This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.
Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.
The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
actionable objections have not been resolved;
consensus for promotion has not been reached;
insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
a nomination is unprepared.
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.
Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.
An editor is normally allowed to be the sole nominator of one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. An editor may ask the approval of the coordinators to add a second sole nomination after the first has gained significant support. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.
Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}}notification template elsewhere.
A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.
Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.
To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements.
If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
This is an article about an extinct species of macaw that may or may not have existed. I just dusted this old GA off, and while a bit of a gamble since it's very short, it does fulfill the comprehensiveness criterion, as there's nothing more in the literature to say about it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A small, critically endangered fish from the Brazilian rainforest. The article is related to the cherry-throated tanager, a critically endangered bird from the same locality that already is a FA. I believe that the article is as comprehensive as it could be, and I am looking forward to comments. Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Operculum and opercles link to the same article. Furthermore, only the second mention is glossed, while it should probably be the first?
Changed the second to "operculum" to stick with the same term. Moved the gloss to first mention. I kept the duplink because this term is very important in the Description section, especially now that the gloss is gone.
Caetés forest is duplinked, but I guess that's intentional.
Yes, I think it helps the reader to provide the link again.
I know you doin't have much to work with, but the caption of the infobox image seems pretty redundant, is there anything more informative that could be added?
I changed to "two adult individuals"; unfortunately the image does not come with any specifics.
Personally I'd give conversions for measurements, but you argued at another review why it isn't required.
Yeah, MOS:CVT says But in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so. – So it seems to be optional, but it looks like the standard is to not use them in science-related articles. I see that these templates clutter the article quite a bit. However, if anybody else suggests that it is better to add them, I will do.
I guess we don't have any more good photos of it?
I added two more of my own photos. I can't claim they are good though, but at least there is a juvenile to be seen.
Seems there is some inconsistency in whether author names are abbreviated or not in the citations. In citation 4 they are, but in most others not.
See this discussion here: [1] There have been strong arguments against abbreviating authors for consistency's sake, so I think we shouldn't do it.
Should the title of citation 15 really be in upper case?
A haunting three-faced Celtic stone head dated to the 1st century AD. The first and highly rewarding nom drew extensive feedback from especially UndercoverClassicist, Hog Farm and Gog the Mild, to whom I am eternally grateful. The first nom got bogged down on ref formatting and I withdrew, hastily and to my regret. Since then have systematically addressed any ref formatting concerns, but more importantly have trimmed down overall, per UC, shaky claims re contemporary Roman's views on Iron-age Irish Celts.
All that said, its a really spooky and seemingly eternal sculpture and hope the article is interesting to read. Ceoil (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see this back at FAC. I was reminded of this page at by the topic of a Royal Archaeological Institute talk (though Corleck wasn't mentioned). Unfortunately it wasn't recorded.
I hope to have time to review the page properly but in the meantime I spotted a couple of things. There are two sources by Anne Ross published in 1967 and listed in the "Sources" section. Only one is cited - based on the page number, probably the book - so either one could be removed to a "Further reading" section, or they need to be differentiated with 1967a and 1967b and a reference added to the Antiquity article.
There's also a stray quotation mark in: The archaeologist and scholar Anne Ross points out that the Corleck Head's style corresponds closely to other Iron Age representations of the head from the late La Tène period".Richard Nevell (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dig, fight, explore, build! – That's the motto of the game. Terraria is an action-adventure sandbox game published back in 2011 and developed by Re-Logic. It is also one of the best-selling games of all time, with over 60 million copies sold as of this year. The article was reviewed by @Tarlby: back in March after which it reached GA status. They then recommended a partial copy-edit, which was just finished recently. I've since incorporated scholarly analysis about the game, therefore I'm sure it's ready for FAC. If this passes, it will be my third FA overall (all of which, for now, happen to be video games, though that'll change in the future). Vacant0(talk • contribs)14:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to offer a full review, but just a comment for now that (per WP:SCHOLARSHIP) I don't think Grahn 2013 should be included, as undergrad theses aren't high quality reliable sources, and probably the same for Pipkins 2024. Pipkins you could maybe make a case for if it has had a major impact or he is generally considered an expert on video games, but I can't see either as true here. Eddie891TalkWork14:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fair. They were students. I did not find their other work, so I'll remove them. I was not able to find other scholarly work on the game beyond them and the others that are in the article. The game seems to be mostly mentioned in passing mentions, without anything substantial that could contribute to the article. Vacant0(talk • contribs)14:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave some initial high-level questions for you rather than a full line-by-line review at this time (with 2 exceptions concerning the lead).
I've never played this game (or Minecraft), but the lead doesn't explain to me how the game is played (e.g., "The player controls [thing] from [Y] perspective. Gameplay comprises exploration, combat, crafting," etc)? I don't know what "special events" are – are these like out-of-world events (like Christmas) or events the player triggers? I think overall the gameplay sentences in the lead don't explain the game to me
Sandbox game should explain that. There are no goals in Terraria. You can do whatever you want (explore, engage in combat, craft, build, and mine, as mentioned in the lede). If you thought that it was not clear, I have now reworded and expanded that part. Does it look better? Vacant0(talk • contribs)17:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think just get a 2nd opinion on this (feel free to revert to your original) – I still don't get it. It makes it sound like biomes are like levels, and you progress through biomes by gathering enough resources to beat bosses.
Having a look now per ImaginesTigers reassurance below. I haven't previously looked at the lead, but looking at it now, it is letting a wikilink to sandbox game do the heavy lifting of explaining what is involved. Perhaps we can be a lot more explicit, saying "A sandbox game, Terraria has no set goals. Instead, the player is presented with a unique 2D world to explore, mine, fight in, craft, and build within." As for the other bits... I may need some assistance from Vacant what they are trying to express. "It has several world difficulties" Can you list three out on this page as examples? "such as those who spawn at a certain time or location or during events" Is this fact crucial to the game? I still am not sure what an event is.
Is there a way you can zoom out from this stuff, to give a more general description of activities rather than listing major activities? Not sure if this is helpful, but I agree that the lead isn't very clear. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a quick stab at rewriting it to "zoom out" a bit, removing some of the detail. Let me know what you think of this. I think it's trying to pack too much information into the lead and losing sight of the forest because of the trees.
A sandbox game, Terraria has no set goals. The player creates their character by selecting a character class and is placed in a two-dimensional, procedurally generated world. In this world, the player explores, fights enemies, gathers resources and crafts equipment. The game has several difficulty options. Players beat bosses to progress through the game. By completing select goals, players receive access to powerful new resources.
You do not 'select' a character class when creating a player. This is chosen by the player in-game. They can also disregard the classes and play with all weapons if they want. Vacant0(talk • contribs)14:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds better now. Some more comments:
The Before the creation of a world... sentence is too much. Why don't e extend the framing of the previous sentence, along the lines of "the player's control extends to other areas, including their character's appearance and the game's difficulty."
are necessary to defeat → can be defeated
What does it mean to "progress through the game" in a sandbox game?
offer services to he player Still unclear on what these services are
Looks good to me. I still think there's slightly too much detail for a lead in a few key elements (primarily the bit about NPCs; defining what an enemy is; and including how mods work over their importance to the game's community). These aren't deal breakers and I'm happy with the lead now. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to keep the definition of a boss in the lede because I've seen it being done in other video game FACs (with video game glossary that might not be familiar to most readers). NPCs also have a huge part in the game, so I think that they deserve a mention in the lede. Vacant0(talk • contribs)17:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Development began in January 2011 by Andrew Spinks. I think this feels a bit awkwardly worded. Why not something clearer: Andrew Spinks started developing the game in 2011 with support from a team of testers and designers. Ideally I want to understand the context of development just from leading the lead, because it's the only thing a lot of people will read. If the music is an important part of Terraria, we could include the composer in there? What did Spinks do? Was he working another job at the time?
There's sadly not a lot of information on the early development of Terraria. I know that he worked previously on a different game (Super Mario Bros X.), I've now incorporated that in the article (I only found a brief mention, nothing beyond that). Beyond that, I was not able to find much information in RS. I've slightly expanded the lede with the information we have. (There is coverage in unreliable sources [2], [3], [4]). Vacant0(talk • contribs)17:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the game has received substantial updates since release (considerably changed the game from its first version) is there no critical coverage on how reception has changed over those 10 years (i.e., League of Legends#Reassessment)? For example I found this article (unused) about how the devs have been trying to move on but can't due to its popularity – I don't see coverage of its development across time, or critical reappraisals. What we have in there is patch notes and platform releases, essentially. I've heard of Terraria, which makes me think the devs will have given a lot of interviews on problems / stuff that's going on / commentary
Most of the reviews are from 2011 or when the game was released on different platforms. The only one who did a retrospective review are PC Gamer (the review present in the article is from 2018, the original is from 2011). Therefore, I don't think that we can form a separate section like for LoL. Vacant0(talk • contribs)17:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've left some feedback on this below
I quickly found this article which has quite a lot of detail on Spinks making the game in his living room, relying on volunteer assistance, etc. That ref is used on the page to support a single sentence: Since the game's release, Re-Logic has released physical merchandise of the game. The most we get on early development in the (very large) dev section is 3 sentences, and then we skip to post-release updates. Are we utilising sources as widely as we can here? A Featured article should really be the most awesome possible resource for someone interested in the history of something. I don't know this game at all, but that I found this stuff missing without any knowledge rings some alarm bells for me. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there should be any problems beyond that one, considering that I added that reference just recently and did not have time to look at it deeply enough. I've added more information from that source now. I'll take another look at it again later to see if I missed something. Vacant0(talk • contribs)17:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very similar is this large unused PC Gamer article about the game's many "final updates" (calling it a running joke).
"The last update" has also quite become a meme in the community, considering that 1.4 (Journey's End) was supposed to be the last update, but despite that developers have continued updating the game. Vacant0(talk • contribs)17:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not worth including, understood – it just felt big to me that a developer had repeatedly said "this is the last one" and "we want to move on" but kept producing content because the game's a cash cow (possibly due to modding?)
I did not mention it in that sentence, but I've included it in the article and the lede. See "Despite announcing that the 1.4 update would be the final update for the game, Re-Logic has continued developing the game.[73][74] Spinks said that "there is so much demand it makes it hard to move on".[73] Since then, the "final update" promise has become a meme in the Terraria community." I did not find any connection with modding, though. Vacant0(talk • contribs)12:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of the list of 14 platforms. The earliest of these was released in 2011 (Windows) with the last over a decade later. A lead should be a high-level summary, providing I think it's better to provide an encyclopaedic overview (e.g., grouping together types of releases) rather than a straight listing of every platform, including 2 discontinued ones (Stadia and Windows Phone). If the game has changed substantially across release, doesn't a sort of timeline make sense? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've condensed this to "The game has also been ported to different platforms, including home video game consoles, handheld consoles, mobile phones, and operating systems." I've also added "The game has seen the addition of new items, NPCs, enemies, and world difficulties, as well as quality-of-life and crossovers with different games." Does it look okay now? Vacant0(talk • contribs)17:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes
Further thoughts
When I was looking for sources, most of what I was seeing was modding coverage. The Gamer mentions that the scene is (enormous. I get the feeling that modding really matters here to the game and its longevity, but a quick CTRL+F shows modding isn't mentioned anywhere on the article. A few more examples:
The soundtrack of a mod beat the game's official soundtrack on a Best Of list, which was covered quite widely (e.g., GamesRadar)
Dedicated coverage on when mods became available to specific updates (PCGamesN).
There is literally an entire paragraph on modifications. Also, TheGamer is not a high quality source therefore it won't be included in the article. Vacant0(talk • contribs)17:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a paragraph on modifications being available (and what they can change in gameplay terms) – I'm referring to it being a major part of the game's appeal/ongoing playerbase though, right? TheGamer is reliable post-2021 (and looks useful here), and there are 2 other sources above (GamesRadar and PCGamesN) in addition to IndieWire saying below it's a major part of the game's longevity. With the PC Gamer re-review, and probably others I'm not seeing, I think there's enough material here to have a dedicated section on how the game changed over time, mods
TheGamer has been considered a reliable source for few years, that's correct. But it's not a high-quality source. I've seen it being removed at FAC alongside Screen Rant and Game Rant. I've incorporated more info about modding from more sources into a new section. I did not include the PCGamesN article considering that the mods mentioned in the article were already available previously, it's just that once the 1.4.4 update was released the mods also received updates. Also, it looks like I included the 2011 PC Gamer review in the article, I just forgot to add it in the table. Vacant0(talk • contribs)13:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I notice this 10-year retrospective from IndieWire that isn't used (link). There's some useful info in there, and it does mention the huge modding scene: “Terraria” has had a bustling fan-driven modding scene for years, and though it’s difficult to quantify how important modding has been to the game’s longevity, it’s clear that a significant fraction of the game’s audience enjoys playing modded versions of “Terraria”. What do you think?
@ImaginesTigers: Thanks for your nice review. I've hopefully resolved all of your comments besides the first one for the lede. Please tell me how the "Reassessment" article looks like. I've searched a bit more into modding, but could not find much more content that also goes back into pre-tModLoader era. Vacant0(talk • contribs)13:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reassessment section is looking good. Thank you for your work!
I feel there might still be a bit more we can use of the IndieWire article. Here's some stuff from IndieWire we're leaving off right now:
Commentary on it as an outlier in the wider industry: “Terraria” is an outlier in the video game industry, and not just because of its lasting popularity.
Commentary on where they get "most" of their employees (the community) and customer interaction: That philosophy has also extended to how Re-Logic, which sourced most of its employees from the “Terraria” community, interacts with its consumers; the Re-Logic team regularly mingles with its audience on community forums and social media platforms. The company is also one of the few in the modern gaming industry that has given the OK to consumers to mod their game; modding, fan-created content for video games created using official or unofficial development tools, used to be prevalent in all sorts of video games. Game studios and publishers began clamping down on the practice as microtransactions became more common in the industry but “Terraria” has served as one of the industry’s few modern exceptions to the rule.
Commentary on the lack of microtransactions. The existing reference to this in the article is this: Since then, Spinks has refused to offer the updates for money, describing it as "the right thing to do" in his opinion (2017). I don't have any problems with including this, but compare it to the analysis from IndieWire (which includes 2021 statements from Spincks instead and contextualises it within the wider industry).
That kind of decision is a rare one in the video game industry. Many video game companies, particularly the industry’s larger publishers and studios, have taken a liking to microtransactions (game content that costs additional real-life money beyond a game’s initial asking price) such as battle passes and gambling mechanics like loot boxes, in the years since “Terraria” originally released. The increasing prevalence of microtransactions has become such a contentious issue in video game communities that game publishers have made a point to highlight their products that lack microtransactions for positive press. Microtransactions have proven profitable for many companies despite the controversy surrounding them. Regardless, Murphy noted that the strong early sales figures for “Terraria” enabled Re-Logic to actively support the game without charging customers additional money for new content.
When looking at this kind of coverage, I think it belongs in a "Development" section.
A lot of the "Development" section right now is not really development (or even about the developer. Beyond the first paragraph, it is primarily about releases—e.g., content releases, platform releases, integration with other games.
We don't need every section to be huge. While it isn't near FAC yet, can you see the approach I used for Baldur's Gate #Release? That's where the post-release stuff went. For the "there is no microtransactions" commentary, that went in the second heading of Development. The sections on "release" are quite small because there wasn't much sourcing for me to work with.
I'm wondering if the development section on Terraria should be much shorter, with dedicated Release heading (or subheading) given how much more stuff there is there. Interested in your thoughts, as this is your work, and well done again on integrating the modding stuff. Minus the gameplay part, I'm satisfied my concerns above are addressed. Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so what I have done is next: I've split up the Development and release into each of its section. In the Development section, I incorporated more material from IndieWire and other decisions Re-Logic made during the development. In the release section, I've split it up into: "Post-release", where all updates are located, including crossover content, and "Platform releases", where non-PC platform release dates are listed (I've also grouped them by category: home console, handhelds, OS, mobile). What do you think now? Vacant0(talk • contribs)15:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that – I think it has a really good shape now. I've made a few tweaks. I've tried to beef up the development section: I looked at some used found some useful info – one mentioned that Minecraft dude tweeted about the game and caused a spike in interest. I bulked out the material from IndieWire by tying it together with other sourcing. For the post-release section, I still thought it needed more commentary on how the updates have impacted the game, so I cut down the bit about not charging, added the microtransactions part to it, and added a line from gamesindustry.biz the game's success has been a result of the updates. Let me know what you think. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While looking at the sources, I noticed I screwed up the date fields for some of them—I have fixed them (here). Sources look uniform again and I'm satisfied on comprehensiveness—I can't find anything else (and I've looked quite a bit at this point). Thank you for taking the feedback well and collaborating with me. Support. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vacant, I wasn't going to review this but looking over it a few things sucked me in. I'll start with them and then keep running, which means I'll be jumping over the place a bit:
Academics Marina Adriana Mercioni, Robert Bogdan Cazacu, and Stefan Holban described Terraria as a "global [success]" in the pixel art genre of video games. This isn't really analysis, it fits better in reception.
Moved.
"raises questions of ecology" What questions?
Well... it does not go beyond that. I'll just go ahead and remove it.
In his study, scholar Ji Soo Lim noted This also isn't really analysis. It would surely fit better gameplay?
Moved.
a sequel to the original game This is implied
Removed.
The game starts in a procedurally generated world, with players starting out with basic tools and a non-player character (NPC) guide that teaches the player about aspects of the game and progression. Are caves one of these biomes? A bit unclear.
I think that you have pasted the wrong paragraph. But no, caves are not a biome. There are two separate biomes: "underground", which is below the surface, and "cavern", which is below the underground and above the underworld (hell). I did not, however, find sources discussing biomes (besides GameRant [5] but this is not a high-quality source). I could add this: [6] which does not mention caverns but has a detailed list of "underground" biomes. What do you think? Vacant0(talk • contribs)14:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't love that you say that players can increase their health/mana through crafting, and only then go onto introduce crafting.
I've swapped the sentences.
Reviewers have compared the game to Minecraft. Sounds like (looking at ru:Terraria) they go a lot further than that, which is why Peele made their comment.
I've mentioned the reason why they have compared it to Minecraft.
I've removed a little bit in my copyedit, but I think a sweep of WP:THEGAME would be good.
DOne.
The game has several difficulty modes: the default "classic" mode, "expert", and "master" modes Classic mode and not expert being the default is implied
Done
The rest of the above sentence is pretty clunky (e.g. "the latter two of which increase the difficulty in exchange")
Split up.
A player's class is defined by the equipment they use throughout the game I think rearranging this into "The equipment a player uses defines their class" is better
Done
players can also encounter a variety of enemies Why also?
I did not find sources that actually describe what it is. There are several verions of special events: those triggered by a player (using an item), which are mentioned in the article, and those triggered during a specific time of the year (e.g. Halloween and Christmas). Vacant0(talk • contribs)14:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You repeat "of that year" a few times, and they're rarely necessary when it's later or very close to the previous date and you're talking in past tense.
This was done by the copyeditor. I've changed it now.
Can you break up the Development and release section with subheadings?
I'll look what I can do considering that ImaginesTigers has suggested to do a similar thing. Will get back to this.
There are a lot of dates in the Development and release section. If you're willing to compromise at all on the level of detail, and the dates aren't crucial, consider moving things like it was released in Europe on December 11, 2013, and in North America on December 17 of that year → it was released in Europe and North America in mid-December. Another thing you can do is to try to get rid of the announcements and their dates when they're exclusively sourced to primary sources. If secondary sources are emphasizing it (e.g. "it's been a long and intense wait since the announcement in XXXX") then keep those ones.
Well... dates are used in the infobox, that's why they are there. So I'd rather keep them as it is. The primary sources are currently used to back up: "In December 2018, 505 Games announced that DR Studios would take over development of the mobile version, and Pipeworks would focus on the game's Switch port;[70] DR Studios took over development of the console and Switch versions of Terraria in August 2020." Do you want me to remove this?
I almost think with the volume of dates and releases listed in the history section, would it be better to create a table? And then have a narrative summary for the history. Not sure if it's possible.
I have never seen this on a video game article, even with those who have huge platform releases like Terraria.
I don't think it's necessary to shorten DLC if you only use it once more afterwards, and quite a way further down.
Done.
It introduced new items Clarify the subject
Done.
A Labor of Love update I'm not sure what this needs; quotation marks, a better description, but it needs something else.
It was the name of an update.
When you write "Its large amount of content has been praised by critics." It is unclear if you mean critics as a class, or multiple critics. The sources verify the first, and two sentences you contradict the latter, but it most plainly reads as this.
I'm a little unsure of how to assess comprehensiveness. I see this review which is huge and reviewing the fourth major update, and it makes me wonder why there is so much focus in the reception section on how the game ran in Xbox, Playstation, iOS instead of this. Maybe just not reflected in the sources.
Basically, I took a look at English-language reliable and high quality sources at WP:VG/RS. It seems like I missed something related to modding, which is now in the article. I did not, however, look at other language articles, considering that I thought that the English-language ones would already be sufficient and cover everything that is needed for the article.
Hey, @Rollinginhisgrave:. I'll address your comments shortly, but I want to hear your 2nd opinion on the first paragraph of the lede. ImaginesTigers has said that they do not quite understand what the game is about even after reading that part. If you're also of that opinion, I'd like to see what I can improve in that part. Vacant0(talk • contribs)12:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. I've been playing the game for 14 years so I understand what I tried to say. I need an opinion of someone not familiar with the game. Vacant0(talk • contribs)13:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain about this sentence: (A pop and soul song, the ballad's composition features drums, guitars, synthesizers, and piano.) I do not know if it is grammatically accurate, as it is saying that the composition is a "pop and soul song". Would it be accurate to describe a composition in this way?
Moved to prior sentence: "produced the pop and soul track"
For this part, (A change in style due to her personal separation from Sony Music CEO Tommy Mottola), I would clarify that Carey was married to Mottola. I think that "personal separation" could be interpreted a number of ways, and I could see some readers who are either unfamiliar with Carey or this part of Carey's past not fully understanding her connection with Mottola.
Changed to "A change in style due to her marital separation from Tommy Mottola, the head of the record label to which she was signed"
I think that context is helpful. Thank you for adding the part on him being the head of the record label, as that is something I did not think about. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the Hammond B-3 link could be expanded to be clearer for readers who unfamiliar with this instrument. Maybe something like Hammond B-3 organ?
Would it be helpful to link hi-hat, for readers who may be less familiar with musical instruments? On the topic of wikilinks, the ones for verses and chorus should be moved up to the first instances the words appear in the article.
Added link and moved up the links
This is so random so apologies in advance. Did any of the critics bring up "There's Got to Be a Way", an earlier song that touched on racism? I was curious given the discussion on how "Outside" was the first song in which Carey talked about being biracial, but there was at least one earlier instance where she sang about race. These are obviously separate things though.
Did not see any references to "There's Got to Be a Way"
I have a question about this part, (the biracial daughter of a white woman and a Black man). Since "Black" is capitalized, should "white" also be capitalized to be consistent? I am going to be completely honest here, but I am never quite sure which way is right so I cannot say either way. I was just curious on your opinion about it.
I think per WP:RACECAPS it doesn't matter. I changed it to capitalize White to make it consistent though as both are used.
I have a few comments on this part, (and Billboard's Jon O'Brien said it "undoubtedly succumbs to Carey's worst musical excesses"). Although I understand that both are retrospective reviews, I wonder if there is a way to more seamlessly tie together this review with Preezy Brown's review from earlier int he sentence. Maybe use "while" instead of "and" to present a contrast, as Brown and O'Brien seemingly have different viewpoints? I also wonder if other parts could be taken from the O'Brien interview, namely his point on the existential lyrics and his praise for Carey as a songwriter.
Changing the wording to "while" would be problematic per MOS:EDITORIAL: "when used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." O'Brien is already cited to support the sentence "others thought they discussed existence". Granted he did have some positive things to say about the songwriting but he still ranked it at 11/12 of the album's tracks so it is an important viewpoint regarding more negative retrospective opinions about the song.
Thank you for the answer. While I do not necessarily fully agree with MOS:EDITORIAL in this instance, I can understand the rationale behind it and why "while" in this instance would be best avoided. This should be good. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Has Carey ever performed this song? I did see a video of her briefly performing it for The Butterfly Returns, but I am not surprised that a one-off, partial performance did not get coverage. This Billboard article (here) says that she has never performed this song live so it could be a useful source to clearly state that in the article.
Added "Carey never performed the song live" to "development and release section"
Thank you for the ping. I have enjoyed reading through the article again. I believe that this should be everything, but I will re-read through the article several more times after my comments have been addressed. Best of luck with the FAC and I hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I always enjoy seeing songs in the FAC process, specifically album cuts like this one. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the compilation album, Playlist: The Very Best of Mariah Carey" - Should the comma be removed here? The sentence would be incomplete without the album's title since we did not specify that it is her fourth compilation album
I recently saved this article at its good article reassessment, taking the article down from 14.5k to 11k. Medxvo gave some of this article a nice revamp, while Z1720 took this article down even lower, to 9k words, both for which I am very grateful; much thanks to SNUGGUMS for giving some suggestions to the article too. This article underwent a fruitful peer review by Vacant0 and Pokelego999 also for which I am very grateful. Also grateful for ImaginesTigers, who indicated their willingness to potentially comment on this FAC.
Following analysation of high-quality biography FAs such as Cher, Taylor Swift, and Vince Gill, I believe this article is similar in quality to most, if not all of those articles. If successful this will be my eleventh featured article, and my third FA on a person. 750h+07:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm offering to look at and do the source review, which I'm also placing next to the image review done by another editor in this FAC. As a first step to this article with over 600 citations in the current version, I'm noticing that there appear to be at least 14 dead-links in the current article which will need to be addressed before a more thorough semi random quality check of the full citation list can be performed. For example: {{cite news|last=Farber|first=Jim|title=Beyoncé Shows 'Fierce' and Softer Sides in Tour Kickoff at the Garden|url=http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-06-22/entertainment/17925311_1_fierce-character-tour|newspaper=[[New York Daily News]]|date=June 21, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110311022417/http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-06-22/entertainment/17925311_1_fierce-character-tour|archive-date=March 11, 2011|url-status=dead}}. All of these 14 or more dead url notices need to repaired first for the source review to continue. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: From what i know, links can stay as long as they have an archived source next to it right? i did use archive bot and it did fix two poorly formatted MTV sources, but other than those two i don't think there's a single "dead" link in the article that isn't is supported by an archived source through the Wayback Machine or GhostArchive next to it. 750h+04:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the policy you are stating and any article going to FAC is generally assumed to have no dead urls, which means I'll likely need to recuse myself from doing this source review. I've given you dead url above using nowiki, however, it still looks like you are keeping it in the article, along with over a dozen other dead urls. Here is another example which is still in the Beyonce article as a dead url which you did not take out of the article or replace: {{cite news|last=Totilo|first=Stephen|url=http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1607344/beyonce-promotes-nintendo-game-admits-weakness-super-mario.jhtml|title=Beyoncé Promotes Nintendo Game, Admits Weakness for 'Super Mario'|publisher=MTV News|date=March 19, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110624084152/http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1607344/beyonce-promotes-nintendo-game-admits-weakness-super-mario.jhtml|archive-date=June 24, 2011|url-status=dead}}. To my understanding, all dead urls in a FAC nomination should either be replaced or removed. The article currently prints out as still having over a dozen dead urls in it which were not removed after I sent you the notification yesterday. Note to another editor who will need to take over this source review since I'm now recused, that the dead url's are scattered throughout the article and that there are over a dozen of them at this time as being unresolved. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause i’m just a bit confused here as all “dead links” have archive-urls next to them; even the ones you pointed out, which from what I know is allowed (I’ve seen several nominations pass with this format). However, since you have recused, we’ll see what another reviewer says. 750h+15:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc: all done with quickness; as for the concern with "(“Singer” and “female artist” are overlapping; one is redundant.)", i've changed "artist" to "individual" to prevent overlapping. 750h+13:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+ (hope I'm not being rude by butting in) I would agree with MSincccc that "electronic music" is the more natural phrase here. It's much more commonplace to use the phrase "hip hop" as a standalone word than it is to use just the phrase "electronic" to refer to the music genre. On pages for prominent electronic artists like Aphex Twin, Daft Punk and Kraftwerk, the phrase "electronic" is basically never used as a standalone noun in the body text. ALittleClass (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Public image
Critics have frequently described Beyoncé as a symbol of sex appeal symbol of sex appeal→sex symbol
"music journalist" could be linked to the article Music journalism.
In 2007, Beyoncé became→In 2007, she became
Beyoncé has been nicknamed "Queen Bey" by media publications.→Beyoncé has been nicknamed "Queen Bey" by the media.
Do we really need these two details in particular:
...the "Hottest Female Singer of All Time" by Complex in 2012.
VH1 listed her at number one on its 2013 list of the "100 Sexiest Artists".
Wealth
between June 2007 to June 2008
→ between June 2007 "and" June 2008
She was listed as the Forbes third highest-paid musician of the 2010s, earning $685 million. The definite article "the" should be dropped from this sentence.
Consider trimming year-by-year earnings detail—retain major highlights only (e.g. 2014’s $115 million, or her 2010s decade ranking), and remove repetitive annual mentions.
Condense Celebrity 100 placements—keep only the most notable (e.g. number one in 2014), and remove lower placements like fourth in 2008 or 2009.
For Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s earnings, consider noting just one significant joint ranking (e.g. 2012) and their billionaire milestone, rather than listing each year’s figures.
Legacy
Combine Rolling Stone, AP, and NPR mentions with Billboard's 2024 title for a tighter opening.
@MSincccc: much thanks for the review and thanks for noticing the grammar mistakes, highly appreciated! i've addressed those comments, but just a few things:
for your point in which you said "Do we really need these two details in particular", these both notable and known publications placing her atop their women's sex appeal list, i could probably include several publications but there's only four; this somewhat furthers on the earlier sentence "Beyoncé has been described by critics as having sex appeal."
on your suggestion to condense the forbes celebrity 100 placements, while i understand the need for conciseness i'd argue that being ranked fourth is still EXTREMELY high. it means that forbes considered her the fourth most powerful celebrity in those years, which very significant and worth noting.
as for your concern where you say "Combine Rolling Stone, AP, and NPR mentions with Billboard's 2024 title for a tighter opening.", i see them as having different purposes: AP, Rolling Stone and NPR rank her as one of the most influential artists in history, while Billboard lists her as the greatest star of the 21st century; these are both quite different categories.
the article surprisingly isn't overcategoried and all of the categories belong; artists of this level of impact generally have a significant number of categories due to the scope of their work (eg Cher, Taylor Swift, Michael Jackson, John Lennon, Lady Gaga, etc)
You could use "she" rather than using "Beyoncé" repeatedly in the first paragraph.
She set the record for the most Grammy awards won by a female artist in one night in 2010 with six awards.
awards→Awards
Politics
She held a fundraiser for President Obama's 2012 presidential campaign... Obama is already described as "President" in the previous sentence.
"Beyoncé, former Destiny's Child bandmate Kelly Rowland, and her mother Tina Knowles"
→"Beyoncé, her mother Tina Knowles, and former Destiny's Child bandmate Kelly Rowland"
(Avoids ambiguity)
Fashion lines
"parterned" → "partnered"
(typo)
"for back-to-school selling"
→ "for the back-to-school season."
(Minor suggestion)
Following allegations that Topshop owner Philip Green had sexually harassed, bullied, and racially abused employees, Beyoncé bought out his stake in the company.
It implies Green personally held the stake, whereas in reality, his company held the 50% share in Ivy Park.
That's all from me for now. The prose is engaging and comprehensive, though a few trims would be beneficial. As it stands, you’re more knowledgeable—I’m not an expert on the topic. MSincccc (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"philanthropist / producer / director" are included in the infobox although they do not appear in the lead, they should be removed per template instructions
"forming management company Parkwood Entertainment" - "the" is probably missing before "management"
"Americana epic Cowboy Carter" has an MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue. I would replace "epic" with "record" (also epic as a narrative genre does not appear in the article prose)
"Beyoncé met LaTavia Roberson" - I suggest "Beyoncé met singer LaTavia Roberson" for clarity
"separated apartments" - "separated" or "separate"?
"achieved multi-platinum status" - "achieved multi-platinum status in the United States" is more explicitly stated in the source, or you could add this source which additionally confirms that it achieved multi-platinum status in several countries, not just the U.S.
For consistency with other releases, I would include the release month for Destiny's Child (February 1998) and The Writing's on the Wall (July 1999), not just the year
"MTV made-for-television film" - an MTV wikilink would be helpful
"it debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, selling 663,000 copies in its first week" - would be helpful to indicate that this is a U.S. chart, i.e., "on the U.S. Billboard 200"
I would remove the Foxxy Cleopatra wikilink since it redirects to the film page
"Destiny's Child embarked on a global concert tour" - The year would be relevant here, i.e., "In 2005, Destiny's Child embarked..."
"released their first compilation album, #1's, in October" - in October of which year?
"debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 chart, selling 541,000 copies in its first week, making it her second consecutive..." - I suggest "debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 chart with 541,000 copies sold in its first week, marking her second consecutive..."
"fifth number one on U.S. Billboard Hot 100" - Not sure if we need to introduce the Hot 100 as a U.S. chart for a second time
"Rotten Tomatoes' consensus calling this" - why "this" not "it"?
"breaking a record she previously tied in 2004 for the most Grammy awards won in a single night by a female artist with six" - please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think this means that she won six awards in 2004 not five, which is wrong?
"..."Best Thing I Never Had", "Love on Top"—reached" - "and" is missing before "Love On Top"
"called On the Run Tour" - "called the On the Run Tour"
The Formation World Tour part seems out of place, because the tour chronologically began after the album's release not after the release of "Formation"
"Song for the Year for "Formation" - typo, "Song of the Year"
While I respect Ernest's source review, I will have to disagree that dead links already accompanied by an |archive-url= parameter need to be fixed. I do not recommend that any action be taken on this.
Some sources (e.g. Billboard, Wall Street Journal) have ISSNs and some (e.g. NY Times) do not. These should be formatted consistently so that they either all have ISSNs, or none do.
Some sources have |url-access=subscription parameters, while others that are paywalled do not. These should be formatted consistently, too.
For some sources like Forbes, the |work= parameter is sometimes linked, and sometimes it's not (see, for example, refs 481, 483, 485 of this version). There are three options here: link the "work" parameter for all citation from a specific publication; link this parameter only in the first citation from that publication; or don't link this parameter at all.
Ref 429 is the only reference that uses a location parameter. I suggest removing it for consistency.
For ref 448, the |work= parameter should be Rolling Stone, not rollingstone.com.
Ref 582 uses a |url-status= parameter but has no archive url.
What makes the following sources reliable:
Any of the Rolling Stone sources (I know that WP:ROLLINGSTONE says that this is reliable for culture, but not for society. Can we confirm that all of these are related to culture?)
Ref 297: MacNeill, Kyle (February 23, 2023). "Inside the Secret Shady World of Corporate Concerts". Vice.
Ref 311: Hunt, El (March 28, 2024). "Why we shouldn't be surprised that Beyoncé is going country". London Evening Standard.
Ref 317: Bell, Crystal (December 23, 2024). "Beyoncé's Christmas Halftime Show on Netflix: Everything You Need to Know". Mashable.
Ref 385-4: Getahun, Hannah (April 1, 2024). "'Act III' Will Be Beyoncé's Next Album: Here Are the 4 Genres the Beyhive Thinks It Could Be". Business Insider.
Ref 435: Donn, Emily (March 18, 2017). "How La La Land Helped Live-Action Beauty and the Beast Remake". Screen Rant.
Ref 450: George, Kat (March 18, 2016). "What I Learned About Style From Destiny's Child's "Bootylicious"". Vice. Retrieved June 8, 2025.
Ref 451: Alao, Lola Christina (May 3, 2024). "Beyoncé Added to New Edition of French Dictionary". London Evening Standard.
Ref 521: Fletcher, Harry (March 20, 2018). "10 Feminist Icons in Music". London Evening Standard.
Ref 651: Friel, Mikhaila (August 28, 2021). "Beyoncé Is Facing Backlash for Promoting a 'Blood Diamond' Necklace in a Tiffany Campaign That Celebrates Her Being the First Black Woman to Wear It". Business Insider.
This article is about Rosa Parks, the civil rights activist. Her famous refusal to move probably needs no introduction, but she was also a committed activist throughout her life, not just as part of the civil rights movement, but as part of the broader Black freedom struggle as well. This is my first FA nomination, which I've been encouraged to undertake by @Noleander. They were the reviewer on my GA nom back in April. I have tried my best to prepare the article for FA, including via peer review and assistance from the GoCE. There have been some issues with the infobox image, which I think have been resolved, but I welcome any assistance with the image verification/selection process, which I have struggled with. In general, I welcome any comments and feedback on the article and hope we can get it to FA. Thank y'all for your time! Spookyaki (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did the GA and contributed to the PR, so may as well finish the trifecta
Ambigous After Parks was found guilty of violating state law, it was extended indefinitely,... the word "it" is ambiguous (could mean "state law"); Consider replacing with "the boycott"
Copyright of statue? Regarding image File:Rosa Parks statue NSHC.jpg ... that is a photo of a statue. I see the photo is free-use since it is by a govmt employee; but is there any issue related to the statue itself? Does the artist have a copyright that may be an issue? I don't know ... I'm just posing the question.
Image captions: end in period? The No. 2857 bus on which Parks was riding before her arrest (a GM "old-look" transit bus, serial number 1132) is now a museum exhibit at the Henry Ford Museum The policy WP:CAPFRAG says that captions that are full sentences should end in periods (but if the caption is a sentence fragement (which most captions are) no period is required). Also A plaque entitled "The Bus Stop" at Dexter Avenue and Montgomery Street—where Parks boarded the bus—pays tribute to her and the success of the Montgomery bus boycott
Added periods.
Clarify who is the owner When her rent became delinquent and her impending eviction was publicized in 2004, executives of the ownership company announced they had forgiven the back rent ... The "ownership company" may confuse some readers. Maybe replace with "landlord" or "landlords"; also consider linking to article Landlord
Replaced with "her landlord".
... enlisted the support of local Black clergy, including the pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Martin Luther King Jr. Reading fast, I read that as two different pastors. Consder ... enlisted the support Martin Luther King Jr (at that time the pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church). Or maybe it is just me.
Rephrased a bit: WPC members distributed the leaflets throughout the Black community, and Nixon enlisted the support of several members of the local Black clergy, including Martin Luther King Jr, who was the pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. Does that help?
Consider moving the photo of the bus File:Rosa_parks_bus.jpg up higher, into the bus ride section(s). I know the photo is of the museum display, but it is still the bus.
Clarify In her account, she verbally resists Mr. Charlie's advances and denounces his racism. It is not clear if she "denounces his racism" means she denounced his racism during the assault; or if she did not (but did denounce the racism within her account written years later).
Changed wording to In her account, she claims that she verbally resisted Mr. Charlie's advances and denounced his racism.Spookyaki (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation tool: I ran the tool and it reported one warning: https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/rosa-parks ... I checked the report, and that warning is a false positive: the textual overlaps are quotations of primary sources, or some common phrases or proper names.
Image captions redux: For big captions that are - strictly speaking - sentence fragments, consider converting them to a full sentences. E.g. Parks being fingerprinted on February 22, 1956 after being arrested again alongside 73 others following a grand jury's indictment of hundreds of Black organizers for orchestrating the Montgomery bus boycott consider a full sentence such as Parks was fingerprinted on February 22, 1956 after being arrested again alongside 73 others following a grand jury's indictment of hundreds of Black organizers for orchestrating the Montgomery bus boycott. IMHO, that makes it easier for readers to scan/parse larger captions.
Image captions: Citations? Not a big deal for me, but some reviewers say that if a caption states a fact (regardless if the caption is a fragment or full sentence) the caption should have a citation. Just FYI ... not a show-stopper for me.
Better wording? Prior to Parks's refusal to move, numerous Black Montgomerians had engaged in similar acts of resistance against segregated public transportation. After her arrest in 1955, local activists decided to use it as a test case against segregation, leading the Women's Political Council (WPC) to organize a one-day bus boycott on the day of her trial. Something tells me this can be clearer & give a better sense of the time spans. Perhaps something like Starting in 1944, Black activists began to refuse to move from their seats, leading to numerous arrests. Local leaders were searching for a person who would be a good legal test case against segregation when Parks was arrested in 1955. She was deemed [or determined] to be a good candidate, so the Women's Political Council (WPC) organized a one-day bus boycott on the day of her trial. Or something like that.
I incorporated some of these suggestions. However, I think it's important to note that we don't actually know if resistance to segregated public transit began in 1944. Parks herself participated in one such act of resistance (albeit a much smaller one than in 1955) in 1943. My guess is that there were probably many earlier cases that we just haven't heard about. I also don't think it's correct to call all of these people activists. A lot of these people were presumably just living their lives. As a result, I think" Prior to Parks's refusal to move, several..." (or numerous) and "Black Montgomerians" are actually most precise. Spookyaki (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like some word are missing ?? Nixon and King both gave speeches, while Abernathy read the demands of the organizers to the crowd, asking them to stand if they supported a continued boycott: # Courteous treatment on the buses; First-come, first-served seating with whites in front and blacks in back; Hiring of black drivers for the black bus routes.[91] I'm not sure what is happening here. Is this a formatting problem? What is the pound sign (#) doing? Is this a ballot of some items that were voted on? Suggest eliminating the bulleted text and replace with prose. Or maybe put into a blockquote template.
Wanted to see if I could fit all of the gallery images in the body of the article, per policy. I ultimately was, though I had to remove one of the images to get them all to fit. Let me know if I need to make any more adjustments. Spookyaki (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rosa_Parks_(13270402093)_(cropped).jpg: is a more specific tag available?
Eugh. It seems like it is copyrighted (at least to my untrained eye). My impression from this page is that it was published in 1982 by the Schlesinger Library, which say that it may "not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means". This will be an absolute nightmare to replace, but I'll see what I can do. Spookyaki (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rosa_Parks_Signature.svg: source link is dead.Ditto File:Rosa_Parks_being_fingerprinted_by_Deputy_Sheriff_D.H._Lackey_after_being_arrested_on_February_22,_1956,_during_the_Montgomery_bus_boycott.jpg, File:Rosa_Parks_medal.gif, File:President_Bill_Clinton_presents_Rosa_Parks_with_the_Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom_in_the_Oval_Office.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rosa_Parks_Signature.svg—If the link here is dead, how much does that matter given the PD justification? Would it be best practice to upload an alternative with a working link? Spookyaki (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rosa_Parks_being_fingerprinted_by_Deputy_Sheriff_D.H._Lackey_after_being_arrested_on_February_22,_1956,_during_the_Montgomery_bus_boycott.jpg—Updated source. Spookyaki (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since my previous submission – 2021 World Figure Skating Championships – has neared approval, I am submitting another. The 2025 U.S. Figure Skating Championships took place this past January, and less than a week later, 28 skaters died when their airplane crashed into a helicopter and plunged into the Potomac River. I was in attendance at this competition. Waking up to find out that a bunch of junior skaters whom I remember seeing in the arena had drowned in a plane crash was one of the worst days of my life. That being said, the competition results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, the background and history have been extensively re-written to incorporate changes made to 2021 World Figure Skating Championships, the sources are properly formatted and archived (where possible), and relevant photographs are used. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and I look forward to any constructive input. Bgsu98(Talk)20:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Georgiana Hill was a lost and forgotten name until the early 21st century. Until then, people conflated her life with that of her namesake, not realising these were two different women writers. This Georgiana Hill wrote a canon of work that rivals Mrs Beeton, but without the errors and plagiarism that accompany Beeton's magnum opus. This article has been through a complete rewrite recently and all constructive comments are most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the final work she wrote was in 1870—, yuk, her final work was published in 1870
teaching languages—which?
her sister, Sophie, also lived in the town, teaching singing—perhaps and taught for variation
They remained unmarried throughout their lives.—They never married
but had returned to Browning Hill to live with her sister— not sure about had
Many of Hill's works show the influence of European cuisines on the English one;—repertoire as last word?
when the style of cookery book publishing— add contemporary?
The British Housewife has been used as a source in several works of social and food history, and Bradley's recipes and advice still appear in such works.''— The book and Bradley appear from nowhere Jimfbleak - talk to me?13:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fear I missed a few points at the peer review – my apologies. These are my present quibbles and carps:
"She produced several works that specialised on an ingredient" – here and in the main text, I don't think one specialises on, but in. Or "concentrated on ...
"Isabella Beeton's 1861 work Book of Household Management" – missing an indefinite article for Mrs Beeton's title?
"Hill's identity and work was conflated with that of her namesake" – two points here: first, two nouns with a singular verb (and "that" should be "those" I think), and secondly, I think perhaps an adverb such as "mistakenly" would help before "conflated"
"and at some point that decade both sisters moved" – perhaps "in" before "that"?
"They never married" – I don't suggest it was conceivable that they could have married each other, but even so I might tweak this to something like "They both remained unmarried".
"Hill wrote extensively for Household Manuals series" – needing a definite article after "for"?
"apple puddings for six months of the year, then changed to gooseberry desserts" – could do with a proper conjunction: perhaps "and then ..."? And I'm still struggling to square living on gooseberries for six months when the season is six weeks with the following reference to "seasonal produce".
A comma is needed to close out the appositive in "She wrote her first cookery book, The Gourmet's Guide to Rabbit Cooking there in 1859." I also recommend rearranging it to "There she wrote her first cookery book, The Gourmet's Guide to Rabbit Cooking, in 1859." for clarity/flow.
"a reader would have to spend 6 shillings 6 d to buy them all." --> to the more concise "a reader needed to spend 6 shillings 6 d to buy them all."
The reign of Æthelred the Unready (978-1013 and 1014-1016) was a disaster which ended in the conquest of England by the Danish Viking Cnut. This article is about Ulfcytel, who was the one military leader on the English side to receive universal praise in English and Scandinavian sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not ideal to have a quote in the lead: the Danes said that "they never met worse fighting in England than Ulfcytel dealt to them. In general, most of the article should be in encyclopedia's voice; and quotes should be used sparingly - for super interesting tidbits. This statement "they never met worse fighting ..." is rather mundane and could be written in encyclopedia's voice.
More precise message to reader: Ulfcytel is regarded as the most effective English military leader during the disastrous reign of Æthelred the Unready (1078–1013 and 1014–1016). The word "disastrous" made me smile, but tells me very little. Consider Ulfcytel is regarded as the most effective English military leader during the reign of Æthelred the Unready (1078–1013 and 1014–1016), which was marked by <some specifics about the bad events>.
Wording ...he was married to a daughter of King Æthelred, and historians disagree... My ears expect "but" instead of the "and". But that might just be a regional preference.
I think that "According to one source" signals that it is not widely reported, and "but" would jar with me as implying a contrast with wide acceptance. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Separate sentences? By 1004 he was the dominant figure in East Anglia, and he held this status until his death in 1016,[13] but his origin and background are unknown. Those two ideas seem rather unrelated; consider splitting into two sentences.
I have a probably unreasonable prejudice against short staccato sentences. How about starting the paragraph with "Ulfcytel's origin and background are unknown, and he is first recorded as a signatory to charters (grants of land and privileges) in 1002."? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear ... which could explain his anomalous status. I'm not sure which part of his life the word "anomalous" is referring to, when used here. In the preceding couple of paragraphs, there are a few odd/uncertain things about him. Consider re-wording to replace "anomalous" with specific words identifying the odd aspect.
I'm having a hard time parsing this ..., but he attested charters as a minister, the Latin for thegn, the third rank. I'm guessing that " the Latin for thegn" is a parenthetical comment explaining the word "minister"? If that is correct, readers would be happier to see ..., but he attested charters as a minister (the Latin word for thegn) – the third rank or something like that.
Explain important term: ... first recorded as a signatory to royal charters in .. the word "charter" is used several times, but the word is not defined ... which would be nice for readers unfamiliar with Britain. The first use of the word "charter" should have a blue link. And - in addition - a few words should be added so readers are not required to click the link. e.g. first recorded as a signatory to royal charters (documents promulgating laws or granting land) in .. I'm not sure if Charter and Royal charter require two separate links in this article?
Anglo-Saxon charters is a better link, although there is no fully satisfactory one. Historians of the period distinguish between "diplomas" which are royal grants of land and privileges, and charters, a broader term which also covers other documents such as wills. The documents that Ulfcytel attested are closer to diplomas, but also cover the grant he made himself, so obviously not a royal grant. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wording: The etymology of Ulfcytel's name is Scandinavian Might be better as The origin of Ulfcytel's name ... or The root of Ulfcytel's name .... I think the word etymology means "the study of the origin" or "the analysis of the origin", which is slightly different than "the origin".
Etymology also has the meaning I have used it for. Meaning 1 in OED is "The facts relating to the origin of a particular word or the historical development of its form and meaning; the origin of a particular word." Dudley Miles (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add link The Danes gained a pyrrhic victory... Some readers will be happy to see a link to pyrrhic victory.
Wording could be clearer: Payment of tribute to the Vikings was common and severely criticised in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; its portrayal of Ulfcytel's decision as sensible is an exception It may be clearer as Payment of tribute to the Vikings was generally criticised whenever discussed in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; so the portrayal of Ulfcytel's decision as sensible is a notable exception. or something like that.
Plain statement vs qualified? Ulfcytel is described as having been wounded while leading ... ... why is that not written as Ulfcytel was wounded while leading ...? The article has plenty of plain declarations, such as Ulfcytel ordered the ships to be destroyed ... so why the tentative wording "Ulfcytel is described ..." used here? I is okay to use qualifying words like "described" "may have" "possible" "hypothesized" ... but usually those are used only when the source is questionable or there is a scholarly disagreement. Is that the case for Ulfcytel is described as having been wounded while leading ...?
ISBN-13 - Came into existence in 2007, and hence should not be in the citation for an edition of a book from before 2007. The article has a few sources that are an issue. Examples:
(2003). Æthelred the Unready: The Ill-Counselled King. London, UK: Hambledon and London. ISBN 978-1-85285-382-2.
Whitelock, Dorothy, ed. (1979). English Historical Documents, Volume 1, c. 500–1042 (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-14366-0.
Stenton, Frank (1971) [1943]. Anglo-Saxon England (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280139-5.
Mynors, R. A. B.; Thomson, R. M.; Winterbottom, M., eds. (1998). William of Malmesbury: Gesta Regum Anglorum, The History of the English Kings (in Latin and English). Vol. I. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-820678-1.
For those sources, you should identify the year of the specific edition you read when preparing the article, then either (a) if it the edition/reprint is post-2007, then change the cite to use the post-2007 year; or (b) if the edition is before 2007, change the cite to use the ISBN-10.
When I started submitting articles to FAC ten years ago a reviewer said that I should be consistent on sticking to ISBN 10 or 13. Since then, I have always used ISBN 13, converting from 10 if that is what is shown in the book, and no one has queried it before. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Peculiar phrase: Ulfcytel has a high reputation in contemporary sources and among Anglo-Norman historians... The phrase "has a high reputation " doesn't sound right. Is that a term of art used by historians? If not, consider using more typical phrasing such as Ulfcytel is held in high regard by ... or Ulfcytel is highly regarded by both ... or Ulfcytel is esteemed by ... something like that.
Any of the four looks fine to my eye. Dr Johnson used "high reputation", more than 300 people in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography from Sir Henry Acland to Diana Wynyard are said to have one, and if you type it into the search engine of the Internet Archive you get thousands of hits – so it must, I think, be regarded as good idiomatic usage ("idiomatic" in the English sense, that is, rather than the American). I'll clock in at this review for a proper look shortly. Tim riley talk12:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not thrilled with the alts - ideally we'd want them to be saying something you can see from looking at the image that you don't already get from the caption. But not a massive deal. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...to carry out their duties... I would avoid the possessive pronoun, because it is ambiguous (especially, because "ealdormanries" are not persons, in contrast with (high-)reeves).
A link to "councillors"? (I assume they hold a specific office in East Anglia.)
I do not think there is an article to link to and there was not a specific office. It seems to have been a vague term which meant local high ranking men who advised him. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Lead) ...the Danes said that "they never met worse fighting in England than Ulfcytel dealt to them" This is not presented as a fact in the main text, but a report by a chronicle.
The source is the Chronicle, but historians treat is as a fact.
(Lead) Scandinavian sources... The use of plural is not verified in the main text.
"and although he lost the Danes" – you and I (and Gog the Mild) see eye to eye about being sparing with commas, but I really think we could do with one after "lost" here. He didn't lose the Danes.
That apart, nothing from me. There is the perpetual question of how to convey the value of ancient pounds (or other currencies) in modern terms, but I recognise that it may not be possible. If I'd been writing the article I think I'd have added a footnote about Æthelred the Unready's nickname, but I most certainly don't press the point. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria: balanced, well and widely sourced, an excellent read and as well illustrated as I imagine it is possible to be. (You could add a map to the Military career section, perhaps, showing the key places.)
I am not sure whether I have added currency conversion in the past, or where I would find one. Unfortunately, the Bank of England's converter only starts in 1209. I have added a note on unræd. I gave up on maps years ago when a request for one to the map section produced no response. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Tim. BTW it seems to me remarkable that I have only now found out from a comment by Nikkimaria how you are supposed to write alt descriptions. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:Ssilvers strongarmed me into it ages ago. Excellent anyway, as are the language templates for the benefit of visitors who use screen readers. (A hell of a slog with dozens of the things at my current PR but well worth it.) Tim riley talk19:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While we may not think about it, the ants underneath us can be especially brutal in their day-to-day lives. From kidnapping the young of a colony to raise as their own and use for work, to overthrowing a host queen and taking over the colony, these little guys can be frightening. After the GA review, this underwent a peer review, and I believe this now meets the FA criteria.
Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk)01:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already reviewed this at PR, so I'll just add something interesting I noticed. Aculeata says A large part of the clade is parasitic, and going one more step up the tree, Hymenoptera also says Many of the species are parasitic. Ant, however, makes no such statement. It would be interesting to explore why parasitism is (apparently) so common in Aculeata and Hymenoptera but not generally in Formicidae. RoySmith(talk)01:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: That's actually very interesting, from a skim of what I can access right now, it looks like the more primitive the taxa the more common parasitism is, and I suppose that may have something to do with it. I'll take a deeper look soon and see if I can find more reliable stuff on that that can be included in the article. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk)01:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the GA reviewer, I helped Sophisticatedevening mainly with prose and ease of understanding. My main points ('concerns' is not the correct word) mainly regards clerity and comprehension. GGOTCC02:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a prose review. I am not a bug person, so I hope my perspective reflects the knowledge of the average reader.
"which causes some to remain undetected inside a colony for the majority of their lifespans" – this is a little awkward. It implies that most parasitic ants do not go undetected their whole life, which I would think is much more notable than the fact that some do.
Rephrased
The summary of social parasitic syndrome in the lead is unsatisfying. For one, it doesn't make clear whether this is a species-wide thing (not clear from reading the main section either) or a change specific to individual ants. I would also suggest condensing "a series of changes to their anatomy during their evolution towards exploitative behaviors" to something like "changes to their anatomy adapted for parasitism", which would be shorter and more to-the-point.
Added the genera it was observed in in the main+lead
"queens, workers and drones" is missing a serial comma; my personal preference aside, you seem to use one elsewhere (", and M. wettereri."), so the article should be internally consistent.
Is this "separate pseudo-caste of mutated worker ants that exhibit queen-like phenotypes", which has ovaries, able to lay eggs? My rudimentary ant knowledge tells me that most ants are incapable of laying eggs.
Removed for consistency
"contain a supergene" – not sure if this is genetically correct. I believe most/all ants have this supergene, but that it is mutated in these ants. Adding the word "mutated" should fix this.
Done
"Rather than become" – I believe "Rather than becoming" is more grammatical here.
"The parasite uses its mandible to attach itself to a host ant" – does the host ant not care that it is being grabbed like this? Is it harmed or killed in the process? Does it fight back?
Clarified, it does (try) to fight back
"can make the parasite indistinguishable from host workers" – is it necessary to specify "to other ants" here? I assume a human with a microscope could still distinguish them, since we usually don't rely on ant pheromones. But perhaps this is too nitpicky and not worth specifying.
I believe "tongue–like" should be using a hyphen instead of an en dash.
Done
"glossae" currently links to tongue – is this intended? Are the structures actually related (homologous)? If not, I would remove the link.
Removed
The helpful parenthetical simplifications are conspicuously absent from the "Phylogeny" section. Though not required, terms that could use one if you are so inclined are "dulotic", "inquiline", "formicoid", and maybe "monophyletic".
Added
"Temporary social parasitism...marked by the parasites losing the ability to form their own colonies" – this doesn't sound temporary to me. I would tack on something like "instead relying on taking over existing colonies of other species" to the end of this sentence to clarify what makes this "temporary".
Fixed
The sentence "Some ants also utilize slave raids to transport host eggs back to their own colony to raise as their own." is missing a citation. I suppose it's a summary of the following-subsection, though, so I'm not sure one is needed.
Repeated citation
"transport their offspring back" – The article on slave-making ants specifies "larvae and pupae", could you do the same here? "offspring" could theoretically include adult workers, but the other article says enslaving adults is rare and this article doesn't mention it at all (might be worth adding). Later it says "offspring in various stages of growth", which is a little vague.
Done
"send out scouts to search for taxonomically similar species nearby in order to infiltrate the colony with minimal conflict from host workers" – I believe the part after "in order to" refers solely to "taxonomically similar", but doesn't refer to the behavior or the scouts, who I don't think infiltrate the colony while scouting. Later in this paragraph we also have "and are often closely related taxonomically to their hosts"; not sure if this repetition is needed. I suggest removing the first mention of taxonomical similarity.
Done
"This process usually takes around 1 year for..." – a little awkward. I suggest replacing "This process" with "It" and writing "1" as the word "one" (MOS:NUMERAL).
Fixed
"These ants target..." – This sentence contains many "they" and "their" and "them", which could be ambiguous. Suggest replacing these vague terms with specific nouns.
Fixed
"hydrocarbon profile of their hosts" – I'd use the specific term from earlier, "cuticular hydrocarbon profile".
Replaced
"alkaloid-derived venom" – The sources calls them alkaloids outright. Remove "-derived".
Done
"used to pacify the host colony" sounds like a euphemism. What do they do? Is this venom deadly or merely uncomfortable? Do they harm or kill any workers?
Changed to "sedates"
You casually drop "consume the host's food and offspring" without elaborating; I don't think any of the other ants we've encountered thus far eat offspring. Is this notable enough that it should be discussed further?
I personally don't see anything worth elaborating on too much further, most of the other types do the same this was just the first occurence
"The inquiline parasite's brood are almost always capable of reproduction" – what does this mean? Does this mean that all of the offspring are able to reproduce, or that they can survive on fewer resources than the host offspring and thus more likely to reproduce? Or something else?
Clarified
You can re-link Emery's rule in the Inquiline ants section; since this is one top-level section header away from the first link, it's a valid WP:DUPLINK.
Done
"The following of Emery's rule" --> "Following Emery's rule", simpler.
Done
"altered metabolism and significantly shrunken bodies" – another missing serial comma. Again, it's okay if you don't want to use them, but please be consistent.
Removed for consistency
"The supergene is inherited in a single generation"...what does this mean?
Removed
"with the exception of wings" – please specify, for the non-ant people, that what is meant here is that the queens have wings and the workers do not. Maybe adding the word "having" before "wings" would work?
Done
"the ants are then considered obligate parasites as they are no longer able to independently survive without exploiting a host colony" --> "the ants are no longer able to independently survive without exploiting a host colony, making them obligate parasites". Clearer causality, more concise.
Done
"virgin potential queens" – are these two adjectives not redundant?
Removed "virgin"
"The resources and care that are usually diverted towards a host colony's own brood are used for the parasite's offspring" – I think "diverted towards" is poor word choice here. Perhaps replace with "devoted to". You can replace "used for" later on with "diverted towards" if you like.
Replaced with "devoted"
"less healthy and fit" – do these not mean the same thing? Or does "fit" only mean in the evolutionary sense? Wait, even if it does, the workers can't reproduce...
Removed fit
"dufour", as a person's name, should be capitalized: Dufour. I don't know whether the "'s" is necessary, but the article is titled Dufour's gland.
Done
"This toxin can induce infighting among the host colony" – How?! This is crazy!
I know right!?!
"in an attempt for" is a little awkward. "Attempt" is usually followed by "to", but that doesn't fit here. Would suggest replacing the whole phrase with "allowing".
Done
"infected host colony" – I think this is the first time "infected" has been used in this article to mean "being parasitized". I'd reword to avoid it.
Reworded
"some parasites residing inside" – inside what? ("the host colony")
Clarified
"violent physical means" --> "violence"
Done
"helped map out" – any reason this doesn't just say "have mapped out"? I would also follow "pairs" with a colon instead of a period.
@Sophisticatedevening Thank you for the speedy response. Everything looks good, except that I think you may have missed the question about laying eggs by misplacing your reply to the serial comma comment. (I am also sad that you have decided against serial commas in general.)
On "used to sedate the host colony" – I've checked the source and they say "use alkaloids produced in their venom glands to subdue their hosts and gain access to their resources", which doesn't really answer my question, but that means you can't be expected to answer it either. I'm going to backtrack here and say that "pacify" was a better term, since "sedate" has a specific medical meaning that may not apply here. Sorry.
Very interesting nom. I'll give some thoughts on sources and prose.
Inconsistent language field – values differ per template (eg., "English" vs "en" vs "en-us") or differ in whether they use the field (eg.,Fischer Friedman et al 2020 uses it but Helanterä 2021 doesn't). I'd recommend standardising those. Everything else looks good
Fixed to just "en"
Content looks really good
I think it'd be worth including some of the material from Methods in the lead? It's a really interesting part of the article and IMO is a bit underrepresented right now
Included a bit more, describing from the slaver ants section
If I do have critical feedback, it's on the "Social parasitic syndrome" section
I had to re-read this sentence several times: Social parasitic syndrome is a series of changes that can occur in parasitic ant species during their evolution towards exploitative behaviors. It makes it sound like this happens at the same rate as evolution (eg., hundreds of thousands/millions of years), which might be true, but feels odd.
Switched to "transformation", more of a generational thing.
To explain from my laymen's perspective: If the species is already exploitative (ie., its definition includes "parasitic ant species"), how are they moving towards exploitative behaviours?
So this is from the perspective of trying to explain how they got to where they are if that makes sense, so like they are parasitic now and this is how they became so. A little unsure how to clarify that in the text.
I'm just not understanding this section very well, especially as it is standalone. Would this possibly be better situated under "Species and chacteristics", given that it applies to lots of them?
Moved it up to that section
No feedback, but holy god on Earth: Parasitic queens do not productively contribute any resources or support to the host colony, and sometimes remove the wings of virgin potential queens
This article is about a language spoken in Cameroon by around 10,000 Nizaa people. I have significantly expanded this article from a one sentence stub to a GA. The main concern I have is the lack of media in the article; however, I think this is due to a lack of free-license images in general, not because I haven't added them. Nevertheless, any suggestions would be appreciated.
Comment as GA reviewer (see review). Given my past involvement with the article and lack of familiarity with FAC (as a first-time contributor to an FAC discussion), I won't attempt to do a full review, but I just want to mention a couple of things that might be relevant for this review: firstly, the TheilEndresen-1991 source is fully accessible to users of The Wikipedia Library. Secondly, a couple of the sources are from University of Oslo (UiO) scholars, and UiO's online repository has (fairly recently, I think) been restricted to members-only access until the content has "been migrated to the national research archive (Nasjonalt vitenarkiv) during fall 2025" (according to the 403 error message). Because of this, Kjelsvik-2008 is currently only accessible via ResearchGate and Pepper-2016 is only accessible via archive link. Kjelsvik-2002 is available via CORE as well as ResearchGate. I hope this helps! Also, I'm not sure whether consistently-formatted dates are a requirement for FA, but just in case they are, it might be worth standardising them throughout the article; I was going to do this myself based on WP:DATEVAR, but looking at the early edits it isn't clear what would be classed as the original format, so I'll defer to @PharyngealImplosive7 on that one! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've modified the alt text for the images that have it. In terms of the MOS:COLOR issue, should I go ahead and remove the image or do something else (sorry, I'm not too familiar with MOS:COLOR). – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)04:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The alternatives would be to expand the legend to cover all the languages included, or add some kind of pattern or symbol to the map itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 24, 27, 31 and 34 don't point to any citation.
" Older speakers of Nizaa also pronounce /ɛː/ is also pronounced as the sequence /ar/" This feels a little wordy/confusing.
"...in one word root (xag or 'to clear one's throat'), and is not consequently, is represented the same as /h/ in the orthography." Also feels very wordy.
For ref 19, I can't find where it says in the given page for the source that says "extensive documentation began in the 1990s".
The text mentions "orthography" a lot but I don't really see anything that elaborates on what that is for WP:TECHNICAL.
All of those should be fixed. Refs 24, 27, 31, and 34 just needed "Theil Endresen" as the last name instead of "Endresen" in the sfns. I fixed the two awkward sentences as well and defined what orthography was the first time it was mentioned in the phonology and orthography section. I also removed the claim about the classification doubts resolving in the 1990s. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)18:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tell es-Sakan is an archaeological site consisting of two settlements effectively built one on top of the other some four centuries apart. It was the administrative centre of ancient Egyptian settlement in the southern Levant, and later a major Canaanite city. As Tell es-Sakan site is in the Gaza Strip, there is plenty to write about the modern context with conflict interrupting investigations and causing the partial destruction of the site. Since excavations ended in 2000, various factors have led to parts of the site being lost, along with evidence of life in the region 5,000 years ago.
