Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2025

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2025 [1].

Frank Hague

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Frank Hague, the political boss who dominated my onetime home state of New Jersey for many years. He has a dark image in history, perhaps justified. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Frank_Hague_and_his_wife,_posed,_standing,_facing_front_LCCN98506261.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:New_Jersey._Problems_related_to_President._Washington,_D.C.,_Dec._22-36._The_relief_situation_and_New_Jersey_problems_were_discussed_with_President_Roosevelt_today_by_Mayor_Frank_Hugue_LCCN2016871022.jpg
I've removed the no-notice tags for these. The tags that they are part of the Bain collection (for the first) and the Harris & Ewing collection (for the second) should be sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Link replaced with the current one. Thank you as always for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (support)

[edit]

(I'm going to work my way though this in small chunks over a few days)

Lead
[edit]
  • never educated past the sixth grade, you probably want to talk about "formal education"; I'm sure he didn't stop learning, he just stopped going to school.
  • from 1917 to 1947 ... During his 30 years ... would hold for three decades No need to tell us the same thing three times.
  • Hague quickly became a power in New Jersey ... for all three Republican presidential candidates of the 1920s won New Jersey break this into a couple of sentences to make it easier to absorb/parse.
All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
[edit]
  • as "The Ark"–after a whitespace around the dash?
I think I fixed that. If I did not, can you explain further?
Ugh, I just re-read MOS:DASH. endashes get spaces, emdashes don't. What a stupid concept. You've got an emdash, so it's right as is.
  • John Hague had fled Ireland ... emigrated to New Jersey I think "emigrated to the United States", i.e. left one country, went to another country. You can then drill down and specify New Jersey.
I've changed "emigrated" to "journeyed",which should resolve that.
  • Jersey City then was ... "then was" seems like an awkward construction. Could this be rephrased?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • How it was he left the employment of the railroad ... I think you want "How it was THAT he left ..."
I'm not sure the "that" is necessary but I've added it. This seems a common stylistic difference I encounter.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kenny provided Hague with $75 Is that a lot? I suggest using {{inflation}}.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Early advancement
[edit]
  • By 1906, Hague had become prominent enough ... the position of sergeant at arms fell to Hudson County break up into smaller sentences.
OK
  • Per WP:EL, the quote box should not have a direct link to newspapers.com. Make it a normal citation.
I've done it this way many times, and find it useful because the source is right now. Can you point me to language covering quote boxes?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EL: External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article. To save us some time, I expect you will say that quote boxes are not part of the body, to which I will reply that they are, to which you will object. So, whatever. RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In various places, you talk about the Second Ward. I know that a Ward is a kind of political district, but many of our readers may be mystified by the term, so it bears explaining.
I've linked on first usage.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
City official
[edit]

No issues

Commissioner
[edit]
  • Although the commissioner of public safety originally did not have the power to try and dismiss police officers this is confusing. I get how somebody can have the power to do something, but how does somebody have or not have the power to try to do something?
This is "try" in the judicial sense. Milton's amendment to the Walsh Act gave commissioners judicial powers.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but it's still confusing. Perhaps "sue", "prosecute", "investigate" or some other such word could be used? RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main point is that he could dismiss them so I've stuck to that and deleted the "try".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mayor
[edit]
I've linked to a different part of the article that seems what is intended.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINK suggests we do not link major geographic places.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That mostly applies to countries. There's a lot of implied context here. New Jersey is cold in the winter. Florida is warm in the winter. Thus, a lot of people from New Jersey (and elsewhere) spend their winters in Florida if they can afford it. I know all that because I grew up in New Jersey, but that context may be totally lost on our readers who live in other parts of the world. You are bringing up his Florida villa as a way to demonstrate his wealth, so it bears some sort of explanation and a link would be an easy way to provide that. RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rising figure
[edit]

No issues

Boss of New Jersey
[edit]
While that subject is interesting, since New Jersey in post-Revolution times permitted landed women the vote, the state did not pass women's suffrage (an amendment to that effect failed) prior to the full ratification of the 19th Amendment, so I think linking to the 19th Amendment is sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
National figure
[edit]

No issues

Decline and retirement
[edit]
OK.
  • the direct line from Hague I assume this was some kind of telephone line, but many of our readers will have no clue what it means, so needs some explanation.
Linked to hotline.
  • Where you talk about tickets with Italians and Poles, both of these are strongly Catholic countries, which makes me wonder if these candidates were Catholic. Do you know if they were?
They probably were but the sources do not say.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Death
[edit]

No issues.

Techniques
[edit]
  • 92 percent of eligible voters were registered and there was an 85 percent turnout Is that 85% of elibible or 85% of registered?
Clarified, I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • three chaplains, one Catholic, one Protestant, and a rabbi, Change rabbi to Jewish, as that's the parallel construct to the first two items in the list. Or, if you prefer, "A Catholic priest, a Protestant minister, and a Jewish rabbi".
Probably the first one is better.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy and historical view
[edit]
  • seven full terms and part of an eight -> "eighth"
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • a lifelong teetotaler it might be worth mentioning this when you first introduce his treatment of saloons.
I've added it to his selection as a candidate by a tavern owner.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does it for me, at least for a first pass. Overall, a very nice piece of writing. RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS, since you're into political biography, perhaps I could interest you in Walter Gladwin and/or Elias Karmon, both of which I recently listed at WP:GAN. RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will look them over.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any other issues, so support. Nice article. RoySmith (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
  • He successfully campaigning to defeat a proposal to move the governor's election to a presidential year, for all three Republican presidential candidates of the 1920s won New Jersey. Shouldn't it be "campaigned" and "as" before "all three..."?
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • Not yet 14, this completed his formal education.

What about this version:Not yet 14, he ended his formal education at that point.

Well, he didn't end it, the Jersey City school system ended it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could the sentence be rephrased? MSincccc (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Political rise
  • Hague's work as head of the Department of Street Cleaners even convinced The Jersey Journal to endorse him as a reform candidate. Could The Jersey Journal be linked here?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt Nothing much to suggest here, as far as the prose is concerned. I hope my suggestions have been constructive to you. Support. MSincccc (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Are you able to take a position on whether the article should be promoted? Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see the article promoted. No objections from me. Best of luck with your nomination. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Will leave comments in a sec. 750h+ 06:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lead

No problems here.

early life
  • Hague,[1] born January 17, 1876 in Jersey City, New Jersey a comma is needed after "1876" per MOS:COMMA.
  • the Erie Railroad and later as bank guard should it be "a bank guard" or remain "bank guard"? i assume "a bank guard" if there was more than one
  • Kenny provided Hague with to "spread around" "with to"?
Are you not seeing the template? It reads "Kenny provided Hague with $75 ($2,835 in 2024) to "spread around","
no idea what happened here, sorry about that
political rise
  • a classmate of Hague's, and had been arrested comma in not needed here
  • nother lasting alliance Hague made was with John Milton, a young lawyer who would advise him in the decades to come.[32] and who would become a United States senator.[33] i think the first full stop should be comma
  • maneuvering to defeat the mayor's candidacy, and allied against Davis comma is unneeded
  • Under the Walsh Act as adopted in Jersey City, power add a comma after "Act"
I don't see why.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • to form a slate prior to the June 10 ==> "to form a slate before the June 10"
  • the June 10, 1913 election need a comma after "1913" per MOS:COMMA.
  • These enforcement acts went as far as Hague himself marching across local vaudeville stages personally directing the shut down of "girlie shows." this reads a bit confusingly. How about 'These enforcement acts went as far as Hague himself marching across local vaudeville stages, personally directing the shut down of "girlie shows."' or 'These enforcement acts went as far as Hague himself marching across local vaudeville stages and personally directing the shut down of "girlie shows."'
I've simplified. We don't need both "himself" and "personally".
  • the Allies of World War I, Hague travelled to Washington, D.C. this is an American article; travelled should be traveled
mayor
  • railroads and utility companies who occupied much of Jersey ==> "railroads and utility companies that occupied much of Jersey"
  • together with the reluctance of high-profile nonpartisan
Not seeing the issue.
i meant that you should change together with the reluctant of high-profile nonpartisan to together with the reluctance of high-profile nonpartisan. sorry about that
  • funds for a day care center ==> "funds for a daycare center"
  • number of votes against from Hudson County "against from"?
death
  • No problems here.
techniques
  • No problems here.
Thanks. All done, see above comments on a few, I'll take a look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: did do one ce on the article, but I'm happy to support now! Fine work 750h+ 00:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

I will comment as reading, looking at the lead last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • How about something like "3 children, one of them adapted"?
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • I could imagine to connect the situation of Jersey City to the previous para about the parents, and begin a new one for Frank's schooling.
Rearranged.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "How it was that he left the employment of the railroad is not known." - It wasn't until "left" that I knew where this sentence was heading.
Restated.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early advancement

  • Do we know the name of the daughter who died?
Not in any source I've seen
  • ref order end of 3rd para

Got to header "Mayor", to be continued. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I read to the end and found no more problems. I'm no friend of a section header "Death", though, thinking that death is part of life. "Later years", or some summary of those years, perhaps?

Lead

  • I am quite pleased with the lead and in this case perhaps should have read it first, because it highlights the developments well. I don't think that the details of his death are lead-worthy, - perhaps rather a summary of "the end"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased the end of the lead and changed the section heading per your suggestions. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
I kinda wonder if #51 is a bit too dependent (on the city) to be used to argue some claims sourced to it. And it probably needs some pagination or sectioning.
I think that in 2025, Frank Hague is definitely part of Jersey City's past and it doesn't particularly care how he is presented. I'll work on the pagination.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the source entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see "God have mercy on his sinful, greedy soul" in the source?
Replaced.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The New Deal's War on the Bill of Rights: The Untold Story of FDR's Concentration Camps, Censorship, and Mass Surveillance" sounds somewhat iffy as a source - politically inclined think tanks are at best so-so as publishers and it's cited mostly by "FDR's Long New Deal: A Public Choice Perspective" which seems to me like it has the same issue.
This source is used once, for an anecdote about FDR keeping Hague out of a prosecution for opening the mails. The story is confirmed in Fleming's book, but the quote related is directly from FDR and more colorful than the one in Fleming's book, which is from James Farley and rather nondescript "We had a hell of a time getting Hague out of that one,"--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, that content is exactly what I expect this source to be questionable about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not as colorful but I switched it to Fleming. Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any reviews of "The Life and Times of Jersey City Mayor Frank Hague: I Am the Law"?
I see this. I'll keep looking.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vernon is cited and directly quoted and referred to as "Hague biographer" in Nelson Johnson's book (p. 96).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some sources linked in the title field and others aren't?

Examples?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if any other source here can be used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fleming 1984 vs Greenberg 2012. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't understand what you are getting at here. Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've added some additional scholarly sources and just need clarification on what you were asking for above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fleming links to an Internet Archive version, Greenberg doesn't even though it exists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the link to Fleming since only limited text is available for most. That's my reading of WP:URLACCESS, anyway. Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 March 2025 [2].

First Treaty of London

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is 1359, the Hundred Years' War has been running for 22 years. Things have gone from bad to worse for the French, culminating in the French king being captured at the Battle of Poitiers, where most of the nobility of France were also either killed or captured. Yes, an opportunity to quantify a "king's ransom", and to find out just how badly the French want peace. Signed, or, strictly, sealed, in May, the name of the war is a give away that it came unstuck somewhere. Read on. Another in my occasional series of truces and treaties and a natural follow on to my taking Poitiers to FA three years ago. The primary sources are a little thin - no copy of the final agreement survives - but the secondary sources have done a fine job and I hope that my mining of them has been exhaustive. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I meant to review this at GAN, but I got busy with work; I'll get a review done this weekend. Hog Farm talk 16:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Subsequent negotiations led to the Second Treaty of London in March 1358," - I think you mean March 1359?
Gah! Thank you.
  • "Edward III's eldest son, Edward of Woodstock, known as the Black Prince, " - was Edward known as the Black Prince in his lifetime? Our article on him suggests this was a later development - is that accurate?
Yeah, a Victorian development, but more or less universally used by the HQ RSs. Clarified.
I am always a bit twitchy about over linking, but as I wrote both of those, done.
  • The FAC nomination statement notes that there's no surviving copy of the entire treaty - is this sourceable enough to be able to note in the article?
Oh, good question. I suspect not, but let me dive into the sources.
Sadly not. From Sumption (1999) and Rogers (2001) in particular it is obvious that he has access to an earlier draft (probably - OR - a copy sent to Paris) but not either of the final sealed versions. But none of the sources that go into any detail specify their sources.

This article is in very good shape; I anticipate supporting once these are resolved. Hog Farm talk 01:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm and thanks for your kind words. Your points above all dealt with. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. As to the Black Prince, it would seem odd to me to refer to "Stonewall Jackson" in a Mexican-American War context, but if it's pretty much universally used in the high-quality RS, then that's another matter. Hog Farm talk 03:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MSincccc

[edit]
Oops! Done.
  • Negotiations
    • Little was agreed until November, when news arrived that the King of Navarre,... Why not "king" as in other places in the article?
MOS:JOBTITLE. Because in this case I am using the term instead of naming him. (And in the others I have already named them and am using the term to specify their office or "job title".)

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Very little from me.

  • "This was £667,000 – the equivalent of the peacetime income of the English Crown for about 20 years" – both here and in the main text, this explanation of the value of the money is just what is wanted – bravo! Another point: the English Crown is capitalised here (which is what I'd do too) but the French crown is lower-cased later. I just mention it and don't press the point.
Standardised.
  • "the only significant French possession still held by the English" – see 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?
Synonymed.
  • "partially as a result of both countries being financially exhausted" – Fowler (current edition) is not all that prescriptive about "partially" -v- "partly" but I don't see what the longer form offers here that the shorter one doesn't.
Shortened.
  • "the death rate was over 40% in southern England" – I'm not sure what the MoS currently says, but it used to say – and I concur – that in prose it is more pleasing to write "per cent" than to use the % symbol.
This seems to have slipped out of the MoS as it lurches into the 21st century. The main MoS page does include "Write 3%, three percent, or three per cent", "The report stated there was a 45% reduction in transmission rate" and "The resulting font size of any text should not drop below 85% of the page's default font size." The last example is interesting as a use of % rather than per cent within the MoS itself. Notwithstanding, by all means let us strive to be pleasing - per cent'ed.
  • "They partially surrounded the final French attack " – as above, though I'm less certain about it in this case.
I think in this case I shall leave it as is.
  • "Negotiations to both end the war and to agree a ransom" – too many "to's" if worded thus. I suggest either "Negotiations to both end the war and agree a ransom" or, and probably better, I think, "Negotiations both to end the war and to agree a ransom"
I have gone with the first of your suggestions.
  • "one of John's closest advisors ... two of his senior advisors" – why not the traditional BrE "advisers" rather than the Americanism?
Changed. Well spotted.
  • "With regards to a territorial settlement" – better to lose the s at the end of "regards". "With regards to your wife" is a friendly greeting, as opposed to, e.g. "with regard to this matter", which just means "in relation to".
:-)
  • "Edward would give up his and his descendants' claim on the French throne" – claim on or claim to?
I believe "on" to be an acceptable usage, but as you seem to be suggesting a change to 'to' I have done so.
  • "the Dauphin had to leave Paris, he returned in July" – needs a stronger stop than a comma. Incidentally, though this is another point I'm not pressing, I wonder why you lower case "king" in e.g. "Edward III, king of England, and John II, king of France" but capitalise the job title of the dauphin.
If I change this to "the Dauphin had to leave Paris, although he returned in July and laid siege to the city." is a comma sufficient?
Cos in the latter case I am using the title instead of his name.

Here endeth the Heaven-knows-how-many-eth Lesson. The above comments are certainly not of enough importance to prevent me from supporting the elevation of the article to FA. It seems to me to meet every FA criterion. Tim riley talk 20:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly Tim. A support in advance. High praise. Nevertheless you may wish to skim my responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS. No gerunds?
Well if you must have one "partially as a result of both countries being financially exhausted" should strictly have a possessive apostrophe after "countries", but I didn't think it important enough to point out, and it will do very well as it is, me judice. Entirely happy with your replies above. – Tim riley talk 21:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Guyenne_1328-en.svg is tagged for cleanup, and see MOS:COLOUR
Replaced.
  • File:Edward_the_Black_Prince_1430.jpg: source link is dead
The British library website is down as a result of a cyber attack. They are not issuing any dates as to when it may be functioning again.

Source review

[edit]

Source formatting seems consistent. Don't know much about the sources, nor can I access them for the most part, but I notice that they seem to be well-cited or reviewed. Is "The Black Prince at War: The Anatomy of a Chevauchée" a prominent source? Are there French sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Madden: It is, but as she turned her PhD into a book I have switched the citations to that as being easier.
  • French sources: There are, obviously. But nothing I could find of any great depth or saying anything not in the English language sources. Certainly none that come near the forensic analysis of Rogers or Sumption. And there are no language based disagreements or PoVs that I could see. (Although I did find some snippets for the Treaty of Bretigny which is working its way through my to do box.)
  • Checking sources: I possess paper or electronic copies of a high proportion of the sources, so let me know if you would like any pages emailing.
Thanks for looking at this Jo-Jo. Your queries are addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • "The Anglo-Gascon force devastated a wide swathe of French territory and sacking many French towns on the way.." Change of tense: "devastated" vs "sacking". If "and" was removed and replaced with a comma, it would be fine, I think?
Clumsy of me. Good solution; implemented.
  • On a loosely related note, I'm not keen on the repetition within two lines: "..and sacking many French towns on the way" and then "..and burning French towns on the way". Even if the latter were changed to "along the way" rather than "on the way", I think it would help.
One "on the way" and one "French" deleted. Which doesn't seem to reduce the amount of information conveyed and reads more smoothly.
  • "This was the Battle of Poitiers." It would be nice if there was a smoother way to blend this into the narrative. But damned if I can come up with it, so whatever, I guess.
I have reworded. See what you think.
  • "..fudged the issue of English suzerainty.." Wikilink suzerainty.
Done.
  • "Charles of Navarre, backed by armed force.." The article previously refers to him as "the King of Navarre, known as Charles the Bad" and "including Charles the Bad". I would stick with "Charles the Bad" here, rather than "Charles of Navarre", although I do think enough context has been provided for the reader to follow if you think there is a particular justification for using both.
Nah, it's just me getting confused by different usages in different sources. Standardised.
  • There is inconsistency between "of 4 million écus" and "for three million écu", both in terms of 4 vs three, and "écus" and "écu".
Bleh. Good spot. Fixed.

Overall an excellent article which provides brilliant context for the treaty and well as coverage of the treaty itself. Please ping me when you've responded, as I remain not that active around here at the moment. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias, high praise indeed. Thanks for picking up my sloppy errors. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with all the changes, great work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A request for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: This nom has four supports plus image and source reviews. It has also been open for 16 17 18 19 days, so I was wondering if I could have permission to open another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My gratitude for your response to my exorations overflows my capacity to express it. I shall sacrifice a TFA in your honour. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 March 2025 [3].

Ancaster incident

[edit]
Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a reformer in Upper Canada named George Rolph who was attacked by the Tory elite in the 19th century. Supposedly, it was because he was having an affair, but it was probably because Rolph threatened Tory influence in the province. I hope you enjoy! Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:A_black_and_white_print_of_George_Rolph(12351344585)_(cropped).jpg: is a more specific tag available?
  • @Nikkimaria: There is no evidence that this photograph was published. However, the post by the Dundas Archives when it was on Flickr said it had a stamp of a private photography company. Therefore, it is likely that this was taken for a personal capacity and not a business one, and thus never published. Since the subject of the photograph died in 1875, it must have been created before then. I have replaced the US copyright tag with the unpublished tag as the most appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kane_George_Gurnett.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:ANMacNab.jpg, File:Field_Marshal_Sir_John_Colborne_(1778–1863),_1st_Baron_Seaton,_GCB,_GCH.jpg
  • File:DENT(1885)_1.008_JOHN_ROLPH.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
  • Link only lists the author of the work where the portrait appeared, but I think that person wrote the book and didn't create the image used in the article. I think the "unknown" tag makes the most sense here. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:John_Walpole_Willis_edit2.jpg: tagging is throwing an error message

@Nikkimaria: Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I will review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 00:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A woman named Mrs. Evans left England with her child and travelled to Canada with George Rolph" - is this trying to say that George Rolph had gone to England at some point, left that country in company with Mrs. Evans + child, and then returned to Canada? This is how it reads to me, but a George Rolph trip out of Canada doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the narrative
  • The quote from the source is "Mrs. Evans and her young child had come to Canada with Rolph from England apparently fleeing from her abusive husband." I have not found any other information about this. Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A week before the incident, Evans's husband visited Dundas and tried convincing her to return to England with him." - this is the first reference to "Dundas" in the article - is this the locale where Rolph was residing at the time?
  • "They threatened Evans with selling his wife" - I don't think this is quite right. The cited source says that the mob threatened Evans for "selling" his wife, which would appear that this is a charge of immoral conduct against Evans by the mob, not a particular threat made against Evans, as the current phrasing reads
  • "and stated that he was "quite satisfied" with his treatment" - this doesn't quite fit with the source, which attributes "quite satisfied" to a witness to the incident, not directly to Evans
  • Petty has "He sought £1,000 damages for trespass on the premises and assault on his person." which is not clear to me as an unequivocal statement that this was 1,000 pounds against each defendent (as is stated in the article) or 1,000 pounds total. Do other sources clarify this?
  • I think it would be useful to mention in the lead the date that at least the original trial began.
  • I added it to the body and cited it. There were several trials pertaining to this incident, so I don't think any particular ones are worth giving the exact date for in the lead. Z1720 (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He claimed that the jury did not receive evidence implementing most of the defendants " - are you sure "implementing" is the right word?
  • "Robinson asked members of the Law Society of Upper Canada for instances where they thought he did not fulfil his obligations as solicitor general. William Warren Baldwin responded with a harsh critique of Robinson, citing the lack of prosecution in the Ancaster Outrage as one example, blaming Boulton's representation of the defendants for the lack of prosecution in this case." - who is Robinson? These are the only two instances where that name is mentioned.
  • "Robertson's reputation in the Ancaster area was damaged during the trials, affecting his business as a merchant. " - the source places this as speculative, while our article makes the claim much stronger
  • "Similar incidents included the Types Riot five days later, and the Niagara Incident when the government tore down William Forsyth's property to gain access to fortifications" - the cited page does not support the date of the Types Riot that I can see
  • The lead states that the attack occurred in Ancaster, but the only reference to Ancaster as a geographic location in the rest of the article is in discussing Robertson's reputation and business
  • Ross refers to Mrs. Evans as a live-in servant which is a different arrangement from the article, which shows this as an almost charitable arrangement. Do other sources clarify on this point - would it be the case that Evans was retained as a servant to provide an excuse for the arrangement?
  • Sources are vague and differ in their description about what Mrs. Evans did when she lived with George, and since she was already back in England during the trials we do not have her testimony. My impression is that George was giving her refuge to get away from her abusive husband, and said she could be a live-in servant in order to state that he wasn't being charitable and to save her pride. I'm open to making the phrasing more vague. Z1720 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a specific reason why John Rolph isn't mentioned in the lead at all?
  • I obviously mention George because he is the victim. I decided not to mention any of the lawyers (John Rolph, Warren Baldwin, Boulton) nor any of the perpetrators because the list of names (and explaining who they are in the lead) could cause the lead to get very long. Instead, I wanted the lead to focus on what happened and its legacy, and when I re-read it just now I didn't see a spot where I would want to mention John Rolph. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd to me that if we're not going to mention John or several of the others by name that Willis warrants mention (and that the other judge it was before basically OK'd the proceedings isn't brought up) Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the same thing when I re-read it a couple days ago. I added Boulton and John Rolph to the lead. Willis is specifically mentioned because I wanted to state who admonished the government, instead of a vague "a judge in the trial". Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 00:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hog Farm: I think I addressed everything. Sorry for the delay. Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Z1720: - I might just be mis-reading things, but I'm a bit confused by some of these geographic references. We're told in the lead and elsewhere in the article that the incident occurred in Ancaster, and that Rolph was taken from his home in Ancaster. But Evans was staying with Rolph at his home in Dundas. Was he maintaining a home in Dundas and one in Ancaster, with the attack occurring in the latter and the co-habitation concerns occurring at Dundas? Is is possible that Ancaster/Dundas lacked clearly defined limits at the time and these are just the same place variously reported as being in either town? I also wonder if the two references to "Ancaster, Ontario" are anachrostic - wouldn't it have been Upper Canada not Ontario in 1826? Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hog Farm: Borders of various towns, counties and other geographic areas in Upper Canada were in flux at this time. As the article mentions, Gore county was newly created after Rolph moved there. Today, Dundas and Ancaster are two different towns in the same area, but it seems like at the time their borders were not as clearly defined. Various sources use Ancaster and Dundas interchangeably to refer to where Rolph was living. To rectify this, I have removed the reference of Rolph living in Dundas. Since scholarly material refers to the incident as the "Ancaster incident" I think it is better to assume that the incident took place in Ancaster. I replaced "Ontario" with "Upper Canada" in the prose in all instances as that is the correct name at that time. Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support  Comments  from Noleander

[edit]

I did the GA review on this, so I'm happy to also do an FA review.

  • Rolph hired John Rolph as his lawyer ... Probably should say "his brother John Rolph...". I know that the "brother" fact is mentioned earlier in the article; and also in the pic caption nearby; but it doesn't hurt to repeat it here, in my opinion. Example: later in the article it says: plaintiff, retained his brother John as his lawyer... which I think is useful. Readers in WP often jump around from section to section.
  • The trial began in August 1827, and was reported nationally and internationally ... I'm having a hard time grasping how significant this incident was. The "internationally" really piques my curiosity: Is there any way you could (in cite or footnote) include external links to international newspaper articles on this? I know the volunteers at WP:RX are black belts at digging up old newspaper articles. It would really add a lot to this article.
  • I don't want to cite old newspapers because the reliability of the information is not good. I also do not want to add the newspaper articles myself, because it is verging on the border of WP:OR. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor grammar: Prosecution's arguments and Defence's arguments; my ear wants to hear: Prosecution arguments and Defence arguments. But I'm in U.S.; maybe in Canada they say it differently.
  • Minor grammar: The Gore county magistrates and accused insisted ... is The Gore county magistrates and the accused insisted ... less ambiguous? The "accused" does not belong to the county.
  • Clarify: Rolph was a reformer ... I'm not certain if that is reformer with lowercase R or uppercase R. It is not capitalized, so I suppose it is not describing the political party, true? If it is (lowercase) saying that he is opposed to corruption & somewhat progressive, then that should be spelled out.
  • Need more details, if available: A woman named Mrs. Evans left England with her child and travelled to Canada with George Rolph. What is the year? Is this voyage related to fact that brother John was in England (mentioned in prior paragraph)? And, most importantly, how did they meet? Was Rolph helping her escape from her husband? I know the relationship is not at the heart of this article, but once you include this relationship in the article, readers will want to know the underlying motivations.
  • Sources do not specify when she came from England. No other information about how they met is described in the sources: Mrs. Evans did not testify at the trial and there doesn't seem to be additional information about this. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Define parties earlier & clearly: Members of the Tory elite, motivated by.... Reformers cited the incident as evidence of the Tories engaging in political violence to maintain their power, contributing to the Reform victory ... Readers not from Canada will not be familiar with the two parties; knowing the two parties is key to the article. Using the party names before defining the parties may confuse non-Canadian readers. Suggest naming & defining the two parties early in the lead, before starting to use them. Or define in-line, for example: The Tory party, which promoted conservative policies, were motivated by ..... Rolph was a member of the Reform party, which endorsed liberal policies .... or something like that.
  • Political parties in Upper Canada did not exist as they do now. There was never a Tory Party in Canada: while members of this group sometimes colloquially referred to themselves as Tories, the name was given to the group by historians. Information about this is provided in the background section. While there was a Reform Party in Upper Canada, they were more like a loose group of ideologically similar people and really only existed during elections. The "Reformers" that is the first word of the second paragraph of the lead is referring to those who follow the reform political ideology, not the political party. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor grammar: Some sources state that the incident happened June 2/3 while others have stated that it happened .... Seems better to use same grammatical voice in both clauses, e.g. Some sources state that the incident happened June 2/3, while others state that it happened ....
  • Need more clarity on trials & appeals: There are 2 trials (civil and criminal) correct? And each had an appeal? I suggest (1) that every time the word "trial" is used in the article, it must be preceded by "criminal" or "civil"; and (2) that every time the word "appeal" is used in the article, it must be preceded by "criminal" or "civil". Those qualifiers are already done in several places, but not all. It only adds a few words to the article, but would add a LOT of clarity. The word "appeal" by itself is almost meaningless without a qualifier.
  • Yes, there were two trials. No, the criminal trial did not have an appeal. For the "Criminal trial" title I added "Grand jury investigation" to better describe what the section is about. I haveb gone through the article and added "civil" and "criminal" clarification where I think it is needed and the trial type is specified in the citation(s). Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section names: Could be more precise & more uniform. Here are some of the current section names:
    • Civil trial
    • Civil trial aftermath
    • Appeal
    • Criminal trial
    • Aftermath
    • Legacy
The section names are a bit ambiguous, verging on confusing. Is the "Appeal" section for civil or criminal trial? Why does Civil trial have a dedicated "Civil trial aftermath" section, but criminal does not? Why does the article have both "Aftermath" & "Legacy" sections ... normally those are combined as a single section (for articles on a historical event). Maybe rename "Appeal" -> "Civil appeal"; "Aftermath" -> "Criminal trial aftermath" ??? but I'm not sure that is correct.
  • The criminal trial had no appeal. There's a "Civil trial aftermath" because I was unsure what to call the time between the civil trial and the criminal trial, and the information in that section only concern the civil trial. I added "Civil trial appeal" to the Appeal section. The "Aftermath" section describes events influenced by everything, so it would not be appropriate to rename to "Criminal trial aftermath". I split the "Aftermath" and "Legacy" because of the length.
@Z1720 Article is looking pretty good. I only have one remaining issue: I think the use of terms "Reform" and "Reformers" need more support in the Lead, so the average reader can understand the Lead. Specifically, in the lead: Reformers cited the incident as evidence of the Tories engaging in political violence to maintain their power, contributing to the Reform victory in the 1828 elections... Many readers will gather no information from that sentence, because the key nouns Reform and Reformers are not defined until the Background section. Suggest either (a) add a few words to the lead defining the terms, or (b) links to relevant WP article(s). Imagine giving a reader ONLY the lead section to read: Does the lead have enough information (or WP links) so a non-Canadian reader can understand the Lead section on its own (where reader is permitted to follow any WP links in the lead)? Noleander (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: Wikilinked Reformers and added that they were the political opponents of the Tories in the lead. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Article looks great. Changing to "Support" for prose quality. I have not analyzed images or sources/cites. Noleander (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Reviewing; comments below. I have an active automotive FAC open if you'd like to review. Don't feel obliged to though. 750h+ 11:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lead
background
incident
after the incident
  • determined that Hamilton was guilty of a crime, and encouraged Rolph to initiate a civil lawsuit. no comma needed here.
civil trial
  • The judge for the trial was James B. Macaulay. George, as the plaintiff, ==> "The judge was James B. Macaulay. George, as the plaintiff,"
  • The trial began in August 1827, and was reported nationally and internationally comma isn't needed here
  • This implicated Simons as a member of the mob. A witness later stated that he saw Simons outside of the village at 2 am, but was unsure if Simons was in disguise. Macaulay refused to allow evidence that stated that the attackers were trying to separate Rolph from Mrs. Evans or that they were punishing Rolph for committing adultery, stating that neither was a legal justification for the incident. "stated" or "stating" is used in three consecutive sentences.
civil trial aftermath
civil trial appeal
  • Rolph noted that at the civil trial Boulton suggested that ==> "Rolph noted that at the civil trial, Boulton suggested that"
  • that a new trial would be a burden on Robertson, as he ==> "that a new trial would burden Robertson, as he"
grand jury investigation and criminal trial
  • the grand jury was a publicity stunt ==> "the grand jury were a publicity stunt"
  • by the Rolphs to characterise the attack as an i believe "characterize" is Canadian spelling.
aftermath
  • politician in Upper Canada, criticised the Upper Canadian 'criticised' ==> 'criticized' (Canadian spelling)
  • used in the attack, and proposed that each of them comma isn't needed here.
legacy
  • No problems here.

Great article @Z1720:. As mentioned above i do have an active FAC, though please don't feel obliged to check it out. 750h+ 11:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Averageuntitleduser

[edit]

This is my first source review. The article cites only recent secondary sources with reliable journals and publishers. Bailey is okay: it is cited once, and according to reviews, it was written with a rigorous editorial process similar to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. One minor formatting comment: be consistent with whether ISBNs have dashes or not. I also wonder if this 1991 Ontario History article would have any useful material. I cannot access it immediately, though. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Averageuntitleduser: I did not know about this source! Unfortunately, it is very hard to get copies of older Ontario History sources and I will have to go to the central library in person to get a copy. However, many sources already used in the article cite this, so much of the information is already in the article and cited from a more recent source. When I get a chance to go to a central library, I will get a physical copy and take a look to see if it can be added in. I fixed the ISBN dashes. Z1720 (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Averageuntitleduser: I obtained a copy of the suggested source above, and added relevant information to the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think the additions flow smoothly. Support! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Comments to follow soon(ish) - SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Friendly reminder about this. Looking forward to your comments. Z1720 (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nudge and apologies for the delay: I'll try and get to this today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "if George left his position": We can use Rolph here as we haven't been introduced to John yet
Incident
  • "a group of men met": Were these Tories? I think it would be worth clarifying this, rather than leaving the reader to assume
  • "A witness to the event claimed that Evans was not harmed in this altercation": is there doubt over this? The language you've used suggests violence may have been used, but you don't mention any, so it's difficult to judge
  • Yes, there is doubt over this: no one is exactly sure what happened in this meeting and the Tories that did publically talk about it would not admit to violence. I think the current wording best matches what the sources say. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case I think we need to mention the possibility that there was violence. The line "claimed that Evans was not harmed" is jarring without the context of possible harm or violence. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took another look at the source supporting the statement: the source is ambiguous as what I put in the article, so I just removed the sentence. I don't think the other sources give enough information to clarify what happened at this meeting. Z1720 (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evans was not in Rolph's bed": Probably best to add "Mrs", as the "Evans at the start of the para is the husband
Civil trial
  • Can we have a modern equivalent for the £1000?
Prosecution's arguments
  • Why is "gentlemen" in scare quotes?
Civil trial appeal
  • Is "attornies" correct. I am used to seeing "attorneys", but that's BrEng, rather than CanEng
Grand jury investigation
  • "unknown how this information was presented": is it unknown how the information was presented, or how it was obtained?
  • "and Rolph believed they were asked so that Rolph": why not just "he" for the second one?
Legacy
  • Is "targetted" correct in CanEng? "targeted" would be more normal, I think?
Notes
  • "June 2/3" and "June 3/4" should be "June 2–3" and "June 3–4" per MOS:RANGES
Sources
  • Ref 34 should be p. 122, not pp. 122
  • Refs 7, 17, 21 and 22 all have hyphens in the page ranges, rather than en dashes

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 23 March 2025 [4].

1911–12 New Brompton F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, it's me back again with yet another article on a season from the history of Gillingham F.C. (my 39th such nomination), in this case the final season in which the club played under its original name. It didn't really go very well, though.... Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Comments to follow in a day or two - SchroCat (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC) Not much to comment on:[reply]

  • "14 matches and scored only four goals": According to the MOS, "comparable numbers near one another should all be written in words or all in figures", so this should either be "fourteen matches and scored only four goals" or "14 matches and scored only 4 goals"
  • "On 23 September, however, they": I'm not sure what benefit the "however" brings to the table
  • "their opponents' "feeble" defence": better if this is rephrased to avoid the scare quotes ("the Athletic News, calling Brompton's defence "feeble", was surprised that Southampton failed to score more goals", or similar)
  • "the second period": why not just "the second"?

