregarious behavior. Is there a better way to phrase this?

Discovery and naming

• "Fossils of Pseudastacus have been described prior to the naming of this genus" Best to get a grammar expert to weigh in here, but I think you want "had been described". The naming took place in the past, and the describing of the fossils took place before that.
• "Georg zu Münster erected the genus Bolina" Is "erected" the right word here? I would have thought "proposed", but I'll defer if that's the generally accepted way to say it.
• "A year later in 1840", I think you can just say, "A year later" and let the reader figure out what the next year after 1939 was.
• "Münster described several fossils" Please verify this with a native German speaker, but I think it's supposed to be "zu Münster ...", similar to the way von would be used.

That's just a quick readthrough, so I'll just leave this as scattered comments rather than a formal review. RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Did most of the fixes proposed, though I left these out:

• "Foremost" seems to refer to rank or importance rather than the physical position so I kept it as "frontmost".
• I haven't spoken with a German speaker about this yet but in most papers I could find, the man is credited as Münster (without the "zu"). Even his own Wikipedia page refers to him as just Münster when referring to him by surname.

Olmagon (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Another thought, MOS:CVT says "in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so". That seems like it would apply here. Leaving out the unit conversions would make the text flow better and won't impact comprehension. RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• I ran through this again. Charbonnier & Audo 2020 and Garassino & Schweigert 2006 both mention Infraorder ASTACIDEA. Should that be included in the infobox taxonomy?

Comments by SilverTiger

Putting down a placeholder for now. SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - as I mentioned elsewhere, as a first time nomination, I think this should have been taken through PR and GAN before ending up at FAC. While I don't know enough about crustaceans to make the first qualified review, it looks very short for a genus with multiple species, and like it could need sections about paleoenvironment and so on. And the bullet point list sections could be made into prose. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Edward the Martyr

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the latest of my nominations of Anglo-Saxon kings. Edward was regarded as a saint in his own time because the murder of a king was considered an unforgivable crime, and his feast day is still listed today by the Church of England, but he could not be more unworthy of the designation. Historians regard him as "an obnoxious teenager who showed no evidence of sanctity or kingly attributes". Comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Tim O'Doherty

Just a quick note for now, but for the "obnoxious teenager" quote at the end of the lead, MOS:LEADCITE would want a ref for this. Easily fixed: just copy-paste {{sfn|Watson|2021|p=19}} at the end of it. Will do a full review later on; from a quick glance, the article looks excellent. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Some quickfire comments from a quick buzz through the first third:

• the future King Æthelred the Unready - maybe the future king, Æthelred the Unready?

• It reads better to me without the comma. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• which they believed really belonged to them - is "really" needed here?

• Deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• veneration very undeserved - "very" doesn't feel quite right. "Deeply" or just plain "undeserved"?

• Changed to "thoroughly" - OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That's perfect. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• his "magisterial and massively authoritative" Anglo-Saxon England - who says it's "magisterial and massively authoritative"?

• I said who in the citation as it seemed break up the flow in the text, but I will add it inline if you think it is necessary. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's such a big deal, but WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would advise putting it there. It's not a deal-breaker for me in any case. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Other pre-Conquest sources include - you've only linked "Conquest" in the lead, link it in the body too. (I see you've linked it in the second sentence of Family: link it at first mention?)

• Changed.

• the king - per MOS:JOBTITLES, "the King".

• Changed where it refers to a specific person. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I see in Edgar, King of England the Sources section is at the top, in front of Background; here it's the other way around. Why is that?

• I put the sources section second with a vague idea that the background provided context to the "vague impression of disorder" comment, but on reflection I think it should come first so I have changed the order. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I've now read the article fully, and don't really have any reason not to support. Really well researched and very readable. Reminds me of something you'd find in old Britannicas, and something which deserves the title of "Wikipedia's finest work". Just one thing to prove I've read it: I'm told that "due to" isn't proper British English and we prefer "owing to", or better yet "because of". Consider either of those (the bits I'm referring to are in Coinage, last sentence; and Death, last sentence before the blockquote). Happy (belated) new year too, Dudley. Cheers — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. I see that my somewhat out of date copy of Fowler has a rant against "due to", but admits it is a losing battle. The Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus says that it is now so common in all types of literature that it must be regarded as standard English. I think that "due to" works better than "owing to" or "because of" in both cases where I have used it. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Serial

Pending, but in passing: just Æthelred, rather than his moniker, which didn't apply during his reign, let alone his youth.

I refer to him initially as "the future King Æthelred the Unready" and thereafter Æthelred so that readers know who is referred to. Do you think there is a better way of expressing it? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Also, re. the lead quote, LQ presumably applies?

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps "The disputes". ——Serial 18:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure of your point here. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Back tomorrow UTC! ——Serial 21:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Edward_the_Martyr_-_MS_Royal_14_B_VI.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:EdwardMartyr.gif. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Unlimitedlead

Coming out of semi-retirement to help my good friend Dudley out. Comments to follow soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Not a big deal, but a circa template could be used in the first sentence.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Adding reign dates for monarchs mentioned (especially Edgar) in the article's body could be useful.

• Done in lead and in the main text where the dates are not already given. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Is the "(non-monastic)" really necessary in the introduction?

• Replaced with link. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• The citation is not necessary in the introduction; that same quote is repeated and cited later on in the body. Also, is it necessary to have a specific quote in the introduction as opposed to a more general statement?

• I think a quote works better. It spells out Edward's character in a way that I could not do in a comment of my own without getting into POV. Dudley Miles (talk)

Let me know when you have addressed these; there will be more to follow. Thanks. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks Unlimitedlead. Good to hear from you. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Unlimitedlead. Sorry I have realised that I did not make clear in my last post that I have addressed your comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Captions: "The post-Conquest Corfe Castle". It would be helpful for many readers if "post-Conquest" were linked; "Church of St Edward King and Martyr, Goathurst, Somerset", consider linking; "Church of St Edward King and Martyr, Cambridge", likewise; "Genealogical Roll of the Kings of England", is there any link for at least part of this?.

• Done. I did not realise that I could link captions without duplicate linking. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• "also protected estates claimed by their rivals." What does "protected" mean here. (A genuine rather than rhetorical question.)

• I am not sure what it means or how it got in there. Deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you ping me once ULL is happy - they will probably do most of my work. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

nf utvol

• The Watson quote in the lead is repeated verbatim further down the article. I'd consider removing the quote from the lead.

• Removed from main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• The phrase "sin of the first order" in the lead is a quote and probably should have quotation marks and attribution if retained. Otherwise, consider rewording it.

• Revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• The term pre-Conquest and post-Conquest is used as a time marker throughout the article. I know that this is referencing the events of 1066, but the lay reader, especially the one unfamiliar with English history, would not know this. The first reference is linked, but avoiding using the term or very briefly defining it on the first use will prevent people from clicking away.

• Added explanation. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• The acronym ASC is used throughout the article. Though it is properly defined at its first use as Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the later uses append additional letters to the end. It is unclear what these letters are or what they signify to the lay reader, or even a reader familiar with the subject but unfamiliar with the terminology surrounding the Chronicles and their versions. Recommend not using them at all, just saying in prose, "A later edition of the ASC written in the 1040s..." instead of "ASC C, written in the 1040s..."

• The addtional letters are explained in note i. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Consider thinning the Background section. It goes into, I believe, unnecessary detail on 9th and 10th century English history. Compressing it to provide a basic 'scene setter' for the article, linking off to other pages that get into the weeds would help the article flow. Much of the history of Edgar, Eadwig, Eadred, et al, is (or should be) covered already in their own articles, with the focus of this article remaining on Edward.

• I have wondered about this. I think it provides useful background, but I would like to see what other reviewers say. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Under family, there's a red link for Nicholas of Worcester. Recommend removing the link or finding another article that could be a suitable redirect (or creating a new one for Nicholas if he is sufficiently notable).

• I am working on an article on Nicholas. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Also under family, the article goes into what I think is unnecessary detail on Edgar's family in the second paragraph that would be better left in the article on Edgar. Maybe a discussion of Aethelwold's influence in Edward's reign, but almost everything else should be trimmed.

• This paragraph explains people who are discussed below.

All I have for now, I'll continue later. Very informative article, I've learned a lot so far! nf utvol (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments Nfutvol. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

From Tim riley

Booking my place. Shall revisit after those ahead of me in the queue have had their say. Tim riley talk 18:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Meets all the FA criteria in my view: a splendid read, as we expect from Dudley, evidently well and widely sourced, seemingly balanced, and beautifully illustrated. I abominate the spelling "biassed" though both Chambers and the OED admit it as a variant of the normal "biased"; both dictionaries hyphenate "single-mindedly". No other quibbles and I'm very happy to sign up in support of this top-notch article. Tim riley talk 18:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have never thought about any issue with biassed or singlemindedly and I have amended as you suggest. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

SC

• Putting down a marker for now. Will probably review before the new year. - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "Edward was the eldest son of": "He was..."?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• "Other pre-Conquest (before the Norman Conquest) sources": wouldn't "Other pre-Norman Conquest sources" be tidier?

• The term "pre-Conquest" is used several times and I think it is better to specifically define it. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• That's fine then. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Disputed succession

• "According to the best-informed account": this is a hefty 86-word quote. Is there a reason why it is in line in the paragraph while the "Now certain of the magnates of this realm" quote above (at 77 words) is set as a block quote?
  As some of the Stenton quote includes information outlined elsewhere ("the eldest son and the natural heir" is one example), ellipses could be used to reduce this down to a more efficient wording. This would also ensure the opening part of this section doesn’t feel quite do quote heavy, with three meaty extracts there.

• Cut down the quote. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Done to the start of "anti-monastic reaction" section. More to come. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks SchroCat. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

A couple more, taking us down to his death:

The "anti-monastic reaction"

• If " first'...Monks" is an ellipses, it should follow WP:ELLIPSES and have a nbsp before and a space afterwards.

Death

• " an equal insanity...The soldiers laid" – ditto

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

(At the moment I'm heavily leaning toward support: it's well written, clear and meets the FA criteria). - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Burial and translation

• "arranging the translation of Edward's body": Piped link for "translation" to Translation (relic)? There will be some who only think of the word in terms of languages, I'm sure. (You have it linked lowed with "the relics to be again translated", but the first use would be better, I think

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Early cult

• "Edward's was recognised as a saint": Edward's what was recognised?

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Piped link to Cult (religious practice) to hint to readers we're not talking about the modern type of cult?

• That is mainly about pagan cults. Linked to veneration. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• "lifetime...Much": see above on ellipses

Dispute

• "according to the archaeologist Richard Gem they were "understood in the academic community".': I'm not sure I understand this bit – what was understood by the academic community and did/do they agree or disagree about the bones?

• The full sentence is "Some historians qualify the comment because the results of Brothwell's examination were never published; according to the archaeologist Richard Gem they were "understood in the academic community"." I am not sure how to deal with this. "they" refers to "the results of Brothwell's examination". It is believed on the basis of rumour that Brothwell conducted an examination which concluded that the body was not Edward's. Clarifying would seem to verge on synth. Any suggestions? (I wonder whetehr he did not publish because there was something about his examination he was not happy about, but that is POV.) Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I think it could be clarified slightly as '... Gem the results were "understood...' (which would deal with my initial confusion over whether "they" referred to the results or the historians). I don't have the source, so I'll leave you to think if there is a clearer way to phrase that, as "understood" is, I think the problem. It could mean that they (literally) understood what he was saying, or (probably more likely) they understood and accepted what he was saying. I'll leave it to your judgement though.

Hi SchroCat. How about deleting the quote from Gem and just having: "Historians' accounts of Stowell's findings usually mention that they were contradicted by the British Museum osteoarchaeologist Don Brothwell, who is believed to have examined the bones and concluded that they were of an older man and that the damage was probably post-mortem, although no report of his examination was ever published." Is that clear? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That would be excellent - no ambiguity in that and no confusion for me! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That's my lot. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again SchroCat. Answers above. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Airship

I asked a friend with knowledge of the period to comment; paraphrased, he said:

• No need for the lengthy quotes from Stenton; he has been superseded by more recent historians, who should be preferred for quoting.

• Stenton is dated, but I do not agree that he is superseded. He is still quoted and discussed, for example in Roach's Æthelred the Unready. Higham and Ryan summed up Stenton's standing in their 2013 The Anglo-Saxon World, p. 443: "this classic account shows its age but is still a rewarding read". Rory Naismith's 2021 Early Medieval Britain liats both Stenton and Higham and Ryan in the bibliography under 'Classic Studies and Textbooks'. Out of the three quotes from Stenton, I have replaced the first, the second is a good summary of a view still generally accepted, the third is an example of a view which is now disputed. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• The following could use some more in-depth discussion/greater detail to achieve full "comprehensiveness":
  • Ælfthryth's role in the disputed succession

• As I comment below, it would be helpful to know what your friend thinks is missing. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• • The charters

• I will look at this. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have now added a section on the charters. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• • The coverage of the reasons for Æthelred promoting Edward's cult, especially in relation to the specific contexts of Aethelred's reign when it occured.

• This is extensively discussed, but I will look think what further might be said. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• They also think that Edgar is portrayed unduly negatively, but since they are personally biased towards him, they're classifying that as a "difference of opinion". In general, they felt the article is of a high standard.

• There were major achievements in Edgar's reign, which are discussed in his article which I previously took through FAC, but modern historians see his legacy to Edward as very negative, and this is the aspect which is relevant to Edward's article. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll hear what you think of those comments, and then perhaps perform a prose review. If you want clarification, I can act as the messenger. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. it is very helpful to have feedback from an expert. I am away for Christmas and will give a more detailed reply when I have access to my books later in the week. On Ælfthryth, I would be interested to know what more your friend thinks can be said. No contemporary source says anything about her role in the succession dispute, and post-Conquest writers are prejudiced and unreliable on her. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again AirshipJungleman29. Please see comments above. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 I have now finished looking through the points raised by your friend. I cannot see anything significant I have missed on Ælfthryth's role or Æthelred promoting Edward's cult, so can you please advise what your friend thinks is missing. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dudley Miles, thanks for checking. On Ælfthryth, they mention a recent biography by Elizabeth Norton which they recall provides more details on her role in the succession (they don't currently have it with them); on the promotion of the cult, they don't understand why the early promotion in the 990s is placed after later events, and is oddly disconnected from the "penance" trope you address earlier, which Keynes explicitly connects it to: In the early or mid 990s Æthelred and his councillors sought to placate a wrathful God by promoting the cult of Edward with a special foundation on an ancient royal estate at Cholsey...

So they would move the corresponding sentence, currently in the last paragraph of the section, to just after the sentence on Viking raids, and change it a little to explicitly link it to the "penance" purpose. I hope that's understandable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks AirshipJungleman29. Norton's 2013 biography, judging by the summary on Amazon, is based on the lurid stories about Ælfthryth by post-Conquest writers. It is not cited by academic historians. I agree that the Cholsey comment is misplaced and have moved it as part of larger rearrangement to make the start of the cult section clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll defer to your knowledge on that. On a prose level, I note we now have several top-level sections in the latter half of the article. Personally, I would put everything from "Burial and translation" to "Churches dedicated..." as subsections to a "Posthumous events" (or something) level-two section. Do you think that would work? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

How about 'Legacy'? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. I haven't done enough of a review that I feel I should support, but all my issues have been resolved satisfactorily. Nice article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

American Bank Note Company Printing Plant

Nominator(s): RoySmith (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

In a sense, this is a companion piece to my previous FA, Fleetwood Park Racetrack. We've moved (1.5 miles (2.4 km)) away and it's 10 years later, but it's a different world. Fleetwood Park was the end of the Bronx as a rural area on the outskirts of the city, where the rich and powerful had their estates and playgrounds. Now we're into the rise of the Bronx as a densely populated area and a center of industry. Both sites are adjacent to railways, but instead of bringing in crowds of people seeking entertainment, it's bringing in industrial supplies and shipping out finished products. While the racetrack fell victim to the economic pressure to build houses driving it out of existence, here we see the printing plant and the surrounding residential development having a symbiotic relationship, with the newly built housing providing a place to live for the workers in the plant and the plant providing additional incentive for developers to build new houses. Another contrast is that while physical evidence of the race track is all gone today, the printing plant, while no longer used for its original purpose, remains as a highly visible reminder of the history behind it. RoySmith (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• I did say I would comment at the PR. I did not. I am saying I will comment here. And I will. I promise. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• I also said on the PR that I would leave "comments later", which I never did. I'll probably have some commentary up soon, but there were a few things that I didn't quite get around to pointing out on the PR. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

PS, the PR referred to above is at Wikipedia:Peer review/American Bank Note Company Printing Plant/archive2 RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I did notice something about the article's structure. More specifically, the article is laid out roughly chronologically, with bits and pieces of architectural detail, operational detail, etc. interspersed throughout. It might be too much of a hassle to separate these into "History", "Operations", "Architecture", etc. sections, though—especially considering that the current section structure isn't actually bad—so I'll leave that be.

General:

• I notice a few places where periods are placed after references (" the New York Stock Exchange.[15].", "Haiti, and Cuba.[23].", etc. I would check the article for unnecessary punctuation like that.
  • Oh my. I just got a new OS which has been automatically inserting periods when it thinks you're at the end of a sentence! Ugh. I found six and fixed them. And figured out how to disable this "feature". If you see any more, let me know.

Lead:

• Para 1: Like I said in the PR, there's a little inconsistency over whether these are referred to as wings or separate buildings. If you are treating these as separate buildings, I would say "Lafayette building", "Garrison building", "Barretto building"; otherwise, I'd refer to these as "three interconnected wings". A similar issue applies to the rest of the article.
  • I had added an explanatory note (note 2) which talks about this. I've tried to use whichever usage made the most sense at that point, i.e. mostly followed the usage of the source I was citing. I think it would be bordering on WP:OR for me to pick one or the other and use that exclusively. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
    • Oh, okay. In that case I'd reuse that explanatory note in the lead too. Epicgenius (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• Para 2: "1909 – 1911" - This should be an unspaced endash unless you also have a month or a day
• Para 2: "70 Broad Steet" - Spelling error. Also, I'd link this to American Bank Note Company Building.
• Para 2: "sawtooth roof" - I would link to saw-tooth roof.
• Para 2: "a design philosophy of specifying the production lines first, followed by the building which could enclose them." - Currently, this is tacked very awkwardly at the end of the sentence. In other words, this basically reads "The design incorporated [...] a design philosophy of specifying the production lines first, followed by the building which could enclose them. Perhaps you can split this out to another sentence, e.g. "The plant's layout was based on a design philosophy of specifying the production lines first, followed by the building which could enclose them."
• You don't mention the dates of any of the subsequent Bank Note additions in the lead. Nor do you mention the 1977 bombing, which has a top-level header, though perhaps you may want to merge it with another section. Come to think of it, the "Previous land use" and "Land acquisition and construction" sections do not get any mention in the lead, either.
• Para 4: This paragraph is quite short; it summarizes all the renovations, subsequent sales, and the landmark designation in one sentence. This fails to convey much about that section (for example, who is the current owner or what was it renovated into) I would recommend expanding it to at least two sentences (you give "Operations" four full sentences in the previous paragraph).
• Para 4: "The plant was used by American Bank Note until 1986" - This is not cited in the article itself, which says American Bank Note moved out "By 1984 or 1985 (sources differ)".

Heh, it turns out, in a single report, the LPC says 1984 and 1986 in different places. Upon re-reading it, I pretty sure the 1986 one is wrong. I've reworded this to equivocate a bit.

OK, I think I've dealt with all of the above RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

So sorry for forgetting about this.

Previous land use:

• Para 2: "Central Realty, Bond & Trust Co" - I'd spell this out as "Central Realty, Bond & Trust Company"
• Para 2: "In 1910, the size of the Barretto Street block was increased as a result of a land swap between American Bank Note and the City, moving Barretto Street slightly north of its original location." - I would say "the city government" instead of just "the City". (Not really an issue, but the source seems to say that the company gained land to the northeast but had to give up some land to make way for Barretto Street.)

Land acquisition and construction:

• Para 1: "in a building which would later become the United States Customs House and eventually National City Bank." - So 55 Wall Street, then. (The 55 Wall article actually mentions American Bank Note already. I'm not going to say "ironically" because I actually improved that article, but yeah, it would be good to just link to 55 Wall somewhere.) Also, it's the United States Custom (no plural) House.
  • New comment: "known at the time as 48 Wall Street and later renumbered as 55 Wall Street" - This doesn't seem right to me. It's more likely that American Bank Note was at 48 Wall (which is across the street from 55 Wall and is now the site of this building), then moved to 55 Wall. It is the latter building that became the U.S. Custom House and then National City Bank. Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 2: " In parallel with this effort, the company was also looking for a separate location into which they could move their production facilities" - I think "also" and "in parallel" are redundant to each other, so you can just drop "also".
• Para 2: "it was felt" - by whom?

• I'm going to leave this one alone; the sentence already has a subject (the company), so it's clear who was doing the feeling.

• I completely missed that. The passive tense nonetheless seems a bit awkward, though; how about "they felt"? Epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Para 2: "One factor in the site selection was proximity to the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad" - The text "New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad" links to the company itself, so you could probably reword this as "One factor in the site selection was proximity to a New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad line" or "proximity to the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad's Hell Gate Line".
• Para 3: "in the next two or three years" - From 1908, or from when the plant was completed?
• Para 4: "The firm was already at work preparing preliminary plans" - I'd remove "at work" since the sentence retains its meaning without it.
• Para 5: "In what turned out to be an understatement," - (1) This needs a source from after 1909. (2) This could perhaps be reworded more encyclopedically, e.g. "The Times said that the design represented by the model might still "be subjected to some minor changes", although this was an understatement." Or, you could remove this altogether, as it looks like the sixth paragraph describes the extent of the changes.
• Para 6: "The design change is also believed" - By the LPC?

I still need to think about the best way to handle the "understatement" bit, but I've addressed all the other items. RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'll look at other parts of the article tomorrow or Monday. I mentioned the address numbers 48 and 55 Wall Street above, but I'm unsure about the address renumbering, as this is not something that ever came up in any of the sources about 55 Wall Street that I consulted. The source does say "All three companies were in lower Manhattan - American in the Custom House at 48 Wall Street (which is 55 Wall Street under the revised numbering system)". If I can find a source saying that odd- and even-numbered addresses on the street were indeed swapped, then this is a non-issue. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I've gone back to what was essentially my original wording. This is interesting from the point of view of a history of the company, but only peripheral to the Bronx printing plant, so no reason to live on the edge of WP:V. FWIW, there's an illustration on page 41 of that source which says it was the Merchants' Exchange building and looks like the photo at 55 Wall Street in the original 4-story configuration, but it's just not essential for this article. RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. The source does explicitly call out the building as being 55 Wall Street/the Merchants' Exchange Building (they're the same thing, and the 55 Wall article already says as much, with sources). But even if that weren't the case, what I meant was something like this—namely, I was just asking if you can link the 55 Wall article without needing to explain it in prose. In other words, this was more a minor nitpick than anything else. Epicgenius (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

https://tribecacitizen.com/2017/10/10/nosy-neighbor-why-are-tribecas-street-numbers-messed-up/ RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Also Henry B. Hoffmann. "Changed House Numbers and Lost Street Names in New York of the Early Nineteenth Century and Later" (PDF). anthonywrobins.com. Retrieved 23 December 2023., page 71. RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I promise to get to this over the weekend. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Initial configuration:

• Para 1: "In 1913, Harry Cook described the plant as "mammoth" " - Might benefit from some context on who Harry Cook is (e.g. "In 1913, guidebook writer Harry Cook...")

I think this got shuffled around a bit since your first read. The place you quote is now the second mention of Harry Cook. He's introduced the first time he's mentioned, under "Land acquisition and construction"

• Para 1: "Architecture & Building Magazine had referred to its "arsenal-like appearance with a pervading sense of strength and security."" - The period should be outside the quotation mark since the quoted text isn't a full sentence, per MOS:QUOTEPUNCT.
• By the way, it is strange that the Architecture & Building article doesn't seem to be digitized, because that would have been a good source to use directly.
• Para 2: "The electrical requirements were exceptional for the day" - Any idea how much electricity the plant required, though? Like thousands of megawatts?

1.21 jigawatts?

• Para 3: "This runs the full length of the Lafayette Avenue frontage," - The offices and workrooms run the full length?
• Para 3: "Lafayette avenue" should be capitalized as a proper name.
• Para 3: "Although the building used modern incandescent and arc lighting" - There should be a comma after this.
• Para 3: "The steel framework allowed three times the window area as would have been possible in an all-brick structure" - You mean a structure with brick bearing walls, presumably.

Probably. The source says "traditional brick structure". The way I have it and the way you suggest seem like equally reasonable interpretations of that.

• Para 4: "The lower floors of this building included a vault for storing over 130,000 printing plates" - A single two-story vault, or separate vaults on each story?