The fact that excavations were limited to two years means that the broad brush history of the site can be presented, but the source material isn't overwhelming. Publications by the archaeologists who led the project form the bulk of the sourcing as they summarise the work, what they found, and provide regional context. I'm more familiar with medieval archaeology, so stepping into the Bronze Age was a bit different for me. Hopefully it worked in the article's favour as I've aimed to explain jargon and provide context. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a spot check later, but here's some initial notes:
Consistent formatting of SFNs, good to see; but Cite #22 is missing a page number, and cite #38 has a p. when it should have a pp.
Inconsistent linking; Al-Monitor is, but AP News and Al Jazeera are not. San Francisco Community Music Center is linked, but UNESCO and Institut du Monde Arabe aren't, etc. I'd play it safe and link all publishers and news outlets.
Location is inconsistent. It's on a couple cites, but not most. I'd remove it personally, but just keep it consistent either way.
Some journals are given ISSNs, but some aren't; keep it consistent either way.
Some journals are given retrieved dates (but this isn't typically called for), and some websites are missing archive links
One link has a S2CID, while none of the others do; I'd remove this.
You list the book series (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis) for de Miroschedji 2012, but several other books are in similar monograph and Festschrift series; I'd remove that.
"UCL Press" should be UCL Press (also, link the other publishers or delink this)
Some foreign-language works are missing language tags
All foreign-language works are missing title translations; these aren't strictly needed, but would be nice to have
Some ISBNs are 10 digit, some are 13. I'd keep them all in 13.
Inconsistent title case usage; this isn't as important with the French stuff since that uses different conventions, but in general you should have all article and book titles in the same case (as always, doesn't matter as long as it's consistent)
Sometimes the book title is linked, sometimes its the chapter, sometimes its neither. Keep that consistent as well.
Apologies for the nitpicking; this is a great article and I'm glad to see more archaeology stuff at FAC, especially from MENA. Ping me when this stuff is resolved and I'll spot check! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Location map Palestine Gaza Strip.png - CC BY-SA 2.5
File:Palestine location map wide.png - CC BY-SA 3.0
File:The frontier of Egypt in the Early Bronze Age - preliminary soundings at Tell es-Sakan (Gaza Strip), fig 19.6.png - CC BY 4.0
File:Figurine de grenouille - Trésors sauvés de Gaza.jpg - CC BY 4.0
File:Manche de poignard à décor géométrique incisé - Trésors sauvés de Gaza.jpg - CC BY 4.0
File:Inti, siege scene.jpg - PD
File:The frontier of Egypt in the Early Bronze Age - preliminary soundings at Tell es-Sakan (Gaza Strip), fig 19.3.png - CC BY 4.0
File:New investigations in Gaza's heritage landscapes - the Gaza Maritime Archaeology Project (GAZAMAP), figure 6.png - CC BY 4.0
File:YouTube 2024.svg - PD
File:The Location of the Canaanite hill 3500 BC 4.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
Images are appropriate, related and good quality; they enhance the article
The alt text is very good and detailed. There were some minor mistakes like spelling and sentence fragments but I fixed it. Image review pass and support
A U.S. Navy ship named after a Hindu deity, Varuna was a civilian merchant vessel purchased during the construction process who was then modified into a warship. During the Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip, Varuna participated in Farragut's famed run past the Confederate defenses to New Orleans, and was rammed and sunk by the combined actions of the Louisianan gunboat Governor Moore and a second vessel whose identity is not certain. Hog FarmTalk00:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After the introduction of the image above, I don't believe there is functionally room for any additional images; there's now the infobox image of Varuna, the image of Varuna being rammed, the Currier & Ives print of the naval battle, and the map of movements during the battle (which was added as the result of a request for a map during the MILHIST A-Class review). Hog FarmTalk18:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be lacking a lot of basic details of her construction. Was the hull wood, iron, or steel? All you tell us about the engine is that it was steam. How many horsepower? Simple or compound expansion? Who manufactured the engine, the boilers, the propeller? How many blades? What fuel did it burn? How many crew/officers? Top speed? Draft?
Crew size is already mentioned in the article. The sources provide a measurement in depth of hold rather than draft, as would be standard for a merchant ship of the time, which is what Varuna was intended to be. I have not found any details about the engines in reliable sources; the US Navy simply didn't keep that sort of records for the early war "churn-and-burn" type ships that it acquired. My impression based on the sinking accounts is that it had a wooden hull; I will look for confirmation of that. I'll take a look to see if I can find anything specific for fuel, although ships of the time would often burn anything flammable that could be chucked into the furnaces (such as the pork mentioned in the article). Hog FarmTalk17:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where that source mentions anything about the draft of Varuna? Rather the reference to draft appears to be another ship, in 1864, in North Carolina? In addition, that source contains enough errors in its brief description of Vaurna in the battle that it should be utterly ignored - "Varuna is credited with sinking three Confederate ships" is not a claim found in any of the high-quality print work on the battle, and "During this close-quartered fight she was surrounded by Confederate vessels, and her bow-mounted parrot rifle was canted awkwardly downward so she could actually fire through her own bow at one of her antagonists. " is also clearly wrong - it was the Governor Moore which fired through its own bow, not Varuna. Hog FarmTalk17:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Varuna as either a sloop or a corvette the link to sloop is to the wrong article; that's a modern type of sailboat. Screw sloop is the right article (which you do link to later on, but link on first use).
https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/john-greene indicates the Varuna was rammed by the Morgan, not the Governor Moore. Are there additional sources to corroborate which of these is correct?
This is clearly in error and can be ignored. The high-quality print sources are unanimous in stating that Governor Moore was the ship that did the primary ramming of Varuna. Silverstone lists two Confederate ships named Morgan - the CSS Morgan, which spent its entire CS career in Mobile Bay in Alabama, and then a captured US revenue cutter, of which the grand total of information that is still known appears to be that it was outfitted with 3 guns by the Confederates and that it was on the lower Mississippi in November 1861. Chatelain does not mention either Morgan in his index; the only reference to either Morgan in Hearn in a passing mention to the revenue cutter in a context discussing material long before the battle, and I've seen no evidence that there is any record of either Morgan being present at the battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip. Additionally, neither Hearn nor Bielski's Emerging Civil War book about the fall of New Orleans list a Morgan among the Confederate ships. Hog FarmTalk16:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting. Apparently the mis-attribution to the Morgan comes from a Medal of Honor citation awarded to one of the Varuna crew:
It looks like most of the Medal of Honor citations for Varuna's crew were written on the assumption that the Confederate ship was the Morgan. As this is clearly incorrect, I see no reason to mention this in the article and perpetuate a 19th-century error. Hog FarmTalk23:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a guess as to what was going on here, although it's not provable - the Governor Moore was known as the Charles Morgan as a civilian vessel. (Silverstone, p. 229) There is probably either some confusion with the naming here or it's possible the North was referring to the vessel by a civilian name intentionally. Hog FarmTalk23:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Silverstone's appendix refers to it as the Charles H. Mallory yard, which I've gone with for now. I suspect the two are different names for the same thing. Hog FarmTalk17:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to https://liboatingworld.com/the-dauntless-veruna/ (likely not a WP:RS, but at least a place to start researching) says the purchase price was $127,460. It also talks about pre-battle modifications ("lightening them by stripping them of their upper rigging..."). That should be tracked down to a RS and included if it turns out to be verifiable.
I found the primary source where the $127,460 figure is coming from and have added this. The better sources mainly focus on the pre-battle aspect of Farragut having chains draped around the hulls of the ships, of which I've added a mention. Hog FarmTalk17:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth a short explanation that "rifle" is a technical term referring to anything with a rifled barrel. Most modern readers with no technical knowledge of guns will assume you're talking about hand-held gun.
I'll figure out where my book about Civil War cannon is later this afternoon and try to throw together a footnote for this. Hog FarmTalk18:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Along the way, I found a few more sources that look interesting and mention the Varuna, but may not have anything new to say beyond what you've found already:
The first of these is extremely interesting but from a quick skim the identified magnetic anomalies were likely those of CSS Defiance and CSS Louisiana. The second only mentions Varuna once in the two pages it devotes to the Federal operations to capture New Orleans, of which a part of that coverage is devoted to the Battle of the Head of Passes. The third mentions Varuna only in a list of Civil War shipwrecks in the area. While it associates Varuna with site # 16 PL 93 there is no other reference to 16 PL 93 in that document, and a quick google search for "16 pl 93" + "varuna" only brings up that Louisiana DNR document. Hog FarmTalk21:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is well written, and I can't hold it against you that the records from that era are fragmentary and/or faulty, so I'll toss my hat into the support camp. RoySmith(talk)12:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Governor Sheng this looks like your first FAC, so welcome!
Ančić was born in Lipa near Tomislavgrad I would leave out the "near Tomislavgrad". I suspect most readers won't be familiar with Tomislavgrad, so it doesn't add anything. Knowing that it's in Ottoman Bosnia and Herzegovina gives people enough context.
He was educated in the friaries of the Franciscan Province of Bosnia just say "... friaries of Bosnia". You should link to Franciscan Province of Bosnia, but the short name is enough here.
appointed Ančić a procurator explain briefly here what a procurator is. I'm guessing Procurator (Catholic canon law), so link to that, but also give a short description in line, i.e. "(financial administrator)".
In 1656, Ančić asked di Gaieta to return to his homeland I had to read this a couple of times to first figure out who di Gaieta was (explained in the previous section) and second to figure out that it was Ancic, not di Gaieta, who would be doing the returning. So this needs some rephrasing.
There, he served as a preacher ... so, presumably he did indeed return, but that should be made more explicit: something like "permission was granted, and he served there as ...".
he was sent by the provincial to Rome as with procurator, explain in-line what a provincial is, and I assume there's some article which could be linked to for further details.
The perpetual treasure of the indulgences of the seraphic order of our holy father Francis Use {{Lang}} or something similar here.
elected the guardian of the Rama friary explain what a guardian is.
good standing with the Muslim beyslikewise for bey.
Vrata nebeska i Xivot viçchni (the Gates of Heaven and Eternal Life){{lang}} again.
He died in the Friary of St. Francis of Alto in Ancona don't hide this in Literary work. There should probably be a short section at the end for his death.
I did a little searching for additional sources and found two which look like they might be useful, assuming you can 1) locate a copy and 2) understand the language.
Светозар Марковић., Марковић, Светозар, 1846-1875, author, Институт за српскохрватски језик (Belgrade, Serbia), Svetozar Marković., Svetozar Marković, and Institut za srpskohrvatski jezik (Belgrade, Serbia). 1958. Језик Ивана Анчића (Босанског Писца XVII Века). Beograd: Научно дело. (https://search.worldcat.org/title/7743697)
Znanstveni skup “Fra Ivan Ančić Dumljanin, 1624-1685” Tomislavgrad, Bosnia and Herzegovina) (2010 :, and Ivan Ančić. 2011. Zbornik O Ivanu AnčIćU : Zbornik Radova Sa Znanstvenoga Skupa “Fra Ivan AnčIć Dumljanin, 1624.-1685.” : Tomislavgrad, 13.-15. Svibnja 2010. Edited by Pavao Knezović and Marinko Šišak. Zagreb: Hrvatski studiji Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. (https://search.worldcat.org/title/801946879)
Thank you @RoySmith for your help. Can you explain me more what you ment by "There should probably be a short section at the end for his death.". His death is one sentence, is it good to have a special section here? Or did I misunderstood you? --Governor Sheng (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL. It would be better if there was enough material for a "Later life and death" type of section, but if there's not, I think something like Louis Abramson#Death is still better than burying it in an unrelated section. Other reviewers may have other ideas. RoySmith(talk)10:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I managed to obtain the books you've mentioned. I did had "Fra Ivan Ančić Dumljanin, 1624-1685" earlier in my hands. Both of these are of no biographical value. They exclusively discuss his works, with a very thorough analysis of it. Although the information there is very valuable, I can hardly use it in this article, because it would become an article about Ančić's works, not his life. There are, however, few information which could be added to the article (regarding his influence and few other things) and the books can serve as an additional reference to already existing information in the article. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you asked me if I'd be interested in a biography of an obscure religious figure from the 17th century, I'd have said no, but you managed to tell a story about him which kept my interest to the end. So I'll call this a support on the quality of the prose. I'll leave it to others who are more familiar with the topic to opine on the "comprehensive" and "well-researched" aspects, which I am not competent to judge. RoySmith(talk)14:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure whether it is appropriate to apply nationalities for a 17th century figure. Maybe it would be more suitable to state in which country the person was active or in which language did they write in? What do you think?
Overall, a solid but short article. I'd recommend following RoySmith's advice and find a way to obtain those two sources. I was also able to find a few more, which could also be of use: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. To reply to RoySmith's suggestion, I do not think that the one sentence about Ančić's death should warrant its own section. You could maybe split in a separate paragraph. Vacant0(talk • contribs)15:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elijah, this seems like the sort of article that could fail WP:FACRITERIA 1e. Caine's (prominent) position could change at any time, and the article will need frequent updates to keep abreast of what's happened while he's serving. Those updates will consume a significant part of an article that's just ~1800 words as I'm writing. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but it'll have to be a strong argument.
I concede that this isn't a "strong argument", but any living figure is subject to what you're describing. Take a look at Charles Q. Brown Jr., Caine's predecessor, who has a quite minimal tenure section. While chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is prominent as you note, Caine himself is not a particularly public figure, though that was much more accurate claim to make one week ago. There is a process for an article that no longer meets the featured article criteria should that happen, but I have been very diligent in keeping all of the Trump-related articles I'm working on intact even as the vast majority of them have not even received a good article review.
I would be less concerned about the living person aspect and more concerned about the high potential for controversy and resulting edit conflicts etc. I'll let other reviewers weigh in; I won't oppose over it.
I'm surprised to see that many FAs with similar sections, as I'd be hard-pressed to think of a more obvious MOS:DECOR violation. I'd strongly prefer to see the images removed, at least, but perhaps the MISCELLANY thought was off the mark. Ed[talk][OMT]04:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that just three days ago we have dramatic shifts being reported on in the likes of the WSJ and NYTimes, I really don't think this topic is stable enough right now for FAC. It's just so conceivable that dramatic shifts will happen in a matter of months if not weeks. Eddie891TalkWork16:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above, which I somewhat agree with, I'd note that a significant proportion of the "Military service (1990–2024)" subsection is not sourced to high-quality third-party sources, but instead to a CV-like webpage hosted on his then-employer's website. This is not great for determining the best WP:WEIGHTing of that section. I'd suggest that this nomination not be promoted until those references are at least largely replaced with citations to third-party sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am unfamiliar with that content because I did not write those sentences. Looking at it, while valuable, I am not sure it can be replicated with other sources. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)16:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Erik Campbell is an important figure from the supernatural horror film Final Destination Bloodliness, and can be considered its breakout character; he's not the protagonist, though he is Stefani's eldest cousin. 14 years after the fifth installment, Bloodlines gained rave reviews from critics and has made almost 6 times its budget back. Heavily featured in promotional material for the film, both Erik and his scene at the tattoo shop turn out to be red herrings, subverting most audience members' expectations about him.
Although the critics have described Erik as kind of a dick at times, and his actor is aware Erik looks like one too, he's a sweetheart deep down. Uniquely among characters in the franchise, Erik is not actually hunted by Death, despite what promos and characters assume. Despite this, he chooses to put himself in harm's way for his family, which ends badly for him due to an MRI machine sucking him inside and folding him like a pretzel. All of these things were noted by critics, who particularly praised Richard Harmon's portrayal of Erik.
Excluding the movie's audio commentary (which I doubt would provide a substantial amount of information not already here), I've gone through almost every single source that became available once Bloodlines hit cinemas, and believe I've covered all of the major bases. While possible more information may come out in the next few months, I do think the article is as complete as it can be. Hopefully, the article does reach FA status, and some of the other FD articles can follow suit.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Deer Lady" is the third episode in the third season of the American teen drama Reservation Dogs. This episode takes a brief departure from the traditional format of most episodes and tells the origin story of a character that has recurred throughout the programme. It also addresses the issue of American Indian boarding schools and Native American assimilation, for which the episode was extensively analyzed and received accolades for. The article has come a long way from its initial stages and has already undergone a GA review and copyedit. Throughout those processes It was suggested that I bring it here, and I believe it's time. Providing courtesy pings to @DaniloDaysOfOurLives, OlifanofmrTennant, Aoba47, Augnablik, and Pokelego999: who all aided in its development and either requested notice or may have interest in reviewing this. TheDoctorWho(talk)05:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I'll take a look at this. Although my only experience with FAC ended with failure and shame so feel free to disregaurd this in its entirety.
Georgeanne Growingthunder's role is stated to be uncredited in a EFN. The prose does not source this being uncredited. However since the appearance is sourced and the infobox presumably lists the episode as a primary source, it could be a 1+1=2 situation but then its veering into SYNTH problems. So it would be peferred to source the lack of credit in the efn
Since there is no "Reservation Dogs season 3" article nor is there a "List of Reservation Dogs episodes" (both redirect to Reservation Dogs) could one of the links in the infobox be removed
I think linking to "wig" and "haircut" is pretty clearly overlinking
"use elements similar to indie films from the 1990s." Which ones? The article links to a list of films but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles which is listed.
"too much like Yoda" Yoda is named dropped there, I think it should be clarified that Yoda is a fictional Star Wars character and not some Native American myth or obscure post photography term.
Now this might be a me thing but the image in music appears to be cutting into the following heading, could it be moved up to avoid this.
Ref 25 lists the source as "A.V. Club" when it should be "The A.V. Club"
@OlifanofmrTennant: No specific works are named in the source for the indie films comment. Per MOS:IMAGELOC the photo probably shouldn't be moved up. I do believe however, that the overhang should be okay, by taking a look at some similar FA's like this and this to name a few. Everything else has been addressed, thanks for the review! TheDoctorWho(talk)22:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For this sentence from the lead: (The production team consulted multiple subject matter experts to ensure that the topic was accurately represented.) I'd clarify what is meant by "topic" as the previous sentence brings up two things (American Indian boarding schools and Kiowa language). I think that "topic" is meant to represent both so I would recommend using the plural form of "topics" to better convey that, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
I'd recommend linking teleplay for this part, (a teleplay that alternates its scenes between two series of events), as I could see some readers not being familiar with this term.
I am uncertain about the link for the Great Spirit is used in this part, (as well as the events that led to her becoming a spirit), as it comes across a bit like an WP:Easter egg to me. When I clicked the link, I was thinking that it would go to more generic spirit article. I wonder if there is a way to avoid this? I think directly saying the Great Spirit somehow in the prose would help.
Cultural assimilation of Native Americans and American Indian boarding schools are linked in both the "Plot" and "Production" sections. While duplicate links are now okay (and I have used them as well), these links are in relatively close proximity to each other so I am not sure if they are as useful. I was curious on why these items are linked in both sections?
Since horror films of the 1970s is linked in the article, I would also link it in the lead for consistency.
This is more of a clarification question, but I wonder if one of the reasons behind Georgeanne Growingthunder's casting was because she was already in the process of learning the Kiowa language. Was there any discussion about this?
For the description for Yoda, I wonder if it could be briefly included that he spoke using a backward speech pattern, as that is what makes his way of talking unique and recognizable and it would clarify why this comparison is being made.
The second paragraph of the "Release and reception" section has a fair bit of repetition with the word "episode". While I understand that is unavoidable to some extent given the topic, I'd recommend adding some variation to keep the prose engaging. For instance, for this sentence, (Paste author Josh Harris ranked the episode as the second-best of the series for its impression on the topic.), I believe "the episode" could be replaced with the episode's title ("Deer Lady"). I think changing even a single instance, like the one above, would help.
I am uncertain about "later" for this sentence: (He later commented, "There's a cost to being a person, but there's also a cost to being a Deer Lady, and this episode beautifully captures that cost.") To me, "later" implies more that he said it at a later time rather than just later in the review, and I am not sure that including where he put this comment in his review is particularly helpful for readers.
Wonderful job with the article. My comments are rather nitpick-y as I did not see any major issues. I believe that the new infobox image is a stronger choice and has a clearer rationale. I hope that these comments are helpful, and once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: After a tad more research, I actually swapped the spirit link to the generic one because it's a better fit. I adjusted the two links you mentioned so that one is linked in plot and the other in production. They were initially so soon after one another because it's what DUPLINK defines as a major section, but I feel staggering them makes it less-distracting. The quote you mentioned in your last comment was removed in favor of a more analysis-based statement. Regarding Growingthunder, the exact quote from the source says "Georgeanne Growingthunder, who plays young Deer Lady, comes from a Kiowa family and had already been learning the language, Goulet says. “That was just like an added gift, that we found this incredibly talented and captivating young woman who also had a ground in the language,” she says. “It felt like it was pure strike of lightning in a bottle.”". The "added gift" portion, makes me assume it was discovered after the fact? Everything else has been addressed. TheDoctorWho(talk)18:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping and the response. I agree with your edits and revisions. Staggering the links is a good idea to me, and "added gift" part does make it clear that Growingthunder's experience with the Kiowa language is a happy coincidence in a sense. I will read through the article later today. I do not imagine that I will find anything, but I want to make sure to do my due diligence as a reviewer. I made a small edit to include a link for object–subject–verb word order for "a backwards speech pattern", as I think that would help readers who are unfamiliar with the concept, but feel free to revert if you disagree with it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I read through the article a few more times, and it all looks good to me. I do not see anything further to bring up. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! Will review now since this is pretty short and within my usual topic area @TheDoctorWho:
Deer Woman is hyperlinked twice in the second para of the lead. I get it's two different spellings but only the first is really necessary, and the fictional one's role is already defined in the paragraph.
The gibberish mention in the last para of the lead is confusing for me since it isn't established earlier and I'm quite confused on what it actually means in the context of the story.
Could you briefly describe who Bear is in the plot summary?
"Deer Lady then remembers witnessing graves being dug at the boarding school and assimilating into mainstream culture by learning hymns such as "Jesus Loves Me"," I'd reword since the current wording implies the dug graves are the ones assimilating, when that isn't the case.
I'd specify the reason for including the different tribe names in parentheses, since it's unclear why they're listed as of right now. I'd assume it's what tribes they are descended from, but it should be spelled out for readers.
Could you specify what a "split script" is?
"and her justifications for murder." Current wording implies she becomes this as well as a spirit. Reword this if possible.
I feel Reception is overly reliant on quotes that aren't really communicating to me clearly the intricacies of the review. For instance, the Atlantic stated that the episode had a "viscerally unnerving style": but what does that mean? Is it viscerally good? Bad? I can't tell if this review is positive or negative, and I can't tell how they actually felt about the episode. I feel the ins and outs of the reviews can be covered in greater detail while still keeping it short.
"rather than just using general folklore." What does this mean? I assume expanding to a scope outside of the original Deer Lady legend, but it's unclear exactly what this means. I'd clarify if possible.
"and that it sounded as if it had "been placed into a food processor, chopped up and reassembled at random, and then run through a few audio filters"." Not quite sure why this is here. This is just a description of how it sounded to someone; it doesn't really indicate how they felt or its significance to the episode. I'd axe this and replace it with some commentary.
Overall this is pretty solidly put together, though I feel wording can be patched up in places. Let me know when you've responded to the above, since I feel that after the above is addressed I'd be happy to support it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: Still need to address the tribal affiliations, but wanted to check in and see how the reception section reads now? I tried to remove, or at least reduce, the quotes in some shape and provide a better overview of the reviews. TheDoctorWho(talk)05:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"and compared the presence of the nuns to extraterrestrial life from Deer Lady's point of view." I'd clarify this since it could be read as how Deer Lady views extraterrestrial life, instead of comparing the nuns to extraterrestrial life. Otherwise it's looking better. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho could it be clarified how this view is relevant? (I.e, why the reviewer thought it was important to point out) The current phrasing explains what they're saying but doesn't explain why they're saying it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the context surrounding the article as a whole, and the individual sentences, I think they're understood to be synonymous here. I'm also not sure about the logistics of that, unless it would just be on the very first mention? I wouldn't want to add this efn to every single use of one of these words. If you think it needs the clarification though, I could probably come up with something. TheDoctorWho(talk)18:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the 2003 song "Dragostea din tei" by Moldovan band O-Zone, which by now might be the most prolific moment of Romanian language and music in international pop culture. It has been a project close to my heart ever since I began working on it, and I was happy to see it pass to GA status. I am happy for feedback on how to improve it even further to hopefully get it to FA status. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Queen Melisende, famed for her piety and patronage, was the first woman to rule the crusader kingdom. Though her tumultous private life saw her accused of incestuous adultery by her husband and bombarded by her son, the Church exalted her. Her legacy has long been shaped by the admiring pen of William of Tyre. This article draws on the leading historians of the crusades, who have looked both closely at William's account and beyond it—to foreign chroniclers and documentary evidence—to uncover a more layered figure. I am grateful to Adam Bishop, who was one of the earliest contributors to this and other crusade articles, and particularly to Borsoka, whose relentless GA review made this nomination possible. Surtsicna (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Fulko_jeune.jpg: this is tagged as a 2D work of art, but typically seals/coins are considered 3D. Also this needs an author date of death.
Similarly File:Egerton_ms_1139!1_fse005r.jpg appears to be 3D rather than 2D
The original work would be out of copyright due to age, but the author date for the photo presents a problem - 1948 is less than 100 years ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"although Hugh was defeated and exiled, Melisende grew powerful and terrorized the king and his supporters until he agreed to accord a share of the government to her." This seems illogical. although Hugh was defeated, Melisende grew powerful? How did she terrorise him in exile and why was his agreement required?
I think you are confusing Hugh with Fulk. "The king" is Fulk (mentioned earlier as being crowned with Melisende and reigning with her). Hugh is introduced as Count Hugh. I hope this edit makes it clearer. Surtsicna (talk)
"Melisende steadfastly refused to cede any authority". "steadfastly" is an odd word here. I would delete.
"Her reign saw two catastrophic Christian losses to the Muslims: the fall of Edessa in 1144 and the failed attempt, which she likely opposed, to take Damascus in 1148 during the Second Crusade." "Her reign saw" seems to imply that she bore some responsibility or that they weakened her power. I think you need to clarify or delete.
The Assessment section cites a historian saying that the extent to which she is responsible is "arguable". Surtsicna (talk)
Franks. I think this is a wrong link. You treat the word as a synonym for Latin Christians, which is correct in the Crusader context (if I understand correctly) as Franks was the Moslem word for the Christian invaders, but it is not the meaning of the term you link to.
That's a good catch. The link led to a section of that article that explained the use of the word in the Crusader context. That section appears to have been moved. Surtsicna (talk)
"Folda thus believes that Melisende was born in Edessa". It does not necessarily follow. I would delete "thus".
Deleted (though I'd say Folda's belief does follow). Surtsicna (talk)
"The crusader states were in a near-constant state of war, and their defense fell to men." Maybe "The crusader states were in a near-constant state of war with the Moslems." You do not need to say that the defence fell to men.
The source does not say with the Muslims. They were at war amongst each other as well. The defence being men's job is mentioned because the point of the sentence is to provide context for the novelty of female succession; but now I think that the sentence might not be needed at all. Hmm. Surtsicna (talk)
"Mayer initially thought that Melisende had been declared heir before the embassy was sent to France, but eventually concluded that her official recognition was a condition imposed by Fulk before he would agree to a marriage contract and come to Jerusalem." Mayer's change of mind is excessive detail.
"Mayer suggests that Walter may have been incited to make this accusation." Incited by who? Probably someone advised him but so what?
Specified from another source. Fulk incited him. It is an important detail, but perhaps not important enough for Melisende's biography. Hmm. Surtsicna (talk)
"at the viscount, Rohard the Elder". The link is WP:EASTEREGG. I suggest spelling ou in full "Viscount of Jerusalem" for clarity.
"Mayer suggests that for this reason, Fulk stayed in Antioch in 1135." In the lead you say he was exiled, meaning sent away, here that he chose to go.
I think you've misread the lead. It says that Hugh was exiled, not Fulk. Surtsicna (talk)
No change needed, but it seems to me dubious that Iovieta was ever seen as a threat. Is there any contemporary evidence that her being born in the purple was raised as an issue, or is it just speculation by modern historians based on claims for Henry I?
It is a speculation based on the 12th-century Genoese claim that Raymond of Tripoli argued that he had the best right to the throne of Jerusalem because his mother, unlike Melisende, had been purple-born. Historians disagree on whether Raymond ever actually made this claim (he must have known that his mother was, in fact, not purple-born), but it gave rise to the idea that porphyrogeniture was considered in the succession to Baldwin II. Surtsicna (talk)
Didn't the Young King, Fulk's great-grandson, differentiate himself from his father during his revolt by pointing out that he was the son of a king where Henry II was only the son of a count? Srnec (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to keep to the usual Wikipedia practice of having the family tree at the end of the article and hidden by default.
That practice, as far as I remember, was an attempt to minimize the damage done by an uncontrolled proliferation of ahnentafeln that named wholly irrelevant people. This chart illustrates crucial relationships discussed in the article. In my opinion, content worth having should not be hidden–and if it should be hidden, it is not worth having. Surtsicna (talk)
"Melisende's first action, as had been her husband's or of any contemporary ruler, was to appoint supporters to the kingdom's offices." This is clumsy.
You are right. Come to think of it, appointing a cabinet is the first thing a modern head of government does today too, so there is no need to explain it. Surtsicna (talk)
Invited by Surtsicna. I do not often participate in these things. I will make small edits myself as I review. Please vet them.
I find in line references to scholars somewhat distracting and not always necessary. Melisende's parents probably married in 1100 with a footnote seems sufficient.
I was warned against presenting such scholarly POVs without attribution by Borsoka during the GA review. I find that Borsoka may be right in thinking that a wording such as Melisende's parents probably married in 1100 implies that this is a fact. Surtsicna (talk)
What is the fact in the sentence in question? It does not matter-of-factly assert that her parents married in 1100. It says "probably".
Going back to Morphia's article, it is apparent that the marriage could have taken place either in 1100 or 1101, so the statement is not so controversial as to require explicit attribution. Removed. Surtsicna (talk)
Some historians, including Steven Runciman Only Runciman is cited. Does he refer to others?
Runciman is only cited as an example at hand; the sentence is otherwise referenced to Mayer, who says: "Contrary to what has been said in historical literature..." Surtsicna (talk)
I find this method of citation less than clear. Why namedrop Runciman and not Mayer? Why not just drop the name and put the Runciman citation at the end along with the Mayer one?
I am not sure what you mean. Mayer is mentioned. If I drop Runciman's name, then Mayer is namedropped but Runciman is not. Is this any better? Another option is this. Surtsicna (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joscelin died soon after Baldwin II, and Alice took the opportunity to again seize power in Antioch. Fulk invaded at the invitation of the Antiochene barons and installed a new government in the principality. Doesn't say anything about Melisende and doesn't tell us what this new gov't was.
This is necessary because later on we are told that Melisende did not share in Fulk's regency of Antioch, but did influence Fulk to allow Alice another bid for power. Surtsicna (talk)
Fulk's replacement of the kingdom's established nobility with newcomers from Anjou Shouldn't this just say the he favoured Angevins over the established nobility? What does "replacement" mean here?
Hamilton and Mayer both discount the gossip. Mayer argues that... Hamilton is not cited after this. Rather there are two footnotes to Mayer 1972 that I think should be combined.
Hamilton is cited. First goes Mayer in the immediately following sentence, then Hamilton. The Mayer footnotes are difficult to combine because they refer to two non-consecutive pages. Surtsicna (talk)
"pp. 102, 107" is what I'd do. This is the second instance where I was confused as to what was being cited to what by what seemed like an excess footnote.
The family tree starts with a seeming blank space. I'd add Guy I of Montlhéry. Perhaps is should be moved up to 'Background' or 'Heir'?
I do not see any blank space in the wikitext. Do you mean the generation where Guy is supposed to be? The problem is that Guy is not named in Runciman's tree. Runciman misidentifies the Montlhéry sisters' parents, naming them Bouchard of Montlhéry, count of Corbeil, and Adelaide of Crécy. This is noted in a hidden message in the wikitext. I would much rather leave that generation out than mix and match sources to produce a factually correct tree because that is dangerously close to (if not outright) synthesis. As for the placement, a section titled "Family affairs" seemed intuitive; and by the time the reader reaches that section, her husband and sons are already introduced in the text. I am not strongly opposed to having it in "Background", though. Surtsicna (talk)
Compare the following sentences: (1) According to Barber, maintaining hostilities with Fulk was not in Melisende's interest after she was restored to power. (2) He became Melisende's favorite child. I am disposed to doubt the latter claim if not backed up by a reference to a primary source that asserts it directly. In other words, this strikes me as the sort of opinion that should be attributed if it is a historian's. The former, however, reads just fine to me without the inline attribution. I can easily tell it is a historian's assessment of Melisende's interests. What else could it be? Given that, the citation at the end is enough.
Removed the attribution. That Amalric was Melisende's favorite becomes very clear from later developments... but I do not mind adding an attribution either. Surtsicna (talk)
interpreted by Folda as part of Fulk's energetic attempts to ingratiate himself with Melisende Seems to restate as Folda's opinion what is already stated in the preceding sentence as fact.
Folda argues that the psalter points to the recipient's That Melisende was the recipient has not been explicitly stated at this point.
Right. Fixed that too. We must not state it as a matter of fact, though. Surtsicna (talk)
Barber finds it difficult to tell how much Melisende was motivated by affection in her relationships with her sisters, particularly noting that "there is no way of knowing" whether Ioveta wished to live a monastic life or if Melisende induced her to negate the political threat which Ioveta may have represented as the sister born during their father's kingship. This, as I'm sure you know, is a general issue given the nature of medieval sources.
I know it, but I am not sure where an average reader would. What do you propose? Not naming Barber? Surtsicna (talk)
The only narrative description I would name the source.
Melisende consistently supported the Syriac Church Assuming we mean the Jacobites, i.e. Syrian Orthodox? Since two Syriac churches are mentioned in 'Background', we should be specific here.
a synod of the Latin Church in Jerusalem in 1140 If the synod is notable enough, I'd give it a red link.
It seems to have been one in a series of synods and I find it difficult to discern it from the others. Surtsicna (talk)
In 1138 the king and queen started associating their elder son, Baldwin, in their acts Was he recognized as king yet? I assumed not, but the subsequent statement continued with Melisende and her son, Baldwin III threw me off. He is crowned in the following sentence.
Baldwin III's path to kingship was protracted and complex. He was granted a share in the government by his grandfather Baldwin II in 1131 ("Succession"), but was not associated in his parents' rule until 1138 ("Ecclesiastical relations"), was only crowned king in 1143 ("Accession and consolidation"), became legally competent to rule in 1145 ("Holy war"), and finally became the effective ruler in 1152 ("Civil war"). Surtsicna (talk)
Melisende became his guardian She was his mother and already queen, so what exactly does this mean?
Neither being his mother nor having effective power meant that she was bound to be his guardian (cf. Baldwin IV and Baldwin V, where the mother, the ruler, and the guardian were all different people). Guardianship is distinct from regency. Do you think the text might benefit from a link to Legal guardian? Surtsicna (talk)
Melisende's first action was to appoint supporters to the kingdom's offices. I feel like 'first' needs qualification here, but I adding 'as sole ruler' feels wrong in light of the preceding paragraph. I think the heading 'Sole rule' may need tweaking.
I think the distinction between ruling and reigning is useful here; Baldwin and Melisende co-reigned, but only she ruled ("All power was in Melisende's hands"). Surtsicna (talk)
By choosing Manasses rather than empowering one of her subjects, Melisende ensured the preservation of royal authority. This sentence feels awkward. Wasn't it just an exercise of royal authority?
It was also a preservation of it. Giving command of the military to a vassal empowers the vassal at the expense of the monarch. I hope this tweak clarifies it. Surtsicna (talk)
Melisende controlled Seems to imply that she did not have full control of the kingdom. Is that what is intended?
Barber attributes the monk's hostility to the "endemic misogyny of the monastic world" Seems like a very high-level explanation for a single nameless individual's action.
I do not know how to address that. The explanation is already attributed to a relevant scholar and is not in wikivoice. Surtsicna (talk)
In filling the offices with trusted men Melisende had her eye on the chancery too. I would merge this sentence with the next.
The conflict over the see of Tyre This is where I stopped, but do we get to hear how it ends?
We do indeed. The denouement awaits you in a subsequent section. Stay tuned! Surtsicna (talk)
That's sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. For the record, I do not intend to use strikethroughs or checkmarks or anything like that to indicate an issue is resolved. If I don't respond to your response, you can assume I am satisfied. I am not sure what is normal at FAC. Srnec (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was my very first GA, passing its GAN almost five years ago. As such, I am interested in making this article an FA, having since learned a lot more about the processes and guidelines in Wikipedia. Also interested in nominating this article for TFA by the song's 15th anniversary. Lazman321 (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a skyscraper in Lower Manhattan, New York City. Built as the headquarters of the Cities Service Company (now Citgo), it was one of the city's tallest buildings. Surprisingly, it isn't particularly well-known despite having been one of the world's tallest buildings at one point, being beat out only by the more-famous Chrysler and Empire State buildings. After Citgo moved to Oklahoma in 1973, it was the headquarters of American International Group for a while before being converted to residential use. 70 Pine was designed in the Art Deco style, like many NYC skyscrapers of the time, with miniature models of the building at its entrances. The interior is equally impressive, with a lobby decorated with multicolored marbles and an observation deck intended (but never used) as a private apartment.
This page became a Good Article five years ago after a review by the late Vami_IV, for which I am very grateful. After a copyedit by Mox Eden (which I also appreciate) and some other adjustments, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox image seems a bit crowded of buildings as I had to look at the other images in the article to tell which building is the subject of the article. Cos(X + Z)17:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The building has five entrances in total."→"The building has five entrances."
Another entrance on Pearl Street, which was formerly located under the Third Avenue elevated line, is more simply designed and leads to a lobby in the lower level.
Done. - EG
“in the lower level” → “on the lower level” for standard preposition use
Done. - EG
The western entrances on Pine and Cedar Streets are located near the western end of the building and are two stories tall.
These pillars, each 14 feet (4.3 m), may have been designed by Rene Paul Chambellan and were fairly accurate in their detailing. Is it unclear whether Chambellan designed the pillars or not?
Yes, the source says: "Rene P(aul) Chambellan (1893-1958), who designed the figurative reliefs on the aluminum elevator doors in the first floor lobby, was a celebrated architectural modeler and may have played a role in each sculpture’s design." - EG
Overall, I found the prose comprehensive and engaging. I have no further suggestions.
A little bit of a personal peeve, but each of the three lead paragraphs begin with "70 Pine Street". I recommend changing like an instance (either the second or third paragraph) from "70 Pine Street" to "The building" for a bit of variety
Done. - EG
The structure was originally named for its original tenant "Originally" and "original" is a bit repetitive. I might say the first tenant.
Rephrased. - EG
and was Lower Manhattan's tallest building and the world's third-tallest building upon its completion. I assume these accolades applied when it was completed but superseded since. Might specify when the building was completed for a bit of clarity
This is already mentioned in one of the preceding sentences: "70 Pine Street was constructed between 1930 and 1932 as an office building". - EG
I mean, my reasoning is that while we can assume the building's construction was completed in 1932, maybe the opening would be a bit later. But it's fine.
Architecture
The roof is 850 feet (260 m) tall,[9][2] while the top story is 800 feet (240 m) high I find this a bit confusing: How can a roof and the top story be that tall? Unless the roof and the top floor is at that height, not that it measured that tall.
Good point regarding the roof - it is 850 feet high (location above ground), not 850 feet tall (from ground to pinnacle). "The top story is 800 feet high" is correct as it refers to the location above ground, not the height from the ground to the top. - EG
The building exceeded 40 Wall Street, the Manhattan Company's building, by 25 feet (7.6 m) to be Lower Manhattan's tallest building. – The wording here is a bit awkward. Might suggest rewriting: The building surpassed the Manhattan Company's 40 Wall Street by 25 feet (7.6 m), becoming the tallest structure in Lower Manhattan.
Done. - EG
Citation 2 does not support this chunk: It was the last skyscraper to be built in Lower Manhattan prior to World War II and was the tallest building in Lower Manhattan until the 1970s, when the World Trade Center was completed. With the collapse of the World Trade Center in the September 11 attacks, it regained the status of the tallest Lower Manhattan building until the completion of the new 4 World Trade Center in 2013. Also I might find this is a bit of trivial fluff, especially when it talked about how it "regained" that status.
Removed. You're correct that this is trivial, and in any case it was added without any sources 15 years ago; I just forgot to remove it. - EG
the setbacks are placed at regular intervals Shouldn't it be "were" since they were built/placed in the past?
Yeah. Usually, the present tense would be appropriate since the setbacks still exist, but in this case the sentence is talking about something that happened during the construction process, not the present-day condition of the building. - EG
To maximize rentable space while also complying with the 1916 Zoning Resolution – "also" is redundant
Above the 67th-floor observation deck is the building's spire, composed of a glass lantern rising 27 feet (8.2 m), topped by a stainless steel pinnacle extending another 97 feet (30 m) – ..., composed of a glass lantern rising 27 feet (8.2 m) and topped by a stainless steel pinnacle extending another 97 feet (30 m)
The spire rises 124 feet (38 m)... I felt this part should be mentioned earlier before specifying the spire's composition
Another entrance on Pearl Street, which was formerly located under the Third Avenue elevated line, is more simply designed – ..., has a more simple design
All of these streets are narrower than the typical street in Manhattan I was initially confused what streets then I figured it must refer to the adjoining streets of the building. I would just say "adjoining streets" (as described from the source) given that's like a common term.
These pillars, each 14 feet (4.3 m) Height or length?
Thanks. I've done these as well. I swapped the order of the phrase "glass lantern" phrase and the "spire rises 124 feet" sentence. The pillar measurements refer to the height. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continued (Architecture):
Inside each entrance were retail spaces that faced the first-floor lobby Are there still retail spaces to this day?
Yes. I've clarified this. - EG
Until the early 2000s, these retail spaces contained such stores as "a drugstore, a bookstore, a tobacconist and a telegraph office" – Since also these are quoted, I might attribute According to a New York Times article in 2015, these retail spaces housed "a drugstore, bookstore, tobacconist, and telegraph office" until the early 2000s.
Done. - EG
as well as Cities Service's logo – as well as the Cities Service's logo
This would be grammatically incorrect, so I changed to "as the Cities Service logo". - EG
and the northernmost west–east corridor. – Wouldn't east–west be more natural?
Done. - EG
The fourth floor contained a clinic for people who worked in the building – A clinic at the fourth floor served the workers of the building
Done. - EG
Crown Shy, a 120-seat restaurant, opened on the ground floor as well; it is an à la carte eatery, where dishes are ordered individually Is it kind of important to say this is an à la carte eatery?
Removed. - EG
There are 24 elevators in total... Might rewrite The building has 24 elevators...
Done. - EG
Each elevator door is a double-leaf door made of aluminum... – Each elevator is fitted with double-leaf aluminum doors. Or is it aluminum double-leaf?
These would be double-leaf doors (which means that the doors slide closed toward the middle of the elevator-door opening). It can be contrasted with a single-leaf door, which slides closed from one side of the opening to the other side. As for the material, they are made of aluminum, so I don't know if this would benefit from being changed. - EG
Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, I got rid of the repetition and changed it to "Each elevator has a double-leaf aluminum door with diamond and trefoil patterns cast in one piece". - EG
with diamond and trefoil patterns, which were cast in one piece – with diamond and trefoil patterns cast in one piece
Done. - EG
Because of 70 Pine Street's small lot size and the setbacks that make the upper floors even smaller... – Because of the limited lot size of 70 Pine Street and the setbacks that further reduce the floor area on the upper levels...
Done. - EG
it would have been unprofitable under normal building practices if it were taller than 48 stories what does the second "it" refer to? To the building?
Yes. I've fixed it. - EG
The Cedar Street portion of the first-floor lobby contained elevator banks that only served the building's lower floors, while the Pine Street portion contained elevators that served higher floors. Firstly, what are elevator "banks"?
"Elevator banks" refers to a group of (usually) adjacent elevators in a specific part of the building that serve the same floors. One bank of elevators serves the lower stories, and the other serves the upper stories. - EG
The bridge was destroyed in 1975 when the original 60 Wall Street building was demolished to make way for the current, larger building. – The bridge was demolished in 1975 along with the original 60 Wall Street building to make way for the construction of the current, larger structure.
Why does as a "light, heat, and power" firm need to be in quotes
I changed it to "utility firm". - EG
The New York City Department of Buildings rejected the proposed structure on Wall Street. – I assume this rejected both proposals by Clinton & Russell?
Yes. I've changed it. - EG
The Pine Street Realty Company then started buying land across Pine Street. when, exactly? If sources state
It was in January 1929, but that wasn't stated until the third sentence, so I rearranged it. - EG
at a total cost of $2 million I need today's inflated value. Also similar for other instances of currency values before the 80s.
Done. - EG
spoke about his findings at the Engineers' Club. Might rewrite to shared his findings
Done. - EG
Coutrolas's building was demolished anyway Not sure about the use of "anyway" here
Done. - EG
described at the time as "financially unique among large New York office buildings" By who?
I added that this was attributed to Cities Service. - EG
Up to that point, workers had been on the project for 119,000 hours without any major accidents Would suggest removing "Up to that point" because it's kind of repeating " At the time" in the previous sentence.
Done. - EG
using then-new "moonbeam" technology I was wondering if there's more details of this technology and trying to find any article of it, though there doesn't seem to be any. Also "then-new" is quite an odd oxymoron here, though I understand it's to describe a technology considered "new" at the time
I removed it, since the exact details of the announcement aren't really that important. - EG
One portion of 70 Pine Street was separately owned from the rest of the building - A section of 70 Pine Street was under separate ownership
Done. - EG
To repay the federal government, AIG decided to sell its buildings... it had reached an agreement to sell the building. There's a repetition of "sell the building" here kinda. I might suggest rewriting the first one to "sell its properties", but also, I'm not too particular if you wish to keep
Good idea. I have reworded it. - EG
"late-2000s recession" Isn't this still the 2008 recession?
Yes. Someone changed it after the fact, so I have reworded this. - EG
Unlike the top floors of other converted residential buildings, which were generally turned into penthouse apartments, Rose decided to add amenities to the top floors of 70 Pine Street. – Unlike other converted residential buildings where the top floors were typically transformed into penthouse apartments, Rose decided to dedicate the upper levels of 70 Pine Street to amenities instead.
Done. - EG
Space in 70 Pine Street's lobby and upper floors was originally set to contain restaurants by April Bloomfield and Ken Friedman, who withdrew from the project in July 2016 – The lobby and upper floors of the building were initially slated to house restaurants by April Bloomfield and Ken Friedman, but the duo withdrew from the project in July 2016.
Done. - EG
Ultimately, the upper-floor restaurant spaces hosted James Kent and Jeff Katz's restaurant Crown Shy, which opened in 2019 – Remove "restaurant spaces" cos it's also clear it's now for a restaurant.
Designed by the firm of Clinton & Russell, Holton & George in the ==> "Designed by the architectural firm Clinton & Russell, Holton & George in the"
Done. - EG
It was Lower Manhattan's tallest building and the world's third-tallest building upon its completion. ==> "Upon completion, it was the tallest building in Lower Manhattan and the third tallest in the world."
Done. - EG
The interior features included escalators at the base is "included" part of "escalators" or is this grammatically incorrect
"Features" is used as a noun here, not a verb. However, I've reworded this. - EG
converted to residential use in 2016 ==> "converted for residential use in 2016"
Done. - EG
site
nothing wrong here.
architecture
Like its contemporaries, 70 Pine Street has a Gothic-like, spire-topped appearance. can we specify "contemporaries"? like say something like "Like all early 20th-century skyscrapers" or just anything like that
Actually, I just removed it as it was technically not fully correct. Many NYC skyscrapers at the time were actually designed in the Art Deco style, while only a relatively small number of buildings still used the Gothic style, like the American Radiator Building. - EG
The setbacks on the northern and southern elevations and those on the western and eastern elevations alternate with each other. bit repetitive. what about "The setbacks alternate between the north–south and east–west elevations, creating a balanced and dynamic profile."
Done. - EG
The spire had a beacon, which was described as being "visible for 200 miles at sea and inland" should it be stated who said this?
Each setback is surrounded by a parapet with a limestone coping. ==> "A parapet with a limestone coping surrounds each setback." (active voice)
Done. - EG
has a more simple design and leads ==> "has a simpler design and leads"
Done. - EG
both arches are divided by a limestone pillar ==> "each arch is divided by a limestone pillar"
Done. - EG
The white plaster ceiling is supported by large, jagged corbels. ==> "Large, jagged corbels support the white plaster ceiling."
Done. - EG
The suite contained a gym and a ==> "The suite included a gym and a" ("contain" is used in the previous sentence)
Done. - EG
The bridge was destroyed in 1975, along the original 60 Wall Street building should it be "along with the original 60 Wall Street.."
Done. - EG
the basement through sixth floors to evacuate within 10 i don't think this is correct. i think it should be "through six floors" or "through the sixth floor".
I changed this to "the basement through the sixth floor". - EG
history
60 Wall Street in December 1924 with the aim of expanding the structure. ==> "60 Wall Street in December 1924 to expand the structure."
Done. - EG
into 70 Pine Street prior to its official dedication ==> " into 70 Pine Street before its official dedication"
2,229 years ago a Roman army landed near Utica in North Africa. This was an attempt to end the Second Punic War against Carthage, which had already lasted 14 years. Utica was besieged and large parts of the ensuing campaign revolved around this. Utica held out but the Carthaginians lost four battles in two years and were forced into a humiliating capitulation. I have been working on the six articles in this campaign for a while and got round to this one in February, when it went through GAN - thank you Hog Farm. After a little further work I believe it may now be ready for FA. I would appreciate your views on what additional work it needs to get there. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we necessarily need the link to Rome in the lead?
Hmm. Removed, although I am doubtful about not disambiguating the four different "Rome's" for a reader. I guess most of them will work it out from context.
attempted to seize the port to use as a secure base “to use as” → “as”
Why would we want to do that. Is it a USvar thing? I don't see it, but am happy to be educated.
Both are correct; mine's just a tidier phrasing, not a required change.
Ok. Thanks for enlightening me. I can see that it is more succinct, but I prefer my version.
Siege
The size of both of these armies as reported by ancient historians have been questioned... have→has
The reported sizes of two armies are being questioned, so surely it should be a plural "have"? Just as 'The reported sizes of two armies is being questioned' in my previous sentence would read oddly.
The subject is the size, so the singular has is correct. If referring to two sizes, it could be rephrased as: The reported sizes of the two armies have been questioned.
This force consisted of about half the Romans and was accompanied by the Masinissa's Numidians. Its target was Syphax's camp.the Masinissa's Numidians→Masinissa's Numidians
D'oh!
He sent messengers to alert the Roman ships; or by some accounts rode to Utica himself to raise the alarm. Do we need the semi-colon here?
“Carthaginian fleet sail from Carthage” → “Carthaginian fleet set sail from Carthage”
That means something slightly different, which the source doesn't support. I am possibly being a little pedantic, but I would prefer to leave it as it is.
I concur with you.
Background
“was fought primarily on the Mediterranean island of Sicily, its surrounding waters and in North Africa”→ “was fought primarily on Sicily, its surrounding waters and in North Africa”
Avoids repetition of “Mediterranean” (already implied).
Hmm. "Mediterranean" removed.
Aftermath
“helped to rebuild” → “helped rebuild”
Done, although I think this may be another US/UK variant thing.
“a siege of Carthage” → “the siege of Carthage” (specific siege referenced)
"a" as it is one of several. If the rule you suggest were used then it would also be 'a base for the Roman invasion of North Africa' in the same sentence. Which is (IMO) clearly wrong and would thoroughly confuse a reader.
As always, MSincccc, thanks for your input. The article is the better for it, despite my pushing back on more than I usually do. And apologies for the lengthy delay in my responding. An "interesting" hike was had. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well up to the Gog standard. A handful of minor points that don't affect my support:
"Scipio left Iberia ... Scipio had anticipated an invasion" – perhaps "he" the second time?
Whoops. Of course.
"could not conscript troops for his consular army, as was usual, only call for volunteers" – could do with a proper conjunction before "only".
Hmm. I have rejigged, does it work now?
"Masinissa joined the Romans with either 200 or 2,000 men, the sources differ" – needs a stronger stop than a comma. I'd use a dash, but a colon would also do the job.
Dashed.
"The size of both of these armies ... have been" – singular noun with a plural verb.
s added to "size".
Your footnotes 1, 2, and 4 are just what we want, making ancient costs clear to modern readers – bravo! Not sure about "bereaved" in footnote 3.
I see what you mean. Rewritten.
Not clear why the blue link from Scullard's Greece and Rome to the WP article on the Classical Association.
Nor to me. Good spot. Removed.
The Scullard 2002 volume is, I assume, a reprint of the 1980 fourth edition; as you give the original years for books by Le Bohec (2015), Edwell (2015), Hoyos (2015), Kunze (2015), Ñaco del Hoyo (2015), Scullard (2006) and Zimmermann (2015) you might do the same for Scullard 2002 – first edition published in 1934, if you please – (didn't Scullard have a long innings!)
Fair nuff - done.
Happy to support. The text seems to me to meet all the FA criteria: widely referenced, mostly modern sources, seems neutral and balanced, appears comprehensive to my layman's eye, highly readable narrative and judiciously illustrated (though the lead image put me in mind of the old Roman joke that begins Canis meus nasum non habet). – Tim riley talk07:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: I can't prove it, but I think Yann Le Bohec should probably be listed under L rather than B. He so appears in the bibliographies in Pat Southern's The Roman Army and Miriam Greenblatt's Augustus and Imperial Rome and a good few other books in the Internet Archive. These French particles are a minefield. Why is it "De Gaulle, Charles" but "Beauvoir, Simone de"? All done to bamboozle the innocent Anglo Saxon. Tim riley talk08:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replies noted and just for the avoidance of doubt, as the lawyers say, I remain in support of the promotion of this excellent article. Tim riley talk12:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox image and Hannibal image need ALT text capitalized. Can't review the images, ISBNs or any spotchecking until the Internet stops acting up. Sources seem formatted correctly and reliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"After a further 13 years of war Scipio, Rome's most successful commander, was assigned to Sicily with the intention of invading the Carthaginian homeland in North Africa." - Maybe comma before Scipio?
Added.
"pillaged a large area and laid siege to the port-city of Utica" - and a comma before "and laid siege to"?
Only if you use serial commas, which this article doesn't.
Does *cartoon bug out expression*. Apparently me. How odd. Thank you. Fixed.
"Scipio expected the city to surrender readily, but despite being attacked fiercely from land and sea it held out; the garrison and citizens assuming they would be relieved from Carthage." - Is this grammatically correct? I believe sentence fragments after a semicolon are supposed to hold up as individual sentences too, so maybe "assumed" instead of "assuming".
Good point. Fixed per your suggestion. (Oddly I used "assumed" in the main article!)
"The Romans marched back to Castra Cornelia, where they were again resupplied from Sicily, then again to Tunis." - My Grammar checker is saying there could be an extra "and": "The Romans marched back to Castra Cornelia, where they were again resupplied from Sicily, and then again to Tunis."
That is clearer. Done.
"Utica immediately went over to Rome and was used as a base for a Roman invasion of North Africa and a siege of Carthage." - You do mean to say that Utica was used as a base, right, not Rome? Just checking...
I do. I have inserted an additional "as" to remove any doubt.
This article is about Dan Burros, an American neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon who killed himself when, in 1965, it was revealed by the The New York Times that he was Jewish.
While that inherent contradiction is itself fascinating, and of course resulted in the typical "how did he end up like this" type of coverage, I think this article's most interesting aspect is the look it provides into the world of the 1960s racist right wing. A world of constant petty squabbles, dozens of similarly named racist groups that all hate each other, backstabbing, and periodicals all firing shots at each other. Burros was actually quite the important figure in this milieu. It was interesting to improve. And before it is asked, no source really has a satisfactory explanation as to why he ended up like this. All the most comprehensive sources admit it remains a mystery, and his parents never agreed to talk. Some things remain unknown, but I think personally you can sort of see an outline of it if you look at what's there.
I have never taken anything to FA before, but I do lurk around these parts so I believe I have a rough idea of what is required... this article received a GA review from PMC (for which I am very grateful) and a few notes about grammar at peer review from Sophisticatedevening (for which I am also thankful). Would have left the peer review open longer, but those parts are rather dead nowadays. After looking at this article from everywhichway, I can't see any problems with it and I believe it aligns with all FA criteria. It is a comprehensive usage of all sources on Burros.
A great article. I have no personal criticisms, and I’m not sure if I would even be allowed to present them, as I work extensively in the ANP topic area and was consulted on a few minor details on this article, which is otherwise entirely the work of PARAKANYAA; and a great work it is. Not sure if I’m allowed to support, so I’ll just voice it, I assume. 🔮🛷 starmanatee 🛷🔮 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any and all comments, including formal supports and opposes, are welcome from any and all editors. We do encourage reviewers to be transparent about where they are coming from, which you have been - so all is good. Specialist reviews or those from editors close to the pre-FAC process can be very informative. The coordinators will weigh your comments along with all others when closing. Although note from the instructions that "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." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
uhm... I'll leave some comments tomorrow, though I won't have enough time to finish everything tomorrow, so expect me to finish this review next week. Vacant0(talk • contribs)20:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lede looks surprisingly good to me. I did not find any errors.
"this was, to his friends' knowledge, the first antisemitic thing he had said" – in the public?
not in public, but that they had heard from him at all. so i don't think clarifying public would be true to the source
"the first antisemitic thing he had said" – wikilink antisemitic
linked
Early life looks good. IMO, this section could benefit of a picture of his high school.
added
American Nazi Party is first mentioned in the Military career section, therefore it should be wikilinked.
I just removed the mention of who he said it to, because it doesn't really change anything and is confusing because we haven't established that yet
"(according to Rockwell)" readers do not know at this point of the article who Rockwell is
removed that because the clarification here is unnecessary and this is already attributed
"He later claimed he left the army in disgust after Little Rock." should go after "Afterwards, he initially claimed that the army let him out after three years, and that he had decided to go due to personal factors."
from a newspaper search, I do not think so. From looking at their addresses they appear to be on other ends of Manhatten.
"July 10, 1958" has missing comma at the end
fixed
"printing dispute" – do we know more about this?
added more information
"Burros began expressing an interest in neo-Nazism in December 1958" – but the article already notes that Burros was obsessed with Nazism? Maybe you could note that he started being interested in neo-Nazi activisim?
specified activism, though my thought was being interested in nazism and neo-nazism are two related but distinct things
"He was briefly a member of the British National Party in early 1960" – you should consider explaining how he was able to obtain membership, considering that this is a party in the United Kingdom and he was an American citizen.
The source doesn't explain this, though it does say he got his membership card. To my recollection the British National Party allowed international members to receive membership cards.
""Trooper's Oath"." – more about this?
I'm not really sure how to explain this, it's just a thing the members said when they joined. Sources don't give much detail on it other than repeating what it says.
Describe what multilith is
added explanation
I see that ANP is used as an abbreviation for the American Nazi Party, so you should specify in the first mention of American Nazi Party that ANP is the abbreviation e.g. American Nazi Party (ANP). Same goes for Anti-Defamation League and Congress of Racial Equality.
added abbreviations
"In 1960, American Nazi Party security officer Roger Foss conducted background checks on all ANP members" – do we know the month? you could also use the abbreviation here instead of the full name
abbreviated, source does not specify month.
"neo-Nazi James H. Madole" – do we have to specify that he was a neo-Nazi when in the sentence before it is mentioned that the party he led was neo-Nazi?
fixed
That's it from me. The article seems to be well written, I was not able to find too many issues besides the ones I already mentioned. Vacant0(talk • contribs)
Very excited to see this at FAC! I'll have another look over it to see if there's anything FAC-level-y that I missed, although I was quite fussy at the GA review already :) ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... Bruce Springsteen's 1982 masterpiece Nebraska. One of the most artistically daring statements ever released by a major artist, the album represented substantial growth for the singer-songwriter and paved the way for not just multiple releases of his own catalog, but proved influential in indie rock and DIY records. This would be the fourth Springsteen FA, following the three great albums that came before it. I'm looking forward to comments and concerns. Thank you to Tarlby for providing comments at the peer review and to Ippantekina for the GA review. – zmbro(talk) (cont)16:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted to see this here. Reading through, making light copy edits along the way which you are free to revert. Some work needed on prose...to follow. Overall the article seems to be in very good shape; excellently researched and comprehensive, with good command of the sources. Only quibble so far is the "Attributed to multiple references" format is not something have seen so far. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've used it on multiple articles. It's for when there's a buildup of 4+ references that can be grouped together so there's not ref overload. Hopefully one of these days I'll hear you say the prose has no issues xP – zmbro(talk) (cont)19:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re over-citing, can you avoid top-heavy sentences such as "Featuring only Springsteen,[94] Nebraska is a minimalist[95][96] folk record,[97][98][99] with heartland rock,[100] lo-fi,[96][101][102] and country influences.[103][104]", which really makes for difficult reading. To me a single ref would do, as everything you claim here is clearly true to anybody who has ever listed to a track from the record.
The lyrics section is excellent overall but I think you are missing a trick in emphasising the point of view aspect. eg compare our "The opening track, "Nebraska", tells the story of the killer Charles Starkweather,[97] who murdered ten people from 1957 to 1958 between Nebraska and Wyoming while traveling with his girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate.[n] After his capture, Starkweather is sentenced to death by electric chair, but remains unrepentant, blaming his actions on the "meanness" of the world.[122][18]" to the unreliable "American Songwriter"'s summary: "Bruce Springsteen‘s “Nebraska” begins with a fictionalized bit of court testimony, delivered by mass murderer Charles Starkweather to the judge who’s about to sentence him to death." By which I mean in the current wiki article the sentence to death seems to be background info, rather than explicit in the lyrics.
I clarified that the "meanness of the world" line was fictional and instead taken from an O'Connor short story. Hopefully this helps draw the line between fiction and reality better. – zmbro(talk) (cont)18:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mastering has always been a nebulous art and different to production, which is not clear as written (it seems the album was not produced). By which I mean producers are usually on the artist's side, while those mastering are typically failed producers and record company shills. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say needs fixing here. The final master was made by Dennis King, who was 'outside' of the recording process. This album is a very unique instance wherein it truly seems like there was no official "producer" (there is none listed in the liner notes and Springsteen himself has declined the title). They were literally home demos officially released as an album. It was not intended that way, it just happened to be released that way. Does there need to be more clarification between the the "production" and mastering? – zmbro(talk) (cont)15:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i might just add to the section what mastering actually is. You have: Producer Mike Batlan (engineer)[a] in the infobox. Ceoil (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have re-read and made trivial edits since my last comment and note the significant improvements since the nom. Happy to Support this impressive, comprehensive and well prepared article. Ceoil (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Springsteen himself stated that the songs from the period were more "connected" to his childhood than ever before. is this verified in Kirkpatrick? The source written by him doesn't use that phrasing.
It's verified in Springsteen's Songs book (just checked).
In the Attempted rerecordings section, the Electric Nebraska hatnote probably isn't necessary; it can just be linked in prose instead, where it's explained.
Fixed.
Also maybe worth mentioning in this section that those other recordings became the base of the Born in the U.S.A. album? So that hatnote could be removed too.
These are mentioned in "singles and aftermath" down in release. It fits better there in terms of chronological order. The hatnote is there because of the cross in recording history between Nebraska and BitUSA. – zmbro(talk) (cont)16:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
between Nebraska and Wyoming might be better as just "in Nebraska and Wyoming"
Fixed
Do we know where the album cover art was taken? (Fine if not, was just curious)
Zmbro, thank you for bringing this article to FAC. I was delighted to review this GAN and I'm even more so to see it here. As prose issues had been resolved in the GAN, and seeing that the prose is even tighter now, I'm happy to support this candidature. I do have a very minor issue that would not substantially bar my support: per CONFORMTITLE please also apply double-italicization (which eventually means unitalicized letters btw...) to the {{See also}}/{{Main}} templates. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Living rural in Colts Neck, " - is this actually grammatical? This is at best a non-standard construction I think
It was originally 'isolated'. Changed back to that.
"impressed by the "minute-precision" of O'Connor's prose " - the hyphen isn't in the original source, and the addition of it changes the meaning slightly
Removed
"and believed that he had felt that his songwriting had been too vague, too "dreamlike"" - this is phrased as almost a criticism by Marsh of Springsteen's songwriting, but the "dreamlike" quote is more of a comparison between "Mansion on the Hill" and "Stolen Car", and attributes some of the "dreamlike" quality to being present in "Stolen Car". I'm not sure that we're using the "dreamlike" quote in the right context here
Removed the dreamlike part. I must have misinterpreted it when I read it. My bad.
"At the time it was written, Atlantic City was controlled by corruption and had turned to gambling in hopes of revitalizing the city. " - the city itself did not turn to gambling - would this have been the local business community, the governing authorities, the mob, etc?
The sources I have did not specify. Over on Atlantic City, New Jersey, this NYTimes article is sourced for the legalization of gambling in the city. This article makes it sound like NJ voters voted for it, and the Governor at the time was a supporter of legal gambling. So, both voters and the governing body...? – zmbro(talk) (cont)01:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
""Open All Night" has a more light-hearted mood compared to the rest of the album, being an up-tempo rock song with a Chuck Berry-style melody and rhythm" - no change needed here as the majority of the sources compare it to Berry, but I thought it worth pointing out the degree of the inherent subjectiveness of music reviewing that you've got Marsh 1987 explicitly contrasting it against Berry-type stuff
Page 128 - Even "Open All Night", the closest thing to an all-out rocker on the disc, harks back to proto-rockabillies like Harmonica Frank Floyd and Hank Mizell rather than Chuck Berry and the R&B singers who inspired Bruce's usual songs. The consensus of the sources seems to be to consider it Berry-type though. Hog FarmTalk01:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It is also ranked as the album non-Springsteen fans enjoy the most." - I think this sort of statement requires attribution
Added
Do any of the sources comment on why in the world the album made the Swiss charts in 2019 of all things?