That's my lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Cite 32 has a p/pp error.
    • I can't see this, did you maybe mean a different cite?
  • "At the end of 1911, New Brompton were in 19th place out of 20 teams in the league table. New Brompton suffered another ..." Maybe a synonym for the second usage of New Brompton?
  • "In the result column, Gillingham's score is shown first".
  • "until competitive football was abandoned in 1915 due to the First World War." Perhaps 'suspended' would be more accurate?
  • "Whiteside scored the goal but would then be absent from the team for over a month". I assume we don't know why?
    • I'm afraid I couldn't find anything on that
  • "the first time a New Brompton had scored more than once in a game". I suspect a missing word.
  • "During the season, 23 players made at least one appearance for New Brompton. Mahon made the most, playing in every game." Which was how many?
  • "Lee, Taylor, and Corbett were joint top goalscorer with six goals each." "goalscorer" or 'goalscorers'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - many thanks for your review, all points addressed other than as noted above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
But that template is already, correctly, under "Licensing". The bit in "Comments" Is just a stray Wiki-code duplicate of the section header and licensing template. Could you get rid of them for all four images. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - I can't see how to. When I open the edit window, all that appears is the image description and the licensing template. If I delete the latter, the image will not show a license......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Next time you load a photo, have a play around to see if you can avoid that showing. I suspect that you need to load the image, save, then add the licensing stuff afterwards. Every day is a school day. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - duly noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Pretty sure I've reviewed some of the books here before. They seem reliable to me, with the caveat that this isn't an area where I have much expertise. The newspaper sources are probably OK too. Source formatting seems consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I am just going to go ahead and support as the article satisfies all the criteria. This sentence could use a comma after "December", though: "from the start of October until the end of December they won only once in fourteen matches and scored only four goals"--NØ 13:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 March 2025 [5].

Hualca Hualca

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the northernmost and most eroded of volcanoes in the Ampato-Hualca Hualca-Sabancaya volcanic chain. It bears both past and current glaciers, which are or were an important source of water for the town of Cabanaconde, which used to venerate the mountain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

[edit]

Will review shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now. This is a non-expert review and I do not claim to be able to corroborate the more technical aspects of the article! I think the biggest point to make for me is confusion over the chronology of the volcano/mountain. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]

As always, I greatly admire your campaign to get all these Andean volcanoes to FA.

  • All images appear to be appropriately licensed, with good alt-text.
  • SFNs are consistently used.
  • There was a couple ref errors, which I fixed - one was missing an HDL, while another had the HDL accidentally formatted onto its page number.
  • The capitalization of chapters, titles, and journal articles is inconsistent. Some works are in title case, others are sentence case - and one, Gelles 1995, is entirely lowercase. I would make at least the English-language works consistent in their capitalization. The Spanish ones appear to be consistently in sentence case as-is.

That's all from me! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got the standardization, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was one more that was off that I fixed - support on the source review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy

[edit]
Geography and geomorphology
Geology

That all I have to comment on. With that being said, I've nominated Tseax Cone for FA. Volcanoguy 21:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Volcanoguy 17:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo, have all of Z1720's comments been addressed? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Yes, my support declaration was meant to apply to both sections. My apologies for the lack of clarity. I don't want two bolded votes because I know that messes up the scripts. Z1720 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Z1720. I was probably being a little slow and/or pedantic there. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source check - pass

[edit]

Since this article didn't go through a GA review, I'll conduct a source check below:

Sources checked with no concerns: 14, 16, 23, 36, 39, 46, 48, 67, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 86, 88, 99, 117.

  • Ref 29: I could not find the relevant information on the page cited. Can the information be quoted from the source?
    "The Ampato complex extends over 630 km2 and rises 2000 m above the surrounding Altiplano (4000 masl) except to the north where it adjoins the Colca Canyon" here Hualca Hualca is included in the Ampato complex. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 62: Why not include the animals that are kept at pasture?
    Ha, good call! Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 65: "Stensrud 2016, pp. 76, 77." Why a comma and not a dash?
    Not sure that I'd call two adjacent pages a range, but done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 74/75: Maybe combine these two together to remove a footnote from the prose?
    Bit unkeen on doing this as it makes verification harder. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 100/all MacQueen refs: I think they are all cited one page ahead of where they are supposed to be. For example, Ref 100 is cited to page 100, but the bottom of the page where the information is says it is page 19 of 25.
    Hmm, it seems like you meant 20 not 100. Corrected this and another case, but it doesn't seem to be a problem with all citations? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, you are correct about that mistake. I only checked some of the MacQueen refs and spotted the same concern, so if all were checked and corrected when applicable, then this can be marked as resolved. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig detects no concerns. Z1720 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]
  • Cite 84 has a p/pp error.
  • You are inconsistent re books having publisher locations or not.
  • Shouldn't Zavala, B et al come before Zavala Carrión, Bilberto Luis et al?

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remedied, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
Jo-Jo Eumerus Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I really don't notice edits, even on my watchlist. Yes, since they now rely on a canal with a different source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 March 2025 [6].

Transportation during the 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 and Turini2 (talk) (discuss) 06:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the transportation during the Paris 2024 Olympics and Paralympics. Getting the athletes, officials, media, support staff and crowds to the venues was a vital part of the logistics of the event. Much of the credit for this article goes to the editors of the French language Wikipedia article, which I translated. (It gets twice the page views of our English version.) I think this article should be read by anyone involved with Los Angeles 2028 or Brisbane 2032. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments RoySmith

[edit]
  • More of a drive-by than anything else, but my first impression is that first sentence: Transportation during the 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics played a critical part in getting spectators and athletes to competition venues is trying to convince the reader that this subject is notable. It seems more like editorializing than summarizing the article content.
  • Over €500 million was invested in transport improvements for the Games the immediate question in my mind is "How much of this was ephemeral and how much was durable improvements which would continue to be useful after the games?" For example, you say the frequency and hours of service for public transport was increased by an average of 15%; that's ephemeral. After the games were over, presumably the schedules returned to normal. Elsewhere you say the transport fleet would include hybrid vehicles and hydrogen-powered buses which is more of a durable improvement since presumably those vehicles will continue to be used for many years. This distinction is evident is how Rail network is divided into Extension of the network (durable) and Increased services (ephemeral) but it would be good to say right up front when you introduce the €500 million cost how that broke down into those two broad categories.
    All infrastructure improvements were durable. Temporary infrastructure is being reused or repurposed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is hard to quantify what's wouldn't have happened without the Olympics/Paralympics, and what would have happened anyway, albeit more slowly. For example, the 2005 Paris bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics proposed extending the Paris Metro to Front Populaire station – this station did open, albeit in December 2012.
    Maybe we need to study the candidature file to work out exactly what was promised to be delivered in time for the Games – I suspect Line 14 to Orly Airport, for example. Turini2 (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is under Preparations it says:

    Over €500 million was invested in transport improvements for the Games. To meet the increased numbers of passengers on the various lines compared to a normal summer, the frequency and hours of service for public transport was increased by an average of 15%.

    That sounds like the increase in frequency and hours (not durable improvements) was where the €500 million was spent. Perhaps what you meant was something like:

    Over €500 million was invested in long-term transport improvements for the Games. In addition, to meet the increased numbers of passengers on the various lines compared to a normal summer, the frequency and hours of service for public transport was increased by an average of 15%.

    RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved the text about a bit to avoid giving that implication. (During Sydney 2000, the transportation network ran at full capacity for the first time since 1901.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not strictly a WP:FACR, but I suggest renaming the page to the more concise title Transportation during the 2024 Paris games. See Talk:Transportation during the 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics#Requested move 3 February 2025.

(just to forestall the inevitable mod prodding, I just wanted to leave these few comments, so I won't be doing a full support/oppose review).

Support  Comments  from Noleander

[edit]
  • First paragraph of the Lead doesnt seem quite the right way to start off: Transportation during the 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics played a critical part in getting spectators and athletes to competition venues. Over €500 million was invested in transport improvements for the Games. That has a bit of a marketing/puffery sound to it. I would expect the 1st paragraph to be more factual, something that defines what the xportation network WAS. Such as: The Transportation was responsible for .... Organized by the Paris Dept of ... The xportation included 32 metro lines, 400 bus lines,.... Over 30 km of new lines were opened in the 4 years preceding.." During the Olymp and ParaOlym, the network carried over 7 million passenger-rides..."
  • To host the Olympic and Paralympic Games, organisers must provide transport for ... "must" is a mandate? ... does the contract with the IOC have contractual requirements? Or is "must" simply stating the tasks it had to perform (no mandate)? If not a mandate, maybe: To host the Olympic and Paralympic Games, the transport system must ...
    Yes, that is correct: the contract with the IOC has contractual requirements. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike previous years, no service interruptions related to engineering or improvement works were scheduled in the summer of 2024. Word "previous" could perhaps be better, that leads me to think "previous olympics". Maybe "Unlike most summers ..."? Or "Most summers, the Paris metro has improvement work, but none was undertaken in 2024..." or "Normally, some improvement works are performed during summer months, but in 2024 ..." or similar
    The previous Olympics was in 1924. Re-worded to make it clearer that we are talking about Paris in 2024. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were expectations that 350,000 fans with disabilities would be visiting Paris ... "expectations" is ambiguous, could mean "hopes". Consider "Organizers anticipated 350,000 fans ..." or "Organizers planned for 350,000 fans ... "?
    Re-worded slightly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • However the vast majority of Metro stations were not accessible to all.... It may help readers to add a few words explaining why: most stations were built many decades ago, some more than a century ago, so only a small portion have elevators.
    Added a bit about this. It is not just about age. (We published a photo essay of the stairs we climbed to get to a venue, which generated a huge number of likes from the athletes.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • le-de-France Mobilités stated that it did not want to make subscribers in the Paris region pay the additional costs of increased service offered during the Games, with Île-de-France Mobilités announcing that visitors to Paris would pay higher fares for the increased service. I do not understand this. The first half of the sentence is explaining why olympic visitors will not get free xport tickets. I get that (they don't want the Paris commuters to subsidize free travel for tourists). The 2nd half of the sentence is a non sequitur: Will only visitors pay a higher fare (than normal fare)? Will permanent Paris residents be paying less than visitors? Are the prices/fares going up for everyone?
    Yes, that is correct. The French version has the actual prices: Du 20 juillet au 8 septembre, un titre de transport temporaire nommé « passe Paris 2024 », autorisant un nombre illimité de trajets en Île-de-France, est vendu au tarif de 16 € pour une journée ou 70 € par semaine (avec des tarifs intermédiaires en fonction du nombre de journées : 30, 42, 52, 60 et 66 €). Sur cette même période, le tarif de certains billets sera relevé : 4 € pour le ticket t+, 32 € pour le forfait de 10 trajets par la carte Navigo Easy et 16 € pour un ticket origine-destination vers les aéroports d'Orly ou de Roissy. Les autres forfaits touristiques seront suspendus. Les titres de transports Navigo et Liberté + restent inchangés pour les abonnés franciliens. Do you think it is worth adding this to the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To help readers grasp the facts, consider breaking that (green text) sentence into two or three shorter, delcarative sentences: (a) Govmt decided to NOT give free passes to Olympic visitors, thus Parisian commuters would not subsidize the visitors. (b) Ticket prices were increased for everyone; (c) There was a new type of ticket introduced especially for the Olympics. Point (c) is already stated in that paragraph elsewhere (not in green text), and I'm not suggesting duplicating point (c) ... just including it here for an example of the flow/sequence of facts presented to the reader. Noleander (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed as suggested. The Olympic family, athletes, officials and media still got free passes of course. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several major public transport projects opened prior to the Games, with extensions of existing Paris Metro and RER lines as well... If appropriate, consider adding a few words about which of those extensions were deliberately timed/funded to support the 2024 olympics (vs extensions that were planend decades in advance). Was a special "push" made to move some of the start dates forward to support the olympics?
    Yes. The extension of line 4, for example, had been on the plans for 45 years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A project that called for a major modification of Gare du Nord station by ... that entire paragraph is talking about the Gare du Nord, correct? The following two paragaraphs, however, both talk about 2 or more stations. Most readers will not realize that all five sentences of that 1st paragraph are talking about a single station. Maybe add words in the middle of the 1st paragraph to remind the reader they are still in the GdN ... such as "Additional improvements to the Gare du Nord included..." or something like that.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stations too close to the venues for festivities or competitions were closed, most notably the ... Interesting. I want to know why they were closed... was it security? Or foot traffic conflicts? I suppose it was a foot-traffic issue? People would need to walk thru the sports venue to go in/out of the station? But most stations have multiple access points ... were they all interfering with the venue? No big deal, but if you could add a few words to tell the reader why they closed, that may help.
    Yes, the stations were completely closed. For security reasons. Most notably Concorde, which was within the security perimeter of the Paralympic opening ceremony. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 26 July 2024, the day of the opening ceremony of the 2024 Summer Olympics, a series of arson attacks damaged lines ... That arson was fairly minor in the big scheme of things, no? I know it got a lot of headlines ("if it bleeds, it leads") ... but there were no deaths and no injuries. Does it deserve to occupy one of the four Lead paragraphs? Ten years in the future, will readers think those arson attacks were important (vs the entirety of the 2024 Olympics)? In my opinion, should delete that paragraph from the lead and replace it with other, more important topics.
    Another editor (Arconning) asked for it to be added during the GA review. Where two editors disagree, I wait for some consensus to form. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commencing in the summer of 2022, transport security coordination was carried out from the Operational Security Command Center (CCOS), which brought together all stakeholders in shared premises located at the Paris Police Prefecture headquarters. The CCOS was connected to 101,000 video ... When you say "starting in 2022" was that a permanent change? Or was this CCOS just a 3-year project, and it was disbanded after the olympics were over?
    It was disbanded when the games ended. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose: quality of the prose is excellent: Professional & encyclopedic.
  • Images: Great selection!!! really give a feeling for the topics. Congrats finding so many available pics, some articles are not so lucky.
  • Reviewer below suggests adding "alt" text to the images. In the spirit of this article, which includes the Paralympics, I think adding text for visually impaired readers is a great idea.
  • Sources: I have not done any spot checks, but nearly every sentence has a cite, and sources look aesthetically okay. Since this is a current event (rather than a historical event) it is not surprising that there is not a "Bibliography" or "Sources" section.
    It would have if I had created it, but I followed the style already in place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In summary, the article is in excellent shape. The Lead section is the one thing that strikes me as needing work ... but that should be easy to remedy. I'm happy to support if the above issues are addressed/resolved (note that some of the items above are optional suggestions). Noleander (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Recent changes look good, and have resolved many of the comments above. My only remaining concern is the Lead section, especially: (1) first Paragraph should be much broader/overview: define what the article is about, to a reader who knows nothing. (2) Devoting 1/4 of the paragraphs to relatively minor arson incidents. Nominator says another reviewer wanted the arson put into the lead; and says that they are awaiting consensus to form. As a compromise: maybe have a single sentence about the arson, within a paragraph?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to support after Lead section is finalized. Noleander (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Hawkeye7 I just looked the Lead section again: Looks much better, and the arson topic is now only sentence within a paragraph. Changing to "Support" Noleander (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

[edit]

Hi, that's all I have for this article. An interesting read. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Discussion on the nomination has stalled, and unless it makes further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next few days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

[edit]

I am doing a spelling check. So far I have subscripted the 2 on CO2 to get CO2.

  • I also have a question. Should "Games" be capitalised when it is not part of the full name, and used as a generic, "the games"?

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I think that #1 and some other sources might look better if they didn't display the website domains, but rather the news sources or the committee - for example, the Paralympics Committee is not cited as a domain. I kinda wonder about #6 - probably a reliable source but I wonder if we need to discuss the goals of the organizers with an independent one. Self-praise stinks, as we say in German. What makes /futuretransport-news.com, sportetsociete.org and sortiraparis.com a reliable source? RATP citations are not consistently formatted. #69 likewise doesn't match the formatting of other uses of that source. Can't say much about the reliability of the French sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed many of the references from website to publisher
  • I think the organisation is an authorative source for a statement of its own goals. Obviously, the goal of minimization of carbon footprint that dominated every stage of planning looks incongruous at the least given the IOC's decision to award 2028 to the United States. Everybody was apprehensive about this in Paris in 2024, and things haven't gotten better since.
  • Future Transport-News is a transport news and information portal. it is a division of a2b Global Media Ltd.
  • Sortir à Paris is the official site of the Office de Tourisme de Paris. Where a French language version was used in the French version, I have substituted the English language version.
  • Replaced the Sport et Societe reference with another one
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, is this now good? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only with the qualifier that I don't know much about the reliability of French sources and many others here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • The ending of the lead feels a bit sudden.
    Tried to resolve this by swapping the second and third paragraphs around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It became an official partner of the games in June 2022 in order to facilitate the organisation of transport." How? And isn't that kinda late, 2022?
  • "During the games, visitors to Paris paid higher public transport fares during the games" A bit redundantly redundant here.
    Oops. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "route calculator that could respond and adapt to hazards." Is hazards really the term here? I would imagine what is meant is traffic and other delays, that it would give guidance in real time.
    Re-worded. I used the app extensively myself. It could be disconcerting when it changed advice on how to get to somewhere. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "50 canine explosives detection units " I'm sure what is meant here is not "50 dogs" but the unkind reader may think it's fancy talk for just that.
    Usually two handlers and two dogs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pass cost €16 for one day or €70 for a week." These fares seem considerably more than the normal one-day or one-week passes, at least per Wikivoyage. Do the sources point out this? It might be made clearer that Paris as usual was ripping off touristsvisitors were asked to contribute towards the cost of Olympic improvements.
    The article points out that this was to cover the increase in services. I travelled for free of course. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the last 20 years," I think somewhere in the MOS we are enjoined not to use terms like "Today," that may age, and this would appear to qualify.
    You're thinking of MOS:REALTIME. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the only one reserved for delegations" Is this the same as "accredited persons" mentioned below? If so I prefer the latter phrasing as clearer.
    They are different. The delegations are the teams, coaches and team support staff. The accredited persons also included the Olympic Family (the A List), support staff (like Our Mob), officials, and news media. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything be said about the events that were held outside the Paris area?
    There was some football games, sailing and surfing. I will have a look. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just ping me when you know if you've been able to find anything. Don't remember much by way of public transportation in Tahiti. Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a bit and will add it on the weekeend. I regret that I was unable to attend events in Tahiti. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good. Support. Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

[edit]

I'm not the best topic person on this so I will just give a few general things:

That's all for now. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed this. Happy to support – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
Hawkeye7 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 21 March 2025 [7].

Margaret Sanger

[edit]
Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Sanger is an important figure in United States history. From her beginnings as a nurse, a socialist, and a feminist, she evolved into a charismatic activist that worked to legalize birth-control. She founded Planned Parenthood, and was responsible for the gradual legalization of contraceptives in the U.S. between 1918 and 1965. To promote birth control, she endorsed eugenics, which has tarnished her reputation, because many eugenicists were racists. Six decades after her death, Sanger remains a highly visible figure in the U.S. because the anti-abortion movement frequently attacks Sanger on social media. The attacks focus on her support of eugenics and purported racism, so the article covers those areas in some depth.

The sections on contentious topics contain a relatively large number of footnotes and citations. This was a deliberate editorial choice, with the aims of: (a) assisting readers that come to the article to perform fact-checking; and (b) giving future editors resources to prevent edit wars. Regarding multiple citations on a single sentence: I'm aware of the essay Citation Overkill, and was careful to only include multiple citations where the sources each provided unique insight.

This is my third FA nomination related to the Progressive Era in American history (my prior FA articles from that era were W. E. B. Du Bois and Birth control movement in the United States). Credit to User:Tomobe03 for an excellent GA review on this Sanger article. Noleander (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:MargaretSanger-Underwood.LOC.jpg: when and where was this first published?
Photo was taken in 1922 (according to Library of Congress at https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2004672785/ ); location was certainly in New York, USA. I cannot find proof that it was published before 1930, so I gather that is a problem? To be safe, I removed the photo from the article, and replaced it with a photo taken around 1919, and published in 1922, namely: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SangerAndSons.tiff?page=1 Proof of publication before 1930 is in the "Details" of that latter picture. Noleander (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_Woman_Rebel,_March_1914,_Vol_1,_No._1.gif: source link is dead
I replaced that newsletter pic with similar Wiki Commons pic: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Woman_Rebel_issue1.jpg which has a working source link, namely https://files.libcom.org/files/styles/wide/public/images/library/The%20Woman%20Rebel%20v1.n01_0.jpg Noleander (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: That source link is dead, but another source is the Getty photos: https://photos.com/featured/kitty-marion-selling-birth-control-bettmann.html (but that source has a watermark). The photo was taken in 1925. Author is unknown, so author's death is unknown. Does that make it not free of copyright? I found proof that the photograph was published in 1925 (same year it was taken) and added the evidence into the Wiki Commons "details" page at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kitty_Marion_in_USA_selling_BC_Review_in_1925.jpg Let me know if that is not sufficient. Noleander (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image has a tag for life+100; it is very unlikely for that to be correct for a photo taken in 1925. If the work was first published in the US it's not necessary so I'd suggest just removing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I changed the PD tag for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kitty_Marion_in_USA_selling_BC_Review_in_1925.jpg from {{PD-old-100-expired}} to {{PD-old-expired}} . I presume that is what you were suggesting? Or if you meant to remove the picture from the article, I can do that instead. Noleander (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither - PD-old-expired still gives you a copyright status based on a lifespan that you cannot verify. Suggest changing instead to PD-US. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Noleander (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
Early life
  • Her father, Michael Hennessey Higgins immigrated to... Could a comma be placed after "Higgins"?
  • Sanger was born Margaret Louise Higgins in 1879 in Corning, New York,... Could "in 1879" be replaced with "September 14, 1879"?
  • With financial help from two older sisters,... "Elder" is more commonly used when referring to human relationships.
    Done: Early Life section suggestions above. Noleander (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Woman rebel
  • Could feminism be linked in this section?
  • Sanger became estranged from her husband in 1913, and the couple's divorce was finalized in 1921. Is it relevant to include these details in this section unless her rebellious nature directly led to the estrangement?
    Done: Woman Rebel section suggestions above; except "estranged" suggestion. Reasoning: To treat the "personal life" information (marriage, divorce, relationships, etc) I studied FA-quality biographical articles and found two approaches (1) Have a "Personal Life" section; or (2) scatter facts throughout the chronological event sections. The former is typically used for celebrities & artists, but the latter is often (but not always) used for people with more serious careers, so I went with the latter. A subsequent decision was: (2a) Put personal facts at the end of each section; or (2b) in precise chronological position within paragraphs. (2a) was superior to (2b) because there are situations where deviating from a strictly-chronological sequence enables more flowing, readable prose. I reached a similar conclusion regarding sections: The time frames of each section are permitted to overlap a bit, in order to make the article more readable & understandable for the reader. Sequencing the events in the article in a strictly chronological order is tempting, but can damage the flow in many instances. Noleander (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Year as an outlaw
  • In August 1914,... Could "1914" be replaced with "that year" in this sentence as the year is already mentioned in the very previous sentence?
  • ...where she was the first woman to chair a session; Could "was" be replaced with "became" here?
  • The repetition of "William Sanger" in the last paragraph of this section could be avoided.
    Done: Year As an Outlaws section suggestions above. Noleander (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander A fine initial read. More to come. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The birth control movement begins
  • Could the title of this section be section be improved upon?
  • In 1922, she married her second husband, wealthy businessman James Noah H. Slee. "Wealthy" should be dropped here.
  • Sanger believed that these efforts to limit family size... Could "she" be used here as "Sanger" is mentioned in the very previous sentence?
  • In 1920–1921, and intermittently until his death in 1946, she had a love affair with the English novelist H.G. Wells. The sentence is grammatically incorrect due to the misplaced adverb "intermittently." The correct sentence would be: From 1920 to 1921, and intermittently until his death in 1946, she had a love affair with the English novelist H.G. Wells.
  • Minor suggestion-You could also drop "English" before "novelist" in the above sentence.
Done: "Birth Control Movement Begins" section suggestions above. Changed section title to "Start of a movement" which is not great, but I cannot think of anything better. I'm open to suggestions. Noleander (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MSincccc (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Outreach and expansion
  • Between 1920 and 1926, 567,000 copies of Woman and the New Race and The Pivot of Civilization were sold. You could introduce The Pivot of Civilization as "published in 1922" in this section rather than under the section on her "Views" later.
Done: Outreach section suggestions above; although I kept the 1922 publication year in the View section, since it is kinda required in that context. But I can remove it there if you think that is better. Noleander (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
African-American community
  • Harlem is linked more than once in this section. It constitutes duplicate linking.
  • The clinic was supported by an all African American advisory board consisting of 15 African American doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers; the clinic exclusively employed African American doctors, nurses, and social workers. This could be rephrased as:
The clinic was supported by an all-African American advisory board of 15 members and exclusively employed African American staff, including doctors, nurses, and social workers. This will avoid redundancy.
  • Could Angela Davis's brief description be reworked rather than just referring to her as "academic"?
  • You could replace "not successful" with"unsuccessful" in the last sentence of the section.
Done: African American community suggestions, above. Angela Davis sentence now begins "When African American academic and activist Angela Davis analyzed..." Noleander (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MSincccc (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Planned parenthood
  • Pincus recruited John Rock, Harvard gynecologist,... This sentence could be improved as:
Pincus recruited John Rock, a gynecologist at Harvard,... Also, Harvard could be linked here as some readers might be unfamiliar with the name. MSincccc (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Planned Parenthood section changes from above. Noleander (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Views
Abortion
  • In the early 1900s, when Sanger started on her path as an activist,... You could drop "on her path" in this case.
  • In her view, contraception was beneficial for many reasons: It was safe,... "It" should be in lowercase in this sentence.
  • That pamphlet was the one and only time she mentioned a technique for abortion. Is this emphasis("one and only") required in this sentence?
Done: Abortion section suggestions, above. Changed "One and only" to "only". Noleander (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Free speech
  • ...where A. M. Schlesinger Sr. will read her statement of protest, April 16, 1929. Could the "will" before "read" be dropped from this image caption?
  • ...including Edward Bliss Foote and Theodore Schroeder. Could they be introduced here in brief?
  • Could Albany, New York be linked in this sentence-the Catholic police commissioner of Albany prevented Sanger from speaking there;
Done: Free Speech section suggestions, above. Changed pic caption to "Boston prohibited Sanger from speaking, so she donned a gag, and A. M. Schlesinger Sr. read her statement of protest." Noleander (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eugenics
  • At the other extreme were altruists who... Could "altruist" be linked to Altruism?
  • Sanger was surrounded by influential people who approved of eugenics, including close friends Havelock Ellis[207][208] and H. G. Wells,... Wells was her long-term lover, as previously mentioned, rather than just a "close friend".
  • Eugenics has been linked more than once in this section, which constitutes duplicate linking.
  • Academic Dorothy Roberts wrote... Could her brief description be reworked rather than just mentioning her as an "academic"?
Done: Eugenics section suggestions, above, except one: Did not implement "close friend" suggestion: the purpose of that sentence is to illustrate that many, perhaps most, of Sanger's close associates were supportive of eugenics. Naming the exact nature of each relationship is not essential. Further, Sanger's relationship with Ellis had several aspects: (a) he was an author of books Sanger read & used in her work; (b) teacher-pupil; (c) fellow activist; and (d) lover. Singling out "lover" would add an emphasis that could mislead and confuse readers, in my opinion. Noleander (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
Time magazine designated Sanger as one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century.
  • You could also mention "Time" in italics and keep "magazine" outside the link in the above sentence.
Done: Legacy section suggestions, above. Noleander (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander A fine article indeed. A few more suggestions for prose above. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MSincccc Thanks for taking the time to do the review. I've addressed all your suggestions, except for a couple that I discuss above. Let me know if you have any additional suggestions for the article. Noleander (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander I hope that my suggestions have been helpful. Support on prose. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Hawkeye7

[edit]

A really fine article. Too bad Sanger is on her way to becoming an unperson.

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • CS1 error on speech "The Morality of Birth Control".; has both a date and a year - remove the year.
    Done. Noleander (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with fn 179
    Done. Noleander (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't fn 27, 29, 179, 202, 252, 253 be in the Works section? * And Sanger, Margaret (1919)?
    Done - created explicit "source" entries in "Works" section for all articles by Sanger, and changed citations to those items to use "sfn" template, so all Sanger items are now in "Works" section.
  • Why aren't fn 89, 96, 101, 115, 125, 152, 163, 168, 172, 201, 210, 218, 221, 249, 266 in the sources section? (At first I thought it was sources used only once, but that is not the case.)
    Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency in the article's approach to citations. I made it uniform and now it is cleaner & consistent. The article now uses the following hybrid convention: Major sources (those used two or more times; OR an important work) get a bulletized entry in the Sources section (and related citations use "sfn" template); other sources (those which are minor AND only cited once) do not have a bulletized entry in Sources section (that is, the source info is stated directly in the <ref> citation).
I realize that many FA articles employ the elegant rule: All sources have a bulletized entry, and 100% of the citations use "sfn" template. For this article, I feel a hybrid approach is warranted: there are a lot of sources in this article, and some of them are trivial, and do not deserve a prominent bullet in the Sources section. That said, if you feel the new hybrid approach is not acceptable for FA, let me know and I'll change the article to use the "pure sfn" convention. Noleander (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 56, 292m 304: page numbers?
    These three sources are articles that were published in (reputable, serious) online journals, but not in the printed editions; so they do not have page numbers. I searched in WP Help to see if there is some way the "no page numbers available" fact should be indicated in the WP citation, but I could not find anything. Noleander (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;.
Spot checks
  • fn 68, 21b, 2c, 138a, 292 - okay
    "The columns gave advice to women and girls on love, masturbation, and sex; and emphasized the distinction between sex and love.[20][21a]": cannot find this in 20 or 21.
    Done. Noleander (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to fn 68, I would have written: "They went to trial on 29 January 1917." The reason is that the more precise date adds to our collection of knowledge and aids someone trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia. The ADB drives me nuts with stuff like this that then require me to check against another (often primary) source, thereby defeating the whole purpose.
    Done. Noleander (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    fn 292: could use a page number so I don't have to read through it all.
    Done. Noleander (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the excellent comments. I'm addressing them now. May take a couple of days. Noleander (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Thanks again for taking the time to perform a review. I implemented all of the suggestions you made. Regarding your suggestion "Why aren't fn 89, .... 266 in the sources section? (At first I thought it was sources used only once, but that is not the case.)" ... I adopted a new convention for the citations/sources, and explained it above (at "Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency in the article's approach to citations....."). If you think the new convention is not sufficient for FA quality, let me know and I'll change it to use the "100% sfn" convention. Noleander (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine, now that it is consistent. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phlsph7

[edit]

Hello Noleander, happy to take a look at the article. I'm not very familiar with the topic so I'll focus on prose. After a first look, it seems fine overall except for a few smaller issues.