Subsequent additions:

• Para 1: "In 1925, a fourth story, only two bays deep, was added to the top of the Lafayette building, using materials that closely matched the style of the original" - At this point I'm nitpicking, but do the sources say why this fourth story was built? I ask because reasons are given for all the other additions mentioned in this paragraph (e.g. the garage was expanded for ink production, the Barretto Street wing was for a laundry and pulp mill, etc.)

The source does not say.

• Para 2: "built a number of other buildings" - I'd just say "built several other buildings" (or, to be less repetitive, "developed other buildings").

Operations:

• Para 1: "In 1919, the plant employed 2,000 workers" - Are there any other data on how many workers were employed at the plant (e.g. are there sources about employment in either the 1920s, '30s, '40s, or '50s)?

Not that I've been able to find.

• Para 1: "railroads, steamship lines and others" - And other transport lines?

The source just says "railroads, steamship lines, and other clients"

• Para 2: "The company employed, according to Meyer Berger," - I would briefly introduce Berger, i.e. "The company employed, according to journalist Meyer Berger".
• Para 2: "The house style favored" - The house style of the engravings?
• Para 3: "to whom it offered an advanced employee welfare program" - What did this program entail, for example?

The source does not say

• Para 5: "from 1908–1914" - I think this should be either "from 1908 to 1914", "in 1908–1914", or even "for six years starting in 1908" (the 1914 end date is already mentioned at the end of the paragraph).

Bombing:

• Was anyone killed or injured in the bombing? (I assume not, because the FALN bombings largely resulted only in property damage, but it doesn't hurt to check)
• Para 2: "This was the fifty-first attack attributed to the group in the previous three years." - The previous paragraph says the FBI office was bombed the same day. The source says there were 51 total bombings attributed to the FALN; the FBI attack happened five minutes after the American Bank Note attack, so technically the American Bank Note attack was not strictly the 51st FALN bombing.

More in a bit. This is a long article but I should be done really soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've take care of all those. RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Post-Bank Note:

• In general, I was wondering whether this should really be divided into two or three subsections, since this section is pretty long and has one comparatively short subheader for landmark status.

It's unclear what a logical division would be. This was previously in two sections, one which talked about owners and another which talked about tenants. That proved to be problematical (see Eddie's review) so I ended up merging this into a single section which takes a chronological approach.

I personally would have divided this into "1980s and 1990s" and "2000s to present" sections, though I can see why this may not work, especially if occupants like the John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School were present in the building during both eras. Epicgenius (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Para 1: "The center occupied 146,000 square feet (13,600 m2) (about 1/3 of the site), housing several tenant companies in the clothing and fabric industry." - Do you know if this still exists, or if not, what happened to this? I would also use Template:Frac for "1/3".

I'm reasonably sure it no longer exists, but can't find any sources that say so explicitly. Tenants moving in tend to be covered well. Moving out, not so much (unless there's some controversy about it). I made it "one third" to match the style I used elsewhere, i.e. "one half", etc

• Para 2: "The space was renovated" - Was this in 1997 or later?

2005, added.

• Para 3: "The Bronx Academy of Arts and Dance had their first home in the complex in 1998[41]" - the comma should go before the ref, per WP:REFPUNCT.

Fixed.

• Para 3: "In 2013, the Academy left the building after fifteen years of tenancy" - I think "after fifteen years of tenancy" is unnecessary as it's already mentioned that the academy moved into the building in 1998. Also, since Taconic bought the building in 2008, would it be better to mention that first before mentioning that the academy's lease wasn't renewed?

I tried to keep everything about a given tenant or owner in a single paragraph, in response to a comment from Eddie. That means the paragraphs overlap in time sequence. I think this makes logical sense, even if it means the events aren't all in strictly chronological sequence.

Sounds good to me. I trust Eddie's reasoning on this; although personally I would have arranged the info more or less chronologically, grouping the info by owner/tenant makes sense. Epicgenius (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Para 5: The New York Times should be italicized.
• Para 5: "At the time, comparable rents" - You mean "rents for comparable space"?

Well, yes, that's what it means, but "comparable rents" is the phrase used in the source and I believe is the standard phrase used in the industry (if not just "comparables"). But chasing this down led me to the 1985 rent being $3.50, so I added that.

• Para 6: "Sunshine ceased operations in 2017" - It might be better to use a secondary source for this claim, if one exists. In addition, the website says that Sunshine was founded in 2001 and closed "after 15 adventurous years", which indicates that it must've ceased operation in 2016.
• Para 7: "combining four existing offices" - Personally I'd say "combining existing offices at four locations"; otherwise it sounds like you're combining four existing adjacent offices.

Landmark status:

• Para 2: "The Real Deal describes the building as "one of the most architecturally distinctive office properties in the Bronx" - Was this description made when the building became a NYC landmark?

No; I've moved that sentence elsewhere.

Transportation:

• Para 1: "When the plant was originally built" - I think you can remove "originally" here.

That's it from me. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Done with all those. RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Support. I understand that there are a few details that can't be added due to a lack of sourcing (which is something that's out of our control). Overall, though, the article is really good. Epicgenius (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

HF - support

I'll take a look. Hog Farm _Talk 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• "American Bank Note" and "American Banknote" are used interchangably. I'm moderately familiar with the name from collecting postage stamps, and I belive I've always seen it as American Bank Note in that context
  • Fixed
• "Until the late 19th century, the land where the plant stands was part of the Village of West Farms in Westchester County" - not sure how we can get this from the source. We know the plant was in the Bronx, but this source indicates that the Bronx was a mix of West Farms, Morrisiana, and Kingsbridge
  • The cited source says "Morrisania was created out of a division of West Farms in 1855" and Kingsbridge is nowhere near this area, but in any case, I swapped a different source which speaks more directly to this.
• "except eighteen lots on Mania Street" - per both the source cited for the quote and one of the later NYT sources, this should be Manida Street
  • Fixed
• "Switchboards were in the basement." - rather nit-picky, but the source mentions only a single switchboard
  • Fixed
• "and most of the lampposts have been removed" - source says "none of the original lamposts remain"
  • The footnote says "One historic, non-original globe light fixture remains on the right gate post of the main pedestrian entrance, but is not functional; non-functioning remnants of other light fixtures are present atop the remaining original posts of the brick wall; a historic globe lamppost remains atop a brick pier within the parking lot, but is not functional." I changed the citation to directly reference the footnote.

Ready for the subsequent additions section; will resume tomorrow. Hog Farm _Talk 04:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• "According to a Landmarks Preservation Commission report, this was done in 1910, but this date is questionable since that predates the main plant's completion, and the garage does not appear on a 1911 map. " - slight SYNTH/OR here, as all that's cited in the LPC report that provides the 1910 date
  • I'm not sure what you're asking me to do here. RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
    • It seems a bit problematic to me to say "RS A says this but it must be wrong because of X Y & Z" without directly citing anything but RS A, but then again you are indirectly citing the other sources in the statement. I'll leave this for other reviewers to comment on - Eddie891? Hog Farm _Talk 02:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

      Were this me, I would say "According to a Landmarks Preservation Commission report, this was done in 1910.[CITATION] However, the main plant was not completed until after this date, and the garage does not appear on a 1911 map.[CITATION]" Then, you're allowing the reader to infer the "is questionable" part and providing the relevant citations for them to check it all out, without going out of your way to say it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

      I found another source saying 1910, so I'll go with that as correct. On the other hand, it's another LPC document so they may just be regurgitating their own pablum :-) RoySmith (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• ""Building News: New York". The American Architect. New York. 101: 14. May 22, 1912. ISSN 2836-6638 – via Google Books." - URL for this is giving me a 403 forbidden error?
  • No clue why, but I'm getting the same. I've added the archive URL and marked the primary URL as dead. IABot generated the archive but I have no clue why it didn't insert the archive URL into the citation. RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• "As of 2023 the ABCorp web site lists custom-printed playing cards as a currently available product.[29]" - this does not seem relevant to this article in particular; in fact I would recommend paring down the entire playing cards paragraph to a couple of sentences stating that American Bank Note produced playing cards as well, but they were not as high of quality as the rest of the company's offerings
• "When Taconic Investments purchased the site, the Bronx Academy of Arts and Dance was forced out due to rising rents. " - recommend rephrasing. This makes it sound like this happened quickly, but later in the article we are told this occurred 5 years after Taconic bought the place
• ""BankNote Building Tears Down Mural as Artists Leave and City Moves In". DNAinfo New York. Archived from the original on November 13, 2017. Retrieved February 3, 2018." - source is missing the date published

That's it for my first read-through. Hog Farm _Talk 23:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Other than being unclear on what to do about the LPC report item, fixed all of the above. RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Eddie

• Is American Bank Note not the same company as the one we're talking about here? Is there a reason it isn't linked?

Wow, don't know how I mised that. Fixed.

• "described the plant as "mammoth" and noted" It feels a bit out of place to include your first description of the plant here (ie before it is built chronologically), I would either move the mention down or remove it

Moved

• ", and was reported in the next day's New York Times" I would remove this, unless it's particularly relevant that it was reported in the NYT (what about other publications?)
• "It was expected" expected by who? -- this whole paragraph as a whole has a lot of unattributed passive voice, which I'm wary of, at best. Maybe attribute?

I reworked the paragraph to place the expectation on the NYTimes. The source article doesn't attribute the expectation to anybody in particular, so I'm treating it as if it were the NYT's editorial opinion.

• "with the facility being" maybe "and the factory was" if that doesn't change the meaning incorrectly?

Made it "plant"

• "Sources differ on whether the main portion of the site is a single building with three wings (Lafayette, Garrison, and Barretto), or three distinct but interconnected buildings. In this article, the terms wing and building are used interchangeably." for this note, I'd include some of the sources that conflict

That would require listing a lot of sources. I changed it to "variously refer to", which I hope conveys a more accurate feeling than "differ"

I didn't mean as much the phrasing, but add a couple citations to back this up. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• "The final design was apparently influenced" I'd try to tweak the word choice here since "apparently influenced" is the same as the source and that's pretty distinctive word choice
• "The Lafayette wing is a tall" Tall is not very descriptive -- can you use any other word?

I think it's fine the way it is; later in the paragraph I talk about the number of floors, so if there's any confusion, it doesn't last long.

• I'm not clear from the article when the initial construction went from to-- do you know?

I'm not following. It's mentioned in several places that it was completed in 1911.

I was wondering if you knew more specifically when it was completed, or had any idea when construction actually began. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• "what were said to be the world's most skilled engravers" Were said by who?

Added a attribution.

• "One official counterfeiter was Will Ford's father, William F. Ford" Feels a bit out of place-- why does he get mentioned here?

This paragraph is about the anti-counterfitting efforts, and Will Ford is mentioned in the preceeding paragraph. It seems logical to me.

• "Although the company's financial documents were of the finest quality" Feels unnecessary to say here, maybe "Although the company's financial documents were of the finest quality their playing cards were not, lacking" -> "Their playing cards lacked"

I kind of like the way it reads now, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

• "It is now one of the cornerstones of a Hunts Point revitalization" Feels like this sentence doesn't actually say very much-- was there a project to revitalize hunts point that placed the plant as a central aspect? Do the sources establish this? Because I didn't see it in my reading of them. I'm especially reluctant to say "now" and cite it to sources that are 9 or more years old

Dropped that sentence.

• "In 2002, Lady Pink organized a group of female graffiti artists to paint a brick wall on the Barretto Street side of the property." was this to make some sort of statement?

Added "anti-war", which is all I could find, and another citation.

• "Rice-Gonzalez also said that Taconic initially demanded a six-month penalty" what does "a six-month penalty" mean here?
• Why do you describe the moving out of the Bronx Academy of Arts and Dance in two different places? In my mind it would make more sense to combine the two

Originally, the first part was about the controversy around the new owners forcing out existing low-rent tennants and the second part was about the organization. I've coalesced those into a single location.

• "The building design emphasizes security by deliberately limiting access to a single entrance, despite having over of street frontage." is there still only one entrance?

There's an entrance on Lafayette Ave, and another by the loading dock on the Tiffany St side. I've made some edits to clarify this, and to avoid calling either one the "main entrance".

That's a first pass. Interesting article. Not wedded to any of these points. I made some smaller changes, feel free to revert any. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I think I've addressed all of the above. Awaiting the next salvo. RoySmith (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• "describing a design which was abandoned before the end of that year" Was the design entirely abandoned, or just heavily modified? If it was abandoned, do we know where the new design came from?

I guess abandoned vs heavily modified is a subjective thing. I've broken out a separate "Design evolution" sub-section and shuffled things around a bit to (hopefully) make this more clear, with the first paragraph talking exclusively about the original design, and the second paragraph introducing the second design and why it came to be. I hope that works.

I think that helps things

• "in 1928 to provide space for ink production" so did it cease to be a garage?

Hmm. The source(s) call it a garage, but I suspect that's meant in the more general sense of "a small building out back" and was probably never used to store vehicles. In much the same way that my garage at home is filled with bicycles, lawn mowers, and other random crap and has never had a car parked in it :-)

• "On March 20, 1977, the complex was damaged by a bomb planted by the FALN, a Puerto Rican terrorist group which had chosen to attack the plant because of its role in "capitalistic exploitation"" I would maybe attribute this quote (ex "in what they deemed "capitalistic exploitation"")
• "This caused a number of controversies with community organizations" were there any (others) worth noting? You only describe one

The other was the eviction of the Bronx Academy of Arts and Dance. I had originally covered part of that here and part in a later section; these got combined at the urging of another reviewer. I'm open to suggestions as to how this could be presented better.

Hm. On second thought, was the anti-war graffiti also a protest over/caused by rising prices/values? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a tie-in, but I can't find any sources which say that. RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Right, so we've really only got one of a "number of controversies". What do the sources say on the matter? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that what I've got now is sub-optimal. I'll spend some time thinking about the best way to fix up this section and doing some more research; give me a few days on that. RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, no rush. Besides this there's just the two points above (look for my signature in the first round) of comments. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eddie891 OK, I've reshuffled the way the Post-Bank Note section is organized. Instead of one part talking about the changing building ownerships and another part talking about the tenants, I've merged those two into a single chronological presentation covering both aspects. Along the way, I got rid of the "number of controversies" statement and just talked about the individual controversies in-line. It's kind of a long section, but I think it works and I don't see any good way to break it up into smaller sections.

What were the other two points that are still pending? RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• suggest standardizing between 'Sunshine Business Incubator' and 'Sunshine Bronx Business Incubator'

• Done

• " Sources variously refer to the main portion of the site is a single building with three wings (Lafayette, Garrison, and Barretto), or three distinct but interconnected buildings. In this article, the terms wing and building are used interchangeably." Is it possible to add citations to the end of this note?

• Perhaps somebody with better template-fu than I posses can figure out how to get one footnote to include a reference to another, but I have been unable to make that work. I have, however, added an example of the LPC using "building" and "wing" in the same sentence, which I think should assure our readers that it's a thing. RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• "was emblematic of the "New Bronx"." maybe add a bit about what Díaz meant by that?

Thanks for your work to date. Probably everything for me. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Done with all this. RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Support, thanks for your work on this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Review of this version to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• All sources appear reliable. Spot check upon request.
• In some refs, publication names are WL-ed (e.g., ref 6 and ref 31 WLs to NYT, but ref 34 does not). It should be all or nothing for consistency.
• In general, I think website names should be the name displayed in the browser tab on the home page of the website rather than xyz.com.
  • Which ones in particular? As far as I can tell, that's what I've got. The urls that show up in the refs are the url= field because that's how the citation templates present it. Did I miss any?
    • I'm referring to the website= parameter. For example, in ref 8, it appears as "nyc.gov". Per the examples given in the citation template documentation, I would suggest that it should be "Official Website of the City of New York", which is to the left of the logo on top of every page. Or, the website parameter might not even be necessary in that case, since you name the agency as the author. Similarly, in ref 1, the website parameter is not "6tocelebrate.org".
      • OK, fixed those. Ref 1 is a {{cite report}}, not a {{cite web}}, so not sure what you're looking at on that one.
        • RoySmith: I got caught up in the weeds of the template parameters. I think ref 8 should be cite report instead of cite web.
• Per ELNO #1, everything in the external links except for the official website should be incorporated as cites or moved to the talk page using {{refideas}}.
• Ref 2 should use {{Cite map}}, instead of citing to the website, using the title on the map itself and the publisher/date information provided by the NYPL. I think the NYPL stuff and collection information can be included using the via parameter.
• Since ref 6 is paywalled even in the archive version, I don't think the archive url is necessary.
  • Unfortunately, I don't have any control over this; I could take it out, but the next time IABot runs, it'll get reinserted automatically.
    • You can add Template:Cbignore to the end of the citation (right before </ref>) so the bot knows to skip that citation. Epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Voorts do you remember which ref this was? I looked at ref 6 in Special:Permalink/1193596913 and that's not it. RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  @RoySmith: It is ref 6. The archived version has this underneath the page image: "Full text is unavailable for this digitized archive article. Subscribers may view the full text of this article in its original form through TimesMachine." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting. IA seems to handle other NYTimes articles OK. I'm not actually sure how they do this, since it means they need to get past the paywall, but they do. I added the {{cbignore}}. Which annoyingly breaks Visual Editor's ability to edit that ref. Oh well. Bigger battles to fight than to worry about this. RoySmith (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 9 does not link to EbscoHost through TWL, but it's listed as being via TWL. I would either change the link or change the via parameter.
• Ref 10 the word "story" should be capitalized.
• Ref 18 is fine, but I just wanted to note that I love that Cement Age: A Monthly Magazine Devoted to the Uses of Cement exists.
• Ref 23 is a duplicate of ref 20.
• Ref 25 does not support the proposition stated in text, and should also be cited using {{Cite AV media}} if you're going to use it as a cite for something else.
  • Wow, not sure what happend there, but the mis-ref goes back years. That sentence wasn't essential so I dropped it. I'll put it back if I can ever find the correct reference for it.
• Refs 38, 41, 43, 45, 48, 49, 51, 53, 55 titles should be changed to title case per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
• Ref 44 article title should just be "Culinary & Hydroponics".

RoySmith: Source review completed. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: I still need to figure out how to deal with the Ebsco URL, but other than that all of these are resolved. RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, got that sorted. RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The archive url still is for Ebsco directly instead of the TWL proxy. Also, I replied above to your question. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This is another case of IABot generating a bogus archive URL. I'll do some research to see if I can figure out how to make IABot do the right thing, but in the meantime, I don't have a good answer.

@Voorts: With David Eppstein's help, I was able to beat IABot into submission. See WT:Citing sources#How to cite an archived EBSCO source? if you're interested in the details. I believe that was the last item on your list. RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Some more notes:

• In ref 37, do you think it is worth WL-ing "Bronx Borough President" to Borough president?
  • Not really.
• In refs with "New York City Economic Development Corporation" and "Landmarks Preservation Commission", WL to that article for consistency with other refs. Same for MTA in ref 55.

• Upon further review of ref 54, I suggest: {{Cite web |date=January 15, 2008 |title=Testimony of the Municipal Art Society Before the Landmarks Preservation Commission |url=https://www.mas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Testimony-American-Bank-Note-Co-Printing-Plant-Historic-Preservation-2008.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161009214235/http://www.mas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Testimony-American-Bank-Note-Co-Printing-Plant-Historic-Preservation-2008.pdf |archive-date=October 9, 2016 |access-date=February 1, 2018}} My reasoning is that the author of the statement is not actually Benika Morokuma because it is the "Testimony of the Municipal Art Society" and the statement is written in the second person, with the speaker noting that they are speaking "on behalf of the Municipal Art Society". Since the organization's name is already in the title of the document, it would be redundant to list it as the author as well.
  • I left the first alone, did the others.

We're almost to the finish line here (this version):

• Still need to WL Landmarks Preservation Commission throughout the refs.
• Ref 16: Since the book is self-published, I don't think you need to indicate that the author is also the publisher.
  • If I leave it out, I get "CS1 maint: location missing publisher"
• Ref 21: I suggest {{Cite web |last1=Bady |first1=David |last2=Butler Munch |first2=Janet |last3=Ultan |first3=Lloyd |title=American Bank Note Company |url=http://www.lehman.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/arch/buildings/American_Bank_Note.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220502224947/https://www.lehman.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/arch/buildings/American_Bank_Note.html |archive-date=May 2, 2022 |access-date=February 2, 2018 |publisher=Lehman College Art Gallery |work=Bronx Architecture}}. This webpage is part of this broader work: https://www.lehman.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/arch/index.html and the authors of the architectural descriptions are listed here: https://www.lehman.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/arch/credits/index.html
• Ref 24: WL Oxford University Press.
• Ref 25: WL Fordham University Press.
• Ref 30: WL Committee on Government Reform and U. S. Government Printing Office.
• Ref 36: URL is dead and the title of the webpage needs to be converted to title case ("the", "and", etc. are all capitalized).
  • Are you sure that's the right ref number? The 36 is Geiger, Daniel (September 15, 2014). "Architecturally Notable Bronx Building Sold for $114M". Crain's New York Business. ISSN 8756-789X. Archived from the original on April 1, 2017. Retrieved December 31, 2016. which is live.
    • Ref 38, sorry.
      • Fixed.
• Note 1 needs references.
  • I'm going to push back on this one. There's many sources that use "wing" and many that use "building". Listing them would be silly and add no value to the article.
• Note 2 should be converted into a bulleted list and put in the refs section per WP:CITEBUNDLE. Each of the cites should also get archive URLs.
  • Nope. That's {{Inflation/fn}}
    • I've made an edit request to the template.
• Unrelated to the source review, but the ellipses in the quotes in "Previous land use" and the block quote in "Landmark status" do not need to be in brackets per MOS:ELLIPSIS, unless there are ellipses in the original that need to be distinguished from ellipses that have been inserted here.

I think that's everything for now but I'll do one final look once those are fixed. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts other than as noted above, all done with these. RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith, last note: Ref 10, WL ABCorp. Per Template:Inflation/fn#Reference_grouping, you can change the inflation/fn to be in the ref list instead of as a note. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: one more note per above. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to push back on this one too. The data to support how the inflation calculations are done is a low-level detail, not essential to the reader's understanding of the article's subject. I don't think there's any reason to clutter up the references with this stuff. WP:FACR requires consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes. I believe what I have now satisfies that. RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. This version of the article passes my source review. Thank you for your work documenting the history of the Bronx! voorts (talk/contributions) 20:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review: Pass

All images, as far as I can see, have alt text and evident encyclopaedic value. Licensing checks:

• File:Amer Bank Note Lafayette Av & Baretto St sun jeh.jpg: OK.
• File:Woodside Mansion circa 1913.jpg: OK
• File:American Bank Note Printing Plant Design Sketch.jpg: OK
• File:An Ideal Printing Plant.jpg: OK
• File:American Bank Note Printing Plant Exterior 1911.jpg: I don't immediately see publication data for this image on the "source" page; assuming the date is good, it's PD unless unpublished and anonymous, but do we have any concrete information?
  • @UndercoverClassicist: I don't know if this helps, but https://old.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITIONS/VERTICAL_URBAN_FACTORY/abc_bx.php has what's clearly the same image, annotated "Kirby, Petit & Green Architects, 1909-1911. Photographs courtesy of the Bank Note"
    • I think that source clears the bar for what we need; suggest adding a link to the Commons page? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Not sure what you mean by a link to the commons page. The image is already linked there by default. Also, by comparison of the watermark vs File:1996.164.8-B19045 glass SL1.jpg, the photographer appears to have been Irving Underhill. RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
        • Dooh! You meant, "Make the commons page point to the skyscraper.org page. Done.
• File:Bank Note Printing Plant Lafayette Ave Windows.jpg: OK
• File:American Bank Note Engraving Room.jpg: OK
• File:American Bank Note Press Room.jpg: OK (same as above)
• File:Plate 27, Part of Section 10, Borough of the Bronx 1911.jpg: OK
• File:Plate 27, Part of Section 10, Borough of the Bronx 1921.jpg: OK
• File:US Printed Dutch Guilder.png: strictly, I don't think this one has a copyright notice, so the tag should be {{PD-US-no notice}} rather than the 70-year tag (which wouldn't apply if the copyright was notified and renewed).
  • @Vengo dalla Luna: who uploaded the original to commons.
• File:American Bank Note Playing Cards No 502.jpg: OK
• File:Bank Note Printing Plant Tower.jpg

To my eyes, the only quibbles are formalities; it seems almost certain that the images are all PD. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist is there anything else I need to be doing here? RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Either way, the copyright tag on the Dutch Gilder is wrong: is there anything stopping you from changing it over? I don't think we need to worry about the possibility of copyright notification and renewal unless there's some cause to think there's a reasonable chance that those things did happen. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker for now - will be back with a week - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

IB

• "Type: Printing Plant" should be "Type: Printing plant"

Previous land use

• "Village of West Farms" doesn't appear to be a formal name (or, at least, not according to the linked article), so it should be "village of West Farms"

Land acquisition

• Being British I don't know all the vagaries of AmEng, but isn't "totalling" spelled with one l in the US?
• Why do you have "The ''[[The New York Times|New York Times]]''" instead of the correct "''[[The New York Times]]''"?