Nope, I could not tell you. Confusing to me too.
What makes Classic Rock Review a high-quality RS? It appears to have only been mentioned once on RSN (a negative passing mention in 2014) which isn't helpful for assessment; the parent site Modern Rock Review hasn't been mentioned there at all that I can find. What are Ric Albano's credentials - he seems to be the major force behind that website
CRR has passed the source reviews of my previous FAs Born to Run and The River. I did my own research on it before including it in this article (as I myself wondered), and Ric Albano is the primary editor-in-chief of the site and its affiliates such as Modern Rock Review. Reliable sources typically constitute having an editor-in-chief, which CRR does. Ric's website states that he's the primary writer on these sites and he is a musician and producer himself. So while he isn't/hasn't been a writer of major publications, he has made a name for himself on websites such as CRR, and I haven't had any issues previously with the site here on WP. – zmbro(talk) (cont)01:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was Cashbox a copyrighted source? I'm a bit concerned that linking to it through the worldradiohistory.com website consitutes a WP:ELNEVER issue
I've actually never had an issue with that on previous FACs nor GANs.
Well, page 3 of the linked PDF indicates that it was copyright 1982 by the Cash Box Publishing Company. Based on Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart this would still be in copyright I think so we've got a ELNEVER issue here unless there's an exceptional case here such as World Radio History getting permission from the copyright holder to host this or such (their website indicates that they've gotten a document preservation award)? It might not hurt to ping some copyright experts with this. Hog FarmTalk01:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm I can just remove the WRH link if that would make things simpler for this nomination? Although I think it would be beneficial to know if all links to WRH are an issue due to copyright reasons... – zmbro(talk) (cont)17:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with the links being removed for now. Essentially, the situation is that if WRH has some sort of permission/authorization to host this material, then we're in the clear, but if this is unauthorized reproduction it's iffy. I don't know if the fact that the magazine is defunct would be a factor here. I can ping in a couple editors more familiar with exact copyright situations if you would like. Hog FarmTalk04:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright doesn't vanish because the magazine is defunct - it actually becomes harder to deal with. So yes, either it would need permission or some reason why it would be out of copyright, otherwise ELNEVER applies. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites "Paul Nelson, Musician" and "Richard C. Walls, Creem" without any clarification as to when or which issue of these magazines were cited - are these writers being quoted secondhand via Heylin?
Yes quoted secondhand. I did the same thing on Born to Run. That's why they're sourced within Heylin and not by themselves.
Replies above - the ELNEVER question with Cash Box is the main sticking point left for me. I listened to the album through this afternoon. Hog FarmTalk01:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"...released on September 30, 1982, on Columbia Records." to "...released on September 30, 1982, through Columbia Records."
Exactly what I had initially. Fixed.
"...and artistically daring, and Springsteen's most personal record..." to "...and artistically daring, considering it Springsteen's most personal record..."
Done
"The album is today regarded as one of Springsteen's finest works and a timeless record that has lost none of its impact." to "Retrospectively, critics regard the album as a timeless record and one of Springsteen's finest works."
Done, with album title
"...by a major artist, and has had a significant influence..." to "...by a major artist and has had a significant influence..."
Done
"...album's making will be released in October 2025." to "...album's making is planned to be released in October 2025."
Done, although it will be changed in less than four months :-)
"...newly-rented ranch in Colts Neck, New Jersey in September 1981." to "...newly-rented ranch in Colts Neck, New Jersey, in September 1981."
Done
"...onto a cassette tape. In his 2003 book Songs..." - Just "Songs" is fine, since you've already introduced the book in a previous section.
Done
"Following mixing..." to "After the tracks were mixed..."
Done
"...of the Colts Neck tracks but Springsteen..." to "...of the Colts Neck tracks, but Springsteen..."
Done
"Springsteen tasked the engineer Toby Scott with mastering the recordings, which proved problematic due to how he and Batlan recorded them." - Is there a way to make who "he" is clearer? I figure it's referring to Springsteen based on context, but a casual reader might misinterpret as referring to Toby Scott.
We'll just say Springsteen's name again :-)
"...by the mastering engineers Bob Ludwig, Steve Marcussen, and Greg Calbi." - Prior lists of three excluded the serial comma, while this one doesn't. Whether or not one should be included should be consistent across the article
This should be fixed.
"Bill See commented on the numerous "imperfections" in the mix..." - Why is this statement cited to an unrelated book review?
The Telegraph article also mentions "numerous imperfections" so I included it there, although Bill See states it in his own article, which is cited at the end of the sentence. I added Martin Chilton's name next to See's. – zmbro(talk) (cont)01:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Stories told through the eyes of criminals...as well as through Springsteen's own childhood memories on..." - The syntax of this sentence seems awkward. I recommend rewriting it.
Agreed. Rewritten: "Stories told through the eyes of criminals... while Springsteen's own childhood memories are reflected on..."
"Several songs are driven by automobiles." - Maybe rephrase to something like "Several songs' lyrics center around automobiles."
Done
"...cars on Nebraska represent..." to "...the car on Nebraska represents..."
Done
"...on top of a hill that piqued his curiosity, and car rides..." to "...on top of a hill that piqued his curiosity and car rides..."
Done
"...the narrator is laid off from his job at the Ford assembly plant..." - Don't the lyrics say the plant closed down, not that Johnny was laid off?
Adjusted to say he loses his job after the plant closed
"...Walter Yetnikoff and Al Teller, respectively..." to "...Walter Yetnikoff and Al Teller respectively..."
Done
"...would not sell as well as The River, but loved the music..." to "...would not sell as well as The River but loved the music..."
Done
"...in similar style to Nebraska..." to "...in a similar style to Nebraska"
Fixed
In the retrospective reviews section, why is "stadium-rock" in quotes? I recommend removing the quotes and linking it to stadium rock.
Done
"...having lost none of its power..." - This is phrasing lifted directly from the UCR source. I recommend either quoting it or rewording it.
Changed to "retaining all of its power"
"Not all reviews have been positive." to "Not all the retrospective reviews have been positive."
Done
"Many critics agree that the two albums failed to match the power and consistency of Nebraska." - I feel like "Many critics agree" is a case of weasel words.
"...primarily recorded in studios while home demos..." to "...primarily recorded in studios, while home demos..."
Done
"...as his favorite album ever written, and used it as the recording template..." to "...as his favorite album ever written and used it as the recording template..."
Done
I recommend rewriting the section for the Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere film to remove usages of the future tense. For example, instead of saying the film will release at a particular date, say the film is set to release at a particular date, as something could happen that leads to the film's release being delayed or canceled.
Valid point; fixed
I think the reissues section should be a sub-section of the release section
I've typically had reissue sections come last in all the articles write for chronological flow. You shouldn't read about a 2022 reissue before reading about 1982 critical reviews (at least in my opinion). It's where it's at in my other FAs Darkness on the Edge of Town, Born to Run, among others. – zmbro(talk) (cont)01:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I think that'll be it. Don't let the number of comments fool you, I think you did a good job with this article. It's comprehensive as far as I can tell and mostly well-written. Most of my issues are rather minor, all things considered. I'll check back in a week or if you ping me. Lazman321 (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this article on Urien Rheged, who was perhaps a king of Rheged, but who was certainly a critically important figure, to judge by his treatment in our few sources for sixth-century Britain. He seemed to have all the northern British kings other than that of Gododdin under him, and nearly succeeded in driving out the Anglo-Saxons. This period is very murky for academics, and even moreso online, so I have compiled basically every academic source about him to the end of providing a coherent and cohesive biography of the man. I have also included his legacy in medieval Welsh literature, not least because some of our sources about him may be contemporary panegyric, but also because the poems about events in the north of Britain after his death are some of the most moving in medieval Welsh literature. Tipcake (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look in again if I have time for a thorough look, but from a quick canter through:
Duplicate links: I gather these are not now as strictly taboo as they used to be, but all the same do we really need two links to Anglo-Saxons and two to Ancient Britons? And that's just in the lead; the main text is peppered with superfluous duplicate links.
See the Manual of Style MOS:DOUBLE – the text is full of single quotes.
See MOS:CURLY – a few curly quotation marks need to be straightened. I spotted ‘the Anglian collection of royal genealogies and regnal lists’, ‘the old North’ ‘British North’ and ‘Old North’ (all of which should, I think, be double as well as straight) and there may be others I didn't notice.
"However" – the word appears fourteen times in your text and rather wears out its welcome. In most cases the sense will be unaffected and the prose crisper if you remove the word.
"Due to" – you use this three times as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to". This is commonplace in AmE but in formal BrE it is not universally accepted. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
"Geoffrey of Monmouth, drawing on Welsh sources and his own imagination" – says who?
Note e caught my eye as inappropriate: "Note that Gwenogvryn's notes and 'translation' are hopelessly speculative." This seems to me to offend against WP:EDITORIAL and unless you can cite a source for "hopelessly speculative" it does not belong here.
Poems: you seem undecided whether to italicise them or not: Yspeil Taliessin but then 'Yspeil Taliessin'.
Diolch yn fawr am hynny. I shall fix these formatting errors. As to note e, well, this is nicer than what Morris-Jones said himself, whose judgement has unanimously been followed by later scholars:
It may have occurred to the reader long before this to ask whether, if Dr. Evans's work is as bad as I make it out to be, it was worth while devoting all this space to criticism of it. I answer in the affirmative for two reasons. The first is the reason I gave at the outset : "because in the process some constructive work can perhaps be done", p. 38. It will be agreed that something positive has been attained; I put it forward as tentative; I claim no finality for it — in the present state of our knowledge of the subject finality is far from being in sight. But criticism of false theories is necessary, and is a method of discussion that has its advantages; it is an effective way of presenting saner views, and it often helps the writer to form clearer ideas, because wrongheaded notions often suggest points of view which would not have occurred to him in a detached study of the subject. Dr. Evans knows this from experience: "I have never received an inspired answer to a 'wise' question; but the imprudent sort is apt to find a hot response", p. vic. He fully accepts the position: "Better then a 'howler' that may herald the light than all the respectability of empty silence. I am content to become the whipping-boy of light & truth", ib.
The other reason is that criticism of this book to be of real use had to be fairly full and systematic. It is often easy to pick out a large number of incidental errors and slips in a work which is sound on the whole; my task was to show not how many mistakes the book contains — this is impossible, for their number is legion — but that the whole work (excepting the mechanical and diplomatic reproductions) is one huge mistake. Few would believe without conclusive proof that an editor of Dr. Gwenogvryn Evans's reputation can be so utterly incompetent to deal with the questions which he sets himself to discuss in this book as he in fact proves himself to be. Dr. Evans is an honorary Doctor of Letters of two Universities; but the distinction was conferred upon him for reproducing texts, not for interpreting them. He had done supremely well what had previously been done only imperfectly. He had for the first time supplied Welsh scholars with reliable texts to work upon. He had already published his reproductions of the Mabinogion and Bruts from the Red Book of Hergest, his facsimile of the Black Book of Carmarthen, and his superb edition of the Book of Llan Daf. In the latter he wisely entrusted the philological work to Sir John Rhŷs; but the laborious and valuable topographical work is his own ; and his recovery of the original reading of the priceless Breint Teilaw, which a late medieval vandal has mutilated with knife and pen, is a service to Welsh learning. Of late years he has manifested a growing disposition to pose as an authority on the language and subject-matter of his texts. He is aware that his knowledge is somewhat hazy, and that he may fall into many errors; and he is shrewd enough to attempt to forestall criticism: -
A critic may dispute my rendering, but it does not follow that he is right because he differs from me, or cannot in 7 minutes see what it has taken me 7 years to 'grip' (II, p. xiii).
It will be "the usual difference of opinion between experts ". This suggestion seems to me to render it necessary to state the truth, which is that Dr. Evans has not mastered some of the elements of Welsh grammar, and has less of the scholar's instinct than almost any of the Eisteddfodic bards whom he scoffs at in his footnotes. He has tried to persuade scholars to cooperate with him in the preparation of his critical editions. He proposed to "a Welsh scholar of repute" that they "should jointly attempt to amend and translate the text of Taliesin". He was advised "to attempt no such thing — he certainly would not cooperate; 'in short I funk it' were his parting words", II, p. vii. The refusal is intelligible, though perhaps not to Dr. Evans. He has rejected the advice of his friends, and apparently interprets their good intentions as "envy". This is the reason for the bitterness with which he speaks of his fellow-workers in the field of Welsh studies. They are jeered at, and accused of taking "their ease in the Halls of learning ", p. i. The references to the late Sir John Rhŷs, in particular, are deplorable; and I have no doubt Dr. Evans himself regrets them now.
Finally, I will only say that his friends were wiser than himself, and it is a pity that he did not follow their advice. It offends my sense of the fitness of things to see any purely ephemeral matter bound up with perfect reproductions which are for all time; but that all this trash should be printed in the best ink on the finest paper — including 125 copies on Japanese vellum, and of the concentrated nonsense of the smaller volume four copies on vellum itself — to share the permanence of the text and facsimile, is sad indeed. But posterity will look kindly on the editor's follies, and will honour his memory for the good work he has done.
If you want me to change the way this is expressed, I am open to whatever you suggest, but it is no assertion on my part, just an expression of the general (and present) reception of his commentary. Tipcake (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i'm happy to see this here. yesterday i switched over the citations to sfn format (so if there are mistakes in that regard, they're probably mine), but otherwise i haven't looked at the substance of this article yet. however, i'm fairly familiar with the subject matter, as i've taken a university course on medieval welsh literature which included discussion of the urien poetry. i plan on doing a review maybe tomorrow, so i am just bookmarking my place here. ... sawyer * any/all * talk04:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
easy things out of the way: the sourcing quality is A+, and i really couldn't ask for more on that front (among all those names, i even see a professor of mine). the article is a good length for the subject, and laid out logically. here's my suggestions/comments:
in general, wikipedia prose style tends towards being quite... dry, due to our avoidance of any editorializing. i'm seeing a good amount of language which, even where verified and true, reads as editorial-esque or flowery (e.g. "the greatest difficulty when attempting to reconstruct Urien's life and career is how to interpret and reconcile our varied, late, and sometimes obscure, corrupt, or confused sources"; "Despite what one might find in earlier scholarship, and reams of sources online, there is no good reason to claim that these stories about character such as Modron reflect some kind of older, pagan connection"). i'm actually not sure whether this is something that's formally discouraged or just an unspoken normality, but i thought it worth mentioning. personally, i hate to tell a nominator "please make your writing more boring" so i won't.
i'm unclear on what the point of the large table comparing Pen Urien and Celain Urien are - what is it communicating to the reader?
what's the distinction between use of (year x year) and (year-year)?
i'll add more comments as i think of them & if no other reviewer comes along to do a source spot-check, i will. overall, thumbs up. ... sawyer * any/all * talk03:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Diolch yn fawr iawn am hynny. I shall edit the article as you suggest. The table isn't to compare them, but just to present them both at the same time in English and elsh, as the two poems are both very good. Is there a better way I could accomplish this? Tipcake (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have edited this as you suggest. However, there are no images of the subject that I can find online, other than an illustration from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. As this is article is at pains to speak exhaustively of the historical Urien or at least his presence in Welsh literature, however, I find a fantasy illustration very inappropriate as the one to represent the article. Regards File:In_her_ecstasy_a_lovely_devil.png, the painter died in 1938, and the author of the book it accompanies in 1914. Tipcake (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to look at this article, but looking at the sources, it certainly does not fulfil the claim above to cover "basically every academic source about him". It is strong on literary sources, but very weak on biographical and historical ones (apart from Charles-Edwards). None of the three biographical surveys of Urien are included, Thornton in ODNB, which you strangely list as further reading, Peter Bartrum's A Classical Welsh Dictionary, and a brief entry in Williams et al, A Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain. These all have bibliographies pointing to further sources. Historical works which cover Urien include Smyth, Warlords and Holy Men, Halsall, Worlds of Arthur and Higham, Northumbria. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not yet read the article, so my current opinion is just based on looking at the sources. On historical sources it is marginal as Charles-Edwards is the main one and it is covered, but the coverage of biographical sources is inadequate and I would oppose on this ground unless this is fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't think there's much to be added by using those sources other than a box-ticking exercise. Obviously for completion's sake I think this is an acceptable reason for their inclusion and I'm happy to throw them in, but there is not really anything to be added content-wise. Those sources merely summarise the opinions of Ifor Williams et al., given that Urien was not a 'historical' figure; all our information about him is from literary sources. So I don't really understand what you mean by 'biographical' and 'historical' sources, given all of our 'biographical' and 'historical' information about the man comes from poetry (Taliesin poems, saga literature) or pseudo-historical literature (the Historia Brittonum, the genealogies).
Here is all Halsall has to say on Urien:
This was the era of another British hero, Urien of Rheged, whose kingdom lay somewhere around the Lake District, the western end of Hadrian’s Wall or Galloway, or possibly all of these areas and more besides. The deeds of Urien and his valiant son Owain (Eugenius) are celebrated in a series of epic poems attributed to Urien’s court poet Taliesin, mentioned alongside Aneirin by ‘Nennius’. ‘Nennius’ tells us that Urien drove the Northumbrian English back until they were besieged on Holy Island off the North Sea coast, but was then murdered out of jealousy by one of his British allies.
— Guy Halsall, Worlds of Arthur, p. 23.
Likewise, here is the 'Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain', which as you can see, only sites 'literary' sources which I already include in the article (the books cited in this entry are Canu Taliesin, The Poems of Taliesin, Trioedd Ynys Prydein, and Jarman's edition of Y Gododdin). I don't cite Jarman's edition here but I do quote from Canu Taliesin, presumably this volume isn't cited instead (since it, with Kenneth Jackson's 1968 edition is the basis for Jarman's edition) because Canu Aneirin is entirely in Welsh.
Urien ruler of Rheged fl. sixth century Urien appears in the genealogies of the Men of the North (North Britain) in a context which would place him in the second half of the sixth century, but it is the early ninth-century Historia Brittonum (see under *Nennius) which locates him most precisely in time as the leader of a British coalition, embracing *Riderch Hen, king of the Strathclyde Britons, and *Gwallawg, ruler of Elmet, against the Angles under their king, Theodric (c. 572/3—79/80) during the besieging of whom on the island of Lindisfarne he was slain by a rival British chieftain, Morcant, possibly a prince of the Votadini. The early bardic poems of *Taliesin locate him geographically as ruler of Rheged with his centre at Lyvennet in the Eden valley. 'Golden king of the north', sings the bard, 'I will praise your deeds'. One of the Taliesin poems laments the death of Urien's son Owain — 'a vivid man above his many-coloured trappings'. BIBL. Williams 1960; Williams 1968; Bromwich 1961: 516-20; Jarman 1981: 21ff.
— A Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain, p. 232.
The less said about Warlords and Holy Men's treatment of Urien, the better. Having just read the pages on him (pp. 21-26), it is simultaneously both incorrectly repeating Ifor Williams' arguments: 'The centre of Urien's kingdom was based on Carlisle', p. 21; and asserting statements which would make a modern Celticist shudder: 'Anyone who has studied Celtic polity knows that kingdoms did not passively change hands as dowries, and that even if royal lines were reduced to sole surviving daughters, there were myriads of rival segments in the tribal aristocracy who would not sit idly by and see a Germanic warlord usurp their patrimony', p. 23; what about the possession of Gwynedd by Merfyn Frych through his mother even though there were still descendants of Cunedda about?
Again, the references to Urien in Higham's Northumbria are just paraphrasing Williams' arguments (pp. 56, 82-3, 98-9).
I could cite Bartrum's Welsh Classical Dictionary happily, it is freely available online after all. But it is not an authoritative source, it is a compilation of earlier scholarship and takes a horizontal view of the material concerning its subjects (i.e. in Urien's case it repeats uncritically that he was the son of a daughter of Brychan Brycheiniog, a chronological impossibility)!
There is an important distinction between historians, who are concerned with historical facts, and literary scholars, who may be less concerned with distinguishing fact from myth. However, I do accept much of what you say in detail. I was classing Ifor Williams as a literary and linguistic scholar, but I see that he is cited by Charles-Edwards and the biographical dictionary, and is therefore presumably regarded by historians as reliable. I have only used Bartrum for obscure ninth-century Welsh kings, and found him a useful guide to sources, and I can see that he is much less useful for Urien. His book is however a compilation published by a reputable publisher which covers Urien extensively, and should be cited if only as a box-ticking exercise. The crucial omission is Thornton's ODNB article, which you do not mention, and is available to anyone with a British public library card. An article on Urien which does not use it does not cover the sources comprehensively. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
just for clarification, i was the one who put ODNB in "further reading", because it was listed in the original bibliography section but not referenced inline. when i switched the article over to sfn format, i put it there because it seemed inappropriate to remove it - this was before nomination at FAC. ... sawyer * any/all * talk19:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some corrections to the format of the bibliography. Change any you are not happy with. There are still error messages on two Jackson books. They are too early to have isbns (which are presumably those of reprints) and according to Wikipedia rules should have the oclc of the original publication. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A largely forgotten, albeit vicious, WW2 fascist collaborator. I've more or less thrown everything but the kitchen sink into this as far as the source material goes, and I'm looking forward to further improving the article through the community's gracious feedback. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amanuensis Balkanicus thanks for the updates, see one followup about Nikola Tusun. A google search indicates some notoriety, but if we're getting this up to FA standard, we should give a bit of an intro about him instead of just hoping that someone will fill out the red link or be able to read an offline foreign-language reference. --Joy (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Jianwen Emperor, the second emperor of the Ming dynasty. I have tried to improve this article as well as the articles related to the Ming dynasty. Min968 (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the third and longest-serving prime minister of Liechtenstein, Josef Hoop. This is the first article that I contributed to significantly on Wikipedia in 2022 and have continued to improve and expand upon since, successfully bringing it to GA in July 2024. I now believe that I have brought this article to a high enough quality to consider it for FA status and I am able to respond to any queries swiftly. This is my first FA nomination and would also be the first Liechtenstein FA, if successful. TheBritinator (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, welcome to FAC! Starting off with an image review:
Both the lead image and the signature are repeated in the sidebar - would suggest removing the signature from the sidebar, and if possible replacing the image to avoid the immediate repetition
File:Josef_Hoop.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is its status in the US? Ditto File:Opening_of_the_new_Landesbank_building_1953.jpg
File:Josef_Hoop_Signature.png: the tagging here is contradictory - is it PD or CC?
File:Hoop_Vogt_Schaedler_Marxer_1938.jpg: this has one tag stating the author is unknown and one stating the author died over 70 years ago - which is correct and what is the status of this work in the US?
I am unsure how I am intended to determine the status of the images in the US, so some pointers on that would be appreciated. The Liechtensteinisches Landesarchiv is a reliable source on author and publishing information on images that it holds within its collection, but they do not make any mention of specific publication dates. Worst case scenario I could ask them myself for such information, but since it isn't on the page itself then it probably is not known. TheBritinator (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This chart has some general guidance on determining US status, which is generally dependent on where and when the image was first published.
Given the dates of these images, if the author isn't known we unfortunately can't assume that they died over 70 or 100 years ago - for example File:Franz_Josef_II_Berlin_1939.jpg has a life+70 tag but no author listed. Would suggest having a look through the tags provided and swapping out those which cannot be verified. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Singapore's second Light Rail Transit system. A little clarification; despite the name, it's not a "light rail" as we know like in the US, but more of a neighbourhood people's mover or automated guideway transit. Unlike the preceding Bukit Panjang LRT, the Sengkang LRT saw fewer issues in its operations since its inauguration in 2003. I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback. ZKang123 (talk·contribs) 08:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the sourcing. I count 15 18 sources that are from the Land Transport Authority, who owns the line. Another 30 are from SBS Transit, the line's operator. I count 29 from The Straits Times, the government-owned newspaper. 5 press releases or government minister speeches from the National Archives of Singapore.
I just reiterate again: it's unrealistic not to use these sources or there would be nothing to write about this LRT line. And these sources are OK for statements of basic facts, including the opening of stations, the construction of the lines, the awarding of contracts, the technical specifications, the features of stations... Unless there's are issues with WP:NPOV pushed, I don't see any problems.--ZKang123 (talk·contribs) 02:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is not going to make you happy, and I appreciate that you've put a lot of effort into writing this article (and others like it), but I think the preponderance of the sources do not meet our requirement for "high-quality reliable sources". If you are unable to find substantially better sourcing, I think you should withdraw this. RoySmith(talk)11:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Roy here. For me, the issue is WP:DUEWEIGHT: take for example the section about the 2017 renovations. All of that, as far as I can see, is cited to publications whose owners (the Singaporean government) also own the railway -- there's a clear WP:COI there that means this is no guide to whether, as DUEWEIGHT requires, our coverage here is in proportion to that observed in neutral, reliable, secondary sources. If this were also reported in independent or international media, I would be greatly reassured, but we have something fundamentally promotional in tone ("look how much work the government is doing on the railway!"), whose notability is currently established entirely because it is talked about by the very people it is promoting. Whether or not this has been raised before, I think it's a problem here, and I would suggest withdrawal if more detached sources do not exist. If there just isn't the material to write an FA, that's unfortunate, but we can't promote an article that doesn't have the sources to interrogate or corroborate the government line.
On a separate note, I don't think the reference to WP:STICK is merited or helpful: "drop the stick" does not mean "agree with me when I explain why I believe I'm right", but "don't carry on a debate that has clearly been resolved". Clearly, this one is still an open question, both here and at RSN. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concerns about the use of primary sources. However, these primary sources are not being used for analysis, only uncontroversial facts (such as the awarding of contracts and the opening of stations); this is a valid use of primary sources particularly if the sources themselves are closely connected with the subject matter. It's the use of primary sources for secondary analysis that isn't allowed.
I'd also say that the Straits Times is no more of a primary source than any other newspaper, which could be considered a primary source in some situations (mainly in a time-related sense - breaking news stories are usually primary sources, for example). The main thing that differentiates the Straits Times from "generally reliable" newspapers is the fact that the SG has limited press freedom, and some reporting involving the government may not be fully neutral. Yes, there may be some form of government interference/intervention on the editorial process when comes to politics-related content. But this is a transit project. Why are you guys looking at this from a political lens? I understand the Singapore Rail Test Centre might be more contentious with more boastful claims of what it does, but the Sengkang LRT line is far from that. (Heck, this LRT even serves an opposition-held ward, but I don't think that's relevant)
I also need to clarify that the Straits Times isn't at all state-owned and is still a private entity. As I quote from SPH Media Trust: "SPH Media Trust is managed privately by its shareholders. The management shares are regulated through Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) and its issuance and transfers have to be approved by the Ministry of Communications and Information, and in "any resolution relating to the appointment or dismissal of a director or any member of the staff" the vote of one management share is equivalent to 200 ordinary shares." These shares are mainly held by banks and education institutions in Singapore.
To frame it from another perspective regarding DUEWEIGHT, there would not be as many objections if it were the New York Times reporting on the opening of a NYC transit route, even if NYC's transit system is owned by New York state, because the NYT is not itself affiliated with the state government. Or that some tram line in some obscure town of the US or Europe would be brought to FA more easily just because there's sufficient local free press news coverage, but not a tram line in an authoritarian state. Which I find it's a rather unfair assessment of what articles should be brought to the FAC stage.
I see that -- as Roy said elsewhere, my concern isn't that the facts reported might be untrue, but that we haven't established that the balance of our coverage in this article fits how independent reliable sources cover it. Being a bit crude, we haven't shown that anyone actually cares about (say) the 2017 renovations of this railway unless they have some sort of stake in them. The relevant bit of WP:PRIMARY isn't the part about analysis, but Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. (emphasis mine). Given that the sources aren't just primary but also have a clear COI. As you note, some reporting involving the government may not be fully neutral... [and] this is a transit project -- one constructed and operated by the government. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zkang asked me off-wiki to comment on the article's prose. I will not get into the discussion of whether The Straits Times is "suitable" for FAC or not. Note that I'm making these comments based on the GAN criteria, albeit stricter, as I'm not very familiar with the FAC criteria. I have also taken the liberty to comment on sourcing and other things. These comments represent my own thoughts and findings. If anyone else has any comments on my judgement or points they would like to add, I invite you to do soIcepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 01:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:
N/A so far
History:
Planning:
Is there any information on when the Sengkang LRT was first planned? this book mentions that it was planned in 1996, but given the uncertainty with the date I would not use it for that section. There probably exists an article somewhere on NewspaperSG talking about plans for an LRT in Sengkang
There seems to be no exact date, only from when the line was first announced.
deputy prime minister Tony Tan announced the government's decision to proceed with the Sengkang LRT (SKLRT) project"deputy prime minister" needs to be capitalised as it is a title Ok it apparently doesn't (wikilink it as well? I don't know if it would be overlinking though). This sentence also implies that the Sengkang LRT was proposed prior to the BPLRT but does not appear to be mentioned by the sources (the sources announced the government's plans to build the LRT instead of proceeding with it)
Reworded
The joint venture comprised Singapore Technologies Industrial Corporation, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Mitsubishi Corporation Is Mitsubishi Heavy Industries separate from Mitsubishi Corporation? I'm assuming it is since Mitsubishi would not be mentioned twice in a company if it were joined together. Please use an Oxford comma
Think MHI is a subsidiary under Mitsubishi, but likely they oversee different aspects of the line's development (like MHI for the rolling stock and the Corporation for the construction and planning? No sources really state their stakes tho, just suggesting what their scopes may be).
SBS Transit (then Singapore Bus Service) I believe you may need a source to back up the claim that SBS Transit was then known as Singapore Bus Service
Added sources
along with the North East line Wikilink this. I also believe you may need to change it to "North East Mass Rapid Transit line" (this is mentioned in the ST article) for clarity
North East MRT line then
In December that year, subcontractor BRR Holdings withdrew from the LRT project In December of that year. Also state the reason why BRR Holdings withdrew from the project
Added.
the LTA transferred operations of the SKLRT to SBS Transit, which conducted extensive test runs and trials on the line add the period when these tests were conducted and expected to finish (it's in the citation)
I won't state the period because it also seems the testing period went into overrun.
transport minister Yeo Cheow Tongcapitalise "transport minister" (wikilink it I guess)
I'm also avoiding wikilinking due to WP:SEAOFBLUE
Stations opening:
It would rather be inaccurate to use this source for the opening of the date as it announced the date of opening. Replace it with the next source or combine these two sources
Combined
Farmway, Cheng Lim and Kupang stations it can be argued that an Oxford comma is not necessary for this sentence, although one may confuse Cheng Lim and Kupang stations for being one station altogether (kinda of like Elephant & Castle tube station). Would suggest using an Oxford comma.
Done.
With the exception of the Farmway, Cheng Lim and Kupang stations, the west loop commenced operations on 29 January 2005 again, one of the sources announced the date of opening and thus should not be cited for the date of opening itself
Fixed.
The west loop initially operated unidirectional services in the peak flow direction. What does it mean by "peak flow direction"? Shortest distance to Punggol station?
Seems to be. But I rather not elaborate too much
Farmway station opened on 15 November 2007 to serve the Anchorvale Community Club and the Sengkang Sports Complex is there a secondary source for this? A ST or TODAY article?
Unfortunately while theres only press releases on the station openings date, there's no other reports on the station opening itself. That said, if another reviewer raised this as an issue, I would be open to rewording this.
Full-day bidirectional services on the west loop began on 1 January 2013 with the opening of Cheng Lim station Again any sources published on the date of opening?
I won't comment on sources closer to the date of opening for Kupang as it's a small station and thus attracts less attention compared to our MRT stations according to my cursory research.
Network:
Stations
The stations table needs citations for the coordinates
I don't think it's needed, because the coords still link directly to the respective stations.
Well, a newspaper aggregator would be like if CNA republishes a Reuters or AP article on their website. The Straits Times themselves still host the front pages of their headlines on their website. So, no, maybe not applicable
Please include "speech" for the "type" parameter for the citations of those speech transcripts
Done
[21] has an archived link but the rest of the newspaper sources don't. Said sources come from this interactive article and will thus need to be archived, as I believe that the ST does not intend to keep it up forever
As far as I'm aware, it's not necessary to archive all live links. I rather leave it to IAB bot to archive them when the time comes.
You prefered if the archive bot comes and archives all the links that need archiving so I'll leave you at that
That's really it @ZKang123. I'm too inexperienced to come to a conclusion on whether I should support or oppose this article becoming an FA so I'll leave it to anyone else interested. Most of the clarity issues for the technical stuff were ironed out during the GAN review so keep that in mind. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 04:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with your changes. To everyone else, for the record, I work on MRT articles so I may have skipped over some issues on the basic parts of the LRT (ex: routes, etc) since I could just "fill the gaps". Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 13:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kang asked me to leave some prose comments here; the following feedback represents my own opinions, however. I will leave some feedback soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:
Para 1: "The Sengkang LRT line (SKLRT) is a 10.7-kilometre (6.6 mi) elevated automated guideway transit line in Sengkang, Singapore. The driverless system consists of 14 stations on two loops, with Sengkang station serving as the interchange for both loops" - The SKLRT is referred to both as a "line" and a "system" here. Which is correct?
Will keep it as "line" to avoid confusion, though technically it's an AGT system of two loops
Para 1: Also, are these two loops operationally separate (i.e. trains always stay on one loop or the other)? If so, can this be mentioned somehow?
Operationally separate. It's further elaborated in the body; felt it will be too much details in the lead.
Para 1: "It is the second Light Rail Transit (LRT) line in Singapore" - Some readers might want to know what the first line was.
Added.
Para 2: "The SKLRT was planned in tandem with the development of the Sengkang estate." - When was this?
The line was first announced in 1996
Para 3: "Two-car operations were introduced in December 2015 to accommodate increased ridership." - Can it be explicitly mentioned that the trains were originally one car long?
Para 3: Reading the above sentence, I was under the impression that all trains were converted to two cars. However, it seems like only some of the trains were. I would clarify the situation here, since it seems to run with a mixture of one- and two-car trains.
Would: "The SKLRT initially ran single-car operations until it was upgraded for two-car operations in December 2015 to accommodate increased ridership." work?
My bad, I forgot about this.Planning and construction:
Para 1: "The line would be developed alongside the Sengkang estate" - I think it would be helpful to give a little background about this estate (specifically, what it was and when it was developed). This would give background to why the SKLRT had to be built.
Para 2: What did the contract include? Presumably stations and viaducts?
We can only presume. And also it seems to be a turnkey project for Mitsubishi, since they are also contracted for the rolling stock and signalling. ZKang123 (talk·contribs) 09:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Para 3: "Construction of the LRT stations and viaducts was completed in 2001" - From paragraph 4, it looks like work was substantially completed but that there was still some work that remained to be done.
Para 4: "the Sengkang LRT line was initially constructed for single-car operations, even though it had been designed for two." - Were the stations originally only one platform long, even though the drawings called for two-car-long platforms?
I would rename this to "Opening", which is more concise.
Done
Para 1: "Although the east loop was scheduled to open at 2 pm that day, SBS Transit began operations 30 minutes earlier to accommodate the queue of the 100 waiting commuters" - Is this really important? I'd just say it opened at 1:30 pm. Many rail projects attract lots of waiting visitors.
Done
Para 1: "Free bus services were provided during the 30-minute disruption." - This also doesn't seem important, not only because it lasted only 30 minutes, but also because this detracts from the main point (that its first major disruption was on 5 September 2003).
Done
Para 2: "With the exception of the Farmway, Cheng Lim, and Kupang stations,[28] the west loop commenced operations on 29 January 2005.[39]" - Were the areas around the west loop developed by then?
Not sure, will have to ask Zkang about it
More to the point, did the SKLRT influence the development of new structures (or was it the opposite way around)? I don't think this was mentioned later in the article.
Not sure, will have to ask Zkang
Para 4: "SBS Transit reported a "loud boom" was heard before the train stalled.[45] Passengers were able to disembark from the faulty train, which was hauled away before services resumed.[44]" - These also seem to be rather minor details.
Do you want the former (the loud boom) to be removed? The latter seems a bit important. Or do you want to be gone altogether?
@Epicgenius: Zkang has instructed me to carry out works on his behalf as he is on a trip. I have responded to your comments. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 10:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Icepinner. I'm also on a trip but will have comments a bit later.
For "Do you want the former (the loud boom) to be removed? The latter seems a bit important. Or do you want to be gone altogether?", I was suggesting that the loud boom thing be removed. However, I'm not sure that either sentence is relevant since it would not be surprising that passengers would have to evacuate the faulty train. It would be noteworthy if anyone got injured though. Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius I just removed both. Fyi, Zkang says the sources are unclear on whether the SKLRT influenced surrounding developments or not and vice versa. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 01:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already had this at GAN, so only a couple of comments here.
Like other Middle Pleistocene European specimens, the skull thickness of the parietal bone at the asterion (where it connects with the occipital and temporal bones) is normally midway what is usually seen between Neanderthals and Peking Man (H. erectus pekinensis). – Multiple little grammar issues. "Like in" or "Similar to". "midway between that of". Also, if I remember correctly, H. erectus pekinensis is not a widely accepted subspecies so I recommend not to mention it.
Generally, the anatomy section is very long. Apply summary style a bit more? For example: Cranium 4, though, falls on the upper end of the Peking Man variation of thickness in the angular torus (a raised bar of bone at the junction of the parietal and temporal bones) at 17 mm (0.67 in). – this information strikes me as quite excessive.
The stratigraphy section is quite technical. I recommend to explain the most important terms (such as breccia).
I'm not sure how to gloss breccia without bringing up more geological words like cement and matrix. I put a gloss next to speleothem but I feel like there's parentheses overload happening now. What other words should be glossed? Dunkleosteus77(talk)04:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not convinced about the stratigraphy section. It looks like bombarding the section with glosses is not enough, you might have to give it a bit more space to keep it readable, and with more context.
It is composed of over 80% phyllosilicates, of which more than 60% is paramagnetic illite, permitting paleomagnetic dating to the Brunhes Chron; indicating that LU-6 is younger than 780,000 years. – first, the ";" should be a "," I think. More importantly, the sentence simply lacks the necessary context so that a reader of the target audience can understand it. You might have to make two or three sentences out of it; explain it a bit slower. Or, alternatively, simplify.
As for explaining "breccia", maybe just reword "the fossils are mixed with limestone blocks, speleothem, and [whatever fine-grained sediment the matrix is], forming a bone breccia". Here, you might not even need "forming a bone breccia".
Thank you for adding some glosses, but some of these do not help, as you introduce new terms that are even more complicated than the ones you want to explain. I don't think you need to explain "mud".
alongside limestone blocks, speleothem (mineral deposit) fragments (probably reworked from LU-2 and 4) – "mineral deposit" does not help either. Limestone blocks are also a sort of mineral deposit, no?
"When first published in 1993, these 29 individuals represented about 80% of the Middle Pleistocene human fossil record, and they preserve every bone in the human body." - The construction of this sentence—mainly the tacked on clause "and they preserve..." is awkward. I might merge that fact with the following sentence "The unprecedented completeness of the remains..."
" Like in Neanderthals, the brow ridges are inflated, but the back of the skull is not as robust, and the skull has a "house-like" profile instead of the rounded "bomb-like" profile." is bordering on being a run-on. I suggest something like "Like in Neanderthals, the brow ridges are inflated, but the skull is not as robust in its rear and has a "house-like" profile instead of the rounded "bomb-like" profile."
I suggest rephrasing it as something like "The teeth are essentially Neanderthal-like, with shovel-shaped incisors and taurodontism but differ in tooth cusp morphology"
The following sentence has the same "This, but that" structure. Rephrase to improve flow.
Well yeah, I start the paragraph off with they have Neanderthal traits but non-Neanderthal traits too, so to make it easier to understand I kept that pattern Dunkleosteus77(talk)04:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"large-bodied" - relative to what? Were they larger than neanderthals? For hominids at large?
"who would identify several sites here strewn" --> "who identified several sites here strewn" per WP:WOULDCHUCK. Also suffering from this same issue later on:
"A similarly rich Middle Pleistocene human fossil assemblage would not be found until 2013" --> "A similarly rich Middle Pleistocene human fossil assemblage was not found until 2013"
Fossil names are placed within quotation marks except for 'Swanscombe, Petralona, and Steinheim'. I would be consitent either way. Check for this issue throughout the article.
"Neanderthals, and unlike in H. erectus" - comma not needed. Part of my comma griping at large is due to these commas not being used in the same context elsewhere in the article, e.g. "Like in Neanderthals but unlike in many Middle Pleistocene specimens"
"the temporal lobe is narrow, which is associated with visual and olfactory memory" - is the narrowness or the lobe itself associated with visual and olfactory memory? Clarify.
"sloping down" - Could this be shortened to simply "sloping"? All slopes slope down/up depending on the direction viewed, right?
sloping up is very different than sloping down, and in anatomy the "front" of a bone is always a defined landmark so all the description is directional Dunkleosteus77(talk)04:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"regions of the temporal bone which are functionally relevant" --> "regions of the temporal bone that are functionally relevant"
"Unlike in Neanderthals where they are common, tubercules on the incisors, canines, and molars (the cusp of Carabelli) are an infrequent trait" is an awkward sentence. Rephrase.
"generally Neanderthal-like" - "Neanderthal-like" does not mean identical to Neanderthals, right? If so, no qualification is needed. For instance, you later say "savannah-like" instead of "essentially savannah-like" in a later context.
"The skeletal weight of the Sima de los Huesos hominins may have been roughly 36% greater than that of the average modern human." - I might remove 'average' as it's self-evident, as you noted when you chose not to write it as "The average skeletal weight of the Sima de los Huesos hominins"
Why not restructure "Like in modern humans and Turkana Boy (as well as the australopithecine Paranthropus robustus)" as "Like in modern humans, the Turkana Boy, and the australopithecine Paranthropus robustus" for concision and flow? There is also a local excess of parentheticals.
As I progress throught the anatomical sections, I have to agree with Jens Lallensack that it would benefit from some more streamlined summarization to avoid WP:UNDUE weight. ~ HAL33321:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"similarly the medial malleolus (the ankle bone that connects to the tibia) is hypertrophied (enlarged)." - does this also indicate squatting? Clarify.
I got the gist, but I think it could be clear. I might switch it to something like "Habitual squatting is evidenced by hypertrophy of the medial malleolus (the ankle bone that connects to the tibia) and wearing near the ankle on about a quarter of the tibiae." ~ HAL33315:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Hibernation can be induced in modern humans with injection of 5′-AMP (a secondary messenger), which in hibernating animals is normally produced by brown adipose tissue." seems like a tangent. Maybe move it to the note.
It's already explained? A catastrophic mortality profile is "The overrepresentation of young adults in their prime ... instead of children and elderly" and attritional is the opposite Dunkleosteus77(talk)04:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Like in Neanderthals and modern humans, the third turn is short, but is more strongly curved" - second comma not needed and makes the sentence choppy.
Happy to support. It's a great article, and I'm sure you'll adjust per my replies, which are admittedly minor anyway. Cheers, ~ HAL33315:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a general comment, provide translations of Spanish terms such as "Galería de las Estatuas" and "Sima del Elefante"
I've only put translations where the source directly gives one. I mean I can try giving my own translations but I'm worried I might be missing some nuances. Like I'd translate Cueva Ciega to Blind Cave but it could also mean Blocked Cave Dunkleosteus77(talk)01:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've read through the whole thing. I can't quite place the problem, but I find the prose a bit difficult to get through. Some of it may just be the highly technical and detailed nature of the material. I have no formal training in anthropology or anatomy, but I do consider myself to be scientifically literate. I can't help wondering if some of this is a slog for me, it's probably going to be unapproachable to much of our target audience (i.e. WP:Make technical articles understandable). On the other hand, I find some of this to be fascinating; things like looking at the structure of the ear bones, extrapolating the likely hearing frequency range from that, and the implications on the use of spoken language. But in the end, I don't find the writing engaging enough to support. I'm certainly not going to oppose, so I'll just leave my few comments and abstain from any formal recommendation either way. RoySmith(talk)13:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the plot, production, release, and reception of the film Hundreds of Beavers. It was upgraded to GA status by me back in February. It is comparable in length to some other FA-class film articles. I have done intense research for this article since May 2024. I have used every possible news article or web page and created a Google alert solely for subjects related to this. Jon698 (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Alt text shouldn't duplicate captions
File:Abbott_and_Costello_circa_1940s.JPG: two of the source links are dead. Ditto File:Three_Stooges_1937.jpg
@Nikkimaria: Made an edit to change the alts that duplicate the captions. Those two images you noted with dead links still have the full image, back and front, in their image histories. This shows that they are indeed missing copyright notices. Jon698 (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jon, I may give a full review if I have the time, but first do you think you could briefly outline how you feel you have addressed TompaDompa's oppose in the past FAC? Also, I would suggest removing the Harvard Crimson film review, since it's by a university student in a university publication, not a critic in a reputable newspaper. Eddie891TalkWork08:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: For comment 1: I have expanded the section covering its video game inspirations and how it was designed to look like a lets play. As for his other comments I feel as though I properly answered them with edits made during the first discussion. For comment 2: The Harvard Crimson is not just a university publication, but a publication at one of the most famous universities in the world. It has carried stories by a future Pulitzer Prize winner and its list of former editors and contributors include JFK, FDR, and a large amount of notable journalists. Jon698 (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. re #2: none of those points make The Harvard Crimson a reputable source for happenings outside of their university sphere. Regardless of the university, undergraduate publications tend to have very low standards to publish, and almost non-existent peer review processes (source: I went to a world class university, and that was definitely the case with their well-regarded undergraduate newspaper). I could maybe see a case being made for inclusion if the figure went on to become a notable film critic (such as Roger Ebert's undergraduate writings), but fundamentally don't understand why would we care what this student has to say here, even if (only because?) they were at Harvard.
What are their qualifications to be a critic? How is Joseph Johnson qualified to say that a film represents "a groundbreaking technical achievement"? Eddie891TalkWork15:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I will do my best to offer a full review within ~1.5 weeks. Please do ping after 25 June if I haven't gotten back here (next week might be too busy for me to get to this). Best, Eddie891TalkWork15:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here goes:
"He catches fish by making his fingers bleed and using them as lures, and when he sells the fish to a local merchant, he notices a fur trapper turning a large profit." I would personally split this into two sentences, it feels like you're conveying two fairly different scenes here
You have a few spots using the ". He [does x]" sentence construction a couple times in close proximity, which reads stilted; I primarily noticed this in the second para of the plot. Can you vary the phrasing at all?
"Jean erases it" how?
"styled after Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson " Can we say this without a citation? It feels a little OR-y
"He is found guilty and set " perhaps "sentenced"?
"Filmmakers Mike Cheslik and Ryland Tews met at Whitefish Bay High School and came to collaborate on film projects" This sort of makes it sound like they worked on these projects beginning in high school, or at least leaves that implication open, but their first notable film wasn't released until like a decade after high school. I think it's worth noting that when they were actually in high school was ~2008 (source) Can you clarify the timing with a couple words?
I changed it to be "on film projects starting in 2008" in this edit
"The idea for Hundreds of Beavers was created by" this is awkward use of the passive voice: why not simply "Cheslik and Tews came up with the idea for Hundreds of Beavers while at a bar in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in October 2018."
"The duo made Lake Michigan Monster, a black-and-white film that cost $7,000, in 2018" why do we care about this? I also think use of the word "made" in 2018, is a bit confusing, as our article seems to say that the film was largely filmed in 2017. Maybe "released" instead. Consider also adding a sentence connecting this one and the next, along the lines of: "In 2018, the duo released Lake Michigan Monster, a black-and-white film, which they [shot? not sure about the best word here] on a budget of $7,000. Following the film's positive reception, they came up with the idea for Hundreds of Beavers in October, while while at a bar in Milwaukee, Wisconsin."
"It was originally conceived as a parody film of The Revenant (2015) and survival films." I would suggest putting this sentence right after the sentence about the origin of the idea for the film
"which Cheslik compared to the screenwriting techniques of George Miller" This is somewhat unhelpful, as George Miller's article doesn't seem to say anything about Miller's screenwriting techniques, so I am unable to answer my fundamental question, which is: what are Miller's techniques? If the sourcing doesn't allow you to briefly gloss this, I don't think it's worth mentioning.
"Cheslik noted that Jean's progression was like Joseph Campbell's hero's journey." Again, I think it's worth specifying what about Jean's progression echoes a hero's journey. Was the intent to satirize stereotypes of heroes, perhaps?
Added "as Jean betters himself from an alcoholic struggling in the snow to killing hundreds of beavers" in this edit
"The film was shot in black-and-white and had a budget of $150,000..." I think this paragraph would benefit from a restructuring, with information presented in a strictly chronological manner. So, "Cheslik and Tews were initially able to raise enough money to film the first act, which they filmed in early 2020...." and ending with "the film's overall budget was $150,000".
I'm also just a bit confused about the timeline: you say the second act was filmed in "in winter in 2019 and 2020", but the producer says (in Macaulay 2024) that they filmed the first part in 2020, and the second part the following year.
"with the teeth being modified by the filmmakers" do we know how so? Also, can you rephrase to eliminate the with + -ing construction?
I think you should mention all the influences in one paragraph- it feels a bit out of place to talk about "It was originally conceived as a parody film of The Revenant (2015) and survival films" in the first paragraph, but not describe any other inspirations until the fourth para.
"while specific allusions to silent comedies include a scene that references" Which scene? Also, this sentence seems to contain two completely separate ideas and should probably be split
I'd suggest giving years for all the films you mention
Done.
"he merchant's shop was noted by GameSpot to operate like those in the The Legend of Zelda and how the video game features in the film were not used as a joke, but to give convey information series." I am having a lot of trouble parsing this sentence, can you try rephrasing.
I'd suggest trying to thematically organize your discussions of influences somewhat. Seems like one clear influence is video games, another is the silent film/slapstick comedy era, but it currently feels like you jump between discussing different inspirations a bit based on what the sources say.
"with a runtime of 108 minutes" feels like it could fit somewhere else better. Presumably its runtime was 108 minutes everywhere, not just at Fantastic Fest
"Cheslik and the producers chose to distribute the film themselves"... but then you say Rosner helped with the distribution, so they didn't exactly distribute it themselves, no?
That seems more like hiring a guy to help you. They are still doing the distribution themselves and getting the profits.
"including the Music Box Theatre" - 'Chicago's Music Box Theatre'?
Changed to "including the Music Box Theatre in Chicago" in this edit
" fourteen independent theaters in the Great Lakes region," I don't think it's clear why only the Great Lakes is mentioned here. Did it not show elsewhere? Was this the first region they showed the film in?
"The filmmakers rejected distribution offers made after festival showings as those plans would only show the film in theaters for a week before sending it to video on demand." I consider would putting this after the first sentence in the second paragraph of this section, perhaps.
"As of November 2024, the film was never shown in more than 33 theaters at once." -> suggest "by November 2024, the film had not been shown in..."
"$5,000 was grossed after three days of screenings at the Brattle Theatre in Cambridge, Massachusetts" I get why it's worth mentioning the Music Box Theatre's Gross, but why is the Cambridge on e significant?
Why describe some similarities identified by other sources (like those noted by GameStop) in the Production section, but others ithe critical response section (like those made by Seitz)
The NYT attributes success to "the movie’s robust, beaver-heavy social media presence" - can we say anything about that.
How did you decide which critics of 100+ to include, and which to exclude? I'm kinda surprised there is nothing in the way of critique included, but perhaps all reviews are unanimously positive.
Interesting article, that's a first round of comments. I'll probably have another. I have the general impression that trying to organize things a bit more chronologically (in production section) and thematically (when you talk about influences) would help a good deal. Eddie891TalkWork10:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through a bunch of your comments and will try to finish up more of them soon. I am just a bit busy with the World Destubathon. @Eddie891:Jon698 (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW to answer your last comment. There have been some negative reviews of the film, but none of them came from big sources or people with Wikipedia pages. Jon698 (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an 1895 painting by the Brazilian artist Rodolfo Amoedo that portrays a woman seated in a refined domestic interior, clutching a crumpled letter and gazing directly at the viewer. The composition's emotional ambiguity and fragmented framing have invited interpretations linking the work to both realism and symbolism. The subject has been read as an embodiment of feminine psychology and a reflection of social shifts in late 19th-century Brazil, which scholars later recognized it as an important contribution to the modernization of Brazilian art.
The article has passed GA, where the reviewer had no comments for the article's prose except the lead. Originally translated from the Portuguese Wikipedia, where it has been promoted as a featured article, this version has been carefully revised, by both me and participants from ptwiki's FA candidacy, in an effort to meet the FA criteria. Cattos💭17:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for nominating this article for FAC. I won't do a full review for now, but I have one suggestion and that is to add English |trans-titles to all references. Vacant0(talk • contribs)15:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for three weeks and hasn't received much attention. Unless there's significant progress made on gathering consensus for promotion in the next few days, the nomination is liable to be archived. In addition to the comments Gog posted on the talk page, I would suggest hitting up relevant wikiprojects as a way of finding potential reviewers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk19:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are long overdue for a fish article and these are the most popular tropical fish of them all. Clownfishes are known for their bright colors, symbiotic relationships with sea anemones and their appearance in Finding Nemo. The article received a thorough review from Jens Lallensack, so I think we're off to a good start. LittleJerry (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a drive-by review, but the lead is overly complicated for an article with such a broad popular reach. Examples:
The first two sentences are too complicated. People are not going to know what the Pomacentridae family is, for instance. If they're really interested, they can look at the infobox.
Similarly, "attract photosynthetic zooxanthellae" is overly complicated per MOS:INTRO.
You can simplify "Clownfish are omnivorous and mostly feed on planktonic food" to "Clownfish are omnivorous and mostly feed on plankton", as planktonic is a more complicated version of the word plankton.
I changed the last two but I would like a second opinion on the first one. It is important to mention their classification in the lead. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could just link "damselfish" to Pomacentridae without providing that term explicitly? And I think I agree with Femke that the lead could be more accessible; for example, "mutualistic symbiotic relationship" should be explained, or you could write "they developed a relationship with sea anemones from which both sides profit: the clownfish relies on …". This way, you keep the link to the "Mutualism" article (I think that we only need this link btw; symbiosis does not need a separate link because mutualism is a type of symbiosis). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good, but maybe you should revert your removal of Amphiprion ocellaris from the lead; now the text is a bit unspecific and, more importantly, your "some species" is not mentioned in the body (and therefore unsourced) since the body only says that "this species" is one of the most popular. (You could give the common name of the species in addition to make it easier for the reader). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already had my say at GAN and was quite happy with the article. I still found some typos though, and a couple other points:
using Red saddleback anemonefish – "the red saddleback anemonefish" (add "the" and "red" should be in lower case)
link subfamily
A 2009 study suggested creating the tribe Amphiprionini for clownfishes and moving them to the subfamily Pomacentrinae. – You should probably say on what this suggestion was based on (molecular analysis; "based on genetic evidence"?)
the maroon clownfish can reach 160 mm (6.3 in) long while then orange clownfish reaches only 80 mm (3.1 in). – why "then"?
Feeding takes up most of a clownfish's acivity; around 90 percent in dominant orange-fin anemonefish specifically – is it 90% of the day? If it really refers to "activity", the 90% isn't so helpful because you don't say for how much time they are active.
Between 1997 and 2002, The ocellaris clownfish – "the"
Other popularly traded clownfishes include the maroon clownfish' and orange clownfish. – why the hyphen?
Note [a] Says "Examples ...". Some readers may skim the article and read the "Notes" section (vs comting them from clicking on [a] superscript) so it would be nice if the footnote had a few more words so it stands on its own. E.g. change "Examples" to Examples of the clownfish genus parent clade being specified as Pomacentrinae [wording here is simply my crude attempt, I'm not saying this is accurate]
Caption confusing Clark's anemonefish with a bubble-tip anemone, the species utilises all ten anemone species which host clownfish Can that be re-worded to be more plain? I'm not sure what "the species" refers to: the "Clark's anemonefish" or "bubble-tip anemone". And I cannot figure out what "the species utilises all ten anemone species .... " means. Very confused.
ISBN 10 vs 13: Allen, G. R. (1975). Damselfishes of the South Seas. TFH Publications. p. 34. ISBN 978-0876660348 I don't really care, but some reviewers will say that is not acceptable becuse ISBN-13 did not exists before 2007, so you should use the ISBN-10 value for that source; or, alternatively, find the a post-2007 reprint/edition that uses that ISBN-13. But it doesn't bother me.
Confusing: the following cladogram of the 28 clownfish species is based on a 2025 genetic study, with clade groupings based on a 2014 study. Isn't the "cladogram" the same thing as the "Clade groupings" .... both terms mean the tree's shape, i.e. its branching pattern, correct?
Clarify Clownfish have a size-based dominance hierarchy with the female ranking at the top, followed by the male and then the largest non-breeder and so on. ... Consider reducing ambiguity by changing to ...followed by the breeding male and ...
The diagram in the InfoBox that shows the blue distribution ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amphiprioninae_distribution_map-blank.svg ) is a bit suspicious: why doesnt the blue range include the shallow waters around islands such as Sri Lanka or Philippines or (parts of) Madagascar? I'm not second-guessing what the source says, but it is rather puzzling. Maybe you should verify by examining the original source of that range data and make sure the WikiCommons artist did not make any mistakes. And: if the blue range in the diagram is correct: Is there a source that explains why clownfish are not found around Sri Lanka or around Philippines? Seems strange, since it is a shallow-water fish, and phillipines has a LOT of shallow water.
A new map is being made by Carnby. I added this one as a placeholder, in case people asked about a range map.
Support on prose Great article. I did not check images or sources. I think a good distribution map is essential for the article. So, final promotion to FA should probably wait until the new distribution diagram is inserted in the article. Noleander (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the waste dischanged by the anemone" – should that be "discharged"?
"The highest amount of individual clownfish" – not sure you can have an amount of individuals: perhaps "highest number of"?
"is known to occur in nearly every aneome species used by clownfish and can effect them over a large scale" – I think you probably mean "affect". And surely "aneome" should be "anemone"?
Plurals: I think it would be a good idea to use a consistent form of the plural: at present we have Clownfish are more numerous ... Clownfish are damselfish ... Clownfish vary but Clownfishes experienced an increase ... Clownfishes vary ... Clownfishes are limited.
"They inhabit mainly coral reefs" – ambiguous: does this mean that coral reefs are what they mainly inhabit or that the reefs they inhabit are mainly coral?
"In 2018, Merilata and colleagues found" – this is the first we've heard of Merilaita (misspelled here and in the References section) and a word or so of introduction such as "the marine biologist Sami Merilaita ..." would be helpful.
"Conversely, those with two or three bars" – here and again later we have "conversely" twice in close proximity. That doesn't read smoothly and is a touch editorial, too.
Support. I made a couple of very minor tweaks, but all good otherwise. There are just a couple of points I think you should address, although these don't affect my support:
"Clownfishes are limited by the distribution of their sea anemone hosts. Hence they are usually found…": it's a little cumbersome to start a sentence with "hence". Normally they're mid-sentence as a linking word ("their sea anemone hosts, hence they…"), so you may need to rework this a little
This is a very general topic, so I can't vouch much about comprehensiveness. I kinda wonder if their importance in popular culture is undersold in the article, though. #9 can probably be expanded a bit, as it stands it's very bare bones. Why are some books cited in that section (e.g #7) and others in the bibliography section? Nothing else jumps out to me but again, don't know the topic enough to speak about completeness. Formatting seems consistent, save for the ever-present inconsistent identifiers which I figure will be for a bot to sort out. Did some very light spotchecking finding no issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some books are only being cited for one specific page while others are cited throughout. I've done this in FAs before. Theres nothing more I can put for number nine. As for popular culture, there is nothing that is important other than Nemo. LittleJerry (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
John James Beckley was the first Librarian of Congress, the first Clerk of the U.S. House, and one of Jefferson's closest political supporters, but an incredibly obscure figure today. He came to the U.S. sold into indentured servitude by his parents, making his rise to political power in the early U.S. a genuine rags-to-(somewhat) riches story; I had a lot of fun researching and making this article, and I hope you have fun reading it! This will be my third Librarian of Congress FAC if successful, and hopefully there'll be more to come. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Is no image of the subject available?
Alas, it doesn't seem any portraits of him have survived. - G
File:EdRand.jpg: it appears from the source given that this was originally a state rather than federal work?
It's a copy of an older painting, but its different enough it might have separate copyright. Also, it wasn't commissioned by the US government, it was purchased by it... I just swapped to another one based off the same original. Easier. - G
Born to a family in or around London which fell into poverty during the late 1760s,...
"which" → "that" for restrictive clause clarity; "Which" is used for non-restrictive clauses, which give non-essential info and are usually set off with commas.
Fixed. -G
"He was appointed as the clerk of the county's Committee of Safety..."→"He was then appointed as the clerk of the county's Committee of Safety..."
"...vast land holdings in the Appalachians which he was unable to sell"
Same as point 2 above.
Fixed both of these. - G
Early life
Same point as point 1 under Lead.
Fixed. -G
who his parents sold as an indentured servant→ who was sold by his parents as an indentured servant
Alt who his parents sold as an indentured servant→whom his parents sold as an indentured servant
The clause is ungrammatical because "who" is the subject of the relative clause, but it's immediately followed by another subject ("his parents") without a verb connecting them properly.
Fixed. -G
the York River of Virginia →the York River in Virginia
"desire for revenge against Hamilton" → "desire for revenge on Hamilton" (standard phrasing)
Fixed. -G
"orphan's court" → "Orphans' Court" (official name capitalisation and possessive correction)
Fixed. -G
"John Adams had fired the prominent Hamiltonians James McHenry and Timothy Pickering from his cabinet" → "John Adams had fired prominent Hamiltonians James McHenry and Timothy Pickering from his cabinet" (remove redundant "the")
In English, we typically drop “the” when naming multiple specific people described by a shared attribute.
I think this still counts as a false title here without the 'the'. -G
"Cobbett challenged him to a duel in the streets" → "Cobbett challenged him to a duel"
From what I recall, not all duels were in public places, so I think this adds context. - G
By 1800, Beckley and journalist William Duane succeeded... journalist → the journalist (as done while introducing Cobbett and Callender)
Beckley assisted Jefferson in the creation of his 1801 Manual of Parliamentary Practice. his→Jefferson's or Beckley's?
Clarified. -G
... Philadelphia Aurora and National Gazette and the New York Greenleaf's New Daily Advertiser.→... Philadelphia Aurora, National Gazette and the New York Greenleaf's New Daily Advertiser.
Fixed. -G
"and asked him to forward it Samuel Harrison Smith when he had finished."→"and asked him to forward it to Samuel Harrison Smith when he had finished."
Fixed. -G
"gentleman officeholders"
→ "gentleman-officeholders" or "gentleman office-holders"
I've re-read the prose and really enjoyed it. Looking forward to your response—thank you for bringing such an interesting article to FAC.
P.S. I had never come across Beckley before I started reviewing this article. Nevertheless, I found it a fascinating read. MSincccc (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is London wikilinked in the infobox but not in the rest of the article?
Forgot to unlink it there. -G
The rest of the lede reads well to me. I did not spot any issues.
"He had at least two siblings, both of whom later immigrated to the colonies." – I assume the Thirteen Colonies? This should be specified.
Done. -G
According to Beckley's son → According to Beckley's son, Alfred,
Fixed. -G
"John Norton, writing to a relative in Virginia" – we've already introduced John Norton & Sons so this could be cut only to "Norton, writing to a relative in Virginia"
Done. -G
"Beckley witnessed Clayton's will in late October 1773" – maybe wikilink will to will and testament?
Well, its the location he worked. I can remove it if you think it's superfluous. -G
"By 1775, the authority of the royal government was collapsing in the colony." – suggest wikilinking "royal government"
Done. -G
"a 17-year old Beckley" – is it necessary to mention his age?
I think so, just to remind the reader that he's quite young at this point. -G
Colony of Virginia seems to be first wikilinked at this point, while we could actually have the first wikilink much earlier in the article such as at: Virginian court official or writing to a relative in Virginia.
Fixed. -G
"Clerk of the Virginia House of Delegates" – why is clerk here capitalised but is not in other instances? (This occurs again later in the article under Second congressional clerkship)
Following MOS:JOBTITLE; though I realized I needed to add a 'the' to a couple instances. -G
a position he would hold until 1785 → a position he held until 1785
I just checked that Jefferson narrowly won Pennsylvania. Maybe change it to: Thanks in part to Beckley's campaigning, Jefferson narrowly won Pennsylvania in 1796.
Done. -G
"Three days later, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison" – we already introduced them in the article, can be cut to Jefferson and Madison.
Fixed. -G
"extolling the most dedicated Republican organizers and activists." – was this supposed to say Democratic-Republican?
Yep - G
West Virginia seems to be first wikilinked in Personal life but is first mentioned in Librarian of Congress.
Would be happy to have a read through. Do ping when the above two users have finished having their say, and I will have mine. The next week may be quite busy, but I should be free by the 24, if not sooner. Eddie891TalkWork12:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note, for now. I'm curious about the description of the Berkeleys as historians. Edmund seems to have been, by training, a biologist, and I can't find anything about his wife really. I don't dispute that they are a HQRS here- reviews of their work only seem to take issue with the prose, not its accuracy, but I might suggest "The botanist Edmund Berkeley and his wife Dorothy Smith Berkeley" instead of "Historians Edmund Berkeley and Dorothy Smith Berkeley". "amateur historians" feels demeaning, especially since they produced a few valuable historical works published by reputable publishers, but they don't seem to have been historians by training or profession. Also are the last two works redlinked in prose notable for their own articles? Eddie891TalkWork13:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh - good point; I hadn't realized they weren't professionally trained (although they do seem to have published multiple history books). I changed that to just "scholars".
Notability for books is a surprisingly low bar (see WP:NB); the criteria of "two or more published works about the book" means that original academically-published books are generally notable, because for any topic there's going to be at least two journals that will review most of the works in the field. (JSTOR has nine reviews of Zealous Partisan in a Nation Divided). However, I realized that edited volumes of writings get less academic reviews (I could only dig up one on Justifying Jefferson), so I removed the red link there. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the next few days are incredibly busy for me, but I may have a break. Am realistically hoping to get to this Sunday, but may be closer to Tuesday. Please do ping by the 25 if I haven’t circled back. Eddie891TalkWork00:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As promised!