  • Sanger was first-wave feminist, and believed that woman should be add "a" after "was"; should this be "women" instead of "woman"?
  • Sanger was first-wave feminist, and believed that ... She was an adherent of the eugenics movement, and believed that those two consecutive sentence have exactly the same structure, which can sound repetitive. For the 2nd sentence, you could use something like "As an adherent of the eugenics movement, she argued that..."
  • immigrated to the U.S. with her family during the Great Famine.. remove one period
  • Sanger's political interests, her emerging feminism and her nursing experience led her Oxford comma after "feminism"
  • overpopulation led to poverty, famine and war. Oxford comma after "famine"
  • In her role as president of the ABCL, she chafed at bureaucratic interference from second-generation reformers on the board of directors. Seeking more independence, in 1928 she resigned as the president of the ABCL and For better flow, you could use "As president of the ABCL, she ... Seeking more independence, she resigned from the presidency in 1928 and..."
  • Sanger invested a great deal of effort promoting birth control I think there should be an "in" before "promoting"
  • resulting in 8,000 to 17,000 woman's deaths from complications. should it be "women's deaths"?
  • U.S. Supreme court "court" should be uppercase
  • and even birth control literature were illegal in much of the U.S.. As far as I'm aware, there should only be one period even when a sentence ends with an abreviation.
  • Her mother, Anne Purcell Higgins, immigrated to the U.S. with her family during the Great Famine.[2]. remove the period after "[2]"
  • and social activists, such John Reed add "as" after "such"
  • if she promised to not break the law again maybe "promised not to break" for better flow
  • My understanding of commas that connect clauses (i.e. not list items as for Oxford commas) is that there should be a comma if the two sentences have different subjects (e.g. He wears a hat, and she carries a bag) but no comma if they have the same subject (e.g. He wears a hat and carries a bag). The article does not follow this rule in various cases, for example Sanger was first-wave feminist, and believed that and Sanger was called back to Sadie's apartment, and found that. However, I'm not sure how binding that rule is. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you so much for the excellent prose feedback. I'll implement those changes later today. Noleander (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: Thanks again for the review. I've implemented all of the suggestions above. Regarding the commas issue ("... there should be a comma if the two sentences have different subjects ... but no comma if they have the same subject...") I did implement your suggestion; however, the way I decide where to put commas is: I read the paragraph out loud, as if I'm speaking in a formal setting. I listen to where I naturally pause: short pauses get a comma; medium pauses get a semicolon (or n-dash); and longer pauses get a period. Beats remembering grammar rules :-). Noleander (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good so far. A few more that I came across:
  • and another – Griswold v Connecticut – which legalized contraception should there be a period after "v"?
  • Before her death, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Griswold v Connecticut, also here?
  • and included 'reckless' people that were incapable of replace "that" with "who"
  • Byrne was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse ... she chose a thirty-day sentence in workhouse I think it should also be "a workhouse" in the second sentence
  • was the Comstock Act – which banned dissemination of information about contraception." I think it should be a comma rather than a dash. There are a few more cases in the text using "... – which ...".
  • a story that Sanger would recount in her speeches: while she was working as a nurse, for better flow maybe "a story that Sanger often recounted in her speeches: while working as a nurse,"
  • Sanger became estranged from her husband in 1913, and the couple's divorce was finalized in 1921.." for better flow: "...and their divorce..."
  • Sanger conducted a long-term, though infrequent, love affair maybe more natural "Sanger had a long-term, though infrequent, love affair"
  • She wrote several books which had a nationwide impact I think it should be "that" rather than "which" since it is a restrictive relative clause
  • Sanger was exposed to free speech principles early in her career: in New York, Emma Goldman introduced Sanger to physician Edward Bliss Foote and lawyer Theodore Schroeder, co-founders of the Free Speech League for better flow: "Sanger was exposed to free speech principles early in her career, when Emma Goldman introduced Sanger to physician Edward Bliss Foote and lawyer Theodore Schroeder, co-founders of the Free Speech League, in New York."
Phlsph7 (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: I implemented all of the suggestions enumerated above (dated 14 March). You have great eyes. Noleander (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that takes care of the remaining concerns. Support on prose. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

[edit]

Wanted to review this for a while, let's see whether I manage to do so today. —Kusma (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: "collaborated in the development of the first birth control pill" sounds like she was part of the scientific team; I think this oversells the body's "Sanger persuaded philanthropist Katharine McCormick to provide funding for biologist Gregory Pincus to develop the first birth control pill". Perhaps "influenced the development"? (I see that this comes back later in the lead in more detail; does it need to be mentioned in the opening paragraph at all?)
Regarding the wording: I agree that "collaborated" is not the best. I've replaced it with "instrumental". But "involved" or "catalyst" or "initiated" or "facilitated" may also be good.
Regarding birth control pill in the Lead: The birth control pill involvement is vital information in the lead because (a) it gives readers a sense of the duration of her work: from 1914 to late 1950s; (b) gives a sense of breadth of her work: from contraception to free speech to pharmaceuticals; (c) helps understand the global impact (beyond U.S.) she had; and (d) It also signifies her flexibility and willingness to move with the times and continue empowering women even as technology changed. Because words are so precious in the lead, it is more important, in my assessment, to focus on events that define the reach/extent/scope/impact of her life, rather than adhering to a simplistic rule that limits the lead to those events that occupied her for the largest number of her working hours. Noleander (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning Sanger's socialist background? I know this is the lead, so we can skip over many things, but I was wondering immediately how she became a first wave feminist.
I agree that it would be nice to include a brief mention of her socialism in the lead. Unfortunately, I've tried several ways of inserting that fact, and I cannot find anything acceptable: every attempt forces me to add 2+ sentences to make it comprehensible; and then it becomes over-represented in the lead. Some sources suggest that the socialist/anarchist aspect of her character peaked around 1911-1916, but then she compromised her socialist principles in the 1920s and 1930s in order to make progress with her birth control cause. I don't recall sources saying she did anything significant related to unions, classes, or workers after 1920 or 1925. So, socialism would be nice in the Lead, but I don't think it is worth sacrificing other parts of the lead to insert it. Noleander (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. —Kusma (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life: we have the 11 surviving children twice (perhaps this can be consolidated), but no indication how old Margaret was when her mother died.
Done. Eliminated duplicate "11"; new sentence reads In 22 years, Anne Higgins conceived 18 times, and gave birth to 11 live babies. She died at the age of 50, when Margaret was 19 years old. Also added footnote: Sanger tersely wrote in her 1931 autobiography: “Mother bore eleven children; she died at forty-eight. My father lived until he was eighty.” Her mother was actually 50 years old when she died. Noleander (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woman rebel: Did they move from Westchester to Hastings? If it is the same house, it is confusing to give two different names to the location.
Done. Changed to use Hastings in both places. Hastings is the town, within Westchester county. Noleander (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "theological grounds" as she doesn't seem to have studied theology much, I would prefer "religious grounds"?
Done. Noleander (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York Call columns: there seems to have been a first brush against censorship (I just read Chesler p. 66) with the Call publishing an empty box in protest. I found that interesting, but I understand if you are running into length concerns. It should be worth at least a footnote.
Done. That's an outstanding suggestion. I added the following into the Free Speech section: Her first brush with censorship came when she wrote a column, What Every Girl Should Know, for the New York Call. Her final article in that series, scheduled for publication on February 9, 1913, discussed syphilis and gonorrhea, so Comstock issued an order prohibiting publication. In response, Sanger and the Call replaced the column with a statement: "What Every Girl Should Know — NOTHING! — by order of the Post-Office Department". Noleander (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William Sanger, gave a copy of Family Limitation to a representative of anti-vice politician Anthony Comstock" at this point I thought he was selling out his estranged wife. But in the next sentence he is tried and convicted (for what? We have only been told that mailing information about contraception was illegal). Clearly there is something I don't understand about this story; could you explain? Perhaps you need to explain further what was legal and what was illegal at the time.
Yes, that needs to be improved. I changed it so Early in 1915, an undercover representative of anti-vice politician Anthony Comstock asked Sanger's estranged husband, William, for a copy of Family Limitation, and William obliged....
The legal issues are complex. There were federal laws and state laws; and there were laws that were enforced and laws that were ignored. The federal law is the famous Comstock Act (still in effect today) that primarily prohibited mailing, but also prohibited distributing (by hand) certain "obscene" materials (the latter was enforced very erratically). And New York state also had its own laws that prohibited, for example, distributing info on birth control. Her husband was arrested under the federal law. Prosecutors permitted condoms to be sold, but enforced the law against diaphragms. The body text is probably not the best place to go into detail about the many confusing laws, but certainly each sentence needs to be self-explanatory and not confuse readers. Footnote 61 (" Additional insight into the anti-obscenity laws ..." ) provides sources for curious readers that want more detail about the laws. Noleander (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The start of a movement: "northern European countries ... Dutch birth control clinic" Why mention northern European countries here? I am not aware of any definition of Northern Europe that includes the Netherlands.
Done. Thanks for pointing out that mistake. I changed "northern european" to "european". I think it is better to leave the "european" sentence in the article (in addition to the "Dutch clinic" sentence) because it conveys the sense that multiple countries had more liberal/advanced polices towards contraception (not only Netherlands). Noleander (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did Ethel Byrne start working with her sister? (It might be worth mentioning her existence earlier than when she gets arrested, perhaps in the Early life section).
Done. Added new sentence indicating when sister first started to help Sanger: She was unable to find a physician to join the staff, so she turned to her sister, Ethel Byrne (a nurse), to fill the medical role. also added a footnote: Other clinic workers included Fania Mindell (administrative help) and Elizabeth Stuyvesant (social worker). Noleander (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some very short paragraphs here (Birth Control Review, HG Wells) that do not look so pretty. It would perhaps help to mention that Wells died in 1946, so the affair apparently went on for a very long time and well beyond the start of her next marriage.
Partly done. I added year of death to the Wells affair sentence.
Regarding short paragraphs: Sometimes short paragraphs are okay ... provided they are used sparingly, and there is not much to say on the subject. I think the few short paragraphs in the article are fine. If there is a particular short paragraph that you think is not appropriate, let me know.
  • "bureaucratic interference from second-generation reformers" what are "second-generation reformers" and why did this cause a schism?
Done. The point is that she wanted to be in total control, but the board of the ABCL was micro-managing Sanger, so she left to run her own kingdom: the BCCRB. I improved it to: As president of the ABCL, she chafed at bureaucratic interference from younger members of the board of directors. Seeking more independence, she resigned from the presidency in 1928 and took full control of the CRB, renaming it the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB). The two organizations, ABCL and BCCRB, continued to collaborate, but Sanger had complete control over the BCCRB's operations. This marked the beginning of a schism that would last until 1939.. Let me know if it is still unsatisfactory. Noleander (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Planned Parenthood: "In the late 1930s, Sanger began spending the winters in Tucson, Arizona" this is one of many "personal life" things (like some of the affairs) interspersed in the article, often in very short sentences and (in this case) not fully fitting the timeline (we just had her in 1950s Japan). I am wondering whether it might be better to collect these in a "Personal life" section?
That's a difficult decision. I studied FA-quality biographical articles and found that they tended to fall into two classes: (a) celebrities and artists (especially if still alive) have "personal life" section; (b) serious historical figures (activists, scientists, etc) scatter that info thru the chronological sections. So, I adopted the latter convention. In this article, the "interspersed" approach is especially appropriate, because her husbands played key roles in Sanger's activism (joining socialist party; getting arrested; smuggling contraceptives, etc).
Yes, there are some events in the article that are not strictly in chronological order. However, the article does follow a consistent policy: The algorithm I followed was: (1) Create thematic sections; (2) within each section, events should be chronological; (3) Themes of the section take priority over strictly adhering to chronology (so it is okay to jump forward/backward in time when transitioning from one section to the next ... e.g. this happens when entering and exiting the African American section); and (4) Put the "personal life" stuff at the end of each section, even it it violates chronology.
It is a balancing act. I could change the text to improve one thing (e.g. chronological order), but then the thematic grouping would get damaged, etc etc. I think the article strikes a good balance as it is, but if you still feel strongly about a particular issue, let me know. Noleander (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware from my own work on biographies that sometimes themes are more important than chronology. Some of the personal life stuff (like moving to Tucson) didn't seem super strongly attached to its section, but I don't have a good suggestion what to do with it. —Kusma (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes (numbering from Special:Permanentlink/1280489767): Footnote i is not a full sentence and should perhaps use some coord template to link to all kinds of map services instead of sending the reader to Google maps.
Done. Good catch; I improved the sentence and removed the external link entirely. Noleander (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote k seems unsourced; footnote l has an implicit source
Done. Added cite for [k] (1st clinic vs 2nd clinic). Replaced cite for [l] (street address) with more solid cite. Noleander (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote af: "they believed fit parents would make use it" remove "make" or add "of"
Done. Added "of". Noleander (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote ah: "which encouraged parents to reproduce if they are deemed fit" were deemed fit? Again in the following sentence
Done. "are" -> "were" Noleander (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a very interesting article on a truly important woman. —Kusma (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the excellent feedback. I'm in the process of addressing the issues you raised. I'll notify you when I'm done. Noleander (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: Thanks again for the very useful feedback. I implemented the changes you suggested in your bullets, except a couple. In the couple of items that I did not alter the article, I explained my rationale above, below the suggestion. If you think any of my responses leave the article below FA-standards, please let me know. Noleander (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good. I do have a concern about the Japanese 1954 story. I tried to verify "first foreigner to speak to the Diet" and did not find anything better than the Sanger newsletter you cite, which is a bit weak for such a claim (would be better to have a history of the Japanese Diet or something like that as a source). Then I found this thesis; on p. 107 it says she addressed a committee meeting, which is a bit less impressive than addressing a plenary session. Could you dig a bit deeper and clarify what happened and what exactly she did first? —Kusma (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll devel deeper into the details of that visit, and make sure the WP article is 100% accurate. Off the top of my head, the sources seem pretty solid: Footnote 105 (the newsletter) is written by Esther Katz, the foremost expert on Sanger. Another source is 106 (Katō, Shidzue (1984). "Facing Two Ways: The Story of My Life") which has a note from the editor about the visit to the Diet. And then the dissertation you mention, which says the visit to the Diet is mentioned on page 101 of Katō's book "A Fight for Womenʼs Happiness" - which I don't have access to, yet. Anyway, I'll look into it. Noleander (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: I cannot find anything (in English) published in 1954 about the Diet talk. So, I removed the item from the Margaret Sanger article. I may try to find more info (WP:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#News_about_speech_to_Japanese_Diet_in_April_1954) ... but for purposes of this FA nomination, the sentence is gone. Noleander (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander, I found this, which claims "first foreigner to address the Diet". And then I thought I should just check out Japanese Wikipedia. They also say "first foreigner to speak to the Diet" but cite the official minutes of the Diet that have her at the Welfare Committee. My suggestion would be to go for "first foreigner to address the Diet" and a footnote that says she spoke to the Welfare committee. The Japanese Wikipedia also has the claim that MacArthur didn't want to allow her into Japan and that it took lobbying by Eleanor Roosevelt to facilitate her 1952 visit, not sure if that is interesting to you. (I can read some Chinese, but only very little Japanese, so most of this information is brought to you courtesy of Google Translate and could be wrong). —Kusma (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: Thanks for taking the time to do the research. The "The cultural evolution of postwar Japan..." book is good; too bad the year it cites is wrong by 2 years (1952 vs 1954 :-). The Official Minutes of the Diet are super interesting (I'm reading them via Google Translate).

I posted a request in WP:RX at WP:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#News_about_speech_to_Japanese_Diet_in_April_1954 and a volunteer there found contemporaneous mentions of the speech in The Japan Times (English-language newspaper in Japan) ... the speech was 15 April 1954, according to the newspaper. So we now have plenty of sources saying that the speech happened, and it was given to the Welfare Committee.

What is lacking is a knowledgeable Japanese scholar saying that Sanger was the _first_ foreigner (or foreign woman). One option for the Sanger WP article is to state that she addressed a committee of the Diet, and exclude the "first foreigner" claim". There is a real chance that Sanger was not the first ... this may be puffery that was initiated by Kato Shidzue, and has been repeated by others. I'll keep hunting. Noleander (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: I implemented this approach to the 1954 visit: in the body text, the article now states: In 1954, Sanger returned to Japan for her fourth visit, and gave a speech before a committee of the National Diet on the topic of "Population Problems and Family Planning". And I added a new footnote for that sentence that states: Sanger was invited to give the speech by fellow birth control activist Katō Shidzue, who was then a senator in the Diet. The short speech was given on April 15, 1954, to the Public Welfare committee. Sanger wanted to visit earlier, but was prohibited from visiting by Douglas Macarthur. Some sources state that Sanger was the first foreign woman to give a speech to the Diet or one of its committees. New citations include the Nippon Times newspaper caption; and the "The cultural evolution of postwar Japan..." book. Let me know if you think this approach does not meet FA quality. Noleander (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, I am happy to support. Perhaps you can link to Birth control in Japan in one of the Japan-related sentences (probably the 1922 visit is best). —Kusma (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Link to Birth control in Japan was added. Thanks for the valuable feedback! Noleander (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 March 2025 [8].

Tseax Cone

[edit]
Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 21:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the youngest volcanoes in Canada. According to legends of the local Nisga'a people, it caused 2,000 deaths and the destruction of at least three villages. This would make it the deadliest geological disaster in Canada and the second-worst natural disaster in Canadian history by death toll, succeeded only by the 1775 Newfoundland hurricane which caused at least 4,100 fatalities. Tseax Cone has therefore been described as the deadliest volcano in Canada. Volcanoguy 21:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Hurricanehink

[edit]

Happy to review this, seeing as I have a hurricane FAC of my own! Always love when disasters get compared to tropical cyclones, just sucks for the people affected by them.

  • "A secondary eruptive centre lies just north of Tseax Cone on the opposite side of a lava-dammed lake." - is that lake Melita Lake? Considering the infobox image mentions it, I think you should add that if that's the case
    Done. Volcanoguy 22:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add non-breaking spaces for all numbers connected to their unit. For example, 800 years
    Done (I think). Volcanoguy 23:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Renewed eruptions from the volcano could start wildfires and block local streams with lava flows." - small question here - since the article mentions a previous eruption, I was left to guess it's been dormant for 800 years. But then later on I learned that there were eruptions as recently as the 1700s. So the dormancy and its last eruption should be in the lead.
    Nowhere in the article does it claim that the volcano has been dormant for 800 years. I used "sometime in the last 800 years" in the lead because the oldest radiocarbon date obtained from trees killed by lava from the volcano is 625 ± 70 years, but more recent radiocarbon dating has yielded younger ages. Like the article states, the exact timing of volcanism at Tseax Cone has been a subject of controversy due to there being no direct written accounts. Researchers have speculated over the years whether or not the volcano was active twice or only once so I'm just trying to keep things simple in the lead. Cinder cones like Tseax Cone usually erupt only once so it may not be dormant but rather extinct. Volcanoguy 23:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked to "both were formed by volcanic activity sometime in the last 800 years". Volcanoguy 00:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given all of that, then could you go more into the controversy and discrepancy with the age? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a paragraph about that in the introduction. Volcanoguy 16:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aiyansh comes from a Nisga'a word meaning 'leafing early' or 'early leaves' whereas Tseax comes from a Nisga'a word meaning 'new water'. - for more context, it would be nice to explain the importance of Nisaga'a here.
    Maybe if I had the sources. Volcanoguy 00:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just meant, who are the Nisga'a in context of the article. That should be explained somewhere. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the Nisga'a - because of how you linked it earlier, I originally thought you overlinked here, so maybe be clearer how you link Nisga'a twice, clarifying whether it's the people or the language
    Added "people" after "To the Nisga'a", not sure if that solves anything. Volcanoguy 23:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The area has a climate that is somewhat transitional" - I don't get the "somewhat" here. Considering what "transitional" means, I don't think the word is needed, unless there's something I'm missing?
    I'm not sure what to do here; the source uses "somewhat transitional". Volcanoguy 23:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea but you don't need to copy the exact wording unless the "somewhat" is important for context. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "Areal wildlife"? Is that a specific term?
    Clarified. Volcanoguy 23:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the specific note about "peralkaline" over all the other rocks?
    Peralkaline on it's own isn't a rock it's an adjective like mafic and felsic. Volcanoguy 23:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The beginning of the "Petrology" section is confusing, partly because I don't know what that is. Is that the most appropriate section name if you never explain what that is? If it is, could you explain what that is?
    Wikipedia has an article on petrology; maybe give it read. Volcanoguy 23:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But when I read an article, I expect to not have to read other articles just to understand the article for context. You shouldn't use a section title without ever mentioning the word. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe add {{see also}} in the section? I'm not sure what else to use for the section title. Volcanoguy 17:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That still wouldn't be that useful. What I'd love to see is explaining the term and using it in the section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've retitled the section to "Lava composition and distribution". Volcanoguy 18:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering how often you use "metre" and "kilometre", I suggest abbreviating them after their first use
    That's not a requirement is it? I like keeping things consistent. Volcanoguy 23:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Kind of a requirement - see MOS:UNITNAMES. "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So should all of the units be changed to use symbols? Volcanoguy 18:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All but their first usage. For example the first time you use "kilometre", it should be spelled out, then other ones should be abbreviated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Volcanoguy 19:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All four lava flows contain intact and collapsed lava tubes, as well as lava tree molds.[25][42]" - since the next section goes into more detail on this, it feels like this sentence would work better introducing the second paragraph
    Done. Volcanoguy 23:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This 17,717-hectare (43,780-acre) protected area is noteworthy for being the first provincial park in British Columbia to be managed by both BC Parks and a First Nation, as well as the first provincial park in British Columbia to combine indigenous culture and natural features." - I loved this fact and think it should be in the lead.
    I think that would be more appropriate in the lead of the park article. Volcanoguy 23:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed the read, so it won't take much for my support. Let me know if you have questions about my comments, Volcanoguy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I've responded to all of your comments. Volcanoguy 00:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Volcanoguy:, thanks, I replied to your follow ups. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support! Thanks for the fixes. The only thing was including the "somewhat", which I don't think is a big enough issue to withhold my support. Good job on this. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review with caveat (& source review contained therein)

[edit]

The caveat being that I am here because of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hualca Hualca/archive1.

That's most from me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC) There are some sources linking to Google Books and others who don't despite apparently having them (e.g "An Introduction to the Ecoregions of British Columbia"). I notice that papers sometimes don't have consistent IDs but I figure that this is something bots handle. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a support here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some spotchecking, good source consistency think that the fur part is too similar to the sauce. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Volcanoguy 14:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, meant that the sentence that says the lava flows look like they bear fur is too similar to the same sentence in the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LIMITED Volcanoguy 15:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess, although I wonder if recasting the sentence might fix the issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some revising, not sure if it's still too similar to the source. Volcanoguy 21:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I will review this - please ping me if I haven't gotten to this by Wednesday. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "below the surface in the upper crust" - would Earth's crust be a better link here than crust (geology) as is currently linked?
    Done. Volcanoguy 17:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both structures are the products of two different volcanic eruption styles;" - a minor point, but I think the phrasing could be tightened up here. Without the following clause to explain what is meant here, it almost reads more as both the of the structures individually contain two different eruption styles
    Revised to "Each structure was formed by a different style of volcanic activity;" Volcanoguy 17:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is in Category:Cinder cones of British Columbia but the only other direct reference to cinder cones in the article is in a general description of the contents of the NCVP. Is a tephra cone a type of cinder cone?
    I've mentioned "cinder cone" in the infobox and in the "Structure" section. Volcanoguy 23:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me; an excellent article here. Hog Farm talk 03:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I've responded to all of your comments. Volcanoguy 23:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting Hog Farm talk 01:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

[edit]

Let me just blow the cobwebs off my reviewing pen...

  • "Volcanism" doesn't need to be linked twice in the lead.
    Removed second link. Volcanoguy 15:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tseax is possibly a reference to the disturbed drainage patterns of the Tseax River caused by a volcanic eruption from the cone." – I'd prefer this to be attributed inline, rather than have speculation voiced in Wikipedia's voice: This can easily be done by adding "X suggests that..." to the start of the sentence, assuming we have such a reference.
    I don't think we can do this here since there is no attribution to the claim in the source. Volcanoguy 16:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We certainly could: "In their etymological dictionary of British Colombian place names, G. P. V. and Helen Akrigg suggest that Tseax is possibly a reference..." It might be a touch heavy-handed though. I'll support without the change. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was initially confused by " Nisga'a" being linked twice in the section: I'd expand each to include the next word: "Nisga'a word" and "Nisga'a people" as the linked terms.
    Done. Volcanoguy 15:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tseax Cone is located about 60 kilometres (37 miles) north of Terrace near the Nisga'a villages of Gitwinksihlkw and Gitlaxt'aamiks." I don't know where any of those places are. Give province and country information also here.
    Done. Volcanoguy 16:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the "Age controversy" section, make sure to use spaced initials for names, as per MOS:INITIALS.
    Done. Volcanoguy 15:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a nice article certainly worthy of Featured status. I found the "Geology and geomorphology" pretty hard going in places, but that is to be expected of detailed scientific information. Just a few tweaks, and I'll be happy to support. (Please ping me when done, as I'm not around too much at the moment, so not regularly checking pages.) Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: I've responded to all of your comments. Volcanoguy 16:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias, good to see you reviewing again. I hope that things are well with you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 March 2025 [9].

Alison Frantz

[edit]
Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Alison Frantz, archaeologist and photographer of classical Greece. If you've seen a photograph of an ancient Greek artwork in a 20th-century book, there's a good chance it was one of hers. She also helped to reconstruct the only Byzantine building still standing in the Agora of Athens, played an important role in the decipherment of Linear B, and had an interesting and only-recently-uncovered turn as a spy during the Second World War.

Despite Frantz's Scottish ancestry, the article is written in Americanese, of which I am not a native speaker. It received a GA review a little while ago from Z1720, and Choliamb has also contributed useful adjustments and feedback. The remaining howlers are my own. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Edward_Capps.png: why is this believed to be a US government work?
    • Hm -- no good reason that I can see; the Red Cross isn't a government agency (though I wonder if the original uploader thought it was). The LoC link doesn't help much, but I've swapped it for tags based on the 1920 date (it was on a flyer of some sort with the caption that you can see in the source page, which I think counts as "publication".) UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Credited to "ARC Paris Office" (ARC is, I assume, "American Red Cross"), so the copyright status does depend on its having been published. I did track down the LoC page, here, which says they don't think it has any restrictions on publication, but then are a bit unclear about whether that actually means they're PD. They do have a (long) list of all the known photographers, and I suppose we could simply find out when the last of them died, but then it would probably be a "work for hire" in any case. I think it's going to be simpler to remove it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I struggled to find a good swap here (I really wanted a picture of OSS agents at work, but for obvious reasons there aren't a whole lot of those). Eventually went for a useful archaeological one with File:Plan Agora of Athens Roman colored.svg. The dates between the coloured version and the non-coloured one don't quite agree: I need to do a bit of digging to see which is best (though I suspect that the eventual answer will be that there simply wasn't any major building between 150 and 200 CE, which would make the point moot). I did some digging and it's safest to say "end of C2nd", which I've done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Άγιοι_Απόστολοι_του_Σολάκη_6355.jpg should include a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (Support)

[edit]

Overall, I'm really enjoying reading this.

  • There's a few places where technical words might bear some in-line explanation:
    • Linear B
      • I'm struggling to fit this one in inline (there's always the option of a footnote). I've made the body mention "inscribed in the Linear B script", but that's quite clunky in the lead. Do you think there's a good way to clarify that one too? I agree that many readers won't know this term, but they may still be able to get enough of the point regardless. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • narthex
    • diachronic
      • I think the next sentence probably explains that: a diachronic approach to the project, as opposed to the singular focus on the classical period then dominant in Greek archaeology. Readers can therefore straightforwardly take that "diachronic" means "not singly focused on the classical period", which is the key point here. Of course, I'll be the first to admit it's difficult to judge the difficulty of deducing a word you already know. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "tablets written in the Linear B script" would work? As for the lead, I think of it as similar to DYK hooks; it can't be wrong, but it's OK to take some liberties. Or maybe a better way to say that is that all writing has to balance accuracy vs concision. In the lead, you're aiming a bit more to the concise side than you would in the main body. So if the lead says "Linear B" without explanation, that's probably OK. RoySmith (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's what we've got so far, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frantz was an unpaid volunteer Aren't we all? If she was paid she wouldn't have been a volunteer, so "unpaid volunteer" seems redundant.
    • In principle, I agree, but thinking about both of the options:
For much of her work in the Agora excavations, Frantz was a volunteer -- was she forced to do some of it?
For much of her work in the Agora excavations, Frantz was unpaid -- was she meant to be paid, but her bosses cheated her?

Open to alternative suggestions, but I think the tautology here serves a purpose of avoiding unintended readings. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think you need to link royalties
    • Here I think it serves a purpose, especially with second-language readers in mind: the word is "obviously" connected with royalty, far less common than it, and completely unrelated in meaning. The link might help out readers who wonder why I'm talking about kings and queens. There won't be many native English speakers who don't know the word, but then I couldn't tell you what the equivalent is in many of the other languages I claim to "speak". UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frantz suffered a stroke in 1994, which affected her speech and movement.[62] On January 27, 1995, she was struck by a truck near her home in Princeton; she died on February 1 at the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in New Brunswick.[9] these two sentences seem out of place in a section about her career.
    • It does, but "Later life", in British English at least, is a synonym for "old age", so that wouldn't be appropriate. She never really retired, so "Later career and retirement" doesn't work, and "Later career and death" seems a bit clattering to me. Any ideas here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I see on a first read-through. I'll probably come back later and take another look RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some more thoughts...

Maybe mention that she was homeschooled (https://paw.princeton.edu/article/through-archaeology-diplomacy-she-brought-america-and-greece-together)

You mention that here photos enabled Linear B to be decyphered, but I'd pull that up to the first time you mention it: "... six hundred tablets inscribed in the previously undecyphered Linear B script". Possibly also mention that it turned out to be "a form of ancient Greek".

  • We now have Just before the Second World War, Frantz photographed in two days more than six hundred tablets inscribed in the Linear B script from the Mycenaean site of Pylos, brought to Athens by their excavator, Carl Blegen, for safekeeping in the Bank of Greece. A set of prints of the photographs were delivered in 1940 to the University of Cincinnati, where Blegen worked, and were used by Emmett L. Bennett to make the first transcription and edition of the tablets, which he published in 1951. Frantz's obituarist James R. McCredie credited her photographs with enabling the decipherment of Linear B by Michael Ventris in 1952, which demonstrated that the Linear B script had been used to write a form of ancient Greek. There's a little distance between the photography and the decipherment, but that also means that we keep things chronological -- there was a 13-year gap in between. Do you think it would be better put a different way? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more mention: Evening star (Washington, D.C.), August 13, 1961, page 81, "Washington Journalist Tells of Greece Today" https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn83045462/1961-08-13/ed-1/?sp=81&q=%22alison+frantz%22&r=-0.013,-0.136,0.715,0.56,0 has one of her photos, which led me to:

Greek horizons by Miller, Helen Hill, 1899- Publication date 1961 Topics Greece -- Description and travel, Greece -- Civilization Publisher New York, Scribner Collection internetarchivebooks; americana; inlibrary; printdisabled Contributor Internet Archive Language English Item Size 332.8M https://archive.org/details/greekhorizons00millrich/mode/2up. I don't know if it has anything useful for your article, but has a lot of Frantz's photos.

I can't think of anything else. I'm not competent to review the archeological aspects of this, but from the point of view of a well-told story about an interesting (if obscure) woman, this ticks all my boxes so adding my support.

  • Thank you -- that's very kind. As far as I can see, Frantz's photos are used heavily in Miller's book, but she doesn't seem to have had any official role as a co-author, and looking at the picture credits, there are several others whose work was used as well. It could be added as Further Reading to allow readers to see some of her work, but since a lot of that will be available via the collection of her own works (especially once I've added the rest of the Agora volumes), I'm not sure how much value versus clutter that would add. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Choliamb (support)

[edit]

I'm glad to see that you've continued to work on this. I always learn a lot from your archaeological biographies, and Frantz certainly deserves the attention. It won't surprise you to hear that I have a few minor criticisms about matters of content, which are easily addressed and which don't affect my admiration for the article.

My biggest complaint is that the final section of the list of publications still has the haphazard, hit-or-miss quality that I pointed out a year ago on the article's talk page. The first two sections (the works that she wrote or co-wrote) are thorough, but the third section (the works to which she contributed as a photographer) does not, imo, give enough space to the publications of the excavations in the Athenian Agora. This was Frantz's principal professional activity for three decades, and she provided the photographs for all of the volumes of the final excavation reports published between 1953 and 1970 -- nearly a dozen volumes in all, covering sculpture, lamps, pottery, and other kinds of artifacts. None of these appear in the list of publications. The small Agora Picture Books, which exposed her work to many more casual readers than the big excavation volumes, are also inconsistently listed. I understand that the existing references were collected as you came across them while writing, but now that the article has been nominated for FA, I think it's time for a more systematic listing that better represents her documentary work as the Agora photographer. Whether that means citing the relevant volumes individually or together as a group (an option I mentioned last year) is something I will leave to you, but I do think they should be cited, one way or the other. I won't clutter up this FAC page with more bibliographic detail, but I'll put a list of the relevant publications on the article talk page within the next day or two. (All are available online at the ASCSA web site, and the volumes in the Athenian Agora series are also on JSTOR, so access is no problem.)

A few other quibbles:

  • An exhibition of Frantz's photography was held at Smith College in October–November 1967. The latter exhibition focused on her images of Minoan and Mycenaean artifacts from Crete ... This exhibition was arranged in conjunction with a symposium held at Smith in honor of the archaeologist Harriet Boyd Hawes, who like Frantz was a Smith alumna (and later faculty member). The context is perhaps worth mentioning, since it explains the name of the exhibition, and the focus on the Bronze Age, which would otherwise be a puzzling choice for an exhibition of Frantz's work in the 1960s. Two different publications came out of the symposium and exhibition, both entitled A Land Called Crete: the first contained five conference papers; the second (the one cited here) contained Frantz's photographs, preceded by a brief introduction by Machteld Mellink and a note by the director of the Smith College Art Museum. Frantz herself contributed no text to this short booklet of photos, so depending on how you define "author", perhaps it should be moved down to the "As photographer" section of the list of publications. Either way, the description of the content of the exhibition requires a little adjustment: the photos include sites as well as artifacts, and they are not all "from Crete": a few are of sites and artifacts from the Greek mainland (Mycenae, Tiryns, Pylos). Perhaps revise to something like this: "An exhibition of Frantz's photography was held at Smith College in October–November 1967, in conjunction with a symposium in honor of the archaeologist Harriet Boyd Hawes, who like Frantz was a Smith alumna. The exhibition focused on Frantz's images of Minoan and Mycenaean sites and artifacts ..." vel sim.? The book itself is available at the Internet Archive; add a link to the citation?
    • This is done now. I've put the volume in the "Photographer" section, though I'm torn about that one: the general principle was to put works where she's actually credited as the main creative force in "author", and those where it's fundamentally someone else's book in "photographer". However, I'm not particularly wedded to that scheme, and it might well be a silly one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it could easily go either way. When Ansel Adams publishes a portfolio of photographs, we don't have any trouble calling him the author, and it's not at all unreasonable to do the same with Frantz here. I think the thing that tips it for me is that the volume does in fact contain some scholarly text, and it was written by Mellink, not Frantz. But it's certainly "Frantz's book" according to your very sensible criteria, and I have no objection if you change your mind and want to move it back. Choliamb (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised to find the "Temple of Apollo Pythius" on Sikinos in the lead. It should certainly be included in the body of the article, but I think of it as a footnote in Frantz's career, and not something that deserves to be singled out as one of the most important facts about her. I see that there was already some pushback against the length of the lead during the GA review, and this is a good example of something that could be removed without any negative effects. In my opinion, the lead ought to focus above all on her photography (which is covered pretty well) and on her academic work and publications in the fields of Late Antique and Byzantine archaeology (which are what her reputation as a scholar, as opposed to a photographer, chiefly rests on, and which in my opinion are not given enough emphasis in the lead as it currently stands).
The current wording of the description of her work at Sikinos, and especially the phrase overturning its traditional identification as a temple, also seems to me a bit inflated and peacocky, and in one important respect misleading. There was no great scholarly consensus to be overturned here: the identification of this building as a temple of Apollo was suggested by Ross in the early 19th century on the basis on an inscription found nearby, and for lack of a better suggestion, it remained the name used by the very few people who had occasion to mention it. Hardly anyone seems to have cared, or to have studied the ancient building in any detail, before Frantz and Thompson and Travlos. They were not, however, the first to suggest that it might have been a tomb rather than a temple: as they acknowledge in their article (p. 399), that suggestion had already been made by Alfred Schiff in a paper presented at the DAI in Athens in 1896, and it was repeated (twice) in the publication of the inscriptions from Sikinos in IG XII 5, pp. 11-13, published in 1909 (no. 24: "Inest scamno hodiernae aetatis apud ecclesiam Episkopi, quae ecclesia aedificio antiquo facta Schiffio iudice non Apollinis Pythii templum fuit, sed monumentum sepulcrum"; no. 30: "Lapis a superiore dextraque mutilus antae ecclesiae Episkopis insertus, quae ecclesia templi antiqui muros occupavit a Rossio Apollini Pythio attributi, ab Alfredo Schiff pro heroo habiti.") So the idea that this was not actually a temple of Apollo was already in circulation, and Frantz et al. were not boldly toppling a well-established academic orthodoxy. (The reason why McCredie gives this so much emphasis is that he was writing his obituary for the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, and the building on Sikinos was the subject of the talk that Frantz gave on the occasion of her induction into the Society in 1973 at a meeting of the Society in 1983.) Even if Frantz reached the same conclusion independently and did not learn about Schiff's work until later, I still think it's worth noting in the body of the article, perhaps in a footnote, in order to avoid implying that she was somehow able to discern what others could not. I see that the wording of the lead a year ago was different: In 1967, she excavated a Roman tomb on the Greek island of Sikinos, having realized the previous year that its traditional identification as a temple was incorrect). This, while a little clunky, has a less revolutionary and therefore more appropriate tone (although it still doesn't make clear that Frantz wasn't the first to question the identification as a temple, and still doesn't explain why it belongs in the lead).
I think I've sorted this now. I assume Schiff is this guy? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me now. And yes, I think that must be the right Schiff. Thanks. Choliamb (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is most famous for her photographs of the Parthenon frieze and of the sculptures of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia. This is not what the source says. She is famous for her archaeological photography in general, but Rotroff and Lamberton never claim that she was most famous for these specific photographs (although many people, myself included, would agree that they are some of her best). In any case, it is silly and pointless to speculate about what someone who has produced such a wide-ranging body of scholarly and photographic work is "most famous" for. How do you measure that? And famous in whose eyes? Photographers? Classicists? Medievalists? The general public?
    • I've walked this down to "and became famous in the field for her work": granted, it's not particularly measurable, but I think we do need to say something to the effect that she wasn't only notable as a photographer for doing it while being a woman. Might have gone too far the other way? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe too far. Certainly farther than was necessary to satisfy me. My only objection was the superlative "most famous for", which I think is impossible to measure, and in any case is not in the source. But I'd be perfectly happy if you want to single out the Parthenon and Olympia photos for special mention of some kind, since they are by any measure among her best known and most admired works. The source will justify that: Rotroff and Lamberton cite them as examples (calling them "classic" -- not a great choice of adjective, since it's not clear precisely what it means, but never mind). My personal opinion, already expressed in the edit summary in which I added the publications to the article last year, is that no one has ever taken better photos of the Olympia sculpture, and no one ever will, so as far as I'm concerned you can walk right up to the edge of that line and I won't complain. Choliamb (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1967, Smith College awarded Frantz a medal for the most outstanding graduate of its humanities program. This sentence reflects McCredie's careless phrasing, and makes it sound as if Frantz was the sole recipient of this medal and judged the most outstanding of all the graduates of the college. That is not the case. The Smith College Medal (the official name) is awarded every year to an alumna who "exemplifies the true purpose of a liberal arts education". Frantz certainly does that, but she is one of many: see the description of the award at the college web site here, with a long list of recipients, among whom are even more famous alums, like Gloria Steinem and Julia Child.

Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Choliamb. Will work my way through this -- entirely agreed on all counts, especially the bibliography (thank you in advance for doing the leg-work here!). Particularly grateful for the context on Sikinos and the Smith medal: that clears it up very helpfully, and I'd clearly got the wrong end of the stick there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment about the illustrations: I've only just got round to looking at closely at the images, and the first two seem to me problematic. In my opinion they should both be replaced or removed. I have a solution to suggest, but let me start by explaining what I see as the problems. I'll begin with the second one, which purports to show (but really does not show, in any useful sense) the Southwest Fountainhouse in the Agora. The use of the image is explained by the fact that monument in question happened to be discovered in the year that Frantz joined the excavations, but that does not seem to me sufficient justification, especially when this particular building has no other connection with Frantz, was not fully excavated until thirty years later, and today looks nothing like it looked in 1934. Illustrations should be directly relevant to the subject of the article, not simply decorative, and this photo, of an almost empty patch of weeds where the Southwest Fountainhouse once stood, isn't even decorative. There's no requirement that every section of an article must have an illustration, and in my opinion an irrelevant and misleading illustration is worse than no illustration at all.

And this image is misleading. The choice of the Southwest Fountainhouse was a bad one in any case, because this is one of the most poorly preserved monuments in the Classical Agora. The walls and columns were entirely robbed out in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, right down to and including most of the foundations, so the form of the building can only be reconstructed from the robbing trenches left behind by the workmen who dug up and removed the ancient blocks. You can get a better sense of the truly dismal state of preservation from this excavation photo. By the time the photograph included in the article was taken, fifty years later, most of these already very exiguous remains were no longer visible. Although the caption says "Remains of the Southwest Fountainhouse", the only remains in the image that are actually part of that building are the isolated block of white marble at right center, which is a stylobate block from colonnade of the porch, and the second white block behind it in the distance, in front of the modern terrace wall, which is one of the blocks that supported the wall of the reservoir. The main feature of the photograph, the scrappy wall of reused blocks in the foreground, on which the modern sign rests, is not part of of the fountainhouse: it's a later terrace wall that was built along the north side of the fountainhouse when the ground level was raised, probably in connection with the construction of the Middle Stoa in the 2nd century BC. So what this image actually shows is a modern sign with information about a building that is entirely invisible in the photo, except for the two blocks mentioned above.

I still don't believe that the mere existence of a building in the Agora that was discovered during the year when Frantz came to work there is an adequate reason for the inclusion of an otherwise irrelevant image, but if you absolutely must do it, a better choice of monument would be the Tholos, which, while not exactly well preserved, is in better shape than the fountainhouse and is easily recognizable in photographs. The front porch was discovered in 1933, but the rest of the building was uncovered in 1934, when it was recognized on the basis of its distinctive circular plan (see the Shear's excavation report on the 1934 season in Hesperia for 1935, pp. 343–348). This was a big deal at the time, because it was the first set of remains that could be certainly identified with a building known from the ancient literary sources. Somewhat surprisingly, given that this is arguably the most important civic building in the Classical Agora, the Commons doesn't have many good photos of the Tholos, but at least they're better than the photo of the vacant lot where the Southwest Fountainhouse once stood; the best one is probably File:Θόλος Αρχαίας Αγοράς 1149.jpg. Once again, however, this does not look much like it did in 1934, and the building has no direct connection to Frantz. So I recommend a different solution (see below).

The image in the "Early life and education" section is also seriously misleading. "This is a photo of the Acropolis three years before Frantz laid eyes on it" would not be a compelling argument for inclusion even if it were true, and in this case it is not true. There is no way that this photograph was taken in 1922 (which is just the publication date of the book from which the image in the Commons was uploaded). On the basis of the lack of development in the area southeast of the Acropolis and around the Ilissos river, it's more likely to date to the second half of the 19th century. But I can be more specific than that, and you don't have to trust my judgment. If you look carefully just to the left of the Parthenon, you will see the top of another monument peeking up above the Acropolis wall, and as soon as you do, you of all people will know immediately why this photo must have been taken before 1874. (For those playing along at home, the answer is in one of the nominator's previous Good Articles.) It can't be much earlier than 1870 though, because the hermit's cell on top of the Olympieion is missing, and that is still visible in photos taken in the mid to late 1860s (like this one from 1865). So this photo must have been taken within a few years on either side of 1870, and unless you want to change the caption to "Athens ca. 1870, half a century before Frantz's first visit to the city", I'm afraid it must go as well.

Happily, I have a simple two-part solution to suggest, which solves all of the problems mentioned above:

  • First, replace the 19th-century image of the Acropolis in the "Early life and education" section with one of the photos of Frantz herself from the Smith College yearbook of 1924 (which I just uploaded this morning; see my note on your user talk page). Either the solo portrait with necktie or the photo of the hockey team would do; I think I prefer the latter, since it's a little larger and gives the reader some extra information about her college athletic activities, but I leave the choice to you.
  • Then replace the invisible Southwest Fountainhouse in the "Early career" section with File:ETH-BIB-Akropolis-Weitere-LBS MH02-26-0019.tif, an aerial photo of Athens in 1934, which shows not only the Acropolis but the Agora excavations as well. The caption might be something like this: "Aerial photograph of central Athens in 1934, the year Frantz joined the Agora excavations. The excavation zone is visible in the upper center of the image, behind the Acropolis." (Rephrase as you see fit.) This is better than any photo of the Acropolis alone, regardless of date, because it includes the Agora, but it avoids singling out a specific monument that has no direct relevance to Frantz. It's not ideal, but it's a lot better than what you've got.

There are other possible solutions, including just removing the photos altogether, but this is what I would do if it were up to me. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- nicely spotted with the Frankish Tower -- as you say, particularly unfortunate of this nominator to have missed that! Images swapped as you suggest. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I'm sorry to see the original lead image replaced, and I'm not sure I agree that the undergraduate college photos make the fair use of the original lead photo impossible. I would argue that the college photos, which show the subject at age 20, are essentially still teenage photos, and because there are still no PD or suitably licensed images of Frantz as an adult, the use of the original lead photo was justified. But we can argue about that elsewhere. Happy now to support this fine article. 21:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC) Choliamb (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
  • She was the official photographer of the excavations of the Agora of Athens, and of ancient Greek sculpture, including the Parthenon frieze and works from the Temple of Zeus at Olympia. Could this version be used in the article?
  • Could the article Embassy of the United States, Athens be linked here: ...and was subsequently the cultural attaché of the US embassy in Athens.
  • She was considered among the foremost photographers... Could "is" be used in place of "was" here? MSincccc (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the sources would support that. We have good evidence that, during her lifetime, she was considered among the best people in the field, but I don't think we have sources to say that she is still considered to outrank those who have come into it since. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Second World War and aftermath
    • You could the link to the article
Probably a WP:OVERLINK, on paper, but I've done it (as I've done so in other articles). UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi UndercoverClassicist, it is good to be reviewing one of your noms after quite some time. My comments:

  • My first comment is very minor, but would we consider linking to Minnesota and Edinburgh in the Early life and education section?
  • Remove the second link to Princeton University in the Early life and education?
  • "frescoes of several churches – demolished shortly afterwards": Could we give some background here as to why the churches were demolished, perhaps in a note?
  • "she delivered lectures in Byzantine Greece": Very minor error, but I reckon we meant "on", not "in".
  • We have photographs of all the major works by Frantz, I think we are only missing a photo of the Temple of Zeus, whether it be a photograph by Frantz or someone else would not matter to its inclusion.
  • According to MOS:NBSP, we must use NBSPs before CE or BCE dates.
  • I have mostly fixed the harvnb error where "Frantz, Thompson & Travlos 1969, pp. 400, 411; Frantz 1983, pp. 72–73. For Schiff's suggestion, see von Gaertringen 1909, pp. 11–12.}}" was parsed differently from preceding the harvnb ref. There is a small harv error in there, please excuse me for it.
  • Link to Susan I. Rotroff and Robert D. Lamberton in the body and biblio?
  • Link to John Travlos, Dorothy Burr Thompson, Bernard Ashmole, Joseph Alsop, Rotroff and Lamberton in the Selected publications section, as done for all the other co-authors?
  • Link to Friedrich Hiller von Gaertringen, Lucy Shoe Meritt, Brunilde Ridgeway, Martha Sharp Joukowsky, Stephen V. Tracy in the biblio?

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to post this earlier, but I would be much obliged if you could post your comments at a recent FAC nom of mine, namely Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Mycale/archive1, I think your knowledge of the classics would be very helpful there. Many thanks in advance Matarisvan (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

[edit]

To follow soon(ish) - SchroCat (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Ref 73 is missing a few parameters (website/publisher, date, retrieval date, etc)
  • Ref 74 Ditto (it has a retrieval date, but not website/publisher, date, etc)
  • Aside from those, no other issues identified in the sources. All suitably and consistently formatted.
  • There is only tiny tweak to be made in the Selected publications, with her 1944 work "Charles H. Morgan, II" where you have "Pp." instead of the "pp." you use elsewhere, but that's it
Scope and reliability

Searches (albeit by a non-specialist) have shown no additional potential sources missing.

  • Kourelis, Kostis (May 2, 2009). "Alison Frantz Studies". Objects-Building-Situations. Retrieved February 2, 2024. is from a blog page, but as Kourelis is a subject-matter expert, this is acceptable under WP:BLOGS
- SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SchroCat. I didn't see anything specific in Kourelis's blog when I first looked at it that we don't already have, though his synopsis of authors working on Frantz is useful. Did you have something in mind?
By way of full disclosure, I've requested a copy of tracked down and added a book chapter by Alexandra Moschovi, whom he mentions ("Greece as Photograph"); I don't expect it to change the article massively, but it might have a few useful detailsit ended up being condensed to a sentence. There are a couple of fairly trivial mentions of her in other blog-like sources (mostly that she socialised at some point with such-and-such people), but I don't think any of those really pass muster for inclusion.
Done on the rest. Dates aren't straightforward for those sort of web sources (we could use the update date stored in the Google record, if it has one, or the first archive date on Internet Archive, but neither are quite what we want) and, I'd suggest, somewhat meaningless since the sources are databases/collections of much older material anyway. However, I've added the parameters that I can. I don't think we should lc the Pp in the Morgan citation, as this isn't giving the page numbers at which to find the source: it's part of the title (of the review), saying that the work has 15 pages of introduction and 373 of main text. Put another way, it's equivalent to writing, as a sentence: "Pages: 15 introductory, plus 373". UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had nothing in mind on Kourelis, just noting it as being an acceptable use of a blogsite if anyone asks why it wasn't looked at during the review
All the rest of your comments accepted and Moschovi passes both formatting and reliability checks. Sources duly passed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma

[edit]

An excellent article! It is quite hard to find anything to criticise. Just a query: is it worth giving a rough figure of when "late antiquity" and the "Ottoman period" were in order to clarify what time periods Frantz worked on? (I know that Athens was Byzantine for a long time, but I have no idea how close to 1453 Byzantine rule of Athens ended). —Kusma (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kusma. I've gone in and added the dates for the various periods -- stuck with those for Athens, which aren't always the same as for the other parts of Greece (here, for example, the Byzantine period ends in 1204). UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The numbers aren't exactly what I expected, so I think it is good to have them :) Support, great article. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2025 [10].

Forever & Always

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2008 song by Taylor Swift, written when she was 18 years old. She dated Joe Jonas for 3 months and he unceremoniously dumped her via a 30-second phone call, which inspired this song. I personally see this song as an interesting snapshot of teenage breakup and anger, and I think this article satisfies criteria for an FA. Ippantekina (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

[edit]
  • I'm still uncertain about the "certified platinum", "platinum", and "certified gold" pipes, they can probably be adjusted a bit as per MOS:PIPE
  • "Swift includes" / "Annie Zaleski describes" / "Zaleski calls" - why present tense?
  • We can indicate who Zaleski is for consistency with Lee and Perone

Can't really see any other prose issue, great work once again. I've made some minor edits to fix some minor errors, feel free to make any adjustments. Medxvo (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Medxvo, I've addressed all of your points :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. Medxvo (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass)

[edit]
  • "chart dated November 5, 2009" - November 5 or November 14?
  • Ref 21 doesn't mention Republic
  • Refs 37, 45, and 54 can be archived
  • Refs 63 and 64 seem live
  • Ref 43 parameters can be updated to the latest version

Medxvo (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Medxvo: thanks very much for this, too! I've addressed all of your points. IABot weirdly didn't add archive-URLs for the 3 refs you mentioned, so I added them manually... Ippantekina (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

[edit]

I will get to this on or sometime before Sunday, hopefully.--NØ 03:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 2008 version is on Swift's YouTube channel, so it should probably be linked in the first infobox if the Taylor's version is going to be linked in the second. It is not really encyclopedic for us to express a preference between the two.
  • "Journalists have commented that the song became the blueprint for Swift's songwriting inspired by her high-profile romantic relationships in her later career." - Swift could keep releasing music for many more decades, so the "later career" bit is going to age. How about just "[...] Swift's later songwriting inspired by her high-profile romantic relationships"?
  • "Taylor Swift wrote songs for her second studio album, Fearless, while touring as an opening act for other country musicians to promote her debut album Taylor Swift during 2007–2008, when she was 17–18 years old." - Could we have the release year for the debut?
  • "She pleaded with Big Machine Records' head Scott Borchetta to let her include the track on the album a day before the track list finalized" - could be "[...] before the track list was finalized", otherwise it sounds like the track list finalized itself.
  • "The production was rushed at the last minute because Swift wrote songs as life events happened around her; "I can write something, call up my producer, we can get in the studio, put a rush on it, get an overnight mix." - Shouldn't this semicolon be a colon?
  • "Recording for "Forever & Always" completed in October 2008" - Like the above, a "was" after the song title would help clarify the recording did not self-complete. In the following paragraph, you say "A "Piano Version" of "Forever & Always" was released as part of the Platinum Edition", and not "A "Piano Version" of "Forever & Always" released as part of the Platinum Edition". It sounds more correct with that additional word.
  • "Swift left Big Machine and signed a new contract with Republic Records in 2018" - "new" is redundant
  • "Swift, in a May 2019 appearance on the Ellen show, recalled that "[putting] Joe Jonas on blast" in the past was the "most rebellious thing" she did as a teenager, admitting that her outburst was "too much" - This feels a bit trivial here since she did not mention "Forever & Always" in the interview and I believe it was mostly about Lover. The placement of a 2019 incident right before the explanation of the lyrics of a 2008 song does not really flow.
  • There would need to be a strong rationale for an article to carry two 20+ second-long copyrighted samples, which I am not seeing for the Piano version. I mean, it is pretty generic piano instrumentation which can probably be conveyed through words alone? But I am open to an explanation otherwise
  • "became a blueprint for Swift's songwriting about her failed relationships that received media coverage" - Not sure about using the term "failed relationships" outside of direct quotes
  • "Before the performance, the stage screened a video of Swift's mock interview with Hoda Kotb; Kotb asked why men should date Swift if she was going to write songs to call them out, to which Swift replied that they "shouldn't do bad things" - This feels like a lot, considering it seems like this wasn't actually part of the performance?--NØ 16:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't allow two audio samples (of the same part in two different versions of the same song) that both stretch to the maximum permitted duration even in a GAN I was reviewing, so it feels out of bounds for an FA. But I do not care to oppose over it. Best, NØ 14:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The lengths of the samples are within what's permitted by NFCC so I think it should be fine. Thanks for the review, Ippantekina (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You could upload the whole song in 11 different 20-second samples and, by this logic, they would each individually be within the duration permitted by the NFCC--NØ 16:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hence I picked the first refrain of each version for each sample to ensure side-by-side comparison, making sure 2 non-free samples could sufficiently demonstrate/support the prose. Ippantekina (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CatchMe

[edit]

Image/media review

[edit]

These are all of my comments. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 06:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review! I believe the Piano Version sample adds value and contrast to the original version, which supports the prose. Ippantekina (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for the image/media review as well. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 20:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rollinginhisgrave

[edit]

Some brief comments before I look over in more depth:

  • "Inspired by her relationship with Joe Jonas in 2008" what "in 2008" is modifying is ambiguous
  • "Joe Jonas (pictured)" pictured is very redundant
  • "mature" seems to be functioning as a euphemism for "older".

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC) General comments, feel free to push back on any:[reply]

  • "A "Piano Version" was released as part of the Fearless: Platinum Edition reissue." date this statement
  • "highlighted the tumultuous emotions in Swift's vocals}} displayed in Swift's vocals. I also am not convinced tumultous is the best adjective here
  • "Journalists have commented that..." after this the text doesn't flow smoothly, it reads as a series of bullet points.
  • "charted in Australia, Canada, Singapore, and the United States." Did it not also chart in the UK? Is it possible that it charted elsewhere and we do not have information? In which case it is inappropriate to claim it charted exclusively in these locations (I hope you understand what I'm trying to get at)
  • "Taylor Swift wrote songs..." this sentence is too long
  • The background section saying Swift, as a teenager, wrote about personal experiences, from the perspective of a teenager, is saying very little. I don't think it really reflects what the source is saying.
  • The comment on "face" is too decontextualized to make sense: the next sentence implies these are all different lovers, but the Oakland Press source notes that one is about her friend Abigail
  • "teenage girl's perspectives" can you tell me why this is a plural?
  • "as she told Rolling Stone" if you're going to put it in wikivoice rather than attribute (e.g. because she said), the attribution is redundant.
  • "The production was rushed at the last minute because Swift wrote songs as life events happened around her" overly informal
  • I'm a little confused with the timeline, did she record the song after it was included on the tracklist?
  • I will ask simply as I would like to hear your thinking and I will not oppose on this basis, how is the reader served by reading that the track was mixed by Chad Carlson? He is not notable, for them it is simply a random name. Who mixed the track does not receive emphasis in secondary sources. What makes this DUE? What benefit does naming confer?
  • Mixing is an important process of music recording, so I think it's worth mentioning his credit in prose. I think in general song FAs mention credits and personnel in prose to provide background info on how the song came to be. Ippantekina (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was one of Swift's nine songs on the Hot 100 that week → It was one of nine songs Swift had on the Hot 100 that week
  • making her the first female artist to have nine chart entries at the same time → the first time a female artist had held nine chart entries at the same time
  • "open about this breakup" open that it occurred or about its character?
  • "sarcastic turn" is turn appropriate for what this is?
  • I feel a bit icky about the Writing and lyrics section. The article writes that Swift in retrospect felt she went overboard with putting Jonas on blast: he was an 18 year old who dated her for a few months and broke up with her in an inconsiderate and immature manner. The line between narrator and Swift seems very thin, and we're essentially writing paragraphs about how Nick Jonas ran and hid "like a scared little boy". It's gossipy, and I'm skeptical it aligns with our BLP policy, even with WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I'd like to get a second opinion.
  • My view is that per WP:LYRICS the content of the song is discussed, in prose, entirely in relation to the song's the narrator (emphasising the narrator and not Swift herself, though this might be murky as the song is autobiographical in nature). The background info might appear gossipy, but it was discussed in secondary sources in relation to this song, so that might be a paradox, but then, it's like speculating who "You're So Vain" or "How Do You Sleep" are about imo (yes, pop culture). Ippantekina (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "basically screaming it"
  • "described the sound of this version as "piano rock""
  • "resembled the styles" resembles (the songs are described in present tense throughout)
  • Consider linking Upright piano
  • "Several reviews of "Forever & Always" commented on its production" summarize more substantially
  • "tablet-bating" spelling
  • "with a storyboard" the source is analogizing her actions to story-boarding
  • "the latter was impressed by Swift's ability" we are putting in wikivoice that Swift has this ability
  • "the Florida Strawberry Festival in February" fails verification
  • What do you see as the benefit of exhaustively listing off all the times she has performed the song since? I think "Swift occasionally performed "Forever & Always" on her later concert tours." adequately communicates this information.
  • I think it makes sense to include all relevant performances of the song as "Swift occasionally performed "Forever & Always" on her later concert tours." is overgeneralizing as to on which tours she performed this song.. Ippantekina (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions:

  • the lyrics are about → the lyrics detail
  • The re-recorded song → the new version (re-recorded repeated thrice in proximity)
  • dated November 14, 2009 → on November 14, 2009?

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 07:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments! I've addressed all of them save for the BLP issue that you raised. Looking forward to your response, Ippantekina (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ippantekina, I just see two left:
  • Florida Strawberry festival source doesn't verify text
  • Spelling "baiting" as "bating"
Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both should be done. I tried to find a replacement for the Strawberry fest set but couldn't find one so I removed it. Ippantekina (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the requested changes, moving to support.. I'm moving from support. After the post to the BLP noticeboard received no comments affirming my concern, I discarded it as against community consensus. However, Herostratus has since commented, echoing my concerns. I've left a comment at WT:FAC requesting more input. I also haven't moved to oppose, as I essentially endorse Herostratus' suggestions and think they are actionable in a timely manner. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 05:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can wait for a consensus at the BLP noticeboard. My opinion remains the same but I'm open to revise the article should the community deem it a violation of BLP otherwise. Ippantekina (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Ippantekina, this has slipped my mind. Per discussion at BLPN, I support. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your review and time :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from zmbro

[edit]
  • "Big Machine released Fearless on November 11, 2008; "Forever & Always" is track number 11." → "Big Machine released Fearless on November 11, 2008, with "Forever & Always" as the 11th track."

Since that's all I got, I'm happy to offer my support. Great article! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks zmbro! :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]
We, the coordinators, @FAC coordinators: , are waiting a few days to see if consensus forms at the noticeboard and - if it does - what happens then. Meanwhile we are keeping our powder dry. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 March 2025 [11].

History of education in Wales (1701–1870)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be interesting whether you are from Wales or not. It tells the story of education in a society where there was no compulsion to send children to school but a real hunger for knowledge. It also includes recent research into one of the most well-known topics in Welsh history; the Welsh Not.

This is the third article I have nominated as an FAC; both previous articles are now FA's (though one took two nominations). This one has been through GA (see) and Peer (see) reviews. Thank you to anyone who comments, I will respond as quickly as possible.--Llewee (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I peer reviewed the article and was impressed. It seemed to me then and seems to me now to be of FA quality. Of course (apologies!) I missed a few things at PR that I'm going to carp about here, but only four:

Those are my only quibbles and I am happy to support the promotion of this admirable article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria. Tim riley talk 13:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh drat! I misread my scribbled notes and omitted one other quibble: "an emotive description of the practise" should have "practice" for the noun. Doesn't alter my support, I hardly need say. Tim riley talk 13:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tim, I have also corrected the additional issue.--Llewee (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Comments to follow follow in a day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, It's been a bit more than a week since you made this comment. I don't want to pester about the issue but I was wondering if you had forgotten.--Llewee (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not forgotten - just a bit waylaid along the way. I hope to be with you shortly - you're next on the list. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "schools from 1833; which was later followed by school inspections and teacher training." The semi colon should either be a full stop or comma, or the "which" should be a "this". It doesn’t work grammatically as it stands
    changed--Llewee (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grammar schools continued": This short paragraph has three uses of "the period" or "this period": changing one of them would make it much less noticeable
    Took out the second two as they don't seem to have been adding much--Llewee (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Early modern education
  • "Alongside the grammar schools ... providing elementary education": Some in-line age distinctions may help here. Were the grammar schools providing primary education up to the age of nine? The confusion is partly because of "alongside", which makes them sound like they had the same 'audience'. (see also below re "elementary")
    Reworded in a way that should be clearer--Llewee (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In an 1843 report, HMI[note 1]" -> "In an 1843 report, Her Majesty's Inspector (HMI)[note 1]" Don't make people click away to find out what an acronym means – it's a real pain when reading on a mobile, where most of our readers come from. The note can cover the his/her difference and what an HMI is
    done--Llewee (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
18th century schooling
  • Elementary education: why are we using the American terminology in stead of the most common British "Primary education"?
    The term primary education wasn't used until the 1944 education act. The sources which are by British authors all use the term elementary education for this period (for example, see the preface of Welsh Not). Elementary education referred to a slightly different concept than Primary. There seems to have been a rough sense that elementary was a basic level of education focused on teaching literacy but it was also a term linked to the social class the education was intended for. That seems to have been why it was abandoned in the 20th century.--Llewee (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Them this needs to be covered in the article, even if it’s a footnote. Readers in the US (and a few other places) will see elementary as post-kindergarten without the definition being made clear, and UK readers will wonder why the US term is being used. You need something that says”elementary” is used in the sources as “entry level”, or however they define it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a terminology section to the start of the article--Llewee (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However because": I'm not a huge fan of "however" at the start of a sentence, but when used, it should be followed by a comma
  • "However, one of the main limitations": This 'however' is entirely superfluous as it's not contradicting anything that precedes it
  • As an aside, there are twelve 'however's in the article, which is about seven or eight too many. I suggest going through and examining each of them to see if it’s really needed, or a version of a verbal tic!
    I have put the article on "however" rations and taken out the specific two above.--Llewee (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done to Grammar schools: more to follow. – SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC) Dropping back to the earlier section for a second:[reply]

- SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar schools
  • "certain degree of decline in grammar schools": when I read this first, I though it was referring to a decline in standards. A "decline in the number of grammar schools" would help
    changed to Grammar schools "had various difficulties"--Llewee (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " declined into elementary schools" (again, as elementary school means (in AmEng) what we would refer to as a primary school, an earlier definition on what you mean by the term—or even an alternative word so it doesn’t confuse those who immediately think of a post-kindergarten stage)
    see above--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though learning Latin was still an important part of preparing to enter professions, especially the clergy." This feels like only part of a sentence and really should be combined with the previous one to make any sense.
    Tried to fix this--Llewee (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accommodation for boarding pupils": perhaps a piped link here? boarding pupils feels about right.
    added--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a cliche of rich boys": I hardly think so. Can you check the source, as I suspect "a clique of rich boys" is far more likely.
    Yes, fixed--Llewee (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elementary education

Done to the start of Participation rates and literacy; more to come. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Participation rates and literacy
  • "According to historian W. B. Stephens:" As you've introduced and full named him already, just "According to Stephens:" will suffice
    done--Llewee (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd to link Nonconformists here where you've linked the first occurrence and not the second
    corrected this, I think working on different parts at different times makes it hard to link at the right point--Llewee (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1844,[note 3]": odd place to leave a note: why not at the end of the sentence
    moved to after semi-colon as the note is specifically about marriage signatures--Llewee (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Note 3): "Though, the correlation is complicated by the fact people might have grown up in a different place to where they married." Much like the first time you used a sentence beginning 'though', it's grammatically awkward and looks like it should belong connected to the first sentence
    joined up sentences--Llewee (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From 1833 the two voluntary societies": personally I avoid putting commas after the initial dates in a sentence, as you have here and the next paragraph, but you have a comma in the preceding one ("In 1844,") and a couple of other places. Whichever method you choose, it should be consistently applied
Growing government involvement
Curriculum and conditions
  • For instance, David Rowlands also known as Dewi Môn, a man born in 1836 remembered": the commas are a little odd here as I would have expected to see one after 1836, as that's a sub-clause. Do we need to know the Rowlands was "also known as Dewi Môn"? Removing that and moving the comma to after the date would be better.
    Taken out Dewi Môn, as it appears to have been a pseudonym.--Llewee (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, some people": This is an opportunity to remove a "however", as what is written doesn't contradict what goes before
    see above--Llewee (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "child labour, health problems, and poor weather": odd to use a serial comma here when it's absent in the rest of the article (including a couple of times in this section)
    Done--Llewee (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the start of Blue Books; more to follow - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Books
Government and schools approach to language
  • "government investigations were indicating": why not just "government investigations indicated"?
    done--Llewee (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "children were becoming literate in English without being able to understand what they were reading or writing": I think this may need a bit of a rewording. Most scholars would say 'literacy' means not just letter and word recognition, but understanding too – and a good proportion of readers will understand it that way too
    I have changed it to "children were learning to read and write in English without being able to understand the words".--Llewee (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Private, Ragged, Sunday and Works schools
Higher education
Legacy

That's my lot. Please ping me when you've worked your way through the lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MSincccc

[edit]
  • Comments to follow soon. MSincccc (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lead
    • Being a peasant was and is quite a common occupation. It could be delinked in the lead.
    I would prefer to keep the link as I think a lot of people would assume that "peasant" is just a derogatory term for a poor person.--Llewee (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • State funding was introduced to schools from 1833; which was later followed by school inspections and teacher training. A comma rather than a semi-colon should be used after "1833".
    done--Llewee (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    linked both languages--Llewee (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Background
    • Several grammar schools were established in Wales in the 16th and 17th centuries;[1] which catered to boys of "the middling sort". The semicolon is incorrect because the second clause is not an independent sentence. Hence, a comma should be used in its place.
    done--Llewee (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • and clergyman Thomas Gouge "the" before "clergyman" to avoid a false title. They should be avoided if possible.
    done--Llewee (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    *Overcrowded, unsanitary towns developed where the poorest could find little assistance. Replace the comma with an "and".
    In British English, the Oxford comma is typically omitted in simple lists, as in "overcrowded and unsanitary towns." However, it is used to prevent ambiguity in complex lists. Therefore, in this sentence, the comma is unnecessary.
    That's not an Oxford comma and the sentence is grammatically correct with it there. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Llewee This rounds off my first round of suggestions. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    18th century schooling
    • They might organise apprenticeships and supervision after boys had left school. This sentence could be improved upon.
    I'm not whether you are referring to grammar changes or content.--Llewee (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    done--Llewee (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though learning Latin was still an important part of preparing to enter professions, especially the clergy. This sentence could be rephrased:
    Learning Latin was still an important part of preparing to enter professions, especially the clergy. MSincccc (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer to keep "though" to emphasise the contrast between this point and the sentence before it.--Llewee (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Legacy
    • While people in the 18th century saw them as a response to religious concerns;[ The phrase "in the 18th century" can be omitted from this sentence as it is understood from the previous sentence that it refers to the people of that generation.
    I'm not keen on this suggestion, including the time period in both clauses makes clear the distinction, if no time was given in the first clause the whole sentence would seem to be referring to the time given in the second clause.--Llewee (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • became a theme of 19th century Welsh nationalism. This phrase can be rephrased as :became a theme of Welsh nationalism in the 19th century so as to avoid false titles. I will not insist upon it, but it will be preferable to do so.
    done--Llewee (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • ] A similar story was that of Mary Jones; a teenaged girl who was said to have walked 25 miles in 1800 to get her own copy of the Bible from Charles, inspiring the creation of the British and Foreign School Society.
    That's a slight mix-up. Mary Jones' story did inspire something significant, but it was the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS), not the British and Foreign School Society. In 1800, 15-year-old Mary Jones walked about 25 miles to buy a Welsh Bible from Reverend Thomas Charles. Her determination highlighted the lack of affordable Bibles, leading to the founding of the BFBS in 1804 to make Bibles more accessible worldwide.
    The British and Foreign School Society, on the other hand, was focused on education and was founded in 1808, largely influenced by the work of Joseph Lancaster.
    Yes, that was a mistake on my part, corrected.--Llewee (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best-selling novel How Green Was My Valley (1939)... Could the author's name be also mentioned here?
    Llewee This concludes my list of suggestions for the article's FAC nomination. It was an interesting read and I look forward to your response to my suggestions. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added his name. Thank you for the comments, MSincccc, sorry for the delay responding I have been busy this week.--Llewee (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MSincccc, is there more to come here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild No. I have already added my support for its promotion. MSincccc (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Why the cut-off in 1870? I assume from the next article in the series, that you see Elementary Education Act 1870 as a key dividing line. However, this is not mentioned in the lead of this article, and makes 1870 seems rather arbitrary, given how many of the sources cover the entire Victorian era. - hahnchen 15:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think 1870 is a useful dividing line even if it was not as important as people sometimes think. It's also a good breaking point for Wales-specific reasons as the first welsh university college was established in 1872 and the government began to implement different education policies in Wales to England from the 1880s. I have added a comment about the education act to the legacy section and a mention to the intro--Llewee (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Does May, Trevor (1994). The Victorian Schoolroom. Shire Publications. not have an identifier? Don't see anything else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added ISBN--Llewee (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did a double-check here since it seems like Tuesday's reviews were at times bit subpar. There seem to be some consecutive sentences, each with a reference, and the reference being the same. e.g "and intended for children who were unable to attend other elementary schools due to their poverty. A ragged school in Cardiff was attended had 299 pupils in 1853; this group included 130 children of labourers and 32 orphans. Examples of the individual children who attended ragged schools in Wrexham included; a poorly-dressed girl from a family of beggars and a boy whose mother had been struggling to earn a living through repairing shoes since his father enlisted in the Crimean War." can probably have the first ref tag excised. I checked Grigg 2002 and it seems it is being correctly used, although I wonder if a mention of the Irish "issue" and the idea of using schools to combat crime is needed somewhere in the article. One thing I notice: This article is almost entirely sourced to books and papers; are there contemporary government documents, newspaper reports or the like that might be usable as sources? Also did some spotchecking of other sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, apologies for my slowness. I am a bit cautious about using contemporary sources as they usually have to put in some kind of wider context . I have added citations to a couple of newspaper reports and an 1864 book. I think I have dealt with the rest of your points. I have kept in some double citations that were immediately after a quote--Llewee (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More source review points:

  • Why are some publishers linked and others not? Best to unlink all, as they're fairly pointless
    Unlinked the various publishers and journals--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with whether you have a publisher's location or not
    I think this was just one of the books which I have taken out.--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better to format the ISBNs in a consistent manner (you have three different versions at the moment)
    I've gotten rid of the hyphens in the ISBN's. The structure is now consistent in the books section. The journal templates seem to have automatically generated hyphens in the ISSNs.--Llewee (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check on https://archive.org/ and ensure any books there are hyperlinked

- SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee? FrB.TG (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG, I haven't been working through the comments as fast as I would like as I am quite busy at the moment and have been having various difficulties with technology. I will try to get through the current batch of comments by the end of the weekend.--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus and SchroCat, hi, could either one or both of you please comment whether your concerns regarding sources have been resolved and if you have any additional concern? FrB.TG (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My issues were resolved, but I didn't do a full review, so Jo-Jo will have to chip in too, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have anything to add. SchroCat has a sharper eye than me on things like inconsistent format. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeSupport from Borsoka

[edit]
  • A first question: which source(s) verifies/verify the timeframe of the article? For me, the title of Evans (1971) suggests that the period from c. 1700 to c. 1900 could be regarded as a unit of presentation, and the title of Seaborne (1992) also supports that a period closed c. 1900. Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Llewee? Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article's timeframe is not supported by any of the cited sources. We are here to present topics as they are presented in academic sources. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies that I did not respond sooner Borsoka, the nomination has a lot of comments I have been working through. The books I use as sources which discuss the subject in general terms distinguish between the period before and after about 1870. Jones and Roderick have a chapter covering the period from 1670 to 1847 and a chapter covering 1847 to 1870. Seaborne has two chapter covering the 18th century and another three covering the early to the mid-19th century. Stephens has separate chapters covering elementary and secondary education before and after 1860s. Johnes divides between the periods before and after the revised code in 1862. This google doc has images of the books contents.--Llewee (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read the article and not found any issues of relevance. Nicely written, comprehensive article, so I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 March 2025 [12].