Design evolution

• "The New York Times" should be "The New York Times" (x2)

Done to the end of Design evolution. Reading nicely so far; more to come. – SchroCat (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed all those. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Done down to the end of Subsequent additions with no problems - SchroCat (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Post-Bank

• "The site was purchased by Taconic": it jars a bit to hear about the purchase after hearing about them kicking out some of the tenants. More jarring is hearing abut the "mecca" promise after hearing they had broken it. I can see you're dealing with each party in a semi-chronological manner, but I think it breaks down around this point.
  • SchroCat An earlier reviewer objected to my dealing with BAAD in two different places, which is what led to the current organization. I've tried another variation which addresses your specific concern, and I can see your point about this being a particularly discordant sequence. <span class="pushback">I don't want to go too far down this path (i.e. similarly split the JVL Academy chronology) because I think that would make things too disjointed. I will talk to the real estate folks about trying to get their tenants to move in and out in a more convenient order in the future.</span> RoySmith (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
    • I think that flows much more freely than before, thanks for sorting.
      It's not a question of when people moved in or out, but about not tripping up readers when they have to jump back and forth on the chronology and be told things they may already have half-guessed. I think the JVL Academy part reads just fine as it is—as does the Lady Pink paragraph—but the Bronx Academy bit was the bit that was problematic. - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

That's my lot – an interesting article. – SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Nice read and an interesting bit of NY history. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Guallatiri

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in northern Chile, one of the more active volcanoes in this remote region. It is covered by a shrinking ice cap and it has conspicuous fumaroles that can be seen from around the mountain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 17:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

HF - support

I intend to review this over the coming days; please ping me if I haven't gotten to this by Monday. Hog Farm _Talk 17:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The summit may be either a lava dome or a pyroclastic cone," - the "the volcano" section doesn't make any indication that this Guallatiri could be a pyroclastic cone so far as I can tell and instead suggests it may be a volcanic plug

  I hate dealing with disagreeing sources. Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Guallatiri has been active in historical times with a number of eruptions, the latest in 1960" - the article also mentions a poorly documented eruption in 1987?

  Yes, but Global Volcanism Program does not accept it. I figure there is disagreement on whether it was an actual eruption or merely increased gas emissions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The term wallatiri means "abundance of the Andean goose" in Aymara[2] and refers to its frequent occurrence in the area" - this needs rephrased; as it stands the "its frequent occurrence" would grammatically be referring to the term wallatiri itself, not the geese

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Since we are given conflicting height figures, how was 6,071 selected to be the one used for the lead and infobox?

  Because Echevarria is probably the best source for elevation data. I've removed the figure from the lead and infobox, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• If Echevarria 1963 and Echevarria 1999 are the same person, should the 6,087 figure that is currently source only to the 1963 source be ommitted as probably superceded if no other high-quality source for it can be found, since the author is now reporting a different figure for its height?

  Aye, and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note C has topographic isolation as 29.1 kilometers, while the infobox has 25

  Was mended on Wikidata. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• The infobox lists the volcanic field as the Nevados de Quimsachata in a matter as if this is certain, but the lead and body both indicate there is some debate about this

  I just keep forgetting about the infobox, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "and displays levees, ogives, polygonal cracks and blocky surfaces" - a link or gloss of some form is needed for ogives; this is not a common term

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Should the redlink for pioneer vegetation point to pioneer species for now?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The older Humurata and Acotango volcanoes are heavily eroded,[11] Capurata is better preserved.[30] " - I'm not sure that this is really on-topic for this article; all three of the peaks are separate for Guallatiri and no direct connection between this information and Guallatiri is made

  I think it's valid contextual information since they are right next to each other. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Tuffs and pyroclastic flow deposits occur both in the summit region and in radial valleys that emanate from Guallatiri,[34] although some of the valley deposits have been reinterpreted as being reworked sediments" - but then we have "Pyroclastic flow deposits extend to 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) distance from Guallatiri. Radiocarbon dating has yielded ages ranging between 6,255±41-140±30 years before present.[38] These flows are unrelated to the lava domes, which show no evidence of collapses that could have formed pyroclastic flows" later in the article; this seems to be at least a partial contradiction

  Not seeing it - some valley deposits are sediments, other are pyroclastic flows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  My concern is that the first passage suggests that it is possible that some or all of these pyroclastic flow deposits in the valley are related to Guallatiri, while the later bit seems to rule this out entirely. Hog Farm _Talk 03:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Did a small correction. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The composition of volcanic rocks ranges from andesite to rhyolite;[1] with dacites being predominant." - it is unclear if this sentence refers to volcanic rocks in general or to those at Guallatiri specifically

  Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Something seems to have gone wrong with the title of Echevarria 1963

  Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Glaciología. "Glaciares del Volcán Guallatiri". Glaciología (in Spanish). Retrieved 2021-06-30." - this looks like the personal website of one Andres Rivera, what makes it high-quality RS

  It's this professor with a number of publications on Chilean glaciers and not just Chilean ones per his profile on the University of Chile website. One example from Wiley is this one. Google Scholar refers to his website and has some well-cited publications by him. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Jaksic et al is missing a publisher

  That had a few more issues, which I have now fixed. I kinda wonder if "Estudios Publicos" is a journal rather than a publisher, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Appears to be a journal: https://www.estudiospublicos.cl/index.php/cep/ RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, corrected the citation thusly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that is it for the first read-through. Hog Farm _Talk 03:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: this has been stalled for a few weeks. Is it OK to ping the participants in my last FAC (Mike Christie, Volcanoguy, Esculenta, Hawkeye7, Gog the Mild and Mujinga) to see if they have input? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That would be fair -- the FAC list isn't long ATM and I think we can afford this one more time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

So done, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Can we sort the references into alphabetical order? Anales, Reyes-Hardy and Reyes are out of order.
• Why is DAVID in capitals?
• Titles for Inostroza and Muñoz are in capitals - lowercase
• Date formats are inconsistent:
  • Alvaro et al, Jorquera, Reyes, and Rodriguez et al use mdy - should be dmy - and why is SERNAGEOMIN in capitals?
  • Bouysse-Cassagne, Glaciología, Gliß et al, Stern et al use ISO - should be dmy
• ISBN formats are inconsistent:
  • Bouysse-Cassagne - isbn should be 978-2-37154-004-0
• Access dates required for Cáceres, Chacón Cruz, Charrier, David, Espinosa, Francis, GVP,
• Link for Jaksic is broken
• Unlink Concepción, Melipeuco, Naples
• location for Bouysse-Cassagne, David, Villalba et al, Wörner?
• DOI for Romero is invalid or incorrect
• Incomplete journal references:
  • Bion should be volume 15, issue 1, pp. 183-184 issn 0065-6925
  • Echevarría (1963) should be volume 13, issue 2, pp. 425-452 issn 0065-6925
  • Estudios públicos ISSN is 0718-3089
  • Hydrological Sciences Journal ISSN is 0262-6667

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

SERNAGEOMIN is an acronym, hence the caps. Cáceres doesn't have an URL at the moment so it can't get an accessdate. I don't see a location for Bouysse-Cassagne and I don't think that it, Wörner or Villalba need one. I sent a report for that DOI, and just sent another one. Done otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

SERNAGEOMIN is defined in the lead but not the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Spot checks:

• • 54a, 69, 77, 84a - okay

Sources are of good quality.

Pass Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "Other names are Punata which is also Aymara, Huallatiri and Huallatire." Suggest "Other names are Punata, which is also an Aymara word, Huallatiri, and Huallatire." If you don't want the Oxford comma in this case, then perhaps "Other names are Punata (which is also an Aymara word), Huallatiri and Huallatire."

  Went for the parenthetical. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Other towns include": suggest "Other nearby towns include".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Why is Arica worth mentioning?

  Because it's the first large city - even Putre is more a village. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Economic activity in the area includes the Tambo Quemado border crossing, agriculture, animal husbandry as well as tourism and mountaineering": I think this needs "agriculture and animal husbandry" (or with an Oxford comma if you prefer); "as well as" following a list grammatically implies the list could stand alone, meaning that the last two items need the "and" between them.

  Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  That wasn't quite what I meant so I tweaked it again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  Your version works even better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note [c]'s mention of other reported heights seems significant enough for more of it to be in the main text. Perhaps something like "Guallatiri height has been variously reported." and then give any reasons for trusting the two you put in the main text, and mention that higher and lower figures exist. Optionally I think you could also move the rest of [c], about topographical prominence, to the main text. Or if you do reduce [c] to a note about topographical prominence as I'm suggesting, you could move it to after "Guallatiri rises about 1.7 kilometres (1.1 mi) above the surrounding terrain".

  Moved the note down and left the heights thing behind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Ice area has been retreating": can we get an indication of the time period this is referring to? E.g. was this a 2017 paper reviewing the previous 20 years, or an assessment of the 20th century retreat?

  Added a parenthetical to explain why. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• "This is a consequence of the climate in the region, where glacier extent was more sensitive to increased moisture supply than to decreasing temperatures": I would think both increased moisture and decreasing temperature would tend to increase glacier extent, so this seems an odd thing to say -- the relative sensitivity to these two factors doesn't explain why the climate in the region led to a different time of maximum glacial extent.

  In practical terms, glaciers respond more to temperature than to precipitation except in very dry regions. Guallatiri and other Central Andean volcanoes are simply an exception to the rule. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  OK, but I don't follow the logical connection between that sentence and the previous one. Why does this fact mean peak glaciation was at a different time? Is there a missing connective statement, perhaps about the climate during those times? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's one of these cases where the explanation isn't contained in the source. I've moved part of the sentence to a footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think if we can't explain the connection the simplest thing to do would be to remove the second sentence of the footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've added an explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  That works. I was surprised to see a word like "presumably" in Wikipedia's voice, but I looked at the cited abstract and I think that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Some glaciers were still present during the Holocene, as the Domo Tinto lava dome bears traces of glacial erosion and is partially covered by moraines." "As" should mean that the information after it implies the information before it, but I don't see a causal connection here -- the traces of erosion could predate the Holocene. If the point is that the Domo Tinto dome is of Holocene age, I think that needs to be mentioned here.

  Mentioned that DT is of Holocene age. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Moraines have been emplaced on volcanic units." This is in the last paragraph of the "Ice" subsection; I think it's here because you're summarizing, but it's rather repetitive since you've already mentioned that there are moraines.

  Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• "It contains about 58 volcanoes which are potentially active or active": I misparsed this on first reading as having "potentially" apply to both "active" and "active". Suggest "It contains about 58 volcanoes which are active or potentially active".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• I can sort of guess what "overprinted" must mean, but it feels like a term of art. Can it be linked? Or failing that is there a lay term that is sufficiently precise to use instead?

  Used a layman formulation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The volcano may be an important cause of arsenic pollution in the region." Suggest linking "arsenic pollution" to Arsenic#Environmental issues.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Done through the flora and fauna section; more to come, possibly later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

More:

• "The older Humurata and Acotango volcanoes are heavily eroded, Capurata is better preserved." This is a run-on sentence. A semi-colon would fix it, but I also think some context needs to be given -- these other volcanoes have not been mentioned before. Presumably they're in the same region? We're comparing them because of their proximity? And similarly for the mention of Parinacota and Lascar. At least Parinacota is linked so a reader could figure out it's nearby.

  Humurata is actually mentioned before, as Umurata. I've matched the spelling and mentioned Capurata before too. Lascar's being compared b/c as mentioned a few sections above it's the most active CVZ volcano. I put a semicolon but perhaps another rewrite is needed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Later research subdivided the growth of the volcano into seven separate stages": if we're going to contrast early and late research we should mention that the early conclusions are based on early research at the start of the paragraph. If it's not a contrast, just a statement that the two broad phases given at the start of the paragraph can be further divided, then I don't think we need to say "later research".

  Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'd suggest "Another suggested subdivision" or "Another proposed subdivision", but this might change depending on how the next point is resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "seven separate stages,[69] of which 1–4 crop out mainly at the periphery of the volcano and 5–6 in its central sector". So where's stage 7?

  You know, that's a good question. The source says "seven" several times but I see only six stages. Unless Tinto is supposed to be a stage by itself, between 5 and 6, but the numbers don't make sense then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I hate using sources that are internally inconsistent. Could we elide mentions of stage numbers in order to avoid the problem? Something like "Another proposal subdivides these two stages further." We might not need more detail than that since the "early = peripheral, late = central" point is already given in the first division. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've opted to put an explanatory footnote, á la Copiapó (volcano) and footnote 1 in Biddenden Maids. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Some lava flows are well preserved, others have been glaciated." Run-on sentence.

  Does a "while" resolve the problem, I've put one in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Evidence indicates that large eruptions similar to the 1993 eruption of Lascar may have occurred at Guallatiri." I think this could be cut to just "Large eruptions similar to the 1993 eruption of Lascar may have occurred at Guallatiri"; the "may" and the citations imply that there's evidence.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Pyroclastic flow deposits extend to 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) distance from Guallatiri." Suggest "Pyroclastic flow deposits extend 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) from Guallatiri."

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Guallatiri is, after Lascar, the second-most active volcano in northern Chile": I added parenthetical commas to this but I think it's still not quite right. The construction with "after" should exclude the exception from the comparison -- that is, Lascar is excluded, so we should get a statement about Guallatiri that is true without referring to Lascar. More natural would be "Guallatiri is, after Lascar, the most active volcano in northern Chile" or "Guallatiri is the second-most active volcano after Lascar in northern Chile". To keep "second-most active" it would have to be something like "Guallatiri is the second-most active volcano in northern Chile" with a footnote or parenthesis naming Lascar.

  Recast this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, this is my mistake. You used the second form of words I suggested but I didn't edit it correctly. What I should have said is that I think it should be "most active", not "second-most active". Saying "after Lascar" already implies "second-most", so using both implies third-most. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't read such an implication at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  On rereading I think putting "after Lascar" in parentheses, as you've done, resolves this for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• "They believed that the waters of ...": we don't have a referent for "they". Should it be "The Chipayan people"?

  Yes, added a variant. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Would it be possible to add the height to the lead. Ideally in the first sentence."

  Not keen on doing this for mountains with unclear height. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I see two values for the height (6,060 m and 6,071 m). Surely the lead could say something like "approximately" or "variously reported as"? And since I'm here, I'm confused about Lower values appear in recent publications, as well which is sourced to the CONAF web site (https://www.conaf.cl/parques/reserva-nacional-las-vicunas/) but I don't see anything on that page which even mentions Guallatiri. Would it also be possible to talk about why there's uncertainty about the height? Is it because it's hard to measure, or because it keeps changing as the volcano does its thing? RoySmith (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's because CONAF uses the alternative spelling "Guallatire". Telling the height of a topographic feature isn't easy and this mountain isn't well-known or well-studied. You can see another example at Ojos del Salado. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  OK, so I found (in English translation) "Guallatire (6063 meters above sea level)". I don't understand how that jives with "Lower values appear in recent publications" since that's higher than the 6,060 you give as the first figure. In any case, with the three recently reported values of 6,060, 6,063, and 6,071 it seems like you could certainly give an approximate value in the lead. You should also mention "Guallatire" as being the Spanish spelling, or alternate name, or whatever. RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• "on the Pacific Ocean". Perhaps 'on the Pacific coast'.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Guallatiri rises about 1.7 kilometres (1.1 mi) above". It would be usual to give this in m and ft, not km and mi.

  For such relative height estimates I tend to rely on km. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "covers a surface of about 85 kilometres (53 mi)". What does this mean? (That it 'covers an area of about 85 kilometres²'?)

  Typo, resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Guallatiri rises about 1.7 kilometres (1.1 mi) above". It would be usual to give this in m and ft, not km and mi.

  For this kind of measurement I prefer km and mi. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• "covers a surface of about 85 kilometres (53 mi)". What does this mean? (That it 'covers an area of about 85 kilometres²'?)

  Typo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• "have been reinterpreted as being reworked sediments." Is it worth saying how recently this happened?

  I don't think so, no. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• "1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi)". I suspect that this conversion is a false precision. "thicknesses of 15 metres (49 ft)" similarly.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Volcanic units": what is a volcanic unit?

  Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• "It contains about 58 volcanoes which are active or potentially active, 33 of which are located within Chile." Is it possible to avoid "which" twice in the sentence?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• "There is evidence that the terrain was tectonically active during the Quaternary." As the Quaternary runs to the present day, this is not providing any new information.

  Volcanic processes are not a form of tectonic processes, from what I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Oops! I need to pay more attention.

• "The occurrence of obsidian has been reported." Your phrasing makes it sound as if this were contentious. Is it? If not, perhaps 'Obsidian is also present'?

  It's the formulation I use when discussing a finding that isn't contested, but hasn't drawn the attention one would expect.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

It is a formulation which when used in Wikipedia's voice is commonly taken to mean Wikipedia is distancing itself somewhat from the claim and so shouldn't be used in other circumstances. If it is important to note that "a finding that isn't contested, but hasn't drawn the attention one would expect" then say so in as many words.

I think such an explanation leans itself too much into OR territory, sorry. It's a single lava bomb, so I've rewritten in that sense, but it might be worth deleting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Sulfur deposits are reported from its southern flank", Again, why the distancing "reported"? If they exist, why not simply say so?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• "bofedales". Foreign language words should use lang templates, not just be in italics. (Except for proper nouns.)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• "this tree forms the world's highest woodlands." On Guallatiri?

  And in general. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• "unlike "Guallatiri I" units". Is this a reference to volcanic units?

  Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• "and flows preserve flow structures." What?

  That was hard to write, check if it works better now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Nice.

• "Another subdivision". This is the first mention of a "subdivision".

  This isn't a technical term, though; you "subdivide" a thing into components. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy with that. But "another" grammatically requires a previously mentioned 'other'.

That's the Guallatiri I and II one, which seems to be more common. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• "six separate stages, of which the first four crop out mainly at the periphery of the volcano". A stage cannot "crop out". You need to say something like 'with extant evidence of the first four present in outcrops...'

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• "All these units were erupted by". What are "units"?

  Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Before Present". Why the upper case initial letters?

  This one is a technical term, hence the link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Holocene lahar deposits have been found in river valleys." How does this relate to those at Guallatiri?

  Expanded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• "A further uncertain eruption took place in 1908". Does this mean that is uncertain if the eruption actually took place?

  Yes, or whatever GVP defines as "uncertain". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• "additional poorly documented eruptions are reported from". Again the use of "reported". Are any of them known to have taken place? The current wording means that it is at least possible that none of the six took place.

  That's the point. Activity of this volcano is not very well documented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

In which case, fair enough. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• "(SERNAGEOMIN~)". Is thata typo at the end?

  Yes, fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• "are recorded at Guallatiri". "are" means right now. Do you mean 'have been recorded in the resent past at Guallatiri'.

  Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Satellite imaging has not shown any evidence of ongoing deformation of the volcanic edifice." Is it known over what period this has been the case?

  1992 and 2000, but the thing here is that it's a negative - no reports of deformation after 2000 does imply no deformation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• "and mud pools have been reported as well" seems a little clunky. 'and mud pools have also been reported'?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Fumaroles form alignments". Should that start with 'The'? (It may not, just checking.)

  I don't think that's necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "6 metres (20 ft) wide and 3 metres (9.8 ft) high cones". False precision in the second conversion?

  Let's see if the sigfig makes it go away. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "there are small explosion craters with widths of 5 metres". They are all 5 m wide? Or do you mean 'up to 5 m wide'?

  Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "15 metres (49 ft) long pahoehoe-like flows". "metres" should be singular. (Or you could say 'pahoehoe-like flows 15 metres (49 ft) long'.) And is 49ft false precision.

  Yes, but here I am less certain on the sigfig. I dunno how to change the plural. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Liquid sulfur has formed 15 metres (49 ft) long pahoehoe-like flows." This suggests to the uninitiated that the sulfur is (still) liquid.

  Not sure how to correct that impression. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "The volcano produces between 123±47 and 50±12 t/d of sulfur dioxide". What's t/d? Abbreviations in full at first mention?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "with the direction depending on the wind direction at the time of the eruption." "direction" twice in six words is not ideal.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Guallatiri is ranked second in the Chilean scale of dangerous volcanoes[45] and is the 30th most dangerous in the country." How can it be both 2nd and 30th?

  Corrected, but I am afraid that the scale isn't well explained anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Volcano hazard maps have been published." Of Guallatiri or of volcanos in Chile as a whole? (Or both I suppose.)

  Both, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Why is Kuntur Ikiña (Sajama) listed under "See also"?

  I dunno, removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That's it for now. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Assuming my recent minor copy edits are agreeable - if not, let's discuss them here - I am happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Harrias – support

• It seems weird that the height isn't mentioned in the lead. Looking at other volcano FAs, they generally include it, and it seems like the sort of information a reader would expect to find there.

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "..around the summit. The summit may.." Try to avoid this close repetition of "the summit".

  Can't do; using a synonym might suggest we are talking about two distinct things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "The term wallatiri means.." This is the only mention in the prose of the word "wallatiri". Explain its relevance.

  Guallatiri is the Hispanicized version of Wallatiri, e.g here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, sorry. To clarify, can you explain its relevance in the article. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 17:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• "of the Andean goose" in Aymara[2] [3]" Remove the stray space between references.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Other names are Punata (also an Aymara word).." Do we know what this means / why it is given this name? Also, "Punata" should also be in a {{lang}} template.

  Not as far as I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Why does the prose give two possible heights plus the possibility of further hand-wavy variation, while the infobox only gives one, precise value?

  'cause I forgot to remove it from Wikidata, which is now done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "..make up the edifice." What does "edifice" mean here? My only understanding of it is as a synonym of building?

  "Edifice" is the term I used to describe the volcano and its rocks as a whole. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "The lava flows have a lobate appearance even when they are heavily eroded, and display levees, ogives, polygonal cracks.." What do "lobate" and "levees" mean?

  Same as in the colloquial meaning. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know the colloquial meanings. Are there pages we can link to on either Wikipedia or Wiktionary? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Domo Tinto is 100 metres (330 ft) wide and 100 metres (330 ft) high while Domo Sur is 120 metres (390 ft) thick and 750 metres (2,460 ft) wide." Why is one measured in width and height, and the other in thickness and width? Are height and thickness the same, or different measures?

  The source uses two different terms with no explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Above 5,500 metres (18,000 ft)–5,800 metres (19,000 ft) elevation the volcano is covered with ice.." Again, we are given a range here, while the lead gives a single value?

  Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "..and thicknesses of 15 metres (0.015 km). Shouldn't we convert this into imperial, not a different order of magnitude of metric?

  Probably a typo when trying to fix excessive precision, solved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "..between 13,500 and 8,900 years ago[e].[40]" Moved the footnote after the full-stop.

  This kind of footnote is put after the word it pertains to, not after punctuation where I put the references. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate that, but the MOS doesn't differentiate between the types; where they appear adjacent to punctuation, they should be after it, not before. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, I've merged that footnote into the text. As for other footnotes, the MOS itself says "occasional exceptions will apply" and I do attach footnotes to the statement they pertain to, which is often not an entire sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• I basically skipped the Geology section because it is too technical for me to follow. I will trust that it is fine. It needs to be technical, so I'm not going to complain that I can't follow it.

  I realize that this is mostly technical terms such as the name of minerals and volcanoes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "..and the wetlands – Bofedales – in the.." I'd suggest using {{lang-es}} here, to get: "..and the wetlands (Spanish: Bofedales) in the.." The endashes just break up the sentences too much for my liking at the moment.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "..and a 200 metres (660 ft) high plume.." This should be "..and a 200-metre(660 ft) high plume.." using |adj=on.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "..and a 400 metres (1,300 ft) long fracture.." And again.
• "..sometimes form 6 metres (20 ft) wide and 3 metres (9.8 ft) high cones.." And again.
• "..has formed 15 metres (49 ft) long pahoehoe-like flows.." And again.

  All done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "..are visible for more than 201 kilometres (125 mi).." I'm guessing the source is using 125 miles as a rounded figure, so I'd recommend rounding 201 km to 200.

  Let's see if the sigfig solves the problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Guallatiri is ranked second in the Chilean scale of dangerous volcanoes and is the 30th most dangerous in the country." I'd suggest rewording this; it took me a couple of reads to work out that the first half wasn't saying that it was the second most dangerous. Something vaguely along the lines of "Guallatiri appears in the second-most dangerous tier of volcanoes according to the Chilean scale, and is the 30th most..."

  See comments to Gog. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• "..protective mountain spirit.[95] [2]." Stray punctuation.
• "..points to the volcano.[96]." And again.
• "..every January 1st. [97]." And again.
• "..in the center (daughter) [3]." Ref should be after the full-stop.