"According to Beckley's son Alfred Beckley" Why do you attribute this in text, but not the rest of the para (which also seems to all come from Alfred)?
Some of that (such as the family falling into poverty and him having siblings) is collaborated by other information and not explicitly credited to Alfred in the sources; the date and being from Exeter seem like the contentious parts. I reworded to make this more clear.
"Clayton's further references to Beckley were limited to his import orders of shoes, clothing, and other necessities for the boy" Relevance? Do we lose anything from removing this
Yeah, I realize it's not really important. Fair point. -G
"with Clayton sternly supervising" Noting that I have not read the sourcing, but could you clarify what in it supports 'sternly'?
The source says that Clayton was strict about Beckley's education regarding his handwriting and scribal skills. -G
"the Committee of Safety for Henrico County" I would consider briefly glossing what this is, because it could sound like a government committee to an uninformed reader
Clarified. -G
" bringing to The Virginia Gazette a correspondence between Jefferson and General George Washington" I'm honestly not quite sure what this means
Like, giving the newspaper an exchange of letters. Reworded a little. -G
"although the assembly was initially planned to meet in October, this was delayed by the continued presence of Cornwallis. It finally reconvened in late November" Relevance to Beckley?
It meant he was out of a job as clerk for longer than planned. -G
"He was judged to be very competent in this role" By?
Hmm, the sources don't say, but just attribute this to him getting elected as mayor. Removed that. -G
"Unlikely to be elected as a delegate for Richmond" Any idea why?
Clarified. -G
"Leaving the convention early, he instead planned" This kinda reads like he left the convention early to instead go to the virginia ratifying convention. But surely they did not overlap in timing at all?
Reworded this a bit. -G
"Beckley delivered Virginia's votes" What do you mean by delivering votes here?
Like, presenting the tally of the state legislature's votes. The sources don't go into detail, but I assume this was to confirm who the electors that were supposed to show up for the Electoral College actually were.
You have a habit of using unquantifiable qualifiers. For instance "a large number of documents...large amounts of political intelligence...various anonymous articles and pamphlets". I don't think they're inherently bad, but some could probably be cut without losing anything. For instance in this paragraph, "large amounts of political intelligence" could probably just be "political intelligence" unless you can actually verify/quantify that the amounts were "large" or at least give an example
Fair point - I cut some of these throughout the article. -G
"leaked sensitive information" can you be any more specific?
Unfortunately the sources don't say! -G
"In 1793, he supplied Jefferson with a "list of papermen" " can you expand on why this mattered?
Reworded. -G
"Although Jefferson thought that activists such as Beckley and Benjamin Bache were unsuited to lead the opposition, he was unsuccessful in convincing Madison to campaign against the treaty" I don't get how the first part of this sentence connects to the second
Reworded. -G
"As with the debate over the Jay Treaty, Jefferson and Madison largely avoided campaigning," I don't think it's clear why Madison is mentioned here
I think rewording the previous point makes this one's more clear. -G
You describe Jefferson at least once as Beckley's friend, but also cite at least two instances where Jefferson criticized him pretty substantially, including "Jefferson considered Beckley unfitting for the highest postings". Were they really friends on a personal level, despite this?
I don't think I do? Although he began making friends with some members of Congress, his relations and correspondence with Jefferson and Madison, his fellow Virginians, remained limited to political matters
Hedonism is a family of philosophical views that prioritize pleasure. If the pursuit of pleasure is your primary motivation for reviewing this article, as psychological hedonism claims, then I hope your goal will not be frustrated by the paradox of hedonism. Thanks to Brent Silby for their GA review! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ErnestKrause and thanks for taking a look at this nomination! I checked a few overview sources on hedonism, like Weijers, Tilley 2012, Gosling 1998, and Moore 2019. None of them mention Jefferson, indicating that a substantial discussion of this topic would violate WP:PROPORTION. Maybe a footnote could be added if you know of a source that explicitly elaborates the link between this topic and hedonism. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just this short note for now, though your article does have a section already on "Happiness, well-being, and eudaimonia." This appears to be a tie-in to the Jefferson usage I quoted above within political philosophy. One of the books by a philosopher on the general happiness issue is "The Philosophy of Happiness" by Lorraine L. Besser, which does not support the disassociation of happiness from pleasure or from hedonism. Her chapter three seems to cover some this: [14]. Also see: [15]. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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) 17:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Since the nomination hasn't received any reviews yet and given the scope of the article, it's highly unlikely that this could be accomplished in a couple of days. So it's probably best to archive. I'll try a renomination, hopefully with more feedback then. Because there were no reviews, does this mean that there is no two-week waiting period per WP:FAC (A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.)? Phlsph7 (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the summer of 1917, during a record-breaking heat wave, 10,000 African Americans marched in New York City to protest recent lynchings and other violence against African Americans. They marched in silence.
This is my seventh FA nomination; and my fifth nomination related to the Progressive Era in U.S. history. I nominated this article a couple of months ago, but it was not quite ready at the time. Since then, it has been through a peer review, and has been improved. Noleander (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
specifically, the recent East St. Louis massacre and lynchings in Waco and Memphis.: is there an efficient way to narrow down "recent" -- I think all of these had happened in the previous year?
Parade organizers hoped the parade would prompt the federal government to enact anti-lynching legislation, but President Woodrow Wilson did not act on their demands. The federal government would not pass an anti-lynching law until 2022, when the Emmett Till Antilynching Act was passed.: this may be slightly misleading: it sounds like we're saying that they wanted the government to make lynching illegal, and that the government refused to do so until the C21st. Clearly, lynching was still murder, which is illegal, but did they want a specific offence of lynching recognised in law?
Yes, lynchings broke many state laws, but prosecutors in Southern states often refused to prosecute. Black leaders wanted a federal law so that federal prosecutors would have the power to prosecute. The article discusses this in (a) footnote [n]; and (b) linked article Lynching_in_the_United_States#Federal_legislation_inhibited_by_the_Solid_South. But I can move those details up into the body text. I have no objection to doing that, let me know if you think it would improve the article. Noleander (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. I must admit that I really didn't understand that from the current framing.
Would suggest two levels of explanation -- in the body text, say that black leaders wanted lynching to be made a federal crime, which would give the federal government the authority to prosecute for it when state governments, as was often the case, refused to do so. I'd then include a footnote to say that murder, in the United States, is generally prosecuted only at the state level -- most readers won't be completely clued-up on the distinction between federal and state law, and in most countries it would be decidedly odd for the central government to have no power to prosecute a murderer. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I added two similar sentences in the body text, one on the Lead and one in the lower body: "Federal legislation was required because Southern states often refused to prosecute lynchings under existing state statutes that outlawed murder, kidnapping, and assault." I also added a large footnote [a] that - I hope - explains the subtleties of US federal vs state law. I daresay 99% of US citizens are not aware of these nuances, let alone non-US readers. Noleander (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lynchings were widespread extrajudicial killings that began in the United States' pre–Civil War South in the 1830s and continued until 1981.: I know that this is a tricky one, but I'm hesitating on "began in the 1830s". Mob justice and killings of perceived wrongdoers have a long history, both in what became the USA and in Europe. Would this be better phrased as saying something to the effect of that the phenomenon of extrajudicial killings as a widespead means of inciting racial terror is documented from the 1830s -- and perhaps saying that Francis McIntosh in 1836 is sometimes considered the first person to be lynched?
Excellent point. I changed to Lynchings were widespread extrajudicial killings that were first documented in the United States in the 1830s, and continued until 1981. And included new cite re 1836 McIntosh lynching. Let me know if it still needs work. Noleander (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit uncomfortable with "continued until 1981" -- this implies that this is in the past, which it mostly is, but it's not as if something magical happened in 1981 to end things -- 1981 was the year of a very obviously "traditional" lynching, but there have been crimes more recently described as lynchings by at least some people. On the other hand, others consider Emmett Till (in 1955) to be the most recent person lynched. I would be tempted to avoid putting an end date on this at all. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Reworded body text to: Lynchings were widespread extrajudicial killings that were first documented in the United States in the 1830s. and added new footnote There is no consensus on whether or not lynchings have ceased in the United States. Some commentators conclude that lynching ceased in the mid-to-late 1900s; others characterize some 21st century killings of African Americans as lynchings.Noleander (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that footnote, should we avoid the past tense of "were"? Perhaps Lynchings (extrajudicial, racially motivated killings) were first documented..., which avoids implying that they no longer exist? UndercoverClassicistT·C15:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Changed to Lynchings are extrajudicial killings carried out—often under the pretense of punishing alleged crimes—by individuals or groups lacking legal or law enforcement authority. These acts frequently involve mob violence and are commonly driven by racial animus. In the United States, documented instances of lynching date back to the 1830s.Noleander (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Along with disenfranchisement, Jim Crow laws, and discrimination, lynching was one of many forms of racism inflicted on African Americans.: this might be worth a rephrase: one of these worse than the others! A bit like "parsnips, carrots, Brussel sprouts and arsenic were among the unpleasant things served at Christmas dinner."
Done. Changed to: Lynching was a brutal manifestation of racism directed at African Americans, occurring alongside systemic forms of discrimination such as disenfranchisement and the enforcement of Jim Crow laws.
The frequency of lynchings steadily increased after the Civil War, peaking around 1892.: put a date on this: we shouldn't assume that all readers will know the dates of the ACW.
The Silent Parade took place at a time when lynchings were beginning to be widely publicized – particularly by the NAACP under the leadership of W. E. B. Du Bois.: I think the NAACP needs a brief introduction.
These lynchings were precursors to the Silent Parade: not sure precursors is the right word -- it usually means something of the same kind that went before. Motivations for? The parade was organised, in part, as a response to these lynchings? But then...
The specific events that precipitated the Silent Parade were a series of riots that took place in East St. Louis from May to July 1917 ... we contradict ourselves. I think you're trying to draw a distinction between the events that created the long-term animus from which the parade could form, and the short-term causes that meant the parade happened in 1917 rather than 1916 or 1920.
Done. You are correct: I was trying to distinguish between "long term" anger over lynchings, going back several years before the parade; versus the St. Louis riots, which were the straw that broke the camel's back. My fix was to leave the St. Louis text as-is: The specific events that precipitated the Silent Parade were a series of riots ... and change the Lynching section to remove the word "precursor", so it now reads: Anger over these lynchings was one of the motivations for the Silent Parade. In addition, both sections are within the "Background" section, so the reader should already be in the mindset that everything here is a cause or motivation for the parade. Noleander (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ensuing racial tensions led to widespread violence, with estimates of African American deaths ranging from 39 to 200.: led to widespread violence avoids blaming one side or the other for it, but our death figures suggest that we mean that many white workers attacked black strikebreakers.
Done. The violence certainly went both ways, and the first attack was black-on-white; so it is not easy to find precise wording. I let the numbers do the talking and changed it to: The ensuing racial tensions led to widespread violence, with an estimated 39 to 200 African Americans killed by whites. In addition, hundreds were injured, and thousands were displaced from their homes. Nine white Americans were killed.
I wonder whether it would be useful to add a footnote explaining the pointed line "the world must be made safe for democracy" on the Wilson cartoon? This context seems to be missing from the WWI section, but if none of the scholars have made the link between America's rhetoric of freedom abroad and racial repression at home, there may not be too much we can do.
Done. Expanded the existing footnote for that cartoon to read: This cartoon was published in The Kansas City Sun, July 14, 1917. Wilson is holding a newspaper with the headline "The World Must be Made Safe for Democracy", which is a quote from a speech made by Wilson to Congress in April 1917, seeking a declaration of war against Germany. The cartoon is noting the irony that Wilson went to war to protect democracy for Europeans, but failed to protect African Americans in his own country. Fortunately, the existing source for that cartoon already discussed the ironic aspect of the headline. Noleander (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed and insightful comments. I believe I have addressed all issues raised above. Please let me know if anything else requires work. Noleander (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Parade marshals included J. Rosamond Johnson, A. B. Cosey, Christopher Payne, Everard W. Daniel, Allen Wood, James Weldon Johnson, and John E. Nail.: some of these I understand, because they're linked, but others I don't. Would it be useful to have a phrase like "nationally prominent African Americans such as..."? Would any of the non-linked people rate a redlink, under WP:GNG (and so WP:REDYES)?
James Johnson wrote "the streets of New York have witnessed many strange sites, but I judge, never one stranger than this; among the watchers were those with tears in their eyes.": not sights?
In addition, Haynes reported that between January 1 and September 14, 1919, white mobs lynched at least 43 African Americans, with 16 hanged, some shot, and eight burned at the stake.: MOS:FIGURES would like 8 in figures here.
The report urged the U.S. Congress to take action and identified 38 separate racial riots against blacks in widely scattered cities, in which whites attacked black people: personally, I'm not a fan of whites and blacks as nouns, but it's odd in any case that we switch between that and more modern/"PC" "black people" in one sentence.
on June 14, 1922 in Washington, D.C., about 5,000 people marched in front of the White House and Congress: do we need in Washington DC here? It makes it clunkier, and I think most people will know where that is, and in any case the most important thing is that they were in front of the White House and Congress. Being very picky, Congress is a body of people, not a building: the building is the Capitol.
Several events commemorated the one-hundredth anniversary of the Silent Parade ... In East St. Louis, a series of events were held to commemorate the riots that occurred in that city a century earlier: this is unduly repetitious, I think.
Everyone marched in silence, with many women in white and men wearing black suits: it might be worth reminding the reader that this was how the original marchers dressed.
In the United States, the federal laws do not include statutes outlawing common crimes like theft, murder, assault : more idiomatic as federal law does not include, I think.
Thus, attempts to enact anti-lynching legislation were required to rely on the 14th Amendment, which empowered the federal government to ensure that Black citizens : we haven't generally capitalised Black in this article. There are good reasons to do so, but it should be consistent.
I would put the slogans in note J into quotation marks, as we are quoting placards. I'd also be tempted to add a full stop after those quotes, per MOS:LQ.
Might be worth a brief adjective in note l to explain what was so objectionable about The Birth of a Nation (the pro-Ku Klux Klan film The Birth of a Nation)?
Should note P and note A be reworked and merged -- they seem to be doing the same job? In note P, the acts of violence involved in lynching (battery, assault, murder, kidnapping, etc) were crimes in all states under various state laws, although there were rarely prosecuted: this is not grammatical, and is a bit surprising after a sentence about 2022 -- I think these things are generally prosecuted in the 21st century.
We seem to be using ISBN 10s where they exist: Logan 1997 would have one of these, not an ISBN 13, which were only introduced in 2007.
I'm no expert on ISBNs. Generally, I grab the number from Google Books. The page WP:ISBN says "Please use the ISBN-13 if both are provided by the original work.". I understand that ISBN-13 was introduced in 2007, but Google Books seems to list both 10 and 13 digits for many pre-2007 books ... even books that apparently have no reprints after 2007. For example, here is a 1964 book cited in this article: Google Books has both 10 and 13 ISBNs, but it does not appear that there are any editions after 1982. So, in situations like that, it may be better to go with the ISBN-13 based on WP:ISBN. Noleander (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's really two schools of thought -- either use the ISBN actually printed on the book (which in practice means 10 before 2007, 13 after), or convert to ISBN 13. ISBN 10s can be algorithmically converted into ISBN 13s, so it's possible for a repository (like Google Books) to include one even if the original work doesn't. Different editors have different opinions on whether keeping the original or converting the lot is better, but we should pick a lane. UndercoverClassicistT·C07:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the logic as to which sources are in the "Sources" section, and which are not?
This is a hybrid approach to citations that balances reader-friendliness, ease of editing, and pleasing aesthetics. Templates sfn/harvnb are used for major sources that appear in the "Sources" section; other citations (minor or one-off) use inline <ref>. The concept is that the "Sources" section doubles as a list of important documents that readers should refer to if they want to delve deeper (vs. less important sources, which are relegated to the "Citations" section). For minor sources: users can see the source details with a single mouse click. I understand that the "100% sfn" approach used in many history articles is visually appealing, but I feel that it has some drawbacks: (a) readers must click twice to see source details - even for a minor newspaper source used only once; and (b) It might dissuade editors from using minor/newspaper sources since it requires more time to generate. Conversely the "100% <ref>" approach (used in many articles related to current events) doesn't conveniently support book sources that are used for multiple article sentences (each with unique page numbers). Noleander (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My worry is the distinction between "major" and "minor" sources. How is it made? If it's just on an editor's instinct, I think we're in danger of WP:OR. Some editors apply principles like "books and journals in bibliography, newspapers and websites in notes", or "modern sources in biblio, primary sources in notes", or break the bibliography down by source type (see e.g. Edward Dando from a prolific proponent of this style). My own approach is to put anything that can be sensible reduced to a SFN in the bibliography (ie, we have an author and a date), and leave everything else in the notes. It doesn't matter which one you pick, but I think there needs to be a clear, objective set of criteria as to what goes where. UndercoverClassicistT·C07:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that a clear algorithm is the way to go. I'll change the article to use the "books and journals in bibliography, newspapers and websites in notes" algorithm. It might take me 2 to 3 days to do so, I 'll notify you when it is done. Noleander (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm sold on the FUR for the Google Doodle (the usual bar is that it has to be doing something more than illustrating -- ie that we discuss the image itself, or it allows you to identify something that would be impossible to identify otherwise), but I'll leave that one for the image reviewer.
I agree that this image is marginal case. I think one rule is "if the article is discussing/analyzing the image, as an image" it is acceptable, which I think this article is doing. In any case, I'll defer to whatever the image reviewer decides. Noleander (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rare newsreel footage of the parade, discovered in the Yukon in 1978 after being buried in permafrost for 50 years: no period per MOS:CAPFRAG (and what a caption!) The flyer and the cartoon similarly need their periods removed.
Noting that I'll respond to rejoinders on the above as they come in, but would like to see Eddie's points below dealt with before concluding the review. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I've implemented all of the suggestions you made above. I've also completed the "algorithm for sfn vs inline ref" task (sfn for books & journal; inline for newspapers, websites & commercial magazines). I'm in the middle of working on the suggestions from Eddie891 - the changes to the article will be relatively minor (no major restructuring; just adding a few sentences in a few places). I'll notify you when all suggestions are implemented. Noleander (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist - Thanks for your patience - you may now resume reviewing the Silent Parade article. I've implemented all suggestions made by reviewers as of 11 June 2025, including (1) Implementing all suggestions from UC; (2) Adopting a new approach to using sfn vs inline refs (namely, sfn for books and journals; inline ref for newspapers, magazines, and websites); (3) Removed the Google Doodle image; (4) Reviewed the additional sources recommended by Eddie, and added about a dozen new sentences into the article based on those sources. The new sources were useful, and resulted in minor, incremental improvements (new insights, new details) but did not introduce any significant restructuring of the article. Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. Noleander (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
although some contemporary sources referred to it as the Negro Silent Parade I couldn't find this in the source, could you point to it
Done. Thanks for catching that. I added a cite to that sentence that names a source that uses the shorter name "Negro Silent Parade"; namely a 1917 article in The Crisis (which uses both names). Noleander (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The march was organized in response to a series of violent and racially motivated events that had occurred the previous year - My impression is that, while that was the immediate motivating reason, the march was also more generally in response to years/decades of similar violence. You mention in the body that Villard suggested a silent march even before the East St Louis massacre and Persons was lynched. Indeed, neither of those events was in the previous year, they were in 1917. Would it be worth tweaking this sentence?
Done. I reworded those sentences to put the longstanding oppression first, and then mention recent events ... making it clear they were simply a catalyst, not the sole purpose: The primary objective of the march was to draw national attention to the widespread racial violence and entrenched systemic discrimination endured by African Americans. It was organized in direct response to a series of racially motivated attacks in 1916 and 1917, including the East St. Louis massacre and lynchings in Waco and Memphis.
Organizers hoped the parade would prompt the federal government to enact anti-lynching legislation... Federal legislation was required because Southern states often refused to prosecute lynchings under existing state statutes that outlawed murder, kidnapping, and assault I would almost expect this sequentially to come where you talk about motivations of the parade, not when you are talking about its impact
Done. You are right. I moved those "goal was federal anti-lynching laws" sentences up from the Aftermath/Impact sections to the Motivation section, and did some slight word-smithing to make it fit: The goal of the parade was to protest lynching in particular, and violence against African Americans in general. A particular objective was to persuade President Wilson to implement anti-lynching legislation, which was required because Southern states often refused to prosecute lynchings under existing state statutes that outlawed murder, kidnapping, and assault. A federal law would permit federal prosecutors to prosecute lynching when state prosecutors refused to act.Noleander (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to see Krugler 2014 included. Other sources I have as high quality on the period are: Nina Mjagkij, Loyalty in Time of Trial: The African American Experience During World War I; Richard Slotkin, Lost Battalions; and Chad Williams, Torchbearers of Democracy. Have you gotten to check those/do they have anything?
Thanks for taking a look. I don’t think Williams is essential if you can’t get a hand on it, though he might have something interesting to say. Mjagkij at least mentions the march, though I don’t have it on hand to check to what extent. Not sure about Slotkin Eddie891TalkWork19:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891 If you'd like, I can notify you when UC has completed his review. In the meantime, I'll start working on the issues you raised above. Or, if you prefer, you can continue in parallel with UC ... either way is fine with me. Noleander (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891 - Thanks again for identifying some potential sources. I've incorporated all the new sources that seemed useful; and also created a "Further Reading" section for several articles/books that were related to the Silent Parade but not (yet) used as sources for any citations. Noleander (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The archive URL for Meacham 2004 feels a little pointless. More to the point, that encyclopedic article includes some further reading suggestions that I don't see cited in the article, chiefly Ann Douglas, Terrible Honesty (1995). Worth checking out? I am planning to head to a major US history library today and see if I can find anything more, or at least confirm that we cover everything worth covering here. Will update- Eddie891TalkWork07:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A search on google scholar for "silent parade" 1917 brings up quite a few scholarly sources that don't seem to be cited here. I'd like to see some engagement with these, or at least an explanation why they aren't worth including here, to be satisfied that FACRIT 1b/c are met. I will be making a longer comment on comprehensiveness on the article talk page, shortly. Eddie891TalkWork10:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I have left a comment on the article Talk Page going into more depth on this, but I feel there is a good bit of secondary scholarship that has not been cited in the article that could be used to expand it. I also think there's a bit of an over-reliance on contemporary reports currently that integrating more secondary sourcing could help address. This is definitely an under-studied subject, but it has not been completely ignored. I would like to see this addressed before commenting on the prose/content more specifically. Eddie891TalkWork12:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm analyzing the sources you identified ... they absolutely look valuable, and I can see several fact that can be added to the article. I'm analyzing them now, and will reply soon with more thoughts. Noleander (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891 Thanks again for the suggestions. I've completed reading the sources you identified (that is, the portions of the sources related to the Silent Parade) and determined which facts/insights from the sources should be added into the article. No major restructuring will be required; I estimate it will be about 6 to 10 new sentences, placed within existing sections. I should be done within a day or two; I'll notify you when complete. Noleander (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for all your work so far! There's a few more sources that might be worth checking out:
Morrisette 2013 seems to have a few pages about Johnson's organization
Francis 2014 seems to say that Wilson did meet with a group involved in the protest on August 16. What to make of that?
@Eddie891 - Thanks for these sources. I've read through them (that is, the portions related to the Silent Parade) and I see two valuable items that can be added to Silent Parade: (a) relation/inspiration from Silent Sentinels suffrage group. And (b) The meeting with Wilson in August 1917. It's interesting that four other sources emphasize that Wilson refused to meet with NAACP delegation in early August (4 days after parade) and neglected to mention that he did meet with a subset of them a couple of weeks later. I think some of the authors are not fans of Wilson.
There's also some insightful quotes from Johnson's autobiography, but as a primary source, I'll have to think whether those belong in the article; on the other hand, a 2ndary source is repeating the quotes, so there's that.
A couple of the sources above are very dense, obtuse essays emphasizing sociology & psychology (perhaps PhD theses translated into a paper) .. I don't see anything suitable for Silent Parade in those, but I'll double check.
I should be able to incorporate this new information into the article within a day. Again, I don't foresee major restructuring of the article: merely adding 2 to 3 new sentences within existing paragraphs. Noleander (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't really love the quality of the two journal articles, honestly. Was thinking that they might be suitable further reading articles, though. Thoughts? Either way, I'll aim to get on with a prose review by the end of this week :) Eddie891TalkWork20:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the idea of a "Further Reading" section makes sense: I'll create one now, and insert the sources that contain solid content related to Silent Parade, yet were not utilized as sources. Noleander (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"alongside systemic forms of discrimination such as disenfranchisement and the enforcement of Jim Crow laws" I think you could maybe tweak the phrasing here, because disenfranchisement would generally be considered part of the enforcement of Jim Crow laws, not a distinct second factor, no?
Done. Changed to alongside systemic forms of discrimination such as disenfranchisement and segregation.
"They remained common into the early 1900s, experiencing a resurgence in 1915 following the founding of the Second Ku Klux Klan" The first part of this sentence seems to contradict the second somewhat: If lynchings remained common (a statement that I agree with), how could they experience a resurgence, which to me would suggest a decline in prevalence before?
Done. Changed to .... They remained common into the early 1900s, with a notable spike in 1915 following the founding of the Second Ku Klux Klan. And added a cite that shows the 1915 spike. Noleander (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Silent Parade took place at a time when lynchings were beginning to be widely publicized" Is it true that lynchings were not widely publicized before? I think lynchings even before this point would have gotten wide coverage (lynching postcards were widespread in the late-19th century, for instance), and there was a well-established African American press post-Reconstruction that would have no doubt covered lynchings. I think many Americans would have been well aware that lynchings happened even pre-1915. Ida B. Wells was giving anti lynching lectures as early as the 1890s, for instance. There is something to say about the anti-lynching movement gaining steam in this period, but not, I think, exactly what you have here.
Done. Changed to The Silent Parade took place at a time when the anti-lynching movement was gaining momentum under the leadership of the NAACP leader W. E. B. Du Bois. Noleander (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"an estimated 39 to 200 African Americans killed by whites" This is a really wide range, worth, I think, an explanatory footnote citing which sources give us which numbers.
"unusually explicit terms" does the sourcing clarify whether it unusually explicit for The Crisis, African American publications in general, or the American press more broadly (or perhaps all three)?
Done. The word "unusually" was removed, since the sources don't state what it was being compared to. Changed to ...they published a photo-essay in The Crisis that described the riots in graphic terms. And added a cite to book that covers that particular issue of The Crisis in great detail, and describes the article as "graphic". Noleander (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"and served as a backdrop to the events leading up to the Silent Parade" I think you could probably cut this phrase without losing anything -- given that this is the background section of the Silent Parade article it probably goes without saying?
I would add a sentence at the end of the 'East St. Louis massacre' section that leads into to the protest, along the lines of "following the massacre, NAACP leaders decided that a large protest was necessary" [or whatever the sourcing allows us to say, I don't have it at hand right now]. Right now, it feels a bit abrupt jump between the two sections
" One month before the Silent Parade, African American women in New York" Do we have a secondary source connecting this march to the Silent Parade? Otherwise it feels a bit like original research to mention it
Done. Removed the "One month before the Silent Parade.." sentence. I'm looking for a 2ndary source; may re-insert if I locate a good source. Sentence is not especially significant, so okay to leave it out permanently. Noleander (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be beneficial to combine the three sections 'planning', 'leadership', and 'motivation' into one, it doesn't seem like they contain mutually exclusive information.
"also emphasized that violence against African Americans constituted a direct assault on their families" This feels like it's saying the same thing that the previous sentence did. You could probably revise it to "Following the march, The Crisis published several photographs of the parade, all but one of which featured women and children." without losing anything
""...the deliberate refinement of the clothing reinforced the relationship between rights and respectability. The protestors presented themselves as citizens while affirming the look of citizenship."" I think this is from one of the sources that I suggested, but I'm left feeling like the meaning here could be more effectively conveyed by paraphrasing.
"Although the marchers were silent, many of them carried signs and banners that described contributions of African Americans to American society, or gave reasons for the protest" This paragraph feels out of place, because you have already mentioned several signs and banners. Especially, earlier you say that soldiers "carried placards drawing attention to the fact that", and here you again say "Many of the placards contained slogans highlighting military service by African Americans, reflecting the fact that the country had just entered World War I."
"second instance of African Americans publicly demonstrating for civil rights"- I would be shocked if this is true (even if a source states it), and imagine it depends upon a very narrow definition of what a public demonstration, and 'for civil rights', is. Surely Ida Wells' lectures or the Nashville Streetcar boycotts might count as a 'public demonstration',". Might be better to remove it
"in stark contrast to the actions of the white rioters in East St. Louis" I agree with this point, but you have made it a few times. Might be better to only make it once.
What do we have in the way of sources connecting the Legacy of the Silent Parade to the REd Summer? You don't make the connection explicit in that section.
I removed that section, since it might give the impression of violating WP:SYNTH policy. There are a few sources that make a tenuous connection, but they are minor. I don't think it damages the article to remove the Red Summer section ... it was informative, but not essential. Noleander (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a first round of comments, nice work here. I will probably have another round, but will give you the chance to work through these first. Cheers, Eddie891TalkWork11:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891 Thanks for the insightful and detailed comments ... very valuable. I've addressed all of them; where you made a suggestion, I implemented the suggestion. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you spell out "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" in the lead of the article, but not the article body. I'd suggest doing so in both or neither
"The specific events that precipitated the Silent Parade were a series of riots that took place in East St. Louis from May to July 1917" I feel like "the specific events that precipitated" is possibly unnecessarily wordy. Can you simplify at all?
I'd suggest rephrasing "The riots were the catalyst that prompted the NAACP to plan the Silent Parade." to "In response, the NAACP began planning a public protest" or something, because your next paragraph discusses how they reached the determination that there should be a silent parade
"Initial plans considered a protest at Carnegie Hall, but after the East St. Louis riots, Johnson proposed a silent march, based on a suggestion made in 1916 by Oswald Garrison Villard during a NAACP Conference" consider splitting into two sentences somehow?
Done. Changed to Initial plans considered a protest at Carnegie Hall, but after the East St. Louis riots, Johnson proposed a silent march. The idea of a silent protest was based on a suggestion made in 1916 by Oswald Garrison Villard during a NAACP Conference.Noleander (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Silent Parade was not the nation's first silent march: Villard's mother, anti-war activist Fanny Garrison Villard, had organized a silent march in 1914 to protest the war" what if you put this sentence right after the one about Villard's suggestion, to make the connection explicit?
I would move the paragraph starting "The parade was organized by a" to before the paragraph starting "While the organizers of the Silent Parade" since I think it makes sense to describe the organizers, before talking aobut what they did.
"A specific objective was to urge President Woodrow Wilson to support the enactment of federal anti-lynching legislation. Such legislation was deemed necessary because Southern states frequently failed to prosecute lynchings under existing state laws prohibiting murder, kidnapping, and assault. A federal law would permit federal prosecutors to prosecute lynching when state prosecutors refused to act" I would put at least some portion of this in the lynching background section, since it's relevant background.
"leadership of the NAACP leader W. E. B. Du Bois" Du Bois is obviously worth mentioning in the background, but I wonder if it might make more sense to introduce him a couple sentences later, as the EiC of The Crisis. Would also help you eliminate the awkward "leadership...leader", and I'm not sure we should imply that Du Bois was the sole leader of the movement, when there were most probably many (though of course he was one of the most prominent)
Done. Changed to: The Silent Parade took place at a time when the anti-lynching movement was gaining momentum, led in large part by the NAACP. Founded in 1909, the NAACP sought to advance equal rights for African Americans. Two years before the Silent Parade, the NAACP's magazine The Crisis published an article titled "The Lynching Industry", which contained a year-by-year tabulation of 2,732 lynchings, spanning the years 1884 to 1914. During the year leading up to the parade, The Crisis – edited by W. E. B. Du Bois – published a series of articles documenting specific lynchings, including:...Noleander (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
", and they marched in rows" What if you put this in the first sentence in this section (something like "an estimated 8,000 to 15,000 African Americans marched in silent rows."
I'd prefer to leave it in the current location, if you don't mind. The "... marched in rows" is within a pair of paragraphs that are describing the visuals of the parade. Apparently it was quite remarkable: the colors, the gender separation, the attire, the rows ... I think readers are better served by having all the visual aspects presented in a consolidated manner. But I can change it if you think it is required. Noleander (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote q (about the picketing) doesn't really fit, since you've removed discussion of the second instance.
"The Silent Parade failed to reduce the number of lynchings of African Americans" - did the organizers think that the parade itself would reduce the numbers of lynchings, or was it more that they hoped legislation would be passed which might decrease the numbers? To put it another way, would the organizers actually count it as a "failure" that numbers of lynchings did not go down, or would they have expected as much because the federal government refused to take action
Done. That is a good point. I can't find any sources that talk about how the parade organizers felt about the trend of the number of lynchings. The sources themselves do discuss the fact that the number did not decrease after the parade ... but they do so in their own (author's) words, not the parade organizer's words. I changed it to The annual number of African American lynchings increased following the parade and did not decline below the 1917 level until 1923. Lynchings persisted in the United States at least into the 1960s.Noleander (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is looking in good shape, and will probably just have one more round of comments after this. I've made some copyedits myself here, please do check that the changes are acceptable to you. Thanks for your engagement so far, this is an important article! Eddie891TalkWork11:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent feedback, thanks! I reviewed your copy edits and they all look fine. I'll start implementing those suggestions above in a couple of hours. Noleander (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, I am happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. I have primarily focused this review on FACRIT 1a-d, and 2a-b, and feel it now meets those criteria. Two final points worth considering, that will not impact my support:
It might be worth mentioning the muffled drums in the section on the parade itself, since you call them out in the lead. I also might mention the legacy of silent parades in the lead, but am not sure
You currently end your "Subsequent silent marches" section with the 2020 parade, but then go back to 2017 in the next section (100th anniversary). Perhaps they could be combined to maintain strict chronology, perhaps that would not be desirable. I am somewhat ambivalent
File:Jesse_Washington_hanging.jpg: first source link is dead
File:Oogle_Doodle_commemorating_100th_anniversary_of_the_Silent_Parade.png: what is the benefit of providing this image on top of just saying a Google Doodle was created?
I removed the Google Doodle image from the article. Regarding cites: A prior reviewer (UC) suggested regrouping them as:
Books & journals: use sfn (and put the sources in "Sources" section)
Newspapers & web sites: use inline <ref> (not in "Sounces" section)
and I agree that is an improvement, so I'm starting to do that now .. should finish within a few days. I'll notify you when that task is done. Noleander (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for your patience - you may now resume reviewing the Silent Parade article. I've implemented all suggestions made by reviewers as of 11 June 2025, including (1) Implementing all suggestions from UC; (2) Adopting a new approach to using sfn vs inline refs (namely, sfn for books and journals; inline ref for newspapers, magazines, and websites); (3) Removed the Google Doodle image; (4) Reviewed the additional sources recommended by Eddie, and added about a dozen new sentences into the article based on those sources. The new sources were useful, and resulted in minor, incremental improvements (new insights, new details) but did not introduce any significant restructuring of the article. Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. Noleander (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article, about a German armored cruiser of World War I vintage, is the next in this series that I hope to have turned into a complete Featured Topic in the not-too-distant future. The ship had a fairly short lifespan, having been superseded by more powerful battlecruisers not long after entering service, and then being sunk in the opening months of the war. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed working on the last one, and this is clearly in similarly good nick.
Yorck spent the first seven years of her career in I Scouting Group, the reconnaissance force for the High Seas Fleet,: I raised this on the Roon article, but needs a slight change, as the HSF didn't technically exist under that name until 1907.
Good catch, I had forgotten to correct that here
She undertook training exercises and made several cruises in the Atlantic Ocean.: is this particularly notable for the lead? At least the first bit seems very much in the routine day-to-day for a warship.
I don't disagree that it's fairly routine, but the lead should summarize the article, and that line more or less sums up the ship's entire peacetime career, apart from the accidents
I might consider trimming the first bit: the Atlantic cruises do get a lot of airtime in the article, but I don't think we'd say that (for example) a famous doctor spent most of her career treating patients, or that a famous chef spent most of his cooking food. UndercoverClassicistT·C12:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, but on the other hand, those are commonly understood professions - I know that the average reader knows much about what ships do routinely. But I've trimmed the training exercises bit.
Yorck was involved in several accidents, including an accidental explosion aboard the ship : I don't think we need to say that it was accidental twice.
Good point - trimmed (and a couple further down in the body as well)
The launch of the British battlecruiser HMS Invincible in 1907 quickly rendered all of the armored cruisers that had been built by the world's navies obsolescent: I'd suggest a brief comment here as to why -- that it was faster/tougher/had more firepower...
Added a footnote to explain this
Yorck was ordered under the provisional name Ersatz Deutschland: two different blue links next to each other not ideal, though maybe a necessary email here. Worth explaining what that name meant? Seems an oddly self-deprecating one to use.
There's an explanatory note, but I've moved it to right after the name to make it clearer - suffice it to say, Ersatz didn't have the WWII-era connotation then
General Wilhelm von Hahnke: why does he get an (approximated) English rank when von Pohl and Schmidt get (full) German ones?
Probably a visceral dislike for the army stemming from my own military service ;) I've added his rank at that time
christened Yorck after Ludwig Yorck von Wartenburg, a Prussian general during the Napoleonic Wars by Josephine Yorck von Wartenburg,: comma after Wars. Could consider a link to Napoleonic Wars.
Done (to both)
the Kaiser's Schießpreis (Shooting Prize): if you're going to keep the caps, I would also use a gloss template here -- otherwise, just treat it as a description and do "shooting prize", no quotes.
De-capped
Spithead, Britain, where it was received by the Royal Navy.: this is quite an odd way of giving a location in British terms -- suggest "the British port of Spithead". At the very least, "England" is better than "Britain".
Sometimes people get upset when us Yanks refer to anyplace in the UK as "England", I figured I was playing it safe!
a sortie into the central Baltic, as far north as Östergarn,: I might clarify that Östergarn is on the Swedish island of Gotland.
Good idea
Yorck's commander, KzS Pieper, believed the fog to have cleared sufficiently to allow the vessel to return to port, so he ordered the ship to get underway.: as in the last FAC, I think it would help to give an idea of how long he waited for this.
Updated
The naval historian V. E. Tarrant states that 127 out of a crew of 629 were rescued; ... Hans Hildebrand, Albert Röhr, and Hans-Otto Steinmetz concur with Gröner on the number of fatalities and note that 381 men, including Pieper, were rescued by the coastal defense ship Hagen.: I don't think we can use notes here, as it's clearly a matter of at least some dispute, under MOS:SAID: to use notes means that we're taking a position on that dispute (that Tarrant is wrong).
Changed to "add"
During a series of construction programs to expand the entrance to the Jade: to the what?
Whoops, that was an obvious link to have overlooked
The article says that it's now known as the "Jade Bight", which is probably clearer anyway (at least to those who know what a "bight" is).
Use circa templates to allow an explanation on mouseover.
I always forget to use that...
Dodson 2016 should come before Dodson 2018, surely?
Good catch
the Heimatflotte (Home Fleet) ... the High Seas Fleet: naming style is inconsistent here.
This is a little messy, since the fleet is more or less universally referred to as the High Seas Fleet in English, but references are generally to the Heimatflotte (presumably to differentiate it from the Home Fleet, which overlapped with its existence). I get that it's inconsistent to use the German name for one and the English for the other, but I've opted to follow the usage I've observed over consistency
Hildebrand 1993 -- the ASIN link goes to a 404. The page on ASINs says that a book's ASIN should be the same as its ISBN 10, which clearly isn't the case here.
Oddly, no, not that I've been able to track down. These books were initially published in a 7-volume set, and at some point, were republished into the 10-volume paperback set I have. For whatever reason, the books don't list an ISBN, and Worldcat never updated their listings beyond the original 7-volume set.
Note C needs to be cited.
Good catch, added
Do you know anything about the "Commander Cleve" (imprisoned for a year over the ship's sinking, according to the NYT)? He isn't mentioned in the article, I don't think.
He's not mentioned in Hildebrand et. al. (or anywhere else I've seen - I'd assume he was the executive officer. He's also not listed on the List of admirals of Germany, so this incident didn't enhance his career, it would seem.
Maybe mention that an officer named Cleve was also imprisoned? I think it puts a different spin on the trial -- for one thing, it shows that the Navy didn't just throw the captain under the bus, or even entirely blame him, even though our account suggests that it was (entirely?) his fault. It would be ideal if we could give his position, but I don't think not having it is a reason not to include him in the story. I assume "Commander" can be readily back-engineered into German (one below Captain)? UndercoverClassicistT·C21:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added the Levensau High Bridge link, but I don't want it to get too wordy
I'll get the Support in now, on the assumption that the fairly minor issues above will be sorted: an excellent article that even I struggled to complain about. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest adding alt text to the image captions.
Done
There is a typo in the caption for the image File:Yorck - Brassey's Naval Annual 1906.png – Sketch of Yorkby William Frederick Mitchell. It should read "Yorck" instead of "York", and a space should be inserted between "Yorck" and "by".
Good catch, fixed
File:NH 92713.jpg – Could you please verify whether the stated reason for this image being in the public domain is valid? MSincccc (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have much to go on other than the standard NHHC disclaimer that the images it hosts are PD unless otherwise noted. I've not seen this particular photo anywhere else (or that wasn't obviously taken from the NHHC site). The provenance is a bit odd, but there are 27 images credited to Shake; the Army Times uses one of them and cites him, for example. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"She was laid down in 1903 at the Blohm & Voss shipyard in Hamburg, launched in May 1904, and commissioned in November 1905." Add the month she was laid down, if only for consistency.
Good catch
"which increased horsepower by 2,000 indicated horsepower (1,500 kW) and speed by 0.5 knots". I have problems with this, given that Yorck trialled at 20.4 knots while the Prinz Adalbert-class cruisers with which it is being compared managed 20 and 20.5 knots. Why not 'a decrease in speed of 0.1 knot'? I think a judicious use of 'was intended to' may be called for.
Good point - amusingly, none of the German armored cruisers made their intended speeds
"envisioned a force of twelve armored cruisers intended for overseas service". I am not sure that "envisioned" and "intended" works.
"equipped with fewer guns and thinner but more comprehensive armor in a trade-off for higher speed and lower cost." Does this refer to Prinz Heinrich or Fürst Bismarck?
"all in individual mounts in the superstructure and in the hull." A pedant's point, but "and" → 'or'?
Fixed
"and reduced to 80 mm (3.1 in) on either end". Reduced, or tapering?
Tapering works for me
"major fleet exercises every autumn in late August and early September." Do we need "autumn" and "late August and early September"?
Not exactly (especially since neither August or most of September are part of the season), but that's how the annual German fleet maneuvers are generally referred to (for example, Hildebrand et. al. always uses "Herbstmanoever" and Sondhaus in Preparing for Weltpolitik refers to them as autumn maneuvers as well)
"During this period, Erich Raeder served as the ship's navigation officer." This is notable why?
It's not, exactly, and could be trimmed
I would be happy to see it trimmed. Or to see it included, but Raeder's notability mentioned so a readet understands why he gets a mention. Your call.
I removed it, since he didn't do anything of note in the role, so it's probably into WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS territory
"The ship suffered an accident on 2 November when one of her pinnaces detonated a naval mine". Maybe say where this was.
Hildebrand doesn't say, unfortunately
"Yorck thereafter steamed to Kiel, where on 21 May she was decommissioned, the last armored cruiser to serve with I Scouting Group. She thereafter underwent an overhaul and was placed in reserve." "thereafter" as the second word of consecutive sentences. Maybe tweak one of them?
"providing distant support in the event that the raid provoked a British counterattack." I think that it was actually 'providing distant support in case that the raid provoked a British counterattack.' It was providing distant support regardless of whether there was a British counterattack.
Reworded, let me know what you think
"The pilot refused to take responsibility for maneuvering the ship". Could we have a brief in line explanation of who/what a pilot was, per MOS:NOFORCELINK ("Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.")?
I have a scan of Hildebrand et. al. handy if you want that to do any spotchecking (anything else would have to wait until tonight or tomorrow). Send me an email and I'll pass it along if you'd like, but it is in German. Parsecboy (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I hadn't thought to check your userpage to see if you had language boxes! You should have it in your inbox, but no rush, enjoy your vacation. Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So 9-10, 12-13, folks can ask for more. In #9 it doesn't specify that Vigo was on the return trip? Is the 2nd November incident in p.123 worth mentioning - this article is super detailed. I think von Reuter served for October too? I kinda wonder that the formulations of the other accident (friendly collision) and the sinking seem to be very similar to the source. What is "paratyphusverdächtigen" - a synonym for foggy? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On #9 - check the second column on page 122 - it reads "...und auf der Vigo zum Kohlen angelaufen wurde." Or do you mean that it doesn't explicitly state that the purpose of coaling was for the return voyage to Germany? If so, I think it's a reasonable inference to make.
The 2 November incident is mentioned in the article - it's the last sentence of the second paragraph of the 1909–1913 section.
The list on p. 121 has Reuter serving from 9/1910 to 9/1912, I don't see him mentioned in the text
I'm not sure what you mean about the similarity to the the description of the accident with S178. The only close text I see are "Yorck was only slightly damaged in the accident and continued with the maneuvers" and "Yorck selbst trug nur unwesentlich Schaeden davon und konnte an der Verbandsuebungen weiter teilnehmen", which I've reworded.
On "paratyphusverdächtigen" - I'm not sure what they mean exactly, but given the context, I'd interpret it to be a metaphor for the water being "infected" with mines. It is a little odd though - Hildebrand et. al. generally don't use flowery language. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get the impression from the text that the Vigo coaling was necessarily during the return trip, rather than during any other stage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't, but the coal was necessary for the return trip, which is all the article states.
On the typhus - see the discussion with Ed below, I think now that it was actually legitimate concerns about typhus, not a metaphor (see the footnote on the last page of Hildebrand that discusses Pieper's later activities), so I've amended the article accordingly. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The wreck was dismantled progressively between the 1920s and 1980s to reduce the navigational hazard it posed.
Change wreck to wreckage -> A shipwreck is the event of a ship being destroyed or lost at sea, while ship wreckage refers to the physical remains of a wrecked ship.
I don't agree with that definition, nor does Merriam-Webster, which uses "wreck" as a noun as its first definition.
I agree, wreck is a noun as is shipwreck - beyond this I'm not following. If you disagree with the definition, then when does a shipwreck become wreckage? Pendright (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where we disagree is that the wrecked ship can be referred to as a wreck. That's definition 3.a in the link above. Wreckage can be used interchangeably in that sense, or it can also mean the fragments of a shipwreck. As an example, for HMS Hood, which was violently destroyed by sequential magazine explosions, I think your point would stand, since that ship was reduced entirely to "wreckage" in the latter definition of the word, but I think it's entirely reasonable to refer to a largely intact ship simply as a "wreck". Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed response. My follow-up research indicates that shipwreck and ship wreckage can encompass both the event and the physical remains, while ship wreckage is primarily focused on the physical debris. So, I stand corrected. Pendright (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Design
The two Roon-class cruisers were ordered in 1902 as part of the fleet expansion program specified by the Second Naval Law of 1900.
Roon Class is not hyphenated in the lead's opening sentence?
Right, because in the lead, "Roon" is an adjective modifying "class", whereas in the above sentence, "Roon-class" is a compound modifier for "cruisers".
The ship was propelled by three vertical triple-expansion steam engines, steam being provided by sixteen coal-fired water-tube boilers.
To improve the logical flow, consider rephrasing the above so that the steam generation (boilers) precedes the steam engines. Suggest: The ship's sixteen coal-fired water-tube boilers powered the three vertical triple-expansion steam engines that drove the three propeller shafts.
Yes, but it's something of a compromise for ship people who would refer to them simply as screws, and the average reader, who would be picturing screws. Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is one way to look at it, but it seems more like a rationalization.
I've researched several marine propulsion system sources–hard copy and digital–and all of them essentially provided the same information:
"'screw"' and "'propeller"' mean the same thing, but when a marine ship is described as having a "'screw propeller,"' it implies that it includes propeller blades, hub, and shaft as a single functional unit.
I bow to your wisdom. While lots of other people had Franks and Beans for lunch today, I had to eat Crow: it's humbling. Thank you and see you down the road. Supporting - Pendright (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I neglected to add to the above that my research also suggests that there does not seem to be a standard term for a propeller shaft. Even those in the marine industry use a variety of terms interchangeably. Pendright (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1909–1913
By early 1910, the new armored cruiser Blücher was ready for service with the fleet, and so now-VAdm Heeringen hauled down his flag from Yorck on 25 April and transferred to the new vessel two days later.
now-VAdm Heeringen??
The last time we saw Heeringen, he was a Konteradmiral
and transferred it to the new vessel
The thrust of the sentence is that Heeringen moved from Yorck to Bluecher, not specifically his flag
Easier to just simplify it to "Heeringen left Yorck on..."
Already on 16 May, Koch was replaced by KAdm Gustav Bachmann, who was in turn replaced by KAdm Maximilian von Spee on 15 September when Bachmann succeeded Heeringen as the group commander.
The point of that was to underline the rapid shifting of officers - but am happy to discuss if you feel strongly about it
While in the shipyard for maintenance on 31 March 1911, a benzene explosion in the ship's aft-most boiler room killed one man and injured several, preventing Yorck from taking part in unit maneuvers.
While in a shipyard
Done
She visited Uddevalla, Sweden from 3 to 6 November during the cruise.
Why no comma after Sweden?
Good catch
World War I
The wreck, located between Horumersiel and Hooksiel, was initially marked to allow vessels to pass safely.
The wreckage
As per my first comment above
Beginning in 1926, the wreck was partially scrapped to reduce the navigational hazard to deeper-draft vessels. More work was done in 1936–1937 for the same reason.
the wreckage
During a series of construction programs to expand the entrance to the Jade Bight after World War II, the ship's turrets were removed in 1969 and the remaining parts of the hull were demolished in 1983 to further clear the sea floor.[12]
"The launch of the British battlecruiser HMS Invincible in 1907 quickly rendered all of the armored cruisers that had been built by the world's navies obsolescent." - This sentence is in a strange location. It doesn't feel like it's in response to the previous sentence, nor does it lead into the next paragraph.
It is pretty jarring, I agree - added a bit to smooth the transition
I've made several copyedits that I'd appreciate getting your eye on for accuracy.
Those seem fine to me
For a general encyclopedic overview, the article seems too detailed at points when it comes to admirals using Yorck as their flagship and captains taking command. For example, I removed a sentence that covered flag admiral changes over a three-month period. Are those really necessary to get a proper understanding of how the German Navy employed this ship?
I see your point, but I generally prefer to include more information than less (and I have a somewhat vested interest in linking captains and commanders, as I have long-range plans to write bios, and having the links in the ship articles makes it easier to pull command details together). Is it encyclopedic? No, probably not. But this entire article wouldn't have been included in a traditional encyclopedia like Britannica (and indeed it isn't, but apparently Britannica's search function is blacklisted for some reason), so I have a hard time saying that certain details should be included because they're "encyclopedic" but others should be left out because they aren't. As much as we say we're writing encyclopedia articles, we (the Wiki community at large) very decidedly have not been doing that for probably two decades at this point. As a random example, Britannica's article on Earth is 19 pages, roughly, while en.wiki's is 32 pages - more than 50% longer. So again, I understand your point, but I don't think it reflects what the community is actually doing.
Conversely, what is KzS Pieper's full name? Is there any backstory that might explain the (what appears to be) reckless behavior in trying to clear a foggy minefield? Ed[talk][OMT]07:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Waldemar Pieper - perhaps somewhat amusingly, one of his recent commands, aboard SMS Blücher, resulted in him being court-martialed for dereliction of duty over an incident that saw Blücher run aground. As for why he was reckless, it seems to refer back to Jo-Jo's question above about the reference to "paratyphusverdächtigen" in Hildebrand. I had a look at the de.wiki article on Pieper, and it also references paratyphus, so it seems he actually had concerns about contaminated water. There's a footnote in Hildebrand that covers Pieper's post-sinking activities, and it does mention that the concerns about paratyphus were a mitigating factor in his court-martial. Thanks Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "title" fields of all source, ideally, should use a uniform capitalization scheme. This is optional for FA. FA does not have a fixed convention; many articles use either Title case or only capitalize the first letter. In other words, after you copy the title of a source into a cite/source "title" field, you sometimes need to redo the capitalization.
Source Gray, John Edward (1869) is missing a publisher.
Citation tool reports an issue with source Round, M. C. (1968). ... it says that 1968 is too early for an ISBN. So, the book may have been reprinted & later reprint (after 1968) got the ISBN. You should determine which edition/reprint you read, then update the cite to show that specific year, and if it is the orig 1968, then you should remove the ISBN field.
I read it off the link I put in the source, which seems to be the original so I remove the ISBN (which I had gotten from a Google Books page for the same book). Olmagon (talk·contribs) 23:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source Thomas, Oldfield; Schwann, Harold (1904). "On Mammals appears to be missing "access-date" field. For allsome sources that have a URL field, you mustshould supply an "access-date" field that states the day you read/retrieved the source from that URL. That field is required so that the Wikipedia citation bot can find and provide archives of the original source website. There may be several sources that need access-date added.
This is not entirely true. For urls that link to old publications (like Biodiversity Heritage Library), an access-date is not required, as these texts do not change. See template:cite book and search for "Not required for linked documents that do not change." Esculenta (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to double-check the "free use" status of File:Drawing of striped weasel, by J. Kingdom Wellcome L0024958.jpg ... I'm not an expert in image stuff, but if that is a photo of a drawing, the "Details" data of the image requires two distinct copyright-free proofs: (a) the original drawing; and (b) the photo of the drawing.
Scrolling to the bottom of the webpage that the image comes shows the text "Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence" so I think it is fine. ReconRabbit also seems to have found something supporting it being okay further down below. Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: Often associated with termite mounds, the African striped weasel is most commonly seen in savanna and veld grasslands, but has been recorded in a wide range of habitats ... That is an important sentence; it is a bit long. The initial phrase "Often associated with termite mounds" makes it harder for readers to grasp the whole sentence. Suggest removing that phrase from the start and moving somewhere else: maybe a new sentence following this one?
Images: Alt text: all images include alt text, which is good, but I think the alt text guidelines WP:ALT say that the alt text should not begin with "A drawing of.." or "An illustration of ..." .. omit those words. Simply say "A weasel eating some leaves" or whatever. If the alt text ends up being a duplicate of the caption, you can omit the alt text entirely.
Section on Temperament, Territoriality, etc? I'm looking at some other weasel-family articles, and some have a section "Temperament" or "Territoriality" within "Behavior" top section. In this African Str. article: it looks like similar material is in the top "intro" paragraphs under the "Behavior and ecology" section. Consider making a subsection to hold those intro paragraphs, and give the subsection a useful name: that may help readers find material in the article.
File:Drawing of striped weasel, by J. Kingdom Wellcome L0024958.jpg A bit confusing, but Wellcome collection implies CC BY 4.0 license - is this correct, as Noleander states above? The drawing itself is undated and the source page provides little information.
CC BY SA 4.0 File:Termite mound Okavango Delta.jpg
CC BY 4.0 (via iNaturalist) File:Striped weasel camera trap.jpg: This image is okay. There are no good alternatives on iNat that I could find. Could be cropped.
File:African Striped Weasel area.png could be converted to SVG and currently has no transparency. If you want me to do this let me know. Otherwise, has the correct license (IUCN map, VRT ticket etc.) Couldn't help myself: Poecilogale albinucha range I recommend using this map, not only because I made it but because it includes South Sudan.
The height of the skull illustration is so large that it pushes the paws illustration into the next section in all but the narrowest displays. I don't know how much the drawing of the striped weasel adds.
Any lifespan estimate for individuals in the wild?
If one exists in published literature then I have not found it (would not be surprised if it doesn't, this is a secretive nocturnal animal that hasn't been the subject of a lot of focused research). Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Noleander above that prefixing the habitat description with Often associated with termite mounds confuses the intended meaning of the sentence.
I give a pass on the image review and will give my support for this nomination on the notes I have, given the lack of research on this critter's daily habits. -- Reconrabbit12:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They have not been editing in any appreciable amount since 6 days ago. I would give it a little time. Not guessing at any motivations but where I am it is finals week. -- Reconrabbit22:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read this maybe tomorrow or so, had three essays to write and a set of ethics paperwork to fill in recently. Only one essay is left now and it's halfway done and the deadline is more than a week away so I should have time in a bit. Olmagon (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was the GA reviewer of this article a few weeks ago, so I figured I'd take a stab at this. These are just some recommendations/comments; not necessarily issues that need to be adressed (ASW = short for African striped weasel).
I do generally do this for a species with known fossil remains but to my knowledge, no fossils of this species have been found (the only article I could find mentioning P. albinucha fossils refers to specimens that were later reclassified as Propoecilogale remains). Also the numbers in the Evolution subsection are estimates of when the African striped weasel lineage diverged from the striped polecat lineage, and do not necessarily reflect the age of the species itself (there could be prehistoric members of the lineage). Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should summarize the contents of the article, but almost nothing about its taxonomy or evolution is mentioned. It doesn't have to be much, but enough for the reader to have a basic rundown of the topic.
You should probably change this species/this weasel/these weasels to the species or the weasel. It reads better IMO and is more grammatically correct.
(lead, par. 1) where it occurs as far north as Kenya and stretches down south to South Africa. I would recommend changing the wording to something like and as far south as South Africa or something along those lines. To me, the wording is a little awkward here. The word stretches is a little ambiguous; you could determine was refering to its range, but because the word "range" is not explicitly stated, it makes it sound like it could be talking about someting else, like the weasel itself stretching or something. Again, you could probably determine what it's talking about but I think changing it would make it just a little bit clearer. The lead should be as clear as possible because it is the part that people usually read, so being clear is especially important here.
(lead, par. 2) Often associated with termite mounds. Again, its important to be as clear as possible here, and this could mean a few different things. Does it live near termite mounds? In them? Does it hunt termites? etc... This is brought up again later in the article in the Distribution and habitat section but is still not explained any further. It is explained in the Behavior and ecology section where it says that they are latrines, so you should mention this in at least the lead section. I would probably remove the mention in the Distribution and habitat section as it kind of unrelated to that topic.
(lead, par. 2) secretive nature feels a bit odd to read. I feel like this phrase would be more appropriate in literature; its a bit "weighted", for the lack of a better word, for a biology article. Maybe say something like "covert lifestyle" or just deleting it would be better wording.
(lead, par. 2 & whole article) There are no known major threats to the species, though it is commonly used in local traditional medicine. This sentence could probably be deleted; the previous sentence already talks about its conservation status so this may be a bit redundant. I remember you saying that no source explicitly says what it's used for in traditional medicine, but the mentioning of traditional medicine here is a little confusing because its not immediately obvious why it would be related to conservation, at least for me, so the lack of an explanation is a bit problematic. If no source says what it is used for though I don't really know how you would fix this. It would be important to mention in the article except for the fact that you can't explain it any further. Unless you could find more info about this you may want to remove mentions to alternative medicine, at least in the lead. I don't really have any good recommendations for what to do here.
(lead, par. 3) It commonly bites its prey in the back of the neck while rolling around or kicking the prey's back likely to attempt to dislocate the neck... The word "commonly" should probably be removed. This suggests that there is another method of hunting, but none is mentioned. Also, the way this is described in the Behavior and ecology section is better worded and much clearer than in the lead. You could just copy & paste it into the lead, and it would read much better IMO.
(tax. & evo., par. 1) "Generic name", and really just the word "generic", should link to genus.
(tax. & evo., par. 2) You should probably link Angola.
(tax. & evo., par. 2) In 1865, German naturalist Wilhelm Peters reported... considered a variety of this species. Could be combined into one sentence. It would flow better IMO. Something like In 1865, German naturalist Wilhelm Peters reported two Zorilla africana specimens from Golungo Alto, Angola. The latter specimen he studied he considered to be a new variety of the species, but Australian explorer... (rest of sentence as in article) would read more clearly.
(tax. & evo., par. 3) The following five subspecies were recognized in the third edition of Mammal Species of the World published in 2005: should have a comma between World and published.
(tax. & evo., par. 5) The most complete fossil specimen of Propoecilogale was... to the Laetoli specimen. It has therefore been proposed to... could be rewritten as The most complete fossil specimen of Propoecilogale was discovered in the Early Pliocene-aged deposits of Laetoli, Tanzania. A younger specimen is known from the Early Pleistocene-aged deposits of Cooper's Cave, South Africa, which shows a larger first molar tooth with a more reduced metaconid compared to the Laetoli specimen. It has therefore been proposed to... You could also add the actual ages of these specimens.
I think it's important to explicitly say "geologically younger" since just "younger" could sound like the Cooper's Cave specimen is of a juvenile or something like that. Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(description) The skull and paw images could be moved up so they aren't as in the way of the Distribution and habitat section.
(description) The striped polecat is mentioned a few times in the description section, mentioning it as a closely related species, but you should really mention that it is specifically the most closely related species, as shown in the evolution section. I think this would make the significance of their differences more apparent. Striped polecat should be linked at least once in this section.
Added mention of it being the closest living relative in brackets, also it seems to already be linked in that section (unless that's one of the edits you made). Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(description, par. 1) (along with the dwarf mongoose) could be removed.
(description, par. 1) with males larger than females → with males being larger than females.
(description, par. 1) KwaZulu-Natal did not exist in 1978, so a different region should probably be mentioned. Apparently the province was just known as "Natal" until 1994, with the Zulu bantustan being a semi-autonomous area within, so you could probably just use that.
(description, par. 3) As in other mustelids → Like other mustelids.
(description, par. 3) and each digit bears → with each digit bearing.
(description, par. 3) scent glands in the perineal region → perineal scent glands.
(dist. & hab.) They are found from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Kenya in the north, and as far south as southern South Africa → They are found as far north as the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Kenya and as far south as southern South Africa.
(dist. & hab.) Within this region & roadkill carcasses have been collected in agricultural land could be removed. The former is not necessary and the latter just doesn't flow well with the rest of the text.
(dist. & hab.) appears → also.
(dist. & hab.) the weasels may be overlooked across much of their range → their true extent may be larger/greater than previously thought.
(bhv. & eco., par. 1) Active mainly at night, the African striped weasel is a mostly nocturnal animal is redundant. You could remove Active mainly at night.
(bhv. & eco., par. 3) the vast majority of their diet consisting of rodents of their own size or smaller, and will travel into the burrows of rodents to hunt them is a bit redundant. You could write it as ...own size or smaller, and will travel into their burrows...
I feel like using "their" here leaves it a bit ambiguous whether it is talking about weasel burrows or rodent burrows, especially considering the section talks about weasel burrows earlier. Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(bhv. & eco., par. 3) Prey is generally eaten whole while the weasel is in a crouched pose, though the feathers and legs of birds and the stomachs of mammals are sometimes left uneaten, and the weasel will not use its front limbs to stabilize its food. is a bit of a run-on sentence. The first and last parts should not even really be in the same sentence in the first place anyway.
(bhv. & eco., par. 4) The article says that A male kept in a cage for two weeks during the winter did not drink at all during this time, but later says that it did drink small amounts of water. You could write ...did not drink almost any water during this time, only occasionally drinking... to be consistent.
(bhv. & eco., par. 5) If the female is receptive, she may express it by moving around him is a little unclear. What exactly is it?
(bhv. & eco., par. 6) and the prominent black and white coloration of the species develops when the young reach 28 days of age → and their prominent black and white coloration develops at 28 old.
(bhv. & eco., par. 7) Vehicular collisions lead to some African striped weasel deaths, as evidenced by roadkill carcasses found in agricultural areas → Some can be victims of vehicular collisions, with roadkill carcasses being found in agricultural areas or something like that. Also, agricultural areas is a bit confusing. Are you just talking about a farm?
(bhv. & eco., par. 8) If this does not ward off the threat → If this fails.
(bhv. & eco., par. 8) ...perineal glands, and the stream can be... → ...perineal glands that can be...
(bhv. & eco., par. 8) Again, striped polecat should be linked.
(conservation) Least Conern → Least Conern species.
(conservation) ...assessments in 2008 and 2015. It was assessed as such because although it is not... feels a little awkward to read. You could do something like ...assessments in 2008 and 2015, citing that although it is not... and combine it into one sentence.
Again, many of these are just suggestions. You don't need to implement all, or really any, of these changes if you think they're unecessary, these are just some things I would do. Edit: I've made a few edits on the page for some of these smaller things; text in a strikethough is already done.
I'll give my support now. I've covered all of the C1 issues and it looks like the folks above adressed their concers with the other critera. Just giving a glance at your sources and they all look reliable and high-quality, so I think you're pretty much set, at least for me.
"It was the sequel to his Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865), in which many of the characters are anthropomorphic playing-cards." Consider "are" → 'were' to avoid confusion as to whether the "in which" refers to Wonderland or "the sequel"
OK. Done. While you're here, Gog, taking note of your comment about the length of the Plot section I've whittled it down to 1,100 words, and as there are existing FAs about novels with Plot sections over 1,000 words I hope the latest version will be found acceptable. Tim riley talk12:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your words, my dear Gog, always carry weight, and the more so when you are commenting in line with the Manual of Style, which specifies "between 400 and 700 words" for a plot summary. It adds that if an editor believes more words are needed for a particular article s/he should "be prepared to explain why", which I think I am, for the reasons discussed at PR. Tim riley talk13:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Alice will be a queen if she can advance all the way to the eighth rank on the board." Perhaps a footnote explaining that this is indeed one of the rules of chess?
One point which I fogot to raise at PR: at the moment, Charlton Kings is pretty definitely in Cheltenham. Was that not (yet) so in Carroll's day? From looking at the article, I think that's probably so.