Rockstar North

[edit]
Nominator(s): IceWelder [✉] 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the video game developer Rockstar North, previously known as DMA Design. Founded in 1988, it has been a cornerstone of the British and Scottish video game industries for decades, notably creating the Lemmings series in 1991 and Grand Theft Auto a few years later. A studio for Rockstar Games since 2001, it still is the principal GTA developer, most recently making Grand Theft Auto V. Because of the studio's rich history, I seek to make it the second FA in the Rockstar Games GT I have been working on for some time. The article also eclipses my original FA, Rockstar San Diego. Many thanks go out to Vacant0 for reviewing the GAN back in July. IceWelder [✉] 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

I'm glad that I got pinged. I'll leave a review, as promised. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish off the review tomorrow. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly ping @Vacant0, just in case. :) IceWelder [✉] 23:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've had an another look at the article and did not spot any major issues. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Passes

[edit]

Nothing too major wrong. Most of the issues regard the lack of alt text. -- ZooBlazer 00:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer: I added some alt texts. Regarding the metadata in the captions, I have previously been advised not to italicise them. Is there a guideline on this? For the video, what would be a better descriptor than "pictured"? The comma is definitely correct per MOS:GEOCOMMA. IceWelder [✉] 13:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good then. Interesting about the italicizing because I was just basing it off my experiences with FAC and I think FLC, where I was told to italicize things like that. Image review passes. -- ZooBlazer 17:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support for prose from Shooterwalker

[edit]

Review incoming. Going to try to work through most of the history section. We can then circle back for the lead on a second pass. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background and formation
  • This needs a good first sentence. I understand that most readers will read the lead first, but the lead is supposed to follow the body. Something to alert the reader as to why David Jones is the focus (since he will eventually found the company).
I amended it slightly, although I do want to note that I modelled it on Rockstar San Diego's body introduction. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that token, consider adding a "see also" for David Jones.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Jones is linked in the first sentence, a See Also section seems unnecessary. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is well-written. I'd just ask if the first three paragraphs are more appropriate for the David Jones article. Instead, this article could briefly summarize his schooling, his work at Timex, his termination and further education, and early work in games under the "Acme" name. Compare Bill Gates versus Microsoft, just as a comparison.
I disagree somewhat. This is mostly to introduce Jones's work with Dailly, Kay, and Hammond, especially in the context of the KACC, which were paramount to the creation and early years of the company. The few details on Jones's background are meant to show why he wanted to venture into game development and how me managed to afford it. I don't mind also having parts of this on Jones's article, but I do believe its inclusion here is justified. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's revisit this, after you've had some time to think about the organization. Again, this is excellent writing and research, and should be covered somwehere. But this article should start closer to the beginning of the company's story, not the founder's.
Initial games with Psygnosis and Lemmings
  • "to meet other game developers" -> this is a long sentence. Cutting this won't lose much. (Or if you think it's important, divide this sentence into two, so it's less of a run-on.)
Split up. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jones soon began hiring his friends: Dailly, who had just been expelled from college, became the first employee in 1989 and began working on a Commodore 64 conversion of Menace." -> This would also be better as two sentences, or one shorter sentence, with no colon.
Shortened. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at 134B Nethergate" -> this is another detail that can likely be dropped for improved flow and readability.
I think I would rather keep this, in part to flow into why it's the "Wee Pink Nethergate House". IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " When DMA Design inaugurated its office there on 1 August 1989, the ground floor housed Gooseberry Bush, a children's clothing store" -> is this important enough to be considered on topic?
Hmm, I found it interesting, but I guess it may not be for most. Shortened. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The programmer Ian Dunlop and artist Neill Glancy, working remotely from Edinburgh on a contract basis, were soon made to experiment with Walker" -> this sentence is a little odd in its construction. Seeing as it comes after another sentence about Walker being put aside, I might suggest putting these two sentences as part of the same paragraph. That said, it looks like Walker got a full release, so maybe clarify that they experimented with the tech that they used to make Walker (to eventually make a new game).
    • e.g.: " The programmer Ian Dunlop and artist Neill Glancy, working remotely from Edinburgh on a contract basis, were soon made to experiment with Walker" -> "Working remotely from Edinburgh, programmer Ian Dunlop and artist Neill Glancy were directed to experiment with the technology from Walker".
Amended, though I want to keep it in its current location because it leans into how Lemmings came about. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and, with fatigue for Lemmings at the studio, Psygnosis hired other developers for subsequent entries. Among them, Kay and Visual Sciences made Lemmings Paintball." -> ". With the studio experiencing fatigue for Lemmings, Psygnosis hired other developers for subsequent entries, such as Lemmings Paintball developed by Kay and Visual Sciences."
Amended. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Partnerships with Nintendo and BMG Interactive
  • Just want to pause to say this is extremely well written. I might nitpick some details, just to improve length and readability. But everything is grammatical and mostly clear.
As English isn't my first language, this means a lot! :) IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to The Liaison and Promotion Company, Jones had not informed the firm of the impending deal, instead claiming he would partner with another company. such as Virgin Interactive Entertainment. " -> just needs a minor fix
Fixed. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such that DMA Design refused" -> "and DMA Design refused" (clearer and doesn't lose anything)
Fixed. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The publishing agreement" -> just clarify this is with BMG
Fixed. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game was never the sole focus of the studio, and several staffers..." -> "As the studio continued work on multiple games, several staffers...
Fixed. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sale to Gremlin Interactive
"Nintendo and its American branch" -> this is unclear here. Is it the Boulder studio?If it's just Nintendo, we could just say Nintendo. Or if Nintendo had two different teams sending two different directives, maybe distinguish between Japan and America.
Clarified this; Nintendo [of Japan] and Nintendo of America had conflicting ideas, thus the game had to be reworked again and again. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "DMA Design began finishing" -> "begin" finishing -- this is one of those instances where past continuous tense makes the directive more clear.
Reworded. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spun off" -> just to give readers context for the jargon, "spun off into a separate company" would be clearer here.
👍 IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the studio" -> for clarity, maybe say "the new studio" or "the newly independent"
Reworded. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder how much we really need to go down the rabbit hole of this other studio. If there's a way to shorten this, do it. But seeing as there is no merge target, I can see why you'd cover it here.
My thinking exactly. I struck one sentence on the target platform for the remake, since this may be covered at the game's article instead. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lawsuit comes a bit out of the blue. Maybe foreshadow that The Liaison and Promotion Company did sue them after tearing up the deal, so we aren't surprised out of the blue that the lawsuit gets resolved here.
Amended. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "DMA Design was one of the founding members" -> "DMA Design became one of the founding members"
Done. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In academics, Jones helped the Dundee Institute of Technology (now called the University of Abertay Dundee) to establish the world-first computer games degree in November 1997, and DMA Design developed games for a game design course at Dundee College in 1998" -> "Meanwhile in late 1997, Jones helped the Dundee Institute of Technology (now called the University of Abertay Dundee) establish an unprecedented computer games degree, as well as creating materials for a game design course at Dundee College the following year."
I wasn't 100% happy with either version but did undertake some amendments. Please check this one again. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sale to Take-Two Interactive

  • "who set out to market the game by having it garner negative publicity" -> "who wanted to use controversy to market the game."
👌 IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the same time, Ryan Brant was looking to grow the publishing business of his company, Take-Two Interactive. After coming across BMG Interactive, Houser pitched his vision for game development to Brant" -> this is a little confusing as to who came across who. To avoid getting lost in the weeds, "At the same time, Take-Two Interactive was looking to expand its game publishing business, and asked Houser to discuss his plans for BMG."
Reworded. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The acquisition was announced on 29 September and DMA Design was aligned with Rockstar Games, which Houser described as a "perfect match"." -> this is a little unclear. The exact date isn't too important. What does aligned mean here?
Shortened this a bit. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With three other DMA Design employees, he formed Denki and, in February, Rage Software hired him to lead its new Scotland operations." -> Don't take for granted that readers know Denki is also a game studio. Just make this crystal clear.
Sure. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jones bought out these operations in 2002 to form Real Time Worlds, which went on to hire many former DMA Design staffers" -> this is sort of a crazy story! Just make it clear that Jones personally bought out Rage Software. "these operations" might not be clear to the average reader.
Well, not Rage Software as a whole, just "these operations", i.e. the Scottish studio. Rage Software (England) went bust a year later. I reworded this slightly. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under Take-Two, DMA Design ceased creating several games at once and was instead made to focus on only few large projects at a time" -> "Meanwhile, Take-Two encouraged DMA to narrow their focus to fewer, larger game projects." (avoid passive voice, and make it clear that Rockstar and DMA are operating in parallel at this point in time.)
Okay. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible that you want to make the splintering more clear, by putting it into its own paragraph. This could include Jones's career change and the fate of DMA design in one clear paragraph. It starts to confuse the point to include Rockstar's activities in there, and maybe you want to have two side-by-side paragraphs, explaining things in parallel.
I get what you mean, but the events here (opening of the Edinburgh office, Jones's departure, development focus changes, closure of the Dundee office) happened roughly in that order in quick succession, so I'd most likely keep the chronology as it is now, but I don't want to create one mega-paragraph either. Any particular action you can recommend here? IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " under the combined brand of "Broadband Studios".[86] Pixel Broadband Studios was developing online-focused game technology, such that the combined Broadband Studios would have increasingly focused on this market.[87][88] " -> consider dropping the details of the non-merge, or simplifying it drastically. There's a lot of detail in this article, and while well researched, we want to focus the narrative on Rockstar (and its lineage from DMA).
Shortened. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Theft Auto trilogy and rebranding as Rockstar North
  • "for the game" -> this is redundant and reads clearly without it
Fixed. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rockstar Games initially sought the studio to produce an expansion pack for Grand Theft Auto III before its expanding scope led it to be considered a standalone product." -> this one is a little unclear. The studio sought itself? I think this whole sentence can be shorter and clearer.
Rockstar North is "the studio", and I wouldn't call Rockstar Games (the publisher) a "studio", but I get how this could cause some confusion. I reworded the sentence. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "San Andreas was released in October 2004 and, within four days, sold 2.1 million copies, 45% above Vice City's sales in the same time span, and generated $101 million" -> "San Andreas was released in October 2004. In just four dates, the release generated $101 million in revenue, while selling 2.1 million copies, surpassing Vice City's sales by 45%."
Reworded. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto IV, Grand Theft Auto V, and development collaborations

  • "The game was still announced in 2009 as an exclusive title for the PlayStation 3 but was never released. " -> "As of 2009, the title was still planned as as an exclusive title for the PlayStation 3."
Done. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rockstar North worked closely" -> Meanwhile, Rockstar North worked closely..."
Done. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grand Theft Auto IV's production encompassed 220 people at the studio and 1,000" -> something missing here?
Oops! IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon its April 2008 release, the game broke the record for the highest revenue for a game within one day at 3.6 million copies, generating $310 million" -> "Upon its April 2008 release, Grand Theft Auto IV broke the record for the highest single-day game revenue, generating $310 million from 3.6 copies sold."
Done. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "followed the game up" -> "followed this release"
Reworded. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "core of a more than 1,000-strong team worldwide" -> "core of a worldwide team of 1,000 staff"
Done. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its 200 million copies sold as of March 2024 make it the second-best-selling game ever and contribute to the more than 425 million total sales of the series" -> "With 200 million copies sold as of March 2024, Grand Theft Auto V became the second-best-selling game ever, adding to 425 million total sales for the series."
Done. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continued expansion and departure of Leslie Benzies

  • "The studio replaced as tenants the newspaper group The Scotsman, for which the building had been built in 1999" -> The construction "replaced as tenants the newspaper group" is a little odd. I'm not sure the article really needs to describe every detail of the real estate.
Shortened this a bit. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the studio received £80 million by 2020, 37% of the scheme's total payout of which £37.6 million in 2019 alone, ..." -> this construction is a little confusing. Maybe just split the broader sentence in two.
I took out the 2019 number as it is not as important here. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had brought about a fourfold return on investment" -> for who? It was a tax credit, but no tax was ever collected after that. Did the scheme involve studios paying it back as a loan or something?
Fixed. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Benzies statement is sort of off topic for the paragraph, and ties more neatly into the start of the following paragraph.
True, but I did have to split the resulting paragraph in two. IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rockstar North had grown to 650 employees by the time of the game's October 2018 release" -> "By the time the game was released in October 2018, Rockstar North had grown to 650 employees."
Done! IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can wrap there for now. This is really excellent work and very close to FA quality. Once again, I'd say most of this is grammatical and fairly clear. I think there are a lot of confusing details of different business restructurings prior to GTA 3, and that makes it harder to describe everything more clearly. I would encourage you to simplify sentences where you can -- see if you can trim some longer sentences with multiple clauses and tangential details. I might even suggest getting really clear on the topic of each paragraph for the first half of the history. The paragraph topics are a lot stronger in the second half, which contributes to it being more readable. Thanks for taking on this challenging article. You're doing great. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Shooterwalker, for the detailed review! Please review my changes that should address most of your comments. For the rest, I left replies above. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Things got suddenly busy for me. I'm going to try to find time for a second pass, but it may be closer to the end of this month. At first glance, you've made a lot of progress, and I feel confident this is close to FA quality. Thanks for your work and your patience. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright, I'm not in a rush. I'm happy to receive your comments when you find the time. IceWelder [✉] 19:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience. It looks like you've addressed a ton of issues. I'll give this a second pass, this time starting with the lead.
Lead
  • Strong opening sentence and strong opening paragraph. This is great.
  • "he had developed the game Menace and struck a six-game publishing deal with Psygnosis, which released Menace in October 1988." -> Not critical, but it's slightly awkward to use Menace twice so close together. Maybe try "released the game in October 1988".
I'm not sure follwing up "six-game" with "the game" is that much better; I amended it differently. IceWelder [✉] 14:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whom he had met at the Kingsway Amateur Computer Club" -> I'm tempted to drop this as too much detail for the lead. It also breaks the flow of the sentence. If you felt strongly about keeping it, maybe break this sentence into two shorter, more readable sentences.
The KACC time was pivotal for the formation and early years of the studio, so I firmly believe it needs to mentioned in the lead. I did reword the sentence. IceWelder [✉] 14:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After many projects from partnerships with Nintendo and BMG Interactive stalled or were cancelled," -> "After many aborted projects from partnerships with Nintendo and BMG Interactive," (more readable)
  • There's a good summary here. Take Two bought first bought the IP, two years later the whole studio, and a few years later folded / rebranded it into Rockstar. But it's a really complex idea that's hard to follow, considering all the details of the games. I recognize the desire to put things chronologically, with the game releases happening between these major corporate moves. I'm just trying to think about how to make the story easier to follow.
    • "while Body Harvest's underperformance led Gremlin Interactive to be taken over by Infogrames." -> Maybe move this to just after the other part about Gremlin Interactive: " Jones sold the financially stricken studio to Gremlin Interactive in April 1997, which was later acquired by Infogrames." (I realize we lose the info about Body Harvest, but that might also be a detail best ommitted from the lead, since it has more to do with Gremlin.)
    • "Following the commercially successful release of Grand Theft Auto in November 1997, Take-Two Interactive bought the game's intellectual property and formed Rockstar Games... In September 1999, Take-Two acquired DMA Design, which then worked closely with Rockstar Games to release Grand Theft Auto 2." -> "Following the commercially successful release of Grand Theft Auto in November 1997, Take-Two Interactive bought the game's intellectual property and formed Rockstar Games, later acquiring DMA Design in September 1999, leading to both studios working on Grand Theft Auto 2."
    • There's some room for tweaks, but I think this overall approach will make it easier for the average reader to follow.
  • With the middle paragraph cleared up, the last paragraph becomes even stronger.
The order is difficult to adjust here. It feels quite odd here to mention the acquision by Gremlin and the release of Body Harvest, which are 18 months apart, only to jump back a few months for Take-Two's acquisition of GTA and then forward again for when Infogrames buys up Gremlin and sells DMA to Take-Two. I did rewrite the sentences for a better flow. IceWelder [✉] 14:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Background and formation
  • I agree with Arcticocean about giving editors some discretion, and the section is generally well-written. I still feel that this veers off topic, to the point of being confusing for the average reader.
    • Consider Accolade, Inc., where the founders previously worked at Atari and even Activision. I wouldn't bludgeon editors into doing it the way I did it. But it may be a useful reference.
    • One option is to cut and paste substantial material to other articles. With Alan Miller and Bob Whitehead as a comparison, we can simply chart why they left Atari, and later Activision, and allow readers to review their biographies for more details lists of games and projects. I realize this is an undesirable option, but I raise it to show how content can be re-organized without any loss.
    • As a middle ground option, maybe cut back on some of the personal detail, and save those for the biographies. Do we really need to know Jones' most frequently played game, or what computer he used?
    • At the minimum, we should have a clearer first sentence. The goal is to explain to the reader why they are about to read almost four paragraphs without even hearing the name "DMA Design" (let alone "Rockstar"). e.g.: "Rockstar North began its history as DMA Design, a video game studio founded in 1988 by David Jones and several friends from the Kingsway Amateur Computer Club."
  • We can look at the writing of this section later, considering the above issue. Tbe writing is generally good. I hope you'll understand why I think it will be a little confusing for the average reader, and I can keep an open mind about what would make the section feel more relevant.
I took out some minor details but, as above, the inclusion of their shared time at the KACC is paramount as it is directly responsible for why they worked at DMA together and found quick success. I believe this is important background information, even if takes the odd paragraph or two. IceWelder [✉] 14:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Initial games with Psygnosis and Lemmings (1988–1994)
  • The writing was already good, and you've improved it further since my last check-in. You're doing great.
  • I'd ask again why we need to know details like what cars the founder keeps buying -- do we really need to know about the Vauxhall Astra, or his Ferraris, or even the fact that the office building was sometimes called some name? This is discretionary too, but I'd ask you to look for ways to remove detail, for the sake of relevance, readability, and conciseness.
The brands aren't important, but barely affording a cheap car in 1989 and being able to buy several luxury cars in 1991 is a good contrast that puts the studio's quick success into perspective, so it's a detail I'd like to keep. IceWelder [✉] 14:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Ian Dunlop and artist Neill Glancy were directed to experiment" -> passive voice here is a little confusing. Either clarify who is doing the directing, or skip it and say "began to experiment".
  • "He spent a lunch break hour building a showcase animation of such characters walking in a line and being killed comically, to the amusement of the office." -> "During one lunch break, he animated a demo of small characters walking in a line..."
  • " of which 10 were former classmates of Jones" -> "including 10 former classmates of Jones"
  • "In the same year, Psygnosis released Walker, which remained exclusive to the Amiga, and Hired Guns, which had been created principally by Scott Johnston with a story by Hammond." -> The flow here gets choppy. Maybe drop the Amiga part or shorten it to "Walker for the Amiga".
Partnerships with Nintendo and BMG Interactive
  • This is another complex sentence, both in its density and length: " The Liaison and Promotion Company, which had taken on marketing for DMA Design and its games in July 1993, presented the studio with potential partners for the project" -> "In July 1993, The Liaison and Promotion Company began handling marketing for DMA Design and its games, and they introduced the studio to potential partners for the project."
  • "and Covert, the latter a stealth game in the style of Metal Gear." -> "and a stealth game called Covert" (improve flow and drop details that don't really help the average reader understand)
  • " increase its 40-strong headcount with 42 additional hires, quickly growing to 130 people" -> these numbers are confusing. 40 + 42 isn't 130. This may be another example where less detail is clearer: "grow its team to 130 people."
  • " entered into production" -> "began production" (avoid metaphors and say it plainly and clearly)
  • " As such, the team was highly unorganised and struggled with the development" -> "As such, the team struggled with development" or "As such, the team clashed over the game's direction" (simpler)
  • " Kid Kirby and the climbing-themed action game Zenith also stalled" -> "Production stalled on Kid Kirby and the climbing-themed action game Zenith"
(simpler)
Sale to Gremlin Interactive
  • "The development on Body Harvest stalled as Nintendo's Japanese headquarters and its American branch regularly made conflicting demands" -> "The development on Body Harvest stalled under the conflicting demands between the Japanese and American branches of Nintendo."
  • I noted this before, and I know it's tricky. But there's a lot of material between refusing the deal with The Liaison and Promotion Company, and the eventual lawsuit. It's very easy for the reader to lose context.
    • e.g.: "the deal with BMG Interactive" -> "the 1994 publishing deal with BMG Interactive"
    • e.g.: "and DMA Design refused to pay the marketing firm its share of the deal" -> "and this became a legal dispute when DMA Design refused to pay the marketing firm."
  • "alongside Creative Edge, Digital Animations, Inner Workings, Red Lemon Studios, VIS Interactive, and Visual Sciences" -> is this list of non-notable studios relevant? Could easily be "with several other studios."
Sale to Take-Two Interactive
  • "greenlit" -> WP:JARGON? I do know what you mean, just thinking about an average reader.
  • " Bertelsmann considered BMG Interactive's operations too expensive and decided to ramp down the division entirely" -> "Bertelsmann decided to ramp down BMG Interactive to reduce costs."
  • "after less than two years on the stock market, " -> this really doesn't fit in teh sentence as written and can be dropped without losing much information. If you felt strongly about keeping it, consider breaking the whole sentence into two shorter sentences, for readability.
  • "Grand Theft Auto 2, published by Rockstar Games, was released in October 1999" -> "Rockstar Games published Grand Theft Auto 2 in October 1999" (simpler)
  • " However, unhappy with his studio being owned by an overseas company and failing to see eye-to-eye with Take-Two, " -> "However, unhappy with his studio's new ownership," or " However, he became frustrated with Take-Two's ownership and control," (simpler)
Grand Theft Auto trilogy
  • " it became the best-selling game of that year, as well as the second-best in 2002. The game sold 6 million copies within one year and more than 15 million in total, exceeding the development team's expectations" -> These sentence feel like they are in reverse order. Quantify the sales, then put it in context. This will flow better into its critical reception and impact.
  • I know I've been calling for less detail... but considering that you mention how many developers wanted no part in making Manhunt, it feels like an omission if you don't at least mention the controversy. Even a few words will do: "The series attracted controversy". Or "The series attracted controversy, while selling X copies."
  • The material becomes a lot easier here once Rockstar is more or less a single entity. You've done some solid work to deal with a complicated company history. Just look for ways to really organize each paragraph around those different entities or relationships, almost like character subplots in a movie summary.
Grand Theft Auto IV, Grand Theft Auto V...
  • "In 2009, the game was still planned as an exclusive title for the PlayStation 3. Its trademark was abandoned in 2018, and the listing was removed from Rockstar Games's website in 2021." -> "As of 2009, the game was still planned as a PlayStation 3 exclusive, but its trademark was abandoned in 2018, and the listing was later removed from Rockstar Games's website." (I know I usually advocate for splitting phrases for readability, but this is an example where it's good to organize the single story into a single sentence.)
I trimmed this sentence a good amount. IceWelder [✉] 10:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continued expansion and departure of Leslie Benzies
  • Consider renaming this title to "Continued expansion and leadership dispute", considering the bulk of it covers a legal dispute
  • "scheme" -> This word carries a bit of a nefarious connotation. Try "policy"?
I'm not sure "policy" is an adequate replacement, but I tried out "system" and I think it reads well. IceWelder [✉] 10:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Benzies, until then the studio head, went on a sabbatical in September 2014. He did not return and was announced as having left Rockstar North in January 2016. Garbut and Rob Nelson, both art directors for the studio, took over his responsibilities" -> "When Benzies went on a sabbatical in 2014, his studio head responsibilities were picked up by Garbut and Rob Nelson, culminating in the announcement of his departure in January 2016." (flow and clarity -- try to explain one story in one sentence)
The flow is good but I'd like to keep the detail about what Garbut and Nelson did beforehand at the studio, so it's two shorter sentences now. IceWelder [✉] 10:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Benzies sued Rockstar Games, Take-Two, Sam Houser, and Dan Houser on 12 April 2016, " -> "On 12 April 2016, Benzies sued..." (flow)
  • "having built" / "ineptly handling" -> the mix of tenses here is confusing.
I don't want my number of comments to detract from the great work you're doing here. They are more the product of a long and complex article, which will inevitably have more to talk about. The article is already quite strong, and these revisions should make it even better. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the follow-up. Unfortunately, time is tight at the moment, but I'll try to get back to this during the weekend. IceWelder [✉] 17:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here we are! Regards, IceWelder [✉] 10:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a chance to read it over a few more times. It's overall a lot stronger, especially having a clearer section about its foundation. As other editors check in with additional reviews, continue to look for areas to simplify, so that we don't lose the main narrative in the details. Also look for times where two shorter sentences will be clearer than one long one. But that advice aside, I'm happy to voice my support for the prose as hitting the WP:FA standard. Thanks for taking on such a complex and important article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spy-cicle

[edit]

My computer is currently broken, but if I find the time and means I’d like to give this a review since I was able to review the San Diego studio.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comment - is it known when Benzies become the studio head? Also may be worth including a photo of him in the article.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I did not find any such information, and the only games that mention him in this role are Grand Theft Auto Advance (2004) and Grand Theft Auto V (2013), the rest just credits him as the producer (or lead programmer in the case of Space Station Silicon Valley). As for a photo, it wouldn't hurt but also not add much either, as (lacking info on when he joined, when he became president, etc.) the caption would only repeat verbatim what the article already says. Regards and wishing your PC a speedy recovery! IceWelder [✉] 16:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spy-cicle: Gentle nudge! IceWelder [✉] 08:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi IceWelder. My computer is now working, however do now have some off-wiki work backlog. If you still need a review I am more than willing and happy to do one and I think I can get one done over the weekend (just don't want to slow down the nomination if you are waiting on me).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 07:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, I see. It is weird that such a key figure like Benzies has no clear start date or president promotion date reported (perhaps it is forever lost in print sources). He also does not appear to have a public linkedin either. Based on the credits we know at some point by 2004 he was president, right? Even EG says he was by March 2004 as well [13]. Do you think mentioning that somewhere along the chronology would be appropriate and maybe that he was at least at the company since 1998?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 07:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to hear your PC is feeling better! Since the date of appointment is not known, I put this in around the part where many other key figures left. Please let me know what you think. I absolutely wouldn't mind an in-depth review, but if you're busy otherwise, I'm not mad if you cannot find the time. IceWelder [✉] 21:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks good, thanks for the addition. I just don't want to slow down the nomination if I get delayed. I think should be able to get review done over the weekend though.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Wonder what book Donnelly, Joe wrote. What makes "The Scottish Games Network" and ""It Was a Mess": The Chaotic Origins of Grand Theft Auto" a reliable source? Where does #49 speak of a satellite studio? Usual caveat about relying on WP:VGRS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus:
  • Joe Donnelly wrote a book called Checkpoint in 2020, but I'm not sure if that is relevant here. I don't own a copy and cannot check for references.
  • The Scottish Games Network is one of the largest organizations for the video game industry in Scotland and is run by a former Rockstar North employee (Brian Baglow). The two sources come were authored by the company's second hired (Steve Hammond) about the work of himself and his team. It should be considered a primary source. I could equivalently cite Hammond's blog, but I think the SGN is a better vessel.
  • Wireframe was a print magazine penned by professional writers and edited by Ryan Lambie, who also has industry experience. The cited article is by Jack Yarwood, another noted journalist who now heads another VP:VG/S-reliable outlet, Time Extension.
  • #49 is used solely to verify the formation date of Devil's Thumb Entertainment, which previously was the satellite studio (which is sourced and mentioned in more detail further down in the article). Do you want me to add a ref connecting the two entities here as well? I edited the article to repurpose a source that verifies Devil's Thumb Entertainment previously being a DMA Design satellite studio, coupled with the existing source to verify that said studio was established in November 1996.
Regards, IceWelder [✉] 11:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering what Donnelly's credentials in the field were, knowing what book (and its reception) they wrote would be useful information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to his LinkedIn, he has a degree in journalism and ~10 years of professional experience with various reliable outlets. His book was apparently nominated for the Scottish Non-Fiction Book of the Year 2021, though I can't find many explicit reviews. I'm a bit confused by your inquiry, are you questioning the reliability of the articles he authored? IceWelder [✉] 07:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, trying to determine how his work has been received. That's a key consideration when assessing source reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of his articles appear in reliable outlets (per WP:VG/S), and he obtained a journalism degree and years of experience prior to writing them. His book, which was released after both articles, was nominated for a national award and received a positive review by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I think the two articles they can be assessed as reliable. IceWelder [✉] 15:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arcticocean

[edit]

This is a review of the article prose by section. The video game industry is one of few digital industries that has not seemed in recent years to turn into a technofeudal hellscape. Video games, at least as a whole, are worthy of respect as a creative art and I enjoy seeing them receive encyclopedic coverage.

  • Infobox:
    • Headquarters at Barclay House – consider disambiguating this to "Barclay House, Edinburgh". Almost nobody will know where that is. Although the headquarters are specified elsewhere in the infobox, looking half a dozen rows down into the infobox for the rest of the location is counterintuitive (as it almost always is with infoboxes).
    • Even better would be to delete the infobox's headquarters parameter and disambiguate the caption as "Barclay House, Edinburgh, Scotland" with internal linking as needed.
  • Lead:
    • Opening sentence: formal alternative article titles are a matter of editorial discretion (MOS:BOLDALTNAMES), but I'm unconvinced that you need the trading name, the registered company name, the former registered company name, and the subsidiary registered company name, all in bold print as article titles. Arbitrarily, in second paragraph the is the former trading name is not bolded as a title. Registered company or subsidiary names don't seem to deserve equal prominence with former or current trading names. DMA Design may even be able to remain non-bold when first mentioned in pg.2, I don't know.
    • Starting in 1994 … while Jones founded Denki and Real Time Worlds – this paragraph, taken as a whole, is quite difficult and I think requires rewriting. While the paragraph is clearly working chronologically, it switches between discussion of collaboration and share or property acquisition. Between the game names and all the studios and collaboration partners, it becomes very difficult to follow what is happening. Unfortunately, I think that this paragraph would lose all but the most determined readers.
    • the prior Dundee location was closed – omit 'prior', which is already axiomatic in after an Edinburgh branch was established.
    • I enjoyed the rest of the final paragraph.
  • History § Background and formation (1983–1988)
    • Good. I did wonder whether too much of this material was a biography of the founder rather than coverage of the article subject. This is probably a question of editorial discretion. We have a couple of relevant but highly-respected essays (Wikipedia:Relevance of content and Wikipedia:Coatrack articles) and the article stays on the right side of them, particularly because otherwise it would seem like establishing studio was not made possible by earlier events in the founder's life (the school IT programme, the Timex subsidy, the redundancy payoff, etc).
    • playing or copying existing ones – what does 'copying' mean?
  • History § Initial games with Psygnosis and Lemmings (1988–1994)
    • While they needed an artist … challenged himself to create eight-pixel-high characters – this sentence is unclear or needs more context. Is an artist always needed to create (draw) the video game characters, or just ones sized at sixteen pixels? Is Scott Johnstone an artist? Does the technical challenge to create sub-16px graphics have anything to do with the need for an artist?
  • History § Partnerships with Nintendo and BMG Interactive (1994–1997)
    • According to The Liaison and Promotion Company … share of the deal. – Something later happened in consequence of the non-payment (litigation) and the article covers that in a later section. However, this sentence perhaps leaves the reader searching for an answer. That is not optimal. Perhaps the article's later content could be foreshadowed: "TLPC would later sue the studio for breach of contract", e.g?
  • History § Sale to Gremlin Interactive (1997)
    • By July 1997 … in another hearing – What was the ultimate outcome?
  • History § Sale to Take-Two Interactive (1997–2000)
    • Houser and some of his former BMG Interactive colleagues formed Rockstar Games as a publishing label for Take-Two in December 1998 – This sentence is unclear as to the role played by Houser and the other colleagues. Were they owners as well as the founding management team, or were they acting on behalf of Take-Two? If so, Take-Two formed the studio through Houser et al as their agents, and this sentence is not correctly worded. Perhaps it could be worded to explain that Take-Two formed Rockstar games as a publishing label and installed Houser et al the management team.
  • History § Grand Theft Auto trilogy and rebranding as Rockstar North (2000–2004)
    • Due to its dark tone and focus on realistic violence, it was handled as the studio's pet project as most people at Rockstar Games wanted no part in it – word choice: "handled" is not clear.

The other (sub)sections look good. Well done for some great work on this article. Although I have suggested changes to individual sentences above, I am able already to support for prose (writing, comprehensiveness, NPOV, style, and length). arcticocean ■ 10:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Arcticocean! I made a few changes. A few comments:
  • I amended the caption but I'd rather not remove the location parameter for consistency purposes. What I could do is move the mention of Barclay House into the parameter instead and remove the image caption.
  • I reduced the number of bold names by removing the mention of "Rockstar North Limited". As a solely legal name functionally equivalent to the current trade name, it is not really notable, and I previously left out "Rockstar Studios Limited" for the same reason. I'm retaining the current and previous legal names for obvious reason but will likely not bold the former trading name as it functionally equivalent to the original legal name, consistent with pretty much all other company articles.
  • The second lead paragraph is difficult to split up as all events build on each other. I tried rewriting it a bit to reduce the wordiness. Please let me know what you think.
  • On coatracking, my thoughts exactly. Everything mentioned leans into how and why the company came about (video game interest -> Timex -> KACC -> Timex layoff -> Menace -> Psygnosis) or how the early core team previously collaborated (KACC -> DIT).
  • copying -> cloning (video game clone).
  • Who drew what for Walker is, ultimately, probably irrelevant. I rewrote the sentence to focus solely on Dailly's endeavour.
  • Foreshadowing the lawsuit feels odd and I don't think it would lead to the desired result. If I only briefly mention that there was some lawsuit, wouldn't the reader immediately seek what came out of it? I can't move up the actual suit content up either, as it is part of the financial woes into 1997. Unfortunately, I don't know when the lawsuit was initiated, otherwise I would have put everything there. For now, I see no viable action on this.
  • I don't know what came of the lawsuit because there was no follow-up article, nor is the case available anywhere online. As I don't live in Scotland, I cannot check the physical archives. I reworded the sentence to omit the mention of the later hearing.
  • Sam Houser & Co. formed Rockstar Games at their volition from within Take-Two. While Take-Two gave the green light, funded the operation, and was legally the owner (some lawyer being the incorporator on paper), the idea is usually credited to Houser. I amended the sentence to better reflect this structure.
  • The original quote is "It was Rockstar North's pet project - most of us at Rockstar Games wanted no part of it."; I reworded the sentence slighttly.
Regards, IceWelder [✉] 19:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arcticocean, I was wondering if you have more to come on this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gog the Mild. While I can't answer on Arcticocean's behalf, he did change his comment from "probably support" to "support" in response to my changes, so I do not expect further concerns being raised here. IceWelder [✉] 09:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! IceWelder is correct – I'm supporting promotion. Arcticocean ■ 10:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 March 2025 [14].

George B. Crittenden

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 05:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a brief time, George B. Crittenden was an example of some of the greatest pathos of the American Civil War. He was the son of John J. Crittenden, who tried to stave off the Civil War as a congressman. When the war came though, George went south and became a major general, while his brother Thomas L. Crittenden stayed north and also became a major general - the highest ranking instance I can think of for brother against brother. George's time in the spotlight did not last long. He had been arrested multiple times while serving in the antebellum US Army for being drunk on duty, but his career was saved by his father's influence. His first Confederate field service ended in a disastrous defeat at the Battle of Mill Springs. Rumors of drunkenness followed, and his fairly incompetent subordinate whose fault part of the mess was had been killed and thus avoided the blame. Arrested for drunkenness again a few months later, and without a powerful father to stave off the consequences, Crittenden spent the rest of the war as an obscure staff officer. A touching story about Crittenden's actions in the Black Bean Episode, which is repeated in many biographical descriptions of Crittenden, is probably false. Hog Farm Talk 05:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. I assessed this at GAN to FAC standard, but I imagine I can find another nit or two to pick.