  Serviced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• It looks like some of the Mythology and religious importance has been added recently by another editor, and it doesn't really flow with the rest of the article right now. It could do with rewriting to match the style of the article, and improve the formatting.

  Yeah, that was added only a few days ago by @The Arjhatiri:. I've rearranged it but problem is it's a book and I don't have access to it. I've asked the editor who added it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Harrias:Got the pertinent content by The Arjhatiri here and rewrote a bit, accordingly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Overall a very interesting article. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Nice work, happy to give this my support. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from RoySmith

I already crashed Gog's party with some drive-by comments, so might as well do a full review...

General notes

• You spell out "metres", "kilometres", etc, but abbreviate "ft" and "mi". Likewise for "square/cubic" vs "sq/cu". I know this is the default that {{convert}} produces, but it seems odd. Could {{convert}} be coaxed into producing the short form for both sets of units?

  Looks like this is the abbr=off parameter. Applied it to first mentions and abbr=on to next mentions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Why have a different setting for the first mention? MOS:UNIT doesn't say to do this, at least not that I've found. RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I was working off Units unfamiliar to general readers should be presented as a name–symbol pair on first use, linking the unit name. I've changed a bit around but I notice that there is no linkable unit for several of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would hope that even the most freedom-unit-loving American would not consider the meter (or the metre) to be "unfamiliar", but I guess anything is possible. RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• "A large prehistorical eruption took place 2,600 years ago", drop the "prehistorical", add "approximately"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• "active in historical times with a number of eruptions, the latest in 1960." -> "active in modern times, with the most recent eruption in 1960".

  Hmm, not sure that modern times here includes 1960. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• "SERNAGEOMIN" no need to define this acronym since you never use it.

  Actually, it's used a few times in the source list and once in the article text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Name and ascents

• Is there a need for this paragraph to be a section by itself? It's not even about a single topic; what it's called and who climbed it have very little to do with each other.

  Yes, because it's about the way people treat the mountain and I don't like micro-paragraphs on FACses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• "and refers to": -> ", referring to"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Huallatiri, Huallatire[6] and Guallatire[7]" what language do these come from?

  Alternative transliterations I presume, but source does not specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• "The volcano is considered to be easy to ascend" should be attributed to who offered that opinion.

  According to the French Grade (climbing) scale, from John Biggar I presume. Dunno if that needs spelling out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, please. Something like, "It is rated a grade XXX climb by (whoever assigns these ratings)". Looking at Panajew and Galas, I don't see anything that supports "The volcano is considered to be easy to ascend" In fact, the abstract says, "The authors describe the grueling trekking trails". RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  They do say The climb is not technically difficult (grade F on the IFAS scale) but I spelled it out intext. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Geography and geomorphology

• "it has a cemetery, a 17th-century church and a refuge of the National Forest Corporation" does knowing this improve the reader's understanding of the volcano?

  Of things that are potentially threatened and what climbers can do there, yes, but I removed the cemetery mention as a cemetery is kinda routine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• "130 kilometres (81 mi) farther west," I think "further" is the preferred spelling.

  Hmm, Googleing says that both are acceptable for physical distances. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Economic activity in the area includes..." as above, is this relevant to the main subject?

  It's a bit of contextual information, which is asked for by WP:WIAFA; Guallatiri doesn't exactly rise in the middle of nowhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Possible reasons include ... or ..." I think you want "and" here; it's a list of things that make up the set of possible reasons.

  Yeah, swapped it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  You still have "or" RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Now changed for reals. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• "The volcano is remote and thus poorly known." That's an odd sentence. Maybe something along the lines of, "Due to the remoteness from large population centers, few expeditions to Guallatiri have been undertaken and little is known about it"? (assuming the source actually supports that).

  Unfortunately all the source says is Due to its remote location little is known about the volcano. It's kind of a given that volcanoes in this region are poorly understood. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The volcano

• "Guallatiri is 6,060 metres (19,880 ft)[23][24][10] or 6,071 metres (19,918 ft) high" -> "... has been variously reported as ..."
• "It is a composite volcano[5] or stratovolcano" are those synonyms, or have some authors called it one and other authors called it the other, in which case you want some variation on "has been described as either a ..." The same comment applies to "lava dome, lava complex[1] or volcanic plug[26]".

  Mmm, not sure that these changes aren't making them too long. It's not an opinion, but rather disagreement about facts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• "make up the edifice.", I think of "edifice" in the sense of Building (and indeed, Edifice redirects there). I gather this has a different meaning in the context of volcanos. Could "edifice" be linked to someplace that describes that sense of the word, or a short description be added here?

  Yes, in the context of volcanoes it means the entire pile of volcanic rocks but also things like calderas etc. Here I've changed it to mountain and structure, respectively. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• "emanate in all directions,[32] but are primarily", I don't think you need the comma

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• "These domes form a northwest–southeast line and are 1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi) apart." work this into the next sentence, something like "while Domo Sur" -> "; Domo Sur, 1.5 km to the southwest, is 120 metres..."

  Isn't it better to first describe the dome complex, then its components? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I just think that "These domes form a northwest–southeast line" is an overly complicated way to say "one is southeast of the other". Any two points for a line. Or are you saying that there's three points (these two, and the main peak) that are all on a line? RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, got it now. Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Ice

• "a small ice cap" Does the source characterize it as "small"?

  Actually not; I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Heat emitted by fumaroles may have contributed to the enhanced melting of the ice" It's difficult to imagine a scenario where the application of heat to melting ice hasn't contributed in some way to the melting, to the extent that the reader is left wondering if such an obvious statement doesn't have some deeper meaning. It seems like some kind of attributive statement ("Rivera has theorized that ...") would be in order here.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• "still present during the Holocene, as the": perhaps "as evidenced by" instead of "as the"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

(I'll take a break here and come back another day, but let me jump forward to the item that actually prodded me into doing this review. The "Geological map of Guallatiri" image under "Eruptive history" has a legend that is almost impossible to read because it's so small. Fortunately, https://www.scielo.cl/pdf/andgeol/v41n3/art04.pdf contains a PDF version of this image which could (i.e. should) be extracted to use in place of the low-res jpg that's there now.)

Did that too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Geology

• You define NVZ, CVZ, and SVZ as acronyms. Two of those are never used, so no reason to define them. CVS is used, but only twice, in the immediately following paragraph. It would read better if that was rephrased to avoid the acronym.

  Eh, I think "Central Volcanic Zone volcano" reads a bit weird. Removed the other acronyms though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• The three links in Northern Volcanic Zone (NVZ), Central Volcanic Zone (CVZ) and Southern Volcanic Zone (SVZ) all go to the same article. Maybe rephrase this as "...responsible for the volcanism of the Andean Volcanic Belt, which is divided into norther, central, and southern zones".

  That's a quirk in how Wikipedia has set up its pages, not in how the topic is discussed elsewhere where each of the volcanic zone is often discussed separately. I'd rather not do this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• "ranges from andesite to rhyolite,[1] with dacites being predominant" To me, "range" implies some continuous spectrum ("particle sizes range from 0.1 mm to 0.7 mm"). Is that the case here? Are dacites a type of rock which falls on that spectrum between those two endpoints? This needs to be clarified.

  Aye, and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• "a potassium-rich calc-alkaline suite and contain". "and contain" -> "which contains"?

  No, it's a property of the rocks rather than the suite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Fumaroles have deposited minerals such as anhydrite ..." -> "Fumaroles have deposited mostly anhydrite ..."

  Kinda wonder if this suggests that we are talking about anhydrite, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Sulfur deposits occur on its southern flank", I assume "it" refers to Guallatri, but you have to work your way all the way back to the previous paragraph to find that, so be more explicit here.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• ", and according to the first" either make that "; according to...", or start a new sentence.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• "800,000 tonnes" would this benefit from {{convert}}?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Flora, fauna and climate

• There's so many wikilinks here, it's hard to read. I don't have a concrete suggestion for how to improve that. Maybe some other reviewer could suggest something? Would this work better as a bullet list?

  Eh, I think here it works better as a prose list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Tundra climate instead of Tundra

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• "about 236 millimetres (9.3 inches) per year" -> "averaged 236 ... between 1997 and 2017".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Eruptive history

• "The older Umurata and Acotango volcanoes are heavily eroded;[13] Capurata is better preserved.[32]" this sentence seems out of place with the rest of the paragraph.

  Moved it up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• "higher than Lascar" -> "greater than at Lascar"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• It's not clear what "Guallatiri I" and "Guallatiri II" mean. Are these terms that some specific author used? In which case, "What Jorquera (or whoever) has called..."

  Went to specify this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Another subdivision envisages six[j] separate stages" This is unclear. I think what this paragraph is trying to say is "Jorquera et al. in 2019 described a two-stage history where "Guallatiri I" grew in the form of andesitic and dacitic lava flows ... In 2021, Sepúlveda et al. proposed an alternate scheme, with six separate stages ..." Including the years in the attributions is useful to show how one author built their work on the other's previous report.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Spaces around ± per MOS:COMMONMATH

  Think I got them all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• "ranging between 6,255±41–140±30" I'm not sure what the official rule is, but I'd think "ranging from 6,255 ± 41 to 140 ± 30"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

(I'll finish this up later)

Hazards and monitoring

• Link to Volcanic ash and aviation safety where you talk about the impact to airports.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Mythology and religious importance

• "They regarded Guallatiri ... a family consisting of a ..." Something doesn't parse right here. Maybe, "... to be a family"?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

That's all I've got. RoySmith (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through your last set of updates. I've still got a few questions, which I've scattered about in-line. I guess see the edit history. RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

And replied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, this looks good, thanks for writing this; I now know more about volcanoes than I did before, and this makes a nice addition to the encyclopedia. Marking this for support. RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

SC

Marker for now: I'll be along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Name and ascents

• "the German-Bolivian geologist": why not just "the geologist"? Does his nationality help understanding here?

  Removed, since it doesn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Geography

• "closest to it;[18] it has a 17th-century church" -> "the town has a 17th-century church" ("it" refers to the volcano as it stands

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The volcano

• Just a suggestion, but at "high.[11][1] Claims" a semi-colon would work better here than the full stop

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Ice

• "According to Rivera et al. 2005, heat emitted": do we need the publishing year here? If so, it would be better written into a sentence (as you do with "Jorquera et al. in 2019" and "In 2021, Sepúlveda et al."), rather than just left like this

  Yes, there are a number of Riveras and their publications. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Wouldn't "According to Rivera et al's 2005 study, heat emitted..." work? As WP isn't a scientific paper, I think avoiding academic shorthand is better for the general reader. Your call and I don't push it, but it's a stumbling read as it stands. - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  Nah, I think spelling out it's about a study is reasonable so I've done it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "evidenced by Holocene-age Domo Tinto lava dome bears traces of glacial erosion": I think the grammar has gone slightly awry here

  Added something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Done to the start of Eruptive history. Reading well so far. – SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Historical and seismic activity

• "Guallatiri is poorly known[79] and historical eruptions are poorly documented": can we swap out one of the "poorly"s?

  I confess that nothing comes to mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  "The eruption history of Guallatiri is... 'little known', 'largely unknown', 'largely undocumented', etc" - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "initially attributed to Acotango volcano": "to the Acotango volcano"?

  I am not sure that that is better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure the grammar is right, but no-one else seems to be objecting to it, so maybe its just me! - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Mythology

• "Guallatiri was considered to be an apu or mallku, a protective mountain spirit." I think I would feel more comfortable is this was somehow linked to whoever considered it. Local tribes from the 13thC? Missionaries from the 19th? Geologists of the 20th? Connecting the myth with the believer is always important, I think.

  The sources attribute it to the "territory", i.e the inhabitants. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Can we add that (and any idea of when it was believed? Was it an ancient belief, or is it still thought so today?) - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, mythology of any particular volcano is rarely documented to a significant degree. From the present tense one would infer the beliefs are still held today, and as generic as the source is I wouldn't attribute it (too much of SYNTH potential), but that's it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's fine: you've got the sources and the knowledge, so if it's not possible, that's OK. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That's my lot. Interesting article, with only a few very minor quibbles. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Nice article on something I didn't even know existed before I started. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Is there anything needed yet, like spotchecks or prose review or something else? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks pretty good from a quick scan. I’ll have a better look tomorrow unless one of my fellow coords beats me to it. FrB.TG (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Education

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Education is a broad phenomenon that applies to all age groups and covers formal as well as non-formal and informal education. Thanks to the spread of public education in the last few centuries, formal education has become a major part of almost everyone's childhood experience. Education is one key factor both on a personal and societal level in the contemporary world. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Prose comments by Anarchyte

Lead

Very impressive. This review will just be on the prose itself, with little comment on its coverage. Might take a few days to finish.

Thanks for doing this review and for the detailed comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm unconvinced that this current ordering of the lead is the best way to introduce the topic. I think starting the article with the explanation of lived education (i.e., formal, non-formal, etc — what we've all experienced) is stronger than immediately noting differences in perspective. That aspect can then be used to introduce the conceptual side of education, with respect to socialising, etc. I've drafted a mockup change here.

  That's an interesting idea. The original order is based on a logical exposition: it first describes the general concept, then how it can be subdivided into types, and then other considerations. I think both approaches work but you are probably right that putting the discussion of its types at beginning makes the article more digestable to the average reader so I implemented it. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• With the discussion of discrimination, why isn't Discrimination in education linked?

  Done. That's the better link target. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Beginning in the 18th and 19th centuries, public education became more important." — did it become more important or was it a societal shift in the perception of education's importance?

  Both but primarily the first. The public education we have today is historically speaking a rather recent phenomenon. For most of human history since the ancient period, a proper formal education was not available to the average people and was primarily accessible to elites. The history section has more on this. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Definitions

• "the bodily level" — unclear.

  In doing some research on this point, I discovered that these explanations are used inconsistently in the sources: According to Vico 1999, educere refers to the mind and educare refers to the body but according to the Century Dictionary, educere refers to the body and educare refers to the mind. This point is not essential so I removed the reference to body and mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• "This problem can be avoided by offering less precise definitions based on family resemblance." — add "instead" before "based" or the sentence could be interpreted as "definitions based on family resemblance" being the thing lessened to avoid the problem.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• "This means that all the forms of education are similar to each other. But they need not share a set of essential features that all of them have in common" — merge sentences.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• "But they are criticized because there are counterexamples." — could be reworded. Perhaps: "Less common types of education occasionally fall outside these parameters, which leads to the criticism of such precise approaches".

  Done. I slightly reworded your suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• What is a thick definition? It's linked but I think a brief explanation would be beneficial.

  I added an explanatory footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Also, to confirm, are said thick definitions affirming that there are disagreements or do they affirm one side of the evaluative debate?

  The second one. I reformulated the passage to avoid the ambiguity. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• "They state that it is part of the nature of education that it is beneficial to the student or leads to some kind of improvement" — consider simplifying: "They state it is part of the nature of education to be beneficial to the student or lead to some kind of improvement".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• "One reason for this view is that some forms of indoctrination may be necessary in the early stages of education while the child's mind is not yet sufficiently developed" — strong statement that might need an example or two.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Types

• The opening paragraph of this section is unclear. I understand it's supposed to lead into the subsections, but at the moment it's a few non-sequiturs.

  I tried to reformulate it to have a better text flow. In theory, this paragraph could be removed. Its main purpose is to provide a very concise overview to give the reader some orientation for the following subsections. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Formal, non-formal, and informal

• "extending all the way from primary school to university" — remove "all the way".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "carried out with a clear purpose in mind" — remove "in mind".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Informal education is present in many settings. It happens throughout one's life, mostly in a spontaneous way." — I understand what this is trying to say, but I don't think it's as clear as it could be.

  I reformulated it but I'm not sure it's better than before. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "This is how children learn their mother tongue from their parents or how people learn to prepare a dish by cooking together." — consider something like "Examples include the parental teaching of one's first language and the collaborative preparation of food". Not convinced by my food-related rephrasing, so any improvements are welcome.

  I combined some of your suggestions with the original formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Paragraph 3 currently goes formal, informal, non-formal. The rest of this section goes formal, non-formal, informal.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Formal education plays a central role in modern civilization. But in primitive cultures, most of the education happened on the informal level" — change to "Formal education plays a central role in modern civilization, though in primitive cultures, most of the education happened on the informal level".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "This usually meant that there is no distinction" — "was no distinction". Previous sentence is past-tense.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Primitive culture links to a book. Probably not the correct target?

  I removed the link. Urgesellschaft could be considered as an alternative link target. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "efficient enough to pass on large quantities" — change to "efficient enough to teach large quantities".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "This was one of the reasons why in the course of history, formal education became more and more important" — if supported by sources, change to something like "This was one of the reasons why in the course of history, formal education became the most important type".

  I'm not sure that our source explicitly make this type of quantitative comparison. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "In this process, the experience of education became more abstract and removed from daily life." — surely it became less abstract, with schools and universities becoming defined locations of learning?

  I made a slight reformulation to emphasize that this is about the contents that are being learned. For example, a child learning to hunt first-hand by joining the other hunters in their tribe is more concrete than a child sitting in school and learning about the Pythagorean theorem.

• "grasping general patterns" — change to "grasping general concepts".

  I added "concepts" instead since it may not be only concepts that are learned. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Levels

I made a few changes myself. You can review them here.

• "usually starts at the age of five to seven" — change to "usually starts within the ages of five to seven".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• What is the difference between secondary and upper secondary? It currently notes secondary is from the ages of 12-18, but that doesn't leave any room for further high school education as it typically ends at the age of 18. Is upper secondary from the ages of 15-18, for instance (i.e., year 10-12, while secondary is yr 7-9)? Probably worth merging and explaining these differences in more depth.

  Yes, upper secondary education starts roughly at 15 though there are country-specific differences. I added this fact to the paragraph on upper secondary education. The previous paragraph gives a short explanation of the difference between lower and upper secondary education. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "in the form of a doctor's degree" — could link to Doctor of Philosophy. Likely worth to use the phrase "PhD" somewhere, as that is what people are familiar with.

  I added it as an example since there are other doctor degrees as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Others

• "with access to an appropriate education." — could this be "with access to an appropriate educational structure"?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• In the paragraph that starts with "Forms of education can also be categorized by the subject and the medium used", it may be useful to note that some universities offer degrees or courses in an online format, and that this is not an example of open education.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Remove italics from "paid education".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "A more detailed classification focuses on the social institution responsible for education. It includes categories for institutions like family, school, civil society, state, and church" — shorten to "A more detailed classification focuses on the social institution responsible for education, like family, school, civil society, state, and church".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Role in society

• "may cause many jobs to be lost in the coming decades" — give a timeframe instead of "coming decades".

  We could use the sentence This applies also to changing circumstances in the economic sector, where technological advances and increased automation may cause 47% of jobs in developed nations to be lost in the next two decades. However, there are different studies with different numbers. It can be assumed that these numbers will change soon again thanks to ChatGPT and co. So instead of picking one specific number, it may be better to remain vague. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not fond of using vague timeframes when the year the article refers to is unclear. Potentially, something like "over the two decades following the 2020s" or "by mid-century" would remove this ambiguity, but I'm not convinced by those proposed wordings either. Anarchyte (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I hope I found a way to avoid this problem: the main point in this context is that the workforce needs change and education helps people adjust. So maybe we can get by without mentioning a time-frame at all. If that doesn't work, we can also use your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I would adjust these sentences: "This way, education serves not just the purpose of reproducing society as it is but can also be an instrument of development by realizing social transformation to improve society. That applies also to changing circumstances in the economic sector, for example, because of changes in the workforce needs due to technological advances and increased automation". Consider something like (bold indicates changes) "This way, education serves not just the purpose of maintaining the societal status quo, but can also be an instrument of social development. That applies also to changing circumstances in the economic sector. For example, technological advances, particularly increased automation, are encouraging changes in the workforce. Education must adapt in order for society to progress." Anarchyte (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Your suggestion sounds good. I made a slight modification to the last part. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Role of institutions

• Expand NGO and UNCRC at first use.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Psychological

• "This can be achieved by encouraging some competition among students while ensuring a balance of positive and negative feedback in the form of praise and criticism" — needs to be noted that this is an example.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Subfields

• "was already discussed in ancient Greek philosophy" — cut "already".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• "differ from person to person" → "differ between individuals".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Aims and ideologies

• "A central topic in education studies concerns questions like why people should" — can this be "A central topic in education studies concerns the question of how people should"?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• This section appears to duplicate a lot of what is present in the "Role in society" section. It is unclear how these ideologies connect to education studies.

  Thanks for pointing this out. I tried to reduce the overlap and better explain the role of educational ideologies. This is probably an oversimplification of the issue, but as I see it, the section "Role in society" describes what education actually does while the section "Aims and ideologies" describes theoretical constructs by education theorists about what education is supposed to do or how it can be conceptualized. For example, the question of whether education should foster creativity is different from the question of whether currently established educational practices actually foster creativity. Different scholars disagree so there are different viewpoints. These viewpoints can be used to evaluate existing practices. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Learning theories and teaching

• Consider renaming the section to "Learning theories and teaching methods".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

History

Waiting until asilvering's comments have been addressed, as it appears the section might be unfinished. Anarchyte (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I rewrote and expanded that section so I would be interested in your feedback on the current version. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Replying to acknowledge I've seen your comment. Slightly busy for the next couple days but I will get to it as soon as possible. Anarchyte (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The introduction of formal education also brought with it a new educational methodology focused discipline and drills." — not sure what this is saying.

  I agree that this can be expressed in simplier terms. I reformulated the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Do you feel that the main points you brought up have been addressed in the responses? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Much like SusunW below, I am content that the issues I raised have been resolved but I would like to see the article progress further before expressing an opinion. I still believe the prose is weak in places and potentially not at an FA level yet. Anarchyte (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from SusunW

Lede

• Link to formal education is a link to the article itself. Perhaps a better link would be Educational institution (although that article is horrid), or simply School.

  I removed the link. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• I see that the previous reviewer commented on the order of the lede, and I shan't be an exception. It seems to me that the logical order is define the topic, give the history/background, explain relevant factors. The history section appears tacked on at the end, but to me, it flows better if it follows the opening sentence. I would make "There are many types of education" begin a new paragraph, followed by a paragraph that starts from "The main field investigating" and I would combine "Many factors influence" into this last paragraph.

  That would also be a valid approach to structuring the lead. As I see it, for this type of article, there are usually 2 good place for the history: the beginning or the end. Which place to choose depends then on how much weight reliable sources give to the history in comparison to other topics. My impression is that things like the concept and types of education receive more weight but I don't feel particularly strong about this. I'll loop in @Anarchyte: to get their opinion before I make any changes. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  In my opinion, putting the history component in the first paragraph would be confusing for readers. I think people are more likely to expect the article on education to start with an explanation of education, not the history behind it. Similarly, opening history of education and being greeted by a distinction between formal and informal education would be confusing. I could see it being inserted before the "The precise definition of education" paragraph, but they would both need a minor rewrite to make this make sense. Anarchyte (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• I find it somewhat repetitive for the string of "of education" terms. Perhaps truncate the links to "philosophy, psychology, sociology, and economics of education". Followed by "It also encompasses comparative education and the history of education".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Why no mention of Pedagogy? Surely it is a huge component in educational studies? Perhaps after "history of education" and pedagogy, the theory and practices of teaching. SusunW (talk)

  Good point. It's discussed later in the subsection "Subfields" but it also merits a mention here. I included it with comparative education and history of education. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Definitions

• "One approach is to view", would it be simpler as "One approach views"?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Another outlook understands education not as a process but as the product resulting from this process" is confusing to me. Are you meaning Another outlook is that education is not the process, but rather the result of teaching and learning?

  Yes, that is correct. I tried to reformulate this and the following sentence to clarify this point. The basic idea is that education belongs to a different ontological category: it is not the process of teaching and learning but the (momentary) state characteristic of educated people. Please let me know if the formulation is still unclear. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "educational phenomena"? My thought was you meant the role and purpose of education in development, but I am unclear of your actual intent. I'm also unsure about using "correctly identify" what does correctly add? (My point is that as there are different theories about the role and purpose of education, there cannot be a single "correct" answer.)

  As I see it, when understood in a wide sense, anything related to education is an educational phenomenon. This can include teaching practicies, educational policies, factors of educational success, different aspects of teachers, students, and schools etc. Since giving a comprehensive list would be long and challenging, I opted for this term instead. You are right about the "correctly", I removed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Related to the last point, "It also matters when trying to measure or improve them" is vague. What are it and them? If it is indeed the role and purpose of education, I think it might flow better by saying "Having a clear idea of what the term education means is important to identify, measure, or improve the role and purpose of education in development".

  I tried to reformulate it to clarify these terms and make it the points more concrete. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have had conversations with other editors about the inclusion of bulleted lists and tables in FA and as I recall, the consensus is to convert them to running prose; besides which, the bullets are fairly close paraphrasing to Marshall's bullets on p 34. Perhaps: "three essential features of education, which include imparting knowledge and understanding, of value to the student, in a "morally appropriate" manner".