Though I am a great fan of Douglas Adams and the Hitch Hiker's Guide I think we have enough about him and it. I have batted off the idea of an excursus on the number 42 already. Tim riley talk16:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The White Knight contains elements of Carroll himself and of a college friend, Augustus Vernon Harcourt,: I'd be interested to know what these were, if anybody does.
Indeed. Now added a word about Harcourt. I think I've read that the Dodgson element was his unworldliness, but I'll have to rummage to find that before I can add it. Tim riley talk07:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a 1933 essay Shane Leslie suggests that in Through the Looking Glass Carroll was satirising the controversial Oxford Movement in the Church of England, Tweedledum and Tweedledee representing high church and low church respectively: I think this whole thing needs a litle bit of context.
I'm reluctant to expand this bit. First, Leslie's theory is by no means universally accepted and I don't want to give it undue prominence; secondly, though Carroll himself was in sympathy with the Oxford Movement, he wasn't prominent in it and didn't make a feature of it; and thirdly, I think the blue links do the job pretty well for readers wanting to know more. (With a few more citations the OM article would be a pretty impressive piece, in my view.) Tim riley talk07:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We still have MOS:NOFORCELINK, so shouldn't rely totally on the blue links. I don't think it would be much of a loss to say something like "the controversial Oxford movement, which sought to align the Church of England more closely with the Catholic Church, with Tweedledum representing "high-church" reformers and Tweedledee representing "low-church" opponents of the movement". I think the idea about Leslie's theory being controversial is separate: if it's going to be in it, it should be explained fully; if it's not worth explaining fully, it probably shouldn't be there at all. UndercoverClassicistT·C08:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't work well: I've experimented in my sandpit and the result takes up far more space compared with the diagram and the columns don't work. I've followed the guidance of MOS:TEXTASIMAGES by transcribing the entire text into the alt text. Tim riley talk08:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: There is a lot on the many famous plot elements and comparatively little on the real world. In particular, wouldn't John Tenniel merit a mention, given that he even had influence on the text?
Link Translations of Through the Looking-Glass, here and in the body? (It is only linked through the navbox at the bottom, and my mind is trained to ignore navboxes).
Illustrations: when did the discussions with Tenniel and others happen? I am a bit confused about the timeline here because "only at his own pace" sounds like Tenniel might have slowed down the book, but "He thinks it possible (but not likely) that we might get it out by Christmas 1869" sounds like the discussions went reasonably quickly (assuming they started after January 1869) and that Tenniel was planning to be reasonably fast.
This has been a bugbear throughout my overhaul: the sources are often vague and sometimes mutually contradictory about the progress of the draft. As I said at PR, I don't think I can be more specific. Tim riley talk17:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have in the "Publication" section that Tenniel did indeed not complete the illustrations until 1871, which would be important context for the discussion? —Kusma (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, I have garnered and used what firm, undisputed dates I can find and I mustn't speculate on the progress of the writing without facts from a WP:RS. Tim riley talk12:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wasp in a Wig: "introduced a wasp wearing a yellow wig and includes" tense?
Poems and songs: the "lullaby" link stands out as a bit of an easter egg and does not lead to Alice-related content. Better to say "lullaby based on Rock-a-bye Baby"?
I've been too busy with offwiki things, but before this gets promoted, there is an issue in the Translations section that needs to be looked at. In particular, the "German translation" of Jabberwocky given is not the Christian Enzensberger one from Alice hinter den Spiegeln (because I know that one by heart, and it is "Verdaustig war's, und glasse Wieben // Rotterten gorkicht im Gemank // Gar elump war der Pluckerwank // Und die gabben Schweisel frieben"), but a standalone 1872 joke translation by Robert Scott, who claimed to have produced the German "original" that Carroll had translated into English. While Martin Gardner calls Es brillig war a "magnificent" translation, I personally think it is lame because it just transports the sounds and does not come with a Humpty Dumpty explanation of the portmanteau words etc., unlike Enzensberger's text. There is some of the history of Scott's poem in The Annotated Alice, in the "Looking-Glass House" chapter where Jabberwocky is first mentioned. In my 2000 "definite edition", it is on p. 151. I will try to comment more on translations (one of my favourite Alice-related topics) as soon as possible, but it might not be before the weekend. —Kusma (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amended, and added a footnote. (UndercoverClassicist, may I trouble you to run an eye over my transliteration of the Ancient Greek in footnote 15? It is sixty years since I did Greek at school and I may have got a bit rusty.) Tim riley talk07:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Think that works, although there is quite a lot more that can be said on the subject of translations, given how hard they are to do. (And I wish people wouldn't use Robert Scott's translation, but it is quite popular, for example it [18] appears in Gödel, Escher, Bach. —Kusma (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am very happy with the Plot and Themes sections. What I am missing a little is sales and a comparison of the success to that of the first Alice book. We have that it was critically well received, but very little about the editorial history. (Wouldn't it be worth to mention the existence of The Annotated Alice?) For example, the Looking-Glass is much less translated than the original Alice. (This was certainly true when Warren Weaver wrote Alice in Many Tongues, but I think it is true today and the bibliography in Alice in a World of Wonderlands: The Translations would support that). —Kusma (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Initial sales are covered, and I don't recall seeing any published comparison of the sales of the second Alice book and those of the first. A related article about the post-publication editions and glosses of the two Alice books would be interesting, but the Annotated Alice and Aspects of Alice etc wouldn't fit well in the present article because they are about Wonderland at least as much as about Looking-Glass. I'm sure you're right about the sales of the first -v- the second novel, but I have no WP:RS to substantiate the point. Tim riley talk12:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joint editions of both books are common, so I don't really think discussion of these are off-topic (I can offer some related quotes from my sources about translations). If you are looking for further RS, in addition to those I mentioned above, there is this "publishing history" (one of many reviews) that looks recent and useful and could perhaps clean up the remaining Tenniel issues. —Kusma (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still be uneasy about referring here to works that treat Wonderland at least as – and usually more – prominently than Looking-Glass. To my mind this topic belongs in (and merits) its own article. Thank you for the offer about translations, but we already have what seems to my inexpert eye an excellent article on those for Looking-Glass (though to my regret it reflects the book's relative neglect (65 languages) compared with Wonderland (175 languages)) and I don't want to overload the present article. Tim riley talk10:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that not considering works treating Wonderland more prominently than Looking-Glass basically means ignoring three quarters of the reception of Looking-Glass. I do not think that is appropriate. —Kusma (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are going to have to agree to differ about this. Where any writer clearly refers solely to Looking-Glass that would be fine for mention here, but from my reading I find that most treat Carroll's two Alice books together when discussing themes, style, humour and so forth. Tim riley talk11:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I commented at peer review and the only other point I would make on re-reading is that I would merge the two sections on chess, but that is a matter of opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another happy traveller from peer review. A read through shows it's strengthened since then, so I'm happy to support this. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't you just hate it when friends borrow your books but never return them? I can't find my copy of Annotated Alice, but I'm confident that Tim has not left anything important out. Graham Beards (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Graham. I can't find my copy of The Annotated Alice either, but happily it's online in an edition later than the one missing from my shelves. I haven't actually read Dante's Inferno but there ought to be a section for people one lends books to and don't return them. Meanwhile your support is greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk16:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that most of these comments are just superficial and more stylistic suggestions, so feel free to disregard those, especially if they might just be BrEng/AmEng discrepancies:
Should "pen-name" by hyphenated? And "nursery-rhyme"?
I guess I should have worded this as "Should "pen-name" not by hyphenated?" for clarity. They're both currently hyphenated in the article. ~ HAL33318:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I've lost the hyphen from pen name, but kept it in nursery-rhyme, where it is in effect a compound attributive adjective, as one would write "the twentieth century" but "a twentieth-century filmstar". Tim riley talk10:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might recommend shortening "or else only just short of it" to the more concise "or else just short"
"Morton N. Cohen suggests" - as Cohen is deceased, should it be "suggested"?
We usually adopt the present tense for what writers, even long dead ones, have written. Thus, "Shakespeare writes in a combination of prose and verse..." and "Homer writes of love, loyalty, piety, honor, self-sacrifice, courage, justice..." Tim riley talk16:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might shorten "The brothers begin suiting up for their battle" to "The brothers begin arming for battle"
You're right. "Suiting up" is an odd phrase (I inherited it from an earlier revision). I'm not sure "arming" will quite do given the ludicrous stuff the brothers gather around their bodies, but I'll find a better wording than the existing one. Tim riley talk16:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still puzzled at what you are looking for. Both the citations to Amor's book have the page numbers given. You surely can't be suggesting we give them in in the Sources listings as well as in the References listing? I've never attempted such a thing, which seems to me nonsensical. Tim riley talk07:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also why the FIDE rules and the Wig PDF are formatted differently from the sources section - never mind lacking page numbers.
Links to a pdf generate that symbol willy-nilly. For the chess rule, I think the actual rule number is more helpful to the reader than the page number and it would clearly be unhelpful to have both. The other pdf is now gone. Tim riley talk10:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The principle I follow, and have followed for dozens of FAs, is to put refs to a short or single-page journal article in the citations and to put in the sources section multi-page articles of which I refer to various pages (treating them like books in effect) in the citations. This seems to me to give readers the quickest route into the sources.
The chess rule is somewhat different than stated - pawns that advance to the last row are promoted to any piece - except for king - of the player's choosing (but most people pick queen).
If you read footnote 11 more carefully you will see that that is what it says. (If the Red Queen, Carroll and Tenniel chose to make the queenship automatic I am afraid I cannot go back and rewrite the book, but we have correctly set out the actual rule here.) Tim riley talk07:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Pawns that reach the last row are promoted to Queen (or other piece of the player's choice)" to me implies it's queen first and foremost. That's what the players do but not what the rules or source say. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neos Kosmos has its own Wikipedia article. I see no reason to think it less reliable than the other newpapers to which the article refers, but have replaced with the same information from a book source. I inherited the contrariwise citation and as I think the website is distinctly tendentious I have gladly removed the relevant text.
The various books should probably be marked by ref=none so that they don't throw the harv warning.
This is unfamiliar to me. I have taken dozens of articles through FACs without this "ref-none" you mention, and nobody has mentioned a problem with a "harv" warning. Tim riley talk10:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also have the script installed and cannot see any warnings. It may be best to say which specific sources you see these on so they can be dealt with. I normally add the extra parameter on Tim’s articles when they hit PR, but there was nothing to do this time. - SchroCat (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nosing in to say I'm also seeing the harv errors on all of the books. It seems to be because the short footnotes are generated with <ref> rather than {{sfn}}. When I experimentally swapped one of the existing ones to an sfn format, the harv error for that book disappeared on preview. Fwiw, I have User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js installed rather than Trappist's script; maybe that makes the difference. ♠PMC♠ (talk)02:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PMC. I’ve installed that and can see the messages. I’ll add the workaround now, even though it won’t affect readers, but only those with the script installed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification: I regard as a reliable source any book published by an established and reputable publisher, unless there is clear cause to believe otherwise. (Offhand, over nearly twenty years of editing Wikipedia I can only recall one published book from a well-established publisher that was so full of demonstrable inaccuracies and distortions as – in my view – to fail the WP:RS test, and that was on a subject unconnected with Carroll or Alice.) Tim riley talk13:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See above. I do not for a moment believe that reputable, not to say distinguished, publishers such as Dent and Heinemann publish unreliable books. If you read my earlier reply more carefully you will see that I have already addressed your mention of Bakewell in any case. Tim riley talk07:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Carroll, Lewis (2004)" is the year right and what is this publisher?
Well, Carroll died in 1898 - was this posthumous? Also "Paris: Ebooks libres et gratuits" sounds like it might be a vanity press or the like if we go by name, hence I was asking about clarification. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a French translation. Carroll wrote in English. Who made this French translation and when the source does not say. If you wish me to substitute a citation to an academic journal – as I say above – I can do so. Tim riley talk07:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already quite polished. I have made notes on several areas. The notes are a bit long, but the ways to resolve them are probably fairly straightforward and minor.
Is this the only major decision that John Tenniel had affecting the plot? If so, the article should probably state that.
As far as I know, yes, but I have read no unequivocal statement to that effect, and I'd better not speculate in the article. Tim riley talk
Later: Doing a bit more digging I found an interesting article about "Tenniel As Carroll's Reader" but it deals solely with their collaboration on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and is no help in answering your question. Tim riley talk08:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at recent scholarship, it seems the consensus is that the 1974 galley proofs are most likely legitimate, but there are unresolved questions, particularly regarding the handwritten notes. Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass: A Publishing History (2016) by Zoe Jaques and Eugene Giddens says that Selwyn H. Goodacre "goes further to doubt the authenticity of the autograph corrections: 'I conclude that the weight of the evidence is that the proofs are genuine, but that the corrections show signs of another hand.' [...] it provenance before 1974 had not been publicly verified." In some places the Wikipedia article seems to overstate the certainty. For example, "revisions in Carroll's handwriting" could be phrased something like "handwritten revisions" or even "handwritten revisions, likely by Carroll himself".
I've gone for the shorter version: the subsection was already on the brink of disproportionate length and I'm happy to trim it a little on the lines you suggest. Tim riley talk09:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The plot section is long and detailed. I think this is fine, and Talk:Through the Looking-Glass#Plot sections explains, "Each of the chapters of the book, except for the brief chapters 11 and 12, is a self-contained episode, similar to a short story." That explanation makes sense, and I think the plot section would benefit from containing some version of that information either at the beginning or at the point where Alice goes through the looking glass.
Rules and logic are a major focus of the book. What do scholars say about this?
In "Logic And Language in Through the Looking Glass", a journal article I downloaded early in my research for this article, I found, "Carroll succeeds in suggesting that the apparent chaos of the dream world is less disorderly than the lack of discipline in the real world, that the problem of appearance and reality has to do with value as well as perception. ... Only in the shallowest sense, however, does the trip through the Looking Glass reveal disorder and nonsense. Carroll's world of fantasy is most profoundly, in its semantic aspects at least, the sort of world for which such a logician as Charles Dodgson might yearn". But this doesn't seem to me to get us very far. And nor does, "But the ultimate point of Humpty Dumpty's method with language is the same as the point of the gnat's exposition of Looking Glass insect life. In both cases, the central revelation is the same: that language, the symbolic representation of experience, has power of its own". Tim riley talk09:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense is also a major focus of the book. What do scholars say about this? Also, do scholars comment on the seeming contradiction between the rules and nonsense?
I haven't run across much on this. There is one comment from Hahn to the effect that "the nonsense in the book is even more ruthless than in the first Alice story" but I have referred to that paragraph already in the last paragraph of Reception. Tim riley talk09:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Later: I've found a learned article "Wittgenstein, Nonsense, and Lewis Carroll" from 1965, which is interesting:
Since the White Queen thought that Alice's inability to remember things before they happen was due to the poor quality of the girl's memory, she too confused empirical with logical necessity. The White Queen fell into this confusion because in her world (if it is, in fact, a conceivable world), time ran backwards, and in that kind of world it would presumably make sense to speak of remembering "things that happened the week after next" But she forgot that her own memory, too, worked in only one direction (albeit in the opposite direction from that in which Alice's memory worked), and had she remembered it, she would have been blissfully unaware that this, too, was a matter of logical necessity. ... How could the White Queen, for whom time ran backwards, converse with Alice, for whom time ran forwards? Ignoring some minor qualifications, we can say that in Alice's world it is logically necessary that one can remember only things in the past, while in the White Queen's world, it is logically necessary that one can remember only things in the future. Here we may begin to see, if only dimly, the (very important) connections between (i) the distinction between logical and empirical necessity and (ii) certain very general facts of nature being what they are.
I must admit this article opened my eyes to things I'd been missing all these years, such as the above, but it seems to me too specialised for inclusion in a general-readership encyclopaedia article. Tim riley talk08:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the wait. I gradually skimmed through articles and books that might cover themes in Through the Looking Glass. I'm going to offer an idea of what an introductory paragraph for the "Themes" section could look like. I don't mean this to be prescriptive. Feel free to take anything you like, but I'm offering this as an example. The example paragraph touches on the various themes in the books and introduces chess before the chess section. Multiple sources mention the recurring themes of royalty and consumption, but I didn't find much to say about either. Royalty is, to an extent, already covered if the article discusses the chess aspect.
Through the Looking-Glass builds on the first book's themes of language, linguistic puzzles, and wordplay.[1] Poet W. H. Auden observed that words in the Alice books "have a life and a will of their own".[2] Carroll’s linguistic games satirize the incoherence of real-world institutions and social structures.[3] Both books have legalistic elements that explore how systems of order can appear structured but remain completely arbitrary.[4] Unlike the first book's meandering plot, the second uses the rules and symbols of chess to provide a more clear progression. Like a symmetrical chess set, many aspects of the story are mirrored or inverted.[5] Cause and effect are often reversed. For example, Alice can only reach the Red Queen by walking in reverse. Looking Glass juxtaposes sense with nonsense and sanity with insanity.[6] The more consistent rules of Looking Glass cast Alice more clearly as a child intruding into an adult world, and capable of seeing through the arbitrary nature of the social structures.[7] The book pays more attention to the passage of time and has moments of playful rebellion against the adult world along with melancholy for the coming end of Alice's childhood.[8] The beginning and end both show themes of winter and death, tied to the end of childhood.[6]
References
^Bolch, Judith (November 2010). "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". Masterplots. Vol. 1 (Fourth ed.). Salem Press. "Critical Evaluation", pp. 126–129. ISBN0-89356-085-5.
^Spacks, Patricia Meyer (April 1961). "Logic and Language in 'Through the Looking Glass'". Etc: A Review of General Semantics. 18 (1): 91–100. JSTOR42573885.
^Liston, Mary (Spring 2009). "The Rule of Law Through the Looking Glass". Law and Literature. 21 (1): 42–77. doi:10.1525/lal.2009.21.1.42.
^Bolch, Judith (November 2010). "Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There". Masterplots (Fourth ed.). Salem Press. "Critical Evaluation", pp. 5762–5766. ISBN978-1-58765-568-5.
"Most stage and screen adaptations of the Lewis Carroll novels concentrate on the more familiar Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, although many of them import characters from Through the Looking-Glass." I disagree with this statement and don't think it meets WP:V. The cited source is saying something similar but different: "While most adaptations of the Lewis Carroll novels concentrate on the more familiar Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865), this musical focuses on Through the Looking Glass (1872) and the more nonsensical and satirical aspects of the fantasy." I read the Wikipedia article as implying that insufficient fidelity could somehow disqualify something from being an adaptation of Through the Looking Glass. In the way that O Brother, Where Art Thou? is an adaptation of Homer's Odyssey, I would say a lot of Alice media adapts this book. Maybe the best way to cover this is to do a paragraph between "Adaptations" and "Stage and cinema" to explain how media draws from both stories and give some of the more notable examples before moving on to cover the more direct adaptations. For example, despite its title, Disney's Alice in Wonderland draws a lot from Through the Looking Glass. Offhand, I think that a lot of Alice media (Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit", the Alice games, and so on) uses the chess motifs from the sequel. Tweedledum and Tweedledee also frequently appear in adaptations that cover both books.
You are quite welcome. For this article, I will stay at comments rather than support or oppose. I think with all the other supports it will likely pass. I find the article to be just on the edge for criteria 1b. The Wikipedia article treats the two Alice books as more separate than the cited sources. I can see the rationale for that, and I don't think it is quite enough to oppose. For example, scholarly sources on the adaptations don't make that kind of hard distinction. They treat the adaptations as having varying degrees of fidelity to the novel. I think the footnote in the adaptations section goes a long way to clarify and will suffice for most readers. Rjjiii (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Made some minor suggestions at Peer review, but it was already a quality article, and the overall input at PR has only improved it further. Pleased to support. KJP1 (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you KJ, for comments at PR and support here. I struggle to recall another PR from which I derived as much benefit as I did for this article and I am most grateful to you and fellow reviewers. Tim riley talk16:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On prose and completeness this tells the story very well and meets the standards. I made a couple of trifling adjustments to the wording yesterday and today. Gardner's Annotated Alice will likely have a reference to the origin of the nursery rhyme that someone mentioned if you wanted to include it. John (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I read, I was going to suggest that you said something about the songs and verses often being parodies, only to discover that you had a whole section on that. That leaves me with the incredibly trivial suggestion that "Together with a Fawn" might be better as either Together with a fawn" or "Together with the Fawn". Fell free to ignore. Great stuff, Jimfbleak - talk to me?13:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the second series of British nuclear tests conducted off the coast of Western Australia in the Montebello Islands. Hawkeye7(discuss)01:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:HMAS_Warrego_by_Allan_Green_SLV_H91.325_78.jpeg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:HMAS_Junee_by_Allan_Green_SLV_H91.108_2689.jpeg.
"before Britain had developed a hydrogen bomb, which it was hoped would be achieved in 1957" --> something more concise like "before Britain had developed a hydrogen bomb, which it was hoped to achieve in 1957" or "to complete in 1957", etc.
"thus increasing the rate of fission and therefore the yield" - I am a fan of the occasional "thus" but I find it a bit clunky to have "thus" and "therefore" in the same clause.
The caption "The sloop HMAS Warrego carried out a hydrographic survey of the Montebello Islands" needs a full stop. I also suggest the slightly more concise "Warrego conducted". There's the same issue with the following two captions as well.
"but the boosting effect of the lithium deuteride had been negligible because the process had not been fully understood" - How was it not fully understood?
"British official historian, Lorna Arnold" Official in what regard? Was she associated with a specific department?
An official historian is one engaged by the government to write history, and is given access to all the documents (which may not be declassified for many years). Arnold was the historian at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Added this. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the rational between the yellow headers in the table? I might understand if it was purely alternating, but yield is skipped.
Define acronym: They were augmented by RAN vessels, designated ... I'm guessing Royal Australian Navy, but other readers may benefit from the acronym being defined here or earlier (I looked but could not find it defined above)
Clarify ...of works to schedule a scientific rehearsal for 27 April. A second scientific rehearsal was held on.... I've never heard the term "scientific rehearsal" before. "Dress" is about the only modifier before "rehearsal" that will be familiar to readers, I think. Do the sources define what it is? I'm guessing some kind of partial rehearsal that omits .... what?
Plainer wording: Because fallout was detected over northern Australia by monitoring stations, in the light of Beale's announcement that G2 would be smaller than G1, an impression was generated that something had gone horribly wrong. That is a tough sentence to parse :-) Both "Because fallout .." and "in light of Beales" are reasons. Which one of the two (or both?) casued the "impression" to be "generated". Maybe The fallout detected over northern Australia by monitoring stations caused Beale to decide to make G2 smaller than G1. This change in plans generated the impression among [who?] that something had gone horribly wrong.
Re-worded: "Beale had announced that the G2 test was going to be smaller than G1, so when fallout was detected over northern Australia by monitoring stations, newspapers reported something must have gone horribly wrong." Hawkeye7(discuss)19:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alphabetize categories? Not sure if that is required for FA or not. When there are more than 10 or so categories, it does help readers hunt for categories. But this article only has 5 cats, so maybe not important.
MOS:CATORDER: "Beyond that, the order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first."
I ran the "Show Ref Check" tool, and it flagged about six sources as "Missing archive link", but I checked one of them, and it had an "access-date" field, so I'm not sure why there is no archive link yet. Maybe the bot hasn't come around the the article yet.
Summary Table: I like it: very useful presentation of data. I wish more articles had tables like that (vs 100% prose).
All the nuclear test articles have them. Another user generated them with a bot.
Clarify In fact, since Narvik had arrived in March, not a single day had been suitable. Good weather conditions alone were insufficient because the meteorologists had to accurately forecast them. That might be a bit confusing to some readers. Maybe The tests could only proceed on days when meteorologists forecast good weather and the weather was actually good. Since Narvik had arrived in March, no day had met both conditions (although several days were good, they were not forecast to be good). Or something like that.
InfoBox: Having two images (movie & map) at the top of the InfoBox will push important InfoBox text (country, etc) way down, especially on smaller devices. Consider moving one of the two (map or movie) down to bottom of InfoBox, or just below the InfoBox, or even lower in the article. Not a show-stopper for FA, just a suggestion.
Was the promise kept? ... but promised that the yield of neither test would exceed two and a half times that of the Operation Hurricane test. After reading that sentence, EVERY reader will want to know if the promised limit was respected. Even if it is stated later in this article, can you add a footnote to this sentence that states something like: "The yields of G1 and G2 were less than 2.5 times the Hurricane test" or conversely "The yields of G1 and G2 vastly exceeded 2.5x the yield of the Hurricane test" ? Even if readers have the time to search for the answer, that kind of detail is hard to locate in an article. A footnote here will make many readers happy.
It's complicated. As the article (and the lead) relates, the limit was changed, and there were unsubstantiated allegations that the yield was higher than reported. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More precise wording The second test in the series, G2, was the largest ever conducted in Australia. Some readers may think that means "... was the largest test at the time (but bigger tests came later)". Consider The second test in the series, G2, remains the largest ever conducted in Australia.
Define/clarify: In thinking about thermonuclear designs, the British scientists ... Many reader will not know that "thermonuclear " in this context is a synonym for "hydrogen bomb" (used earlier in the article). Consider helping the reader make the connection.
More encyclopedic wording? In thinking about thermonuclear designs, the British scientists at the ... The first phrase "In thinking about.." is a bit vulgar/idiomatic. Maybe When considering thermonuclear designs, the British scientists at the ...
This article is about Olivia Rodrigo's song "Ballad of a Homeschooled Girl", which holds the distinction of being her only one to be nominated in a Rock category at the Grammys (unfortunately, "Obsessed" was snubbed). My fiancé's favorite song on Guts, this one perhaps depicts Rodrigo experiencing even more embarrassment than she did on the last one I nominated. There is also a reason I saved this for Pride month, as you will find out upon reading the article... Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ11:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at this one when I have a bit more uniterrupted time. One thing that jumps out after a skim read is that "with an all-female five-member band and two background singers in a silver two-piece outfit" makes it sound like both singers (or possibly even all seven people) had somehow been crammed into a single two-piece outfit, so this could do with rewording....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are high-quality and appropriate for a potential FA and are fitting for a music topic. The citation method is consistent and the citations themselves are structured well. I have some minor comments on the citations below:
The link for Citation 26 (here) goes directly to the entry on "Get Him Back!" rather than to the entry on the song that this article is actually about.
I am uncertain that the ISSN number for Citation 30 (linked here) is really necessary or particularly useful. None of the other citations include ISSN numbers.
Citation 41 (here) should clarify that a subscription is required to view the full article. I have a similar comment for Citation 42 (this one) and Citation 49 (this one) . I think that these are the only ones that would need this added, but if I notice anything else similar to this in the my spot-check, I will let you know.
I will do spot-checks (to make sure that the information cited in the article is supported in the citations) once my above comments have been addressed. Hopefully, getting the source review out of the way near the start of the FAC will help the process go more smoothly. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Aoba47. I think I have addressed all of your above comments. I agree that getting the source reviews done early in the process is beneficial, so I really appreciate this.--NØ17:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything so far. I have done a spot-check of random citations to see if the information is supported in the sources. Mostly everything matches up, but I do have some comments below:
Citation 33 (MusicOMH) requires a subscription to view the full article. I would clarify that in the citation. Apologies for missing this one.
I believe that this part, (less of a well-calculated political critique and more resembled a "stream-of-consciousness journal entry"), reads a bit too closely to the source (less like a well-thought-out political critique and more like the stream-of-consciousness journal entry). For reference, this is sourced from Citation 34 (The Line of Best Fit). I believe that revising it further would be beneficial. Maybe something like: (thought the song more so resembled a "stream-of-consciousness journal entry" rather than a well-calculated political critique)?
I have a similar concern to this part, (and Clash's Alex Berry believed the lyrics offer wisdom and comfort while maintaining the relatable and confused voice of a young person navigating the world), which is sourced through Citation 44 (Clash). The source uses "confused voice of a young person trying to navigate the world", which is very close to "confused voice of a young person navigating the world". I would either use the quote from the source or paraphrase it more in your own wording.
I am uncertain about this part, (it showcased Rodrigo's skill of bringing a ballad's emotionality to a song without that type of production). It is being sourced through Citation 36 (Beats Per Minute), but I read the source a bit different than what is represented in the prose. The source says that the song is a "tour-de-force of the artist’s ability to bring the aching vulnerability of a ballad to a pop-rock sound". I interpret it as saying that "it showcased Rodrigo's skill of bringing a ballad's emotionality to a pop-rock production". The article's current wording makes it sound like the source is saying that Rodrigo can bring the emotion of a ballad to a song that does not have a ballad production, but I think the source is focusing more on the pop-rock sound. That is just my interpretation though.
Are three citations necessary for this sentence: (On October 24, she reprised the song on Jimmy Kimmel Live!)? I understand if they are needed, but it just seems like a lot to say this.
As a rule of thumb, I consider four or more citations for a sentence overkill and anything lesser a matter of editorial preference.
I agree. My concern was not about citation overkill, but I was just curious on why three citations would be needed to say that she performed a song on a talk show at a certain date. I would think that could be covered in just one, unless the information is scattered in parts and could not be sourced to a singular citation. It is not a major issue so it would not hold up my review in any way. Aoba47 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think some additional context could be added for this part, (Rolling Stone's Tomás Mier believed they constituted a set which harkened back to Rodrigo's teenage years). I believe that Citation 74 (Rolling Stone) specifies that this harkening back to Rodrigo's teenage years was done through "some yearbook-esque imagery that referenced her past", rather than just through the songs themselves.
This is admittedly outside of the parameters of a source review, but do you think that linking guacamole for "guac" would be helpful? I think that it would be obvious to a lot of people, but I would be curious if non-English speakers for instance may be familiar with this shortened form of the word? For that reason, a link may be helpful here.
Thank you for addressing everything. I am glad that I am able to help with this FAC. I left a response to clarify my point regarding the Jimmy Kimmel Live! citations, but it is nothing major and would not hold up my review. I did make a small copy-edit to the article, but feel free to revert this if you disagree with it. Everything looks good to me, and I have marked this source review as a pass. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Rodrigo was homeschooled as a teenager and missed out on a regular high school experience. The song draws inspiration from this"- this could be compressed to "The song drew inspiration from the fact that Rodrigo was homeschooled as a teenager and missed out on a regular high school experience.
"He plays guitar, percussion, and drum programming" - I don't think you really "play" drum programming. I would suggest "and programmed drums"
"In the United Kingdom, it debuted at number 20 on the Official Audio Streaming Chart and Billboard." - this doesn't seem to make sense. How did it debut "on Billboard" (a US publication) in the UK?
Billboard also has a "U.K. Songs" chart, which we are apparently allowed to include when a song didn't crack the Official Charts Company's main singles chart.
I didn't realise that. In that case I would change it to "It debuted at number 20 on the United Kingdom's Official Audio Streaming Chart and on Billboard's UK Songs chart". I don't think saying that it charted on a Billboard chart "in" the UK is totally accurate as, while it's (apparently) based on UK data, the chart is published in the United States.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"also reached national record charts at number 17 in Ireland" => "also charted at number 17 in Ireland"
"Rolling Stone's Tomás Mier believed they constituted a set"- "they" is a bit vague, maybe say "Rolling Stone's Tomás Mier believed that the three songs constituted a set"
"lots of confusion, mistakes, awkwardness & good old fashioned teen angst", from a look at your other FAs the quote credits Rodrigo as well. Would it be relevant to include that she said this to avoid confusion?
The song was included in the concert film, would it be redundant to put information regarding that here?
Arconning, I think I have completed addressing everything in this list of comments. Highly appreciate you taking the time to review this.--NØ09:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Sour's producer, Dan Nigro, returned to produce every track on it." do we need 3 refs for this one? Seems like ref overkill to me...
Same concern with: "The song drew inspiration from the fact that Rodrigo was homeschooled as a teenager and missed out on a regular high school experience"
More than three would be overkill. Three is an adequate amount for the claim made here.
Also I would use the params |last= and |first= in {{Cite AV media notes}} for the album liner notes ref, instead of putting Rodrigo in the |others= param
I mean, is there any reason the practice around this would have changed...? Articles like Shake It Off were promoted with the artist in the Other parameter.
Thanks, used the workaround. I would feel awkward putting Rodrigo's name in the author parameter as if she typed the booklet text herself... and that would raise the question of whether Dan Nigro should be included there too.--NØ13:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The song became available for digital download on the album, which was released on September 8, 2023" assuming this was released by Geffen Records; I'd also suggest adding a third-party ref for the label
Just added the label name. This is verified by the ref already present. Turning to Shake It Off as a reference point again, you used 7digital which is a similar service to Apple Music which is cited here
Not sure if the dig at Bassett would qualify as WP:GOSSIP...
Stating that Rodrigo took a "dig at Bassett" would, but stating that some people had that interpretation is not. Some having that interpretation is a verifiable fact and not speculation.
Do we have the studio for mastering?
Unfortunately not.
"According to John Murphy of MusicOMH, it begins like a Weezer song,[33] incorporating grungy guitars and quiet-loud dynamics.[10][32]" pretty sure [10] and [32] are not attributed to Murphy and thus this is SYNTH...
"vocalizing in a "bratty" way" I think we need an attribution for "bratty"?
I think there's a missing comma before "according to Billboard's Jason Lipshutz"
Does "AH-ah" follow the right capitalization..? Shouldn't it be "ah-ah" instead?
Not sure we should alter capitalization from the original print source, considering it is a direct quote.
Inconsistent tense use: "The Line of Best Fit's Matthew Kim thought the song more resembled [...], and Clash's Alex Berry believed the lyrics offer wisdom"
This also recurs elsewhere in the Critical reception section.. pls brush through it
I think "impeccable" should be in quote marks because this is not exactly NPOV...
That Sheffield placed this song at the bottom of his list should be somewhere else, as its current position as the first sentence to a paragraph that details its accolades makes for a jarring transition. Maybe at the end of the paragraph that discusses its production choices (esp. the "let-down" of a chorus?)
Same concern with ref overkill for the Grammy nom and the Kimmel live
Three is really fine.
If you insist, I'm fine with that. I just really think one ref (or maybe two) is sufficient for a claim like: "Among Rodrigo's six nominations at the 66th Annual Grammy Awards, it was nominated for Best Rock Song, marking her first appearance in a rock category" Ippantekina (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does need two rationale boxes, or else a bot will remove it from whichever one of the two articles it is used on that doesn't have one. The box for this article is quite descriptive about why this particular segment of the song was chosen. Hope everything looks good after the explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus.--NØ16:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It illustrates the pop-punk sound of "Ballad of a Homeschooled Girl", specifically the repetition of "It's social suicide, it's social suicide," followed by "AH-ah's" in the post-chorus, which recalls bands like Everclear and Third Eye Blind and proves Rodrigo's affinity for '90s alt-rock according to Billboard's Jason Lipshutz." - This wouldn't be accomplished by any other segment, no?--NØ19:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I pasted the rationale for the usage of this segment into the album article's rationale box too. I don't have any other ideas to fix the concern you seem to be having. Maybe someone else with image reviewing experience can help us out. Amy opinion, Nikkimaria?--NØ18:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lipshutz said "Rodrigo’s affinity for ‘90s alt-rock can be heard most clearly on the post-chorus of “Ballad of a Homeschooled Girl” — that repetition of “It’s social suicide, it’s social suicide,” followed by the lilting “AH-ah’s,” immediately recalls bands like Everclear and Third Eye Blind." - source. This can only refer to the sampled segment and I just more clearly emphasized this in the sample caption as well.--NØ02:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is the fifth on a Centre College president that I've brought to FAC - this one is about a man who, despite his relatively brief stint in office (six years), had quite the impact on the school. William Arthur Ganfield was a minister in Iowa and Wisconsin when he was elected president of Centre in 1915. He restored the college's ties to the Presbyterian Church, thereby helping to solve Centre's ongoing enrollment and financial issues. He was a large supporter of athletics at both Centre and Carroll University, where he was president for nearly eighteen years; he was in office (and in attendance) for Centre's major upset victory over Harvard in 1921, and he later hired a Centre alum to coach Carroll's football and basketball programs to conference championships. The article underwent a GA review from It is a wonderful world last month. Any and all comments/suggestions will be greatly appreciated! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
predecessor, Frederick W. Hinitt, in order to restore ==> "predecessor, Frederick W. Hinitt, to restore"
early life and education
no problems here.
career
were made in order to gain Central ==> "were made to gain Central"
reverse this to get the school's enrollment
He conducted a fundraiser which was planned for completion in 1919, in time for the college's centennial, though it did not finish until afterwards. ==> "He conducted a fundraiser that was planned for completion in 1919, in time for the college's centennial, though it was not finished until afterward."
though a collapse of the steel framework in November of that year the second "of" is redundant
Greek life enjoyed prominence at Carroll ==> "Greek life was prominent at Carroll"
@750h+ Thanks for the review! All fixes made - the only one I did differently than your recommendation was the "November of that year", which I just changed to "that November" instead. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few quibbles with referencing: ref 1 should be either "website=WisconsinHistory.org" (or something like that) or should be something like "publisher=Wisconsin Historical Society", since at the moment, "Wisconsin Historical Society" is in italics, when normally it wouldn't be. Similarly, ref 60 has "Carroll University" in italics when it should not be. Same with ref 62 for "Centre College". Having "Carroll Pioneers athletics" in ref 63 feels awkward as well.
Switched to publisher parameter for 1, 60, 62; the format used in 63 is my go-to for university athletics webpages but I am definitely not married to it and certainly open to suggestions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead notes ... who was president of Centre College in Danville, Kentucky, from 1915 to 1921 and then of Carroll College (now called Carroll University) in Waukesha, Wisconsin, from 1921 until his retirement in 1939 ... and stayed in Waukesha until 1915, when he was elected president of what is now Centre College. – if you have the then-Carroll name listed in the first sentence (with parenthesis listing its current name) what's the reason for not doing the same regarding Centre, if it was named differently when he was president?
I do recognize the inconsistency there; my reasoning was that Carroll didn't adopt its current name until 2008, but Centre switched back to its present name in 1918, during Ganfield's term. I guess I felt that since Centre is still the name of the school and that Ganfield spent roughly half of his term with each of the two names, I could stick the recognizable (and linkable) one in the lead and give the alternative in the body of the article. I am definitely open to re-working this if you feel that would be appropriate (or if my reasoning is not as logical as I think). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
both grew during his nineteen-year term – should it be 'nineteen-year' or '19-year'? I feel like I've read somewhere that numbers above 10 should be listed as numbers...
That would be MOS:SPELL09; that specifies that numbers 0-9 should be spelled out but the flip side is not a requirement: Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words - for some reason, spelling them out looks nicer to me, so I default to that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Faculty pensions were introduced during the Great Depression, and fixed salaries were implemented as the faculty numbers grew. – is the comma necessary?
graduated from St. Mary's Seminary in Epworth, Iowa, in 1894. He attended Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1898 and a Master of Arts in 1901. Afterward, he attended McCormick Theological Seminary and completed graduate work at the University of Chicago. – if you mention the locations for St. Mary's and Cornell, should you also mention the location of McCormick?
become a professor of history and political science at Carroll College—now Carroll University—in Waukesha, Wisconsin. – in the lead, you have it as "Carroll College (now called Carroll University)" – be consistent (parenthesis or dash).
He conducted a fundraiser which was planned for completion in 1919, in time for the college's centennial, though it did not finish until after the centennial. – perhaps you could say something like "though it did not finish until afterwards" or something to that effect, to avoid mentioning "centennial" twice in 10 words.
from the board of education of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America – is it necessary to link to the Presbyterian Church a second time, since you do it in the prior paragraph?
Didn't want to just de-link the second instance since the links display different text, so I re-formatted the first link, moved the abbreviation there, and changed the second link to an un-linked "PCUSA" instead. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sports, particularly football, were emphasized during Ganfield's time at Centre. – perhaps link American football, since international readers might think it to be a different football?
This is what I've found. I've never conducted an FAC review before so apologies if any of my comments are silly – feel free to decline any of them if you think it wouldn't be an improvement. Nice work here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"and Ganfield Gymnasium, a recreation center at Carroll." Ref 62 ("Ganfield Gymnasium". Carroll Pioneers athletics.") did not verify that it was named for Ganfield.
""Carroll University – Ganfield Gym"" What is the reliability of this website? This seems to be a link for a company.
Thank you for taking the time to review! My plans to tackle this tonight were foiled as my house recently lost power during a thunderstorm, so I will have this done tomorrow. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"There, he reversed decisions made by his predecessor, Frederick W. Hinitt, to restore the school's close connection with the church, leading to an increase in enrollment and a successful fundraiser" - wouldn't it be useful to indicate in the lead which denomination Centre was associated with?
"Another major change took place when the school reverted to the "Centre College" name on December 17, 1918" - I would drop "major" as you're just citing this to a primary source of board minutes, which makes the attribution of importance to this an editor-provided judgment
"Faculty pensions were introduced during the Great Depression, " is in the lead, but yet the article body states "Solutions to the pension and tenure problems were only addressed after the Great Depression". The pension issue was resolved in 1937 according to the article, which is generally considered to be part of the later years of the Great Depression (see Recession of 1937–1938)
"and fixed salaries were implemented as the faculty numbers grew" - is in the lead, but I'm not seeing where this is directly stated in the article body
I think I was connecting that to The salary scale was established in 1928, with the maximum salary (fixed salaries implemented) and especially against the backdrop of growing faculty numbers. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
England: A boy king who wants to be his daddy. An invading army that starts fighting itself before it even reaches the border. Stays two weeks, then goes home. Hungry and broke.
Scotland: French allies who are hated. The French plunder their ally's land and moan about being ripped off. The Scottish continue to rip off the French. The Scottish then hold the French leader to ransom.
Just another day in Anglo-Scottish/French politics. What could possibly go wrong?
A map would be good, but could it possibly include both current and contemporary borders as a couple of then English possessions mentioned are now in Scotland. I don't know how easy it would be to get the Solway Firth coastline from that era, but I'd be surprised if Carlisle was as far from the sea in those days. ϢereSpielChequers08:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: I've moved the discussion to the talk page, and inserted the map as it currently stands. It's sufficiently complex, and adjacent to FAC itself, that it deserves more eyes on it than can be expected here. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix09:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recusing to review. This looks up my street. I'll start with a source review and then see how it is getting on generally.
Article titles should be standardised on either title or sentence case, regardless of hte style of the originals. Similarly for the titles of books.
Check.
"in return for knight service of forty days a year." Can a better source not be found than one 120+ years old?
Might rid of the whole footnote to be honest. It's somewhat adjacent to the topic, and theer's a link for tose wishing tyo indulge in esotericisms. What think ye.
"The city was heavily pillaged and fired, leading the 18th-century antiquarian Robert Chambers to comment that Edinburgh "suffered its full share of calamities attendant upon these disastrous wars"." What makes Chambers a high-quality source? (Or even a RS?)
Meh. He's good enough to make a point that's now supported by a modern HQRS.
No Wikilinks for authors?
Don't think I ever have. Likewise book URLs.
"with one mind ... complaining grievously". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
Gillespie, 1997. Where you say vol, do you mean chapter?
No. But that was there since the GA review in 2018; wierd.
"Jean Froissart, on the other hand, says that ..." Froissart needs introducing.
Done, +source.
"According to Froissart, the invaders raids on the wealthy bishoprics of Carlisle and Durham, gained them more than was held within the whole Kingdom of Scotland." Well now. I assume you insert "According to Froissart" because the statement is so unreliable that the source distances it even more, with 'so the French said'? I am unsure that we need to give any credence to French boasts/denigrations of their allies. Especially when both the source and you feel a need to distance themselves from stating this as a fact. And even more so when almost any reader of the article wouldn't realise that it wasn't a fact.
Replaced with "claims"; added footnote re. reliability.
"What Prussian march is this to which our Admiral has taken us?" Not IMO helpful to a reader, who is likely to misunderstand both Prussian and march.
Ah. As it it goes, no-one knows what that it is. Probably the Rhine I guess, but I would've thought the wine would've made up for its Prussian-ness.
"This was a similar attitude to the English, whom Froissart writes in contempt for their poverty-stricken uncouthness." I am unsure what you are saying here. That the French had a similar contempt for the English as for the Scots? And why are we citing Froissart in line rather than using Wikipedia's voice?
Froissart was saying that the English and the French shared similar attitudes towards the Scots. Still, I've removed it as while it's relevant that the French looked down on their (so-called) allies, it's pretty par for the course for an invading army to feel that way towards the enemy (as in, the former is man biting dog, whereas the latter is dog biting man). And that para is about Francoo-Scots activities, so what the English thought is in any case rather out of place.
Thanks Gog, have responded to your points, except the one that relies on BHO (only temporarily, I hope, but it's being crap at the moment. It's a shame that their recent 'upgrade' made the thing look all so smart and modern, but also broke half the bloody links...) —Fortuna, imperatrix17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On edit: Yeah; on further consideration, I've abridged some of the notes and removed others. Also considering whether some of fn. 15 could be folded into the text and the rest removed. —Fortuna, imperatrix18:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was an interesting read, thanks for writing it. I've made a few tweaks hope you like them.
I'm not sure of the timeline in "Three days before reaching Edinburgh Richard received news from London that his mother, Joan, Countess of Kent—with whom he was very close—had died the previous day.[3][note 16] That night most of Edinburgh was set alight," That's some very fast communication between Berkshire, London and southern Scotland. Did they have some form of heliograph? If Edinburgh was set alight while Richard was three days away, does that mean that the English vanguard was travelling that many days ahead of the army or did the Scots burn Edinburgh themselves?
Yes, this was confused by the fact that historians have plumped for different dates, which means when I try put them together, it's round pegs in square holes. I've settled on on exactitude: remove explicit referernce to Joan's death date (which varies by over a week).
The Scottish counter attack would benefit from a route map. Hard to see how they would ravage Cumberland and also "almost reaching Carlisle." as there really isn't much of Cumberland between Carlisle and Scotland. I get that they headed South from Edinburgh, but "they could launch a counterattack in the east" doesn't make sense to me. The western end of the border is the most southerly place in Scotland, but I could understand it being described as " they could launch a counterattack in the west". Reading between the lines I suspect the army stopped outside Carlisle but sent raiding parties to ravage further into England, devastating Cumberland. But it reads that Carlisle was the furthest point they reached, almost as if the invasion was from westmoorland or Furness.
I've expanded on the Carlisle action; the Solway Firth gets a namecheck (per the source) too!
"The destruction in Carlisle was such that the following year's taxes were commuted to a £200 lump sum in acknowledgement, as the Exchequer writ puts it, of "the great mischiefs and destructions which are done to and inflicted on the people of the holy church and the commons of the county of Cumberland by the invasions of our enemies of Scotland"." Wouldn't destruction in Cumberland be more apt as Carlisle seems to have been the one bit of Cumberland that held out? Was this a reference to the whole county by referring to its county town?
Well spotted, thanks. I've changed it to Cumberland, as in fact the incursion went even deeper than Carlisle.
Re "Men would serve, and to just serve not merely cum servitio debito but quanto potentius poteritis." What reading age are we aiming for? I've done a tiny bit of Latin and from the context I think I know what is meant, but links for those phrases would help if you are using such Latin terms that are almost archaic in modern English. ϢereSpielChequers08:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it!
Many thanks for looking in WereSpielChequers, I've actioned most of your points (still working on the Latin!), which have helped clear up some chronological confusions. Thanks for you earlier copy edits too—even running it through word, I always seem to miss a few silly typos. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix14:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the plus side, Richard achieved a three year truce with Scotland. On the minus side, when he was deposed 14 years after the war, there were reports of the Scots breaking the truce. On my time line that's a truce that ended 11 years earlier. ϢereSpielChequers08:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, WereSpielChequers, it's a tricky one. I don't want to get to bogged down in the minutiae of medieval treating, of course, but I've added a sentence under 'Background' noting how elastic they actually were, and again in the 'Aftermath' section, noting that pitched battles could be fought in times of supposed truce. Truces, after all, weren't treaties. I wish I had a source that actually says that though! Let me know if you think that clarifies things. —Fortuna, imperatrix14:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At one point the truce was described in positive terms for being as long as three years, at another it was criticised for breaches taking place after the truce had lasted 14 years. The rewording does explain how the truces were subsequently renewed. I get that normal raiding on the border wasn't considered incompatible with a treaty that prevented armies crossing and going beyond the marches. I just find it odd that one person thinks a three year truce is more substantial an achievement than someone else thinks a 14 year duration is. ϢereSpielChequers23:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably just me, and absolutely no disrespect, but I disagree with the usefulness of {{Inflation}} in medieval articles on principle. Or, to be fair, at least until they can compare the value (not the worth) of a horse in the 15th century, and compare it to something we haven't even invented—some kind of a tractor-Bentley-T-34 combo—in the mid 20th... :) —Fortuna, imperatrix21:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree re {{Inflation}}, but maybe footnote the annual income of someone at the time to give at least some sort of context? (You once put your name to article which claimed that in the 1360s "To give a very rough idea of earning power, an English foot-soldier could expect to earn £1 in wages for, usually seasonal, military service in approximately three months.") Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take your points re inflation. I don't know how the template calculates it, my concern was that simply writing £500 without some indication that at the time this was a fine that only the richest could afford was misleading. However if the inflation figure is the result of some serious economics from a reputable source, it would save us from having to decide whether to compare the price of a pint of beer, a riding horse or a pub between 1385 and now. But my concern about that is minor compared to my concern that we need to do something to convey that £500 then was a lot of money, many times an ordinary person's annual income. If you two would rather do this as Gog suggests then I can live with that. ϢereSpielChequers23:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I did, Gog. And in review too :p yeah, that's fine. I wasn't having a go at you WSC, jus musing allowed on the dangers of the the code. By the way, to keep this in one para, can you clarify who said a three-year truce was worth more than one of 14? I'm missing it at the momenmt. Having said that, i've juS got back from Moorfields, and can't see a bloody thing. Hopefully I won't be too slow on the responses here co-ord, but I think the map's later stages might be be delayed a little. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix14:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On edit: I think I see wat you mean re. truces. But the 'three years of truces' is in the historiography section. The '14 years of truces' is in the aftermath section. The reason for this—and why I wrote it like that in the first place—was that the afterm,ath section looks a few years ahead (in this case, to the end of the reign) while the histo section discusses historians views of the campaign itself, where it suffices that the Scots accepted truces. What happened n 1399 is relevant to the aftermath, not the historiography. However, to simplify tings (Hopefuly!)_ I've committed 'three' and reduced t to the vagfuer 'successive truces', which allows for coexistance. —Fortuna, imperatrix14:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re. inflation: Yes, I'll look for something to compare the figures too to. The £1 p.a. is too small to be useful in this context, but there's plenty of comparisons that can be made. See Christopher Dyer. Cheer, —Fortuna, imperatrix14:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"For the last 50 years, England and France had been engaged in the Hundred Years' War". I think previous 50 years would be better.
Yes.
"the leadership was divided and often indulged more in internecine fighting than in attacking the Scots". I would take "fighting" to be taken literally. Maybe use a milder word.
"The Scots scorched the earth as they retired." The expression "scorch the earth" seems to generally be used in a more literal sense than a scorched earth military strategy. I would revise.
Done:"destroyed provisions and infrastructure".
"The Historiographer Royal, Robert Rait, says that, while it may not have been particularly vicious "Still, it was an act of war, and the Scots may reasonably have expressed surprise, when, in April, the French ambassadors (who had been detained in England since February) arrived in Edinburgh, and announced that Scotland and England had been at peace since January." I had to read this several times to be sure what it was saying and I am not sure what it adds to the article. It also implies that it is by a contemporary historian, not from 1901.
You're right, of course, I've removed the quote and paraphrased the primary point.
I am not clear what you are saying about Gaunt in the background section. If he was pro-Scottish, why did he invade Scotland in 1384? And saying that his policy disintegrated with the arrival of de Vienne's forces in Scotland seems to contradict the statement that it was unsuccessful because of his poor relations with the king.
I've tweaked this, hopefully clarifying both points. (It wasn't so much that he was actively "pro-Scottish" as that he would have preferred to be in Castille claiming the throne that wasn't his by right.)
itinerancies. You link to an article about a permanently itinerant court rather than a temporary caretaker government in the capital.
"Legal wonk" Wonk is too colloquial - and he was writing as a historian rather than a legal scholar.#
H'mm not sure how that even got in! Gentrified.
"The two countries decided on 23 July for the launch of their campaign,[31] although in the event it was brought forward to the 8th.". This is confusing. I thought at first you meant that they had made the decision on the 23rd. I do not see that it is significant that they changed their mind on the date.
True; omitted the 23rd.
"in the event" twice in two lines.
"ultimately" on first occasion?
"the nature of Marcher conflict made this approach impracticable". This is vague and needs explanation, particularly as it is the only use of "Marcher" in the article.
Changed to 'border' for consistency; clarified war was attritional.
"Military and naval ordinances were drawn up.[41][note 7] in Durham,[28] These were probably authored". The punctuation has gone awry here.
Yes. I've now split the sentence too.
"These were probably authored by Richard". I dislike "author" as a verb. Fowler describes it as "widely reviled" but does not condemn it. Tim riley what say you?
I am happy to join in the wide revulsion. In general it is silly to wax indignant at turning nouns into verbs – Shakespeare did it continually – but I'm blest if I can see what the lumpen "authored" has got that the crisp "written" hasn't. Thank you, Dudley for that ping, which has alerted me to this review, to which I hope to contribute in the next few days. Tim riley talk16:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're bringing out the big guns. Twice! :) How about 'drafted'?
No change needed but I am interested to see that the disciplinary ordinances were in French. I thought that French went out in government documents in the late 14th century?
The annoying thing is that one of the sources used actually discusses that, and suggests an interesting reason for it being so. (In other words, yes, you're absolutely correct DM, but the use of French had a particular meaning in this context. Annoyingly, I can't remember it now, but if I do it might be worth adding... Other readers may also wonder the same thing.)
"Another problem inherent to medieval warfare was financing." Why medieval? It is a problem in all places and periods.
Point. I've kept the link to Medieval warfare, but reduced the text to just 'warfare'.
"The King, on the other hand, at this time had no gift for command" "gift for command" sounds odd to me in this context. Maybe "experience of command"?
Of course, thanks.
You mention the vanguard and centre, then Gaunt etc, then in a few words the rear, then more on the army generally. This seems an odd arrangement and it is not clear which division most of the troops were in.
I've moved the rear to follow the centre and vanguard; hopefully, the individual contingents flow more naturally now.
"But their combined force of over 2,000 men". It is not clear what "their" refers to.
Clarified.
You say twice that there were 3000 Scottish soldiers.
Removed the second sentence entirely.
"De Vienne led the army for the French and for the Scottish, James, Earl of Douglas, with the latter's cousin Archibald Lord of Galloway, King Robert's son Robert, Earl of Fife, Sir William Douglas of Nithsdale and George Dunbar, Earl of March." This is ungrammatical and unclear.
I've split the sentence and tweaked.
"Disagreement over Roxburgh effectively brought official Franco-Scottish cooperation to an end." What disagreement? You imply above that they agreed that it was impregnable.
Tweaked.
"Now another argument took place as to whether to assault Wark before, as Sumption puts it, the French attacked "on their own as the Scots stood by and watched"." I am not clear what this means.
The French did all the work :)
"The garrison was put to the sword, the captain held for ransom," No change needed, but this seems the common ancient practice of punishing the commmon people who had no say in the decision to fight while not punishing the leader who took the decision.
You're not wrong. Interestingly, the first occasion I can find where that wasn't the case (in an English army anyway) was under Edward IV over 70 years later, who gave the order before Towton (and if I remember correctly Tewkesbury also) to 'spare the commons and slay the lords'; but then that was a civil war, with fewer opportunites for ransom. Cheers!
"The army crossed into Scotland over the central borders." central borders links to the a modern council area, which is not helpful. I think it would be better to be more specific, for example near a specified town.
Berwick.
Why "Catholic papacy" (in note)? I am not aware of a non-Catholic one.
I think I was drawing a distinction with the Antipapacy, but to be fair, no one's ever argued that wasn't still Catholic.
"England stayed loyal to Pope Urban VI and his successor Pope Boniface IX, the Schism had "removed some religious sanctions", argues Ranald Nicholson." The comma is wrong here.
Done.
"Most contemporary chroniclers considered the destruction effectively terrorism." This is clumsy. Maybe "Most contemporary chroniclers regarded the destruction as terrorism."
Yes, thanks.
"It was by then deserted,[59] apart from a garrison at Edinburgh Castle, as the Franco-Scottish army was in retreat via Ettrick Forest to the south." Presumably also abandoned by the civilian population, but you should say so.
Clarified.
"afired". Dictionaries do not list this word.
Curious! The more trad. 'burned' then.
"while St Giles' Cathedral was so badly damaged that it was later torn down and rebuilt." This does not appear to be correct. See [20], which says that it survived.
H'mm. I think I'd take the Pepsi Challenge between two historians writing for that city's own university press and a self-published website specifically designed to draw in the tourists. Note the SGK site also claims that the English 'sent a large army north to destroy St Giles' and other Scottish churches', rather than that they were destroyed in the course of a full-scale invasion.
"With much of the city burning—including St Giles' Kirk". You have said this above describing it as a cathedral.
True. SGK redirects to SGC, conveniently, so I've changed the first mention to Kirk and dropped the second usage completely.
"probably accounts for chroniclers own confusion" Maybe "probably accounts for chroniclers' confusion".
Done, thanks.
"personally knew several of the leading men of Richard's" Of Richard's what?
'Court' got lost somewhere.
"the monk of Westminster" Is this the same as the Westminster chronicler? This should be made clear.
Done.
"Saul argues that as he was clearly basing his account on that of someone present at the meetings—and biased against Gaunt—the monk's report should be considered "dubious", and that of Froissart was to be preferred." This seems puzzling. Froissart is to be preferred because he was not basing his account on someone present at the meetings?
Indeed, unnecessarily complex... the problem was obviously the informant's bias rather than their proximity to events, so I've clarified that.
"Crossing the undefended border around 15 August,[32][37] much of Cumberland was plundered." This is ungrammatical. How about "they plundered much of Cumberland"?
Much easier. Done.
"Douglas distinguished himself in the siege, although still young". Seems a bit ageist. The young often distinguish themselves in battle.
Apologies! (Noting in passing that—again 70 years later—this chap was fighting pitched battles at 60.)
"although Knighton preferred to record how the Scottish army withdrew in panic after the Virgin Mary appeared on Carlisle's walls.". This seems an odd wording. Maybe "although Knighton claimed that the Scottish army withdrew in panic after the Virgin Mary appeared on Carlisle's walls."
Thanks—I wanted to avoid implying that Wikipedia endorsed her appearance as a historical fact.
Middle March. This term is obscure and undefined.
Redux to just 'lowlands'.
"a significant quantity of plunder, was achieved after leaving Cumberland." Did they not cross into Scotland from Cumberland? How did they get plunder after leaving it?
Clarified.
"claimed the Franco-Scottish raids into the wealthy bishoprics of Carlisle and Durham". Durham? In the previous paragraph you do not say that they crossed the Pennines.
True, I've simplified it to focus solely on the booty.
"The erubescent King Robert did not cut a charismatic military figure". According to Boardman in ODNB on Robert, this is an unfair characterisation by Froissart.
And well caught, thanks for that source. I've reversed the comment of Froissart to add Boardman's assessment.
Prisoners sub-section. This is a sub-section of the main campaign section, but seems to be only about the Scottish/French counter-attack. Does "The campaign had been short yet bloody." refer to the whole war or just the Scottish raid?
Both. And have tweaked to show the POWs were all in English hands.
"the extravagant largesse bestowed by the King upon de la Pole". You mention this as if it has been covered previously, but it has not.
Done.
"His absence from English politics enabled Richard’s baronial enemies to strengthen their attacks on Richard's favourites." It is unclear why as you say Gaunt was an enemy of Richard.
Simplified: the old chestnut about 'upset the balance of power' applies here.
"For the Scots, they had established the value of their relationship with France." This is ambiguous. Do you mean its low value?
Added 'low'.
"John Sadler has also argued that the Scots were no more successful in their own country than the English had been." I am not sure what the qualification "in their own country" means as you say that their foreign raids were unsuccessful. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed that qualification; shorter sentences preferred on principle.
Well caught, Dudley Miles. As it happens, I did act on your suggestion (see above, 'redux') in my original edit, but missed logging it here. Is it what you were thinking, though? —Fortuna, imperatrix22:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few more on a re-read
"Franco-Scottish army counter-invaded England from the West March" West March links to a list of wardens, which is not helpful. I would delete.
Done.
"The destination of his next foreign campaign was Ireland in 1399". This should be his last foreign campaign.
"They effectively codified the troops' behaviour during the offensive, for example, explicitly prohibited rape and sacrilege." This is ungrammatical.
"the penalty for taking women and priests prisoner, for example, was to be death". This is covered in the quote above.
Done.
"By the later Middle Ages the Crown had preferred the mobility and reliability that paid, professional soldiers brought, over an army of raised feudal tenantry.[52] Armies were recruited and then disbanded, and there was no way of ensuring that men whom a previous set of regulations had bound would be recruited again." I would transpose these sentences as the second one appears to refer to the earlier period. Also, why "had preferred"?
Great point, swapped order and changed tense.
You are inconsistent whether to refer to De Vienne or Vienne.
Odd! I couldn't find any, but hopefully they're OK now (I just did a find/replace).
On a quick read through, this needs a lot of work. I'll post a longer list but "These favourites rode high in the King's favour at this time." is memorably infelicitous. John (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This will take me more than one go. Here's the first, down to the end of the Background section:
"an allied French army in Scotland the previous summer. For the previous 50 years" – obtrusive repetition of "previous".
I've gone with the date; it previously (!) said 'last 50 years', but that too was unpopular.
"The King's friends among the nobility, who were also Gaunt's enemies" – I'm unclear about the intended meaning. Do you mean that the king's friends were all Gaunt's enemies or are you referring to just those of the king's friends who were Gaunt's enemies?
Hopefuly clarfied, "several of whom were..."
"On its return to Scotland, Cumberland and Durham were pillaged" – This confused me at first reading, as Cumberland and Durham are and weren't in Scotland. Perhaps "during" rather than "on"?
Great, super.
"The choice was made for the crown" – but you capitalise Crown earlier (rightly in my view, though as the retired librarian of the Crown Estate I may be biased.)
Annoyingly, I'd thought I'd caught all my caps, thanks. I guess you approve of Bolingbroke then :)
"This force was to both provide the Scots with technical assistance and to encourage an invasion of England" – having two "to"s is too much. (I always like managing to have "to", "too" and "two" in one phrase.)
Removed. I tried to think of a clever construct that would allow 'their', 'there' and 'they're'. No joy!
"It did not stop Gaunt leading a chevauchée" – the noun is a registered trade mark of Gog the Mild and a licensing fee may be required.
I for one welcome our new Mild Overlords.
"The invasion was to be one of several long itinerancies" – one of several what? Could we have that in plain words?
Shame. Such a good word. You wouldn't like 'peripatetic perambulations', then...? How about progress, as in 'Royal progress'?
"did not suit France at all. They were, says the medievalist May McKisack" – either "the French" rather than "France" or "it was" rather than "they were".
Tweaked.
"Legal wonk Jonathan Sumption" – "wonk" is much too slangy for a formal encyclopaedia article, and we don't need the clunking false title. (I could think of other descriptions of the egregious Sumption, but that is not for this page and Gog will beat me up anyway.)
Gog, if, per impossibile, I were planning to defame anyone in Wikipedia I should not choose a retired Justice of the Supreme Court as my target. I know what I think of him as a historian, but I do know enough to come in out of the rain. Tim riley talk19:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This could have raised him around £12000 (equivalent to £12,378,344 in 2023)" – no comma in the first figure but a comma (two in fact) in the second.
Well spotted. There's something funny with the template—or with me, that's perfectly likely—and I've asked at the Help Desk (as every time I add the comma and get a load of red ink and jargon spewed back at me. Quite bizarre.)
"Sumption's suggestion regarding horse trading is strengthened ...[25] " – you appear to be citing Sumption for the statement that Sumption's suggestion is strengthened. A bit circular, don't you think?
Yes; have changed to "Sumption's suggestion of horse trading is based on..."
"Men would serve, and to just serve not merely cum servitio debito but quanto potentius poteritis." – translation please, inline or in a footnote.
Now parenthesised inline.
"The capture of Wark was the sole notable victory of the Anglo-Scottish alliance" – I'm puzzled: I thought this was an Ango-Scottish war and not an Anglo-Scottish alliance.
Slaps head* Franco-Scottish of course!
"a dearth of foodstuffs" – would that be what in English we call a shortage of food?
Ha. Yes.
"killed on route" – not sure "on route" is an idiomatic English phrase. The French en route has been sufficiently absorbed into English to be used here.
Done.
"The medievalist Richard Oram notes that this has led previous generations of Scottish historians[87]—the 19th-century antiquarian Robert Chambers, for example, lamented how Edinburgh "suffered its full share of calamities attendant upon these disastrous wars" [88]—to condemn England's "wanton vandalism"" – that is a huge (21-word) parenthesis, and I think the sentence would flow better if rejigged on the lines of "The medievalist Richard Oram notes that this has led previous generations of Scottish historians to condemn England's "wanton vandalism" – the 19th-century antiquarian Robert Chambers, for example, lamented how Edinburgh "suffered its full share of calamities attendant upon these disastrous wars"
Thanks for the suggestion, tweaked.
"St Giles Kirk was so badly damaged " – lacking the possessive apostrophe you give it later.
Done.
"with whom he was very close" – with whom he was very close to what? Or do you mean "to whom he was very close"?
"received fáilte hospitality" – at Fáilte Towers? Translation or clarification, please.
From Basil Fáilte :) changed to "it was where he had received lodging and hospitality in 1381", which tightens it a little too.
"probably accounts for chroniclers confusion" – possessive apostrophe lacking
"and that of Froissart was to be preferred" – we've gone from present to past tense during this sentence. I suggest "is to be preferred" is to be preferred.