  • "In 1842, he traveled to the Republic of Texas". Optional: 'In 1842, he traveled to the then independent Republic of Texas'?
  • "In 1846, Crittenden rejoined the military for service in the Mexican–American War, and received a brevet promotion for his actions at the Battle of Contreras and the Battle of Churubusco. He had been arrested for drunkenness before his regiment saw service in the war" I assume that the arrest in the second sentence was before the second clause of the first sentence? If so, maybe rejig to put in chronological order? I struggled to wrap my head round just what had happened when here.
  • "Bachelor of Laws". Why the upper-case initial letters?
  • "n 1836, he commanded a company in the Kentucky militia." Perhaps better as 'By 1836, he commanded a company in the Kentucky militia.'?
  • "Crittenden later moved to the Republic of Texas". 1. A date is given for this in the lead. 2. Maybe insert 'then independent'?
    • Have done 2) but I've removed the date from the lead as there's not a specific year mentioned in the lead and Eubank's ambiguous phrasing leaves open the possiblity that this was before 1842. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the tale is not found in survivor accounts of the incident and that the prisoners were blindfolded". If you have "as the tale, you need 'and as the prisoners ...'
  • "Andrew Jackson provided critical assistance, by writing a letter to Santa Anna". Who might these two people be?
  • "gave Crittenden a bottle of alcohol". An actual bottle of alcohol?
  • In the last paragraph of "United States military service" "Crittenden" is used five times in the initial five sentences, including twice in the first sentence in the space of ten words. There are similar situations elsewhere.
  • "the family's firstborn son." Perhaps this could be mentioned in the first few sentences of the article?
  • "Crittenden decided to attack while his opponents were still separated and sent his troops on a night march to attack Thomas on the morning of January 19." Can we avoid "attack" twice in the sentence?
  • "Crittenden's men were poorly trained and badly armed". Is this a reference to Zollicoffer's force?
  • "had been drinking to some extent before the battle, although the extent of his insobriety". "extent" twice in seven words?
  • "Further allegations of treason and "constant inebriation" spread." The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
    • The source (Woodworth) is quoting a 19th-century source that is not directly named. Woodworth's citations are to pp. 849-850 of this, which does not contain the "constant inebriation" quote, and to pp. 256-257 of this, which does contain the quote in a letter written by J. G. M. Ramsey. So I can attribute this quote to Ramsey, but it's going to be a bit awkward of a citation - unless another editor is digging into Woodworth and his footnotes, it's going to look like I'm just cherry-picking quotes from primary source letters. Gog the Mild - how would you recommend handling this? Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good IAR case. I suggest leaving it as it is.
  • "to command a division,[55] which was known as the 2nd Division of the Army of Central Kentucky." Perhaps 'to command the 2nd Division of the Army of Central Kentucky.'?
  • "he submitted a resignation". 'he submitted his resignation'?
  • "Crittenden did not reach Johnston's army before it surrendered, and was paroled on May 5." This reads as if the army was paroled. Any details on when or where Crittenden surrendered, or who to?
    • Dammit - I've always been able to trick Google Books into giving me all of the pages to view through various ways, but I can't get the relevant page this time. This is a weird case where Prichard 2008 states that he did surrender with Joe Johnston, but Prichard 2010 disagrees and has more information. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If further details on the circumstances of his surrender are out there, they should really be included.
  • "was indicted in the federal court system for treason" Any date?
    • Neither of the Prichard works gives a date. Eubank doesn't mention this and glosses over his whole postwar career in less than a page. Cutrer relegates everything post-resignation into a single paragraph and doesn't give this detail either. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the last two - I can't easily answer these. The library of Wilson's Creek National Battlefield holds a print copy of Prichard 2010. The same library also holds a copy of the relevant volume of William C. Davis (historian)'s The Confederate General which I didn't consider using due to difficulty of access and the fact that Prichard, who wrote two longer and more recent works, used that as a source so I don't expect anything in there that would be preferable to Prichard. I'll reach out to the battlefield tomorrow and see about setting up an appointment to review that page of Prichard and the Davis work some weekend. Hopefully I can get something to work out, I've had mixed luck with getting source excerpts from NPS units before. The last time I went out to Wilson's Creek for something, the volunteer librarian expressed great frustrations with Wikipedia and and seemed to consider the whole project hopeless, so we'll see how things go this time. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, US librarians extend the same goodwill and bonhomie to those who sully their institutions with their physical presence as UK ones then?
Supporting on the understanding that details of his surrender will be included in the article as and when you can access the source. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild - the NPS sent me scans today. The chapter in The Confederate General is two pages long, and devotes a paragraph and a sentence to his post-October 23 1862 resignation life, although it does clarify some points in his earlier career. All I have to work with on this from Prichard 2010 is the following paragraph: The fall of Richmond led Brigadier General John Echols, Breckinridge's successor, to abandon the department and march eastward in an effort to link up with Lee's retreating forces. Upon reaching Christiansburg he learned of Lee's surrender and set out to join General Joseph E. Johnston's Army of Tennessee in North Carolina. Unable to reach the army he once left in disgrace before it surrendered, Crittenden was paroled at Greensboro on May 5, 1865. This paragraph is sourced to pages 91 and 92 of this book and to Crittenden's Compiled Service Records. The book contains two references to "Crittenden" according to gbooks snippet view, one of which is to somebody else and the other of which is on p. 36. From the Gbooks preview, those pages are about Echols' march. The Sifakis source in the further reading devotes a paragraph to Crittenden's whole life and does not mention his parole at all. I know of no other usable secondary sources to work with (the Hafendorfer work about Mill Springs mentioned in Prichard 2010 is an out-of-print self-published book from 25 years ago). As a note - Johnston's surrender occurred on April 26 at Bennett Place near Durham, North Carolina. Johnston's men were paroled and sent home. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little surprised at the casualness of the secondary sources, but you can't help that. It appears that you have included everything that there is to include. Thanks for updating me. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

[edit]

Happy to review this. If you could give me a ping when you're finished with Gog's comments I'll have a read through then. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - Would you prefer to wait until after the Wilson's Creek inquiry to conduct your review? I emailed them this morning (USA time). Last time I had to reach out to Wilson's Creek for a source, it took nearly three weeks. The most recent time that I reached out to a different NPS unit they didn't respond. Hog Farm Talk 02:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Just let me know when you're ready. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - I believe all of Gog's comments have been resolved as best as possible. Hog Farm Talk 04:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, time to earn my keep:

  • Very minor but to keep the infobox as uncluttered as possible I might suggest replacing follow up mentions of "Republic of Texas" with simply "Texas"
  • My understanding is we don't need to be capitalising ranks in the infobox, so Lieutenant colonel rather than Lieutenant Colonel
  • Suggest using Template:Tree list for the list of battles
  • First mention of the individual (in Early life here) should use his full name
  • Is the infobox image a photograph? I can't quite tell; File:Major General George B. Crittenden.jpg is far higher quality but only a drawing
    • I'm not quite sure either, or what exactly would be the best approach here. See also Adam Cuerden's comment above. Prichard 2008 and Hewitt 1991 both use a definite photograph of Crittenden in which he is wearing a similar uniform (minus the shoulder bars) but is clean-shaven (image credit to Louisiana State University in Hewitt), Warner uses a version of the image currently in the article with a missing area at the top that about has to be damage of an old photographic plate, and Prichard 2010 has a photograph of a more hollow-faced looking Crittenden with a receding hairline in what looks like a Confederate uniform (image credit to Hewitt's personal colleciton), but Hewitt's text includes the note that "No photo of Crittenden in what is undoubtedly a Confederate uniform has been found) while noting that the collar stuff found on the article's image, Adam Cuerden's image, the Warner image, and the Prichard 2008 and Hewitt 1991 images is almost certainly a retouch added by an artist. Hog Farm Talk 18:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that the one in article (and about the only image of him online) is an overpainting. There's also an engraving based on it. Now, this is going to be very speculative. I don't tend to do speculative on here, because I don't think it's generally helpful, but...
    If we presume the original image for the version currently in the article lead was a daguerrotype or other type of image that couldn't readily be reproduced, it was very common to take a photograph of that daguerreotype and use that as the reproduction. As this resulted in a loss of quality, it was fairly common to overpaint a bit to try to put back the lost detail. Now, add to that that during and after the ACW, there was quite a demand for works documenting everyone involved. For example, https://www.si.edu/object/statesmen-and-generals-confederacy:npg_S_NPG.84.430 and there's ones that use photographic montages, etc. We don't tend to use those, but books similar to ones used as sources in this article also existed back then, and had photographs. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if https://www.si.edu/object/felix-kirk-zollicoffer:npg_S_NPG.2012.6.33 was from a book or photo album, and it actually has a lot of artistic similarity to the one of Crittenden. Given their connection, it wouldn't even be surprising.
    Which leads me to my big speculation: This is a version of a photograph of Crittenden with the overpainting taking liberties to make it fit in better with images of people who had photographs in uniform and who had better photographs than he did. The similarity to Zollicoffer's image supports this speculation, since we know he died very early in the war, so likely never had a photograph in uniform.

More to come. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now, Hog Farm. An interesting article about a man who probably should have stayed a lawyer! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - Thank you for a very thorough review! Replies are above - I don't have a strong opinion either way on the photograph vs engraving. I used a postwar engraving for William Y. Slack because the original photograph of Slack was in quite bad condition. Hog Farm Talk 04:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe and Hog Farm: I've taken the liberty of doing a quick restoration of the lead - hate to have a featured article where the lead image looks like it's a third generation photocopy, y'know? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 17:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pickersgill-Cunliffe - No rush, but I was just wondering if you had anything else to add here. Hog Farm talk 03:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support at this time. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Hog Farm, my comments:

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: - Thanks for your review! My replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 02:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, looks good now. Happy to support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

On the icons question, I wonder if hidden comments would help. I must say that "Indicted for treason upon his return, he was pardoned in 1867" is a weird formulation - was he convicted before the pardon or not? Unrelated, but Crittenden Compromise seems to be an euphemism... "Eicher, John H.; Eicher, David J. (2001). Civil War High Commands. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-3641-1." is it just the links or do the authors specialize in a completely different field from the article topic? Why does "Confederate Generals in the Western Theater" have a Google link and a volume? Nothing else that jumps out to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - The booble link for the Confederate Generals in the Western Theater has been removed - the volume link is becuse U Tenn published three collections of essays with this title as a series; the cited book is from the second volume of it.The indicted for treason --> pardon is about all that I can glean from the secondary sources; there may be some archival matter at the University of Kentucky that could shed some light on this but that would be a primary source and is inaccessible to me anyway. This is not an unusual thing for high-ranking Confederates - some of my other FA work with these includes Thomas C. Hindman (treason indictment 1865, fled to Mexico, returned in 1867, arrested when he started to get back into politics in 1868 but was allowed to remain at liberty, assassination before trial) and John Bullock Clark (wanted, fled to Mexico, arrested upon return, released without trial). Not even Confederate president Jefferson Davis was actually put to trial. I think this was a way to keep prominent ex-Confederates from politically challenging Reconstruction. The Crittenden Compromise euphemism is indeed used in modern sources, it would have seemed less one-sided in 1860 than it does now, but in hindsight it's obvious why it was rejected. The Eicher books has been favorably reviewed - see this and this among others.Hog Farm Talk 17:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, OK. I remember that a few years ago Wikipedia's coverage on WWII drew significant negative attention because, among other things, verbiage that made it sound like war criminals had been deemed such without a trial even though a trial definitively took place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - That was a very different historical situation - there were trials (Nuremburg, Doctors' Trials, etc.) and there was the Geneva Convention in place at that time as well that defined things. See Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 pp. 190-191 Despite talk of punishing traitors, the President [Andrew Johnson] embarked on a course of amazing leniency. No mass arrests followed the collapse of the Confederacy; only Henry Wirz, commandant of Andersonville prison camp, paid the ultimate penalty for treason. Jefferson Davis spent two years in federal prison but was never put on trial [...] At first, the President granted pardons cautiously, but by September they were being issued wholesale, sometimes hundreds in a single day. By 1866, over 7,000 Southerners excluded from amnesty under the $20,000 clause [see p. 183, a more general pardon in 1865 had excluded high-ranking Confederate leaders and those who owned over $20,000 in property] had received individual pardons. Re-reading the sources, I've rephrased slightly in the article as its not entirely clear whether the indictment happened before or after his return to Kentucky. Really all we can go with is what the RS tell us here - he was paroled in North Carolina in May 1865, at some point an indictment for treason was placed against Crittenden in the federal court system in Kentucky, and Johnson pardoned him in 1867. The RS do not mention a trial or imprisonment, which is not unusual given that most Confederates were not imprisoned or tried. I don't think there's anything else we can say here. Hog Farm Talk 18:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, do you have any further thoughts here? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. I might have been a bit paranoid - things like Lost Cause of the Confederacy have a tendency to fester if not continuously monitored. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "George resumed the practice of law". You state this as fact, but below as speculation.
  • "For "gallant and meritorious conduct" at the Battle of Contreras and the Battle of Churubusco," Is no detail available of what he did?
    • I haven't seen anything specifying exactly what he did. The various biographical sources paraphrase this as bravery or "performed admirably in combat"; I think it's best to just let the original promotion wording stand. Looking through an early edition of Cullum's Register "gallant and meritorious conduct" appears to have been some sort of 19th-century boilerplate. Hog Farm talk 02:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after an 1852 transfer to the Texas frontier, he served honorably". "served honorably" is vague and sounds POV. It should be clarified.
  • "His resignation was tabled by the Confederate government". You should clarify what "tabled" means in this context.
  • "Eubank believes that after the Mill Springs debacle, Crittenden wanted to remain out of the limelight and pressure of leadership". This seems a puzzling comment. Had not he been praised for his conduct as leader several times after Mill Springs?
  • Articles about his father and brother provide more details about his influential relatives and ancestors. I think this would provide helpful context. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would best be covered in Eubank, but I only have scans of certain pages. I'll have to make a library run; it'll probably be next weekend before that can happen. Hog Farm talk 23:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 March 2025 [17].

Battle of Preston (1648)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2023 I took the second of the twin battles which ended the Second English Civil War, battle of Winwick, to FAC; a classic example of Gog doing things the wrong way round. I have finally got round to working on the article about first of these battles and offer it to you here. Royalists supporting Charles I lost the First English Civil War in 1646. In spring 1648 an uncoordinated series of risings and mutinies broke out in England and Wales. The faction in control of the Scottish government opportunistically raised an army and sent it south in support of Charles. A day late and a dollar short this army crossed into England on 8 July and moved sluggishly south. Meanwhile Oliver Cromwell had concentrated what forces he could and although outnumbered more than two to one and having no clear idea of the Scottish dispositions threw his army at the Scottish flank. Historians have described this as "an enormous gamble" and "hardly credible". For what happened next, read on ...

This has recently gone through GAN where Hog Farm, bless them, effectively PRed it. I hope that is now in a fit state for your perusal. I suspect you will let me know if it is not. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from VW

[edit]

Lead

Done.

Background

  • Charles was not successful... Could "unsuccessful" be used here?
Done.

War

  • This had been split into garrisons across the country; its commander, Sir Thomas Fairfax, based in London, put down the revolt in Kent on 1 June, then moved into Essex and began an eleven-week siege of Colchester.
Could "Kent" and "Essex" be linked here?
Done.

Initial suggestions above. Velworth (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • After Winwick Cromwell turned north. I suppose there is a typo in this sentence.
Not that I can see. What issue do you have with it?
Velworth (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Velworth and thanks for that. Your comments all addressed above and I am looking forward to the next instalment. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Apologies for the delay. It is a fine article indeed. Looking forward to its promotion. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Battle_of_Preston_1648.svg would benefit from a legend
I shall see what I can do.
  • File:Marmaduke_Langdale2.png is a rather poor quality image - is this copied from a painting?
It doesn't seem too bad to me, but I could replace it with this [18] from the National Portrait Museum?
Published 8 May 1886 by Luke S. Walmsley, a Lancashire art collector. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Gog the Mild, my comments:

  • A very minor and cosmetic first comment, but consider linking to Edinburgh in the War section?
I have linked it at first mention in Background.
  • In the War section, consider slightly moving down the image of Oliver Cromwell? Even without the campaign boxes being expanded, it still forms a SANDWICH with the image of Charles I.
If I move it down I get a sandwich with the map. I think the issue is with the size of the infobox image. So I have shrunk it, does that resolve things?
  • Do we prefer "risings" or "uprisings"? I think the term which is more grammatically accurate is the latter. Wdyt?
Nah. They are synonyms. One can swap them around and the grammar and meaning is unchanged. I was trying for a bit of variety of expression, but I am not too bothered. Do I understand that your preference would be to replace every "risings" with "uprisings"?
  • Link to Carlisle on first mention in the War section, as done in the lead?
Whoops. Done.
Both done.
  • Can we change the font or background color of the map in the invasion section? I can only read Preston and Winwick easily on the map, for the others I have to squint, since the background and font colors are both light.
I don't think I can change the font colour - which is a shame. The only way I know to change the background would be to remove the relief, which I don't want to do as it contains important information. I could - easily - make all of the labels a little bigger - say a touch larger than Preston and Winwick? Or put them all on white backgrounds, as I have done as a test with Gloucester. What do you think?
  • "How many mustered": "How many were mustered" would be better, no?
I am not sure that is grammatical, it sounds clumsy to me. Wiktionary gives a usage example of "The whole male population, men and boys, mustered on the top of the hill." so I am happy that there is nothing wrong with how I am using it.
Done.
  • "separate, nominally Scottish, force": Remove the comma after "Scottish"? It makes the reading flow rather awkward.
Done.
  • Why have we not added Philip Musgrave and William Bailie to the infobox in the Commanders section?
Because they were subordinate commanders who played little part in this battle and had no effect on the outcome.
  • "and at that more than half": Remove "at that"? Does not seem necessary.
Removed.
  • Link to Wigan, Warrington and Manchester on first mention in the body?
Done.
  • Would we consider adding the New Model Army and Lancashire Militia to the infobox?
No. It clutters the infobox while providing little of use to a reader.
  • "the fight had gone out of them": Sounds poetic, but too filmy. Could we consider something more boring and encyclopedic like "they were no longer willing to fight"?
It sounds fine to me. I am happy to change it, but I don't like your suggestion. 'but they were demoralised and ...'?
Done.
Done.
  • In note 6, link to Scone?
Done.
  • In Dow 1979, remove the Ltd. suffix from the publisher name, as done for Young 1996?
Drat! Done.
  • In the biblio, link to Michael Braddick, Charles ffoulkes, Jane Ohlmeyer?
All done.
  • Add the archive URL for the Historic England source? It is unlikely to go offline but government websites often change their URLs.
I have no particular objection - although I struggle to imagine Historic England changing its URLs - but could you point me towards the instructions or remind me how to hand-archive? It has been a loong time since I did anything other than run the archiving bot.

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matarisvan, excellent stuff - thank you. All of your comments addressed I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, the SANDWICH issue is resolved. I would indeed prefer "uprisings" to "risings", but it's your choice. For the map, I like the background addition you've done to the Gloucester marking, it is much more readable than making the font size larger. I've added the archive URL myself. Everything else is alright. Matarisvan (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Not much from me. All as excellent as one expects from this source. A few minor carps and quibbles, mostly about the prose:

Ah ha. The New Model Reviewer wheels into action.
  • "As the situation with regards to the siege" – I think you want "with regard to", rather than "with regards to", which sounds like sending a greeting.
Done.
  • "around 2,800 – all of them experienced veterans." – as opposed to inexperienced veterans?
Tweaked to "all of them experienced fighting men." Does that work?
It does. Tim riley talk 08:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their effectiveness was reduced because of their commander, Major General George Munro, refusing to accept any subordination" – this is our old friend the gerund again. Either "because of [his] refusal" or "because [he] refused" is wanted here, I'd say.
I despair of ever sorting out gerunds. Changed. Thank you.
  • "Each was composed of both musketmen and pikemen. ... A well-trained musketman" – musketman is new to me and, more to the point, unknown to the OED, Chambers and Collins. You use "musketeer" elsewhere and I suggest you stick to that. (You may very reasonably object that those authorities are fine with "pikemen", "cavalrymen" and "militiamen", but that's the way it is.)
How very odd. The sole unisex opportunity in a ECW fighting formation. So be it.
  • "using the slow match while controlling a horse inconvenient" – "inconvenient" sounds a bit of an understatement. If I were perched on top of a damn' great horse I would find it more terrifying than inconvenient to start faffing about with fiddly equipment like this. Perhaps something on the lines of "the cavalry, who found it difficult to ignite and use the slow match while controlling a horse"?
You have no appreciation for English military understatement. Remind me to tell you about "a bit sticky" one day. Do you really think that a reader will fail to comprehend? Or that "difficult" makes the situation significantly clearer than "inconvenient"?
I do not press the point. Tim riley talk 08:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several Scottish infantry regiments had light-weight, small-calibre" – "lightweight" is all one word according to all three of the dictionaries I use.
Ah well.
  • "within two days march" – "days" would be better as "days'" – with the possessive apostrophe, I think, as in "one week's money", "two years' supplies" and suchlike.
Yes indeed. Or even a hundred years' war?
Good point. Tim riley talk 08:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seasoned veterans" – contrasting with the unseasoned veterans?
A "veteran" is someone who has served in the military. A veteran who has been "blooded" is a different, and more dangerous, thing. But tweaked for a general audience.
No. The OED says a veteran in this sense is "A person with long experience in military service or warfare" and Chambers gives "a person who has seen long service in any activity; an experienced soldier ..." Though admittedly Chambers mentions the AmE "vet", meaning someone who has served in the army however briefly, that isn't relevant here unless there were large numbers of Americans fighting for the Roundheads or the Cavaliers. Tim riley talk 08:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nearly all of the Scottish units were under strength" – do we need the "of" here or in "the Scots had put all of their troops", later?
Good points.
  • "The make up of the separate, nominally Scottish force" – I'm treading carefully here as I don't want to suggest you make it appear they were wearing eye-shadow and mascara, but I think make-up should be hyphenated.
Done. Wiktionary suggests they are equally acceptable alternates.
  • "many of the Scots were experienced veterans" – it's the non-rookie veterans again!
Tweaked.
  • "not a fifth man could handle a pike" – nonsense! Anyone could handle Elizabeth David's delicious pike with beurre blanc or pike quenelles with crayfish sauce.
[19]
Excellent! Tim riley talk 08:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bar two infantry brigades" – is "bar" a little colloquial? Not sure.
My (non-standard) version of the OED says it has been used in this sense since at least 1714. So by now itis probably acceptable.
  • "and a cavalry rear guard" – "rearguard" is all one word in my dictionaries.
They have squeezed up.
  • "Scottish prisoners who had served voluntarily, as opposed to being conscripted..." – not challenging this but just wondering how it could be demonstrated in each case whether the man was a volunteer or a conscript.
The sources say not, but I am guessing the pay records might have been captured. Plus, separate everyone, threaten them, question them separately, and put it all together. And if you make the odd mistake, well, God will know his own.
I see. Understood. Tim riley talk 08:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were sold as slaves: to work the land in the Americas or as galley slaves to Venice." – the colon seems a bit odd; I'd use a comma or a dash.
Ok.
  • "declared his son Charles II, King of Britain" – I'm quite sure you're accurately relaying what the source says, but even so it seems odd that the Scottish parliament thought it could unilaterally declare Charles king of Britain, especially as there was no such state at the time.
Everyone brings this up. They were deliberately poking the English in the eye with a sharp stick. "Diplomacy" never changes eh?
Quite, Tim riley talk 08:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few multiple citations that are not in numerical order. This may be intentional but I mention them just in case:
  • envelop the opposing formation.[42][43][38]
  • turning the unit more difficult.[39][38]
  • cutting and thrusting.[45][36]
  • in the vicinity of Preston,[67][65]
  • retreat to the Ribble bridge.[73][69][74]
  • as numerous as the Parliamentarian army.[85][86][79]
  • the rain continued.[90][84]
  • agree on the total numbers.[99][100][55]
WP:CITEORDER "... references need not be moved solely to maintain the numerical order of footnotes as they appear in the article."
  • One para has just one citation for its 117 words and four sentences: just checking that your ref 64 covers all of them.
That's a hard-working little citation. Yes it does, but thanks for keeping an eye on it.
I'll chop 'em. Half of them will probably get added back. Some/many editors do like their links.

That's all from me. Over to you. I look forward to revisiting to add my support. – Tim riley talk 15:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am building up an unpayable debt. Thank you once again. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I have enjoyed reading and reviewing it. Tim riley talk 08:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Going to qualify that I don't have access to most/any of these sources, so can't easily spotcheck. Are there reviews of "Cromwell's Masterstroke: The Battle of Dunbar 1650", "Sword, Lance & Bayonet: a Record of the Arms of the British Army & Navy", "The Scottish Parliament 1649–1661: A Political and Constitutional Analysis" and "Cassell's Battlefields of Britain and Ireland"? Don't notice any inconsistency or obviously unreliable source, but this isn't a topic where I am an expert. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for picking this up. I will be away for a few days with limited internet and limited time, so apologies if I don't get back to you on these until Monday or Tuesday. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sword, Lance & Bayonet: a Record of the Arms of the British Army & Navy". This is used once, to support an obscure military fact. That it was reprinted by Cambridge University Press 75 years after its first edition would suggest that it is sufficiently high quality.
  • Reviews of "Cromwell's Masterstroke: The Battle of Dunbar 1650". There must be some, but I can't find them. The best I can do is a Google Scholar list of other works which have cited it. (Eg [20]
  • Reviews of "The Scottish Parliament 1649–1661: A Political and Constitutional Analysis". The second item here has the start of a review, but irritatingly I can't persuade the full version to open. Again it is only used to support one narrow historical point.
  • Reviews of "Cassell's Battlefields of Britain and Ireland". At last! See here. Brief and for History Today, but very positive.

I have paper copies of Reese and Cassell's - the first and last you list above - if you would like any pages emailing. And about half of the other sources, come to that.

Hi Jo-Jo and sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I have been banging my head against a wall looking for reviews, to very little avail. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, OK, if no objections arise this can probably stay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN with FAC in mine. I have skimmed the article and I don't see any degredations from the version I reviewed at GAN; only improvements, so support. Hog Farm Talk 05:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review:

  • "Not contemplating that Cromwell would act so recklessly Hamilton was caught with his army on the march" comma after recklessly
Done.
  • "Although still at least as strong as the whole Parliamentarian army they fled towards Wigan in a night march." Comma after army.
Not the way I use commas.
  • "In 1639, and again in 1640, Charles I, who was king of both Scotland and England in a personal union, went to war with his Scottish subjects in the Bishops' Wars." -> Lots of commas at the beginning of this sentence is negatively affecting the phrasing. Perhaps, "Charles I, who was king of both Scotland and England in a personal union, went to war with his Scottish subjects in the Bishops' Wars of 1639 and 1640."
I like it. Done.
  • "After years of rising tensions the relationship between Charles and his English Parliament also broke down," Comma after tensions.
Not the way I use commas.
  • "Body armour – a cuirass (metal chest and back plates) – was worn by most cavalrymen," This feels like the start of a bulleted list. Maybe, "For body armour"?
Rephrased.
  • "at no faster than a trot – to maintain formation" remove the dash
The resultant repetition of "formation" didn't really work, so I have rephrased.
  • "The nearest component of the main, Scottish, contingent of the Royalist army was 1 mile (1.6 km) to the west of Langdale's corps." I think the commas are wrong, or the word "Scottish" is in the wrong spot?
Apologies, I missed this on my first run through. I have looked at this repeatedly and for the life of me I can't see the problem. I could replace the commas with dashes, but I suspect that wouldn't address whatever the problem is. Or I could remove "Scottish" altogether - I don't think the trivial additional amount of information is worth whatever stumble it is causing you. Do you have a preference, or a different suggestion?
  • I am reading this sentence again and cannot make sense of it, even within the context of the article. I'll try to break down the sentence to see if I am missing anything: something Scottish is the nearest component of the main. Not sure what the Scottish thing is: it could be the contingent of the Royalist army? Or is the Scottish thing the nearest army/battalion/unit of measurement for military that is closest to the Royalist forces? I just think there is something missing to explain what is meant here. Z1720 (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Thanks for that Z1720. I am aware of how difficult it can be to explain why you are not understanding something you are not understanding. I have removed "Scottish", which is a trivial piece of additional information but not worth including if it confuses a reader. (And should be discernible to a reader paying close attention anyway.) This means the article now reads "The nearest part of the main contingent of the Royalist army was 1 mile (1.6 km) to the west of Langdale's corps." Does that work? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, resolved. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, two parliamentary cavalry regiments – each up to 480 men strong – operating on their right were able to make better, if slow, progress." -> "Two parliamentary cavalry regiments operating on their right – each up to 480 men strong – were able to make better, if slow, progress."
Why. Personally I struggle to parse the suggested new version.
  • "Fighting off three attacks by Parliamentarian cavalry they eventually swam their horses to the south bank." comma after cavalry?
Not the way I use commas.

I'm at "Fight for the bridge" and will continue at a later time. Feel free to respond to the above while waiting for my remaining comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, detailed stuff Z1720. Thank you, I appreciate it. Your comments to date all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I will continue this below:

  • "By now night was falling" This is a historical event, "now" seems a little weird to me. Perhaps "By then night was falling"
Good point. I have removed "By now" as superfluous.
  • "took up a position to hold off the Parliamentarian pursuit. Throughout 18 August the" Suggest starting a new paragraph at this full stop, for potential easier readability.
Done.
  • "were sold as slaves – to work the land in the Americas" I don't think the dash should be there, or perhaps it should be a colon?
Yep, a colon works. Thanks.
  • "Preston and Winwick were the last battles of the Second English Civil War, Colchester surrendered to Fairfax on 27 August 1648." Replace the comma with a semi-colon
Done.
  • Not sure if Note 4 should end with a full stop.
That is very tactful of you - my typo corrected.

That's it for a first readthrough. I'll respond to the above comments if needed, in a later edit Z1720 (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Z1720. All actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Z1720, is there more to come on this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Sorry for the delay. I added a response to "The nearest component of the main, Scottish," sentence, because I cannot make sense of what it is trying to say. Z1720 (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support concerns have been addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

Good afternoon @FAC coordinators: . I was wondering if I could have permission to start another? This one has four general supports, one ongoing review with all comments addressed, a source review pass, an image review with all comments dealt with and has been open for three weeks. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. FrB.TG (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at closure, I find the first sentence quite a mouthful. My first thought for reworking the lead para is as follows. I'm not entirely happy with it but it does break things down into bite-size chunks and you might well tweak it into something much better...

The battle of Preston was fought on 17 August 1648 during the Second English Civil War. A Parliamentarian army commanded by Lieutenant General Oliver Cromwell attacked a considerably larger force of Royalists under James Hamilton, Duke of Hamilton, near the Lancashire town of Preston; the Royalists were defeated with heavy losses.

Done. Thanks Ian. For future reference feel entirely free to make any changes which you believe will improve an article without running them past me in advance, either as a coordinator, a reviewer or a drive-by editor. In the improbable event that I disagree I will reverse BRD and obtain your permission before reverting; in the more conceivable event that I wish to tweak one of your changes I shall similarly seek your acquiescence before doing so. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you Gog. Thus emboldened, I'll make a couple of other points:
  1. The first para of the Retreat subsection is uncited.
    Drat! Ian Rose, Z1720 suggested above that this sub-section be split into two paragraphs. Which I did, but stupidly forgot to duplicate the citations. Now done. Thanks for picking it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guessed it was something like that but played dumb (not difficult).
  2. There are several instances in the Battle section where citation numbering is out of order. If this is deliberate, no prob; if not you might like to tweak (other sections could be similar, I didn't check them for that).
    It is deliberate. (And in part on the assumption that WP:CITEORDER ("references need not be moved solely to maintain the numerical order of footnotes as they appear in the article") applies to FAs.)
    Absolutely.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 16 March 2025 [21].

Nosy Komba

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nosy Komba is small round island between the more famous Nosy Be and the main island of Madagascar. Its name means "Island of Lemurs" and that's sure what its famous for. There is some interesting history, lots of other fun biology, and some fun tidbits about its economy and local tourism industry. It was a little surprising how much information there was about this remote corner of Madagascar. It's also sad what portions - like demographic statistics ( :(((( ) aren't available. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments and a support from Toadspike

[edit]
  • The History section begins in the 19th century. Was the island uninhabited before this time?
    • Unfortunately, I could find no source (in French or English) which explicitly said this one way or another. Some archaeological work has been done on Nosy-Be studying trade routes and such, but I don't think anything has been done on Nosy Komba. - G
  • "a local colonial administration named Nosy-Bé et Dépendances, 'Nosy Be and Dependencies'" – I am not sure whether this is the best way to format this. Due to label=none, the literal translation label is hidden. Maybe it would be better to remove the translation from the lang template and put in a Template:Literal translation, but this is up to you.
    • Oh,I wasn't aware of that template - added. - G
  • "Expanding French influence over the region forced Tsiomeko and the Merina to cede a section of coast to France in July 1840, including both islands." – this sentence should be reworded for clarity. On first reading it, I assumed "a section of coast" referred to part of the coast of Nosy Komba, but upon finishing the sentence it became apparent that the coast of Madagascar is implied instead. "The region" is also vague - do you mean Madacascar, the Indian Ocean, southeastern Africa, or something else?
  • "Both Nosy Be and Nosy Komba became centers of the growing French colonial labor force, from which many were privately-owned slaves leased by the colonial government." – This sentence is also somewhat unclear. The use of "from which" is very confusing. From the island or from the labor force? Also, were the "privately-owned" slaves owned by the locals or French people? If the former, are these the same slaves mentioned in the previous paragraph?
  • I have added some links and changed a convert template to use the adjective format. I suggest changing "Nosy Komba (from Malagasy, lit. "island of lemurs")" to use the lit template as well, instead of the Abbr workaround you've currently got.
    • Awesome. - G
  • "During the Last Glacial Period, the island was previously merged with other nearby islands" – having both a time period and "previously" is unnecessary. Is there a more technical word for "merged"? I think "linked" would make more sense. Perhaps a link to land bridge is appropriate.
  • "Merina persecution motivated several revolts and the migration of 15,000 Malagasy, mainly Sakalava and their slaves, to Nosy Be and Nosy Komba" – Merina people says that the Merina are also Malagasy. This sentence currently implies that they are not.
    • Oh, good point - rephrased. - G
  • "Nosy Ambariovato" – do you have a literal translation of this name, too?
    • Some tourist websites and blogs say "island surrounded by rocks", but I couldn't find an RS for that. - G
  • "mean annual temperature of 26 °C" – I would insert the word "around" before "26 °C", since this data is from another island.
    • Added. - G
  • "forced Tsiomeko and the Merina to cede a portion to France in July 1840, including both islands" – a portion of what? The northwest coast of Madagascar? The whole island of Madagascar?
    • Clarified. - G
  • "Three years later, these were placed" – strongly suggest replacing "these" with "the two islands", since the preceding sentence has ~7 nouns and "these" could plausibly refer to any of them.
    • Done. - G
  • "settlers continued to recruit Malagasy elites" – to clarify here, they were basically enslaving Malagasy people? If so, why only the elites?
    • Oops, missed a few words there - rephrased. - G
  • "a convalescence retreat" – I find this wording confusing. Retreat is, to my knowledge, not often used to refer to a building, and the source doesn't use this word at all, simply saying 'a building called the “convalescence”' or 'the “convalescence”'. I prefer exchanging the word "retreat" for something else or dropping it altogether.
    • Done. - G
  • Knowing of the de:Basler Sanatorium and de:Luftkurort Davos, I was hoping we'd have a decent article to link "healing effects of high-altitude environments" with, but it doesn't look like it. Effects of high altitude on humans is very interesting but doesn't cover this. The source mentions Humboldtian science, but that article doesn't mention altitude. :(
  • It is implied that all patients at the convalescence and later sanatorium were European, but I don't think this is made clear. Similarly, it isn't specified in "Laborers were used to carry European patients" that the laborers were non-European. I think both are worth mentioning.
    • Clarified; the second one already says "French colonial troops" - is that enough? - G
  • The article says that the sanatorium was "Functioning as a sorting station" but also that "1,883 patients were treated" – if they were not really being treated, perhaps replace that word with "passed through" or the like, expressing that they were in the facility without commending the care they received.
    • Done. - G
  • When I saw "a mortality rate of 5.3%", my first instinct was that it looked pretty good. The source confirms this: "Medics seemed pleased with this morbidity rate of 5.3%: “if one compares this figure to that of the losses in the expeditionary corps, the utility of the sanitary quarter of Nosy Komba becomes readily apparent.”" Although the next sentence ("The high mortality led to...") is correct, I consider it misleading to immediately describe a good data point as bad – I believe Darricarrère was likely referring to different data. Consider rephrasing.
  • "colonial troops on the main island" – I believe you mean Madagascar, not Nosy Be. This should be clarified.
    • Clarified. - G
  • I have some comprehensiveness concerns with the history section. For one, some of the content in the Jennings source isn't covered, including the factoid that the sanatorium was seen as a path straight back to France for ill soldiers, rather than a way to return casualties to service. Second, the history ends in 1928, implying that Nosy Komba is still a French colony to this day, still with a sanatorium, indentured servitude, etc. Even if you don't have sources for the later history, something like "The island became part of the newly independent country of Madagascar in 1960" would help.
  • "sclerophyllous (tolerant of dry heat) plants" – "tolerant of dry heat plants" is not grammatically correct, so I suggest moving the parenthetical to the end: "sclerophyllous plants (tolerant of dry heat)".
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Widespread deforestation..." – this part implies there was less deforestation on Nosy Be, is that true? Or were there similar amounts of deforestation but the bigger island had more habitat left over for animals?
    • Added some context. - G
  • "unlike some other areas within the lemurs' range" – does this including other nearby places like Nosy Be and Madagascar?
    • Clarified. - G
  • Sad that Ambato peninsula is a redlink...oh well.
  • "the locally taboo practice of hunting the animals for bushmeat" – if it's taboo, who's doing it? Non-locals? Also, I thought they weren't sacred, so why is it taboo to hunt them?
    • I get the sense it's not a spiritual taboo, just culturally frowned upon; hence, some people are breaking it to get meat. - G
  • "may have had an intensified impact on local species" is the kind of weak wording that makes me worry about undue weight. While checking the source, I found it hard to see where exactly this came from. Could you please clarify what part of the source (McClanahan) says this?
    • That's not citing McClanahan, it's citing Blumgart, Dolhem & Raxworthy - but I realized that was also the wrong source, since it's in Roberts and Daly. Oops! Being a relatively small island, the impacts of deforestation, human disturbance, and severe storms on small populations are magnified. Reworded to be less passive. -G
  • Unrelated to this article, this sentence from McClanahan is something: "Ambariotelo is under the authority of a local queen who controls the use of natural resources through local taboo restrictions, including one that restricts visitors from other villages."
    • Oh right, that's interesting. No other source talks about that, so I was kind of confused on how to incorporate it - it seems like kind of a big claim?
Edit: I think Ambariotelo, also spelled Ambario Telo is a small island to the northeast of Nosy Komba. But the McClanahan source doesn't say if the queen is on Nosy Komba, the mainland, or on Nosy Be - G
  • "the offshore Tanikely Marine Reserve" – is "offshore" really needed here? Almost as funny as "The southern side of each dwelling faced south" in your last FAC.
    • Fair point - removed - G
  • "all classified as rural" – but earlier you said "Some inhabitants of rural areas of the island". So either the source and the census have different definitions of 'rural', or something weird happened here.
    • Different definitions; I used rural to mean "outside of the main village", and the census uses it to mean "outside of an incorporated city". - G
  • "Nosy Komba hosts a large number of hotels and tourist facilities" – have you got any exact number or reference point? Are we talking "around ten" or "around a hundred"? "A large number" is very hard to interpret for a small island with a population of 5,834.
    • Sadly, I couldn't find any source which was specific about this :(( - G

These are all my prose comments, otherwise the writing looks pretty solid. Feel free to rebut any points if you disagree.