  I agree with you about the bullet points. With precise definitions, it is often a challenge to navigate the narrow path between close paraphrase and original research. I implemented a slight reformulations of your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• "This problem can be avoided by offering less precise definitions" - I am not sure that a differing viewpoint is "a problem". Perhaps just "Offering less precise definitions based on family resemblance includes all forms of education with similarities, but which are not required to share a set of essential features in common."

  The problem was meant to refer to counterexamples but I just saw that this expression was removed in a recent edit. I reformulated it to keep this point in the current version. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• "According to one view", whose? Why does their opinion matter? Perhaps "Writers Keira Sewell and Stephen Newman acknowledge that the term "education" is context-dependent, as its meaning varies depending on the situation in which it is used".

  I attributed the claim. I also added a few sources to show that this claim is not restricted to those two authors. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Can a definition see? Perhaps "Thick definitions[a] characterize education as being beneficial to the student or leading to some kind of improvement".

  Done. I left the phrase about it being an evaluative concept to keep the connection to the previous sentencePhlsph7 (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• What are "regular speakers"? People who speak regularly? Can a concept discuss? I think from looking at the sources you mean "Descriptive concepts refer to how the term is commonly used by the general public"?

  I changed it to "in ordinary language" but your suggestion would also work. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Likewise, can a concept express? Perhaps, "Prescriptive conceptions pertain to defining what good education is or how education should be practiced"

  A sentence can express something, so presumably a conception can too. I reformulated it to avoid the potential problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think I would replace aims with goals, as it is a more commonly understood term.

  It probably does not matter much but "aims of education" is often used as a technical term frequently used in the sources so there is an advantage to keeping this expression. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Link Epistemology to epistemic; since epistemology is the study of knowledge and its scope, perhaps "epistemic goals of knowledge..."

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• "regular citizen", is there such a thing as an irregular/regular citizen. I'd lose the descriptor, just "citizen" is fine.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• For them, helps them is perhaps better worded as In these...helps students.

  I reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• "independent of whether they", the clause follows the last noun student, but I don't think you mean to imply that the students are rational, but rather that the beliefs are. Replace they with the beliefs are or the ideology is.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Unlink "rational" as it is linked earlier. I think it would be more concise to say "They state that mere indoctrination is only interested in instilling beliefs in the student, independent of whether they are rational;[23] whereas, education requires critical analysis (or reflection?) and questioning of beliefs.

  Done. I kept the part about fostering the rational ability. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Again, definitions can't see. Perhaps "Teacher-centered definitions focus on the perspective and role of the teacher in the transmission of knowledge and skills in a morally appropriate way".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• They and it are not clear. Perhaps "Student-centered definitions analyze education from the student's involvement in the learning process of transforming and enriching their subsequent experiences.

  Done. I slightly modified your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Formal, non-formal, and informal

• link extrinsic, not sure if it is commonly understood by the average user.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps "The distinction between the three types is normally clear but, some forms of education do not easily fall into one category".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• "However, informal education", lose however, MOS issue of editorializing.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Levels

• "This way, it prepares" perhaps It is intended to prepare

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• "They often form a hierarchical structure" Probably me but you are referring to tertiary education as an it. When I hit they, it caused pause and I had to reread it to ascertain that you meant "these levels".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• No discussion of post-doctoral study?, i.e., habilitation, Doctor of Science, LLD, etc.

  Done. I left Doctor of Science and LLD out since these titles are not as widely used. But we could mention them and more, see Doctorate#Higher. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Other

• Why is "Evidence-based education" not in the section of teaching methods (4th paragraph in this section)?

  Good idea, that fits well. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps this "State education, also sometimes referred to as public education, is typically funded and controlled by the government and available to the general public" is less choppy than those 3 separate sentences. But, I would note that public schools in the UK and Commonwealth countries are not the same as state education, but rather private schooling, so I flipped your original order. I think you should probably have a note that addresses that a public school has different meanings in different jurisdictions. (I was quite surprised when living in the Caribbean to discover that public schools were fee-based parochial schools, whereas government schools were free schools operated by the government.)

  That's a good point, I added a footnote to explain this. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Since you are speaking of government requirements, I would move the paragraph beginning "Compulsory education" to follow "a form of free education".

  It might be better to keep them separate in order not to break up the contrast between public and private. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Role in society

• "A further issue is to enable", perhaps better to say "Education enables"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• The paragraph that begins "Education can prepare" has a lot of "this". Suggest you reword it to eliminate repetition which may distract readers (like me) who lose the content because their focus shifts to finding that word.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• "end with adulthood" do you mean end when one begins adulthood, or "at adulthood", because it definitely ends with adulthood when adulthood ends.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Were it me, I would not dangle the last 2 sentences in this section as a separate paragraph, but it's your call.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Role of institutions

• "Teachers" is too common to need a link and "curricula" should be linked at first occurrence, i.e. in Levels section, not here.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Link to general term policy is unnecessary. Should be linked to Education policy and delete the link a few sentences later.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Exact requirements for teachers and how they are trained" does this mean "qualifications required of teachers"? I am confused by "how they are trained" - what does how they acquired their qualifications have to do with anything? (Again, speaking from experience in the Caribbean, some primary and secondary teachers there have a university education and some do not. They complete an examination process to determine if they meet the qualification requirements. How they got the skills needed is irrelevant).

  The idea was that there are standards for teacher hiring and for teacher training. But I'm not sure that the 2nd point is very important so I reformulated it to focus on the 1st point. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• "A curriculum is" seems very complicated. Perhaps "a plan of instruction or a program of learning that guides students to achieve their educational goals".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• "advocate education policies" is this missing "for"?

  Good questions. I haven't yet mastered the intricacies of "advocate" vs "advocate for". See the usage note at [9]. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• "promotes the exchange of colleges and universities", I think you do not mean that the institutions hop about the globe, but rather that it encourages member colleges and universities to exchange knowledge?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• You speak about student exchanges but what about teacher exchange programs?

  I'm not sure they are as widely known. What do you think about mentioning the Fulbright Program in the US or the JET Programme in Japan? Maybe there are better candidates. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, either of those would work. Visiting scholar programs are in my experience widely known, as are Research fellowships. There are many that could be named, i.e. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Erasmus Mundus Programme, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, etc. SusunW (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Done. I used the Fulbright Program as an example. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

(I have to go for today, but will return) Please do not let my detailed comments detract from your work on this article. I think it is very, very important and appreciate your willingness to tackle the subject, which certainly isn't easy to do. You do not have to agree with anything that I wrote, reviews are a collaboration to improve an article, IMO. Anything is up for discussion and I encourage you to disagree heartily if you feel inclined. SusunW (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to stop with a line by line analysis of the prose, I'm happy to continue if you want that, but feel some basic observations may be helpful.

Sociological

• I think it needs to be clearer that the issue with poverty is that families cannot meet basic nutritional needs, causing poor development, which in turn leads to health instability and absenteeism,[10],[11],[12] not to mention that drop out rates are linked to school performance and the need to provide income to the family.

  I mentioned both nutrition and dropouts. I just fear that we trying to pack too much into this paragraph. But it is often an issue with this kind of article on very wide topics that it is very difficult where to draw the line. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but you did improve it. Thanks for that. SusunW (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see a discussion in this section or in history that discusses discrimination, segregation, etc. on the basis of poverty, ethnic or racist policies, gender, etc., which I would expect to be covered in a general article on education. Things like segregated Black schools in the US and South Africa; separation policies that saw Aboriginal Australians, Native Americans and [Canadian Indian residential school system|First Nations]] Canadians removed from their families for assimilationist boarding school education; discrimination against the non-dominant populations in general - China, Japan, Latin America (Ethnic school segregation in Latin America averages 92% in the nine countries with Indigenous students, p. 22) and Education of women and girls. (In general I try to avoid male/female as they refer to any animal species and particularly female can be perceived as a derogatory word). Formal education of women wasn't "severely hampered" it was mostly barred because women were denied public roles in society, and certainly at the tertiary level. (Granted there were exceptions, but few opportunities existed before the late 19th, early 20th centuries anywhere) Obviously in an overview you don't want to get too detailed, but [13],[14],[15], [16],[17],[18]

  That's a good idea. I used the Jim Crow laws and the Taliban as examples. But if you feel that some of the examples you mentioned are better then we can also use them instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm struggling with this a bit, as I don't want to use stereotypical examples, but perhaps some of that is unavoidable in such a broad article. What we don't want is for the reader to assume that these types of discrimination were few and far between. They were widespread and that needs to be acknowledged somehow. SusunW (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I slightly reformulated the passage to not imply that this was rare. The beginning of the paragraph makes the point about it being widespread. We could try to provide a longer list of cases but the danger here is that it is very easy to miss something. And I'm not sure that this short overview section is the right place for this. Regarding the examples, it's usually a good idea to select representative and well-known cases where it is easy to identify the main point. For example, since we are talking about official policies, it should be clear in the example that the discrimination was not just established practice but officially sanctioned. The current examples fulfill these requirements. Would you prefer to replace one of those two with one of your examples? Phlsph7 (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Totally understand your point and it's hard in this section because we are talking about negative policies, but my take is a little different. By using stereotypical examples that everyone knows, it reinforces the stereotype that it was only in a few known places. Were it me, and it isn't, I would try to use global examples every time an example is used throughout the article and avoid using US/EU examples whenever possible to broaden the scope of the article. If you must use a stereotypical example or one from the US/EU, then try to balance it with another lesser known one, or one from the global south, although sourcing might become an issue then. I note that Mujinga said something similar about the lack of material on the global south. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about using little-known examples but I agree that having diverse examples is a good idea, including regional diversity. I already made some attempts to include more regional diversity. I'll have another look to see if I can find more opportunities to address this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I followed your suggestion and removed the US example. I replaced it with the case of China you mentioned. I also managed to include several examples related to the Global South. In principle, more could be added, but I'm hesitant since the examples are meant to illustrate and focusing too much on them could distract from the main points. If you have more concrete suggestions, I could see if there is a way to include them. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Overall, I am impressed that you have tried to tackle this very complex and very broad topic. I'm not sure that it is quite at FA level yet, but hopefully with community input, it will get there. It is a very, very important subject and I applaud your efforts. I am happy to help in any way that I can. SusunW (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for this comprehensive review and the many concrete suggestions. I feel that the article has already received quite a few improvements. Let's hope we can get it all the way to FA. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@SusunW: Do you feel that the main points you brought up have been addressed? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I am not ready to yet make a decision on the article. Would still like to see the prose tightened up, examples broadened, and the outcome on some of the other comments. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from mujinga

• Apologies if this crosses over with SusunW's comments above but I started reading so I may as well put down what I notice Mujinga (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the helpful and actionable suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• I'm enjoying the read, I'll put down prose comments as I go and then make overall points if I have any
• "However, there is extensive debate regarding" - is however needed? Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Editorializing would say no

  Done. The "however" was supposed to make the readers aware of the contrast but it is not essential. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• "view education as a process that occurs during educational event" - suggest chopping out "educational"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Education theorist R. S. Peters, for instance," - is RS Peters a big enough cheese to get this first mention? he might be!

  At least in terms of the influence of his definition, I think he is. Many academic discussions on the topic refer to his definition, including the ones critical of his approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, this is far from my area of expertise so I thought I'd check, but again this flags up my general theme, since is Peters referred to worldwide or only in english langauge literature I wonder Mujinga (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Different thick definitions disagree" -are definitions capable of disagreeing? I see SusunW making a similar point above

  That probably depends on how literal we want to interpret the term. I replaced it with an alternative formulation to avoid the problem

• Switching to more general comments:
• "Today, primary education is compulsory in almost all countries and over 90% of all primary-school-age children worldwide attend primary school.[44]" - would it be interesting to say where it is not? further, obviously you can't cover all countries in an article like this, but in terms of broadness I feel that at the moment, I'd come away with a fairly good idea of how education works in Europe and North America but no so much in for example Russia or Somalia. And I have a niggling feeling that in repressive states there might well be primary school but it will simply be an indoctrination centre

  It would be interesting but I fear that it might lead to a digression since the topic of this section is how the different levels of education are defined. The discussion of the different levels of education follows the international standard set by the UNESCO. It's possible that this fits better for Europe and North America than other countries but I'm not sure that we can do much about that. There are currently various changes to education in Russia, such as rewriting school books. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  I shouldn't have said Russia or Somalia but rather Education in Asia and Education in Africa. That was more what I meant; I think as an abstract introduction to what education is, this article is pretty good but it needs a more wroldwide perspective and thanks for your responses elsewhere on that. Assessing an artticle on such a broad topic got me thinking again about umbrella articles. I've been working on "Sqyutting in X" articles where X is a country, so for example Squatting in Kazakhstan, and the umbrella article is Squatting. I wouldn't pretend the Squatting article is or should be particularly similar in format to Education since I don't believe articles all need to follow the same rules exactly, but there are parallels. Likewise, @Grnrchst: and others have been working on Anarchism in X articles, @Horserice: on nationality laws in different countries and @LunaEatsTuna: on Time in X. I'll ping them in case they are interested, as we've all separately had short discussions about this before. The way I think about Squatting at the moment is to build up from Squatting in X pages to continental pages eg Squatting in Africa and Squatting in Asia and then from there make Squatting more of a summary of those pages, having moved out what's there currently to subpages. If I'm thinking along those lines then I suppose I'm wanting Education to draw on existing pages such as for example Education in Asia and Education in Europe (which redirects to Educational policies and initiatives of the European Union), even if they are a bit thin at the moment. My impression remains that there is more about for example Europe than Asia in this article and the process of summarising of other pages might help to balance out this discrepancy. I wouldn't be surprised at all if you or others see this entire kaboodle very differently! (And if this discussion is going too meta I'm fine with moving to the Education talkpage by the way). Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think I get your point now. The articles you mentioned are mostly about contemporary education. One way to implement your idea would be to add subsections to the history section, like "Contemporary education in Asia", "Contemporary education in the European Union", and the like. However, this seems to give a lot of weight to the contemporary perspective while education in general is a much larger topic. We should also be careful to not expand this article too much.

  For the general outline and weight of the topics, I tried to follow reliable overview sources on education in general. I don't think they give much weight to this topic. Our Outline of education does not either. My suggestion would be to cover this topic more in the form of examples, like the recent additions in terms of alternative education from different regions or historical higher-learning institutions of different regions. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  By the way, I implemented various changes to the history section in an attempt to provide a more worldwide perspective. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Formal education plays a central role in modern civilization, though in primitive cultures, most of the education happened on the informal level" - There must be a lot of material on education through time, as in modern times. You do of course talk about who had access, and sexism and racism later on but I'd still like to read more on all of this

  This is covered in more detail in the history section. We could move some of the material here but my impression is that it is better to keep them separate. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• The "Levels" section seems Minority world-specific overall, same in "others", for example: "There are many alternative schooling traditions, like Montessori schools, Waldorf schools, Round Square schools, Escuela Nueva schools, free schools, and democratic schools.[56] Alternative education also includes indigenous education." Worldwide there surely are more examples of alternative schooling?

  For the Levels-section, see my comment above: this is the international and widely used standard set by the UNESCO. I'm not sure if there is a good way to address this but I'm open to suggestions. I'll get back to you later for the Others-section. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  I mentioned gurukul schools, madrasa schools, and yeshiva. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• on a similar theme as my last comment, you discuss universities, which are a european phenomenon but what about other forms of centres of learning worldwide? it's the difference between List of oldest universities in continuous operation and Ancient higher-learning institutions

  Universities get more attention due to their worldwide influence today but you are right that having some more diversity here is preferable so I added a few more examples. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• This article is very well written, only sometimes I think some sentences could be rolled together more, to avoid having "They .. they" or "It ..it..". Again, I can appreciate there will lots of different opinions on this; I'll give some examples:

  I've been trying to balance the requirements of having short and accessible sentences vs having a good flow in the text. These requirements don't always fit together well. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  eg Education can be characterized from the teacher's or the student's perspective. Teacher-centered definitions focus on the perspective and role of the teacher. They tend to see education as the transmission of knowledge and skills in a morally appropriate way.[27] Student-centered definitions analyze education from the student's involvement in the learning process. They may define it as a process that transforms and enriches their subsequent experience.[28

  I think this sentence was already changed while implementing the suggestions from other reviewers. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  eg In this process, the experience of education and the discussed topics became more abstract and removed from daily life. More emphasis was put on grasping general patterns and concepts instead of observing and imitating particular forms of behavior.[40]

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  eg Alternative education also includes indigenous education. It focuses on the transmission of knowledge and skills from an indigenous heritage. Its methods give more emphasis to narration and storytelling.[57]

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  eg A further distinction is based on the type of funding. Public education is also referred to as state education. It is education funded and controlled by the government. It is available to the general public. It normally does not require tuition fees and is thus a form of free education. It contrasts with private education, which is funded and managed by private institutions.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  eg Another was the Education for All initiative. It aimed to offer basic education to all children, adolescents, and adults by the year 2015. It was later replaced by the initiative Sustainable Development Goals as goal 4.[88]

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think for me I'd prefer the history section to come first to ground things, but I take your point made above about it coming either at the beginning or the end.

  It seems the opinions are divided on this point. The same point came up in the recent FAC of communication. In the end, we settled there on having the history at the end but we don't have to follow that example here. I'll wait with changes to see if some kind of consensus crystalizes. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• I'm going to stop here for now; the comments went from prose to at some point. Basically I think this article is great, my main issue is that it could do with a more global perspective. I hope that critique can be taken in the constructive way I intend it to be made, I know it's rather vague. It's very easy to be critical and much harder to create such a quality article on a fundamental component of society Mujinga (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks again for your insightful comments. Let's hope we can figure a way to address the global perspective point that works for both of us. I left a reply on this issue above. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Mujinga: Do you feel that the main points you brought up have been addressed? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not really to be honest - I'm seeing structual issues here which I think would require more discussion then a rewrite. It's good that you are open to broadening the perspective to a global one, but adding examples seems rather tokenistic. I had hoped to trigger more of a debate on that above; I do appreciate it's a discussion that goes far beyond this article and that mine is just one view on what such a broad article should look like. I think I'll stop commenting here, not feeling strongly enough either way to support or oppose. Cheers and good luck with the article! Mujinga (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  There are different ways to organize the topics belonging to an article. Whether a region-based approach to the general layout is appropriate probably depends a lot on the topic of the article. It's well possible that this is the case for the example you mentioned: the article Squatting. But checking a few other articles with FA status on very general topics, like Earth, Communication, Logic, Bird, and Evolution, this region-based approach to the general layout does not seem to be common. However, it's a good idea to consider diverse perspectives in a review and I have the impression that the article benefited from your suggestions. Thanks for all your input! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from asilvering

Image choices

• I'm concerned by the choices of images at the top of the article, as in the current form they serve to reinforce bias. No individual image is objectionable in itself, but what we have here is: an NGO-funded early childhood classroom in Africa with straw floors ("Africa is poor and primitive"); a room of white undergraduate students with their labcoated professor in a room full of tech equipment (the opposite, with bonus Science Man); two Asian kids being tutored by another ("Asians are smart/studious")... and the early childhood educator is a woman and the postsecondary educator is a man. I'm less concerned by "old man in India reads a newspaper" but given the other three I wonder if I'm just ignorant of some other stereotype on that one. We have to do better than this. A photo of a tech classroom in Kenya. Some Japanese kids in gym class. White kids at Catholic school. An adult literacy classroom. Anything. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Here's an extremely meta example of a Nigerian classroom with Wikipedia on their screens: [19]. -- asilvering (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• The idea behind the current selection was to have good variety in terms of geographical regions, age groups, and types of education. Whatever changes we make, I think it would be a good idea to preserve that variety. It's also good to avoid stereotypes but the images should be representative at the same time. What do you think of the following:

suggestion 1

• It uses your suggestion and switches some of the images found elsewhere in the article around. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  I implemented the suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

History section

Hi! Your (Mostly) Friendly Neighbourhood Text Technology Historian here! I apologize in advance for when I inevitably come off as irritated in the comments below. It's not you, it's this field! I don't know why academics who are not specialists in this field feel so compelled to write academic work on it, but they are. I beg you - don't cite non-historians on history! And if you can possibly avoid it, don't cite anyone writing about pre-1600 or so unless they are actually specialists on the time period they're writing about.

Thanks for providing a critical perspective here. I think the most important part of this section is to get the high-level perspective correct by showing in very broad strokes how the development happened from prehistory to where we are now. I'll try to follow sourcing suggestions. One difficulty I see is that we need to rely on high-quality overview sources for deciding which patterns to mention and how to connect them to condense the history of several millenia into a few paragraphs. I'm not sure that this can work by relying on specialist sources within a narrow context for all claims before 1600. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we need to rely on high-quality sources. High-quality sources are not being used here, that's my issue. -- asilvering (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added a few sources for the first few claims, such as "Stearns, Peter N.; Langer, William Leonard (2001). The Encyclopedia of World History". I would go ahead and add similar sources for the other claims. But before that, I was hoping to get some feedback on whether you think that this addresses the point you mentioned. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

No, an encyclopedia of world history is not at all the kind of source we are looking for here. You need high-quality sources - this means sources by people who are experts on the topic they're writing about in some depth. Overbroad non-specialist encyclopedia articles aren't that. You may wish to have a read of doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199340033.001.0001 and follow the individual bibliographies given there as appropriate. -- asilvering (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestions. I implemented various changes to the first two paragraphs. I mainly followed Johnson & Stearns' Education in World History. I hope there are no objections to the quality of this source. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• For the most part, there were no specialized teachers and most adults taught the youth, usually informally during everyday activities. We don't know this - we can't know this - this is just someone making something up! Nothing to fix here - just kill this sentence. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I hope you don't mind me at least making an attempt to fix it so I added a qualification to the claim. I'll remove the sentence if you feel strongly about it but my impression is that this sentence helps establish the contrast to later developments. Form the sources:

  Bartlett 2007 p.15: In small-scale and self-sufficient societies children would learn about survival from adults. In these communities adults are multi-skilled and can satisfy most of their wants by using their own abilities. There may be only few specialist roles such as healer or midwife in such groups. As form of employment diversified and became specialised, increasingly specific training needed to take place.

  Bowen, Gelpi & Anweiler 2023 Introduction, Prehistoric and Primitive Cultures: In the most primitive cultures, there is often little formal learning—little of what one would ordinarily call school or classes or teachers. Instead, the entire environment and all activities are frequently viewed as school and classes, and many or all adults act as teachers. As societies grow more complex, however, the quantity of knowledge to be passed on from one generation to the next becomes more than any one person can know, and, hence, there must evolve more selective and efficient means of cultural transmission. The outcome is formal education—the school and the specialist called the teacher. ... The purpose of primitive education is thus to guide children to becoming good members of their tribe or band. ... Primitive children, before reaching puberty, learn by doing and observing basic technical practices. Their teachers are not strangers but rather their immediate community.

  Phlsph7 (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Education began in prehistory, as adults trained the young in the knowledge and skills deemed necessary in their society. This is a sentence that looks like it contains information, but when you think about it, there's nothing really here - when else would education begin? I think if you go find an anthropologist writing on the topic you might find something more interesting to say, but you might also just blend this into the next paragraph. Absolutely be wary of any source using the word "primitive", as one cited here does. "Pre-literate culture" or "oral culture" is your keyword here. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I was thinking here about readers who strongly associate education with going to school. They may be surprised to hear that there was education before the rise of civilizations. Given your comments on the prehistory part, would you suggest that we remove the discussion of prehistoric education entirely and start with the ancient period? Phlsph7 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think mentioning prehistoric/oral education is a good idea; the information just needs to be useful and accurate. -- asilvering (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm open to adding more or different information to this passage. Do you have something specific in mind? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• The earliest ancient civilizations developed in the period from 3000 to 1500 BCE in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and North China. Both heiroglyphs and cuneiform predate 3000 BCE afaik so this is an odd cutoff. Again I see that 2/3 of the sources here are definitely not historians, which concerns me. I think you'll get a more accurate and more interesting sentence if you go find some specialists on these topics. You might find something interesting on the Indus valley and Mesoamerica too. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, the first forms of writing came before the ancient period. I reformulated the passage to not imply that this happened simultaneously. 3000 BCE is usually taken as the time when the ancient period started and this is how our sources treat the subject. But I'm also open to different suggestions. If you are aware of a high-quality source that uses a very different timeframe of these developments in education then I would be happy to have a look at it. I also mentioned the Indus valley. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  I started the paragraph now with the invention of writing instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Through writing, it was possible to store and preserve information and make it accessible to more people. I see this kind of statement all the time, and it sets off a huge "citation needed" flag for me. Accessible writing? Where?! Early writing is often things like tax records ("accessible" is a strange way to describe this kind of writing), and writing/reading ability is often a class marker. Which of these sources is this one from? I'd like to have a look at its sources. It's also strange to suggest that writing is a precondition for schools. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, early forms of writing are not that accessible. Maybe the term "available" would be better in this context. The paragraph talks about the ancient period, so this includes more advanced forms of writing as well, like the works of Plato. I implemented some reformulations so that our text reflects more closely the language used in the sources:

  From Hoskin 2021: the invention of the technology of writing ... enabled a new kind of (i) storage of information, (ii) communication, ....