"the indignation of both the houses of the Lords and the Commons" – reads a bit oddly. Perhaps something on the lines of "the indignation of both houses of parliament" or "the indignation both of the Lords and the Commons"?
Gone for the latter.
"He was probably as keen for Gaunt to go as Gaunt was to be gone, probably explaining the King's willingness to advance him a loan" – too many probablys.
Well, it's a fact that he was keen to be rid of Unc, so that first one was begging to be dropped.
"Richard's ordinances not only provided a blueprint for these later summonses" – this manages to be parachronistic and anachronistic simultaneously, the former because blueprints were unknown until the mid-19th century and seem jarringly inappropriate for 14th-century references, and the latter because they were superseded in the 20th century by semi-dry diazo plan printing and later xerography and then CAD. Even figuratively "blueprint" is well past its sell-by date. Fowler classes it among "Words taken up merely as novel variants on their predecessors", along with such as breakthrough for achievement; reaction for opinion; optimistic for hopeful; redundant for superfluous; rewarding for satisfying; and significant for important (of which more below). I suggest "model", "template" or some such.
Err, model then :) but interesting analysis there Tim.
Fifty years ago I worked for the CRS. Nothing to do with the muscular French CRS, but the British government's Coordination of Reprographic Services outfit, which is how I know about blueprints and diazo plan-printing. Tim riley talk13:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Richard's next foreign enterprises were in 1394 and 1399, when he invaded Ireland; during the latter invasion, Richard II was deposed" – wouldn't a plain "he" suffice instead of "Richard II" here?
Indeed!
"Richard singularly failed to match up to the image of the successful warrior princes" – two points here: first, the adverb seems to me a touch editorial and secondly, I think you have conflated "match" and "live up to", either of which would, I suggest, be preferable to "match up to".
Both addressed.
"Richard's choices of advisor" – unexpected AmE spelling of the traditional English "adviser".
Done.
"Along with the Lord High Constable of England, the marshalcy was one of the two great military officers of the medieval English Crown" – the marshalcy wasn't an officer; it was (and is) an office; the officer is the Earl Marshal.
The Office.
"Society, and the adhesive which bound it together had changed" – one comma too few or one too many.
+ ,
"had changed significantly: this is the wise guidance of Plain Words on "significant": This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?
How about 'radically'?
"Indicating the enormity of this sum" – "enormity" usually applies to crimes or sins, indicating "extreme wickedness" or "viciousness". The OED records a secondary usage indicating vastness, but cautions against using the word in that sense.#
Ditto 'magnitude'?
Links: I gather that duplicate links are no longer regarded as a mortal sin, provided they are not overused. Nonetheless I suggest you revisit those for "favourite", "the Westminster Chronicle", "Pennines" and "Sluys".
Great stuff Tim, all of it's useful, many thanks. Especially the wise authorities. Let me know if any of my changes aren't sufficient. Am still waiting on Help Desk advice re. the inflation commas, by the way. —Fortuna, imperatrix11:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's all my quibbles addressed. One last read through and I'll be back with a view to adding my support. Give me till tea time today. Tim riley talk11:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim, no rush, of course. By the way, although I addressed your second tranche, I forgot to reply here inline, which I've now done. Sorry about that. —Fortuna, imperatrix12:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The destination of last foreign campaign was Ireland in 1399" – missing a word before "last".
"many of England's continental possessions had been lost" – I'm on thin ice here, I suspect, but I had the impression that the French lands were not England's possessions but those of the Kings of England in a personal capacity. I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
I don't think either of these is a stumbling block to my supporting the elevation of this article to FA. The prose now passes muster, to my mind, and the scholarship and sourcing seem to me beyond question. The approach appears balanced and comprehensive. I'm happy to support. Tim riley talk12:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Tim. Added the missing definitive. Re. possessions, if you don't mind, I'll keep the status quo, while emphasising that You're Not Wrong. In fact, juridically speaking, you are quite absolutely correct. But I think in the context of this article, it's an unnecessary detail (compared, for example, to an article on the origins of the HYW, where it would not only be pertinent but essential). Secondly, and more prosaically—and without wanting to cleave an already split hair further—the phrase is common enough in the scholarship to justify its use here. (For "English territories in France": De Marco, The English Crusaders; Allmand, Aspects of War in the Late Middle Ages; Hoskins, In the Steps of the Black Prince; Brunton, The Beauforts: Lineage, Ambition and Obligation; Keen, England in the Later Middle Ages. For "English lands in France": Fourteenth Century England VIII; Thomson, The Transformation of Medieval England 1370-1529; Lewis, Richard, Duke of York. For "English possessions in France": Patrick, Renaissance and Reformation; Myers, English Historical Documents; Crawford, The Yorkists; Knecht, The Valois: Kings of France 1328-1589; Marx, An English Chronicle, 1377-1461. For "England's continental possessions": Gransden, Historical Writing in England; Heath, Armies of Feudal Europe 1066-1300; Harriss, Shaping the Nation: England 1360-1461; Stanton, Medieval Maritime Warfare; Masschaele, Jury, State, and Society in Medieval England; Green, The Battle of Poitiers 1356.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[page needed]Thanks for the support too! —Fortuna, imperatrix13:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FN100 (Boardman 2004) isn't working – there is no Broadman 2004 in the sources
Bizarre. Fixed.
Lead
"Richard promulgated ordinances": link for ordinances?
Annoyingly we haven't got an exact article for this, but have linked to decree which seems (the only thing) close enough?
Background
"The English government's finances were not robust enough to fight a major campaign." As this is the opening line, it may benefit from a tiny bit of context in the form of a date or the period involved
Absolutely. Added a sentence to the effect that war, famine and plague were harsh mistresses.
"what fighting did take place" -> "what fighting took place"?
Done.
Why is he "King Richard's supporters" here, but "Richard II's chancellor" just above?
Good point, regnal numbers now removed except on first usage in lead, body and his painting.
"the Duke was to be assassinated": who is the Duke? (It's the first use of the title at this point, so is a bit confusing to whose who don't have a decent grasp of the history before they start)
Should be clearer now?
"Their rift": who is 'their'? (Gaunt v Nottingham and Oxford were the last people mentioned – is it them?)
Clarified it was the rift between uncle and nephew.
"In December 1384 the royal council had been in favour of a military expedition to Scotland": I think a little more context is needed for those who don't understand that Scotland and England are two separate countries which had a somewhat factious relationship at times. There will be people wondering why one part of the (modern-day) UK was invading part of itself. Something about Scotland being allied to France, England's enemy, would be beneficial.
"A somewhat factious relationship at times"... Indyref II says hello :) But yes, I've added a little about the alliance with England's enemy.
"France's newly-won gains": you sort of allude to this in the first paragraph, but without detail. Maybe a footnote to enumerate them or to give a little more information?
Agreed; added context re. resurgent French and the geography of the losses/gains.
"Lord Cobham, and Sir Robert Knolles": just check the consistency on the serial commas – "horses, 600 suits of armour and other materiel" a little below doesn't have one, so worth making sure you're using them or not throughout.
Aaagh. There's a thousand commas. Or something. But I think I've caught the only other slip up!
'unmolested—" moved by mercy': there's a rogue space in there
Done.
'Richard retorted ", I see no': rogue comma and space in that one
Done yesterday, as it goes.
French counter-attack
weight of their loot" [37]: another errant space
ambiguity" [37]: Ditto
"contempt the French knights held their hosts in." ->
"contempt in which the French knights held their hosts."
Thanks!
'no valiant man, but one who would rather remain at home than march to the field': any reason for the single quote marks?
Also done yesterday!
Prisoners
"detailed to do intelligence": "detailed to undertake intelligence work"?
Yes of course... I wonder where the phrase 'do intellgence' comes from?
Historiography
"Similarly, Richard II's concern": the numerals are back!
Also caught yesterday!
"Richard's Ordinances": capital 'O'?
Adding: there are several more gaps before references dotted throughout. Doing CTRL-F and entering a space and [ (ie " [") shows about 17 that need sorting
Think I caught them all. I'm gonna blame VE, as a bad workman does.
FN 19 has a closing bracket, but no opening partner
Many thanks SchroCat, all good stuff as ever. Those bloody spaces! It's a peculiar thing about some of the edits being done yesterday, but maybe a caching issue? Anyway, it's all good, and I appreciate you looking in :) —Fortuna, imperatrix12:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very much not a SME, but hopefully I can add some value with random comments.
I agree with the previous comments about {{inflation}}. A similar issue came up with Johann Reinhold Forster. The solution used by Kusma worked well, so might work as a model here.
I certainly agree with them that "it is very hard to give useful comparisons as the cost of living was also different; if you are lucky you get a number that gives you a mental image that is off by a factor of 5 instead of 100"! Note 17 is an attempt to address this, per [21].
The link to English invasions of Scotland in the first sentence of the lead seems strange. Perhaps it would make more sense if the text were something like "led one of a long series of 14th century invasions of Scotland"
Nice.
The English King had only recently come of age and was expected to play a similar martial role to that which his father, Edward the Black Prince, and grandfather Edward III had done I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something wrong grammatically with the sentence. Maybe this is just a regional English thing, but the verb "done" seems wrong. Maybe " ... had played"?
Gloss "chevauchée". Also "progress" (as in one of several lengthy progresses).
Now glossed/sourced.
The main French fleet under de Vienne left Sluys on 22 March 1385 and avoided the patrolling English ships in the channel.[32] The route from Sluys to Leith doesn't go anywhere near the English Channel, so I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say.
H'mmm. Either John Sadler (historian) is a worse geographer than he is a historian, or perhaps he still thinks that Britannia Rulez, OK. Either way, how about "patrolling English ships".
Yeah, that sounds good.
he had recruited Scotsmen into his retinue Move the link up to the first place "retinue" is used, and consider a gloss.
(equivalent to £12,378,340 in 2023) My comment above about {{inflation}} notwithstanding, even if you do use it, please use the r= parameter to set a sane number of digits.
Excellent point. It looked bizarre. Is r=-3 sufficient?
Based on the rules I learned in college physics class, "12,000" has two significant digits, so r=2 would make sense. But I think in more general usage, adding one digit wouldn't be wrong, so r=3 is probably OK as well.
(RoySmith, thanks very much for reviewing. Just want to advise that, though I don't usually take reviews out of sequence, if you don't mind, I'm going to concentrate on Borsoka'a suggestion below and reduce the thing a bit―at the least, it might give you slightly less to review! —Fortuna, imperatrix12:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Yo RoySmith, apologies, I forgot to ping yesterday, you now have ~10% less to review (should you want to). I addressed your comments above while I was doing so though, including an IB. —Fortuna, imperatrix11:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been an act of revenge for the killing of Huntingdon's squire by one of Ralph's retinue during a scuffle.[73][74][75] Does it really take three citations to back up this one fact?
A hangover from when it said multiple things in a single sentence (the prose was trimmed but not the refs).
Gloss "slighted"
Done.
Richard created his uncles Edmund and Thomas Dukes of York and Gloucester[15] I know what "created" means in this sense, but I'm not sure how many of our readers will, so might be worth a gloss.
Simplified it with "made his uncles"?
while the Scots were under the James, Earl of Douglas I'm guessing that's supposed to be "... James, the Earl of Douglas"?
At Roxburgh Castle, an assault was rejected due to its near-impregnability Clarify what you mean by "rejected"? Did they consider mounting an assault and decide against it, or did they go ahead with the assault but it was a failure?
Clarified that it was considered, then rejected.
He insisted that if the castle was taken, it would be a French prize, terms unacceptable to the Scots I think what you're trying to say here is that the Scots considered the terms unacceptable, but it's not really clear.
Clarified
English stragglers and foragers were killed en route This is confusing. Was this the English army killing their own soldiers who straggled and foraged, or were they killed by Scottish defenders?
H'mmm, yes. And linked forager per you below,
They claimed these abbeys[65] were provided support for the Scottish army clarify who "they" are. Also, I think "abbeys provided" not "abbey were provided"?
Done.
The city was sacked, pillaged and burned I know that sacking, pillaging, and burning are all things I don't want to happen to me, but beyond that I'm hazy on how they differ from each other. Gloss to the rescue?
Well, if it's OK, I just went with sacking, and linked it; they all imply more or less the same thing.
The English army devastated much of Lothian while foraging move this link to the first time "forage" is used. Consider adding a gloss.
Done per me above.
"free and uninterrupted play [for] slaughter, rapine and fire-raising all along a six-mile front" What is "rapine"? Did you mean "raping"?
Protection of the north was left to Hotspur wouldn't it be better to use his real name here?
Fair point, done.
They found much to complain of I think you "complain about", not "complain of". Or maybe it's a regional English thing?
It might be :) But "about" is probably as or more common, so changed.
This takes me to the end of Campaign. I think the writing here is generally good, but there's a lot of action, performed by multiple groups of people I don't know, in places I don't know. Possibly beyond the scope of FAC, but I think a map showing the routes of all the major forces and the locations of all the major events, along with a timeline, would go a long way towards making this easier to follow.
I should clarify the above. Obviously, there is already a map, but to be honest, it's not terribly useful. When I wrote the above paragraph, I didn't even realize it showed more than the sea route the French took to get to Scotland from the continent. Now that I look at it more closely, I do see that some of the locations mentioned in the text are on the map, but not all. For example, I have no clue where Lancashire is. And arrows showing the movement of the armies would be a big help.
No worries Roy. See the talk page; the current map is for the broad outline of the English campaign, I'm working on a second map, another FIM special (special, because it takes ages and everyone hates it!) of the detailed border campaign—including arrows, etc―as I realised it was far too complicated, as you say, to try and squeeze all into one. Stand by.
On Richard's departure, Gaunt stayed north to oversee a Scottish truce intended to last until 31 May 1387.[5][115] Their relationship was worse than ever,[100] and also unwise This doesn't quite parse. Who is "they" as in "their relationship"? Richard and Gaunt? Gaunt and the Scottish? And what was unwise? The relationship? The truce?
Clarified that it was continuing poor relations between Gaunt/R2, and the alienation of the former by the latter.
The expedition to Scotland had left the south coast vulnerable to French attack I assume the south coast of England?
Linked.
Although the widely expected French invasion did not in the event materialise Not clear what "in the event" refers to here.
Indeed, not really acheving much? so removed.
He was as keen for Gaunt to go as Gaunt was to be gone something doesn't make sense there. More generally this whole paragraph about what was going on in Iberia is a little confusing.
Good point. On a re-read, my only choice was to remove the thing completely or re-write it. Going for the latter, I've had to add material but hopefully it's clearer?
a loan of 20,000 marks to defray the Duke's expenses When I think of Marks (capitalized?), I think of Germany. But the players here so far are England, France, and whatever the people on the Iberian Peninsula were calling themselves back then. So I'm confused how Marks come into the story. Also, I think (not sure) you can advance somebody money, or loan them money, but it's redundant to advance a loan.
Re. the Mark (currency), I've added a footnote glossing it; Gog might recognise it :)
Whether the King's campaign succeeded depends on his considered priorities I think you want something along the lines of "Whether the King's campaign was considered a success depends on which of his his priorities are considered".
Thanks!
As a general note, you use a variety of tenses when citing historians: "Gillespie argues" but "Tuck has suggested" I'm not sure that's wrong per-se, but it would be worth (you) reviewing all of these to see if your choice of tense makes sense in all cases. I think keeping the prose interesting is more important than strict conformance to gramatical shackles, so I'm happy to accept some minor variation for the sake of eliminating repetitive diction. But still give it a look over.
Good point. So, I've had a tweak and tried to keep modern historians in the present tense, and contemporaries in the past. As you say though, there are a couple of occasions where it reads better as a... completed comment on their part?
Richard's main problem in the aftermath of the campaign ... was the popular perception So, basically the same as today's politicians?
Hammer, meet nail :) plus ça change! If only I could find a source confirming that medieval politicians were as self-centred and publicity-obsessed as their modern counterparts...
Thanks for your last tranche, RoySmith. Let me know if I've failed to address your point satisfactorily. And of course, if anything else occurs to you, let me know. Thank you very much for your time here. —Fortuna, imperatrix12:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well-written, thoroughly researched, and engaging narrative, though it leans more toward an essay than a concise encyclopedic article. It currently has over 7,000 words just on a single year's campaign — for context, the newly promoted Punic Wars article is only slightly longer, at 7,921 words. To be more encyclopedic, I suggest shortening the main text and lead by at least 15%. Borsoka (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, with the article trimmed down to something I can manage and with the praise for that damn fine article Punic Wars ringing in my ears I shall have a look through this. And yes, I still have the source review to complete.
No ISBN for Gillespie?
For my convenience the bloody refcheck script dsappeared. Done.
Nor Richmond?
Also done. And Rait.
Infobox location: Do we need "Anglo-Scottish border" as well as "Northern England" and "Scotland"?
Why northern England and not southern Scotland, I wonder?
Infobox commanders: The first two get their titles and Jean doesn't?
Done.
"emulate his father's, Edward the Black Prince, and grandfather Edward III's martial success." I think either 'emulate his father's, Edward the Black Prince, and grandfather's, Edward III, martial success' or 'emulate his father Edward the Black Prince's, and grandfather Edward III's martial success'. I don't much care which.
Cheers, the first is good.
"which had not been called for many years". Not even the roughest of ideas as to how many?
Over 50...
"the Crown raised troops the usual way, through its tenants-in-chief." The second half of this so does not explain the first half for almost any reader.
Glossed to explain the cash nexus of bastard feudal service.
"apart from burning property". 'apart from burning private property'?
Done.
"first leaf of the English army's disciplinary ordinances" sandwiches the quote box at the top of "The King's ordinances".
Moved into next para.
"By the late 14th century, England had been at war with France for several years." This reads as if you don't actually know how many years. Try 'By 1385, England had been at war with France for 48 years'?
No, it reads as if it doesn't actually matter the precise length of time, only that it was by now perennial :) But yeah, "nearly 50 years".
"Richard of Bordeaux was the younger son of ..." A link at first mention.
H'mmm. Well, Richard of Bordeaux is of course Richard II himself, so is already linked; but more to the point, the article doesn't mention Bordeaux, and in fact never has done. Or "younger son" for that matter.
"Within a few years of Richard II's coronation". State the year.
Done.
"The blame for these failures". Er, what failures, I don't see any mentioned.
"many of England's continental possessions had been lost" I imagine. Still, perhaps "The blame for this lack of military success fell on..." reads better?
"then allied to France against England." Mention and/or link the Auld Alliance, and/or state how long it had been in effect.
Linked at first use, added 1295. A trifle distant! :)
Borsoka is right - 6,702 words (including notes, excluding quote boxes and captions) is a lot. I managed the previous invasion - by Richard's grandad - in 2,031 words. More in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appear where? "Page size" gives 5,816 for this, but that doesn't count notes, quote boxes or captions. Copying and pasting the notes to Word give another 886 words, or a total of 6,702. I couldn't be bothered to mess around with quote boxes and captions to give a precise total. (I have just done the two quote boxes - 129 words - so 6,831 all in.) (The previous invasion was Burnt Candlemas.) It is what it is, I was not making a value judgement on whether it is better or not for a reader (I have myself done articles north of 8,000 words such as Battle of Poitiers; or very recently Punic Wars at 8,000 words, as Borsoka points out) just grumbling about how much there is to review. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, if I may? I think Borsoka (as I do) uses this script for word counts; it counts "readable prose size" only, omitting quote boxes, IBs, blockquotes, captions and footnotes. Before he commented, it was at 7056 words; after I trimmed it, it was 5849 words and is currently below 6000 words. Hopefully, the trajectory's in the right direction.
FWIW, I abhor countitis. I'm glad we made MOS:LEADLENGTH less about counting words and more about reader perception; I feel the same way about WP:TOOBIG. My yardstick for an article being too long is that I find myself thinking, "Oh, geez, am I really only <insert fraction here> of the way through this?", but that's a function of both how long the article is and how engaging the text is. While this certainly triggered my "This is a long article; do I really want to commit to reviewing this much text" meter, once I decided to get into it, I never felt like I was struggling to get to the end, so I'm not too worried about the length. Perhaps the writing style here is a bit more "meandering and folksy" than "tersely formal" but I think we've got room for both kinds of articles in the encyclopedia. RoySmith(talk)13:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not entering into the spirit of the banter Roy. Someone now needs to opine that my articles clearly suffer from my writing too many TFA blurbs. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Their poor relationship also influenced the King's rejection of Gaunt's strategy, while Norfolk's and Oxford's influence with Richard also ensured Gaunt's views were dismissed." "also ... also"
The first one remocved as the more superflous.
"for which he left a caretaker government". Maybe 'during which ...'?
Done.
"Their arrival followed the fall of Lochmaben Castle ... after its capture by the Scots." You only need to mention the castle's fall/capture once.
Nice, recasted.
"signed articles of agreement (in French) in Edinburgh detailing campaign." Is there something missing?
Their there...
"in Edinburgh detailing campaign. These ordinances were highly detailed." "detailing ... detailed".
How about "outlining their campaign"?
"De Vienne intended to lay waste the entire English border, although the attritional nature of border warfare ultimately made this approach impracticable." I thought I understood this sort of thing, but why should attrition make scorched earth impractical?
Fair point, I've removed "attritional" and quoted directly.
"where Gaunt received the first wages". What's special about Guant? Did no one else get paid?
Oh, they were doing it for charity. That Gaunt, thinking he's so special. Reduced to "where the first wages were distributed".
"Medieval armies were recruited and disbanded". Maybe 'Medieval armies were recruited for a campaign season and disbanded'? Or even 'Medieval armies were recruited for a campaign season, often of only a few months, and then disbanded'?
Excellent, thanks, plagarised your second option.
"Consequently, the Crown preferred the mobility and reliability of paid, professional soldiers over an army of raised feudal tenantry." I think you need to delete "Consequently".
Can I commend to you a footnote along the lines of "To give this some context, before the war the English Crown's entire annual income was often less than £30,000." I can pass you the source if you like it.
Yes, yes you can.
"he resorted to the ancient feudal due of scutage". You need to explain in line what this is and how it would have raised money.
Done, although it's mind-bendingly complex and damnably dull, so a sentence hopefully suffices!
"supported the Antipope, Clement VII". Why the upper-case A?
Ah, not a title of course, l/c'd.
"Men would serve, and to just serve not merely ..." Does this work better without "to just"?
Done.
"The final army, therefore, recruited through bastard feudal". If you use a phrase like "bastard feudal", you need to explain it in line. Suggest 'The final army, therefore, mustered in Newcastle under financial contract rather than tenurial bonds.'
What gives? It literally already uses those precise words :)
From the lead "the throne of which he claimed through his wife, Constance." Constance is not mentioned in the main article.
Now mentioned in the expanded para on the Castilian civil war.
Given how often you mention them, it may be worth defining East and West Marches somewhere early on.
Removed.
Introduce Anne Curry.
Done.
"continued to Berwick Castle". Why specify the castle? Given that is physically attached to the town. Who held it anyway?
True, tweaked and clarified it was English at the time.
"receiving word of Richard's arrival". Why the sudden change from "Richard III"?
Well, he wasn't born untl 1452, so :) but again, this is odd, because I goot rid of the numerals several days ago.
"only Holyrood Palace escaped ... Holyrood was the exception".
Good spot, in fact the second mention can be removed completely.
Thanks Gog, some curious Back to the Future-style business going on here (is your PC a Delorean!), but hopefully everything is addressed. Please do send me the source for the £30,000 p.a. revenue, it'll be a useful comparison with how much was outgoing! Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix12:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the 16th president Abraham Lincoln. It is a co-nomination with Nikkimaria and is the 4th time that this page has been nominated. A previous 2004 FAC nomination of the article was successful though it was delisted a year or two after that. Two further FAC nominations over the years also did not succeed. The current nomination is a significantly trimmed and condensed version of the Lincoln biography which previously had reached over 200Kb in system size, though now significantly condensed in system size. Looking forward to comments and criticisms from editors interested in this president. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment: This is a great article! I don’t have enough time to give a full review, but I noticed quite a few images don’t have alt text. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe it’s recommended for every image to have at least some kind of alt text, so adding some would probably be for the best. Nice job overall, however — Crystal Drawers (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is impressive indeed. Some nitpicky comments follow -- I'm not at all qualified to pronounce on the history.
calling for "malice toward none; with charity for all" in his second inaugural address.: with the semicolon, this is slgihtly ungrammatical. Could do "malice toward none" with "charity for all"? However, that starts to look like scare quotes, so this might be an acceptable sacrifice.
Many of the sources for quoting this Inaugural take liberties in including or excluding the punctuation used here. For example, the National Park Service seem to exclude punctuation, while Bartleby's seems to include it. Preferences seem to vary. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of quotations which need to be attributed intext, per MOS:QUOTE: see They settled in an "unbroken forest" in Little Pigeon Creek Community, Indiana. (and here consider MOS:QUOTEPOV) and Thomas and Nancy were members of a Separate Baptist Church, which "condemned profanity, intoxication, gossip, horse racing, and dancing." Most of its members opposed slavery. (to which the same may apply).
Right -- under the MoS, we need to say that these are Donald's words in the text, not just in the footnote. On the other hand, I think there's a strong argument, especially in the case of the forest, to just paraphrase. I don't think we'd lose much by saying that the Separate Baptists were quite straight-laced people, with religious prohibitions against all of those things. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When Lincoln was a teen, his "father grew more and more to depend on him for the 'farming, grubbing, hoeing, making fences' necessary to keep the family afloat: I think teenager is better than teen in formal writing, though this may be my antediluvian British sensibilities. The quote, however, certainly needs attribution on two levels -- I would be tempted to paraphrase the first but be clear who said "farming, grubbing" etc -- was it Lincoln Sr.?
another milk sickness outbreak: hyphenate as a compound modifier. I must admit I don't totally understand this -- our article says that milk sickness is caused by drinking milk from a cow that has eaten a poisonous plant -- so presumably doesn't break out in the same way as e.g. flu?
It is a toxin which dairy cows ingest while feeding; the poison (toxin) then can be fatal. Wikipedia linked article for this does not hyphenate as its preference. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphenated. The etiology was not understood at the time; settlers considered it analogous to infectious diseases like cholera. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Possibly a bit too far into the weeds to EFN it, but I can see the argument. We've explicitly phrased this as a fear: I don't think we necessarily need to gloss e.g. "fearing that she may be a witch" with an EFN saying that witches don't exist. UndercoverClassicistT·C10:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abraham became increasingly distant from Thomas, in part due to his father's lack of interest in education; he would later refuse to attend his father's deathbed or funeral: is it worth giving a sense of how much later this was?
For clarity, when I'm asking a question here, I'm doing so on behalf of the reader -- I'm looking for the answer to be clarified in the text (or a reason why we shouldn't clarify it there), rather than necessarily for you to inform me here. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be helpful to set out briefly what a Whig was on first mention. Did Lincoln declare any political positions in his first, unsuccessful, campaign?
Right, but I don't think that quite answers the question -- what did Whigs believe in? Did Lincoln support him because he was a Whig -- which in turn raises the question of why Lincoln was a Whig rather than anything else? We do explain this a bit later on.
Why not bring this bit up to the first mention of the Whigs -- Their party favored economic modernization in banking, tariffs to fund internal improvements such as railroads, and urbanization? UndercoverClassicistT·C16:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln denounced the "mobocratic spirit ... now abroad in the land", indirectly attacking Stephen Douglas, the Democratic Party, and anti-abolitionism: I think we need to explain the connection here.
though the duel ultimately did not take place, "the affair embarrassed Lincoln terribly".: another quotation that needs to be paraphrased or attributed. I would strongly recommend a thorough pass-through for these.
In his Springfield practice, Lincoln handled "virtually every kind of business that could come before a prairie lawyer".
He partnered for several years with Stephen T. Logan and, in 1844, began his practice with William Herndon, a "studious young man".
He insisted that morality required opposition to slavery and rejected any "groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong".: here I assume we're quoting Lincoln, but should, at least in the footnote, clarify when and in what context he he said or wrote this. Ditto, later, Lincoln's philosophy on court nominations was that "we cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it. Therefore we must take a man whose opinions are known..
Lincoln not only pulled off his strategy of gaining the nomination in 1846, but also won the election: pulled off is a bit informal, and this is hardly a strategy -- we just mean that he got what he wanted, surely? It was hardly some strategic masterplan to fail to get it in 1843, at least as we've presented it.
dropped the bill when it eluded Whig support: eluded is a curious metaphor here, and in any case I think MOS:IDIOM applies -- failed to attract support from the wider Whig party? After all, it had at least two Whigs supporting it.
Lincoln emphasized his opposition to Polk by drafting and introducing his Spot Resolutions.: these are lc in the article by the same name. It might help to use the name of "spot" after we've explained the significance of the "spot" in question.
Current text states it as: "Polk insisted that Mexican soldiers had begun the war by "invading the territory of the State of Texas ... and shedding the blood of our citizens on our own soil"; Lincoln demanded that Polk tell Congress the exact spot, "implying that this spot was actually Mexican soil". His approach cost Lincoln political support in his district, and newspapers derisively nicknamed him "spotty Lincoln"", in 1847. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln demanded that Polk tell Congress the exact spot, "implying that this spot was actually Mexican soil".: I'm sorry to keep beating this drum, but here it sounds like Lincoln said these words; they're MacPherson's, I think.
I'll take another look at it. Lincoln's situation appears to have resulted from what he thought was a rhetorical flourish which the press did not like. I'll try to amend it. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From 1853 to 1860, one of his largest clients was the Illinois Central Railroad.: what exactly do we mean by "one of his largest"? Do we mean that it took up most of Lincoln's time, or that it was one of the "biggest" clients he represented -- in which case, it sounds like we're being needlessly cautious in our phrasing?
Lincoln was dedicated to them to the point of their owing him very large legal fees, for which he needed to file suit against them to eventually recover. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He called the Declaration of Independence, which found "self-evident" that all men are created equal and have an "unalienable" right to liberty: I would rework this per MOS:QUOTEPOV.
We still have the very scare-quote-y quote marks: He called the Declaration of Independence, which found "self-evident" that all men are created equal and have an "unalienable" right to liberty, the "sheet anchor" of republicanism, at a time when the Constitution, which "tolerated slavery", was the focus of most political discourse. "Tolerated slavery" is a particularly problematic example, but all except "sheet anchor" need to go under QUOTEPOV. -- UndercoverClassicistT·C06:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a read of MOS:QUOTEPOV that allows the quotation marks as written. You could rewrite the sentence to include more substantial quotation from the DoI, explicitly framed as quotation. Or, you could just knock the quote marks off and keep the wording: there's clearly no question of copyvio here and "the Declaration of Independence says that all men have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or similar is a perfectly respectable paraphrase.
The failure of the Peace Conference of 1861 signaled that legislative compromise was impossible: I think this is a matter of opinion (albeit well-justified scholarly opinion), and needs to be couched as such.
I've amplified the wording, though the Donald book is the main cite for this: "The failure of the Peace Conference of 1861 to attract the attendance of seven of the Confederate states in rebellion signaled that legislative compromise was impossible". ErnestKrause (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The citation isn't the issue. It's still a matter of opinion/analysis -- it's clearly not a fact that there was literally zero probability of avoiding the ACW by a political solution. We can say that historians consider there to have been no chance of such a solution, that Donald thinks it was impossible, or anything similar -- all of those are potentially facts. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing wording to "not practical". It is Donald who is the one who is counting the states who participate and those which do not. He uses it to draw his own conclusion as a reliable source. If you have a different reliable source who is not in agreement with him, then I could bring it into the text. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying is the problem. If an acknowledged food expert says "Ham sandwiches taste better than cheese ones", we don't have licence to print "Ham sandwiches taste better than cheese ones" on Wikipedia -- it's a matter of opinion or judgement, not fact. We do have licence to say "the food expert Charles McChef has described ham sandwiches as tastier than cheese ones", or similar. The same applies here -- a matter of historical judgement, like "Germany was responsible for the First World War", "George Washington was the greatest US president", or "the Civil War could not have been peacefully averted after 1861", can only ever be presented as a judgement or opinion, never as a fact, regardless of where it's printed. WP:V is the policy here -- a statement that isn't falsifiable isn't verifiable either -- as explained in WP:OPINION. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the selection and use of his cabinet Lincoln employed the strengths of his rivals in a manner that emboldened his presidency: I'm not totally sure what this means, in concrete terms -- particularly between the bolded part and the rest.
Democrat Stephen Johnson Field, a previous California Supreme Court justice, provided geographic and political balance: I think we need to say that the others were from the east.
Lincoln appointed his Treasury Secretary: is Treasury Secretary the formal title -- not Secretary of the Treasury? In any case, lc the title per MOS:PEOPLETITLES, and in Lincoln appointed his Treasury Secretary, Salmon P. Chase, to replace Taney as Chief Justice ("chief justice").
Lincoln believed Chase was an able jurist who would support Reconstruction legislation and that his appointment would unite the Republican Party: we've jumped ahead here: a year would be helpful, but we also need to be clear what Reconstruction was, and that Lincoln believed the end of the Civil War to be imminent.
There is distinction of Reconstruction after Lincoln in office, and during Lincoln in office. The current version deals only with the start of 1865, and the end of 1864 somewhat. I'll check the wording for emphasis. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given all that prose, what does the table of Supreme Court justices add to the article?
Right, but we get that number and the rough dates (though see my comments above) in the preceding paragraph of text, so my question is: what does the table add that we don't already have there? It's very visually prominent, so takes a lot of the reader's attention: I think we need to justify spending our metaphorical capital in that way. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In early April 1861, Major Robert Anderson, commander of Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, advised that he was nearly out of food. After considerable debate, Lincoln decided to send provisions; according to Michael Burlingame, he "could not be sure that his decision would precipitate a war, though he had good reason to believe that it might".: I think we need to be a bit clearer as to why this would precipitate a war, which may perhaps be the same question as "why was the fort out of food?"
I'll re-examine the wording. The provision of supplies from the North to South Carolina was seen as explicitly prevocational, interpreted by So. Carolina as an act of war/declaration of war. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Fort Sumter attack rallied the North to defend the nation: is this quite NPoV?
In Wikivoice, we need to maintain NPoV even when our sources don't. It would be perfectly fine to say that public opinion in the North considered military action against the South a matter of defending the nation. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: when you want to say that the police detained people but they were not charged with a crime, you say "they were arrested without charge" (cf. "detained without trial", "taken without permission", etc, which are all singular even when there are multiple denied trials etc). UndercoverClassicistT·C06:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the Copperhead leader Clement L. Vallandigham: what was a Copperhead?
In the party politics of Lincoln's day it is defined in the current article as: "Copperheads (anti-war Democrats) criticized Lincoln for refusing to compromise on slavery; the Radical Republicans (who demanded harsh treatment against secession) criticized him for moving too slowly in abolishing slavery". ErnestKrause (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not for another two paragraphs, and on the other side of a section break. As usual, I'm not asking this because I haven't looked it up, but because there's a gap in the explanation we're presenting to the reader. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
any compromise alienated factions on both sides of the aisle: MOS:CLICHE.
It is meant as a reflection of the complicated party politics surrounding Lincoln. His VP was a cross-party appointment as a War Democrat, alongside Lincoln's Radical Republican friends. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln's war strategy had two priorities: ensuring that Washington was well-defended and conducting an aggressive war effort for a prompt, decisive victory: no hyphen. The following footnote says "however", but I don't see a prediction of victory in 90 days as opposite to this.
Let's push on -- though I make no promises that I won't inadvertently re-tread old ground:
In January 1862, after complaints of inefficiency and profiteering in the War Department, Lincoln replaced War Secretary Simon Cameron with Edwin Stanton.: "War Secretary" wasn't his title, so shouldn't be presented as such.
I notice we cite Stephen E. Ambrose, who has a chequered reputation when it comes to scholarship and accuracy. Sometimes this cites quite vague and potentially broad statements, like For his edification Lincoln relied on a book by Henry Halleck, Elements of Military Art and Science. -- do we just mean that Lincoln read it and liked it, or that he used this as the guide for his whole strategy?
Is the Encyclopaedia Virginia really the best source for the Anaconda Plan? More critically, it doesn't seem to directly support Lincoln valued the advice of Winfield Scott, even after his retirement as Commanding General of the United States Army..
Personally, I think that's a step backwards -- making it harder for readers to verify citations and read further is not a good thing -- but I'll concede that it's allowable within the FA criteria. UndercoverClassicistT·C19:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln replaced Buell with William Rosecrans and McClellan with Ambrose Burnside, Rosencrans and Burnside both being politically neutral: we haven't said that Buell and McClellan had strong political views, so this comes from nowhere.
Again, it's your train set, but I'm not sure that's a sensible move, especially if scholars think that their (lack of) politics was important to this decision. McClellan, after all, later ran for the White House as a Democrat, and his article is pretty explicit that his politics were a major reason why he was never given a command under Grant. UndercoverClassicistT·C19:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly true, but probably best discussed in a different article? I'd rather focus entirely on Lincoln than expand on other personalities. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm -- the "why" is very much a Lincoln matter, so if scholars say "Lincoln selected Rosencrans and Burnside primarily for reasons of politics", or some weaker formulation like "the two men's politics played a major part in Lincoln's decision", that tells us a lot about Lincoln's mindset and priorities -- in most circumstances, it would be rather unusual to select a military officer based on the party they vote for. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, two Union generals issued their own emancipation orders, but Lincoln overrode both: he found that the decision to emancipate was not within the generals' power, and that it might induce loyal border states to secede: when did this happen? The chronology jumps around awkwardly in this section.
Lincoln authorized Grant to target infrastructure—plantations, railroads, and bridges—to weaken the South's morale and fighting ability. He emphasized the defeat of the Confederate armies over destruction for its own sake: this is cited to an entire article. Can we be more precise?
Another source query: the American Battlefields Trust seems perfectly reliable, but given the amount of scholarship on the ACW, would one of the many academic histories not be a better source for the casualties of the Overland Campaign?
ISBNs -- most are converted to 13 even when the book predates this format, which is perfectly reasonable, but a few are left as 10s. I noticed Wiesman 2002.
by increasing tariff rates, which most strongly affected rural areas, or by increasing income taxes, which most strongly affected wealthier individuals: is there an implication that wealthier individuals tended to live in cities (perhaps especially in the North)?
By the end of the war, $450 million worth of greenbacks were in circulation: this is obviously a big number, but can we inflate it to give a sense of exactly how big? Has anyone put a figure on roughly what percentage of the money supply this was?
Congress also passed the Revenue Act of 1862, which established an excise tax affecting nearly every commodity, as well as the first national inheritance tax. The Revenue Act of 1862 also added a progressive tax structure to the federal income tax.: This could simply be "The act" or even "It".
The 1862 Homestead Act made millions of acres of government-held land in the West available for purchase at low cost. The 1862 Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act provided government grants for agricultural colleges in each state. The Pacific Railway Acts of 1862 and 1864 granted federal support for the construction of the United States' first transcontinental railroad, which was completed in 1869.: I'm not sure these things really belong in the paragraph on revenue-raising measures, unless I've missed something (though they are all certainly important). This seems to be closer to the Yosemite Grant in that it's Lincoln spending money in a way that shows he's taking a long view of what the post-war American state will look like, and thereby expressing confidence in eventual victory.
It established a five-percent tax on incomes above $600 and a ten-percent tax on incomes above $10,000, and it raised taxes on businesses. In early 1865, Congress levied a tax of ten percent on incomes above $5000: was this latter measure simply lowering the 10% threshold, or did those over $10,000 now pay more?
Lincoln also took action against rampant fraud during the war: rampant fraud might be a touch colourful (MOS:CLICHE?): do we really need the adjective? Alternatively, can we state in a verifiable way how big a problem fraud was?
I intend to do a full review; I just won't have as much time onwiki as I would like for several days due to a sudden real-life work project. I have an open Civil War-related FAC myself that could use comments either positive or negative, but of course I intend there to be no pressure to review that one. Hog FarmTalk01:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Noah Haynes Swayne, a prominent corporate lawyer, who replaced John McLean after the latter's death in April 1861." - this is a sentence fragment
In the Early Union military strategy, there really ought to be some reference to the Anaconda Plan - while Scott's proposal was never formally adopted, the general ideas became key elements of the northern war plans.
" General Henry Halleck, " - For American Civil War topics, you need to be very careful with the use of the term "General". The South had a formal, specific rank known as "General" that was a four-star rank; there was no equivalent rank for the North (the highest was Grant's late war three-star rank), but it's still a bit problematic to use that term for Union officers because of the specific terminological meaning on the other side. Halleck was a Major General. The later reference to "General Robert E. Lee" by contrast is accurate
There is still "General Zachary Taylor", "General Don Carlos Buell", and a few others. If you're going to be using it as a generic term like in "General Pope" I don't think it should be capitalized as it is not a proper title. Hog FarmTalk16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"For his edification Lincoln relied on a book by his chief of staff General Henry Halleck, Elements of Military Art and Science." - Halleck did not have an appointment as a chief of staff until 1864; he had a departmental command out west first in Missouri and adjacent areas and then into Tennessee/Mississippi from which he was called east to become the General in Chief in July 1862.
The issue is that we are erroneously calling Halleck a "chief of staff" in a time period where he was not anybody's chief of staff. Hog FarmTalk16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"as did his position that no troops were needed to defend Washington." - I don't have the source and page number in front of me right now, but McClellan wasn't stating that no troops were needed to defend Washington. Rather, it was a dispute over how many troops were needed as well as the quality of troops McClellan left (and McClellan's creative accounting as to how many troops he had left to defend the capital)
"The appointments were both politically neutral and adroit on Lincoln's part" - I think "adroit" here should be attributed to a source, given the degree of a debacle that the Burnside appointment ended up being
"Hooker was routed by Lee at the Battle of Chancellorsville in May," - Chancellorsville was not a rout in the proper military sense, as Hooker retreated on his own volition and in a reasonably orderly manner
When discussing the battles of the war, there is a definite skew towards the eastern battles - we get a mention by name of all of the major eastern fights from 1st Bull Run through the Overland campaign, and yet no mention of the critical capture of New Orleans, and the only reference to Shiloh is in a description of Grant's past victories?
Current emphasis in article is on Lincoln as Commander in Chief in relation to McClellan and the to Grant. Capture of New Orleans might be possible to add here. Vicksburg is usually cited as the related key victory. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gather that this was why you added a mention of New Orleans when discussing the Thanksgiving holiday. However, the implication is that the capture of New Orleans, which took place in the spring of 1862, strongly influenced Lincoln's decision to proclaim a Thanksgiving holiday, which he did in late 1863. Does the cited source (Donald) say this? If not I am skeptical. Perhaps the mention of New Orleans should be moved forward to a place that is chronologically more appropriate. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the chronology there; auspicious events leading to Lincoln's proclamation. Its New Orleans on the way to Vicksburg. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be mentioned that Lincoln's reason to hold off on issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was to wait until after a battlefield victory, which ended up being Antietam?
" In July, the Confiscation Act of 1862 was enacted,[193] freeing slaves "within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States"." - this reads as if it was a general emancipation of slaves in occupied regions, but it only allowed for confiscation in certain situations
The current wording in the article is: "In July, the Confiscation Act of 1862 was enacted,[194] freeing slaves "within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States"." Add more? (The linked article states it as: "The Confiscation Act was enacted on July 17, 1862.[3] The defining characteristic of the act was that it called for court proceedings for seizure of land and property from disloyal citizens (supporters of the Confederacy) in the South as well as the emancipation of their slaves that came under Union control.[1] "). ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to be clear that this allowed for only targeted seizure, not a general freeing of the slaves in those areas as the current phrasing implies. Hog FarmTalk20:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really due weight for two whole paragraphs on the Dakota War? I'm not overly familiar with Lincoln's Native American policy, but surely there was more to it than just sending Pope against the Sioux
If we were presenting a broad treatment of Lincoln's Native American policy, then this would definitely be proper weighting. Except we're taking a single incident and treating it like it's the end-all-be-all of his Indian policies. We're told that Lincoln wanted to reform the government's policies towards the Native Americans; but not given any details of this. Do the sources say what Lincoln's response to the Sand Creek massacre were? The issue is that we're taking one incident and conflating it with Lincoln's whole Native American policy. Hog FarmTalk16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Native American issues during his presidency receive relatively little weighting in biographies of Lincoln, and the emphasis is heavily on the events in Minnesota (eg in Burlingame). I have reworked the section to give more context. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think we should stick to what is mentioned in Lincoln books/papers. I recommend using Green's book as a source for Lincoln's Indian policy. As well as the Sand Creek Massacre. LittleJerry (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Lieber Code mentioned in with the Dakota War? What I've read that discusses the Lieber Code does not mention it in relation to the Dakota War
Military conduct as it applies or does not apply to Native Americans appears to fit this context; discussion of proper military conduct. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it's misleading to the reader to contrast the Lieber Code to previous things that had nothing to do with the creation of the Lieber Code; we're basically trying to draw a comparison that isn't made in any source I've seen. And if the source you're citing here is making the comparison, you should be making that clearer. And was the Lieber Code actually applied to combat with the Native Americans? Again, see Sand Creek massacre. Hog FarmTalk16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you are presenting this as NOR, based on a possible false analogy. The Lieber Code could receive much attention for its discussion of military ethics as applied to conflicts with Confederate soldiers; though its made more difficult when applying its principles to Native Americans because of their differing customs of warfare intergenerationally. The text from the article there states that the starting point can be stated as for possible adaptation: "To resolve the lack of military authority in the 1806 Articles of War, Commanding General of the Union Army Halleck commissioned Professor Lieber to write military laws specific to the modern warfare of the American Civil War. For the Union Army's management and disposal of irregular fighters (guerrillas, spies, saboteurs, et al.), Lieber wrote the tract of military law Guerilla Parties Considered with Reference to the Laws and Usages of War (1862), which disallowed a soldier's POW-status to Confederate guerrillas and irregular fighters with three functional disqualifications: (i) guerrillas do not wear the army uniform of a belligerent party to the war; (ii) guerrillas have no formal chain of command, like a regular army unit; and (iii) guerrillas cannot take prisoners, as could an army unit". ErnestKrause (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the stuff about the Homestead and railway acts awkwardly tacked on to the end of the discussion of reconstruction?
The article emphasis is more oriented to him as wartime president, rather than as having legislative initiatives; the 13th Amendment seems to receive due weight in the article, and the two acts you mention are presented as receiving a little less attention. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These really belong elsewhere; I'd be inclined to move this to the fiscal matters section, as these are at their base economic policies, and have nothing to do with Reconstruction. Hog FarmTalk16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the most accurate in the infobox to call him a non-combatant for the Black Hawk War? He didn't see combat, but non-combatant at least in the modern sense is a specific term that refers to medics and chaplains and the like
"though Lincoln prevailed with the party in limiting Hardin to one term" - it's unclear to me what exactly this is trying to say. Did Lincoln actively work to only allow Hardin one term? Is "the party" here meant to be a reference to the party mechanism or to the voters?
"and was awaiting ratification by the required three-fourths of the states when Lincoln took office, whereupon Southern states began to secede" - I'm not a fan of this phrasing as all of the states either seceded before Lincoln took office or after Fort Sumter and the call for 75,000 volunteers; no states seceded just because of Lincoln's inauguration
" allowing the targeted seizure of slaves "within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States"." - I still think we succinctly need to state in what cases targeted seizure was allowed
The text states that as military expansion by the United States progressed, that the assertion of emancipation would be simultaneously granted to any former slaves encountered during the expansion. The geographic expansion of the marching troops as they claimed territory would assert freedom to any slaves encountered on such claimed territory. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nuance that you're failing to catch is that the Confiscation Act of 1862 only applied to those disloyal to the United States which was NOT held to be all of those in the Confederacy. Lincoln's government considered some within the seceded states to still be loyal to the Union - cf Lincoln's constant concern for the Unionists of East Tennessee. Hog FarmTalk14:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article for Confiscation Act of 1862 definition can be modified if you can make suggestion for an alternate to the one currently there stating: "This law specifically targeted the seizure of property of any Confederate military officer, Confederate public office holder, persons who have taken an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy or any citizen of a loyal Union state who has given aid or support to any of the aforementioned traitors to the United States of America." I'll change the sibling article also if needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think all we need to do here is to indicate briefly in Lincoln's article that this act allowed for the targeted seizure of slaves for those disloyal to the United States. We can't quote ""within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States"." without making it clear this isn't a general emancipation proclamation and it's weird to say it was a targeted seizure without indicating who it was targeting. Hog FarmTalk00:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Senator Willard Saulsbury Sr. criticized the proclamation, stating that it "would light their author to dishonor through all future generations"." - I don't believe this was only after the private Cabinet introduction - it seems a bit odd to place this criticism earlier in the timeline than it actually would have occurred. My impression was that this was not a public matter until the preliminary draft - am I wrong about that?
I've just now noticed that we have an infobox note discussing Lincoln's re-enlistment at a lower rank in the Black Hawk War, but this isn't mentioned in the article body so this isn't actually sourced anywhere. Hog FarmTalk00:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Lincoln's war strategy had two priorities: ensuring that Washington was well defended and conducting an aggressive war effort for a prompt, decisive victory" with "Major Northern newspapers, however, predicted victory within 90 days" as the endnote - why the "however"? While there were certainly those who expected a long war from the get-go, that wasn't the prevailing view and the Union was raising a bunch of 90-day volunteers in '61. I don't really see the sentence and the endnote as contrasting enough to warrant a "however"
"Rhea, Gordon (2001). The Battle of Cold Harbor. U.S. National Park Service and Eastern National. ISBN 1888213701." - citation information is wrong. Those NPS/Eastern National guides usually aren't 400 pages long (Amazon and Worldcat both say 60 pages for that ISBN). I can confirm that the statistics are generally found on page 393 of a different Cold Harbor book by Rhea that I have a copy of in my personal library. The citation information for that copy is "Rhea, Gordon C. (2002). Cold Harbor: Grant and Lee, May 26–June 3, 1864. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 0-8071-2803-1". So is this supposed to be the LSU book (which is part of Rhea' well-regarded series on the Overland Campaign) or is this information also found in the NPS/Eastern National guide and the pagination is just wrong? Assuming the LSU Rhea work is meant, I'm not seeing where the 7,600 Union killed is coming from - it's not on that page of Rhea and while I was able to find those pages of Young on the Wikipedia Library, those pages only cover Confederate losses
That's correct when you state it was 2002 and not 2001; Rhea wrote of that battle separately in both 2001 and 2002. The Correct one is in the article now. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was a CWW in answer to another editor requesting more details about Grant's related campaigns. If that specific statistic is not in the citation, then it can be removed since the other statistics in the CWW have been verified. Nikkimaria can also take a second look. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what CWW means in this context, but even though another editor requests some further detail you still need to provide a real source that supports it. Hog FarmTalk20:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Confederate forces triumphing at the Battle of Mansfield, the Battle of Cold Harbor, the Battle of Brices Cross Roads, the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain and the Battle of the Crater damaged Lincoln's re-election prospects, and many Republicans feared defeat; Lincoln rejected pressure for a peace settlement" - can you please provide the quote for this? I brought up the Wikipedia Library copy of this ANB entry and I'm not seeing where any of these battles are mentioned by name
Each of the battles in that section were added individually and are blue linked; the relevant date of the battle is listed in the selected article. They all verify as in the correct time frame and as Union setbacks. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's original research to come up with a list of those on your own and determine those are the most significant. For instances, why link Battle of Mansfield rather than the greater Red River campaign? I suspect you'll probably find more references in the literature to the latter. But we can't pick and choose examples without a source for a FA. Hog FarmTalk14:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source being used states the Lincoln was concerned with the Union setbacks during the time period specified. I'll add that these were examples and not an exhaustive list. Its possible to find another source for an exhaustive list if needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then just state that Lincoln was concerned with Union setbacks, unless you want to utilize a source that identifies some as particularly important. We shouldn't be making value judgments of which ones must be the most important without backing that with a source, and we certainly don't need an exhaustive list. Hog FarmTalk15:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That edit summary from me was overly concise, combining two separate cite sources. The statistics are not in Donald, which only contains the Lincoln quotation in that sentence. The list of battles as I'm recalling was a CWW from the request from another reviewing editor (Nick-D below) below who requested more detail on that campaign. Nikkimaria can decide how best to describe this since its not in Donald. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the publisher for Murrin is "Clark Baxter"? I'm seeing several things that say Thomson Wadsworth for that book.
The Murrin book is up to its seventh edition, and the 4th edition matches with the 2006 publication date which was published by Belmont, CA : Thomson Wadsworth. Updating. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now as the nominator is apparently willfully adding things that aren't found in the citations in response to requests for further detail per this. It's also concerning that apparently they were citing page 393 of Rhea but then adding a long citation to a book that was only 60 pages long; this appears to have been yanked straight from Overland Campaign without actually verifying the content to the book as it would have been obvious that the Eastern National guide wasn't the correct book - compare what was added to this article with this revision of the Overland Campaign article. I don't trust the sourcing at this point. @FAC coordinators: Hog FarmTalk20:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to either Rhea book, but I've confirmed the numbers of deaths using another source, now cited. I've also removed the battle list and done some additional spotchecking. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have great respect for all that Nikkimaria has done for the featured article process, so I don't really want this to be how the review ends. ErnestKrause - What parts of the article have you copied over from other wikipedia articles without verifying, and what all has been added without a source? I have found that a lot of times, even what's sourced in a wikipedia article can't be trusted. My very first GA (Battle of Wilson's Creek) back in 2020 I had trusted pre-existing sourced content, but then later found out that a lot of what was there wasn't supported by those sources, and I had to do a top-to-bottom rewrite. I also had a bunch of requests for additional background information at the FACs of Battle of Arkansas Post (1863), but instead of copying stuff over without checking, I spent a lot of time with a 900 page book (Welcher). I would expect that something like Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era would be the first place to look for background material, not wikipedia articles. Hog FarmTalk02:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question and note. I'm sorry to hear of your previous bad experience in trying to transfer what appeared to be reliable sources in an old article into another article which you were working on at that time; apparently it proved to be inaccurate and caused you to have verification issues with that source. After looking at your edits and the edits of Nikkimaria made last night in the Lincoln article, then it seems like both of you are in agreement that only verifiable and transparent citations are preferred to be used in featured articles, such as linked webcite articles or pdf copies of books available online about Lincoln and related matters for this article. That should be possible to implement as a general rule from now on. I'm in full agreement with the edits which you have made yesterday and which Nikkimaria made yesterday, and it should be possible to follow this approach as a general rule from now on. The list of battles I had added during FAC was removed by Nikkimaria which was originally taken from another Wikipedia article under rules for copying within Wikipedia; Nikkimaria has now removed it. Also, the list of death statistics for the Overland Campaign was copied from another Wikipedia article under the rules for copying within Wikipedia, for which Nikkimaria has now substituted another source. I'm agreeing that using these new transparent webcite sources is the better way to go as you have stated and as Nikkimaria has now edited into the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that only easily accessible/online sources should be used in a FA - in fact, it's usually the opposite; almost all of my FACs are very heavily dependent on print books whichs means either I have to have a copy, I could access a copy from internet archive or the Wikipedia Library, or I was able to get a copy from a local library or through interlibrary loan. What I'm saying is that if you're taking an article to FAC, you need to be able to vouch that the source-text integrity is accurate. I won't take anything to FAC that there's content I personally haven't been able to trace to the cited source. The FAC instructions state that "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process" (emphasis added by me). The issue here is that text was added to this article for the FAC that was not verified, as is clear by what should have been an obvious error in what book was cited. If you can't verify the text, don't take the article to FAC. I'm thinking this might be part of the issue with the Confiscation Act of 1862 above - I'm getting the impression that you weren't familiar with the sourcing for that subject matter and were just trying to get by with reading the Wikipedia article on the act. Hog FarmTalk16:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nikkimaria. I've struck the oppose - depending on how things go I'll try to get back to this either later today or tomorrow evening. Hog FarmTalk18:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through those sections as identified as recited and they look fine at the surface, although I didn't go back to recheck stuff. I'm hoping tomorrow to do a full re-review with anticipation of supporting. Hog FarmTalk03:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One last thought here - does the sourcing for Lincoln's legacy give any weight to his memory in American popular culture as "Honest Abe"? He's also widely remembered in American culture for folksy humor and we do mention him as a "raconteur" but I don't know how many people will actually know what that means. I honestly don't know if that's something the high-quality RS gives any weight though as I haven't read a scholarly book focused on Lincoln specifically recently, so that may just be elementary school textbook material. Aside from those thoughts, I think I can support here after what has been a fairly involved review. Courtesy ping to UndercoverClassicist that my review has pretty much wound up; apologies for how long this has taken. Hog FarmTalk02:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our description of the Gettysburg Address is now this:
Lincoln spoke at the dedication of the Gettysburg battlefield cemetery on November 19, 1863. In 272 words, taking only three minutes, Lincoln asserted that the nation was "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal", and that the deaths of the "brave men ... who struggled here" would not be in vain, but that the nation "shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".
I am aware that this summary has gone through several changes, and one editor said, "There is no reason to reduce the number of quotations." But in its present form, there are just too many quotations. Ironically, we then say The Address became the most quoted speech in American history. Sure enough! I am not sure how to fix this, but there must be a way. Note that we have an article about the Gettysburg Address. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could "They had three children: Sarah, Abraham, and Thomas, who died as an infant." be changed to "They had three children: Sarah, Abraham, and Thomas; Thomas died as an infant."
Could "Overcoming financial challenges, Thomas in 1827 obtained clear title to 80 acres (32 ha) in Little Pigeon Creek Community." be changed to place the "in 1827" at the end of the sentence?
Could this photograph be added to the "U.S. House of Representatives (1847–1849)" section? Besides being a depiction of Lincoln during that time, it is also the earliest known photograph of him so it is rather important.
Link them. Salmon P. Chase is already linked in the Personnel section and in the Cabinet infobox. First Bull Run is already linked in McClellan section as "Bull Run" as piped. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: I have finished looking at the article and cannot find any issues that have not been brought up by other users. I have nothing left to critique or oppose in this article. Jon698 (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm most familiar with Lincoln's role in the Civil War, so I'll focus on those sections of the article:
" Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election, but the South viewed his election as a threat to slavery, and Southern states began seceding to form the Confederate States of America." - this (in the lead) essentially attributes the Civil War solely to Lincoln's election, which is a considerable over-simplification: tensions between the slave and non-slave states had been increasing since independence and fighting was underway long before the election (Bleeding Kansas, etc)
"Lincoln closely supervised the strategy and tactics in the war effort, including the selection of generals, and implemented a naval blockade of Southern ports." - I'd suggest making this the second sentence of the para, as it explains the rest of the para. The para could also be strengthened by tweaks to the first two sentences to stress how strongly dedicated Lincoln was to restoring the union through winning the war.
The 'Commander-in-Chief' section seems miss-titled
This is the president's official title in relation to the military as used in that section, and the section after that which uses the phrase: "He responded to the unprecedented political and military crisis as commander-in-chief by exercising unprecedented authority." Is there an alternate suggestion? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Early Union military strategy' section would benefit from material discussing Lincoln's focus on winning the war. Historians often note that he was much clearer eyed on this that most of his ministers and senior generals, who had a tendency towards half measures while Lincoln accepted from an early stage that the union could only be restored through victory and this would mean tough fighting.
As you also state later in the article when you mention McClellan, Lincoln was certainly frustrated with McClellan on this issue in particular. I've strengthened some of the wording on this already as stated in answer to your McClellan comments below. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It was clear from the outset that bipartisan support was essential to success" - I'm sceptical about this claim, which doesn't seem to reflect the consensus in the literature I've read.
Although Lincoln is usually identified as a moderate Republican, he was not averse to accepting support from the War Democrats as well; definitely both sides of the aisle on this issue. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Lincoln selected civilian generals from varied political and ethnic backgrounds "to secure their and their constituents' support for the war effort and ensure that the war became a national struggle"" - I'd suggest noting that this was at the outset of the war. As it continued, he increasingly favoured generals with a record of success, who were usually the professional soldiers.
" McClellan spent months planning his Virginia Peninsula Campaign" - this and the subsequent text is a bit confusing: the issue is that McClennan was (incredibly) excessively cautious, which led to campaign to move slowly and become bogged down. It ended with McClennan being thrown back by an inferior force due to becoming spooked.
"On July 22, 1862, Lincoln reviewed a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation with his cabinet. ... Buttressed by news of the recent failed Southern offensive at Antietam, on September 22, 1862, Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation." - you should note that Lincoln chose to delay this proclamation as he wanted it to follow a major Union military victory so it wasn't seen as a response to defeats.
The "Promoting Grant" section is a bit under-developed. A point that historians usually note is that Grant was the first senior leader who was fully aligned with Lincoln's understanding of how the war needed to be fought, and that Lincoln was greatly relieved when Grant pushed forward after difficult battles where the previous generals would have retreated. This led Lincoln to become less hands on in directing the armies as he trusted Grant. The material on the campaign that led to the fall of Richmond should also be fleshed out a bit more.
"A month later, on April 9, Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox" - this should be fleshed out a bit to note that there were other surrenders as the confederacy collapsed (the fact that the Confederacy ceased to exist also isn't explicitly noted at present)
Another editor has objected for his own reasons to the amended edit which I added here: [24]. His claim appears to be not to elaborate of the conclusion of the war but only about Lincoln. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Lincoln is one of the most written about people of all time, so two paras from a single historian seems hard to justify. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its been condensed further. Foner was a professor at Columbia University and the quote seems authoritative. If you think it should be further trimmed, then maybe list here the part that works from your viewpoint. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Foner was a professor at Columbia University and the quote seems authoritative: without wishing to speak for Nick, I'm sure similar credentials could be offered for dozens (at least) of respected academics who have written about Lincoln. UndercoverClassicistT·C15:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Foner isn't just any professor- he's definitely one of the most widely read and respected scholars (and probably the single most read/respected living scholar) on the Reconstruction Era. Eddie891TalkWork11:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first sentence of the para starting with "In surveys of U.S. scholars ranking presidents since 1948" seems necessary - the other sentences just repeat this.
The three opinions are kept together from Gallop, The Federalist Society, and the Leo book about the presidency to avoid a show a favoritism to any one of them. If any of them are shown to be flawed, they can be deleted. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Memorials and commemorations' section is just a listing of memorials and some of the things named after him: surely there are sources that discuss this thematically. It also doesn't discuss how Lincoln has been discussed on film and how this has changed over time; for instance, the people behind Lincoln (film) were partly motivated by wanting to portray Lincoln as a politician who got things done, at times in distasteful ways, rather than a superhuman figure. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Film, drama, and fiction" section of the Wikipedia article for Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln is very large; its difficult to avoid looking overly selective in choices made and applied to that section. Doris Goodwin's book was used for the Daniel Day Lewis version of the film, done with high acclaim. Her book is mentioned in the Presidency section of the article mentioning her book Team of Rivals. Its possible to mention something like Spielberg's film version, though it might be overly selective to do this. Let me know what you think after you see the Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln Wikipedia article which I just linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just on the last point, I'm very doubtful that there aren't sources that thematically discuss how Lincoln has been portrayed in novels and films that can be drawn on instead of just nominating some examples. The point I was making by noting the film Lincoln is that it's an example of a project that sought to portray Lincoln in a different way to how he is usually depicted, so there should be material discussing the broader topic. Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki. That material looks good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Great work to Ernest and everyone else involved. Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a late arriver at this review and so am in the comfortable position that earlier contributors have already done all the hard work. I have carefully read through the article twice and I can find nothing to which to object, apart (very mildly) from:
the careless use of "significant" (see Plain Words: This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?')
"snuck into Washington" – that's not English where I come from, but I'm quite prepared to be told it's all right in American usage.
American history isn't much in my line, but to my layman's eye the sourcing appears wide and mainly modern (and having 368 citations is pretty dashed impressive), the article is long but who can begrudge 10,500 words to America's possibly greatest president? As regards FA criterion 1d the article seems to me neutral, and (1a) it is a good read. Happy to add my support for its promotion to FA. Tim riley talk12:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln was born into poverty in Kentucky and raised on the frontier.
The section on his Early Life does not seem to establish that he was born into poverty. The link that is describing poverty is doing so some two hundred years after his birth?
On April 14, 1865, five days after the Confederate surrender at Appomattox, he was attending a play at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C., when he was fatally shot by Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth.
On October 5, 1818, Nancy Lincoln died from milk sickness, leaving 11-year-old Sarah in charge of a household including her father, 9-year-old Abraham, and Nancy's 19-year-old orphan cousin, Dennis Hanks.[16]
Why isn't in a household not in the household since readers know the household being referred to?
He was elected the captain of his militia company but did not see combat.[44]
elected - appointed or selected would seem more appropriate in the circumstances?
No - the militiamen chose their captains from among themselves. Burlingame describes this as Lincoln's first electoral victory. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Illinois ""
In this ostensibly non-partisan speech Lincoln indirectly attacked Stephen Douglas and the Democratic Party, who the Whigs argued were supporting "mobocracy"; he also attacked anti-abolitionism and racial bigotry.[61]
Isn't "In this ostensibly non-partisan speech" an introductory phrase?
As a Whig activist Lincoln was a spokesman for business interests, favoring high tariffs, banks, infrastructure improvements, and railroads, in opposition to Jacksonian democrats.[301]
"....in 2004—the youngest signee in its history, and a...." - the clause starts with a dash but ends with a comma.....?