@Generalissima: Thanks for addressing my suggestions. I think the two bits I requested in the bullet point beginning "I have some comprehensiveness concerns" haven't been added yet. I also suggest rewording two parts to minimize repetition: "Although slave ownership by French settlers was not permitted, [...]. Although slavery was abolished in the French colonies [...] to Mayotte and Réunion." and "some species of reptiles [...] many species of reptiles". Since these are minor issues, though, I feel comfortable leaving a support for this FAC before they are fixed. Toadspike [Talk] 07:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support  Comments  from Noleander

[edit]
  • The island hosts a population of black lemurs; these are protected by local residents. - I was not able to find the "protected" fact in the sources; the Blumgart source "Herpetological diversity across intact.." seems to indicate that deforetation is continuing in 21st century.
    • Not formal protection. Translated from Harpet et al. 1996, p. 294: "Certain villages (notably those on Nosy Komba), where the species Eulemur macaco is simply protected by the local residents without being given the status of sacred animal, benefit from frequent visits by tourists who come to see the lemurs up close." - G
  • I suggest adding a small subsection devoted to Conservation. Especially to hold info such as " there is essentially no enforcement of environmental protection measures in the area; as such, it has been heavily damaged by..."
    • Good idea. - G
  • Article seems to be missing sections on human stuff: demographics, list of towns, government, population is increasing/decreasing, industries, agriculture, cultural things, etc. I realize the population is small, but I think such info/sections are common/required for inhabited landmasses, no? Some of that data is in the History and Economy sections, but could be more thorough. Example: climate: is there no data for building the 12-month climate table seen in most geogr. articles?
  • ... continuing above, compare with other articles on islands, e.g. Easter Island, Elba, Pitcairn Islands, etc. I know those islands are famous, and have tons of source material, but they are sparsely populated, and for FA I'd expect comparable breadth of information.
    • @Noleander: There appear to be no weather stations on the island - journal articles I've seen cite the data from nearby Nosy-Be, which I think would superfluous to include. Comprehensiveness is a matter of the sources available, and there just is not extant sources which could fulfill specific climate and economic information.
That being said - I was able to find some data for Nosy Komba in the 2018 Malagasy census, so I included that within the article. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguity: Ampangorina is an arrondissement of the unitary commune and district of Nosy Be. It is divided between five ... The word "it" could refer to Ampangorina or to the "district of Nosy Be".
    • Fixed. - G
  • Confusing: The island is known for its namesake black lemurs, an additional nocturnal species of lemur has not been sighted on the island since the 1990s. I'm not sure if the "additional nocturnal species" is refering to the "black lemurs" of prior clause; or is introducing a 2nd (unnamed) species. The whole sentence does not make any sense.
    • Reworded.
  • Lead summarizes whole article? Glancing at the lead: it appears to not summarize the entire body of the article ... Maybe you could give it another pass and make sure all the key points from the body are represented in the lead.
    • Reworded. - G
  • ... also known as Nosy Ambariovato... Normally, alternative names are in the very first sentence of an article, no? Maybe 1st stentence could be Noxy Komba (...pronunciation....), also known as Nosy Ambariovato, is a small island ...
    • Added. - G

750h

[edit]

Comments below. Feel free to decline any with justification of course.

lead
  • hosts a traditionally-protected forest any reason for the hyphen?
geography
  • No problems here.
history
  • and was used to screen newly-recruited laborers hyphen unneeded
  • motivated by 19th century beliefs in the healing hyphen needed between 19th and century (from what I know)
flora and fauna
  • are protected by local residents "local" is redundant i think
  • At least one species of the nocturnal sportive lemurs ==> "At least one species of the nocturnal sportive lemur"
demographics and administration
  • No problems here.
economy
  • No problems here.

@Generalissima: thanks for the article and sorry for the wait. Happy to leave my vote once you address the above comments. 750h+ 06:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: De-hyphenated and implemented your fixes! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Happy to support; thanks for the article. 750h+ 04:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "slightly reduced by past deforestation." "past deforestation"? Is there any other sort?
    • Fixed. - G
  • Cucciniello et al needs a page range.
    • Added. - G
  • Beccaluva et al needs a publisher location. (Boulder, Colorado)
    • Added. - G
  • Cite 22 has a p/pp error.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "During the Last Glacial Period, the island was previously merged with other nearby islands". Delete "previously".
    • Fixed. - G
  • No mention of the Nosy Komba ground boa?
    • I'm not actually sure if that's the preferred nomenclature anymore for that species - this source appears to call it the "Western Madagascar Tree Boa" and states its distributed across a fairly wide area of the island.
  • "The heavy dry season". Can one have a heavy dry season? Maybe 'intense', or 'prolonged, or similar?
    • Good point - fixed. - G
  • "may have only survived in small pockets of surviving forests". Is it possible to avoid "survived" and "surviving" within six words?
    • Reworded. - G
  • The link to Roberts & Daly 2014a is dead.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Some inhabitants of rural areas of the island ... attribute the population decline to wildfires, deforestation, and the locally taboo practice of hunting the animals for bushmeat." Just checking that the attribution is by the locals, and not the 2013 survey.
    • Yep, it was from surveying locals. - G

This is in fine shape. A few quibbles above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Arconning

[edit]

Source review from Thebiguglyalien

[edit]

I'll have a source review done soon. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist:

  • Citations throughout the article
  • All citations are organized as Sfn references
  • All sources are associated with credible authors and credible publishers except possibly where noted below.
  • ISBN, ISSN and DOI are consistent where applicable.

Reliability:

  • What makes Bradt Travel Guides a high quality source? It's fine for two basic statements, but is it authoritative enough to support "Fishing is also an important industry"?
    • Yeah, I was unsure on that point. The other sources don't mention fishing, so I took it out. - G
  • What makes Rasolomanana & Doucoure 2013 reliable? Who are these authors and what is the Projet Pôles Intégrés de Croissance et Corridors?
  • What makes the Roberts & Daly 2014 sources reliable? I can't find anything indicating these two are qualified experts or that the publishers are credible.

Comprehensiveness:

  • The history section is largely dependent on Jennings 2017. Do no other sources cover the island's use as a medical facility?
    • I couldn't find any :( Jennings is citing French government papers and other papers about colonial healthcare and labor systems in general. Nosy Be is definitely the focus for studies on the region. - G
  • Have you checked sources available on Internet Archive? I see several that are not present in the article. https://archive.org/search?query=%22Nosy+Komba%22&sin=TXT
    • I did; the sources seem to alternate between alternate versions of the Brandt travel guide, biology papers that mention as the location of a paratype, or brief mentions when listing the islands around Nosy Be. There's a 1967 paper that mentions the holotype of a copepod species being found there, but I really doubt that'd be DUE to include.

References:

  • Many authors have articles but are not linked in the references.
    • Done. - G

Generalissima formatting mostly looks good, but some questions about comprehensiveness and a few sources that I'd like to confirm as high quality. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Responded! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good then! Pass source review. I personally would lean toward including the minor biology info—the threshold for what's due is going to be lower for a subject with this little coverage—but it could go either way. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: *oliver twist voice* please sirs, may I nom one more? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MORE???!!! Oh all right... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 March 2025 [22].

Dance the Night

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 19:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the song "Dance the Night" by Dua Lipa. After Carly Rae Jepsen last year, it is time for another dance-pop artist to receive their first FA! I have chosen this track that soundtracks a pivotal scene in 2023's Barbie. The song performed extremely strong commercially but critical reception was kind of mixed. I know "Don't Start Now" was unsuccessfully nominated at FAC a few years ago; I would like to dedicate this to some of the Lipa content contributors that Wikipedia has unfortunately lost. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 19:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEclipse

[edit]

I remember when the entire Barbenheimer thing was going on. I could not escape this song at all. Spotcheck coming in the following days. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neos • talk • edits) 23:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • [3]: Cannot access, AGF pass
  • [5]: OK
  • [60]: OK
  • [114]: OK
  • [129]: This might be a region-based thing, but I can't find the specified charts ranking on here.
  • [130]: Ditto
  • [40]: OK
  • [57]: OK
  • [58]: OK
  • [55]: OK
  • [67]: OK
  • [48]: OK

@MaranoFan: ping 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 18:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, LunaEclipse! I replaced refs 129 and 130. Just so there is no confusion later, is this also a source review?--NØ 19:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 19:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: [129] says the song peaked at No. 5 for that specific chart. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 19:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean this one? It shows the peak position as number one, no?--NØ 19:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Says it peaked at No. 5. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 20:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to waste your time so I did the job for you. Support. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 12:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am still seeing a peak position of number one, not five, to be honest. Maybe the next reviewer will be able to help us with what peak the link is displaying to them.--NØ 14:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

zmbro

[edit]

Staking my claim here – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice seeing Dua get some love. Here are some comments:

  • I've been conforming my articles to WP:FALSETITLE, which I don't think is mandatory but I've been seeing other editors across WP start adhering to it too. You can do what you want with that it won't affect my opinion I just thought I'd bring it up. Note: A false title is in use in the music video section: "Lipa created with the Italian fashion designer Donatella Versace." So I'd be consistent in one way or the other.
  • From my observation, we do not have a rigid policy regarding false titles, but in terms of music articles, a majority of editors prefer to keep them in. I made the one in the music video section consistent with the rest of the article now, though.
  • Could we change: ""Dance the Night" peaked at number one on the UK Singles Chart and number six on the Billboard Hot 100. The song reached number one in several countries and received multi-platinum certifications in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Poland, as well as diamond in France." to have the UK be included with the "several countries"? So, ""Dance the Night" reached number one in several countries, including the UK, and received multi-platinum certifications in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Poland, as well as diamond in France. It also reached number six on the Billboard Hot 100."
  • "before blowing a kiss to the camera,[22][23] and the song was later included in an official trailer." → "before blowing a kiss to the camera;[22][23] the song was later included in an official trailer."
  • Consider adding an audio sample to showcase the disco elements?
  • "The Sydney Morning Herald's Robert Moran and Doyle thought it embodied her signature sound." → "The Sydney Morning Herald's Robert Moran and Doyle thought it embodied Lipa's signature sound."
  • Was there any critical commentary on how the song stood as part of the Barbie soundtrack itself? Like was it a standout song? There's already good content in critical reception but I feel since it's part of a soundtrack album, one that included other successful songs like "What Was I Made For?" and "I'm Just Ken", a comparison would be nice (especially since a lot of these reviews are for the soundtrack itself)
  • The current section is a comprehensive survey of all the reviews, so no. But I did just revisit all the reviews for the soundtrack just to make sure.
  • "This represents her plans to move away from Future Nostalgia's dance sound with her future music according to Ronson." → "According to Ronson, this represents her plans to move away from Future Nostalgia's dance sound with her future music."
  • "She performed it in full live for the first time at the Royal Albert Hall on 17 October 2024." Can you add "which was released on the live album Dua Lipa Live from the Royal Albert Hall (2024)."? (with a source of course)
  • synthesizer should be spelled synthesiser in credits and personnel

Everything else looks good to me. Very solid read! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, zmbro! All done. Could you confirm if this link shows a number one or number five peak position for "Dance the Night"? Since LunaEclipse and I had some confusion about it above.--NØ 09:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Link shows a number one peak position. :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely shows number one for me. I can't understand how/why someone else would see something different..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was thinking too...--NØ 19:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

Image placement seems fine. I kinda wonder about the Flickr uploader of File:POS16 F6 RONSON 7 (27800111234).jpg, that's a lot of disparate images. File:Dua Lipa - Dance the Night.ogg should probably explain why this sample specifically. Only one has ALT text. Did some light spotchecking that didn't find issues. It looks like we are using adequate sources in consistent formatting, although I wonder if some URLs were copypasted erroneously e.g #38. Is Media Forest a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the reviews. The uploader seems to be a professional photographer with several similarly high-quality images on his own website. I think the audio sample's page is already comprehensive; it does not contain video so it does not need ALT text, but TimedText is present. The URL for #38 leads to the correct page so it is correctly copypasted. Media Forest is an official chart provider according to WP:CHARTS. Let me know if the reviews pass now, Jo-Jo Eumerus.--NØ 10:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 38 is definitively not correct - https://www.timeout.com/music/best-pop-songs-of-all-time is a page about the 40 best pop songs, not 45, and there are other differences.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. Seems like they put a different list there recently. I just marked it dead to solve the issue.--NØ 10:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "They thought the song could become successful" - "they" is very vague, especially as in the previous sentence you mentioned two groups of people with diametrically opposed views
  • "depicted Disco Demolition Night in 1979 Chicago" - link Disco Demolition Night
  • "as mermaid barbie" => "as Mermaid Barbie"
  • That's what I got as far as the end of "Background and release" - back for more later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Picard Brothers play keyboards and programmed it" => "Picard Brothers play keyboards and programmed the track"
  • "Martins praised the strings and thought the song fit Barbie perfectly" => "Martins praised the strings and thought the song fitted Barbie perfectly" (British English, as Lipa is British)
  • ""Dance the Night" became Lipa's fourth number one single" => ""Dance the Night" became Lipa's fourth number-one single"
  • "and fit the Barbie universe" => "and fitted the Barbie universe" (as above)
  • That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Status update request

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I was just curious if I could get a status update on this nomination. I just do not want it to get lost as more nominations are being added and this one is pushed further down the list. I hope you all have a great weekend! NØ 18:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "always appearing perfect externally." I know what you mean, but "appearing" and "externally" seem to duplicate. I mean, how can one appear perfect internally? Maybe a slight rephrasing? There is a similar issue in the main text.
  • "performing choreography". I am not sure that one can perform choreography. Certainly it rings oddly to my ear. Any chance of a tweak?
  • "Lipa sang one line from it while opening the 66th Annual Grammy Awards and performed it in full live for the first time at the Royal Albert Hall." It may be worth giving one or both of these a date.
  • "a 1980s power ballad inspired by Ken." Should that be 'a 1980s-style power ballad inspired by Ken'?
  • "and requested that the former be disco". It took me a while to work out what this referred to. Suggest 'the pop song'.
  • "which she watched and approached the process like writing a film score." This could use some punctuation.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done up to here, GTM.--NØ 14:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lipa compares the tears streaming down her face while she cries to diamonds". Optional: delete "while she cries".
  • "The positive critics were ..." This implies that the following list includes all of the positive critics. 'The positive critics included' or similar is more usual.
  • "a low yet disparately feminine voice". "disparately"! Really? What does the source say?
  • "Tomás Mier of Rolling Stone observed the similarity to artists' previous material as a common trend on the soundtrack that made it work". I may be being dim, but I have no idea what this means.
  • I have tweaked this; for better understanding, what the source wrote is "Before the album even drops, some haters complained that some of the snippets sounded too similar to the artists’ own music, but that's why the Barbie album works so well."

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks for the review, and open to any other suggestions.--NØ 17:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 March 2025 [23].

Epistemology

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge. As a major branch of philosophy, it examines the nature of knowledge, distinguishing different types and components. It further explores the sources of knowledge, like perception, and its limits, addressing what people can and cannot know. Thanks to It is a wonderful world for the in-depth GA review and to DoctorWhoFan91 and Shapeyness for their insightful peer review comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image and prose review

[edit]

Will do an image and prose review later today. DWF91 (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Everything other than the first are fine, correctly attributed, with appropriate captions. Maybe you should use the original pic, or use a diff image for the first?

Prose

Seems fine mostly, as I mentioned most of the changes that were needed in the PR. One issue that kinda exists is that seeing African and Indian epistemology in branches and approaches feel weird, as it seems to contrast modern approaches with ancient ones. Maybe move it to history, or move some of the history to above it, relating how Greco-Roman epistemology was diff or similar to modern epistemology.

Very great article by you as always, very near to FA standards. DWF91 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look at the article! I replaced Russell's image with a different one. I think African epistemology fits well in this section since it is connected to decolonial scholarship also discussed there. Also, it's difficult to temporally locate African philosophy since there is close to no written tradition before the 20th century. I tried to reformulate the beginning of the paragraph on the schools of traditional Indian epistemology to connect it better to the context. There are some issues with moving this paragraph to the history section since the history section already has a full paragraph on Indian philosophy in the ancient period and is WP:BALANCED this way with the other traditions. If we wanted to move the comparison between the different schools there, we would have to condense it to avoid upsetting the balance. This would mean that a lot of information is removed, which, I think, is not desirable. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is say is also correct, and the rewording of the first few words of the Indian epistemology section makes it read better. Therefore, it's a support from me. DWF91 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support  Comments  from Noleander

[edit]
  • As a normative field of inquiry, epistemology explores how people should acquire beliefs. As currently worded, seems to require user to know the obscure word "normative". Consider re-phrasing to plainly state the "explores how people should acquire beliefs" fact at the start of the sentence, then introduce the word "normative" towards the end. That would make it more understandable & inviting to lay readers.
    Hello Noleander and thanks for your comments! Concerning normativity, I tried a different approach by introducing the word "norms" instead. Have a look if this also works, otherwise I would follow your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Phlsph7 - It is fine as-is, but FYI I'm still struggling to grasp the essence of the paragraph. If it is possible, I'd suggest trying to put the essence of the paragraph up nearer the start. The words "normative" and "norm" are not gonna be known by many readers (although, maybe they will be to those readers that make it that far in the article :-) What is the essence? I see the words "should" and "fail" (as in pass/fail) and "evaluate"; and wheWhatn I click on blue "normative" I see "evaluates ... as either correct or incorrect". So maybe put up in 2nd sentence something like Unlike psychology or sociology, which simply study how humans acquire knowledge, epist judges acquired knowledge and determines if it meets certain criteria ... namely .... This issue is not a show-stopper for FA support; rather it may be more an indication of my own dullness than the quality of the article, so please do not change the article if - in your opinion - is is already correct and accurate. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I rearranged the paragraph to introduce the terms "descriptive" and "normative" later. I also added a footnote to explain the distinction. I hope this makes it clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent use of "Notes" (non-citation footnotes) throughout the article, for interesting, yet relatively insignificant, facts.
  • Epistemological problems are found in most areas of philosophy. The phrase "Epistemological problem" is first used there, and as a reader, I'm not sure if that 2-word phrase is a proper noun, or not. If "Epistemological problem" is a significant thing, then maybe establish that fact in that paragraph. Alternatively, if "Epistemological problem" is not a proper noun, consider re-wording to make it clear, e.g. "Issues related to epistemology arise ..." or "Problems related to epistemology arise ..." or "Epistemological issues ..." Not a big deal, it just caused me to stop my flow of reading and wonder if it was a proper noun.
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many readers will want to know how active the field is today: how many scholars/academics/professors are actively researching/investigating today? Five? 100? 500? I cannot find it in the article, but maybe I'm overlooking it. I expect to see it at the bottom of the History section.
  • ... continuing the thought above: Can you give an indication of number of journals/books/papers are published every year? Or if there are only general Philosophy journals, then maybe say something like "There are four journals that actively publish philosphy works, and an estimated 5% of the works are related to Epist." Or something like that. Of course, maybe there are no sources on that stat, but if you can find anything like that, it would help readers to know how active the field is today.
    Responding to this and the previous comment, I agree that this information would be quite interesting to have. However, I'm not aware of any official statistics and the overview sources that I know of also don't mention them. Presumably, one reason is that this is hard to assess because epistemology is a broad field overlapping with many other disciplines, which makes it difficult to determine whether a person or a work belongs primarily to epistemology rather than another category. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As a partial response, the overview page of Philpapers currently lists 54057 works under the category epistemology. However, I'm not sure how comprehensive its categorization system is since some works are uncategorized and some are only listed under one category even though they belong to several others at the same time. So this figure is probably not something we can use in the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is no source, there is no source. Not much we can do about that. Absence of this data is not a show stopper for FA support; but keep your eye out ... maybe some day in the future you'll stumble on the data somewhere. Noleander (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the Sources includes only a couple "author-link" tags to their WP article (e.g. Jennifer Lackey); seems like there should be more. No big deal, but maybe usage of "author-link" should be more uniform? Or perhaps only a couple of authors have WP articles?
    I went through our source-list to add more. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I'm having a hard time finding any constructive criticisms to make. Of course, I know nothing about philosophy. The prose, layout, & citations look rock-solid.
  • Section "Other concepts" - It looks like this section intends to present the reader with 2 to 5 distinct ideas: Rationality, Evidence, Understanding, etc. But I cannot tell where one starts and the other ends. Example: 1st para discusses Rationality; okay ... but then the reader starts the 2nd paragraph, which begins "Epistemic norms are criteria to assess ..." Reader is forced to stop and ask themselves: is this a continuation of the Rationality discussion in prior para? Or have we moved on to a new idea? Ditto for para starting "Knowledge ascription is the act of attributing ..." The reader may think "Okay, the first blue word in each paragraph is the main idea of the paragraph, but "Knowledge ascription" is not blue ... what is going on? Suggestion: use either subsections (one paragraph sections are legitimate, tho rare); OR begin each paragraph with bold face term, like a dictionary (e.g. Knowledge ascription is the act ..." ) I know that these suggestions are rare - but I don't think they violate the MOS. The important test, after all, is "will the layout help the reader?". Better to push the boundary of the MOS than confuse the readers.
    I see a similar section named "Related fields" below in the article ... in that section, again there is the pattern of one paragraph per topic; yet that section is easier for the reader, because there is a prominent blue link near the start of each paragraph. Also, the wording of each paragraph more strongly suggests to the reader: "We are starting a new, fresh topic NOW ...."
    It seems that different reviewers have different ideas about how this should be handled. During the recent peer review, the opposite criticism was made that some paragraphs feel too disjointed and should be more organically connected to each other. We'll probably have to find a compromise that works for both groups. Having extra subsections for minor concepts may give WP:UNDUE weight to them. Instead, I reformulated the start of the different paragraphs so that each one situates the following idea as concept in epistemology. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: Philosophical skepticism questions the human ability to attain knowledge. Some skeptics limit their criticism to specific domains of knowledge. For example, religious skeptics say that it is impossible .... That paragraph makes a big leap between 1st and 2nd sentence. 1st sent introduces skepticism; then immed goes into flavors of skepticism. Most readers will want to know precisely what " ....questions the human ability to attain... " means. For example, in the linked Philosophical skepticism article it has "... it even rejects very plausible knowledge claims that belong to basic common sense. ..." Something like that could be useful in this Epist paragraph. The current wording in 1st sentence "questions the human ability to attain knowledge." is very weak; is the idea behind skepticism more bold, more startling? if so: let the reader know before delving into the flavors.
    I expanded the first sentence to better explain the basic idea. The difficulty is that there are various types of skepticism so it's easier to describe the different types than to give an abstract characterization that applies to all of them. Many types of skepticism are bold, but not necessarily all. For example, religious skepticism is not particularly bold in secular societies. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section: Major schools of thought - Seems a bit peculiar that all four subsections are titled "AAA and BBBB". The lower three appear to contrast two alternative, opposing approaches, so the "AAA and BBB" pattern makes sense. But the first section, "Skepticism and fallibilism" section deviates from that: Skep and Fallib are not in opposition, correct? Maybe reword the title of "Skepticism and fallibilism" to give a hint to the reader that, unlike the other 3 sections, the "Skepticism and fallibilism" section is not contrasting two alternative approaches.
    Skepticism and fallibilism are often used as contrasting terms since fallibilists usually don't deny the existence of knowledge. However, you are right that the contrast is less pronounced than for the other pairs of positions in this section. I'm not sure that there is a good synonym for "and" for our purposes. We could try "Skepticism as well as fallibilism" but that sounds odd and could also be misunderstood. In this context, I think the "and" just expresses the topics discussed in the section without implying that they are opposites. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor wording nit: The course of modern philosophy was shaped... I think of a course as being "set" or "charted" (vs "shaped"). Maybe "The outline of modern philosphy was shaped..." Optional suggestion; okay as-is.
    I think "shaped" fits better here since Descartes was a major influence but not the only one. We could also use "influenced" but it sounds a little weaker. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see any discussion in the article about the idea that "Nothing exists; my entire existence is a dream; the entire universe is simply my imagination; ..." Like the Matrix movie. Shouldn't that be in an article about knowledge? I've heard the word "Solipsism" used to sort of denote that. From a lay person's view: I expect the article to prominently discuss that concept. maybe the article already does, and I'm overlooking it? Of course, if the sources are silent, then you can ignore it. But I searched the article for "solip" and was surprised to see no hits.
    These points are discussed but with a slightly different terminology. External world skepticism is explained in the first paragraph of the section "Skepticism and fallibilism" and the dream argument is presented in the third paragraph. The footnote in this paragraph describes more or less the matrix-scenario. Solipsism as the theory "nothing but me exists" belongs more to metaphysics than epistemology. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @user:Phlsph7 That's all I can find. Overall, a great article, I struggled to find any improvements to suggest. Happy to "Support" for FA once the above issues are addressed/resolved. Note that some are optional suggestions. Contingent on successful image and sourc review, of course. Noleander (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Phlsph7 Changed to "Support". Noleander (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the helpful suggestions and the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All of my comments were addressed in the peer review prior to this nomination and after re-reading the article I only have minor suggestions: (1) the caption for the portrait of Russell is not super informative, it may be better to say he originated the distinction (example source), (2) I think the note on epistemic injustice covers testimonial injustice but not hermeneutic injustice (a broader definition of epistemic injustice is that it is something that wrongs someone in their capacity as a knower, but that probably isn't super enlightening), (3) Linda Zagzebski might be worth a mention in the analysis or value of knowledge section (or even in relation to "cognitive contact with reality", which is quite influential and I believe originated with Zagzebski). Another great article Phlsph7! Shapeyness (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking another look at the article and the support! I changed the caption and weakened the claim about epistemic injustice. I included Zagzebski together with Sosa in the history section. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I don't usually do this, but I have nothing to contribute but my support. I made one minor edit but I cannot suggest any further improvements. Another excellent article from the nominator. Graham Beards (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Some sources are missing DOIs. The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology has a doi (10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195301700.001.0001), as does Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge (10.4324/9780203987070), Handbook for the Historiography of Science (10.1007/978-3-031-27510-4), and Knowing and Seeing: Groundwork for a new empiricism (10.1093/oso/9780198833567.001.0001) just to name a few from the first column. I would recommend going through every book source from an academic publisher and seeing if there's an ebook version with a DOI. (or you could remove the DOIs, but this would be unhelpful for readers)
    For the books, I usually stick to the ISBN as the identifier of the book as a whole. However, some books, like edited handbooks, give DOIs for each chapter. So when citing a specific chapter, it makes sense to add the DOI in addition to the ISBN if it is available. I went through the source list to add all the corresponding DOIs where I was able to find them. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some journals are missing ISSNs; for instance, Luper 2004 (Philosophical Issues) and Wheeler & Pereira 2004 (Journal of Applied Logic)
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "retrieved" dates for most, but not all Google Books links. I would suggest removing the retrieved dates (they're not particularly helpful here) or adding them to all linked sources.
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maguire 2015 lists the book series (SpringerBriefs in Education); i think this is an error, as no other academic book citation in the bibliography does so.
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple books have an OCLC in addition to an ISBN, but inconsistently so. Either add OCLCs to all, or remove them from these three which do have them (were they published before ISBNs were standardized, they'd be fine to leave in, but these all appear to have ISBNs as well)
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "a" after the em dash in Bird 2010 should be capitalized
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blaauw and Pritchard 2005, Epistemology A - Z should probably be spelled with an unspaced en dash (Epistemology A–Z)
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: Apologies for the nitpicks regarding citation consistency - this is a wonderful article and very well-sourced. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: Thanks for the source review and your keen eye for inconsistencies! I made the corresponding changes. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on source review. Fixes and clarifications look good to me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 March 2025 [24].

McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hammersfan (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the use of the McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom by both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. This is a second attempt at lifting this article to FA, with the first in 2020. Since then, the article has undergone extensive revision, including a major collaboration between the nominator and another editor ([25]). Hammersfan (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Dealt with full stop issue
  • Don't use fixed px size
Removed fixed px size from thumb images. This is required on 3-way diagram to ensure the image isn't full-size on the page.
How so? You should be able to use |frameless= in combination with |upright= to scale it? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted image as not completely necessary - this deals with both this issue and sourcing issue
  • File:First_F-4K_Phantom_FG.1_landing_at_McDonnell_plant_1966.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Hawker_P1154_RAF_and_FAA.png, File:Phantom_FG1_of_892_NAS_is_launched_from_USS_Independence_(CV-62),_November_1975.jpg, File:F-4J(UK)_Phantom_of_74_Squadron_in_flight_1984.jpg, File:Variable-geometry_Phantom.png
Located archive links to dead URLs - these have been replaced on Wikmedia Commons. National Naval Aviation Museum no longer has searchable database, the two images from this source have been replaced with alternatives
The updated source for File:Hawker_P1154_RAF_and_FAA.png does not include the marking that indicates it is PD. Ditto File:Variable-geometry_Phantom.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source for PD located and added
No licence apparent on source 3-way diagram obtained from, so most appropriate one used for this. Diagram replaced with alternative to avoid issues.
What is the source for the data presented in File:UK_F-4_Phantom_3-view.png? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dealt with as above

History6042's comments

[edit]
All above issues dealt with Hammersfan (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I know very little about planes, and try to avoid flying in them when at all possible, but I'll at least try to leave some comments. Hog Farm Talk 05:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To start out with, I'm a bit concerned about some of the sourcing.

  • The Vic Flintham personal website was identified as having reliability concerns in the prior FAC; I'm not seeing where the use of this source has been defended
    • Found alternative source for this citation
  • Chichester High School Old Boys Association appears to be a secondary school alumni association website of some sort; I am not sure that this meets the higher high-quality reliable source standard for FAC. I certainly wouldn't consider anything written by an alumni association of the high school I attended to be a high-quality reliable source
    • Found alternaitive source for this citation
  • Modern Naval Vessel Design Evaluation Tool looks like a self-published website; again I'm concerned about the high-quality RS qualification
    • Removed note containing this citation - information not strictly relevant to article (although nice to include)
  • What makes airfighters.com a high-quality reliable source?
    • Removed line containing this citation - not essential to text
  • Naval-history.net is the personal website of Gordon Smith. I'm sure his stuff is accurate, but as his primary book writing appears to be a World War II at Sea series published by Bertke Publications which looks like a self-publishing arm of one of his co-authors, what makes this clear the stricter high-quality reliable source bar?
    • Found alternative source for this citation
  • What makes War History Online a high-quality reliable source?
    • Removed line containing this citation - no longer essential given presence of other citations
  • A lot of the content in the notes is unsourced, such as "The original Phantom Training Flight operated as a dedicated FG.1 conversion unit from 1972 to 1978. The second was raised to operate FGR.2 refresher courses from 1991 to 1992" (an example, there are many others like that).
    • Added citations to notes using existing sources
  • What makes Urban Ghosts a high-quality reliable source?
    • Removed this source - see below
  • I see that in the prior FAC, it was noted that at least one book praises The Phantom Shrine, but to strengthen a WP:USEBYOTHERS case, is there usage in other reliably-published books?
    • The Phantom Shrine is also referenced in Modelling the F-4 Phantom II by Coughlin and Ashby (ISBN 978-1-7809-6813-1), first published by Osprey Publishing in 2003 - the reference is of the previous URL, which I have determined by checking the Web Archive. However, the question is whether a reference is needed to prove that the majority of the fleet has been scrapped; while the survivors list can be taken to show those airframes that survive, it does not explicitly say that the remainder have either been lost in crashes or broken up for scrap. This is not a question that I feel I can answer. If the answer is no, then I can safely remove the Phantom Shrine as a citation. However, if the answer to my question is yes, then the list of airframes and their ultimate fates on the Phantom Shrine website is the best available source for this. Presumably, the fact that it has been utilised as a source in more than one book should be enough for it to be accepted, but that is not a decision I am in a position to make.