  From Kuskis & Logan 2014:The invention of writing ... led to the creation of the first schools.

  Phlsph7 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Another key aspect of ancient education was the establishment of formal education. Have another look at this paragraph and the one before - it's repeating itself. The rest of this paragraph is very strange. I won't addresss individual sentences, since these aren't good sources on the topic, and I think once you get some you'll want to rewrite this whole bit. Though I will note that restricted to the intellectual elites (which is true) conflicts with the accessible to more people above. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I removed the mention of formal education from the previous paragraph and I revised the sourcing. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• In the medieval period, religious authorities had a lot of influence over formal education. This applied specifically to the role of the Catholic Church in Europe. But it is also seen in the Muslim world. You absolutely must get sources specifically about the development of European universities, the madrasas, and medieval Jewish education before attempting a sentence like this. There is a lot of anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, and post-medieval anti-Catholic bias unintentionally wrapped up in statements like "religious authorities had a lot of influence over formal education". Luckily for you, there is also a lot of really in-depth work on this field. You don't need to read all that to write a couple of sentences here, but skimming a recent article or the introduction to a recent book will do you. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I weakened the claim, tried to provide a more global perspective, and added the relevant sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• The stuff on guilds is fine; if you're so inclined, you might want to have a quick skim of the Nicholas book again, since this is also a period of rising middle class and secular education, which would be worth pointing out more overtly given the religious stuff earlier in the para. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's a good idea. I decided to put that in the next paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• People who aren't 15thc historians love to say wild stuff about the Print Revolution, and you've cited some of those people here. The trajectory overall is correct (obviously, movable type and newspapers are not unrelated), but things were similar more than they were different for quite a while. Notice how this jumps from from the 15th century to the 18th century? There's a lot missing here. This is Education, not History of Education, so I don't think this needs to be exhaustive, but it certainly can't make a claim about print and then jump forward three centuries. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I expanded this paragraph to avoid this jump. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• I also note that this is the Standard Western Narrative - what else is happening in the world? Most importantly, where is China, which famously has had an intensive civil service education for literally thousands of years? This is an enormous omission. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I rewrote and added various passages in an attempt to provide a more global perspective. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• From here on out we're no longer in my period so it's harder for me to tell if something is missing, but it does strike me as odd that public education is framed as an alternative to education provided by religious institutions. Public education today is provided by religious institutions the world over (if you're from western Europe or Canada, you surely know someone who was "taught by nuns"?) and certainly was early on. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that a contrast between public education and education provided by religious institutions in general would be misguided. The main point of the sentence in question is more specific about the contrast between earlier periods and the developments in the 18th and 19th centuries. If the sentence appears problematic, we could remove it or reformulate it. But my impression is that pointing out this contrast is helpful to the reader. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• A side effect of the establishment of public education was the introduction of standardized curricula for public schools as well as standardized tests to assess the students' progress. Like I said, no longer my period, but surely this isn't broadly true? Seems a bit chicken-and-egg, especially when you consider historical Chinese bureaucracy? It may well be true for the United States, but in that case I would omit this as too specific and instead say something broadly about standardized curricula in the globalization section. For example, it seems odd to not mention something like the TOEFL exams, the beginning of worldwide comparisons of students' math abilities, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I reformulated the sentence to not imply that there was no standardization before publication. I also added TOEFL and PISA as examples. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Ok, that was a lot of grousing. I don't want to end this without saying how much I appreciate all your hard work on this article. A huge subject, one that's so hard to summarize, and on such a visible topic - thank you for this. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot for the time and effort to review this article. I tried to implement your suggestions but I'm not sure that I fully succeeded in all cases. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Asilvering, 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) 20:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry @Gog the Mild, was off for the holidays, I'll have another look at this in a bit and see what I think. -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild, sorry about this, I have to give up - I've got a concussion and am struggling to read dense text, which unfortunately is most of this article. (Unfortunately for me; don't read that as some kind of comment about the article!) I got down to "Role in society" before I threw in the towel, and can say that overall I am impressed with how the topic is clearly and simply explained. I haven't been able to check up on the responses to my comments above. I find some of them concerning and I'm worried about the quality of the sources used in the History section, and I recall sharing some of the concerns of SusanW and mujinga, but I'm afraid that's the most I can say right now. Happy to (try to) answer specific questions here if you or Phlsph7 have any you can ask without sending me back to the article itself, though (for some reason, Talk pages are much easier to read). -- asilvering (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry to hear that you are unwell. Thanks for making the effort and I hope you get better soon. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

My best wishes for a speedy recovery asilvering. RL comes first, so stay away from this until you are sure you can cope with it, and thanks for the detailed parting summary. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Frostly

Thanks for working on this article! It's extremely well-written and concise. One small comment from me - I wonder if some of the words throughout the article (knowledge, skills, character traits, institutions, etc) could be unlinked? Per MOS:OVERLINK, Everyday words understood by most readers in context, as well as major examples of...languages (eg Latin), should not be linked. Best, Frostly (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Frostly and thank you for the comments. I removed several links to common terms. I left some in cases where the term in question is part of a definition. I'm not sure if that's the best practice. If that is not the case then I'm open to removing them as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Frostly: I want to ask whether you have more comments or whether you feel in a position to support or oppose this nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No additional comments from me! Support. — Frostly (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

PCN02WPS

Leaving a marker here, though it is currently finals week at school so I probably won't get to this before Wednesday at the earliest (if it's taking me a while, a reminder ping would be much appreciated). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS: Thanks for planning to review this nomination. I was wondering if you have found the time to have a first look through the article. This is a big topic so please take your time. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Broadly, I think the prose needs a bit of work to meet FA standard. It reads very choppy throughout and sounds kind of dumbed-down at times. I think there are too many uses of "This way," "Examples are", "Another example is", etc., which break the flow of the writing. I also feel that revisions would be helpful to make sure that ideas are not repeated multiple times using different wording.

The idea behind using short and simple sentences was to make the text accessible to the average reader. But you are right that readers familiar with topic may feel that some parts are choppy. I'll try to follow your suggestions to find a middle way that increases the flow of the text for those knowledgeable on the topic without make it overly difficult. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• This might just be me, but the first paragraph reads a little choppy and I think that flow could be improved by combining some sentences.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "It led to the worldwide process" → to what does "it" refer here?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Definitions

• Is there a reason that "thick definitions" and "thin definitions" are italicized? Ditto for "descriptive" and "prescriptive conceptions"

  They are technical terms but I don't think this is required so I removed the italics. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Types

• "factors like the student's age" → "student" is linked here, ideally this link should be moved to the first mention of the term in the body

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Non-formal education happens in places that are occasionally visited" → I'm pretty sure I know what you're trying to say here but it's a little awkwardly worded; additionally, this sequence of sentences is very choppy to me

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "personality development, and includes" → remove comma

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "There are some types of education after secondary..." → I'd combine this sentence with the next as they sound choppy as written

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Autodidacticism or self-education is self-directed learning" → After this sentence, this paragraph gets very repetitive as the sentences are a little choppy and all begin with "it"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Examples include e-learning (use of computers)..." → what is the distinction between online education and other types like e- and m-learning? My instinct is that m- and e-learning both must also use the internet, or at least in most cases do

  I think you are on the right track. If you use your computer to access an educational website, it's both e-learning and online education. If you use an educational computer program that works offline, it's e-learning but not online education. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "also referred to as public education" → footnote added before punctuation

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Role in society

• "as well as solve problems and to perform basic arithmetic tasks" → "to perform" is the only verb in this sentence displayed with "to" before it

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• The first paragraph seems to be a little repetitive; as I read it, the flow of ideas is "education makes society possible...education is necessary for people to function in society...children join society as a result of being educated...education is necessary for people to function in society...education teaches you what society deems appropriate...after you learn what is appropriate you can function in society...children join society as a result of being educated...education teaches you what society deems appropriate" - it seems to be like the same handful of ideas are each repeated several times using different wording

  The intention of this paragraph was to talk about different aspects of socialization. One aspect is that people acquire certain skills to fulfill their daily needs. Another is that people learn norms, values, and social expectations. I tried to streamline this paragraph a little more but please let me know if further adjustments are needed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• The first sentence of paragraph 2 goes back to "education allows you to be a member of society" which I feel was covered in paragraph 1

  This paragraph expands on the second point of the first sentence of the first paragraph: Education plays various roles in society, including in social, economic, and personal fields. I reformulated the first sentence of the second paragraph to make this clearer. You are right that these different aspects of education overlap and there is no tidy way to present them in isolation of each other. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "fostering a questioning mind" → could this wording be simplified? Are we talking about curiosity or skepticism or a combination of the two?

  I think it's more about curiosity and thinking for oneself rather than a full-blown skepticism. I reformulated the passage to clarify the point. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "While education is of high relevance in childhood, it does not end at adulthood and continues throughout life" → This is already discussed at length in the previous section

  Done, I removed the passage. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The social importance of education is recognized in the annual International Day of Education" → I'd change "in the annual" to "by the annual"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The year 1970 was declared International Education Year" → by who? Also, remove italics from "International Education Year" and consider switching from passive to active voice

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Saving my progress here, more comments to come. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Role of institutions

• "They interact both with each other and with other stakeholders, such as parents, local communities, and religious groups. Further stakeholders are Non-governmental organizations, professionals in healthcare, law enforcement, media platforms, and political leaders." → Sentence is split for no reason

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• "non-governmental organizations" doesn't need to be capitalized

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Many people are directly involved in the education sector. They include students, teachers, and school principals as well as school nurses and curriculum developers." → combine into one sentence

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Examples of governmental institutions include the..." → why are South Africa and Mexico linked but India is not?

  I removed the links to South Africa and Mexico per MOS:OL. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• "International organizations also play a key role in education. For instance, UNESCO is an intergovernmental" → "UNESCO" is linked previously in the article so it can be delinked here

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Institutions, like the Erasmus Programme, facilitate student exchanges between countries" → remove commas

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Factors of educational success

• "Several factors influence educational achievement. They include psychological factors, which concern the student as an individual, and sociological factors, which pertain to the student's social environment." → no need to split these sentences

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Intelligence is often primarily associated with the so-called IQ, a standardized numerical metric for assessing intelligence." → redundant sentence, all this says is "intelligence is associated with the metric that measures intelligence", which goes without saying

  IQ is only one metric and does not encompass all the factors relevant to education. I feel that the original passage did not make this point clear enough so I reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• "However, it has been argued that there different types of intelligences pertaining" → missing word

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• "According to psychologist Howard Gardner" → not required, but you can add "the" before "psychologist" to avoid a false title

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• "They include socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and cultural background, as well as gender." → why break the list format and then have to add gender on to the end? To me this sounds better as "socioeconomic status, ethnicity, cultural background, and gender"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• "such as financial security, social status, and social class, as well as quality of life attributes" → same as above

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• "And while these inequalities have improved in most modern societies" → "and" is unnecessary here

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments on the next few sections above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS: Based on your assessment, are inclined to support or oppose this nomination? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm back to finish the review, here are comments from the final two sections:

Education studies

• "Some research projects study basic factors..." → This and following sentence have near-identical structure, which sounds a little repetitive

  Done, I combined the two sentences. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Education studies encompasses various subfields like philosophy..." → reads as though there is a missing "the" after "like" here; also I would recommend reordering the sentence to avoid having so many instances of "... of education" in a list. Perhaps something like "...various subfields like pedagogy, comparative education, and the philosophy, psychology, sociology, economics, and history of education"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• "social factors influence education and how it leads to socialization" → I'm assuming "it" here refers to "education", but it sounds a little ambiguous as written

  I replaced the "it" with "education" to avoid the ambiguity. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Influential theories are behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Behaviorism understands" → move behaviorism link to first mention in prior sentence

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• "There are many teaching methods available. Which one is most efficient in a case depends on various factors, like the subject matter as well as the learner's age and competence level" → first sentence sounds a little choppy, recommend combining these 2

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Different subjects frequently use different approaches, for instance" → semicolon before "for instance"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

History

• "Starting in the 4th millennium BCE and the following millennia" → sort of sounds like you're saying "starting in these multiple millennia" which doesn't really make sense; assuming you're shooting for something closer to "starting in the 4th millennium BCE and continuing through the following millennia..."

  I was trying to allude to the idea that the changes started in different places at different times. But given that we just talk about a general major shift, I think your suggestion is better so I implemented it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• "In the Arab world, the newly founded religion of Islam spread rapidly" → "newly-spread"

  I assume you mean "newly-founded". I added the hyphen. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Whoops! Yeah, that's what I meant. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• "In 1970, 28% of all primary-school-age children worldwide did not attend school; in 2015, this number dropped to 9%." → Assuming that the drop from 28% to 9% did not happen all of a sudden in 2015, recommend changing "in 2015" to "by 2015"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

That's all the comments I have, and I believe that, while sometimes a little choppy, the prose does meet FAC standards and is readable and understandable for basically all readers. Well done, happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the support and all the helpful suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Colonies Chris

Very impressive article but there's something wrong with this citation:
{{cite book |last1=Tillman |first1=Daniel A. |last2=An |first2=Song A. |last3=Robertson |first3=William H. |editor1-last=Mora |editor1-first=Javier Calvo de |editor1-link=Kennedy |title=Schools and Informal Learning in a Knowledge-Based World |date=19 September 2019 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-429-66619-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=esyxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA63 |archive-url=Kerry J. |language=en |chapter=The Relationship Between Formal and Informal Learning}}
Why is the editor link piped to "Kennedy"? (And there's an error message pointing out that archive-date is required). Colonies Chris (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Colonies Chris and thanks for pointing this out, I'm not sure how that came to pass. Those two fields were supposed to be editor2-last and editor2-first rather than editor1-link and archive-url. I fixed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: I want to check whether you have more comments or whether you feel in a position to support or oppose this nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 Hi - a couple of minor comments:

• I suggest the redlink Teacher-centered education could be made a redirect to Traditional education
• Are the wikilinks to experiences, conscious, obedience really helpful? These are just fairly ordinary dictionary words used in their normal sense, not technical terms.

But yes, I'm happy to support the nomination.[[User:*Hi [[User:|]], 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) 20:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)|Colonies Chris]] (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Frosty made a similar point above so I took another look through the article to remove wikilinks to common terms. Traditional education would be a good target for teacher-centered education but I saw that we already have a link to it so I removed the link from teacher-centered education instead. Thanks a lot for your support! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Colonies Chris, 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) 20:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

No further comments from me. Support. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from GuineaPigC77

Kudos for your work on this highly important topic. The article is well supported, but I see important issues with coverage and prose.

Coverage

• Several areas seem underrepresented or missing: cost of education (with worldwide comparison map), sports and athletic education, sex education, expanded discussion of the various modes of digital learning, especially any recent studies of ai and education.

  I've added a short paragraph on the cost of primary, secondary, and tertiary education in a global comparison. I couldn't find a worldwide comparison map on wikicommons but if you know of one, that would be a valuable addition. The article already mentions physical education and I added sex education. I also added a sentence on the potentials and risks of artificial intelligence in education to the subsection on technology. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• The third paragraph of the lead starts “Many factors influence whether education is successful.” The article discusses a variety of these factors, but could do more to explore what “success” means, both in specific contexts such as within a specialty as well as in a broader context such in society at large. I think it’s hard because there is disagreement in the field, but I think example studies will help to anchor the reader to one definition of success, at least for some study. It will make learning about the various factors easier to grasp because we’ll know, roughly, what measures we should care about. For example, “A meta-analysis by Engin Karadağ et al. concludes that, compared to other influences, factors related to the school and the teacher have the biggest impact on educational success.” This could be expanded to explain the meta study and what their measures were.

  That's a good point. I added a short clarification at the beginning of the section "Factors of educational success". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• I still have a ton of questions after reading the article. Some of these may be out of scope (apologies for those)… How does education impact (and vice versa) major world shifts like the Industrial Revolution, population growth (especially in developing nations), and climate change. How does it impact war and vice versa? National security? What is the role of peers / classmates in educational success? “Education also has positive effects on health and well-being.” This sounds huge, and could be expanded. What role does education play in genocide? What percentage of students cheat? What constitutes cheating in the various systems? How is it handled? Who are some prominent educators worldwide? Who are some prominent activists for women’s and girls’ education? How does education influence birth rate? What educational opportunities are available in prisons? What schools are considered to be the best in the world? What types of content have been censored or legislated out of a curriculum? What role do organizations such as PTA play in shaping curriculum and/or daily school life? What is education like in North Korea? What do experts say about the future of education?

  I managed to mention a few of them, including birth rates and cheating. I also expanded on the relation between education and health. Some of the other points are touched by the article but I feel that a more detailed discussion would lead too far and include many details in this article that are better left to articles covering more specific topics. If there are some points you feel strongly about then let me know and I'll see if they can be integrated. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Prose

• The first paragraph offers a sensible way to slice up the topic of education, but it could be more engaging to start with something like the importance of eduction, how widespread it is among humans and throughout the animal kingdom (is it right to say that animals “educate” their young?) In other words, the reader will appreciate knowing what scope they’re getting into before diving into its various divisions or categories within that scope.

  While it's true that, at least for some animals, parents teach their children, the term "education" is usually only used for humans. The importance of education in terms of the effects it has on society is currently discussed in the 2nd lead paragraph. There are different approaches to arranging the different topics and there is probably no ideal or universally accepted approach. The current approach goes from general to specific by starting with the definition and then continuing to the types, the effects, the relevant factors, the field of inquiry, and the history. Part of this outline was already discussed in Anarchyte's review, which emphasized the importance of having the discussion of types in the first paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• The prose puts a lot of focus on classification which can be distracting. To this reader, it’s less important that I learn the hierarchical structure of the field of education and how the topic can be organized than it is to learn what education is at its core or essence, how the values, practices, and metrics compare across countries and demographics, etc. Both are important for the article, the former especially for academics, but I think the balance leans too far toward classifications and definitions. In this case I think it runs the risk of feeling like too much like a table of contents of the various other education-related articles. I’m hoping for more facts, examples, numbers, graphs, quotes, and world maps of educational metrics, to complement an expanded prose.

  We have a whole article on the Definitions of education, which could be used to expand the discussion of the essence of education. The difficulty here is that there are significant disagreements, which makes this topic more difficult to discuss since, for the most part, we can't say "education is X" but have to say something like "According to Y, education is X". My impression is that the current definition section covers the main points and that the details are better left for this child article. We run into a similar difficulty with the values guiding education. The article currently presents the main points but there are many more points that could be discussed, see the more detailed discussion at Philosophy of education#Aims of education. If there are some specific points about the essence and aims of education or about particular facts and metrics then we can see how to fit them in. I usually try to add examples to make or illustrate a point and not for their own sake. With this type of overview article, it's very easy to lose sight of the main points and get lost in the details. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

In short I think what’s here is well written and supported, but the article is in need of expansion to cover some important gaps. It’s possible that I’ve understood the overall scope of the article incorrectly, in which case feel free to discard those parts of my comments. Thanks again for your impressive work on this huge and important topic. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 13:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello GuineaPigC77 and thanks for the many and detailed suggestions. Education is a very wide topic that has countless types, intersects with many social processes, covers various disciplines, and stretches over several millenia. One of the main challenges of writing this type of overview article is to decide what to mention and in what level of detail to discuss it. The article currently stands at 9122 words readable prose size. I think this length is acceptable given the scope of the article but it is already at the upper limit of WP:SIZERULE so I don't think it should be expanded much further. I share your frustration that many interesting subtopics do not get a more detailed discussion but I'm not sure how much we can do about it except for ensuring that the article at least covers all the main points. I'll see how I can implement your suggestions without bloating the article too much and I'll ping you once I think I have addressed all the main points. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@GuineaPigC77: I implemented many of your ideas. I tried to follow a minimalist approach to keep the article size in check and only focus on the main points. Please let me know if you feel that I overlooked some important ideas so we may figure out how they may be integrated as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@GuineaPigC77: Based on your assessment, are inclined to support or oppose this nomination? Phlsph7 (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I lean towards oppose for the reasons above, with an asterisk that I’m a first time reviewer here. Per the FA Criteria, I think it runs into issues on 1a (the prose is definitely written to a professional standard but needs to be more engaging), and 1b (important questions are glossed over). Regarding the updates, my sense is that adding mention of missing aspects isn’t really enough to cover them to the reader’s satisfaction. Given the length constraints, one concrete suggestion would be to remove some depth from some sections to make room for juicer topics that the reader will surely want to learn about, increasing coverage and engagement. One section could be the Definitions section, where material could be shortened / relegated to the Definitions of education article, but I see potentially others as well. I think these issues are fixable but pervasive. For these reasons I think some rewriting is needed. Nevertheless I’d be interested to see if we get any further comments on coverage that we haven’t heard yet. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 10:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position. I tried to implement your suggestions as best as I could, but some concerns kept me from implementing all of them.

• Concerning the definition/essence of education: you state that the article should have more material on what education is at its core or essence. You also state that the definitions section, which addresses exactly this point, has too much material and its material could be shortened. Maybe there is a misunderstanding on my side since I'm not sure how I can implement those two suggestions at the same time.
• Regarding comprehensiveness: a key policy here is WP:PROPORTION: which states that An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, you stated that the article should include material on What educational opportunities are available in prisons and What is education like in North Korea. I consulted a few comprehensive high-quality overview sources on education in general ([20], [21], [22], [23]) and, as far as I can tell, none of them discuss these topics in any detail (or mention them at all). This gives me the impression that, while these topics are clearly related to education, they are not important enough to merit a detailed discussion in a concise overview article. If you know of high-quality overview sources on education in general that give major importance to these topics then I would interested in reading them and adjusting the article accordingly. But from the sources that I'm aware of, following these suggestions would violate WP:PROPORTION.
• Concerning the part of engaging prose: this is an encyclopedic article so the main point is to convey information. It's great if the reader can be entertained at the same time but this should not come at the expense of encyclopedic value. The article currently starts with a definition, and you suggested that it should start instead by discussing the importance of eduction and how widespread it is among humans and throughout the animal kingdom. Maybe you are right that the article would be more engaging this way. However, MOS:LEADSENTENCE clearly states that articles should start with a definition. Following this guideline is probably more important than making the article more engaging. Something similar may be true for your suggested additions: the article might be more entertaining if it contained juicer topics like a detailed discussion of education in North Korea but this should not be our primary reason for including them. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comprehensiveness and WP:PROPORTION. Fair points. If the article is giving weight that mirrors that of the comprehensive sources then I can’t / won't complain further about this.
• Entertainment is not the goal of course. Also true that while engagement is indeed a goal, it shouldn't get in the way of the encyclopedic nature or tone of the article or create an imbalance in emphasis. But I see places where the prose could be simplified and made much more engaging without these sacrifices. I see a small changes that could add up to a meaningful improvement. For example,
  • “The precise definition of education is disputed" could become "Definitions of education vary.”

    I left this one as it was to emphasize that there are really deep disagreements. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  • “An additional factor to boost student achievement is parent involvement” -> “Parent involvement also boosts achievement.”

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  • “A further influence on contemporary education was the emergence of new educational technologies” -> “Emerging educational technologies are shaping contemporary education.”

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  • "Early childhood education, also known as preschool education or nursery education, is the stage of education that begins with birth and lasts until the start of primary school.” -> "Early childhood education, also known as preschool education or nursery education, begins with birth and lasts until the start of primary school.”

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  • “Secondary education is the stage of education following primary education and usually covers the ages of 12 to 18 years.” -> “Secondary education follows primary education and usually covers the ages of 12 to 18 years."

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Modifications such as these, wherever they don’t change the meaning of the material, could make the prose much easier to digest and more engaging, and probably slightly shorter too. As a generalization, a good deal of sentences use the verb "is" or its variations, which makes the prose feel flat. So in a lot of cases, an easy fix is just use the more interesting verb that is already in the sentence. If suggestions along these lines are helpful / acceptable, I can make a longer list.

Thanks, these suggestions are helpful, I implemented most of them with a slight variation in some cases. The main remaining concern of some reviewers is that the prose in a few parts needs to be improved. Chances are that you have a better eye for spotting these types of changes than me so more suggestions would be most welcome. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Definitions section. It may just come down to the fact when I get to thick and thin definitions, it feels like I’m getting too much into the weeds and learning about *how* to define things. I lose engagement here. But again, if the length of this section represents the weight given to definitions of education in the relevant sources, then it’s just me.

  I made a first attempt to shorten it without removing too many ideas. I agree that this is probably the most challenging part for the readers but these disputes are really a big topic in the academic literature, and we only barely touched the surface in these few paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  All the changes look good.