"Swift spent four months near the end of 2005 to record her debut album" => "Swift spent four months near the end of 2005 recording her debut album"
"classic hits such as Dolly Parton's "I Will Always Love You" (1974), the Marvelettes' "Please Mr. Postman" (1961), or Hoagy Carmichael's "Heart and Soul" (1938)" => "classic hits such as Dolly Parton's "I Will Always Love You" (1974), the Marvelettes' "Please Mr. Postman" (1961), and Hoagy Carmichael's "Heart and Soul" (1938)"
"as well as that the refrain is built on repetitions of the initial short motif" => "as well as the fact that the refrain is built on repetitions of the initial short motif"
""Tim McGraw" is about a summer romance that has past and leaves behind" => ""Tim McGraw" is about a summer romance that has passed and left behind"
"but he was repugnant of the title" - I think "but he hated the title" would read more naturally
"It was one of the Award-Winning Songs at the 2007 Country Awards by Broadcast Music, Inc., which honored the most-played country songs on United States television and airplay of the year." → A secondary source would better justify the inclusion of this award in the article
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is missing author that is given in the article
Hi, thanks for the source review. I've added the author to the Post-Gazette source. Re. BMI, I couldn't find third-party coverage for the 2007 awards, but the awards in 2008 and 2010 did receive coverage on Billboard and MusicRow, so I guess the 2007 awards also guarantee inclusion here too.. Ippantekina (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hey, a rare FAC that's in my wheelhouse. Source quality is good across the board, and I feel all major and minor aspects of the song are widely covered. All sentences seemed to read clearly to me and all citations stood up to scrutiny. (I even got out the CD to double-check the personnel.) I made a couple minor tweaks, such as changing "summer 2006" per MOS:SEASON and capitalizing "Dobro" as it is a brand name. My only concern is that I thought footnotes are not supposed to be done mid-sentence (as is the case with citation 81, among others), unless there is a comma or other punctuation mark. If that last point can be cleared up, then I am willing to support. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)05:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TenPoundHammer:, thank you for the review. I can't specifically find a MOS that mentions the issue with mid-sentence sourcing, but I think it could make sense in specific cases. For example, It is a mid-tempo country ballad[35][36] that is driven by a twelve-string guitar[36][37] and incorporates fiddle, Dobro, and banjo.[10] -- leaving all 5 sources at the end of this sentence makes it look overwhelming. I can bundle them up using {{efn}} but it would be confusing. As such I'm fine with mid-sentence footnotes, but let me know what you think! Ippantekina (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything in policy that seems to disallow footnotes of that nature, but I was certain there was a policy about it. In the absence of any policy to the contrary, support. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)03:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, old friend! So good of you to take on this article, especially since Taylor recently got her masters back :)
"On the Billboard Hot 100 chart, the single debuted at number 86 on the issue dated September 26, 2006,[26] peaked at number 40 on January 13, 2007,[27] and spent 20 weeks..." I think it'd be better to say "20 weeks on the chart" or something to that effect.
"Elsewhere, the single peaked at number 10 on the Canada Country chart[32] and has been certified gold in Australia" Why the two different verb tenses?
For me the charting peak was completed in the past, while the cert is still present and hence... lmk if it makes sense for you :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Unlimitedlead:, it's great to see you again :) I've responded to your comments and yeah it's great news that Swift triumphed in her masters battle, guess karma is sweet like honey fr fr. Ippantekina (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a comment on the following sentence from the lead: Swift wrote the song with Liz Rose, and Nathan Chapman produced it for her debut studio album, Taylor Swift (2006). I could just be overthinking it, but I am not sure if it's entirely grammatically correct as the part on Nathan Chapman is cut off in a way to tie it with "her debut studio album", and Chapman is obviously not the her here. I think it is obvious in context, but I wonder if switching the writing and production would avoid this potential error as with: Nathan Chapman produced the song, and Swift wrote it with Liz Rose for her debut studio album, Taylor Swift (2006). Again, I could be over-thinking it, but I did keep coming back to this part.
For the Dobro references, would it be possible to expand the link to say something like Dobro guitars instead. I could see people being confused by what is meant without the qualifier. I never heard of this brand, but I am not familiar with guitars in general. I just think that clarification is always helpful, especially when it is a minor change like this one.
I am uncertain about the "Swift's narrator" phrasing. It sounds a bit odd to me, particularly with putting the narrator with a possessive in such a way. I would think that "the narrator" would be more concise or something like "the song's narrator" or "the track's narrator" if clarification is needed.
For this part in the lead, her favorite song by the country musician Tim McGraw, the song's namesake, would it be possible to avoid repeating "song" twice in the same sentence? An option could be saying "the single's namesake".
For whatever reason, I am having trouble loading the source link for File:Taylor Swift - Tim McGraw.png. It could be an issue with my internet, but my connection keeps timing out. The link itself seems a bit odd as I would have expected either a link to a streaming platform or to the record label's website.
I have a comment for the following sentence: After finishing school, she came to the Sony/ATV office to finish the song with co-writer Liz Rose, using a piano. The last part on the piano seems incomplete. How did she use a piano to finish the song?
I have a question about this sentence: He suggested that Swift rename it "Tim McGraw", deeming it a move that could attract the attention of country fans who liked McGraw—a contemporary country "superstar". The article had established that the song's working title was "When You Think Tim McGraw", so McGraw was seemingly already a part of the the name prior to Borchetta's opinion. It seemed more like Borchetta was shortening the title, but the sentence more so gives the impression that he thought up the idea of naming the song after McGraw in the first place.
This is likely a silly question, so apologies in advance, but for the lyric, "Georgia stars at night", would a link for Georgia be helpful, especially for non-American readers? I was wondering as Southern United States is linked later on.
I am a part uncertain about the following part, the English-language academic Maggie Laurel Boyd, specifically the phrase "English-language academic" as it is not something that I have run across before. When I look up Boyd, she seems more like an English literature academic. That is of course if I am reading about the right person.
I am uncertain about how this quote, "hit [...] hard", is being used in the article. It is lifted out of its context, and its current placement in this part, Rob Sheffield of Blender wrote that the song "hit [...] hard", is rather vague. In the source, Sheffield ties the song hitting as hard because of Swift's "personality and poise". Would it be possibly to add that context?
This could just be me, but something about the following part, entertain him on live television, specifically the "entertain him" wording seems off to me. Maybe, it is because I have seen that phrasing used in other contexts that are not applicable here.
All of the people from the Personnel section should be discussed in the prose. I did a spot-check for this, and Lex Price, Tim Marks, and Rob Hajacos are only mentioned in this listing and not in the prose.
I left out all personnel because I think they are not worth mentioning... I only included the writers (Swift, Rose) and producer (Chapman). Ippantekina (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree as I believe that everyone responsible for creating this song is worth mentioning, but after looking thorough the FAs on songs, I noticed that several of them that do not include all of the personnel in the prose so it is likely a matter of personal preference. For that reason, I will not push this further. Aoba47 (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about title case. It seems like this is used for the online citations, but not for the book/journal sources. Is there a reason for that? I would think that it should be used consistently across all sources.
Wonderful work with the article. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. I doubt that I will find anything major. I hope that this review was helpful. Have a great rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review, Aoba47. Your comments are helpful as always, and I have addressed them all. Let me know how the article looks now :) Ippantekina (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sound sample is from the refrain, which is discussed in the third paragraph of the Music section. I'm not sure if audio files require alt, which I think normally applies to image files (jpg/png etc). Ippantekina (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Music critics praised Swift's songwriting on "Tim McGraw" [...] regarded the single as a blueprint for Swift's songwriting." - Slight repetition there. Would any of the meaning be lost if the first "Swift's songwriting" was substituted with "the lyricism"?
"In the United States, "Tim McGraw" peaked at number 40 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number six on Hot Country Songs, and the Recording Industry Association of America certified the track double platinum." - A bit long and with two ands. You could split the certification bit into a separate sentence.
"Trey Fanjoy directed the song's music video"
Is there some significance to her being "Pennsylvania–born" in the context of this article?
Most sources cited in the section do mention the fact that Swift is a Pennsylvania native. I think it's worth mentioning as there is a section in the Lyrical interpretations section that discusses her using Southern tropes to mould her image as a country singer. Ippantekina (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"While in that class" - This is already implied by the previous sentence imo
"It is first on the track listing of Taylor Swift" - why not just "track list". it feels like the more common term
"The album version of "Tim McGraw" is 3 minutes and 52 seconds long." - Is there a radio edit with a different duration? If that is not notable or is at least not mentioned in this article, it is unnecessary to include "the album version" imo. Could be revised to just ""Tim McGraw" is 3 minutes and 52 seconds long."
"The minor vi chord adds a sense of melancholy and wistfulness to the sound." - sounds subjective and should be attributed
"By using the '50s progression, "Tim McGraw" evokes classic hits such as Dolly Parton's "I Will Always Love You" (1974), the Marvelettes' "Please Mr. Postman" (1961), and Hoagy Carmichael's "Heart and Soul" (1938) and thus has a timeless feel to it." - The current framing, at least to me, seems to put this in wikivoice and not properly attributed to Perone.
""Tim McGraw" is about a summer romance that has past and left behind fleeting memories." - should this not be "passed" instead of "past"?
"In the refrains, the narrator pleads with him to remember her" - I was curious why it's just "refrain" in the previous sections but it becomes plural here
"the beautiful nature surrounding them the night they danced to the song" - is it necessary to mention the nature as "beautiful"? this is a completely optional suggestion but it slightly feels like excessive detail
"While Swift wrote "Tim McGraw" envisioning the end of her relationship before it actually ended" - there is a slightly jarring transition here as we go from the "narrator" framing in the previous paragraph to pretty much directly mentioning the song as being about Swift's relationship. Is it confirmed the song is about her own experience and in that case do we need the use of "narrator" repeatedly?
While the song is autobiographical, most lyrical interpretations of this song analyze it from the narrator's voice. I think it is more objective to present the lyrics that way too, because songwriting, no matter how diaristic it is, is still an art of fabrication and as an art form, the narrator is not always reliable... Ippantekina (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"which evoke nostalgic sentiments" - according to whom, critics or Swift?
The critical reception section looks nicely done. Bravo!
"the cabin that featured in the video"
"She begins singing the song as the boyfriend is seen departing the town driving a 1970 Chevrolet CST-10." - he's referred to as the ex-boyfriend in earlier sections
"After the single was released" - is this needed?
"she gave an acoustic performance of several Taylor Swift tracks, including "Tim McGraw", at Billboard magazine's headquarters in New York City." - You could link Billboard
"On October 24, 2006, the day Taylor Swift was released, she performed the track live on Good Morning America and The Megan Mullally Show" - "the day Taylor Swift was released" seems unnecessary here imo
"After she finished the acoustic set" - the set being acoustic is mentioned just a few sentences earlier
"Credits adapted from the liner notes of Taylor Swift" - I usually prefer the full sentence: "Credits are adapted from the liner notes of Taylor Swift."
"2007 year-end chart for "Tim McGraw" - The year is not necessary in the caption imo because it didn't chart during any other year, making this the comprehensive table of all year-end charts applicable.--NØ15:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Philippines first competed at the 1924 Summer Olympics in Paris, which marked their debut and the debut of any Southeast Asian nation. Some interesting facts include that the flagbearer had to carry two flags as the nation was still occupied by the US, the nation initially had to compete for the US even after becoming a member of the IOC, and two of the three initial athletes dropped out from competing.
My second FAC, shall respond to all comments, trying to improve the quality of the niche and infamous world of Olympic-participation articles. Yours truly, Arconning (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well done researching and putting all of this together, it seems a hard topic to find resources on.
The lead wording on the shift from the HAAU to the Far Eastern Athletic Association read to me like they shifted from the HAAU to the latter due to the letter. However, the body makes it clear the Philippines was already a member of the PAAF, and thus they simply dropped participation in the HAAU. There's also something missing in this story, the article asserts "Philippine athletes had to qualify as athletes for the United States' Olympic team through trials hosted by the Amateur Athletic Union". "Its participation as a separate entity at the Olympic Games was then organized by the PAAF" does not explain how it transitioned away from this situation. Was Quezon negotiating with the United States, or with the IOC, or both? Was it already possible within the IOC for the Far Eastern Athletic Association to bring participation?
Rewording for less confusion as I may have misinterpreted some of the sourcing, sent an email as well. :)
It is also unclear how the Philippines joined the IOC in 1918, but did not have an NOC until 1929.
Sent an email to the Olympic Studies Centre to clarify, though other nations have competed without an NOC such as Italy at the 1896 Summer Olympics and Switzerland at the 1896 Summer Olympics. The AOA was already recognized by the IOC so I seem its plausible that they didn't need to recognize the PAAF as it was still part of the AOA at the time.
I'm not sure about the repeated use of occupation here, given the possible reading as a very temporary governance. It is a word used for the Philippines, although more for the earlier period of rule pre-Jones Act. The wording however is very odd when used as a comparison to Canada or Ireland. In 1924 both were "Dominions", a term with some legal wrangling, but certainly in the Ireland case they asserted (and assert, as many discussions on Wikipedia have established) effective independence from 1922.
Changed! It's quite odd, I agree, the competitors word it as such and I wouldn't want to misrepresent it + might be an issue of WP:OR if I did. Though I'll try to word it better if you'll ask me further. :)
No idea... the report is devoid of any information regarding the flagbearers so I assume they had to use newspapers and/or other print sources to verify the flagbearers and did not find any regarding the Philippines'.
The quote by Nepomuceno about his experiences is reading to me not specifically about his time "at the games", but rather about the seemingly awful travel experience needed to reach it.
Moved.
Speaking of the quote, it seems odd there's no section on legacy. This was the first Olympics for the Philippines, and they participated almost continuously since, which is in some of the sources and seems worth mentioning. (There is also possibly some legacy for racial representation and decolonization, I'm seeing vague google snippets, but if it's not in the sources you've seen the snippets may be misleading me.)
Added some information, could you supply some of the sources you're talking about so I can expand if I find something... relevant!
@Chipmunkdavis Got a reply from the Studies Centre! The participation of athletes back then relied on the Organizing Committee of the 1924 Summer Games rather than an NOC, which meant that NOCs weren't mandatory for an athlete's participation, hope that clears up the second point. For the first point, let me know if I've written it... better. :) Arconning (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, I had trouble putting aside a bloc of time. Glad you got replies, and thanks for the changes, not following up on the handled ones.
I'm still stuck on "the nation had to qualify". Clearly they didn't 'have' to. Maybe they "had" to in 1918 and this was changed? It's just unclear how Osías had the unilateral ability to act on that. One factor that may make a difference and is perhaps unclear to modern readers will be that Hawaii was also a territory at this time. The Rappler source glosses over the details. However, the Honolulu Star article does not state in its own voice that the Philippines "had" to complete under Hawaii/the United States, but that this was the opinion of an "E. Fullard-Leo" (I suspect this E Fullard-Leo, seems notable and perhaps worth a redlink, I may look into it further). It says Hawaii invited the Philippines to compete with them, not that this was the letter of the law. I suspect the current article overstates the position, and that rather the whole issue (as with the flags) was untested and subject to various domestic and international politics. Similarly, "Although the nation became a member, the Philippine Amateur Athletic Federation was still attached to the American Olympic Association (AOA), meaning that athletes would have to qualify for the Olympics through American-run trials" seems to far overstate the very small mention in the source which merely notes that the Philippine Amateur Athletic federation became affiliated with the National Amateur Athletics federation in 1923, and perhaps crucially that it was not a member. On the last sentence, "were expected to compete" could perhaps be attributed to saying "...by American newswriters" or similar.
Responses:
"I'm still stuck on "the nation had to qualify". Clearly they didn't 'have' to. Maybe they "had" to in 1918 and this was changed? It's just unclear how Osías had the unilateral ability to act on that. One factor that may make a difference and is perhaps unclear to modern readers will be that Hawaii was also a territory at this time. The Rappler source glosses over the details. However, the Honolulu Star article does not state in its own voice that the Philippines "had" to complete under Hawaii/the United States, but that this was the opinion of an "E. Fullard-Leo" (I suspect this E Fullard-Leo, seems notable and perhaps worth a redlink, I may look into it further). It says Hawaii invited the Philippines to compete with them, not that this was the letter of the law. I suspect the current article overstates the position, and that rather the whole issue (as with the flags) was untested and subject to various domestic and international politics." It just linked in my brain, I've changed it, I'm so sorry for the past miscommunications! I probably misread my own text, reworded it that they had to send a team to the '24 Games upon receiving membership, then the Hawaiian AAU invited them to compete under them as the secretary thought that they may have not been able to send a team. To give some context, I put "territorial Hawaiian Amateur..." as opposed to the modern one.
"Similarly, "Although the nation became a member, the Philippine Amateur Athletic Federation was still attached to the American Olympic Association (AOA), meaning that athletes would have to qualify for the Olympics through American-run trials" seems to far overstate the very small mention in the source which merely notes that the Philippine Amateur Athletic federation became affiliated with the National Amateur Athletics federation in 1923, and perhaps crucially that it was not a member.", removed this.
"On the last sentence, "were expected to compete" could perhaps be attributed to saying "...by American newswriters" or similar.", let me know if my change was alright.
Not seeing "In 1918, the nation became a member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) under a condition that it would send athletes to the 1924 Summer Olympics" in the Manila Bulletin source?
"The Philippines joined the International Olympic Committee six years prior and as a requisite for acceptance, it must send a Filipino athlete to the said edition of the Games."
The Taduran wording in the lead could use some tweaking, he is introduced twice and so comes off as two people. (As an aside, this source seems very harsh on Taduran, how is a decathalon champion unimpressive?)
Changed. I do agree it's quite harsh, probably Asian talent within the decathlon was far from the standards of European and North American athletes + it's the 1920s, well... you know what flourished in that time.
"To date" should be changed to as of the specific games (2024) per MOS:DATED.
Done!.
As for the sources, I'm afraid I've had no better luck than scraping through snippets. Philippine participation at the games did provide an argument for Puerto Rican participation, but that isn't the legacy of a single event per se. CMD (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following the revisions and the Legacy expansion I read this article as being in good stead regarding 1b. The changes also put it inline as far as I can tell on 1c now, although during spot checking I was unable to access the Manila Times sources or Blanco 2024 if anyone wants to do another source check. The prose is reasonably clear. The two photos are both older than the 1930 date which Commons has as a pretty clear line for an assumption of public domain. Not an expert on 2c, but it seems roughly fine. Support on that basis. CMD (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1918, the nation ..." I think some of the context in this para should come before the preceding paragraph. Indeed, I would expect the context about how prior to 1918 athletes competed for the US to come first in the background section, rather than a few sentences into the second paragraph
Done.. Hope this is okay.
"to qualify for the United States' team or be unable to compete" -> "...team to be eligible to compete"?
Done.
"For instance, Catalon and decathlete Juan Taduran were expected to compete" how does this sentence fit in this article? I don't think it does, as currently written
It gives the reader context on some initial set-ups before the PAAF's decision... tried rewording it. Let me know if I've done it justice.
"Subsequently, then-PAAF secretary"
Done.
" stating their unwillingness to compete under the HAAU " who is 'their' in this context? The PAAF? The athletes?
Done.
Do you know what Jigorō's connection to the Philippines was? Why would they reach out to him over anyone else
Jigoro was a FEAA representative and IOC member, letter states: "The Philippine Amateur Athletic Federation is an organization in itself, and as a member of the Far Eastern Athletic Association, is entitled to participate in the world Olympic games."
Are the 'delegation' and 'opening ceremony' sections really background?
Made into different sections.
"The Philippine delegation" Since it's a new section, I think it's worth saying something like "The Philippine delegation to the 1924 Olympics"
Done!
I think it would make sense to reorder the paragraphs in the 'delegation' section. I had the following questions on reading through the first paragraph-ish,
Is there anything on how the people who were to be part of the delegation were selected/qualified?
The usual way to qualify for a games at the time was to be selected or entered by the Organizing Committee of the Games rather than modern way where there's multiple ways of qualification such as meeting standards, ranks, or universality slots.
So were Catalon and Taduran not still part of the delegation, even if they didn't compete?
Taduran, yes though as a representative. Catalon, no. They were part of the initial delegation though had to drop out due to stated reasons in the article.
He was set to be part of the official delegation as he was entered in the 100 and 200 meter dashes, though he did not start his events nor attended the games itself. He did not have a substantial role in the countries' participation at the games whether in a diplomatic or sport manner, so he's not part of the delegation.
Did any of the athletes excel outside of the Far East? Curious why we say "mostly"
Reworded, they mostly competed in Asia, not really competing outside of the continent.
But I think they would mostly be resolved by putting the second paragraph first.
"Taduran instead served as a representative" I can't really grasp what representative means in this context?
Representatives hold similar duties as an ambassador or is one, added a wikilink for clarity. As the Olympics are a "world event", teams appoint attaches, chef de missions, and et cetera.
"with the former winning eight" How did you decide that 1919 was "in the lead-up" but 1917 wasn't (which would bring his total to ten)?
Whoops! Miscounted, changed!
"which was within one-fifth" ... of a second? of a percent? of his time?
Of a second, done.
"which was within one-fifth of the world record at that time held by Jack Donaldson, qualifying them for the games" to me this could imply that being within X seconds of the WR could qualify one for the olympics, but I don't think that's accurate?
Changed.
"at the Southeast Asian Olympic Tournament." do you have a date/year for the tournament?
Source does not state any dates, tried finding other sources nada.
" The procedure that was adopted was equal to the Moroccan delegation that did not compete, who would have needed to fly the flag of France on top of theirs" this is a bit odd to me, couldn't we axe this sentence and not lose anything? It also feels a bit odd to break the paragraph here
That's true... removed.
"In the history of the Games, Catalon became the most successful athletics competitor" -> "Catalon became the most successful athletics competitor and Taduran the most decorated decathlete in the history of the games" would feel more natural to me
Changed.
"Catalon and Taduran were active in sport through other means" do we lose anything from cutting this? You state what their activity was later
Donezo.
"though the team lost every match they had at the 1930 Far Eastern Championship Games" ditto
Done.
"at the subsequent Summer Games" subsequent here could be read as subsequent to 1980
Changed.
Have you been able to access 1920s Filipino newspapers to check for coverage? I feel like they would have relevant information to the article.
Checked the archives of East View and the Library of Congress, doesn't give any substantial information that isn't included in the article.
OK, on a re read, in addition to the two above, my main point is still that I think the background needs re-ordering. Why do we begin with the dates of the olympics, and not the sequentially earliest background information (currently in paragraph two?).
Changed!
Other minor points:
"in the mid-1920s" this wouldn't have been before the game, is jarring when contained in the same sentence previously talking about their careers "before the Games", and then going on to continue to talk about their pre-1924 careers.
I may be coy, could you give some selected instances?
Do we have no information about Nepomuceno pre-1924?
Checked archives, none. Considering he just turned 24 at the time of the Games it would've made sense. Additionally Catalon and Taduran were born in the 1890s
"becoming the two-time winner in the decathlon at the Southeast Asian Olympic Tournament" If you can't put any sort of date on this, I don't think it's helpful to include, you already establish that he had won medals.
Removed.
I'm not convinced the link to ambassador is actually accurate/helpful, as the article is on a specific diplomatic context- might be better just saying "representative" if you can't get any more info on it.
Alrighty!
"showing visible signs of tiredness" - maybe attribute who thought they were tired, like along the lines of "and contemporary reporters described them as something something something"
Done.
"Catalon was set to compete in the men's 100 meters[1] and 200 meters, while Taduran was set to compete in the men's decathlon" I would put this at the end of the first paragraph, and move the part about "Nepomuceno... participated in the men's 100 meters and 200 meters" here as well
Done as well.
"before the opening ceremony for training" are we sure that it was for training- one would hope that their training had been largely completed by this point? Maybe cut "for training"
Source says they arrived for more training, most Olympic athletes do train a lot before their events, even at the host city!
"The Philippine delegation marched 34th out of the 42 nations present in the Parade of Nations within the opening ceremony on July 5" I would sequentially move this to the end of the parade of nations section.
Done + moved some text around, hope it's okay.
"sixth heat, a preliminary round" could you just say "sixth preliminary heat"?
That's true... fixed.
Why do you have "100-yard dash" (with hyphen), and "100 metre"/"200 metre" without?
Both are accepted styles, changed to retain consistency. :)
"The Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) gave the Hawaiian Amateur Athletic Union (HAAU)" Do we know when this happened?
Checked archives and some contemporary websites, nothing listed.
"was still attached to the American Olympic Association (AOA). Due to this ruling, Catalon and decathlete Juan Taduran were expected to compete in the 1924 United States Olympic trials in track and field in Cambridge, Massachusetts" would the sourcing support/it be clearer to revise to something like "Although the nation became a member, the Philippine Amateur Athletic Federation was still attached to the American Olympic Association (AOA), meaning that athletes would have to qualify for the Olympics through American-run trials. For instance, as late as [December?] 1923 Catalon and decathlete Juan Taduran were expected to compete in the 1924 United States Olympic trials in track and field in Cambridge, Massachusetts" I think this would help connect the two sentences and avoid the awkward "Due to this ruling [which one?]"
It would! Changed.
I still don't get why Catalon is not included as part of the delegation, if he went to Paris with them, just as Taduran did. I'm sure that I am just being thick, but can you try explaining again to me?
Unlike Taduran who had initially qualified for the games as an athlete though took up a spot on the delegation as an ambassadorial role, Catalon wouldn't be part of the official delegation. Though he arrived in Paris, he did not compete nor attend the games as a spectator at all. He was initially entered as an athlete though did not follow through that role thus rendering him not being part of the nation's delegation. (checked Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive if Catalon had another role, he did not)
re: "noun + ing", I think the following constructions should just be reviewed to make sure they are the best way of phrasing things: "with the former winning ten and the latter winning two in the lead-up to the Games", "with Catalon and Taduran eventually not competing in the trials", "Taduran injured his collarbone after playing" "was in a dilemma concerning". Eddie891TalkWork14:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: Done! Removed info about Catalon and Taduran's trials entry, as the reader could probably assume they did not compete as it was stated before they were "expected" to compete though the PAAF was reluctant to send them... et cetera et cetera. 16:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I’m not sure I understand the point on Catalon not being part of the delegation, but am willing to chalk it up to my brain not working. Support on prose - Eddie891TalkWork16:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Flag of the Philippines (1919–1936).svg needs a US PD tag
File:Philippines – 1924 Summer Olympics.png good
File:Loren Murchison and David Nepomuceno.jpg also good (shame about the quality, but it could probably be cropped to exclude the borders around the image) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno whether International Olympic Committee should actually be italicized - it's a publisher, not a source, essentially. Same question about Philippine Olympian Association. #33 seems to be broken. Some light spotchecking turned up no issues but I must note I don't know the reliability of most sources here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rappler (2, 19) - Consensus that it was deemed reliable, WP:RAPPLER.
Manila Bulletin (3, 23) - The source is well trusted per a Reuters report [25], the newspaper itself has a huge editorial oversight.
The Manila Times (8) - Currently the oldest running newspapers in the Philippines, politically the source itself is quite... difficult. Since the article and source mentions who led the PAAF at the time, I don't see it being a problem on my end.
Olympedia (14, 18, 26, 31, 32) - Managed by select Olympic historians, made by Sports Reference and currently owned by the International Olympic Committee.
This article is about how to carry on drinking after death with the help of a lead pipe. I am indebted to Richard Nevell for a thorough GAN review, help with sources and suggestions for improvement. It's been a couple of years since I've been here, so apologies in advance if I've missed any changes in requirements Jimfbleak - talk to me?13:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have taught about this burial many times -- I didn't even know it had an article, so it's particularly wonderful to see it
A couple of quick points on a quick scan:
Anything in a non-English language needs to be in a lang template -- that goes for Latin and for Welsh. In general, we should translate when we can: see Cair Legeion guar Uisc and Ultra Pontem.
British English doesn't like false titles ("archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler") -- we can do "the archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler", "Mortimer Wheeler, an archaeologist" or similar.
Oh -- that's the cited page? I've never seen that before: using a SFN would solve it altogether; you could otherwise use the RP template, but that would need to be a consistent style throughout the article. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reference formatting is quite inconsistent -- are titles written in sentence or title case? Are initials formatted as e.g. CW Blegen, C W Blegen or (my personal preference) C. W. Blegen?
The bibliography title "cited texts" seems inaccurate, as there are lots of texts cited that don't make it there. In all honesty, I'm struggling to pick out a logical distinction between those cited wholly inline and those in the bibliography, but would strongly suggest moving (at least) all books and journal articles to the biblio. Some people like to keep websites and ephemera where it's not possible to give an author and date in the notes only.
I have only put sources with references to more than on section in "Cited texts". I've regularly done this without comment, for example my 2023 FA Red-throated wryneck has the two Gorman books in that section. Unless MoS now prescribes it, I see no reason to change that. Jimfbleak - talk to me?11:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS doesn't specifically prescribe any citation style, but I'd observe that this one is likely to be opaque to almost any reader, and I must admit that I can't see the logic in it -- what makes a source mentioned twice, in two different sections, more prominent or honestly different to one cited four times in one section? As I've noted above, using footnote-only references when you also want to specify individual pages has caused you some problems, and forced you into a very opaque style of notation which I wouldn't expect many readers to understand. That's an FACR problem, even if the citation style itself isn't. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, the weight and nature of the sources gives me a little pause. We're really leaning on two big academic works (Roberts and M. Wheeler), with what would seem like two major sources relegated to Further Reading. FAs need to be comprehensive: if there's good material in there, they should be used fully and brought into the biblio. Conversely, a lot of the sources we do use don't seem to be particularly high quality: introductory summaries by Historic England and Cadw, Caerleon.net, and museum records that state things like scientific investigations done on the objects -- which we would expect to be taken from an academic publication, and to have more information available there.
I've removed the further reading, partly because I have no access to either of the Tessa Wheeler sources, and also because they're about the amphitheatre, not the burial. I tried to find the scientific investigations, but without success, but I'm unclear why a national museum isn't seen as a reliable soure for work that presumably it commissioned. @UndercoverClassicist:, perhaps you could clarify before I plough on with the remainder of your comments Jimfbleak - talk to me?11:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that the analysis exists only as a grey literature report somewhere and wasn't published in a journal. I had a (brief) look and couldn't surface anything through Google. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this for a while. Not sure if I'll do a full review, but I did do a little digging for those two sources. I am fortunate to be a patron of the New York Public Library; a wonderful research librarian there was able to locate one of the sources for me:
(Item Link: Full viewv.78 1928 ; Original Source: University of Michigan)
and I've got an inter-library loan request in for "The Caerleon Amphitheatre: A summary". The status is currently "awaiting ARM Manual Review", which I guess is library-speak for "we're not sure yet if we can get it for you". If it comes in, I'll let you know. RoySmith(talk)00:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look on Google Books for "Caerleon Pipe Burial" gave me quite a lot of unused sources:
This one briefly discusses the burial in relation to whether the living visited the site (using it as evidence in favour), and whether it can be called military (no).
This one and this one have useful context on this burial alongside other pipe burials elsewhere; we currently talk about other British examples, but otherwise only say that others exist, with times and places unspecified.
Similarly, Keith Hopkins here talks a little about the why of pipe burial, with reference to Caerleon (and a kind if pointed word for Wheeler).
I can't get the full text on Google Books, but this one discusses the burial at length.
Ah, good find. I was including the source here as an illustration ("there are more out there that we're not using yet"), rather than because it had something specific -- but Boon does talk about what was poured down the pipe as libations, endorses the age and gender of the burial, and gives a more precise findspot than we have. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's an important footnote to the archaeological investigation of the burial here, on JSTOR.
Another thing -- I realise that I took a photograph of the real thing a little while ago: you can find it here. It's not the greatest, but might be worth adding so that readers can see what it actually looks like.
At the moment, I'm not sure we're quite up to the FA standards of comprehensiveness and detail, though it's unquestionably a good article and a really nice introduction to a fascinating find. I think this might be a case where bringing a pre-FAC mentor (noting the comment in the nomination about standards having changed, which I'm sure is very true) on board would have made the process easier, and would suggest poking through some recent archaeological FAs to get an idea of the level of detail and general "meat" we normally find in them. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I suggested the Cadw source, it seems only fair that I explain why I think it's suitable. As a Cadw guidebook it's a high-quality and accessible summary of Caerleon. I can't speak for how Cadw do things, but English Heritage send their guides for peer review and are a similar quality, and the guidebook is cited by other sources. The guidebook is not the definitive work on Caerleon, but is reliable and I think it is suitable for providing context, particularly as a source for an uncontroversial statement like "Although there are no extant visible traces of the burial sites that lay along the roads leading to the fortress, numerous tombstones and cremation graves have been recovered". Richard Nevell (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's a bad source, but we expect FAs to be primarily sourced to high-quality, high-detail works by academics, with perhaps a couple of other reliable sources (e.g. newspapers, guidebooks, quality websites, doctoral theses) cited where those add something that can't be replicated elsewhere. My impression of the sources here is that the balance is the other way: most of the sources are general-audience works, often written by heritage bodies rather than research academics. I note, for example, that while Roberts is unquestionably an authority in her field, Buried is a mass-market work, and will doubtless be built upon more specialised and generally "nerdy" scholarly publications: I'd generally expect an FA to be primarily engaging with those directly. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A guidebook falls comfortably in the category of a general work designed for the public rather than specialists. All the same it's worth noting that research is an important part of Cadw's work and Jeremy Knight (the author of the guidebook) was an Inspector of Ancient Monuments, and has written numerous research papers and academic books. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist and Richard Nevell: I've made use of the Bank Holiday to address the points made above, as well as those from Nikkimaria above and Tim Riley below. Thanks you both for the time and effort you've put in. I've incorporated from the sources what seems to add value to the text, rather than basically rephrase what is already there. I have no problem using Cadw, English Heritage or the Museum as sources. It would be nice to get under the skin, for example with the museum's scientific tests, but inability to do so doesn't, in my opinion at least, lessen the credibity of what they are claiming Jimfbleak - talk to me?15:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: For your first link above, the text I can see in full is about Anglo-Saxon graves, I can only see snippet view for the pipe burial bit. Neither Wheeler nor Roberts mention a sacrificial table, and the presence of the pipe suggests that people visited the cemeteries, as does the Roman funerary customs. Perhaps you can access more text than me, but as it stands, I'm struggling a bit with this source. Jimfbleak - talk to me?12:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What a pleasing article! A few quibbles before I sign on the dotted line to support promotion to FA:
"In 1927, building works on a site" – AmE-style commas after dates: Plain Words sums up the BrE model concisely: Some writers put a comma here as a matter of course. But others do it only if a comma is needed to emphasise a contrast or to prevent the reader from going off on the wrong scent ... On the principle that stops should not be used unless they are needed, this discrimination is to be commended". If I were you I'd lose the superfluous comma. Tim riley talk20:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"confirmed at reexamination in 2001" – the OED hyphenates re-examination.
"Across the river Usk, there was a suburb" – another superfluous comma.
"the Ultra Pontem/Bulmore area" – spelling of Bulmore? (Double l elsewhere).
"sent the fragments to anatomist Sir Arthur Keith, FRS" – two things here: first a clunky false title easily remedied by the insertion of a definite article; and I don't think we usually give people their postnominals in the text of an article,
"tin and sulfur were present" – imported from America, presumably, in preference to English sulphur.
Bloody hellfire! (with or without sulphur) but so be it! I much enjoyed this article and am happy to add my support for its elevation to FA. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk14:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree on sulfur. It is not a scientific setting but a technical chemical setting. See [32], which explains that the new journal Nature Chemistry will use sulfur even though sulphur is retained for Nature itself. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: The page you linked seems to be arguing strongly to lose the "ph" spelling in the case of sulfur, there seems to be no good reason to continue using the 'ph' form other than perhaps a mistaken sense of spelling jingoism.. More to the point, the British source for the statement uses "sulfur" Jimfbleak - talk to me?13:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article continued to improve after the GA review, so I've had to refresh my memory of the article. Reading through it again, it is clearly written and has an appropriate level of detail. The article is well constructed providing the context necessary to understand this fascinating subject. In the last few weeks an article was published which contains a brief mentions of the Caerleon pipe burial. It says that lead particles from the canister led to the preservation of the cloth. Is that a detail worth including? Perhaps, but not something I think would undermine the article's comprehensiveness. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, just one comment: per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, I would delete the photo of Alice Roberts as it doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the subject.
@RoySmith:. Roberts was one of the two principal investigators of the remains, and one of two prominent female scientists featured in the articles. I'm not sure how the article is improved by not having an image of her? Jimfbleak - talk to me?15:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see how this jives with Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding. And while I hate "nobody else does it" arguments, I can't help noticing that of the two dozen or so archeology FAs I looked at, not a single one included a photo of the archeologist. It's about what they found, not who found it. That's even true in (archived) Peking Man, where a significant part of the story revolves around the investigators and the politics they were involved with. RoySmith(talk)21:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason you use a mix of m, cm, and mm for lengths in various places?
Caerleon, a town north of Newport in South Wales, I'd just say "Caerleon, a town in South Wales" or even "Caerleon, in South Wales". Knowing that this is north of Newport doesn't seem to add any value.
The professional archaeologist Tessa Wheeler Why is it important to note that she is a professional, especially since you don't make a similar distinction for her husband?
Across the river Usk there was a suburb ... This may be a regional English thing, but I don't think you can say "Across" without stating what it is across from, i.e. "Across the river Usk from the excavation site there was a suburb ..."
... and several are known in the area I think you're referring to "several cemeteries", but there's enough distance between the words to obscure the connection.
most were identified from casual finds I'm guessing "casual find" is a term of art in the archeological world, but it's worth explaining here for the lay reader. Presumably it means "Some farmer happened to stumble across it while working in his field"? Or maybe it's OK as is; I could go either way.
These are Abbeyfield to the north of Caerleon and the Ultra Pontem/Bulmore area adding a comma after "Caerleon" will make this easier to parse.
A scanning electron microscope investigation revealed that tin and sulfur were present in the deposits within the canister I know that's what the source says, but my (admittedly limited) knowledge of SEM has me wondering how you could detect specific elements with such an instrument. Is there any more information about this available?
On the point about Teresa Wheeler being a professional archaeologist, it struck me that this was a deliberate contrast with the antiquarian excavations that preceded Wheeler's work and which are the topic of the preceding sentence. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Nevell, Roy Smith I've adopted all your suggested changes above, although I've retained "professional" for that reason. SEMs inter alia incite X-ray emission from the sample characteristic of the elements it contains see hereJimfbleak - talk to me?11:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to give this a guarded support. It is well written, complies with the MOS, etc. It is shorter than a typical FA, but I don't see that as a problem; I'd rather see us write short high-quality articles on niche/obscure topics of academic import than to churn out tomes on popular topics awash in contemporary coverage. The referencing looks good to me, but I'm not a SME so I'm not qualified to comment on the comprehensive and well-researched aspects of the WP:FACR. UndercoverClassicist has already expressed his reservations in those areas and his opinion should be given greater weight than mine, hence my "guarded" qualification. RoySmith(talk)15:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few places where the people's initials are not followed by a full stop. I tried to push years ago to allow the lack of usage and had the massed ranks of the MOS people land on me for it; it may be best to add them now to save grief down the road
I see in the sources you list him as "Wheeler, Mortimer"; maybe "Wheeler, R. E. Mortimer" for consistency?
Breadth and reliability
All sources used are high quality, with most of the article's heavy lifting being done with academic sources or 'industry' specialist (Cadw, archaeological trust, Museum Wales, etc)
Additional searches have shown no further high-quality sources that could or should have been used
The reproductive structure of flowering plants is back at FAC after 18 and a bit years. Underwent (over) expansion in 2021, then pruned and expanded recently. Many thanks for the GA review from User:Chiswick Chap and substantial peer review from many editors. Courtesy pinging @Tim riley: and @SchroCat: per their request. Additionally to the peer review, I rechecked all the references in sections I did not personally write, replaced a number of them with better ones, and added some supplementary references. My second FAC, nice to be back after all this time. Cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 10:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
I peer reviewed this and said then that I hoped to see it at FAC. My few quibbles were well attended to at the time, and the only thing I have spotted while rereading for FAC is that in the Taxonomy section "Carl Linnaeus 1753 book Species Plantarum layed out ..." has two small errors: Linnaeus needs a possessive apostrophe after his name and "layed" should be "laid". This seems to me, speaking as a more or less complete layman, to be a clear, balanced, well sourced and well written article with the technicalities kept to a sensible level but properly covered, and I am pleased to add my support for its promotion to FA. Tim riley talk21:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aesthetics: the visual impact of this article is absolutely stunning ... the layout, the size of the paragraphs, the colors in the illustrations, the overall size. Everything looks clean and crisp. Just amazing.
Thanks for that. I would credit User:Chiswick Chap with a lot of the credit for that; they created many diagrams and made images a key GA focus. For reference, the lede images rationale is: Basal flower (magnolia), symmetric pollination syndrome (orchid), highly complex modern flower (passionfruit), long stamens (complete flower), reduced wind pollinated (corn), iconic pseudanthia (sunflower).
Is it possible to add a sentence or two contrasting flowers with some things that laypeople often mistake for flowers? For example: bracts on Bougainvillea, which is only one example flower-like things. Perhaps most of these pseudo-flowers evolved to attract pollinators to nearby flowers? [The article already has the sentence An inflorescence may include specialised stems and modified leaves known as bracts and smaller bracteoles but that is not what I'm suggesting.] Lots of articles on subject X have a sentence or even a whole section listing "Things that are not X".
done, also added a note in the first paragraph of morphology that defines flowers and discusses how there are structures that look like flowers, that we currently dont include in this definition.
There are several structures, found in some plants, that resemble flowers or floral organs, but often only in an ambiguous way. These include: coronas, crown-like outgrowths; phyllody, leafy flower parts; and pseudonectaries.
Although flowers are defined as the reproductive structures of angiosperms, there are many gymnosperm cones which resemble flowers. The female cones of Ginkgo biloba, for example, are mostly considered to be simple strobili, and not flowers. This also resolves the (previously) uncited definition in the lede
Quote: relationship: Outstanding usage of a quote box in section Flower#In culture ... but could you add a few words at the bottom (beneath author name) relating the quote to "In culture" e.g. "Poets often use imagery of flowers" or something like that.
Readers will be happier if a WP link is included in the caption of pic in section Flower#Coevolution ... Angimordella burmitina, an early (99 Mya) insect pollinator. That insect species has no article, but the parent family is Mordellidae, and that article's first sentence contains "... commonly known as tumbling flower beetles for the ..." which is enlightening. I think WP linking policy supports linking to parent taxons.
linked
Citation for pic caption: Angimordella burmitina, an early (99 Mya) insect pollinator Captions can omit citations when they simply describe the picture; but this pic should probably have a citation for the "99 Mya" fact.
added
Punctuation/grammar: .. angiosperms show a wide variation in floral structure. This includes size, shape, and colour. That latter sentence kinda sticks out in a bad way. Consider making it a fuller sentence e.g. The variations encompass all aspects of the flower, including size, shape, and colour or similar.
changed to This variation encompasses all aspects of the flower, including size, shape, and colour.
Confusing: Although most plants have flowers ... In addition, the four main parts of a flower are generally ... Even after re-reading three times, I'm still not sure what "In addition" is adding to. Can it be re-worded so readers can digest the intent?
It reads ok imo. It is in addition to the structural variation described in the prior sentence. It's possible it's not needed, however.
Identify the alternative: Flowers evolved between 150 and 190 million years ago, during the later part of the Jurassic era and ... Can the article have a few words here stating what plant features performed the role of flowers before flowers existed? [If not already stated nearby] E.g. Prior to the advent of flowers, plants reproduced using asexual methods such as ...[this blue example text is fictitious, only for illustration]
done, + a new source for part of the claim
Emphasize & contrast: As a subgroup of seed plants, angiosperms used the flower to outcompete other members, as a result of greater efficiency. This seems like one of the most important facts in the article. Consider adding a few words identifying the competitors that were "outcompeted". E.g. ... angiosperms used the flower to outcompete other members – such as fungi and lichens – as a result of greater efficiency. [this blue example text is fictitious, only for illustration]
done
That's all I have for now. Notify me when the above are addressed/resolved and I'll make another pass. Note that some of the above are optional suggestions. Noleander (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In section Flower#Colour, there is a a diagram with caption: The diffraction mechanism of photonic crystals. Nearby body text says ..present in some flowers are photonic structures. Two things:
(a) should change "photonic structures" in body to "photonic crystals" to match caption (or vice versa).
. > crystals per source. I think structures is also fine, but might imply man made per the sauce.
(b) The diagram itself includes the word "nanosphere": The term "nanosphere" is not explained anywhere in Wikipedia (no article on it). I had to look it up in a dictionary: it is a "spherical shaped nano-particle" (about a nanometer across). Suggest either (b1) add "nanosphere" article stub to WP; or (b2) define "nanosphere" in the diagram caption; or (b3) mention/define "nanosphere" in nearby body text; or (b4) edit the diagram in photoshop and remove that term (that diagram is used only by a single article in WP, so no impact to other articles). (I'm not saying that a WP article's body text must mention every term found in its diagrams; only that WP as a whole must define those terms).Noleander (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These whorls include: calyx, modified leaves; corolla, the petals; androecium, the male reproductive unit consisting of stamens and pollen; and gynoecium, the female part, containing style and stigma, which receives the pollen – you give some broad terms here in the lead (some of which do not even appear in the diagrams further down in the article), but much more common terms such as "pistil" and "nectar" are not mentioned; are the terms you selected for the lead really the most essential?
In my view, yes. They are almost always listed as the "four main whorls" in sources (such as Mauseth and Pandey) Both sterile and fertile appendages are borne on the foral receptacle in distinct whorls consisting of calyx, corolla, androecium and gynoecium. - pandey.
or between flowers on the same plant—or even the same flower, as in self-pollination – but self-pollination is within the same individual, not necessarily the same flower?
Per Mauseth Cross-pollination is the pollination of a carpel by pollen from a different individual; self pollination is pollination of a carpel by pollen from the same flower or another flower on the same plant. I think this clarification is useful, as reader's might not expect it to be the case.
Yes, but my concern was rather that you are implying that the term "self-pollination" is only used when it is the same flower, but it can actually be a different flower from the same plant. I think it is a wording problem and you could just remove the "—" to fix it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
angiosperms used the flower to outcompete other members – Is this scientific consensus? Where does the source say this? It could be opportunistic replacement, too?
In the first paragraph of Becker et al. THE origin of the flower during the late Jurassic to early Cretaceous eras (most recent estimates are between 150 and 190 MYA; Magallón et al. 2015) was a key evolutionary innovation that profoundly altered the Earth’s biota. Flowering plants (angiosperms), with reproductive security and speed conferred by the flower, replaced other seed plants in most ecosystems. Diversification of flowers and the resulting fruit spurred coevolutionary change in pollinators and dispersers, with subsequent wide-ranging effects on herbivores, mycorrhizae, and other interacting organisms. I've just gone with "replaced" per the source
colour of flowers assists in pollination – This sentence is quite isolated in the lead. You mention colour here, but not nectar?
was drafted in chronological order. Moved to by pollination and changed to The colour and structure of flowers—such as nectaries and nectar guides—assist in pollination.
are a key tool – I don't think they are a "tool". "Feature" maybe?
changed to feature
and not to the whole flowering plant – You never mentioned that the term applies to the whole plant.
reworked this section
Flower and blossom are cognates and are both derived from the Proto-Indo-European word *bʰleh₃ōs ('blossoming') – contradicts earlier statement regarding the origin of "flower".
doesn't contradict, but could be clearer. Here is the OED: "Anglo-Norman and Old French flur, flour, flor, fleur (Middle French, French fleur) flower, bloom, blossom (of a plant), representation of a flower, decoration, the best of something, best part, shining example, an elite group or individual, a paragon, a virtuous or beautiful person, prime or bloom (of life, etc.), virginity (all 12th cent.), flour (12th cent.: see flour n.) < Latin flōr-, flōs flower, bloom, blossom, representation of a flower, state of being in flower, something forming on the surface (as scum on wine), powdered or powdery form of a substance, fragrance, aroma (of wine, etc.), most flourishing condition attained by a person or thing, zenith, youthful condition, youthful prime, virginity, best of something, rhetorical or poetical ornamentation < the same Indo-European base as blow v"
bloom and blossom refer to flowers – You didn't introduce "bloom"
reworked this section, please take another look
A stereotypical, or complete, – not sure what this means. Is this needed? Would the opposite be "incomplete"? Maybe this needs an explanatory footnote if kept.
In #Variation I write Many flowers lack some parts—known as incomplete—or parts may be modified into other functions or look like what is typically another part. Both complete and incomplete are useful botanical terms.
They are leaf-like, in that they have a broad base – but not always.
per De Craene Sepals have a spiral initiation sequence with rapid growth, a broad base, three vascular traces and an acuminate (pointed) tip. The homology of sepals with leaves is based on similar anatomy as well as on several character-istics such as the presence of stipules and stomata, and sepals are often compared to the petiole of a leaf due to their broad shape
(small stem-leaf structures) – This explanation doesn't help I think.
yes stipule is too broad to be defined here. just rmved.
If the calyx is fused it is called gamosepalous – Also when partially fused, right? And why not use "synsepalous", which matches the linked article and seems to be a much more common term?
ngram would suggest otherwise (the noun ngram is closer, however). I have included the partial part, but for some reason could only find it in Collins ED, which is odd.
Angimordella burmitina, an early (99 Mya) insect pollinator – This image caption should clarify that it is a hypothetical life restoration.
Because sexual reproduction between distinct plants – would "individual plants" be a bit clearer than "distinct plants"? The latter sounds as if you were talking about distinct species.
The current wording is actually: Sexual reproduction between plants results in evolutionary adaptation, which improves species survival. How do you feel about it?
Specific adaptations to attract pollinators (animals that transport pollen), for example, are the most common adaptations. – Two times "adaptations" reads a bit awkward, is it possible to reword?
changed to structures
and may have stipules – I would still explain that term in simple words, so that the reader has at least an idea. Simply "outgrowths from the leaf stem"?
done. I like this version; stipules take many forms.
ovules contained within an ovary. – need wikilinks here
done
Anthers typically consist of – Introduce this new term.
Anthers, the tips of the male part of the flower (containing the pollen sacs), typically consist of four microsporangia (tissues that produce microspores) and an ovule in an integumented (protected by a layer of tissue) megasporangium (tissue that produces a megaspore). how's this
Microspores are produced by meiosis inside anthers and megaspores are produced inside ovules contained within an ovary. – This is a bit technical and difficult and could do with additional explanation and context. Maybe an additional sentence to introduce some basics would be helpful.
added Meiosis is a type of cell division that occurs in angiosperms to produce microspores and megaspores; the precursors to pollen and embryo sacs (the gametophyes).
Hm, I think this could be improved. The new sentence does not flow well with the rest, and we might not need that for "meiosis" (it is enough to know that it is a type of cell division). I was instead wondering if a sentence explaining what a gametophye is would be better; this is what the reader really has to know here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
into gametophytes (organisms that lead to creation of sex cells) – since this is such a basic article, and the term gametophyte is so important for understanding the text, I would provide enough context here to give a basic idea what this is (without introducing further complexity). The current explanation is insufficient for this purpose. It becomes clearer in the "male" section (which states that pollen are gametophytes) but that's a tad late.
microsporocytes – are these the same as microspores? If so, stick with one term. If not, introduce the new term.
that is the umbrella term. but in the anthers only the microspores are present so i've gone with that.
Maybe remove the heading "spores" (the heading, not the paragraph), as it is the introduction to the following sections. I found that heading confusing.
done
ovules (female gametophytes) – you previously stated that ovules contain gametophytes, not that they are gametophytes.
good catch. fixed
which acts as a stalk – why not simply "is" instead of "acts as"?
changed to the stalk
pistil – wikilink
just goes to gyno which is linked earlier in the para.
Other flowers have modified petal-like stamens; the double flowers of peonies and roses are mostly petaloid stamens, for example. – it is unclear to me what "double flower" means; I looked up the roses and petaloid articles but they do not mention this, and I don't see petal-like stamens. This might need more explanation.
Changed to In some flowers, for example, floral parts such as the stamens, stigmas, and sepals are highly altered to look like petals. This is most common in cultivation (such as of roses), where flowers with many additional "petals"—termed double flowers—are more attractive
When flowers are bisected and produce only one line that produces symmetrical halves – Bit awkward wording. Maybe write: "If there is only one plane of symmetry, ..."
done
Many flowers have symmetry – should be "most flowers", no? Also, it would help to give examples for these types (orchids are a good one for bilateral symmetrical flowers, I think)
done
There are several structures, found in some plants, that resemble flowers or floral organs, but often only in an ambiguous way. These include: coronas, crown-like outgrowths;[35] phyllody, leafy flower parts;[36] and pseudonectaries. – Phyllody is not a "structure", or is it? I wouldn't expect to find features not typical for a species (diseases) listed in a section about "structure" anyways. Maybe a dedicated section "Deseases" is warranted?
I don't think there is enough for such a section. per the wiki article "It is generally caused by phytoplasma or virus infections, though it may also be because of environmental factors that result in an imbalance in plant hormones." If you consider the #structure section to be a little looser than just a strict botanical sense, I feel it could stay.
Understood. But my concern was actually more with your phrasing of phyllody as a "structure", when it is a disease. Just move it to a separate sentence? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to do that. There is a case to be made that it is a structural, although it isn't a structure as such. Like the petals aren't turned green over time. The petals never grew. They were always just leaves. Dracophyllum23:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but often only in an ambiguous way – not sure what that adds, maybe just remove this part.
done
coronas, pseudonectaries – explain, or at least link these terms?
done
In the majority of species, individual flowers have both carpels and stamens. – I would repeat the explanation ("male amd female parts"), especially since you provide it a few sentences later anyways. (Few readers will be able to remember all those terms you introduce throughout the article)
done
Many flowers have floral nectaries, – "floral" is superfluous, since nectaries of flowers are "floral" by definition, right?
rmved. there is one tiny exception, but we dont call them nectaries
The main axis or stalk of an inflorescence (a cluster of flowers)[11] is called a peduncle. – I would move this to section "inflorescence", especially since "stem" is mentioned there, too.
done
I wonder why "Inflorescence" is a subsection of its own, even though it is only one paragraph, and even though the other paragraphs in "Variation" seem equally distinct and worthy of a subsection heading? Ditto "Pollinator relationships". How do you decide what is a separate low-level subsection and what is not? One solution would be to remove both headings.
I've removed pollinator relationships, inflorescences are a very common, recognisable, and interesting variation, more than anything else in the section; and have their own article... I am prone to keep it for now, but happy to rmv if you object further.
Caption: "Floral diagram and formula for a Convolvulus flower". If you show it, shouldn't it be explained (i.e., what does the shown formula say?). Maybe add a footnote?
done This describes that the flower is: (*) radially symmetric, (K5) has 5 sepals, (C(5)) has 5 fused petals, (A5) has 5 stamens, and (G(2)) has two fused carpels.
It has compressed internodes (gaps between attachment points), bearing structures that in classical plant morphology are interpreted as highly modified leaves. – I have honestly no idea what that means.
changed to A flower develops on a modified shoot or axis from a determinate (growth-limited) apical meristem. The internodes—gaps between attachment points—are typically compressed, resulting in the close arrangement of floral organs.
I think that, if you also mention what attachment you mean here (attachement between the shoot and the petals, sepals, etc?), it would be even clearer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This suggests a continuum in floral evolution, in which intermediate structures blur the lines between organs – Again, not sure what to take from this. Flowers can develop on different organs, but why does that "blur the lines between" them?
I tried again but have ultimate just decided to remove this passage, it is more evolution than growth anyways. Gradualism mostly captures this anyways. Dracophyllum02:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
reversed and the stems develop flowers—even if the initial event was dependent on some environmental cue, which is no longer present. – should this say "that is no longer present" and without the comma?
sure, done.
under ultraviolet light, which can be seen by bees and some other insects. – But birds can see ultraviolet too, right?
I've cut this clause for simplicity.
Many flowers have close relationships with one or a few specific pollinating organisms. – I think the article fails to mention two important aspects: 1) Why do flowers prefer a limited number of pollinator species? This might seem obvious to a biologist but should still be mentioned. 2) How do flowers ascertain that only their preferred pollinator species can access the nectar? Isn't this an important driver of flower shape (e.g., extremely long flowers can only be accessed by hummingbirds with very long bills), and for this reason worth to discuss?
This section is basically repeated in the #coevolution section... But I've restated a little here as well and moved some info around. Many flowers have close relationships with one or a few specific pollinating organisms. They may be structured to allow or encourage pollination from just one or a few species. This increases efficiency, because there is a higher chance pollination comes from pollen of the same species.
Optional: A sentence on Nectar robbing could be interesting, unless you think it is too specific and want to keep this article short.
Whereas the pollen of entomophilous flowers is usually large, sticky, and rich in protein (to act as a "reward" for pollinators) – You previously only mentioned that nectar is the reward; now it is pollen, which is confusing. Mention both when mentioning nectar?
done.
The mechanisms by which pollen is transferred between plants are called vectors – I don't think that vectors are "mechanisms"? They are "carriers", no? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
autochory (an internal vector); usually the plant itself – I think it might help readers to give an example (Dehiscence (botany)#Explosive dehiscence?), as I think that some readers might have no idea how the plant could disperse the seeds itself without an external vector.
done
Related to the above: you say "usually the plant itself", but when it is not the plant, how can it still be an internal vector?
rmved
during the later part of the Jurassic era and Early Cretaceous. – The Jurassic is a period, and the Early Cretaceous is an epoch. Neither of them is an "era" (see Geologic time scale)
done
spores, or sporangia – isn't that the same? Aren't sporangia forming spores?
fixed
such as Pinales, Cycads, Gnetophyta and Ginkgoales – should all be lower case?
No, because they are taxonomic names like Asteraceae. The exception is for common names, likegymnosperms vs Gymnospermae.
My bad; yes, my comment applies only to "cycads", which are a common name. However, we should not write any taxon above genus level in italics. Italics implies that it is a genus, which is not the case. No source does that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
angiophytes – term comes out of the blue and is not linked nor explained.
explained
Angiosperms are a sub-group of spermatophytes (seed plants), and of these, the living species are regarded as a more recent ancestor of the older angiophytes – that does not make any sense to me; what do you want to say?
reworded
The latter aspect is unique to them – unclear what "them" is referring to.
reworded
Under "evolution", you apparently list synapomorphies of angiophytes and pre-angiophytes, but not those of angiosperms themselves?
added
Fossils of the beetle Angimordella burmitina, which is at least 99 million years old, show evidence of adaptions for pollination – is it angiosperm pollination, and if so, how do we know? If not, why is it relevant?
yes it is. relevant because it is one of the earliest example of coevolution between animal and flower.
Angimordella burmitina should be a red link rather than linking to the group article that does not even mention this species, I think. This one will get an article sooner or later.
done
Shouldn't the "Coevolution" section have at least one example of coevolution that is visible in a flower? The only example is the fossil beetle, but it's just about the beetle morphology, not about adaptations in a flower that would be more pertinent to this article.
added
The article seems to have a strong focus on cellular development. But there seem to be a number of other aspects that are not covered that seem important:
You mention nectar and pollen, but plants have other means to attract pollinators; e.g. carrion flower is quite common and important, I think.
added the lines Rewards given to pollinators by flowers in "payment" for pollination include: food (such as pollen, starch, or nectar), mates, shelter, a place to raise the young, and pseudocopulation (sexual deception). They may also be attracted by various stimuli such as size, scent (as in carrion flowers), and colour—this includes nectar guides, which show pollinators where to look for nectar; they may be visible only under ultraviolet light.
What is the size range of flowers? The largest flower is that of Titan arum, is it? This information is of obvious interest for lay readers and helps to better illustrate the diversity of flowers.
added Flowers range in size from less than 1 mm (1⁄25 in) (Wolffia) to 1 m (3.3 ft) in diameter (Rafflesia arnoldii).
The fact that flowers can close and open is not discussed at all? What stimuli cause flowers to open? Some flowers open in the morning and close in the evening. Others flower at night. Etc.
added
nice – the only problem is that it does not really fit under the section "Development", because it describes processes in fully developed flowers. Not sure where else to place that, though. I would at least start a new paragraph. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Flowers develop from a bud, right – also not discussed?
added bud in growth section
Some flowers direct themselves to the sun (Heliotropism)
added
Senescence is also not discussed, I think. Pollination drastically shortens the lifetime of a flower, etc. Is it correct that flowers never last longer than a year, or are there multi-year flowers?
added This process is called floral senescence; it is often accelerated or initiated by the completion of pollination. Death is preferred because flowers are costly to the plant; nevertheless, flowers can last for between a few hours and several months.
I also wonder if we have some WP:undue weight towards colour. "Color" is its own major section with four paragraphs, but scent and nectaries are only mentioned en passant and are not really discussed. It is also interesting to look at other language versions of this article, especially of the German and Spanish Wikipedia, where this article is "featured"; neither of them seems to have a section just on colour. I am not arguing that the section should be removed, but the section is huge and the article looks imbalanced to me. What do you think?
I also wonder (but not sure) if "Colour" should be right after the "Structure" section, or even combined with it. "Colour" is basic description still, so that makes more sense to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Between 3 and 8% (around 1500) of all crops are pollinated by insects. In this way, flowers contribute a total economic value of around $361 bn (2015 estimate) to the world economy – This does not make sense to me. There are flowers that are not pollinated by insects, right? Of the crops not pollinated by insects (I am surprised these are the majority), many could still have flowers, right? And what do you mean with "crops"? Individual plants; species; or cultivars? If it is cultivars, is that figure ("between 3 and 8%") really informative, since what matters for the total economic value are only the most common crops, no? Are all tree species that are grown for wood included in these "crops"? Without background information here, the percentages are not really informative or can even be misleading, in my opinion.
Cut
For the section "Uses": Flowers are also important addictive drugs (Cannabis indica, i.e. hashish, marihuana); worth to mention I think.
added
Also in the "uses" section; the word "spices" could be listed (thinking about clove, saffron, Humulus lupulus).
added
Regarding balance/undue, I wonder if the "Taxonomy" section is (relatively) too long. Many important aspects about flowers are only very briefly mentioned, but uses of flowers for plant taxonomy has four paragraphs – twice as much as the "Uses" section that is for all other uses, and this is what worries me. Compared to the rest of the article, the "taxonomy" section strikes me as overly detailed. We might not need a detailed explanation of Linnaeus classification; the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the "Taxonomy" section seem enough for that (we need summary style here; we have other articles for those details). Also the rest could be shortened/written more concisely; the sentence this system of classification was published in their Genera plantarum in three volumes between 1862 and 1883 seems especially excessive to me.
Indeed, I've cut much of it. The thesis is basically: we used to care only about flowers, then we cared about the plant as a whole, and now we just look at DNA, but in the end flower morphology is still key.
The French botanist Antoine Laurent de Jussieu's 1789 work Genera plantarum set out a new method for classifying plants; based instead on natural characteristics. – Does that mean that Linnaeus' characteristics (the stamens) are not "natural"? If so, what is the difference?
added: ...more on natural characteristics. This included taking into account the rest of the plant, so that diverse plants weren't put into the same groups, as often happened in Linnaeus's system
The principal purpose of a flower is reproduction,[6] both of the individual and of the species – Only an individual can reproduce, I would assume; I am not sure what "and of the species" is doing there?
changed to The principal purpose of a flower is reproduction of the individual, leading to the survival of the species.
Not enough time today to finish it. I still need to reply to a couple of the points above, but overall, I am happy with most of the article now. However, the "Evolution" section (the first four paragraphs of it) appears weak to me, and I will try to provide more comments on it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In anticipation of this, I have rewritten it so it doesn't rely so heavily on one really weird and not so useful explanation. It is now also more balanced, at four paragraphs. Hope this is an improvement. All responded to again @Jens Lallensack:. Cheers, Dracophyllum23:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Flowers originated between 150 and 190 million years ago, during the later part of the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous. – The Jurassic was from 201 to 143 mya. So, 190 mya is not the "later" part, right? It is almost the entire Jurassic.
verbatum the source says: THE origin of the flower during the late Jurassic to early Cretaceous eras (most recent estimates are between 150 and 190 MYADracophyllum23:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Molecular clock estimates of crownangiosperm age range between 300 Ma or older (e.g. Ramshawet al., 1972; Brandl et al., 1992; Magallon, 2010) and 86 Ma(Sanderson & Doyle, 2001), with many recent estimates lying between c. 190 and 150 Ma (e.g. Magallon, 2010; Smith et al.,2010; Clarke et al., 2011; Magallon et al., 2013; Fig. 1).The fossil record is consistent with an onset of angiospermcrown diversification in the Early Cretaceous, as shown by theincreasing diversity and abundance of angiosperms in local out-crops and at a global level; increasing morphological complexityof leaves, pollen and flowers in agreement with expectationsbased on plant morphology; and congruence between the appear-ance of lineages in stratigraphic sequences and the branchingorder in molecular phylogenies (Doyle, 2012; Magallon, 2014).The fossil record is consistent with a proliferation of angiospermlineages during the Cretaceous (145.5–65.5 million yr ago (Ma)),as indicated by the first stratigraphic occurrence of 35 orders andmajor clades during this period (Fig. 1; Supporting InformationMethods S1). The observed distribution of the angiosperm fossilrecord as a whole may provide consistent landmarks to aidrelaxed clock estimations, and for calculation of the age of the group as a wholeDracophyllum23:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm but I now see another issue: "Ealry Cretaceous" does not fall within the range "150 and 190 million years ago" (it starts later, at 143 mya). I suggest to write this: Flowers originated between 150 and 190 million years ago during the Jurassic.[113][114] Although molecular clock estimates suggest this early appearance of angiosperms, the earliest definitive evidence from the fossil record comes from between 125 and 130 years ago, during the Early Cretaceous. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to the advent of flowers, plants reproduced using cones (as in gymnosperms),[117] and spores (as in Pteridophytes). – I am not confortable with this sentence. First, you state earlier in the article that spores are part of angiosperm reproduction, too. So they reproduce using spores in some sense. Second, gymnosperms also have flower-like structures, and cones are replaced by fruit, right? So you seem to compare apples with pears here.
The angiosperms' most significant evolutionary innovation was the flower. – I am wondering if it would help if you start with a sentence explaining how the non-angiosperm flower looked like first. And then contrast that with what makes a flower a flower. The evolutionary step that is involved here does not become clear enough in my opinion.
Found some good material in Mauseth 2016>>added The transformation of sporophylls (spore-producing leaves) into structures like stamens and (enclosed) carpels, is the most clear milestone in the complex evolution of flowers.