  • “This implies that its meaning varies depending on the situation in which it is used.” Consider removing this sentence?

    I relegated it to a footnote so it's still there for readers who struggle with the term. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  • “Another classification includes different levels of education based on factors like the student's age and the complexity of the content.” “different” -> “distinct”

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  • “Like formal education, it is organized, systematic, and carried out with a clear purpose, like tutoring, fitness classes, and the scouting movement.” This implies tutoring etc. are the purpose. Maybe: “Like formal education, it is organized, systematic, and carried out with a clear purpose. Examples include tutoring, fitness classes, and the scouting movement.”

    I implemented your idea but I used a different formulation since some of the other reviewers criticized sentences starting with "Examples include" as leading to choppy prose. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  • “Non-formal and informal education are closely linked to intrinsic motivation because the learning itself is enjoyed.” -> “In non-formal and informal education, enjoyment of the learning process provides intrinsic motivation.” Or something like that.

    Done with a slight reformulation to not imply that this is always the case. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  • “Formal education plays a central role in modern civilization, though in primitive cultures, most of the education happened on the informal level.” “though” -> “whereas” This paragraph is structured oddly?

    You are right, I restructured the paragraph so it talks first about informal education in primitive cultures and then about the increased focus on formal education. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  • “Today, primary education is compulsory in almost all countries, and over 90% of all primary-school-age children worldwide attend primary school.” Could this sentence or a variation make its way into the lead?

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  • “Many other types of education are discussed in the academic literature, like the distinction between traditional and alternative education.” This implies that a distinction is a type of education. Maybe: “The academic literature distinguishes between traditional and alternative education.”

    Done with a slight reformulation to include the introductory clause. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  • “Alternative education is an umbrella term for forms of schooling that differ from the mainstream traditional approach. They may use a different learning environment, teach different subjects, or promote a different teacher-student relationship.” -> “Alternative education differs from the mainstream traditional approach. Differences may include learning environment, subjects, or the teacher-student relationship.”

    Done. I kept the first part about it being an umbrella terms to make it clear to the reader that there is no one standard alternative education. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  • “Unconscious education occurs on its own without being consciously planned or guided.” Remove “consciously”?

    I'm probably being overly pedantic here but unconscious education could still be guided un- or subconsciously. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  • “Evidence-based education uses well-designed scientific studies to determine which methods of education work best.” Remove “well-designed”?

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  • “Its goal is to maximize the effectiveness of educational practices and policies. This is achieved by ensuring that they are informed by the best available empirical evidence.” -> “Its goal is to maximize the effectiveness of educational practices and policies by ensuring that they are informed by the best available empirical evidence.”

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  • “Autodidacticism is self-education and happens…” -> “Autodidacticism, or self-education, happens…”

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 05:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  All changes look good. A few more…

  • “Various aspects of formal education are regulated by the policies of governmental institutions. They determine…” -> “Various aspects of formal education are regulated by the policies of governmental institutions. These policies determine…”
  • “Intelligence is another important factor in how people respond to education.” -> “Intelligence influences how people respond to education.”
  • “Educational technology can also make information easier to understand by presenting it using graphics and videos rather than through mere text.” Add sound/audio?
  • “A closely related issue concerns the effects of school infrastructure.” -> “School infrastructure also influences educational success.”

  GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 23:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Remaining concerns with the prose are more subtle, and changes may not be required to fulfill the FA Criteria 1a. The prose could swap more instances of “to be” for other verbs, and there seems to be a heavy emphasis on structure. This is probably just word choice, but it permeates. Eg, topic sentences in the Others section:

  • “Alternative education is an umbrella term…”
  • “Other distinctions…”
  • “Some classifications…”
  • “Forms of education can also be categorized…”
  • “A further distinction…”

  Sentences like these could be re-worked so the prose flows more naturally. But these issues are minor and shouldn’t prevent this from passing 1a. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 01:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my comments in good faith. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 09:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review

OK, as broad scope as this topic is I can't really review much on which sources should be used but weren't. Spot-check upon request.

• Formatting-wise I notice that a number of pagenumbers and chapters are inconsistently linked.

  I removed all chapters from the short citations when a pagenumber is present and I moved the links to the page numbers. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Some pagenumbers are followed by dots and others aren't.

  This was because I combined harvnb-templates (which don't end with a dot) with sfn-templates (which do). I changed it to use only harvnb templates. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• In the sources section, it seems like most inconsistencies are due to different sources having different information.

  I tried to address this point by ensuring that the publisher names are used consistently and by removing the page numbers since they are already given in the short citations. I already removed those page numbers two months ago but then a bot came by and automatically restored most of them. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• It seems like Aron, Laudan Y. is reasonably commonly cited.
• Sage is sometimes given as Sage Publications and sometimes as Sage.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• I notice the preponderance of Western publications - are there so few Asian/African/Latin American ones?

  The situation with this topic is not as bad as with philosophy but it is similar: most high-quality academic sources written in the English language have publishers whose main seat is in a Western country. For example, in my research I often came across English books by Indian publishers for which I couldn't find much information other than the publisher's own website to assess whether they fulfill the FA requirements for high-quality sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  I had another look through the sources and added several books from non-Western publishers. We are still far from parity but I think this would be an unrealistic goal. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• What makes www.mckinsey.com. a reliable source? Also these citations should probably be rewritten so that they don't have the domain sitting out there.

  I replaced them with better sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Why is https://www.education.gov.in/about-moe being singled out specifically - is it because AFAIK India has the largest number of people in school in the world?

  That part was added in response to review suggestions. The idea was to include examples from the Global South and given the number of children affected by the decisions of the Indian ministry of education, this seems a good choice. In terms of sheer numbers, it could be that India is ahead of China but I'm not sure. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see why https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-29/opinion-automation-is-likely-to-eliminate-40-of-jobs-in-the-next-25-years-heres-what-we-can-do-a is being used at all, sounds undue to mention a single op-ed.

  You are right, I removed it. It was needed earlier but the sentence in our article has changed since then is supported by the other sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• The use of "How the Pandemic Is Reshaping Education" from 2021 might need to be updated with more recent sources.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• www.minitex.umn.edu is also a domain sitting out.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

From a complete outsider to the field. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for doing both the source review and the image review! I'll ping you once I have responded to all the points. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I hope I got everything. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems like. Might want to reconsider the use of The Verge sources, too - seems kind of weak relative to others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Done, I replaced/removed them. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, is this a pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, with the aforementioned caveats, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review

Mostly focusing on copyright and placement, seeing as someone else already discussed the setting/origin of images above. File:Tutoring Center, Tulane University 2009.jpg seems to have a broken source. File:Printer in 1568-ce.png should probably say where the book gets the file from. ALT text and image placement are OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I managed to find an archived source-link for File:Tutoring Center, Tulane University 2009.jpg. We were lucky that Wayback Machine had archived it. I added the original source of File:Printer in 1568-ce.png. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks again for doing the reviews, I hope I was able to address all the concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems like this passes, image wise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Quick comments from Sdkb

I'm really glad to see this broad-concept, level-2 vital article getting the attention it deserves and being put up at FAC here! At the moment, all I have time for is a skim, so I'm just going to note things I observe, rather than doing a full review that would lead to a formal support !vote. I focused mainly on the lead section, given that it's the most-read portion of the article.

• Overall, I like the collage, which abides by pertinent best practices such as showcasing various facets of the topic and including geographic diversity (also true of the other images throughout the article). The upper right image seems the weakest of the bunch — it doesn't have any faces visible, making it overall just not that visually compelling. It could be swapped out if we can find something better, but it's not terrible. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  This image was suggested by asilvering in their review. To fit in with the other images in terms of themes, age groups, and regional diversity, we would need an image of formal secondary or tertiary education in Africa. What about one of the following? Personally, I would go with the first or the second. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  

  1

  

  2

  

  3

  

  4

  

  5

  Phlsph7 (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  I went ahead and used the first image. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry for the delayed reply! First one looks good to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• I notice that non-formal education is linked but formal education is not, being a redirect to the levels section here but tagged with possibilities. Converting that to an article is beyond the scope here, but given that it affects how this article is laid out, I'm interested to know whether you think it ought to be an article or the possibilities tag is erroneous. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  People often use the term "education" to mean "formal education" and formal education is at the center of the academic discourse on education. I had more or less the same problem with Logic and Formal logic. I'm not fully decided on how to best tackle this issue. On the one hand, formal education deserves to have its own article. On the other hand, it would be to difficult to avoid too much overlap with this article. If there is a way to avoid that overlap then it would be a good idea to have a separate article. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Would be difficult to avoid too much overlap with this article makes me think there's an argument against the possibilities tag under WP:BROADCONCEPT. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  You are probably right and I don't see a good way to avoid the overlap so I removed the possibilities tag. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'm surprised school is not wikilinked somewhere in the lead as a CONTEXTLINK. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Some editors may disagree because it is a rather common term but let's see. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'll happily fight for it if so — MOS:CONTEXTLINK is a deliberate exemption to MOS:OVERLINK. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• History sections generally go early in an article, so it's odd to see it at the end here (both of the lead and of the article). What's your reasoning for that organization? At first glance I'd lean toward trying to move it up in both places. Additionally, in the lead, it seems shoehorned into the paragraph about education studies rather than being given its own paragraph. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  This issue was discussed in some of the other reviews and opinions among editors are divided. Personally, I think there are 2 good places for a history section: the beginning and the end. Where it goes depends on how much emphasis the academic literature gives to history in comparison to other topics. Currently, the prime spot (after the definition) is reserved for the types of education. I tend to agree that this is more important but I don't feel very strongly about it.

  In the lead, we could split the last paragraph in two to have a separate paragraph for the history. This way, we would have 5 lead paragraphs with 3 rather short ones. I usually aim for 3-4 lead paragraphs for big articles. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds reasonable re placement. For the paragraph splits, the 3-4 paragraphs suggestion for leads is a proxy for length, but splitting wouldn't actually make the lead any longer. And I think it makes more semantic sense. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Done, I split the last lead paragraph so we now have a separate paragraph for the history. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• The locations in image captions feel like they need some work. Why is the municipality in Colorado linked but Ziway, Ethiopia, is not? Why is Haiti linked but Ethiopia not? (I guess they perhaps fall on separate sides of the borderline major countries criterion in MOS:OVERLINK, so maybe that's alright.) Why is the specific municipality given for the Ziway picture but not the Japan one (and with the Russia one only implying through the university name)? I'm not so much asking for specific changes here as just that you think through this aspect and try to approach it consistently. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Good point. I tried to make the image captions more consistent by mentioning the country name without municipalities. I also delinked Haiti so we don't need to worry how major it is compared to Ethiopia. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• For the "Role in society" section, perhaps we could illustrate it with an image of a highly specialized job, with a caption indicating that such jobs contribute a lot to the economy but require a lot of education? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  I added an image of a medical researcher. I'm not sure that the caption is ideal so feel free to tinker with it if you have better ideas. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Looks great! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• For the "Aims and ideologies" section, perhaps we could illustrate it with an illustration of propagandistic education? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  In this context, ideology is not meant in a negative sense, it means more or less the same as "theory". Among other ideologies, the section also mentions authoritarian ideologies, but I'm not sure if there is a good way to illustrate them or if we should focus on them. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Given that images do not need to be comprehensive for their section, just a representative example, an image of authoritarian education seems like it would be fine. But that's all moot if we can't find one. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  What do you think of the following image:

  

  Propaganda poster in a primary school in North Korea. Some authoritarian regimes use education to indoctrinate students.

  Phlsph7 (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think that'd be great! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I added it. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• The see also section for an article like this has the potential to be a massive bloat magnet, so I'd suggest adding a hidden comment there discouraging additions of anything but the most broad-concept articles, and requiring that potential additions receive affirmative consensus at talk before being added. Also, looking at the current entries, I question whether Bildung, being country-specific, should appear, and I wonder if we could incorporate Mixed-sex education into somewhere in the article body instead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  I removed Bildung and I found a way to mention mixed-sex education in the text. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

That's all for now. Again, it looks like you've put some excellent work into this! This certainly isn't an easy topic to bring to FA status, particularly with regard to comprehensivity, so I applaud the effort and hope it gets past the finish line! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all the ideas and the feedback! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Wretchskull

Excellent article. Commas seem to be a bit inconsistent, however. Some independent clauses don't have a comma where there should be one, such as: "The precise definition of education is disputed(,) and there are disagreements about what the aims of education are [...]". Nothing else to critique really. Wretchskull (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Wretchskull and thanks for pointing this out. I tried to add the missing commas, but I fear that this is not my strong field. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: Based on your assessment, are inclined to support or oppose this nomination? Phlsph7 (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I haven't done a thorough enough review to be able to support. I just commented on something that I caught as I read bits here and there. Nothing strikes me as egregious though, so I'm not opposing. Wretchskull (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Operation Unokat

Nominator(s): Lankyant (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the 1961 UN peacekeeping offensive against forces of the seccionist State of Katanga during the Congo Crisis. The article is well written and structured, informative and I believe comes to a FA standard. Lankyant (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Swedish_troops_during_Operation_Unokat.jpg, File:Swedish troops clear building of Katangese resistance.jpg, File:Swedish roadblock in action during Operation Unokat.jpg, File:Swedish troops detain white Katangese sniper.jpg No evidence that these photographs were first published outside the US before 1989 as required by the posted license tag
• Other images OK (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not great with images so please bear with me. Are these images not PD-1996 as they are in public domain in Sweden?Lankyant (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Buidhe just for info Lankyant (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  In order to be PD-1996, the images must have been published outside the United States before 1989. (t · c) buidhe 22:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Buidhe so does this image from Operation Grandslam fall foul of this? [24]

  Comes from same source. Lankyant (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's an archive, so it doesn't prove that the images were published before they appeared on the website (which must have been after 1989). (t · c) buidhe 23:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Buidhe apologies for being a pain, I have uploaded a new image with correct tags and will take the others out. Does this image comply, associated press photo [25] Lankyant (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

No, that licensing is not correct. This is an AP (US company) photograph by a German photographer, so it is unlikely that Swedish copyright rules apply. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

oh heck. Okay let me try again. I need one for the infobox would this be acceptable? [26]

I will remove the rest Lankyant (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Buidhe pictures removed. Lankyant (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

That one should be ok (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Picture added and all the problem ones removed. Thank you so much Lankyant (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

A personal interest of mine - I'm claiming a spot here. If I don't return after a reasonable time, please ping me. ~ HAL333 21:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

HAL333 Ping! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, better late than never:

• Should "central Africa" be capitalized? As it is on its own entry?
• "A number of skirmishes with UN forces in the Katangese capital Élisabethville and the establishment of roadblocks by the Katangese to cut off and limit the movement of UN forces within the city called for military action" is a bit overlong.
• However, the agreement would not be carried out --- >"However, the agreement was not carried out" per WP:WOULDCHUCK
• was brought in to provide --> "was sent to provide" for concision.
• The United States also wanted reintegration to be achieved for this end --> something like "The United States also desired reintegration for this end"
• The US and USSR are not wikilinked, although other countries are.
• "Tshombe secured Urquhart's released"
• If the UN is abbreviated, why not do so with the United States?
• "have to take action against them" - "against them" is redundant
• "UN officials came to believe that" --> "UN officials concluded that" for concision again
• The captain beginning with "A Ferret armoured car formerly..." does not need a full stop
• "It also had been reinforced" - what is 'it' referring to?
• "At the request of Thant" --> "At Thant's request"
• "destroying a dummy of" - clarify

Nice work. ~ HAL333 22:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Done the above changes, thank you Lankyant (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 04:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker: I'll review shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Prelude

• "On 28 November members": I think you should add the year in here too – it's a new section and as a prelude, it could have been any time before the action started.
• "assaulted UN Representative in Katanga": -> assaulted the UN Representative in Katanga"
• I'm not sure what variant of English this is in: you seem to be using Commonwealth British (you have "authorisation", "realised", "travelled" and multiple others), but then you have the US spellings "signaled" "armored" and "fueling". Consistency is key throughout, and it may be advantageous to add a tag to the top to stop people swapping spellings later

Initial actions

• 'enact a "scorched-earth policy".': I'm not sure you need the quotes on this – they come across as scare quotes with just the three words
• "a patrol sent out to locate their position but was unsuccessful.": the grammar has gone a little awry here

Done to the start of "UN offensive"; more to follow. Interesting article so far, nicely written with the right balance between big picture and detail. – SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Done everything above! Lankyant (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Nothing more from me on the rest (I made only MOS tweak to save having to hold up the review for that to be done), and I'm happy that—from a prose point of view—this meets the FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Operation Morthor and the death of UN General Secretary Dag Hammarskjöld had led to a ceasefire between UN and Katangese forces earlier in the year." The main text does not mention a ceasefire after Hammarskjöld's death.

• There is still a discrepancy between the lead, which mentions a ceasefire after Hammarskjöld's death, and the main text, which does not. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I did a poor job on a lack of sleep! I believe I have addressed it now, but please check for me. Would take suggestions on how to reword it.Lankyant (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• "A number of skirmishes with UN forces in the Katangese capital of Élisabethville and the establishment of roadblocks by the Katangese called for military action." People call for action, not events.
• "Following the Republic of the Congo's independence from Belgium in 1960 following over 50 years of colonial rule". Repetition of "following". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  All addressed Lankyant (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• One other point occurs to me. You show the country name as Republic of the Congo, which was then its name, with a redirect to Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville). Republic of the Congo goes to the other Congo (Congo-Brazzaville) as it is its current name. You need to clarify in both the lead and the main text in order to avoid confusion. You could add (now Democratic Republic of the Congo) or add a footnote explaining. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Looking at Operation Grandslam which is a FA doesn't have that clarification but if it is vital I'm happy to add Lankyant (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have added the current name to the Grandslam article and I think something similar is needed for Unokat. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Added it Lankyant (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review(ish)

Reviewing this version and spot-check upon request. It seems like source formatting is consistent and nothing jumps out as unreliable or questionable. Keep in mind that this isn't a field where I am deeply familiar with, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, any chance of a first-timer's plagiarism review and source to text integrity spotcheck? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Not without a number of screenshots, since most sauces are offline:

• 4 Can I have a copy of the article? The TimesMachine does not work.

added a link Lankyant (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• 14 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Boulden 2001, pp. 35–36)
• 20 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Kennes & Larmer 2016, p. 47)
  • Sent. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• 21 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Meisler 2011, p. 130)
  • Sent. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Seems to check out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• 25 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Forest 1964, pp. 122–123)
• 27 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Hoskyns 1965, p. 451)
  • Sent. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Is "suicidal" here really "politically disastrous"? Sometimes, these concerns are literal, not metaphorical, especially in case of wars. And the source does not say "local presence". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Removed "politically". -Indy beetle (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• 36 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Kent 2010, p. 79)
• 39 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Lefever & Joshua 1966, p. P-22)
  • See below. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• 40 Not sure I see the hour in the source. (The Desert Sun. 5 December 1961)

it's there at the bottom of the first column highlighted. Got the job done by 2:30pm. Lankyant (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• 41 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Prasad 2005, p. 173)
  • Sent. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Seems to check out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• 56 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Harvey 2017, pp. 54–55)
• 64 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Forest 1964, pp. 127–128)
• 65 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Harvey 2017, pp. 56–57)
• 70 OK providing that the other sources support the rest of the claims. (Raleigh, David (16 December 2018))
• 72 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Meisler 2011, p. 131)
  • Sent. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• 74 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Kent 2010, pp. 76, 79)
• 83 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Boulden 2001, p. 38.)
• 85 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Dobbins et al. 2001, p. 17)
  • Sent. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Seems to check out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• 89 OK (International Review of the Red Cross. March 1962)
• 98 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Mockaitis 1999, p. 35)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'm pinging @Indy beetle as he has access to most of the sources used and experience with source reviews. Lankyant (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: @Gog the Mild: I'm the editor who contributed most of the substantive content of this article, while Lankyant laid the foundation and has done most of the sanding around edges since then. I've got several FAs under my belt. Thus I don't know what the true necessity of a full source review is, but I'll try my best to access the source material at least in the spirit of the matter. Extra scrutiny never hurts in the long run and keeps us all honest. Anything cited to Lefever and Joshua 1966 should be accessible here, I think. I have Hoskyns 1965 in print so I can email you, Jo-Jo, a photo of Ref 27 "Hoskyns 1965, p. 451." Just use my email this user function or send me a token email at indy_beetle@yahoo.com so I can attach the file in a return message (best I can tell, I can't directly email you a file with the Wikipedia email function). -Indy beetle (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
    • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Seems you're going to have to send me a direct email, since WMF didn't provide me a return address. Otherwise I cannot send you non-text files (screenshots etc.). -Indy beetle (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

George Griffith

Nominator(s): TompaDompa (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

George Griffith inhabits a fascinating position in the history of science fiction. He got a couple of years' head start on H. G. Wells, and was briefly the leading sci-fi author in Britain. Since then, however, he has descended into obscurity so completely that the article was nominated for deletion back in May. I spent some time tracking down sources in order to bring the article to WP:Good article status, which it reached in August. Since then, it has been at WP:Peer review for a few months. The peer review attracted less feedback than I had hoped, but I was at any rate encouraged to move on here to FAC. TompaDompa (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I have left messages at the user talk pages of the participants of WP:Articles for deletion/George Griffith, alerting them to this FAC and (neutrally) requesting their input here. TompaDompa (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Ditto the editor who reviewed the article at WP:GAN. TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:George_Griffith.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • I suppose we'll have to ask Artem.G who uploaded the image. I'll note that the only credited illustrator at the source is Harold H. Piffard who died in 1939, and who is explicitly given as the illustrator of two illustrations inside the book (but not explicitly this one). TompaDompa (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
    • If we consider the author to be unknown, this is of course a case of {{PD-UK-unknown}} as it was published in the UK in 1901. TompaDompa (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
• File:Sir_Arthur_Pearson.jpg: as this is hosted on Commons, it needs a tag for status in country of origin. Ditto File:Southern_Africa_1890s_Political.jpg
  • Done. TompaDompa (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Per the UK tag on the latter, "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
      • As the description says, the book in which it was published does not state the author of the map. One may suspect that it was James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce (1838–1922) who was the author of the book and wrote "I have to thank Sir Donald Currie and Messrs. A.S. and G.G. Brown for the permission kindly given me to use the maps in the excellent "Guide to South Africa" (published by the Castle Mail Packets Company) in the preparation of the three maps contained in this volume", but it is not clear whether he created the finished map(s) himself or had someone else do it for him. If you think that quote is sufficient evidence to conclude Bryce is the author of the map(s), we can replace the UK tag with Template:PD-old-100 (I think that would be the right one?). TompaDompa (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
• File:H.G._Wells_by_Beresford_(cropped).jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Unclear. The National Portrait Gallery, London only states that the photograph is from 1920 and that they purchased it in 1939. An educated guess would be "in the UK, no later than 1939". TompaDompa (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Any evidence it was published before the NPG acquisition? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Not that I have been able to find (not that it's particularly easy to find information about its publication history). One would of course expect a professional photographer like George Charles Beresford (1864–1938) to have published a portrait like this during his lifetime, but I haven't been able to track it down. TompaDompa (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, what do you think? TompaDompa (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

On File:George_Griffith.jpg, if we consider the author to be unknown, the tagging will need to be changed, and the proposed tag requires the addition of evidence to the description page. For File:H.G._Wells_by_Beresford_(cropped).jpg, if no publication can be demonstrated the tagging will also need to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I changed the tagging and added evidence for File:George_Griffith.jpg. For File:H.G._Wells_by_Beresford_(cropped).jpg, I gather that the issue is whether it is in the public domain in the US (if I understand UK copyright law correctly, it's in the public domain there as more than 70 years have passed since the death of Beresford)? I'm not entirely sure quite how to resolve that, to be honest. It's also not crucial to have an image of Wells here, so I commented it out for now. It would of course be good to get this resolved as File:H.G. Wells by Beresford.jpg (from which this was cropped) is used rather heavily on various projects, but this is outside of my area of expertise. TompaDompa (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, anything else? TompaDompa (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Support. I had my say at the peer review and have just read through and found nothing to add. You might consider adding a mention of Griffith to this, but that's not an issue for this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. I have done so. TompaDompa (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Excellent article and I fully support it being promoted to featured article. As a side note, I can think of no other article on Wikipedia that in less than a year went from an AfD to being considered for FA status. Very well done!--SouthernNights (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Support As the one who AfD'd this back in May, I had never heard of Griffith and I thought I knew my Victorian authors! I join the rest of you in commending TompaDompa (though I do wish he'd start a proper account already) and supporting this article's promotion. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request. I don't think this article uses pagenumbers consistently - some SFE citations include page numbers in rp templates and others don't. Some inconsistencies in usage of OCLC and ISSN, and The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction lacks many identifiers. Is Don D'Ammassa's book the same as this encyclopedia of science fiction? What makes victoriansecrets a good publisher? What sets the works under Further reading apart from the sources used in the article? I see that the citations include many prominent authors and publishers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• None of the SFE (The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction) citations have page numbers, as it's the online edition. That's also why there is no ISBN or similar for those citations. Don D'Ammassa's 2005 Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is a different book. I removed all OCLC uses for consistency, as well as the single instance of an ISSN where there was also an ISBN. Victorian Secrets is a publishing house specializing in Victorian-era authors, and here used for a biographical detail on one of them. The difference between the "Further reading" sources and the ones cited in the article is really just whether I've cited them inline or not, which to some extent depends on the order in which I happened to come across them. TompaDompa (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Eddie