Approximately 90% of all living land plants are angiosperms. – I assume you mean species here, not individual plants?
done
Within the angiosperms, some flowers have features not found in other angiosperms. – I wonder if it is better to remove this sentence and the following one. First, you already have a section "Variation" where this should be discussed, so it seems repetitive. Second, I would argue that almost all flowers have features that differ from other species – this is how species have traditionally been defined to begin with – so writing "some flowers have features not found in other angiosperms" does make little sense to me.
rmved
My main concern with the "Evolution" section is that it does not address the crucial (and difficult) question: Why did the flower evolve, and what was the adaptive advantage that led to their success? Did it evolve to allow for symbiosis with insects (I think one hypothesis assumes that?). Was the additional "protection" you mention to protect sensible parts from the insect pollinators? At the moment, you imply that it is all about the timing of flower evolution (e.g., "The exact time at which angiosperms diversified from other seed plants is a classic open question in evolutionary biology"), but I actually wonder if the more fundamental "Why" is the even more classic question. I think these points may be difficult to cover in a few sentences, because nothing is clear and there are multiple hypotheses, but I think it has to be covered somehow. Let me know what you think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already list the key features that flowers have and how they are advantageous, including coevoultion. I've also added There is both debate over whether these and other changes happened gradually or suddenly—as in homeotic mutations, and which aspect of flower morphology came first. and the clause: which was able to take effectively take advantage of animal pollinators.. Is this enough @Jens Lallensack:? cheers, Dracophyllum06:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While this and earlier methods, such as Linnaeus's, used morphological features, many botanists today use more phylogenetic methods through the use of genetic sequencing – I do not think you need to include the "phylogenetic" here. The sentence reads as if morphological features are not used in phylogenetic methods, but you can do phylogenetics just with morphological features. The use of phylogenetic methods has nothing to do with what you are explaining here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can look forward to a barnstar from me soon. This might be hyperbole but this FA is as much yours as it is mine. Thank you, Dracophyllum11:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All credit is yours, and I think that it takes more time to carefully address issues than to write a review. In any case, I am glad I could make a meaningful contribution. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on second place at TCC! My belated comments here (I wrote them about 10 days ago, so they may be slightly out of date).
I do not believe the article is understandable to a broad audience, in particularly the lead but also parts of the body. The very first question we need to ask is who would read this article. I imagine that’s people buying flowers for mother’s day, elementary school kids, people studying biology at GCSE levels (age 15-16), people studying it at A-levels (17-18) etc. The current target of the article is probably people studying flowers at university level instead.
Given the very wide audience of people reading this, the question is how do we make it inclusive for as wide a public as possible, without sounding like we’re dumbing it down. Writing for elementary school children would make the article sound simplistic, but I believe you can write for 14- to 15-year-olds without alienating other readers. That would involve a complete rewrite of the lead.
This audience might have questions such as “What’s the smallest thing that still counts as a flower” or “what’s the biggest flower out there”?. What’s the range of smells that come out of flowers (some smell like carrion). Which types of plants have flowers (“flowering plant” doesn’t say much)? Which don’t? You might want to mention grasses have flowers and that they’re not very obvious. Why are some flowers really impressive (attract bees and birds), while others aren’t (wind as the main fertiliser). “How do flowers attract pollinators?” (“via bright colours, nectar and scents”).
Facts about the specific genes, what whorls are, jargon like ‘heterosporous’, ‘vector’, ‘calyx’ etc. do not belong in the lead. If you need to introduce more than one bit of jargon in a lead paragraph, you’re losing people. If you do introduce jargon, keep to simple terms such as nectar and possibly vector.
Overall, the article overuses parenthesis for explaining things, which makes the text less engaging. Think harder about which jargon is essential, and which jargon can be hidden behind a wikilink or omitted. For instance, you can hide the word ‘vernalisation’ behind cold exposure. The amount of required working memory (remembering all the new terms) is high. Please check this throughout.
A non-exhaustive list of comments on the body of the article (might be slightly out of date). But please read throughout to ensure the article meets MOS:JARGON and WP:MTAU.
I've resolved all of your comments below @Femke:. I'm trying to interpret your advice/the guidelines: it is your view that a sentence like If the corolla is fused together it is called sympetalous. should be changed to The individual petals may be fused together, where fused together pipes to sympetalous? Or is such a statement not useful, even if it explains something? Dracophyllum02:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to "what kinds of plants have flowers", angiosperm is a sort of odd cyclic definition where if it has a flower than it is a flowering plant. In that way, is what you are really asking for a brief description of angiosperm diversity? Are the "questions the audience may have" points intended for the lede; I think all are covered in the body? Cheers, Dracophyllum02:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the examples I gave are addressed, but not the more fundamental issue of making the article more understandable. The text above is meant for the lead, yes. Now, you've explained jargon, instead of fundamentally rewriting the lead to be engaging and understandable. E.g.:
Why mention specialised genes? That doesn't give us any informatino anymore. Best to omit it altogether.
This dispersal is divided into vectors originating either from external sources, or from the plant itself. External vectors may be biological, like animals and insects, or abiotic, like wind and water. --> Can you rewrite this into plain English rather than such an abstract sentence? Like, animals eat fruits, and maybe do other things to fruit to help it spread.
Many paragraphs still contain more than one bit of jargon, such as nectaries, nectar guides, ovaries, angiosperms, the entire caption of the figures. Why are readers not allowed to know you've got a picture of maize and sunflowers? No need for the scary Latin name.
I've given more examples for the structure section of things where the article is not understandable. Again, examples and not exhaustive. Let me know when you've reread the entire article with an eye for understandability. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke I've read through the article again, and resolved all of your comments. I believe the only jargon I have left in now are those that diagrams reference, are used multiple times, or which are essential, in my view, to spell out exactly. The rest I have reworded or hidden behind pipe links. I added a small intro paragraph about human fertilisation as you requested. The lede is also much improved, I think. The word Angiosperms has been relegated to the #Evolution section, which I feel is the most precise word to use there, and where precision matters the most. cheers, Dracophyllum02:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is much improved, but there's still a way to go. Part of your strategy so far has been to reword or otherwise hide jargon, without fundamentally rethinking the lead. The reason I suggested another strategy, starting from scratch, is that replacing jargon with easier wording leads to less engaging text: It becomes obvious that you're trying to simplify. I'll detail a few problems with the new text:
Circular levels is vague. When we rightly got rid of the word 'whorl' there, we need to rethink the sentence.
The development of flowers is a complex and important part in the life cycles of flowering plants. --> Does this add anything? It's quite obvious that plants need to reproduce, right?
Seeds can be dispersed by living things, such as birds who eat the fruit and distribute the seeds when they defecate. Non-living things like wind and water can also help to disperse the seeds. --> things is a vaguer word. This can be reworded without emphasizing the two abstract categories.
Most non-US folks would be familiar with the word inch, but not with the abbreviation, so writing it out in full is probably better.
Duckweed is new jargon, as is defacate.
I would not put the parts of the flower in the first paragraph, as that's necessarily a bit complicated. You can start with floral diversity instead?
I would rewrite the lead something like (might not be fully accurate, and still more technical than I'd like ideally):
Flowers, also known as blooms and blossoms, are the reproductive structures of flowering plants. Their main function is to produce seeds through pollination and fertilisation. They come in a wide variety of shapes, colours and sizes and can be as small as 0.1 mm (1/250 inch) or as large as 1 metre. Flowering plants grow in nearly all parts of the world and include everything from grasses (not yet in article) to tall trees.
Typically, a flower includes petals, sepals (leaf-like structure to protect the rest of the flower), stamens (the male part), and carpels (the female part). When flowers are arranged in a group, they are known collectively as an inflorescence. The male part makes pollen, and the female part can turn into seeds after pollination. Pollination can occur between two different plants (cross-pollination), or within the same plant (self-pollination). The seed contains nutrients (?) for a new plant to grow. At the same time, the female part of the flower often(?) turns into a fruit, which protects the seed and helps it spread. Seeds can be spread by animals, wind, or water. For instance, birds might eat the fruit and drop the seeds far from the original plant.
Flowers first evolved between 150 and 190 million years ago, in the Jurassic. Before, plants reproduced using cones or spores. Plants with flowers replaced non-flowering plants in many ecosystems, as flowers could for instance take advantage of animals to help pollination. About 90% of all current plant species are flowering plants.
For thousands of years, humans have used flowers for many purposes, including decoration, medicine, food, and perfume. Flowers also carry symbolic meaning in cultures around the world and appear widely in art, literature, religion, rituals, and festivals. Many of the foods we eat come from flowering plants. Fruits such as apples and strawberries develop from flowers, and some flowers, such as broccoli, and saffron, are eaten directly. In the classification of plants, flowers are an important feature used to identify and group species.
The section doesn’t explain why cross-pollination is good for evolutionary adaptation.
added Plants favour cross-pollination because it promotes the joining of sex cells from genetically distinct plants of the same species, thereby increasing genetic diversity.
Awkward prose: “Specific adaptations to attract pollinators (animals that transport pollen), for example, are the most common adaptations”
simplified to Features designed to attract pollinators are among the most common adaptations.
The alt of the first image is insufficiently descriptive
added Floral diagram showing that the pedicel, the stalk, supports a vegetive perianth consisting of sepals and petals. These enclose the stamens, which present the pollen, and the pistil, containing stigma to receive the pollen and direct it to the ovules within the ovary. The ovules contain the egg cells.
These three gene groups' activities interact in a combinatorial manner to determine the developmental identities of the primordia organ within the floral apical meristem. > Let’s remove the jargon ‘combinatorial’. I doubt many teenagers or even first-year biology students have heard of this mathematical jargon
switch to just together
“A floral formula is a way to represent the structure of a flower using letters, numbers, and symbols, presenting substantial information about the flower in a compact form.” > reword as “A floral formula is a way to represent the structure of a flower using letters, numbers, and symbols in a compact form”
done
the presence of fusion and symmetry > I don’t understand what fusion means here.
I added the word organ before symmetry. Some flowers have organs which are fused together, that is, you can't see where they separate clearly. This can also be true of individual organs, eg. one big petal instead of five. Dracophyllum01:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
colour-effects why is this hyphenated? What is structural colouration? And what are photonic crystals?
removed hyphen. added Colour, or colour effects, may also be produced by structural coloration, in which colour is produced by tiny surface structures interfering with waves of light. and which diffract light using tiny grooves for photonic crystals
Why call the section coralla, rather than petals. Both are jargon, but petals is at least a bit more known? Do we need those subsections at all, given they're quite short and are jargon. To me, jargon in headings makes the TOC overwhelming. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, corolla relegated.
Define vegetative in plain English
The non-reproductive or vegetative part of the flower
What is Wolffia and Rafflesia arnoldii in English?
added
You introduce two words in the symmetry section. One of plain English (irregular), the other one is difficult to remember. When you continue the section, you use the more difficult jargon variant (zygomorphic). Would it be better to switch? Or not introduce the more difficult jargon altogether?
You don't explain what nectaries are in the variation section when you explain pseudonectaries. You explain it in the next paragraph, but you don't explain what they look like, so how pseudo-nectaries look like them.
Nectaries are just glands. Their shape varies so much in different plants, from what I've read, "Some authors discourage the use of the word ‘disc’ for nectaries, as it is indiscrimately employed for many non-homologous structures in flowers. Basically, I can't describe what they look like beyond that glands that produce nectar: a sugary fluid used to attract pollinators. Their shape varies between different plants, are they not considered as an organ on their own. which I have added. Dracophyllum23:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you see the captions of the two pictures in the reproductive section, you need to cross-reference with quite a bit of text to figure out what is portrayed. Can you repeat the key information (male/female), to make sure this works for people looking at pictures first.
People usually look at pictures and captions before the text. This means that captions should not assume people know the newly presented jargon. Even if they have read the text first, some will immediately forget the jargon. Furthermore, poor readers look at images as they struggle with longer-form prose [33]. Given that, could the caption of the dandelion be changed to something like: "A dandelion flower head is made up of many tiny flowers, called florets, grouped closely together to look like a single flower."
Start with a paragraph understandable to a broad audience, before diving into (slightly) more complicated areas.
i've rewritten the section with this in mind. I've also added a new diagram I made of a rose bud. I would appreciate feedback here. cheers. Dracophyllum23:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the floral organs develop within a bud, that itself is enclosed by leaves, and other organs or axes I don’t understand how ‘organs and axes’ correspond to the rest of the sentence. Are they also enclosed in the bud? Or do they enclose the floral organs?
gone in current rev, although maybe bud is worth mentioning? I'm struggling to find a quality source that will make the claim that developing/immature flower = bud. Often they say the bud is immature it's confusing. Dracophyllum23:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can easily find more examples of being too abstract and having remaining jargon for this section too. What audience are you going for? Consider starting each section with an introductory paragraph accessible for 14-year-olds, before rewriting the rest of the text to be suited for 16/17-year olds. You could for instance start with something like: Flower development is governed by genetic and environmental factors. It begins when a plant transitions from vegetative to reproductive growth. This shift is regulated by internal signals, such as hormones, and external cues, including light and temperature. That teaches us the basics and teaches us that plants have hormones. Your current introduction keeps it abstract (genes and environment), whereas an article written for a broad audience makes things concrete. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear what attractant is in: “Often they are specialised in shape and have an arrangement of stamens that ensures that pollen grains are transferred to the bodies of the pollinator when it lands in search of its attractant”. Can you reword in plain English?
Often they are shaped and designed to both attract pollinators and ensure pollen is transferred effectively
You’re linking entomophily twice. Neither need to be visible to the reader, they can be hidden behind plain English words (as can all the other jargon in that paragraph).
done, also removed double "insect pollination is the most common claim"
and pseudocopulation (sexual deception) This can do with its own sentence as it’s interesting and may need some explaining for people unfamiliar with the concept
In the latter, the flower is scented or shaped so as to encourage sexual arousal and pollination from the subsequent intercourse.
Flow can improve if you split this sentence into two (as it’s not immediately clear what they refers to): “They may also be attracted by various stimuli such as size, scent (as in carrion flowers), and colour—this includes nectar guides, which show pollinators where to look for nectar; they may be visible only under ultraviolet light”
split
You’re not explaining catkin.
changed caption to A male catkin, or inflorescence of small wind-pollinated flowers, of Populus tremula
No need to introduce the word syngamy. It’s jargon that’s not further used. Don’t introduce jargon just to teach it to readers per MOS:JARGON
roger, rmved
Again, start a section with a paragraph that is 100% understandable to a broad audience. You could for instance compare it to human fertilisation which people are somewhat familiar with.
too complex to explain here. i've tucked it under molecular analyses
The exact time at which angiosperms diverged from other seed plants is a classic open question in evolutionary biology The sources are quite old. Is this still a classic open question?
Yes. i've added a 2023 source that says However, reaching a strict consensus is still a mission impossible now: there are too many issues open to debate.. LLM's seem to agree as well, if that is useful. Dracophyllum00:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coevolution: I’m surprised climate change is not mentioned, given that pollinators and flowers sometimes have different cues for seasonal change that are now misaligned.
I've added Both the strength of close pollinator-flower relationships and the survival of either species are effected by climate change. Reducing numbers of pollinators have led to the extinction of many flowering plants. for simplicity
I can guess what the first bit of the sentence means, but this is probably unclear for people who aren't reading this FAC. Can you give more context? Why are pollinators reducing? The way you phrased it feels like you evade questions of who is responsible. Summary style is not meant to be teasing readers to click on sources! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what this sentence means: “In addition, they pioneered double fertilisation, which allows energy investment (into endosperm) to be prolonged until after pollination.”
gymnosperms invest energy into making endosperm (food for egg) even before fertilisation has occurred. This is a waste if fertilisation doesn't occur. Dracophyllum00:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why switch to the jargon here? Simply use flowering plants: “In addition, most crop plants are angiosperms” Do we need the second half of that sentence? Seems redundant with the first.
I use angiosperm because it's more concise. If we switch it here, we should be consistent. So should we remove all mention of angiosperm in the article?
I don’t understand what this means: “Some flowers are steeped with or without Camellia sinensis (tea plant) to produce flower tea”
At this point, I'm still leaning oppose, but a lot of progress is being made to address my concerns. Might take me another round of smaller comments after the current round of improvements. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Now Jens has finished his mammoth and excellent review, I've taken a further read. I am ignorant about the subject, so cannot comment on the technical side of things, but the prose reads very well and the article covers all I would think it should do for an encyclopaedic overview. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What an article. It baffles me how anyone is willing to put in the effort to improve such a large topic. Applause all around. This is my first FAC contribution ever, so I will not be putting forward a !vote, but I hope you can appreciate these copyediting comments:
Nub098765
"Flowers not only develop and produce spores (reproductive units), gametes (sex cells), zygotes (fertilised cells), and seeds, but also aid in their effective dispersal." — This feels a bit clunky. Unless it’s important to separate development and dispersal, consider streamlining: "Flowers develop and disseminate reproductive cells—spores, gametes, zygotes, and seeds."
Technically that would be incorrect, because only seeds are "disemminated" I've gone with Flowers not only produce spores, which become gametophytes that produce gametes (sex cells), leading to zygotes (fertilised cells), but also develop and help disseminate seeds. This is a little wordy but I think it works.
"The zygote grows into a seed, which contains structures to assist in the future plant's survival and success. — The word "success" sounds slightly non-neutral. Perhaps replace with "growth".
done
"The androecium, consisting of stamens, is the whorl of pollen-producing male parts." — Does this then mean that the stamens are such pollen-producing male parts? If so, I'd suggest clarifying it: "The androecium is the whorl of male floral organs called stamens, which produce pollen."
done The androecium is the whorl of male parts called stamens, which producing pollen.
"This close relationship compounds the negative effects of extinction, however..." — A more elegant phrasing might be: "However, such interdependence exacerbates vulnerability to extinction..."
changed to However, this close interdependance increases the risk of extinction, since the extinction of either member almost certainly means the extinction of the other member as well.
"In some flowers, for example, floral parts such as the stamens, stigmas, and sepals are highly altered to look like petals." — A shorter "In some flowers, organs such as stamens, stigmas, and sepals are modified to resemble petals." would work better here IMHO.
done
"The carriers by which pollen is transferred between plants are called vectors." — This construction is pretty wordy. Consider simplifying to "The agents that transport pollen between plants are known as vectors."
done Agents that transport pollen between plants are called vectors
"Flowers have been used by humans all over the world for thousands of years for a variety of purposes, including: decoration, medicine, food, perfumes, and essential oils." — Ah, the perils of the passive voice. Perhaps: "Humans have used flowers globally for millennia for many purposes, including decoration, medicine, food, perfumes, and essential oils."
The change has been made.
"They may be deciduous (fall off at maturity), but will more commonly grow on to assist in fruit dispersal." — "grow on" seems informal and a bit vague. "Persist" might be a better word to use there. Maybe: "While sometimes deciduous (falling off at maturity), sepals more often persist to aid in fruit dispersal."
done
"The molecular interpretation of these signals is through the transmission of a complex signal known as florigen..." — Has a bit of a convoluted structure. Maybe: "These signals are molecularly interpreted through a complex signal called florigen..."
done
"As a result of economic forces, plants are bred for longer lasting, more beautiful, or colourful flowers." — Perfectly fine as-is, but perhaps, for flow: "Economic demand has led to the cultivation of flowers that are longer-lasting, more colourful, and visually appealing."
done
That's all from me. A great article by an excellent contributor. Thank you for the work that went into this, and apologies if any of my comments came across as glib. I'm still working out the kinks in my reviewing style. Nub098765 (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All images have alt text that accurately describes the image. (One had an incorrectly named alt parameter inside a multiple image template but it was trivial to fix.)
CC BY 3.0: File:Hyndrangea phyllody (cropped).png (confirmed at source paper)
CC-BY 4.0: File:Phalaenopsis bellina (Blue Pink x sib) (Rchb.f.) Christenson- Brittonia 47- 58 (1995). 20210623 013709.jpg, File:Plant life diversity graph.jpg, File:Maximum Likelihood analysis of Vanilla (Orchidaceae) - Oo 861413.jpg
CC BY SA 2.0: File:Enhalus acoroides fleur femelle.jpg, File:Solola Market (Guatemala, February 2020) - 69.jpg
CC-BY-SA 4.0: File:Passiflora caerulea (makro close-up).jpg (there's something weird going on with the location template), File:Rafflesia arnoldii Bunga Nasional Indonesia 01 (cropped).jpg, File:Monoecy dioecy en.svg, File:Bloeiwijze van een Kruisdistel (Eryngium). 21-07-2023. (actm.) 01.jpg, File:Buttercup petal structural and pigment coloration.svg, File:ABC Model.svg, File:Grey-headed Flying Fox (IMG0526).jpg, File:Populus tremula sl10.jpg, File:Flower fertilisation diagram.svg, File:Flower seed fruit development diagram.svg, File:Flower seed fruit development diagram.svg, File:Gravestone flowers 06.jpg
CC-BY-SA 2.5: File:Anther-schematic.png, File:Diagrama convolvulus (cropped).jpg (can be converted to SVG)
GNU: File:Sunflower from Silesia.JPG, File:Hoverfly January 2008-6.jpg, File:Ophrys apifera flower1.jpg, File:Colibri-thalassinus-001-edit.jpg
PD: File:Mature flower diagram.svg, File:Ovule-Gymno-Angio-en (cropped).svg, File:Ehret-Methodus Plantarum Sexualis.jpg, File:Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder (Dutch - Flower Still Life - Google Art Project.jpg, File:Wedding day of Princess Désirée of Sweden 5 June 1964.jpg
Where images are marked as "own work", it is clear that the descriptor is accurate and they aren't lifted from elsewhere on the web.
Minor items that could be improved are noted in green, but none of these disqualify it from passing this image review.
The amount of text in File:Buttercup petal structural and pigment coloration.svg is very high when compared to the length of the description and alt-text, which is concerning. Other diagrams such as the monoecy-dioecy and ABC model diagrams have more detailed alt-text or captions to indicate what is depicted.
With the caveat that I am no expert in this area, but I do at least have good access to the sources through my library, I've randomly sampled the following 15% of the citations to check for source-text integrity and WP:CLOP: 2, 6, 14, 18, 19, 28, 39, 40, 46, 52, 56, 57, 60, 78, 85, 98, 109, 114, 119, 132, 145, and 158, as numbered in this diff.~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
For 2, I am struggling to reconcile the source's claim that Most current observers view the angiosperm flower (arguably also the short shoot of the phylogenetically isolated extant gymnosperm Ginkgo biloba) as simple strobili, with the article's explanation that Although flowers are defined as the reproductive structures of angiosperms,[1] there are many gymnosperm cones which resemble flowers. The cones of Ginkgo biloba, for example, are mostly considered to be simple strobili, and not flowers. Since the cited source is trying to address the evolutionary origin of flowers, they may mean that angiosperm flowers developed as a simplification from the non-flower structure known as stromboli, but that still leaves me feeling like the "phylogenetically isolated extant gymnosperm Ginkgo biloba" is a poor example of gymnosperm cones in general. Is there another way to approach the distinction/clarification that pine cones resemble but are not flowers? Mauseth 2016 p221 says Flowers contain the organs and tissues angiosperms need for sexual reproduction; cones are equivalent structures in conifers, which feels related. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I've gone with In botany, flowers are defined as the reproductive structures of angiosperms, while cones are regarded as the gymnosperm equivalent. and moved the ginko example into a note. Cheers, Dracophyllum03:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great -- this has the advantage of being much clearer. The new sentence start also addresses my concern below about section flow. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For 18d, Pandey 2023 p.17 doesn't verify specifically the part that four pollen sacs arranged in two thecae (sheaths). De Craene 2010, p. 8 verifies this. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For 19c and 19d (the bits about androecium), cut the citation to Mauseth -- it doesn't support any of this info, but De Craene 2010, p. 8 fully verifies it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to research the following journals that my UI tool pings as "yellow flags", possibly a "borderline source" (probably fine but I don't know so I will check!): Plants, Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability, Seeds, Foods, Frontiers in Plant Science. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Plants, Seeds, and Foods were all flagged because they were published by WP:MDPI. Plants and Foods look OK to me because they are affiliated with multiple academic societies, list robust editorial and reviewer boards, and have actual impact factors and citescores listed. I can be talked into these. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seeds raises more eyebrows because it lacks all of those except the editorial board, but it's a "companion journal" of Agronomy which does pass those sniff checks? It's only cited for one statement -- Autochory includes, for example, the fruit exploding to release the seeds (ballochory), as in Hura crepitans. Why not replace with a cite to Pandey p. 263, which has lots of examples of autochory? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability is flagged because it's at IndianJournals.com. It appears to be a publication of The Society for Science of Climate Change and Sustainable Environment. I can't confirm whether this is considered a predatory journal, but on pp 232-233 of Mauseth there is a little box about "Plants and People" that may be able to support this information instead. Also open to your thoughts. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found Although flowers are defined as the reproductive structures of angiosperms... to be a jarring opening to a section called "etymology". Perhaps the two paragraphs here could switch places? And/or the opening of the paragraph could clarify that it's specifically addressing the term's use in botanical scientific contexts? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Parentheses might be clearer than commas for calyx, the modified outer leaves, and corolla, the petals since on first read it's not clear that "the modified outer leaves" isn't just the next item on a list. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All responded to @LEvalyn: thank you. Are you in a position to support for sourcing now? Can I also ask do you have an opinion on the ref formatting; should I do away with the display-authors=1 parameters? Cheers, Dracophyllum04:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to finish checking my randomly-selected cites, just in case; just did another batch of them now. Also, my opinion on ref formatting is that I hate dealing with it, so you should look to someone else for advice there; I know there are many folks at FAC with a fine eye for detail when it comes to formatting. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For 39, the article says Floral symmetry improves ... rates of pollination but I think it's not quite that simple. Wang et al 2023 seem to say that floral symmetry improves the number of pollinator species that will visit a flower (in contrast to zygomorphic flowers that attract more specialized flowers). Mauseth pp240-241 gives more detail: many lines of insects and flowers underwent coevolution, a flower becoming adapted for visitation by a particular insect and the insect for efficient exploitation of the flower ... When a pollinator approaches a zygomorphic flower, only one orientation is comfortable for it ... As a result, as the pollinator feeds at the flower, pollen is placed on a predictable part of its body. When it visits the next flower, pollen is rubbed directly onto the stigma. ... In contrast, a pollinator can approach an actinomorphic flower from any direction, and pollen may be brushed onto any part of the body. Can you revisit? The sentence in question may need to be split into two, one about heat retention and one describing in more detail the relationship between symmetry and pollinator coevolution. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because animal pollinators are themselves zygomorphic, there is only one comfortable orientation they can have on a zygomorphic flower. Organs can then be arranged to ensure pollen is placed on their bodies in a specific position than ensures pollination of the subsequent flower. Floral symmetry also assists in heat retention, which is required for the growth and effective performance of the floral organs. Tucked the coevolution part into a notetag. cheers, Dracophyllum09:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a great explanation... though I'd be tempted to reverse the article/note info to keep the article more 'zoomed out'. If it was me, I think I'd have the article say Floral symmetry is a key driver of diversity in flower morphology, because it is one of the main features derived through flower-plant coevolution. Zygomorphic flowers often develop specialized coevolution with specific pollinators, while radially symmetric flowers tend to attract a wider range of pollinators. And then use a note for Because animal pollinators are themselves zygomorphic, there is only one comfortable orientation they can have on a zygomorphic flower. Organs can then be arranged to ensure pollen is placed on their bodies in a specific position than ensures pollination of the subsequent flower. You've addressed my quibbles about accurately reflecting the info in the source so this isn't a source-check suggestion, just an idea for the prose. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not related to sourcing: personally, I found it confusing that the floral diagram and formula for a Convolvulus flower was joined in a little "box" with an entirely different flower. I'd suggest "splitting" them, and maybe even joining the diagram to a photo of a convolvulus flowers? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do find the diagram clearer now, thank you. It felt like a real shame to lose the colour diagram (it made the difference between pigment and structural colouration very clear to me in a way that the prose wasn't able to) so I boldly tried out shrinking the floral diagram -- I am not sure if it still looks to crowded, but it felt worth a try. Follow your heart for the images in this section and I will support your decision. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the third and final check, 85, 109, 114, 119, 145, and 158 all check out, no notes.
In the "Seed and fruit development" section I notice that the article points out the "torpedo stage" but doesn't mention that the preceding stages is called the "heart stage". (While young, the cotyledon primordia give the embryo a heart shape; this is the heart stage, Mauseth p235) This may be an unnecessary level of detail but wanted to note the omission. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For 98, this isn't quite right: The fruit contains three main structures: the exocarp, or outer layer; the mesocarp, or the fleshy part; the endocarp, or innermost layer; and the pericarp, the fruit wall.. Mauseth p 237 says The entire fruit wall, whether composed of one, two, or all three layers, is the pericarp.. Also, it might be helpful to gloss that the endocarp is the 'nut' of a pecan or the pit of a cherry (both are examples that Mauseth gives on this page). Possibly also translate that the exocarp is the skin/peel. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fruit contains three main structures: the exocarp (peel), or outer layer; the mesocarp, or the fleshy part; and the endocarp (stone), or innermost layer. The pericarp, which may include one or all three of these structures, is the collective name for the fruit wall (everything but the seed).Dracophyllum21:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For 132, I wasn't able to access Sharma 132, but I am happy to take this one on good faith; the book is obviously an appropriate source for this kind of information. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That completes my spot-check! Once you've had a chance to address my last few notes, I'll be ready to support on sources. Really excellent work here! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marking my spot; will pre-face that right now I am looking for some more comments on my own FAC at Yeti (Doctor Who); no pressure and you have absolutely no obligation to take a look if you don't want to, as I'll be reviewing this FAC all the same, but I figured I'd put it out there.
Not too familiar with plant articles, so consider my review a read from an outsider's perspective; I can probably help with comprehension issues in the prose that a regular reader may be stumped on, but for particular subject matter-specific stuff I probably won't be able to help as much. It's late where I am right now so I'll probably leave a review here tomorrow. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this took so long! Here's my review (@Dracophyllum:)
"and so can produce sex cells of both sexes" perhaps reword to "and so can produce both types of sex cells"? Just to avoid repetition, though this isn't really a big deal, so if you have a stronger reason for the current wording feel free to ignore me.
"the collective of flowers on a plant; as in the phrase: covered with bloom" Not sure if this is just a niche use I don't know about, or if I forgot about a use for a semi-colon, but I'm not sure a semi-colon is correct here, since the second half isn't an independent clause.
switched to comma
Would it be possible to hyperlink flour in the etymology section?
done
"which is still in use, but refers especially to the flowers of edible fruit trees, and not to the whole flowering plant." I'd specify after the "in use" that this is in the modern day, as I feel the current wording could imply this was the old usage before its use became more sparing in the modern day.
done
”leading to the survival of the species.” A minor tweak, but perhaps change to something like “which aids in the survival of the species”, since the current wording implies the flower’s existence is the cause for survival, not the reproduction.
aiding...
In the section on the calyx, how exactly do the sepals aid in fruit dispersal? This is not clarified in the section, as it just says they aid in fruit dispersal without specification.
I've changed it to Although they sometimes fall off at maturity, sepals more commonly persist to protect the fruit and aid in its dispersal. would an example, eg. plants where the sepals acts as wings, or protective coverings be useful here, or too much detail? Dracophyllum02:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, what does it mean for the calyx to be “fused”? Fused with what?
Fused together. Instead of multiple individual sepals (like individual petals) they are indistinguiable from one another.
I feel the ultraviolet factoid should be placed before the tepals bit, since the tepals are largely unrelated to the functioning of the corolla beyond being an exception to the standard fare.
done
”These are formed from diploid (two sets of chromosomes) sporophytes and are divided into microspores and megaspores; the precursors to pollen and embryo sacs (the gametophyes).” I know this is largely explained in the rest of the paragraph, but this sentence makes the paragraph very front-loaded. I’m overwhelmed by unfamiliar terminology before any of it is defined, which for many readers I know will be very problematic. I’d split this info up throughout the paragraph with the respective explanations next to them to avoid confusion.
Agreed. I've dealt with this I think.
Could the style be defined under the female reproductive section of the structure section? It’s the only new term there without a definition, which is a bit odd and would help with consistency and overall understanding, especially since it seems to be a simple part.
we have the stalk in this rev.
”Many flowers lack some parts—known as incomplete—or parts may be modified into other functions or look like what is typically another part.” Very confused by the “known as incomplete” since it doesn’t really make grammatical sense with the rest of the sentence. If this is a proper term it should be defined, and if it’s just a way to show the flower is incomplete in this stage, it should be rephrased for better clarity.
it's a term but it isn't useful to teach it to people per MOS:JARGON so it's gone now.
” A single daisy or sunflower, for example, is not a flower but a flower head—an inflorescence composed of numerous flowers or florets (small reduced flowers).” Apologies if I’m just stupid, but I’m just not really wrapping my head around this. Firstly, are these supposed to be examples of the asteraceae group? The current reading acts as if these flowers are unrelated to the group. I’m also very confused how a flower head relates to an inflorescence. Additionally, I feel actually including images of one of these example flowers would be helpful, since the pictured eryngium gave me a wildly different impression of how inflorescence can appear than what it is being described in the text.
i've worded this better and swapped the image for a daisy.
Why is the description of floral diagrams where they are? They aren’t a part of the flower, just a method of describing them. I’m not sure they really fit in this section on the flower's structure.
Not sure where else to put it, maybe as a subheading in #Taxonomy?
What are MADS-box genes? Them being brought up here is something I don’t quite understand since I have no idea what the significance is. If this is just a moot point I’ll leave it to your discretion but I feel some elaboration would be helpful since there doesn’t seem to be a hyperlink.
I've added a link. Actually the whole section is very different now. I think it's important because MADS-box is the general/most accurate/realistic version of explaining floral growth. ABC is quite simplified. as i say in the article, ABC genes are a small group of mads box genes... Dracophyllum02:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
”Rewards given to pollinators by flowers in "payment" for pollination include” The wording here feels a bit weird to me since it seems to be using a figure of speech instead of a more literal definition. I’d change this to something more literal since this can be seen as the flower intentionally giving payment.
> to encourage
While I can gather what it means from the text, “classic open question” feels very unclear as to what exactly it means to a non-biology/science person. I’d clarify this if possible, since it could mean anything from a heralded and acclaimed question to something that has been unsolved for a long time.
ig it means both? In this context I'm trying to explain that finding out exactly when angiosperms diverged is highly complex and a longstanding question. there are difficulties because of the lack of extensive fossil records (because of where the earliest flowers grew) and the relative strengths of developing scientific dating methods (eg using a molecular clock. I'm not sure how to clarify it succinctly. Dracophyllum02:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
”happened gradually or suddenly—as in homeotic mutations,” Are the homeotic mutations in regard to the “suddenly” part? I’d just put that in parentheses next to suddenly like in the rest of the article, since the current wording feels very confusing. I had to re-read once or twice to get what the sentence was saying.
per Femke, I've tried to cut down on the parentheses. does There is debate both over whether these and other changes happened gradually or as sudden shifts like homeotic mutations, and which aspect of flower morphology came first work for you? Dracophyllum02:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole this article’s pretty fantastically written; as a total newbie for flower biology I felt I was able to get at least a basic grasp on a lot of the concepts here, even if a few did involve a quick look at another article. For a subject so overarching, that’s impressive. Most of my above points are nitpicks, though there were a few points of confusion I could do with some clarifying on. If there’s anything you disagree with, let me know. More than willing to support once the above is resolved. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to highlight that the gametophytes are complete plants, and angiosperms are (somewhat) unique in going further. Dracophyllum05:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
one that can grow, photosynthesise, absorb what it needs to survive, and produce gametes all on its own. Flowering plants are all spermophytes (the next stage) Dracophyllum06:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gametophytes are the haploid (one set of chromosomes) plants that produce the gametes. In angiosperms the gametophytes are not visible and highly reduced, while the visible part (including leaves, stem, and flowers) is the sporophyte. this is more technically accurate and generalised i think Dracophyllum10:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"lizards (saurophily), other mammals," maybe non-flying mammals. Also, does the source actually say what groups of mammals? Just quickly going through it, it mentions rodents and at one point a possum Dunkleosteus77(talk)03:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In plant taxonomy ... the morphology of plants' flowers are used extensively—and have been for thousands of years" has taxonomy been around since Ancient Babylonian times? I feel like the source was talking about hunter-gatherers or just general foraging maybe? Dunkleosteus77(talk)03:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
pg 8: The advent of writing and printing changed the entire picture of the ancient preliterate mankind. Theophrastus (370–285 B.C.), the “grandfather of the modern botany”, was the greatest botanical writer of the distant past. He was a student of Plato and Aristotle, and studied botany under their philosophic guidance at Athens. He classified the plants into four groups: herbs, subshrubs, shrubs, and trees. He also distinguished between the nonflowering plants (Cryptogams) and flowering plants (Phanerogams). He suggested that calyx and corolla are the modified leaves. He described nearly 500 plants in details, and certain names (e.g. Asparagus, Daucas, and Narcissus) are used even today in the same sense. The details of his works are available to the world in the form of books entitled “Enquiry into Plants” and “The Causes of Plants”.Dracophyllum06:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"described as vegetables, when in fact they are actually inflorescences, bracts, or stems of flowers" I mean, "vegetable" isn't a real thing botanically, it's a culinary word Dunkleosteus77(talk)03:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Flowers may be eaten freshly after being picked, termed floriphagia, or dried and eaten later" seems to suggest these are the only 2 things people do with edible flowers Dunkleosteus77(talk)03:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cover the decoration aspect/infusion etc. in other sentences. this is just to highlight that flowers can be dried, or not dried. Dracophyllum10:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
iirc flower tea is just flowers steeped with water. Flowering tea in the west means tea leaves around a flower, although I couldn't find a source to support that (only one that claimed that flower tea = flowering tea). In the end I have just gone with Flowers are steeped to make teas, either alone (as in herbal teas), or in combination with Camellia sinensis (tea plant).Dracophyllum12:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They may be living animals, such as birds and insects, or non-living factors such as wind and water. ... External vectors include both living things, such as animals and insects, and non-living things, such as wind and water." Any chance of a bit of variety. (And I am not an enthusiast for "living animals". As opposed to the other sort?)
reworded to External vectors may be biological, like animals and insects, or abiotic, like wind and water. also rmved "living". Note that I have heard from both pokelego and femke that they have comments prepared off-wiki. Dracophyllum22:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After narrowly missing out on promotion last month, I'm taking this back so that hopefully it can achieve FA status this time. Carl Zoll, the son of a stonecutter, was one of three brothers active in Green Bay, Wisconsin, sports, competing in wrestling and football. A heavyweight, he became one of the top wrestlers in the area and was undefeated in his first two years of competition, becoming the state champion. He contended for the World Light Heavyweight Championship in 1920 but was defeated, and after several losses in 1921, only competed periodically in subsequent years. Zoll was also active in football at the same time, being a member of the inaugural Green Bay Packers team in 1919. He appeared in exactly one NFL game for the Packers, a distinction that his two brothers also hold. He later worked for his family's stonecutting business until his death in 1974. Thanks are owed to Gonzo fan2007 and PCN02WPS, who both reviewed it twice (on the talk page and at the prior FA nom), as well as the five other editors who reviewed it at the last nom. Hopefully Zoll can become an FA this time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are all in public domain because of their age and/or lack of copyright notice. The links to the image sources are working. The images are relevant, placed in appropriate locations, and have captions and alt texts. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A decent amount of rewording has been done since your last comment at that FAC. You also never made it clear what exactly I was to do, only saying that the article somehow needed to be entirely rewritten by a football FA expert, despite all four of the most prominent football FA writers reviewing it, some even copyediting it, and each agreeing it was in FA-shape. As I said before, I'm happy to address any issue you point out. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant since the last FAC was archived. At least one reviewer said the prose needed a polish but no edits have been made. I'm sorry but I get the impression it has just been brought back to FAC hoping for better luck. Graham Beards (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer said the prose could use polish, but they also said their comment was "certainly not an oppose". I'm happy to address any issue you point out, but I don't see what I'm possibly supposed to do when I'm told by one lone "oppose" editor (compared to four who supported, and no other opposes) that the "whole thing needs to be entirely redone by a different football FA writer" when (i) each football FA writer reviewed and/or copyedited it and said it was good, and (ii) you haven't specified anything for me to do. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BeanieFan11, I certainly disagree with Graham Beards on their opinions on the article, but respect that they feel that way. I think their point lies more in two places: (1) WP:FIXLOOP, where they believe that the level of review is so significant that instead of providing 100 comments and days of back-and-forth, they would rather see another editor copyedit the article and improve the prose before reviewing it; (2) that since the last nomination closed, there haven't been any significant changes to the article and since David Fuchs archived the nomination as a failure, the expectation is that improvements need to be made to change that consensus. Now I of course am paraphrasing others, so they are definitely welcome to chime in to clarify. I obviously still disagree with the commentary and decision in the first nomination, but here we are. I would say that unless the two reviewers who were neutral on the first nom are willing to come back for another review and switch to support, it will be challenging to have this nom be successful with Graham Beards opposition (which was strongly relied upon for the archival of the first nom). « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is so poor and I'm incapable of writing acceptable prose, I'd like to see at least something illustrating that. At the moment, every addressable issue that anyone has raised anywhere has been addressed. I had nothing to indicate what I possibly could have done to 'fix' the vague 'issues' brought up by Graham Beards in the past FAC before a renom, and still have absolutely nothing indicating what sort of copyedit needs to be done now. Saying that the article needs someone other than me who writes football FAs to give it a complete rewrite when every editor meeting that description has done either that or given it a decent review and supported is pretty ridiculous if you ask me (especially with how vastly different the article is compared to when he first reviewed it). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you BeanieFan11. I am sure there are actionable comments that could be made, but I view the prose as WP:FAC worthy at this point and any additional issues being relatively minor, stylistic choices. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 18:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say ""whole thing needs to be entirely redone by a different football FA writer"? I don't recall it, nor can I find the diff. Graham Beards (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs a copyedit by someone new to the article who can bring some objective distance to the prose. ... you [should] find an editor who is familiar with the sport...preferably one with and established FA track record, who is willing to help you rewrite the article to a FA standard. In its current state, it is not good enough – that seems to imply you think the article needs significant reworking and rewriting by someone else. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please supply the diff for this quote you attributed to me; "whole thing needs to be entirely redone by a different football FA writer"? If you can't, kindly apologise and retract the statement. Graham Beards (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the foundational quality of the sourcing here. Referring to a specific passage in the article at the last FAC, SchroCat stated that it read like it came from a "bad local newspaper". While I'm not going to disparage the quality of the Press-Gazette, we have a situation here in which the sourcing is almost entirely from a few regional newspapers. And while Green Bay has grown quite a bit, as of 1910 it was the eight-largest city in Wisconsin and smaller than Sheboygan, according to PDF pages 5 and 6 of this census document. So we're quite possibly into semi-regional or large local territory here at best for the 1910s newspaper coverage. And this coverage falls into two groups: 1) "come see this local wrestling production so that they'll still do shows here" like a 21st-century newspaper advertising a demolition derby or a high school basketball tournament and 2) "local boy makes good" stuff. I just don't see the available sourcing here as a foundation for a proper FAC. The pool of articles where GA-level sourcing exists is just much larger than the pool where FA-level sourcing exists. For example - I had 5 GAs promoted in 2024. Of these, CSS General Earl Van Dorn is a FA, CSS General Polk could maybe be a FA with further work, and I do not believe that Battle of Bayou Fourche, Edward W. Gantt, or Battle of Clark's Mill could ever be a FA without more research and publication into these topics, which is very unlikely for at least the latter two. I will let the FAC coords determine if this is actionable or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog Farm (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not arguing your main points, but I did want to note that the Green Bay Press-Gazette holds a somewhat unique place in the history of the NFL, and the reporting thereof. It was one of the earliest newspapers to accumulate All-Pro lists (see here for an example of 1925 All-Pros). The Press-Gazette employed George Whitney Calhoun, co-founder of the Packers who "amassed one of the most complete collections of NFL game results during his career" and reported on the Packers for 30 years. Andrew B. Turnbull, the first president of the Packers, was also the owner of the Press-Gazette. You can also read a "self-history" of the paper here. I say this all for two reasons: (1) the Press-Gazette has been a trusted, reliable source, especially for Packers content, for 100 years and (2) smaller, regional papers of the time obviously did not operate as newspapers today do, so we do need to read between the lines a bit between "promotional" material and true reporting. All that said, in my view 60+ newspaper sources over a long period of time feels like enough, even taking into account the differences between today and 100 years ago. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good argument for the Press-Gazette's Packers coverage, which I'm not disputing. What I'm concerned with is it's regional wrestling coverage, which is most of this article's sourcing. Just because Zoll had a brief association with the Packers doesn't mean that the quality of its Packers coverage can be retroactively applied to earlier wrestling coverage of Zoll, or to coverage of wrestling with no direct connection to Zoll's brief Packers stint. I think the subject is clearly notable, but I'm concerned that this is an example of the difference of RS coverage for notability and GA versus the higher sourcing quality expectations for FAs. Hog FarmTalk15:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns! Unfortunately back then there was a proclivity to avoid placing the author's name in articles. It's likely that Calhoun wrote most of, if not all of, the Press-Gazette's sports coverage in the early 1920s. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heya! Gonna review this article, though just pre-facing that I've also got an active FAC nomination for Yeti (Doctor Who) up as well. It's not super long, so if you'd be willing to review that article as well, I'd greatly appreciate it, though I'm not forcing you by any means.
Onto the review itself, very few major issues. Prose reads pretty well. A couple nitpicks though:
- When it says tombstones, are these actual tombstones, or some other object? I'd hyperlink it if it is.
Appears to be actual tombstones, so linked.
-Is the quote really necessary? I feel the idea of Zoll's wrestling tendencies are easily conveyable through text.
I think it gives a good background and it was written by one of the most famous sportswriters ever, so I feel it has some relevance. Perhaps I should shorten it to only the part after "It is not recalled..."? Thoughts?
I'd just axe it. The quote doesn't really add much that can't be conveyed through text, and this is just objective information we don't really need a subjective read on. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about cutting it entirely is that we then have him begin by wrestling at carnivals, with no indication on how he did, to him immediately becoming one of the best wrestlers in the region. Given that we have some details on how his start in wrestling went, I think its worth noting. I tried trimming the quote a bit. Does that work, or do you still think it should be cut? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
-"and the Toronto Star Weekly highlighted his willingness to compete against any challenger and in any location." Not sure why this is needed since it doesn't really add much to understanding him in my opinion.
Cut.
-"He was the heaviest player for the Packers in their inaugural season, weighing 215 pounds (98 kg) despite standing at only 5 feet 9 inches (1.75 m)" As someone not in the football know, why is this a problem? 5'9 is a pretty respectable height, so it's not clear why that's a problem for playing the game.
5'9 is a bit small for a player at his position; also, the heaviest players are usually closer to, like, 6'4 than 5'9, but I changed it to "weighing 215 pounds while standing at 5 feet 9 inches".
Specify that this is a bit small for a player of his position, as otherwise the significance will not be inferred by non-football fans. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, the Packers did seem to have some guards with similar measurements at the time (here), so I guess it wasn't too unusual. I'll keep it at what I changed it to. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
-I have to concur with Hog Farm that I'm very concerned by the amount of local coverage. It doesn't really indicate much significance on a larger scale or in terms of long-lasting significance. This clearly passes GNG and is definitely a strong read for a GA, but I'm not sure if the sourcing is up to FA par. I'm not gonna oppose but I'll probably wait and see how your discussion with Hog Farm goes above before I make any final judgement calls.
I'm not sure what else there is to say about the newspapers. The Press-Gazette is arguably the best newspaper source for early Packers players and I'm not sure of any other Wisconsin papers of the time that gave better sports coverage... are there any parts of the article in particular where you think the source(s) are unreliable or inaccurate?
Not in particular, but an overreliance on one particular source, especially a local, seemingly specialty one, does not do much to indicate the subject had extreme influence outside of this. For GA standards it's more than fine but for FAC it leaves me a bit worried. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck with the FAC all the same! This reads very well and I couldn't find too many issues with the prose, so all in all I'd say this is a fantastic article no matter the outcome. I'm a big fan of your Packers articles and your dedication to the area, so thank you so much for all you do here. It's really genuinely so awesome. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a volcano in Peru, which despite its long inactivity is considered to be among Peru's most dangerous ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Misti has been cited as an example of a volcano where glaciers are retreating due to global warming," - if the consensus of the high-quality RS is that there are no glaciers on Misti, I think we can safely ignore the one reference to this as erroneous. I've seen my fair share of short one-off mentions of stuff in Civil War literature that is just plain wrong, from an author of an overarching work not specializing in the detailed topic matter and misinterpreting a source (or in some places, I almost suspect guessing)
"Ubinas is the most active volcano in Peru, having erupted 24 times since 1550" - reading through Ubinas#Eruptive history, it appears that this soure is outdated
"The quebradas (dry valleys) carry water during the wet season" - I think it would be a bit better to introduce the meaning of quebradas earlier in the paragraph where the term is first being used
I know this is probably due to inconsistent source, but having part of the article say "There is no clear indication of past glaciation, either, except possibly on the western flank." but then later "Traces of glacial erosion[126] like cirques,[128] evidence of hydromagmatic activity and mudflows imply that Misti was glaciated during the first last glacial maximum of the Central Andes 43,000 years
ago." So is there only marginal possible evidence of glaciation, or enough traces to state outright that there is an implication of past glaciation? I think there needs to be some sort of harmonization here
I agree that putting the material reflecting disagreements between sources to the same immediate area is a better way to present the discrepancies. Hog FarmTalk02:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Historical records begin in 1540 AD when the Spaniards arrived" - I'm not a huge fan of this phrasing, given that there is some sort of historical Inca record for the 1440/1470 eruption
"The first documented ascent was by Álvaro Meléndez, a priest from Chiguata,[314] in 1 May 1667." - I guess what qualifies as a documented ascent? Earlier in the article there are reference to various people climbing far enough up the volcano in 1600 to throw stuff into the crater
One where the person and date is clearly identified, I guess. Many of the mountains there have such ascents which found evidence of earlier ascents. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The iron cross on the summit was placed in 1784 and was still there a century later" - this seems like an odd statement, as there's greater detail about the history of the cross earlier in the article, including information that the 1784 cross had been replaced by the century later
It's a minor issue so it's not necessary. It's just odd to have the same expression one time with a comma and the other time without the comma. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The crater of El Misti (2005). In most other places, the article refers to volcano without the "El" and without italics.
This mosaic of two astronaut photographs taken from the ISS illustrates the proximity of Arequipa to Misti, just 17 km away (2009). Do we need the information about how the image was created? We could simplify to "Arequipa is only 17km away from Misti." or something similar. We could add "(shown on the left)" after "Arequipa" in case this is not clear to the reader but I'm not sure that it's necessary.
"appearing on the seal of the city for example." Not sure if "for example" is needed here. If it appears in other places, they can be mentioned as well.
"According to Italian geographer Cumin 1925" I think this should read "According to Italian geographer Gustavo Cumin" to avoid WP:PAREN and to explain who this person is.
Suggestion: "The station was one of several high-altitude stations built at the time, which aimed to investigate the atmosphere at such high altitudes;[30] additionally, the Observatory performed research on the response of the human body to high altitudes..." -> "The station was one of several high-altitude stations built at the time, which aimed to investigate the atmosphere at such high altitudes;[30] it also performed research on the response of the human body to high altitudes..." for flow.
"Misti was in its time the highest permanently inhabited location on Earth." When was this? Is this referring to the weather station or a town? Clarification would be helpful here.
"The volcanoes of Peru are part of the Andean Central Volcanic Zone (CVZ),[45] one of the four volcanic belts of the Andes; the others are the Northern Volcanic Zone, the Southern Volcanic Zone and the Austral Volcanic Zone." I don't think the names of the other volcanic belts are necessary here and are off-topic.
The "Regional" section feels a little off-topic: it is important to describe the regions that Misti is part of, but the section talks about how other volcanos are the most active. I'm confused on how the latter part of this section relates to Misti.
If this is to put Misti in context with the other volcanoes, then I would mention Misti more often and compare the other volcanoes with Misti directly. The article should answer the question, "Why is it important for the reader to know in the Misti article that "Ubinas is the most active volcano in Peru" or "The 1600 eruption of Huaynaputina claimed more than 1,000 casualties". While some of that is explained later in the article, some of the context can be explained here or the information from this section should be moved to where it is relevant when talking about Misti (like the emergency preparedness reports). Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider reversing the sentence, maybe with something like "Hazards at Misti not related to volcanic activity include flooding" as it introduces immediately that the section is about hazards not related to the volcanic activity. Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The hottest of these is[253] the Charcani V spring in the Rio Chili gorge;" ref 253 is in a weird place: what is it verifying where it can't be in a different place (like after the semi-colon)?
"and amounts to 89.1 millimetres per year (3.51 in/year),[43] a 1910 study found most precipitation to be in the form of snow or hail." suggest changing the comma to a semi-colon.
"Fernández, Alfonso; Mark, Bryan G. (March 2016)", "Sarmiento, F.O. (2016)" and "Reinhard, Johan (2005)" are listed as a source but does not seem to be used as an incline citation.
If it's not being used as an inline citation, I would rename this section to "Further reading". My preference is that there are no "Further reading" sections in featured articles (because all available, high-quality sources are used as inline citations) but that won't prevent me from supporting this. Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the lead talks about fumaroles. Given that the audience probably includes non-geologist (local residents), could this word be replaced by a plain English equivalent per WP:EXPLAINLEAD?
The same paragraph mentions bushland. The wikilink says it's something Australian, and the word isn't repeated in the rest of the article. I don't quite understand what it means here.
Misti is the house mountain of Arequipa,[15] who view themselves as the offspring of the mountain, it on the seal of the city. > the last clause seems to be missing something.
Professor Solon Irving Bailey from the Harvard College Observatory in 1893 installed[25] the world's highest[a] weather station on Misti -> The flow of this sentence is impeded by the two mid-sentence notes. Can you move the [a] to the end of the sentence? Or possibly both mid-sentence citations. Surprised you need 3 citations to fully cover this sentence.
As it takes a while before you say the observatory is no longer in use, can you add a 'then' to the previous sentence (like, 'then the world's highest weather station', or something more elegantly)
Similar possible overcitation and break of flow in "Another weather station, named "Mt. Blanc Station",[33] was installed at the base of the volcano[34][35] after 1888.[36]". Do we need the final three citations and can they all be at the end of the sentence.
The information on this weather station system is presented in a very piecemeal fashion in sources that are poorly formatted. We can move the citations at the end, but I prefer to do such changes only after everything else has been reviewed - in my experience, one often gets further questions that are tougher to answer after bundling. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the crater is a 120-metre-wide (390 ft) and 15-metre-high (49 ft) volcanic plug[59]/lava dome,[50] covered with cracks,[22] boulders and fumarolic sulfur deposits;[58] it is fumarolically active.[60] --> Again a lot of mid-sentence citations breaking flow. Here, I imagine it might be more difficult to just put them at the end. Two suggestions: avoid the slash (if my memory is correct, that's typically discouraged anyway somewhere hidden in the MOS), and replace the semi-colon with a full stop.
This is a recurring issue with flow of prose. Could you go over the article and see if it's possible to reduce mid-sentence citations and in particular, mid-clause citations.
Temperatures decrease with elevation;[262] in 1910 monthly mean temperatures at the summit ranged from −6 °C (21 °F) in January to −9.7 °C (14.5 °F) in May, June and August[263] but in 1968 temperatures at the summit rose above freezing for a few days per year.[63] --> Replace the semi-colon with a full stop, as the citation breaks the flow anyway, and the two sentences are not that connected. Why the 'but' in the second part of the sentence? There is no obvious contrast with the previous sentence.
During most of the year, dry westerly winds blow over the Western Cordillera except during summer months, when convection over the Amazon forces easterly flow that draws moisture to the Cordillera --> Can you omit 'During most of the year', given that 'except during summer months' conveys similar information?
; ages of 2,300 BP are probably too old --> Is this relevant? If we already know in 2011 that it's probably not correct, and the more recent (?) global volcanism programme has a small range for this eruption not covering 2,300 BP, I think we can omit it. The prose becomes less engaging with so many dates in there. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It feels slightly of to present a myth as fact like this "Previous ceremonies had failed to calm the volcano and only the emperor's direct intervention quelled its anger". I imagine most readers will get that this is a story, but for the small share that doesn't, can the text be adjusted to make this explicit?
Are modern units used in South America? If so, consider only converting the metric units to US units on first mention. This is mostly a scientific article, where you're not obligated to convert everything. This will help improve flow.
There is no clear evidence of eruptions after the arrival of the Spaniards,[102][183] while the Global Volcanism Program reports a last eruption in 1985 -> How can both be correct?
If you cannot figure out which source is correct, then the text should make clear there is disagreement. With an event so recent, surely we must be able to write something more definitive, such as "This and this happened, which the Global Volcanism Programme classed as an eruption. Are the two sources that say there haven't been eruptions for instance talking about pre-1950 history? Or only major eruptions? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of disagreement is whether reports of increased activity count as an "eruption" or merely as increased output of fumarolic gases. The GVP reports indicate nothing more than ash and gas emissions, so the disagreement seems to be about how to interpret them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should note m be in the text, with the last part (named after the volcano) omitted as overly detailed? That would get rid of one midclause note.
I think either the current form or wholesale removal. List of species discovered there might be too detailed for a note and definitively too detailed for an in-text mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of animals are guanacos and vicuñas? You can probabbly relate them to llamas in the text.
Do we need the months here? I'd say it's too much detail: "Questionable eruptions are recorded in 1542, 1599, August 1826, August 1830, 1831, September 1869, March 1870".
The lead is still too technical. MOS:INTRO says to avoid jargon in the lead wherever possible, and with 7 mystery words, of which three explained in hidden footnotes, we're not there yet. I don't think explaining in footnotes really helps as WP:EXPLAINLEAD says, as far as possible, that text should be understandable on sight, rather than after a click. Are there other bits of the article you can summarise that do not require such in-depth knowledge? What percentage of the readers are not geologist? I imagine more than half. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Handled the footnoted terms. I know nominators shouldn't say this, but I don't think you can ask me to identify jargon words. I know the jargon, I don't always know whether it's clear to other people. I am guessing you need "dormant volcano", "volcanic plug", "lava dome", "caldera", "ignimbrite"? Or just the latter four? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about the writing quality, vis-a-vis prose is engaging and of a professional standard. Much of the text is written in a choppy style, i.e. sequences of disjoint sentences which don't flow together. For example, from Human geography:
The old roads heading from Arequipa to Chivay and Juliaca run along the northern/western and southern/eastern foot of Misti, respectively.[20] Inca roads from the Arequipa area passed by the volcano.[21] There are numerous dams on the Rio Chili, including the Aguada Blanca Dam and reservoir north of the volcano,[22] El Fraile, and Hidroeléctrica Charcani I, II, III, IV, V and VI.[23] These dams have hydroelectric power plants which supply electricity to Arequipa. The river is also the principal water resource for the city. Roads leaving the city cross the river on bridges.[24]
This may all be true, and the text may be grammatically correct, but it's just not engaging to read because it doesn't tell a coherent story. With the exception of the two that talk about the dams, these sentences could be presented in any order with no change in meaning.
This is just one example; most of the rest of the article is written in the same style. My apologies if this sounds harsh, but I think the entire article could do with a copyedit to improve the overall flow of the text.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)
I did some editing on the "Name and settlement history" section, but I'll need some more time for the other sections. Getting pre-FAC copyedits is always a hit and miss sort of deal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One question about the "The western rim of the outer crater is about 150 metres (490 ft) higher than the southern." sentence is whether it should remain in that section or be moved to the crater description. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looking at that now, but what is Estimates of the mountain's volume range reach 150 cubic kilometres supposed to be? I'm guessing there's some word missing there? RoySmith(talk)20:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought is that pulling that sentence out of where it is now and putting it in the description of the crater would make sense. But while I'm here, I noticed that the first paragraph of General outline says The volcano is a young, symmetric cone, but in the next paragraph, you have It is notably asymmetric. This should be resolved somehow. If you're talking about two different sub-structures, this would be a good opportunity to tie the text together with something like, "Unlike the xxx, which is symmetric, the xxx is notably asymmetric ..." RoySmith(talk)21:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I thought that this was the usual case of sources disagreeing with each other but no, here it's the same source. I moved it into the footnote because the mountain is noted for symmetry not the opposite. Anyhow, I've mended this item. Also dealt with the Geology section but I may have missed something. In general, many topics can be covered with only one or two sentence and then I have to go to a related one (e.g Ubinas for frequency, then Huaynaputina and Sabancaya-Ubinas for impact). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about for Geology:
Although volcanic activity in southern Peru goes back to the Jurassic, the currently recognizable volcanic arcs in Peru are more recent: the Tacaza Arc formed 30–15 million years ago, the Lower Barroso 9–4 million, the Upper Barroso 3–1 million, and the Pleistocene-Holocene Frontal Arc during the past one million years.
Put that in. Took a stab at the first paragraph of the eruption history section, but I dunno whether the rest needs fixing. I'd keep the bullet list - this kind of information doesn't lend itself to a paragraph information - but the text might need changes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would do well to eliminate some of the detail. You could say that the city proper is 17 km from the mountain, with the metropolitan area (or outlying towns, if you prefer) within 11 km, but I don't see the need to list every town. I think you could also simplify At least 220,000 people live on the alluvial fans and in the ravines on the southern side of Misti, and are threatened by floods, mudflows and pyroclastic flows emanating from the volcano that can be channelled through the ravines. to just "20,000 people are directly threatened by floods, mudflows and pyroclastic flows on the mountain's southern slopes" RoySmith(talk)15:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I could make a more general comment, my personal opinion is that you (along with several other FA authors) tend to include more details in your writing than you should. WP:GACR says it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail which in WP:FACR gets turned into it neglects no major facts or details so I get the desire to be all-inclusive. There's plenty of room for individual interpretation of what constitutes a "major fact", but my suggestion would be to live a bit closer to the GA end of the spectrum. RoySmith(talk)12:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. In addition, this probably links in with my request to reduce mid-clause citations (let me know when you're ready for a second read). With fewer minor details included, it would be easier to get better flow and rely less on a surplus of citations. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that this isn't the first time I've had such feedback. However, given that "no major facts or details" is the FA requirement, we'll have to stick closer to that end than the GACR standard while at FAC I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe many of the details in the article now are minor details, rather than the major details the FA criteria call for. Including these minor details means that summary style isn't used and that prose often becomes less engaging. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd imagine that different people have different views on what counts as minor or major. I know I tend to the inclusive, as in my mind the comprehensiveness is Wikipedia's key strength over AIs and other websites. But YMMV. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beating my head against the first paragraph of Hydrology and glaciology. I'm not entirely happy with this, but I got as far as
Multiple quebradas (dry valleys) drain the mountain, only carrying water during the wet season in November–December and March–April: the Carabaya, Honda, Grande, Agua Salada, Huarangual, Chilca, San Lazaro and Pastores. Of these, only the San Laaro and Huarangual have alluvial fans. These all empty into either the perennial Rio Chili, which rounds the northern and western sides of the mountain, or the Rio Andamayo, which in turn joins the Rio Chili south of the city of Arequipa. The Rio Chili has cut the 20-kilometre-long (12 mi), 150–2,600-metre-deep (490–8,530 ft) Charcani Gorge.
I suggest adding a map and letting that do the heavy lifting of describing where all these features are. Obviously, this needs to be fixed up to include the appropriate citations and links, but I think the prose works reasonably well. RoySmith(talk)11:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They eventually join to the Rio Chili west and Rio Andamayo south of Misti;[72] the Andamayo joins the Chili south of Arequipa.[77] Could you double-check that? I don't see either of those sources mentioning Rio Andamayo. From the description of joining the Rio Chile south of Arequipa and looking at some maps, I'm guessing it's supposed to be what Google Maps calls Rio Socobaya and Open Street Map calls Rio Chacalaque. RoySmith(talk)00:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the sources don't mention in in the text - the Andamayo is namechecked in the images. Changed the sfn tag to make it clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did some extra copyediting in the hazards section; I wonder if anyone's sitting on an idea how to frame the timeline given in the management section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is everything done with the sfn system except FN1?
FN 76 needs a space at "p.4,figures"
Any reason why FN 76 has lower case 'figures', but 77 has capitalised 'Figure'?
Why do some books have ISBNs and some not?
The ISBNs you go have are all formatted differently – probably best to make them consistent
I'm not sure you need the |via=Google Books parameter: you don't say which other channels you've accessed books though, and it's not like the Google Books version is somehow different to the hardcopy version
The capitalisation on the sources goes awry in a few places. There are all caps that should be in Title case:
"LAS HUACAS PACARISCAS DE AREQUIPA Y EL VOLCAN MISTI" should be "Las Huacas Pacariscas de Arequipa y el Volcan Misti"
"LEGROS, F; THOURET, J.-C; GOURGAUD, A" should be "Legros, F.; Thouret, J.-C.; Gourgaud, A."
"STUDYING SOUTH AMER-ICAN SKIES" should be "Studying South American Skies"
There are mixes of sentence case and title case (title case seems to be dominant, but there's a fair proportion of sentence case in there), including Andrés, Nuria et al, Bailey, Birnie, Cabrera-Pérez et al, Cacya et al (x 3), etc. There needs to be consistent formatting throughout (including the external links)
What are these – I don't know whether they're magazines, books, journals, conference papers – they need to be identified much more clearly:
"Subieron el Misti en Bicicleta" (in Spanish). El Comercio (Peru). 1988.
"Gringos Suben el Misti en Bicicleta" (in Spanish). El Pueblo. 1988.
What's the thinking behind having some works in Further reading and some works in External links?
1919-1922 (in McEwan) and Scientia - Upt (in Zuñiga et al) should be en dashes, not hyphens
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