• I'll try to have a read through sometime this week. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Eddie891:? --Werter1995 (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
    • ? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Owing to the family's financial situation" Do we know from prior content what the family's financial situation was? I feel like this holds the implication that the reader knows what their situation was, but it hasn't been state
  • Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Following the death of his father in January 1872, he studied at a private school in Southport." might be helpful to add the level/age he entered school at here
  • Added. TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "He left Worthing to study at a university in Germany, returning a year later to teach at Brighton." It's not clear when he left, so "a year later" is not super helpful. Also, Where did he teach in Brighton?
  • The sources don't specify beyond "Brighton". "A year later" is intended to clarify the duration of time he was in Germany rather than the point in time (which the sources also do not provide). TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "writing for local papers among others" among others... papers? Were there any national publications then of note?
  • Some of the sources mention writing for an American newspaper and Stableford says that he "apparently did some writing for the freemasons". TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "He quickly rose through the ranks to become the magazine's editor, and eventually took over as owner." Do you have the name of the paper?
  • No, unfortunately. TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• " opting instead to represent himself" Represent himself or the paper? Who was the subject of the suit?
  • Good catch. Moskowitz says that he "defended himself in court" while Ellis says that "soon the paper was inundated with libel suits"; Harris-Fain says "As editor, he was charged with libel". Unless one of the sources is mistaken, my best guess is "both" (Griffith being legally responsible for the paper, presumably). TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "he likely never received payment for it." Because the company failed? I'm not quite clear on this
  • Yes, precisely. TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "intended as a prestige competitor to" What does "prestige competitor" mean here?
  • It was intended as a high-quality/upmarket magazine that would compete with The Strand Magazine. TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Wells also supplanted Griffith as the best-selling science fiction writer, and the one most acclaimed by the public." It's a bit strange to me that you haven't mentioned that Griffith was the best-selling science fiction author and (presumably) the most publicly acclaimed one, until he lost the role.
  • Fair enough. It is of course mentioned in the "Place in science fiction history" section (as well as the lead), but I added a brief mention in the appropriate chronological place in the body as well. TompaDompa (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• I think a portions of material from the paragraph beginning "At this time, Pearson was expanding his business" isn't directly about Griffith and could be cut without losing anything (primarily the last sentence)
  • I see your point and was myself rather surprised at how much the sources (Moskowitz in particular) went into details not strictly about Griffith, but I also understand why—it really is impossible to tell the story about Griffith's career without telling the story about Pearson's publications in the 1890s, and that requires at least some amount of background information for context. Similarly, Wells being such a ubiquitous point of comparison makes providing a bit of additional context rather enlightening in my opinion (and apparently also the sources'); for instance, I think it aids the reader's understanding of Griffith's career to note that Pearson could not afford to monopolize Wells's writing talent as he had Griffith's (otherwise the reader might very well be left wondering why Wells seems to exit the story at this point rather than displacing Griffith from Pearson's roster entirely). There is a fair amount of additional detail of this kind in the sources that I have deemed a tad too tangential to include in this article, so this already represents tightening up the scope somewhat compared to the sources. TompaDompa (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  OK, if the sources place similar emphasis then I'm fine with that. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• are all the red-linked short stories notable?
  • I'm not certain that all of them are, but most of them probably are. TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "That year, he appeared in the British Who's Who," Is this the first year he was?
  • Yes. Added. TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "As he had done many times before, Griffith travelled abroad, this time to Australia," When?
  • Presumably in late 1899 (or possibly very early 1900), but the sources don't say explicitly. Moskowitz states more generally that "The number of trips he made and when he made them is not clear." TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Griffith's health was failing" Suggest "by YEAR" or something
  • There's already a paragraph that starts "In 1896", one that starts "By the late 1890s", and one that starts "By 1899", so this would feel a bit too repetitive to me. The timeframe should be clear from the preceding paragraph ending in 1904 and the following sentence also mentioning 1904. TompaDompa (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "With his finances likewise deteriorating as a result of decreasing book sales after 1904" What were his finances like before this? Seems like he would be able to handle a slightly less successful career riding off of what he had previously experienced
  • Unclear. The sources do not elaborate. TompaDompa (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• We know his books were not published in America, but what about other countries?
  • I have unfortunately not found any information on this. The sources tend to focus on the UK and US to the exclusion of the rest of the world. TompaDompa (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Melchiori similarly says about Griffith's views on internationalism that "In theory he accepts it, but in practice he is very strongly pro-British"" How was this demonstrated 'in theory'?
  • Melchiori writes about the passage included in the quote box that "Why this very mixed group of international terrorists, led by a Hungarian Jew, should have worked towards this end Griffith does not explain. He simply does not seem to see any inconsistency." and suggests that "he shared with his readers a number of basic assumptions regarding [...] the dominant position of Britain". As quoted at The Angel of the Revolution#Reception, Melchiori comments that "Griffith, whose plot purports to turn the world upside down, leaves a great many things in what he considered, after all, to be their right places." My reading of this is that Melchiori finds Griffith to profess to be in favour of internationalism but not act in a manner consistent therewith. One might perhaps call it lip service. TompaDompa (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Griffith's failure to establish himself in the US has also been proposed as a contributing factor" If it's just the one source, suggest attributing"
  • Says Ellis: "Why has this major talent in science fiction writing not survived? According to Moskowitz [...] Another reason has been put forward that Griffith was anti-American [...]". So it seems inappropriate to attribute this to Ellis when Ellis says that others have made this point before. TompaDompa (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• I'd generally expect a short description of who the people being credited with opinions are, rather than "Brian Stableford comments that this was a forerunner" with no explanation. Is there a thought process behind not including it?
  • I typically provide a gloss when writing articles like this, but only when I can come up with a comparatively brief one that gives the reader useful context. Thus, Sam Moskowitz is described as "Griffith's biographer" when contrasting his view against that of a Wells scholar and E. F. Bleiler is noted as writing "in the 1990 reference work Science-Fiction: The Early Years", but I settled for merely linking e.g. Darko Suvin, and since John McNabb does not at present have a Wikipedia article and I don't think it would be possible to explain why his viewpoint is relevant (for the record, in his own words he "stud[ies] the history of Palaeolithic archaeology through the lens of Victorian and Edwardian science fiction – the so called scientific romances") without going into way too much detail for an inline gloss I decided the reference itself would suffice. The reader should be able to assume that the attributed opinions are relevant or else they would presumably not be included in the first place, after all. Simply describing everyone as an "academic" (or similar) doesn't strike me as particularly helpful to the reader. TompaDompa (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's fair. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• I feel a bit like there's a problem with long sentences (39 semicolons and 30 dashes, for instance, is too much imo), and some could be broken up for readability. Readability is not everything, and should not be placed ahead of accuracy. But I think some of it can be improved in this article.
  • To some extent those numbers can be explained simply by choosing certain types of punctuation rather than others (I try to keep parentheses to a minimum when they are used so heavily for years, and use dashes instead), and the semicolon count is slightly inflated by the reference list, but there are indeed a fair number of rather lengthy sentences. I have split some of them into shorter sentences—see what you think. TompaDompa (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for that, loooks better. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  "Moskowitz notes that malaria (which Griffith contracted in Hong Kong, and which Peter Berresford Ellis writes at least contributed to Griffith's deteriorating condition) can have a similar clinical presentation, but nevertheless concludes—primarily from Griffith's self-description as "a waterlogged derelict"—that his early death was most likely the result of alcoholism." Is still a bit of a mouthful. Any way to break up? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• How did you decide what stories/books to mention in the article versus just in the bibliography?
  • I try to reflect the extent to which the sources go into detail about the works versus just name-checking or listing them. TompaDompa (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass. These are all just thoughts, not must-haves. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Responded to all comments above. TompaDompa (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Support. A well thought-out article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

SC

• Putting down a marker for now. Will be back shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Overall

• "serialized"? I see the article is tagged as BrEng, but you have "serialize", "capitalize", "fictionalized", "monopolize", "weaponized", "summarizes", "prioritization", "recognized" and "characterizes". If you want to spell in Oxford English (no problem with that, obviously), then it would be worth changing the "Use British English" tag to "Use Oxford spelling" or you'll get well-meaning people trying to change it.
  Where British and Oxford English agree, it is that there is no room for "bestseller" or "bestselling", which are best left to the North Americans: "best-seller" and "best-selling" are better suited to this article.
  • Very well, I changed the template. The Oxford English Dictionary correction: Oxford Dictionary of English is the one I use anyway. It does not, however, have the hyphens you speak of (if it did I would have included them in the first place). TompaDompa (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Amended. TompaDompa (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

IB

• I'd be tempted to strip out the Language field (we don't show nationality when it can be inferred from the other details and this feels the same). Your call, however, and I don't push the point.
• "Period 1893–1906" This one I will push the point and you should either remove, add a citation or change so it's in line with the body.
  • I think it is in line with the body? His first novel was published in 1893 and he died in 1906. TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

    His first book was published in 1883. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

    Sure, but that was a poetry collection. I think it would be one of those "technically accurate but rather misleading" kind of things, much like putting the end year as 1911 when his last posthumous work was published. Oh well, I removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It was probably best you removed it. The body currently says "He started his writing career while at Brighton", which was in the 1880s, so it's something that would have been discussed on the talk page more than once if left in there. - SchroCat (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• "hired by C. Arthur Pearson": as you don't say what he was hired to do, maybe "hired by the publisher C. Arthur Pearson"
  • Glossed. TompaDompa (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• "anticipating the outbreak of the real Boer War": do we need "real"?
  • I suppose it is not strictly speaking necessary, but I think the sentence reads better with it. TompaDompa (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    • It really doesn't. When I read it, I automatically thought "'real' as opposed to...?" "the real Boer War" suggests there's a fake one, or a musical version - "anticipating the outbreak of the Boer War" tells readers exactly what it is and reads far better because it doesn't trip us up. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
      • There is a fake Boer War, or more accurately a fictional one—that's what Griffith's book is about. I tweaked the phrasing. TompaDompa (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
        • But the text doesn't say that's what's in the book - and "actual Boer War" is as troubling as "fake". As a reader who doesn't know anything about this bloke or his work, this still comes across as lumpy. - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
          • I would say that stating that the novel anticipated the real war in itself tells the reader that the novel is about a fictional version of it, but I removed it anyway. TompaDompa (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Early life

• "moved repeatedly during his childhood due to his father's career": which one – military or ecclesiastical?
  • The latter. He was already a clergyman when Griffith was born. TompaDompa (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    • It may also be the case that he was never a colonel at all—I suspect that Stableford is mistaken here. I removed the part about having been a colonel and added an invisible comment about it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• "homeschooled": "educated at home" or "studied at home" would probably be better, but if you insist on keeping the word, "home-schooled" in Britain. Ditto for "homeschooling"
  • As above. TompaDompa (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Not really. - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Ah, turns out I'm using the Oxford Dictionary of English, not the Oxford English Dictionary—the one on current use, not the historical one. At any rate, it does not have the hyphens. TompaDompa (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• "his father had had less than £300 to his name": I did a double take on this as it reads as if his father is still alive. "his father died with less than £300" would be better
  • I think "had had" does the trick, but I rephrased it anyway. TompaDompa (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Sam Moskowitz says": who?
  • Glossed as "science fiction historian", but see my comment on the topic above. In short: I could gloss everyone as "academic", but I don't think it would be an improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    • But I, as a reader, have to know why I should trust his judgement. A name means nothing, neither does "academic" (if he were a professor of divinity, for example, his opinion would mean little), but now I know he is a science fiction historian, then that's someone I can take seriously. It's a short-cut to allowing your readers trust what's being explained to them, that's all. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Done to the start of Teaching career: more to follow. – SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is becoming too much of a struggle to have some simple bits addressed that need to be addressed, and we haven't even reached the bit where he started his writing career in his early 20s. I'm not going to have the energy to continue arguing on each point, so I'm going to withdraw from this now.

I doubt it will make any difference to the passage of the article through FAC, but I am going to have to put in an oppose on this as it stands. It's not something I enjoy doing and I never do it lightly, but I have concerns about the language used in this article. A quick skim through the text shows numerous uses of Americanese (which isn't appropriate for this rather British writer), colloquial slang, loose writing and some unexplained events/developments that jar. As well as the non-actioned comments above, the following popped out – and this is on a very quick skim through, without doing a thorough review:

• home-schooling is hyphenated and best-selling and best-seller are hyphenated, according to The New Oxford Dictionary of English
  • I'm looking at the Oxford Dictionary of English included on my digital device, and it does not have the hyphens. Odd. Added the hyphens, at any rate. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• the definite article is needed in multiple places to avoid false titles
  • Added. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• "studied nights": Americanism
  • Changed. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Brighton... He then took a job teaching at Bolton Grammar School" Bolton is a city at the other end of the country from Brighton, and the move from one to the other is fudged over too much
  • The sources provide no details about this. They say that he worked at one place and then the other. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• "At Bolton": Either "At Bolton Grammar School" of "In Bolton", but not "At Bolton"
  • Changed. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• "promptly quit": quit is too slangy
  • Changed. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• "working as a journalist at a paper there": "there" is poor
  • Changed. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• "rose through the ranks": no, he was promoted – he wasn't in the services and didn't rise through any ranks
  • Changed. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• "took over as owner": glossed over too much – did he buy out the previous owner?
  • The source unfortunately does not go into details about this, only stating that "Eventually the owner turned it over to him". TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Griffith was highly politically active, advocating for socialism and secularism": is secularism a political cause?
  • Yes. The role religion should play in society is a political question. For example, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and the divine right of kings are all political issues that also have to do with religion. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• "hiring an attorney": Americanism. In the UK you engage a solicitor or lawyer
  • Changed. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

That's all in the part down to Early career on a very quick read. Sorry, but I don't think that this strikes the right tone or uses the right language, although I'm sure this will go through with the supports you already have here. – SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, but thanks for your feedback anyway. I don't speak (or write) either British or American English and may unwittingly use phrases that come off as more American, but I don't mind making the text more British (although I frankly find the requirement to apply a particular variety a bit silly—the point of MOS:ENGVAR as I see it is to avoid edit wars from one variety to another). I've addressed your comments above. I understand what you mean about unexplained events and developments—this is largely a consequence of being limited to details provided by the sources and as such is to some extent unavoidable. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T4

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This is about another of the dinky little steam torpedo boats that ended up with the Yugoslavs after seeing extensive service with the Austro-Hungarians in WWI. The Yugoslavs got eight of these, and so far five are featured, and I'm working on the other three. This one didn't make it to WWII, as she ran aground in 1932 and broke in half. The stern was towed to a major naval base 240 kms south, resulting in a standing joke among Yugoslav sailors that she was the "world's longest torpedo boat". This one passed Milhist ACR back in 2020, but has been substantially expanded in the last few months thanks to newly published sources. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hog Farm

I'll review this - please ping me if I haven't gotten to this by Thursday. Hog Farm _Talk 00:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Is there a possible link for ventilation cowl? This isn't the most familiar term

No it isn't well known. I forgot to remove this, as I think it is detail that better belongs in the class article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Until October 1915, the boat was painted black, but from that point it was painted a light blue-grey." - do we know if this was for camoflague purposes?

Yes, they thought black was effective at night, but discovered it made the ships stand out more. I'll find a source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't find one specifically for Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats (my recollection that it also applied to destroyers). Pinging Parsecboy, might you have or know of a source for this? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I had a look through what I have and couldn't find anything relevant - but I know Sturmvogel 66 has some other stuff on Austro-Hungarian destroyers and torpedo craft that I don't, so he might be able to help. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Just repinging Sturmvogel 66 in case he has a source for this, otherwise I think it'll just have to go as is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Her captain realised the situation and instead he moored in the Castelnuovo anchorage and put his crew ashore" - is this an indication that he was doing this for fear that the mutiny would spread to his vessel, or that he did not want his ship to serve a function similar to those of the loyal ships from Bocche which later arrived?

The source isn't specific, but I imagine he thought that returning to the Bocche would just add fuel to the fire. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• "In May and June 1929, six of the eight 250t-class torpedo boats accompanied the light cruiser Dalmacija, the submarine tender Hvar and the submarines Hrabri and Nebojša, on a cruise to Malta" - do we know if this ship was one of them?

Well, we didn't, but I found the account of the cruise published by the Adriatic Guard (the Yugoslav naval association) and it says T3-T8. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think a brief gloss of the nature of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was is needed. My assumption is that this is some sort of short-lived rump state to the old empire, but this could perhaps be made clearer.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

No major concerns here; excellent work as always. Hog Farm _Talk 03:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey Hog Farm, is your statement above intended to be a support? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am supporting this article's candidacy. Hog Farm _Talk 21:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Harrias

• Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), why is the article at Yugoslav torpedo boat T4; it seems that only just over one paragraph of the entire article deals with the ship's time as T4, whereas most of the article relates to her Austro-Hungarian service.

Essentially there are two issues here, what the "best known name" is, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships that changed name or nationality, and the low value in splitting it. Yes, it was busy in Austro-Hungarian service in WWI, of course, which is why it has so much on that period and a lot less on its Yugoslav service which was in peacetime. However, it spent only one quarter of its service life in Austro-Hungarian service and was lost in Yugoslav hands. The significant coverage in reliable sources (which reflects which the "best known name" is), is in my experience split roughly equally between its Austro-Hungarian service and its Yugoslav service. Add to that fact that it was lost in Yugoslav service and therefore the Yugoslav flag was its final flag, and I think the Yugoslav just outweighs the Austro-Hungarian. It is also relevant that at all of the Yugoslav boats of this class are at the Yugoslav name, and six of them had wartime service with the Yugoslav names (under the Yugoslavs, Italians and one with the Germans), so some element of consistency is also important I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• "79 T and the rest of the 250t class.." – The MOS asks us to avoid starting a sentence with a number as a figure; can this be rephrased? (And again later with "79 T laid mines off the town..")

Good point, reworded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Four mounting points were installed so that the machine gun could be mounted in the most effective position.." – To avoid repetition, could "be mounted in" be changed to "be fitted in"?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• "As the 250t-class boats came into service, they joined the 1st Torpedo Flotilla, was initially led by.." – It feels like this is missing the word "which" before "was" (or maybe remove "was")?

Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Link "interdict" to Interdiction on first use.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• "..hitting Novara and damaging 80 T and wounding three of her crew." – I think the second "and" would be better replaced with a comma?

Better, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• "..two Italian MAS boats.." – Can you link MAS boats to MAS (motorboat)?

Done, not sure how I missed that... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• It looks like you've got the wrong ISBN for Freivogel 2022, I think it should be 978-953-366-063-9.

Well spotted, typo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Overall, a really nice article, with just some minor fixes to be done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi PM, do you think you can address these soon? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

All done thanks Harrias. Happy New Year! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support this looks good to me – the naming issue isn't relevant to the FA anyway, but I'm content that the ambiguity means that at the very least this is a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

At six weeks in and just the one support, the nomination is liable to be archived in the next week or so unless there's significant progress towards a consensus to promote. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Over the Christmas break? It has two supports now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review

Pretty sure that File:Marins appartenant à la défense de l'ile - Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine - AP62T103401.jpg pre-dates the CC licence and needs a different one. ALT text should probably be capitalized. Not all images have ALT text and I think they describe the image, instead of replacing its purpose in the article. 978-953-366-063-9 is apparently a broken ISBN, but otherwise the sources seem OK. Source formatting seems consistent too. Spot-check upon request and keep in mind this ain't a topic where I am familiar with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that was a typo. Fixed. I will swap out this image shortly. AFAIK, alt text doesn't have to be in CAPS? The ISBN is correct, copied from the book itself. Will ping once I've replaced the image. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

G'day Jo-Jo Eumerus, I have swapped that image out, as while I expect it was published at the time and would be PD-ItalyGov, I can't prove it. The replacement image is a propaganda poster isued by the government at the time, what do you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Mmm, is the licence here in question? Re: ALT text, I prefer correct grammar and spelling. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus. I can't see an image licence there, am I missing something? There is a copyright symbol and photo credit claim by the French government, but how a photograph taken by the Italian Army can be copyrighted or even claimed for credit by the French government is beyond me. Can you also be clearer about which alt text you are referring to? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The Taranto map ALT text isn't capitalized. I don't read that licence as the French government claiming rights on an Italian image, rather as the French government hosting the image without anything to say on its licence, us attributing that licence, and the image data insinuating a licence even though it doesn't apply - it's not uncommon for software to attribute a copyright status that doesn't exist. Is this a propaganda image or so that we could expect to be published soon after it was created? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus. You mean the initial letter? If so, fixed. I see a copyright symbol, which I assume means they are claiming copyright on it. Yes, any piece of propaganda of this type would have been published by public display as soon as it could be after production, in order to gain value from it in a timely manner after the event. The caption on the poster actually includes the "approved by the censor" authorisation from the government in the bottom right margin, ie APPROVATA DALLA CENSURA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Aye, they (or perhaps the software) claims copyright but as stated by the licence they can't. So File:Marins appartenant à la défense de l'ile - Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine - AP62T103401.jpg should be OK to use. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Well Jo-Jo Eumerus, I agree in principle, IF a publication before 1976 could be argued from some evidence. The PD-ItalyGov licence, which is on it at the moment, isn't really right to be fair, as I would need to at least be able to persuasively argue there was publication prior to 1976, which I can't. Given the nature of the image, it could have been published, but I haven't been able to find anywhere it was published prior to being published online by the French (obviously after 1976). And without a known author whose date of death is known, none of the pma licences can be used either. So, I don't think it is useable, and we'll have to go with the propaganda poster. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Eh, even in copyright cases we are not generally that strict. The reason why I asked about whether it is a propaganda photo is because such a photo is liable to be published soon after creation, while e.g a family photo may be unpublished for decades. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Have to say that in 80+ FAC nominations I've never had anyone say we aren't "that strict" about image licensing. My experience is that anything even slightly dubious licence-wise gets the heave-ho via FAC image reviews. The replacement image is actually a poster rather than a photo, and given it is propaganda, almost certainly published immediately after production. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hello PM, not much from me...

Description and construction

• The torpedo tubes were mounted in pairs, with one pair mounted between the forecastle and bridge - second "mounted" not needed?

Yep, trimmed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

World War I

• Not long after being commissioned, 79 T joined the rest of the 1st Torpedo Flotilla in an attempt to engage part of the French fleet operating in the southern Adriatic on 17 October 1914. - date placement is ambiguous? Maybe moved to after "joined the rest of the 1st Torpedo Flotilla" if that's what is meant?

Yes, moved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Led by Helgoland, the whole 1st Flotilla steamed to the Ionian Sea - this is the only place not using "1st Torpedo Flotilla ", is that intentional?

No, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• one targeting Rimini on 18 June - move Rimini link up to here

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• raided the Otranto Barrage - move this link up a sentence?

Done, with the explanation attached. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

the original (now duplicate) link was left behind unintentionally? JennyOz (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• often employed in the mine sweeping role and - one word minesweeping per elsewhere

changed to one word. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• According to the naval historian Zvonimir Freivogel, sources - ZF is already introduced above in Description section

Of course, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Szent István capsized less than three hours after being torpedoed,[43] and 79 rescued several members of Szent István's crew - her crew rather than repeat Szent István?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Pelogosa v Pelagosa - is different spelling intentional ie both are Palagruža?

Yes, typos. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Post World War I

• Strojne Tovarne - is Iskra (company) or too tenuous?

I wasn't sure, but given you picked it up, I've linked it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Captions

• The island of Pelogosa was garrisoned by Italian sailors in 1915 - is a sentence, add full stop?

Yes, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• The Strait of Otranto was blockaded by the Allied navies from 1915 until the end of the war to stop the Austro-Hungarian Navy from leaving the Adriatic Sea - ditto

Ditto. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

And that's it. HNY! JennyOz (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

All done I reckon, JennyOz! Thanks for taking a look, and HNY to you too! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks PM. I've added a comment above re Otranto Barrage links for you to pls check but am very happy to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

SC

• Putting down a marker on this one. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Just one very minor comment here, about the IB. You have "Fate stranded then scrapped"; maybe use a capital S on Stranded? (it would bring it into line with the capitalised "Assigned" for the other Fate). That's my lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)