I'm really not comfortable trying to do a content review until the sourcing concerns can be resolved. Hog Farm Talk 05:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most issues above dealt with Hog Farm. One remaining with question. Hammersfan (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not impressed with a USEBYOTHERS argument where it's only one source, and then Osprey - the stuff Osprey tends to publish usually isn't top tier of sourcing. I feel like there really has to be better sourcing for that out there - have you posted anything to WT:MILHIST? Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK Hog Farm, rather than the language initially used ("the bulk of the fleet were scrapped"), I've flipped it around to state the opposite ("NN complete airframes have survived"), which allows the use of the citation from the British Phantom Aviation Group instead. This has allowed the removal of the Phantom Shrine website as a source. Hammersfan (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hog Farm, any more to come on this? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it odd that the lead doesn't really cover why and when these planes were taken out of service
    • Added a line to the end of the lead section explaining the primary reason for withdrawal (defence cuts)
  • Likewise, in the body, it isn't really fully discussed why these planes were taken out of service. For the FG.1 variant, it's reasonably clear - the intended carrier-based role was rendered moot due to the carriers being taken out of service, and it seems reasonable for the RAF to replace naval aircraft with the presumably purpose-designed Tornadoes, but it's not clear to me what was superior in the Jaguars to the Phantoms that led to the replacement
    • Added to "Close Air Support" section of FGR.2 lines explaining that Phantom derived from interceptor version and procured primarily as stop-gap, and that Jaguar was purpose designed for close air support and recce missions, so purchase of Jaguar allowed re-think of use of Phantom into role it was suited for.
Initial set of issues listed above by Hog Farm attended to. Hammersfan (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still more to come; ready for the F-4J(UK) Phantom F.3 part. Hog Farm Talk 03:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first paragraph of the F-4J(UK) Phantom F.3 section is excessively long and should be split
    • Split into three smaller paragraphs, hopefully at natural break points
  • What is a "helmet gun sight"? Is there something this can be linked to, or can this be briefly defined? Hog Farm Talk 01:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Issues from Hog Farm above re F-4J attended to Hammersfan (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hog Farm, anything further to come from you? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Gog the Mild, I don't really feel like I can enter into a declaration here. I don't really feel that I can assess some of the web sources used as I don't have any familiarity with the organizations producing these.
  • "Concise History of RAF Phantom F4s (All Marks)". f4phantomeers. The Phantomeers. Archived from the original on 24 February 2017. Retrieved 24 May 2023." is an old .xls spreadsheet by a group known as "The Phantomeers", which appears to be a group of former military engineers. While I'm sure they know the aircraft well, is this something that would be a high-quality RS? I don't know for sure.
    • All instances of this have been removed, along with content they were referring to
  • ""Tactical Nuclear Weapons. 1971–1972". Nuclear-Weapons.info. The National Archives. p. 5. DEFE 11/470 E30. Archived from the original on 16 November 2022. Retrieved 11 June 2016." - This is a scan of an old document marked as secret. What is the provenance of this? Why are we using a scan of an old secret memorandum as a source for a featured article candidate?
    • As this was one of two citations to what was being referred to, I have now removed it.
  • There are citations to several local museum groups - while these are likely reliable sources, are they high-quality reliable sources as per the stricter FA criteria? I know I've seen my fair share of stuff from local museums in the US that isn't what we'd want to Wikipedia, ranging from extreme local boosterism to "The South shoulda won" type of stuff.
    • The only instances of "local museum groups" that I can find are those related to Wattisham, the references to which have been replaced. However, I do think that a degree of thought as to the locations of such organisations should be included, as not every such organisation falls into the categories you described. For example, having looked at the pieces, there is no "boosterism" or jingoistic localism in anything written there.
  • " "The rise and fall of the P.1154" (PDF). Hawker Association Newsletter. Hawker Association: 4–5. Summer 2013. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 August 2018. Retrieved 29 May 2016." - this is a newsletter from an organization that's just simply former Hawker employees from what I can tell; I don't think this would qualify as a high-quality RS
    • The piece in the newsletter is a summary of a lecture given by Dr Michael Pryce, lecturer at Cranfield University, whose doctoral thesis was on the p.1154
  • An informational plaque in a museum from 2003 is cited - the nature of this source raises verifiabity concerns
    • Use of this reference has been replaced by alternatives

I'm just not quite comfortable with the sourcing as things now stand. The A-Class review was nearly 10 years ago; that limits the usefulness of that process for comparing to current FA source quality standards.

Again, forgive me for pointing out, but this article has already been though an FA review, admittedly which it failed, in 2020. Following that review, it was extensively revised including the addition of better citations than were used when it was moved up to A-Class.

Hog Farm Talk 01:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Points referred to by Hog Farm above attended to Hammersfan (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly looking better. I have gotten quite busy; not sure when I will be able to get back to this but I don't have any outstanding comments as of this moment. Hog Farm talk 02:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Hog Farm, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gog the Mild: - Unfortunately, I'm going to have to abstain from entering a declaration for now. My concerns have from what I can tell have been at least mostly addressed, but I've become very swamped with work the last few weeks which will continue for another week or two; I don't really have time for another read-through here. Hog Farm talk 03:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Almost three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I was unaware that there was a time limit on this process, especially given that issues with it are being addressed. Perhaps you might like to consider waiting to see if the two individuals that have raised issues, and which have now largely been dealt with, have any further concerns, or are happy to continue with the process before deciding not to continue. Hog Farm has indicated that once the sourcing issues that have been raised are dealt with (with one exception, which I have raised, I believe they are), they will then undertake a review of the content. I think at least waiting to see what comes of that is fair. Hammersfan (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Noleander Comments (leaning Support) from Noleander

[edit]
  • Ambiguous and confusing: "The UK was the first export customer for the F-4 Phantom, ..." A casusal reader will not know what country is exporting to what country. The author knows that the F4 was built in US (hence exported to UK); but a casual reader may think it was built in UK and exported to ...somewhere? Maybe "The UK was the first export customer for the US-built F-4 Phantom..." or similar.
    • Reworded
  • Lead: "The bulk of the UK's Phantoms were a special batch assembled in the United States, but with a significant amount of British technology as a means of easing the pressure on the domestic aerospace industry in the wake of major project cancellations." - A bit difficult to parse. Consider
    • Breaking into two sentences, maybe.
      • Done
    • Clarifying "special batch" ... I think you mean that the UK batch was treated specially in the US assembly line, by applying UK parts;
      • Reworded
    • "easing the pressure " is vague and euphemistic ... consider "supporting the domestic.." or "providing opportunities for the UK workforce..." etc
      • Altered
    • The word "domestic" is ambiguous .. could mean US or UK, suggest change "domestic" -> "UK"
      • Changed to "British aerospace industry"
  • Lead: "..FAA and the RAF in 1969" ... Seems odd to link the year .. I'm not a fan of links that are not super significant. But if that is normal thing for FA articles, fine with me.
    • Never liked them much myself - removed
  • I'm loving the tables in the middle of the article, esp the location maps!
    • Cool - left as is
  • "Intensive Flying Trials Unit." is capitalized. Readers probably wont know what that unit is, or why it is capitalized; consider adding a footnote explaining what it does; or maybe replace the entire phrase with simpler language e.g. "a unit that specializes in testing new aircraft designs" or similar.
    • Added end note explaining this
  • "Notes" section: the roman numerals e.g ."xxviii" are impressive, but I'm not sure they serve the reader well. Consider using a,b,c... . I know that would wrap-around to aa, ab, ac... but still that seems better to me. Consider a user that clicks on "xxxvii" then the page jumps down into Notes region; user sees "xxxvi" "xxxvii" "xxxviii" etc. Most humans in 2025 will not be able to quickly find the correct one (and cursor highlighting is not reliable). On the other hand, most peoples' brains/eyes can quickly distinguish "ac" vs "ad" vs "ae".
    • Done
  • Suggestion: for cites, consider using Template:harvnb or Template:sfn so the cite in the Citations section has a blue link to the Book in the Bibliography section. I know templates are not required for FA, so no worries if you skip it. In fact, nevermind.
    • Taken under advisement - will leave for now but if suggested by anyone else will look to do.
  • Wording: "The F.3 retained a high degree of American equipment.." Phrase "high degree" seems odd to me ... normally that would not be used when the topic is quantitative and can be expressed as a percentage. Consider "large proportion" or "large amount" or "F.3's equipment was still primarily American" etc
    • Reowrded
  • Grammar: 'An early proposal was McDonnell Douglas's plan for a variable-geometry Phantom that was ultimately rejected." Better, to me, is "An early proposal was McDonnell Douglas's plan for a variable-geometry Phantom, which was ultimately rejected." Not a show-stopper.
    • Dealt with
  • Wording: "Further suggestions were that up to ..." seems peculiar. Consider "Additional proposals ... " or "Alternative proposals ..." Not a show-stopper.
    • Reworded
  • Section name "Variations" .. I suppose that is UK usage? "Variants" is what my ears are listening for.
    • The idea is to indicate the differences between the FG.1 and FGR.2 (the first two UK variants), and then between the variants specially built for the UK and the versions used by other countries (primarily the US). In this context, perhaps "Differences" rather than "Variations" may be a better heading. Reworded. Also, split this section, and put "Aircraft production" as a separate major heading, with the other proposals that did not come about as part of this
  • Section "Aircraft on display" ... Silly question, but do any of them still fly? I cannot imagine, since that would be dangrous to pilot & civilians, but doesn't hurt to ask. I know some bombers are still flying, and Mustangs, etc.
    • Made clear that none of the remaining complete examples are airworthy
  • Grammar: "Aircraft replaced by and replacing the Phantom" : for the newer "replacing" aircraft, should the "ing" tense be used? or is "Replaced the Phantom" better? To me "replacing" implies current action, and those new aircraft should still be in serivce. If any of those "replacing" newer aircraft are no longer in service, then it seems clearer to say "Replaced the Phantom".
    • Reworded heading
  • Punctuation for parenthetical aside: "It was intended that these aircraft would operate from the decks of four aircraft carriers: HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal, which would be rebuilt to enable the operation of the aircraft; and at least two planned ships of what was known as CVA-01, a proposed new carrier design." Suggest use of parthenses or dashes ( Template:snd ) as:
"It was intended that these aircraft would operate from the decks of four aircraft carriers: HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal (which would be rebuilt to enable the operation of the aircraft) and at least two planned ships of what was known as CVA-01, a proposed new carrier design."
or
"It was intended that these aircraft would operate from the decks of four aircraft carriers: HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal – which would be rebuilt to enable the operation of the aircraft – and at least two planned ships of what was known as CVA-01, a proposed new carrier design."
    • Reworded according to suggestion
  • Wording: "Again, the lack of appreciable improvement in performance, combined with the potential that the MRCA development might be affected, saw the proposal rejected." - Word "again" doesnt seem very professional/encyclopedic. Suggest remove the word "Again", and if the same idea was presented earlier in the article, then add other words explaining that, such as "As they discovered three months earlier, ..." or "In a repeat of what was encountered the prior year, ..."
    • Reworded
  • Suggestion: "The Phantom served in the FAA until 1978, when Ark Royal was withdrawn from service, leaving no ship in the RN capable of operating the type. The final catapult launch from Ark Royal was a Phantom of 892 NAS on 27 November 1978 during the disembarkation of the air group at the end of the ship's final deployment;[70]" - Cite says that the plane had a special "Omega" symbol painted on the tail for the occasion (final letter of greek alphabet) - readers would probably appreciate that detail.
    • Left unchanged - the capital Omega wasn't specially added to the final aircraft launched from Ark Royal; it was used on the tail fins of 892 NAS aircraft throughout their service in the Royal Navy. This is mentioned in the text - "As it was believed that 892 NAS would be the final carrier-based fixed-wing squadron to be commissioned into the FAA, their Phantoms each bore a capital Omega (Ω) letter on their tail fins, intended to symbolise their place at the end of the RN's era of fixed-wing aviation.[66]"
Roger. Noleander (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation: " The final catapult launch from Ark Royal was a Phantom of 892 NAS on 27 November 1978 during the disembarkation of the air group at the end of the ship's final deployment;[70] the squadron's aircraft were delivered to RAF St Athan in Glamorgan, south Wales, where they were handed over to the RAF.[71] " - Semicolon here: deployment; should be a period, in my estimation.
    • So amended

Happy to Support this after above are remedied (of course, the optional suggestions do not need to be remedied).

Noleander (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised by Noleander dealt with - Hammersfan (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple new comments above starting with: "It was intended that these aircraft ..." Noleander (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional issues by Noleander addressed Hammersfan (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to support, still needs an image review, correct? Noleander (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I see that an Image Review was completed above. Noleander (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing: the Lead section has a single footnote. It sticks out like a sore thumb. I don't think FA criteria prohibit footnotes in the lead, but I believe leads look clean & inviting when there are no footnotes. Is there a reason why that one, single fact in the lead has a footnote? Can it be removed (and moved into body, if not there already)? Noleander (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to appropriate spot within background section. Hammersfan (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my subsection to "Support" Noleander (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review & Spot Check by Noleander - PASS

[edit]
I am just wary of including the URL as I am finding it difficult to create archived versions, and I would prefer to include these with URLs where possible Hammersfan (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understading is that it is okay to put a raw URL into a cite, and bots will eventually come around and see if the external web site exists in an archive, and if it does, the bots will automatically insert the archival URL into the cite, and the readers will be presented with both links. I think the bots may actually try to put the site into the archive, but I'm not sure. The bot will then come back later, and if the original URL is dead/broken it will update the cite's formatting to prompt the reader to click the archive (rather than the original link). I've heard that it helps the bot if the original editor (you) puts the tag |access-date=xxx-xx-xx into the cite when you first create the cite. But I'm not an expert in those bots. Noleander (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
URLs added Hammersfan (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14: Okay
  • 34: Okay
  • 126 & 127: These two appear to be the identical source. They should be consolidated into a single cite using <ref name="unique name"> or similar.
  • 124: I cannot find this one online. The cite points to p 246 of Gunston, Bill (1979). The Encyclopedia of World Airpower. New York City: Crown Publishers. ISBN 978-0-51753-754-1.
    Okay, that is resolved. (The FA criteria say, or at least they used to, that the FA nominator must personally read all the sources – at least the parts being utilized. So copying cites from other articles is fine, but the nominator has to track them down and read the relevant portions.) Noleander (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 89: Okay
  • 132 (three uses): Okay
  • 70: Okay
  • 150:  ?? not sure. The body text for [50] says "one" squadron; but I'm not sure if that means squadron #1, or "quantity 1". In either case, I'm not sure which text in the source supports that. Probably just my inability to understand the lingo.
  • 185 / 186 :  ??? Body text says "The F.3 retained a significant proportion of American equipment, and was longer, lighter, and faster at altitude.[185][186][o]" ... but I cannot yet find any mention of "significant proportion" in either 185 or 186. Footnote "o" refers to the data page for the plane, is the "lighter/faster" fact something the editor of the article deduced from comparing the stats? That sort of deduction is not prohibited, I'm just curious.
  • 33: Okay
Noleander (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Hammersfan, my comments:

  • In the Background section, link to Hawker Aircraft, Avro, Gloster Aircraft Company and Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft?
    • Done
  • Link to St. Louis?
    • Done
  • We mention the financial issues in the Background section, but never once have we mentioned the actual monetary costs. Are these not available? I reckon they should be, either in news articles, press releases or parliamentary debates.
    • While I am happy to investigate finding this information, I'm not sure it should be a deal breaker in terms of the article getting to FA status. If we agree that I will look for suitable sources containing it, are you happy to support it moving to FA as is?
  • I don't think the "UK aircraft carrier fleet in the 1960s" table is relevant here at all. I believe the only number we need is the number of Phantoms deployed onboard these 5 aircraft carriers, which is information you can incorporate in the body instead of using a table.
    • This has been part of the article from the beginning, and is intended to display the ships potentially named as operating the Phantom in the Royal Navy. As it shows specifications, which includes the total size of air group (not just the potential number of Phantoms that could be accommodated), it is easier to show in a table. However, I have amended this to show CVA-01 alongside the four existing ships (Ark Royal, Eagle, Victorious and Hermes), to make it more relevant to the article
  • Link to Devonport, Plymouth in note O?
    • Done
  • Club the third last and second last paragraphs of the Royal Navy subsection of the F-4K Phantom FG.1 section?
    • Assuming you mean "merge", this is done
  • "During the type's service with the RN, eight of the FAA's fleet of twenty-eight aircraft were": I think you meant to add "FG.1 Phantoms" at the end of this sentence.
    • Sentence should read "...twenty-eight aircraft were lost". Dealt with.
  • Link to Suffolk in the F-4J(UK) Phantom F.3 subsection and the Aircraft on display section?
    • Done

Reviewed upto the Variations section, the rest to be reviewed soon. Matarisvan (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initial set of items from Matarisvan addressed Hammersfan (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersfan, I like what you've done with the table to reduce its size, though it does look congested next to the infobox. Also, I found some links from Hansard which give the costs for the Phantoms: [26], [27], [28]. More general details are available at [29] and [30]. I will now resume my review beginning from the Variations section.
Re: the table - I've tried removing the table, but it pushes the image under the infobox ("The heat from the Spey's afterburners required the installation of special water-cooled jet blast deflectors aboard HMS Ark Royal to avoid extensive damage to the flight deck") down adjacent to the Royal Air Force section on widescreen monitors, as there is not enough text to create a buffer under the level of the infobox. This, allied to my feeling that the information in the table is of use, provides what I feel is an argument for the retention of the table.
I've added a line in the final paragraph of the Background section that explicitly mentions both the original estimated cost from 1966 (£300 million), and the final cost of the procurement following the delivery of the entire order in 1969 (£500 million, with £200 million on specifically British components).
  • "Although the Phantom was ordered in 1966, the variants that were eventually constructed were not the first to be offered to the UK. McDonnell Aircraft had been conducting studies into the possibility of the Royal Navy using the Phantom on its carriers since 1959." : A citation is needed for this sentence.
Done
Done
  • Link Flixton, Suffolk to Flixton, The Saints if that is the correct link? Also, I don't think you intended to write England two times after Suffolk in this particular entry.
Done
Done
I've added links to all Hansard citations, and I've also added a link to Rowland White in the one citation that he is mentioned in. However, I've left out the other two, as they would be the only ones in the Bibliography list that are linked, so I feel would stick out (almost as if there is "something special" about them). If you feel it is required I will look again.
  • Add the location of publication for Ballance et al 2016? Also remove the "Limited" from the publisher's name in this source and Wright 2018?
Done
Done
Done
  • Could we use The Box Art Den to link to all the articles of the RAF Yearbook we have used? However, you will have to check if there are any copyright issues before you do so.
I've added the links, as it was suggested by a previous reviewer that they be added to the articles listed in the bibliography. Web Archive is currently playing up, so I've not been able to either check or create archive versions of some of them - that will go on the to do list.
That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional issues raised by Matarisvan addressed above. Hammersfan (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersfan, the article looks good now. Happy to support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Beacon – SUPPORT

[edit]

This is a very enlightening article. I think it could hold reader interest really well with a few tiny changes for flow. Edit: My points have been dealt with brilliantly, and I believe this article deserves the status of featured article. It is extremely well-researched, well-written and well-referenced. Bella Beacon (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The opening sentence may be slightly more engaging if it begins "From 1968 to 1992, the United Kingdom..." rather than ending with the years.
    • Done
  • At present, the first four sentences begin with "The". The above would help change this, and the first sentence of the second paragraph may be better beginning "Most Phantoms".
    • Done
  • "However," would probably work just before "in the mid-1980s, a third Phantom variant".
    • Done

Bella Beacon (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initial set of recommendations from Bella Beacon attended to. Hammersfan (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great to know my initial recommendations seem to have been helpful. I hope the following may also be of use, although please remember there are several ways to deal with issues. I'm suggesting the solutions I feel best, but you may see better ways (if you agree there's a problem at all).

Background section
[edit]
  • "The 1957 Defence White Paper precipitated a significant change in the industry, as well as cancelling several aircraft under development, the government compelled major aerospace manufacturers to amalgamate using new aircraft contracts as an incentive." – At first here, I thought "and" was intended between "development," and "the government", but could/should there be two sentences, the first ending at "a significant change in the industry"?
  • "As a result, by 1960 two large groups had emerged" – This would probably be clearer if followed by a dash instead of a semicolon.
  • "in which the existing" – I think "in" should be "into".
  • "The TSR-2 project experienced increasing cost overruns" – To link to the previous sentence, this sentence may be good if starting "With this,"
  • "the RN withdrew from the P.1154 project" – I'd suggest "the RN therefore withdrew"
  • "then in service with the United States Navy (USN)" would be clearer if between dashes.
  • "The new government undertook a defence review, which led to the cancellation of several projects, including both the P.1154 and the TSR-2 in early 1965, which was followed by" – The second "which" could be replaced with "and this".
  • "Hawker Siddeley Aviation was appointed" – "was thus appointed" would help this flow after the previous sentence.
  • "The most significant change was" – It may be good to clarify by starting this sentence with "In this redesign".
  • "to allow operations from the RN's smaller carriers" should probably be preceded by a comma.
  • "The Westinghouse" sentence would read nicely if beginning "Meanwhile".
  • "The RAF was less enthusiastic" – ", however," after "The RAF" would help with flow here.
  • "was not optimised for the close air support role, and had been selected" – The comma here alters the meaning.
  • "by the time the last aircraft had been delivered" – I think this would be best as a new sentence and beginning "However,".
  • "the total cost of the procurement was £500 million, with £200 million spent on the elements of the aircraft produced in the UK"
    • Do you mean ", £200 million of which was spent on the elements of the aircraft produced in the UK"? Edit: At present, the text is ambiguous, as "with £200 million could imply an extra £200 million.
      • Done
  • "Due to government policy, the budget for the Phantom procurement was fixed, therefore these costs could not be evened out by a large production run and only 170 were ordered." – I recommend a full stop after "fixed".
  • "a defence white paper, as part of which"
    • "as part of" may be better as "through" Edit: Not sure whether this was missed. I placed it out of order, sorry!
      • Done

Bella Beacon (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency throughout the article, it would also be good to decide whether serial commas are to be used. A search through the text can then be done to insert/remove serial commas accordingly.

Please note that all my points are minor; I don't think the article requires much improvement. Bella Beacon (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second set of items from Bella Beacon above attended to - question of serial commas requires more detailed look through entire text. Hammersfan (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I agree the issue of serial commas takes time. Tip: If removing serial commas, don't forget some commas before "and" and "or" are not serial commas, so don't remove commas without thinking. Bella Beacon (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prototypes
[edit]
  • "The British Government initially ordered" – "initially" is used in the next sentence too. The first sentence could begin "At first, the British Government ordered".
    • Done
  • "The second YF-4K made its maiden flight" – For flow, "After this" may work well at the start of the sentence.
    • Done
Royal Navy
[edit]
  • No need to include Fleet Air Arm in full, as the abbreviation is already used.
    • Done
      • I recommend a search through the text to find more uses of "Fleet Air Arm". Some should remain in full, but "FAA" is probably better for others.
        • Having now checked, the only instances of "Fleet Air Arm" in the main text are now in infoboxes or lists
  • Comma required after FAA
    • Done
  • "and at least two" – "plus" seems better than "and", as "and" is used between "HMS Eagle" and "HMS Ark Royal".
    • Done
  • I think capitalisation should be "Defence white paper" – I'd recommend consistency through the article.
    • "1966 Defence White Paper" is the title of the specific document, and follows the same pattern as "1957 Defence White Paper"; where sentence uses "a defence white paper", this is referring to it in the abstract - a defence white paper was published in 1966, not "the 1966 Defence White Paper" was published.

Bella Beacon (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third set of items from Bella Beacon attended to. Hammersfan (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying about the capitalisation regarding white papers. Sorry if I got confused. The only thing I'd say is should Defence have a capital no matter what? Bella Beacon (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The RN received its first F-4K Phantoms, which were given the British designation FG.1 in April 1968" – Do you mean that April 1968 was when the RN received its first F-4K Phantoms? If so, a comma is required after "FG.1".
    • Done
  • "Upon completion of the successful flight trials" – For flow, this sentence may be good if beginning "After this,". It may also be good if the next sentence becomes part of it, with ", and" between the statements.
    • Done
  • "892 NAS's initial work up" – I think a hyphen is needed: work-up.
    • Done
  • "entered in the Daily Mail Trans-Atlantic Air Race" – I recommend "entered into".
    • Done
  • "while the second set of trials the following June" – "and" would be better than "while", and the words that follow it would seem better if turned round: "the following June the second set of trials".
    • Amended text - not precisely as recommended
      • For clarity, "the following June" should be between commas.
        • Done
  • "to prevent them from melting" should be preceded by a comma.
    • Done
  • "Ark Royal had entered refit to accommodate the Phantom in 1967" – Do you mean that Ark Royal had entered refit in 1967? If so, I'd recommend "To accommodate the Phantom, Ark Royal had entered refit in 1967".
    • Done
  • Several semicolons are used around this point of the text. It may be best to start a new sentence at "This involved the ship undergoing". I also recommend that the list is changed to separate sentences. Suggestion: "Through this, the flight deck was increased in area and fully angled to 8½°, and the arresting gear was replaced with a new water-spray system to accommodate the Phantom's higher weight and landing speed." After this, the next sentence could begin something like "In addition, bridle catchers".
    • Done
  • "The intended refit of Eagle was cancelled" – For flow, "thus" would work before "cancelled".
    • Done
  • "which led to it being retained" – This sentence is quite long and could be clearer. The text here may be best as a new sentence beginning, as a suggestion, "Ark Royal was consequently retained".
    • Amended text in slightly different way to recommendation
  • I recommend deleting "letter" after the Omega.
    • Done
  • A comma is needed after "Fife, Scotland".
    • Removed "Scotland"
  • "The final catapult launch" – This sentence may work well if beginning "Therefore".
    • Amended by creating last three sentences as new paragraph

Bella Beacon (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth set of items from Bella Beacon attended to Hammersfan (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You've edited with better alternatives to some of my suggestions. It's reading nicely. Bella Beacon (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Air Force
[edit]
  • "A new Phantom squadron" – The text here would probably read well if this sentence starts with something such as "In view of this,".
    • Amended text
  • "On 1 September 1969, No. 43 Squadron was formed" – Again, for flow, something such as "therefore" may be good before "formed". However, to avoid repeating phraseology from the previous sentence, would "established" be better than "formed" here?
    • First amendment above led to slight amendment of this
  • "operating as part of the UK's northern Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) zone" – Should this read with "in" instead of "as part of"?
    • No - this is the correct phraseology
  • "In 1972" – After this, ", however," may be good for flow.
    • Slight amendment
  • "Upon No. 111 Squadron's conversion" – This sentence may read nicely if beginning "However,".
    • Slight amendment
Close air support
[edit]
  • "Two aircraft types were ordered - " – the dash should be – (see, for instance, the dash in the first sentence of the previous paragraph).
    • Done
  • "; though both aircraft were to be fitted for reconnaissance" – Rather than a semicolon, a new sentence may be better here. Suggestion: "Both aircraft were nevertheless to be fitted for reconnaissance".
    • Slight amendment
  • "the order for 150 Phantoms went ahead alongside the Phantom order for the RN; the final 32 units of the RAF order were eventually cancelled" – ", and" may work better than a semicolon.
    • Slight amendment
  • "The aircraft assigned to the two tactical reconnaissance units were fitted with a pod" – Suggestion: "Each aircraft assigned to the two tactical reconnaissance units was fitted with a pod".
    • Slight amendment
  • I think a hyphen is needed between "sideways" and "looking".
    • Done
  • "for which it was not especially suited" – Suggestion to deal with a few tiny issues: "but it was not especially well suited for this role"
    • Slight amendment

Bella Beacon (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air defence
[edit]
  • "As more Jaguars were delivered, Phantoms were released enabling existing Lightning squadrons to be converted" – I recommend "Then," at the beginning of this sentence. Perhaps "more Lightning squadrons" would also be good.
    • Done
  • "Three other UK based squadrons, No. 23, No. 29 and No. 56 were also" – This would be clearer if the list of squadrons is placed between dashes instead of commas.
    • Slight amendment
  • "During the late 1970s, the RAF began experimenting with new colours" – "However," would probably work at the start of this sentence.
    • Done
  • "Phantom FGR.2 of 56 Squadron" – Is "No." missing? Should squadron names always be preceded with "No."?
    • Yes - in this article I've made sure every mention of an RAF squadron is in the format "No. NN Squadron"
      • I think "No." should therefore be added in the following:
"When, in March 1972, 11 Squadron"
Done
Caption: "A Royal Air Force Phantom FGR.2 of 92 Squadron"
Done
Caption: "A Royal Air Force Phantom FG.1 of 43 Squadron"
Done
Caption: "A Royal Air Force Phantom F.3 of 74 Squadron"
Done
  • "often referred to in the RAF as "barley grey" – I'd suggest "often referred to as "barley grey", in the RAF".
    • Done
  • The comma before "combined with small, low-visibility roundels" should be removed.
    • Done
      • I think there was confusion here. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but the comma before "combined" should be removed.
        • Done
  • "Although the roundel remained in low-visibility colours" – For flow, the text here would probably be good if beginning "After this,"
    • Slight amendment
      • "although the roundel remained in low-visibility colours, individual squadron markings" – To avoid ambiguity through comma usage with "although", I recommend "the roundel remained in low-visibility colours, but individual squadron markings"
        • Done
  • I recommend a comma after "Ascension Island".
    • Done
  • "replacing Harriers of No. 1 Squadron" – This would probably read slightly better as "and these replaced Harriers of No. 1 Squadron".
    • Slight amendment
      • Sorry but, strictly speaking, "which" here refers to Ascension Island.
        • Reworded
  • A linking sentence about detachment may be good after "The Phantom detachment began QRA duties on 25 May, with its commitment ending on 14 July."
    • Done
  • "The turnover of personnel from No. 29 Squadron to those from other Phantom units" – Sorry, I may be misunderstanding this, but is "those from" correct here?
    • Amended text to make this clearer
  • "led to the unit transitioning to be known as simply "Phandet" (short for "Phantom Detachment")" – Suggestion: "led to the coining of "Phandet" (short for Phantom Detachment") as a term for the unit transition"
    • Phandet was an official term - amended to reflect this
  • "Tornado squadron - its role in the Falklands was" – The hyphen should be a dash, although a new sentence instead seems better.
    • Done
  • The comma should be removed before "but insufficient".
    • Done
  • For clarity, "which had previously operated FG.1 training between 1972 and 1978" would be best between parentheses rather than commas, as there are quite a few commas in the sentence.
    • Done
  • I recommend making the noun "run down" one word.
    • Done
  • It may be worth doing a search through the text to find "based" and insert a hyphen where appropriate. Examples such as "UK based" are best with a hyphen.
    • Done

Bella Beacon (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Set of items from "Royal Air Force" to "Air Defence" by Bella Beacon dealt with Hammersfan (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
F-4J(UK) Phantom F.3
[edit]
  • "there were a large number of" – Strictly speaking, "a large number" is singular, so this should be "was" rather than "were", but alternative phraseology such as "there were several" may work better.
    • Done
  • "In order to fill the gap" – "Therefore," would be good at the beginning of this sentence.
    • Done
  • I recommend a search to find all instances of " - " in the text. Any hyphen with a space either side should be a dash.
    • Done
  • "most up to date version" – Hyphens: up-to-date
    • Done
  • "fall back option" – Hyphen: fall-back
    • Done
  • Should "NAWF" be "NARF", as the third word in the name is Rework?
    • Yes, it should - done
  • The comma before "and brought to a standard" is best removed.
    • Done
  • "ultimately, the F.3 was retained" – For flow, I recommend "however," after "ultimately".
    • Done
  • "the F.3 was retained through the transition to the Tornado, which began entering service in 1987, remaining in operation for seven years" – Does "through" here mean "throughout" or "until"? Also, is the Tornado the aircraft you mean remained in operation for seven years? If so, I recommend "which began entering service in 1987 and remained in operation for seven years".
    • amended text
  • "the RAF were able to" – I recommend "was" instead of "were", particularly as the RAF is referred to in the singular later in this sentence.
    • Done
  • "able to" is used again in the sentence. Varying the wording may be better.
    • Done

Bella Beacon (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Set of items from F-4J(UK) by Bella Beacon attended to Hammersfan (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Between the FG.1 and FGR.2
[edit]
  • "The 201 was eventually upgraded" – I suggest "However," to start this sentence.
    • Done
  • The sentence beginning "Both variants were fitted" contains two semicolons. I recommend the second semicolon is replaced with a comma followed by "and".
    • Done
  • "The AN/AWG-12 fitted to" – This sentence would probably work well if beginning "Meanwhile".
    • Done
  • I think "ground mapping" should be hyphenated
    • Done
  • This may simply be my failure to understand, but it may be worth revising the text to explain what was allied to a Ferranti inertial navigation/attack system.
    • Amended

Bella Beacon (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Above items by Bella Beacon attended to Hammersfan (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at everything. The text is reading very nicely! Bella Beacon (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Between British Phantoms and other Phantoms
[edit]
  • "Although there were minor differences" – This would probably work better with "only" added before "minor".
    • Amended wording
  • "there were many significant ones" – "differences" would be clearer than "ones".
    • Done
  • "The engine had" – Wording such as "Furthermore," may be good at the start of this sentence.
    • Done
  • "higher mass flow rate which" – I recommend "that" instead of "which".
    • Amended slightly
  • "The Spey was more efficient at lower altitudes, and had" – This comma should be removed.
    • Done
  • "which was shown during the deployment of 892 NAS" – "and this" or "and this superiority" would be clearer than "which".
    • Amended slightly
  • "It was less efficient at higher altitudes" – Adding wording such as "however" or "conversely" would help with flow here.
    • Done
  • ", the British Phantoms lacking speed compared to J79-powered versions owing to" – I feel a comma is necessary before "owing". Because that poses a problem with the previous comma though, the earlier part of the text would be better as "; the British Phantoms lacked".
    • Done
  • "re-designed" should be "redesigned", as earlier in the article.
    • Done
  • "The small size of the aircraft carriers HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal, from which the RN's Phantoms were intended to operate, compared to the USN carriers of the period, meant that the F-4K" – Suggestion: "The RN's Phantoms were intended to operate from HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal. However, because these aircraft carriers were small compared to the USN carriers from this period, the F-4K"
    • Reworded sentence
  • "from which it was descended, and which performed" – The comma should be removed.
    • Done
  • "As well as the folding nose radome to allow for storage in the smaller hangars of the British ships, it had to have a significantly strengthened undercarriage to account for higher landing weights" – To be strictly correct, the text after the comma would be better as "a significantly strengthened undercarriage was needed, to account for higher landing weights".
    • Done
  • "The F-4J featured" – Wording such as "In addition," may be good at the start of this sentence.
    • Done
  • I think "nose wheel" should be one word. The article has it as one word in places, but there are six uses of "nose wheel".
    • Done
  • "enlarged leading edge flaps, and a slotted tailplane, and increased flap and leading edge blowing" – is the first "and" here intentional?
    • No, removed
  • For consistency, it seems better to use "RN" instead of "Royal Navy" here.
    • Leaving as is - I think it sounds better like this
  • "fitted on top" – adding "being" before this would help it make sense.
    • Reworded slightly
  • "included in the radar system" – Could this be clarified? "included in this upgraded radar system"?
    • Done
  • "enhanced search and tracking capabilities over the analogue computer" – I recommend "bettering" instead of "over".
    • Reworded sentence entirely
  • "which made it both clearer and more reliable" – Unless I've misunderstood, this would make more sense as a new sentence. Suggestion: The upgrade was both clearer and more reliable". Please check I have understood correctly though.
    • Reworded
  • ", and was used concurrently" – In this case, I think "it" before "was" would be advisable.
    • Reworded

Bella Beacon (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Latest set of items from Bella Beacon attended to Hammersfan (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aircraft production
[edit]
  • Sorry if I wasn't clear enough when advising about a search for " - ". It should be a search for a space followed by a hyphen followed by a space. In all these instances, the hyphen should be replaced with a dash. Depending on the device you're using, you may be best to copy and paste the dash.
  • "two prototypes each of the FG.1 and FGR.2" – For clarity, I recommend "two FG.1 prototypes and two FGR.2 prototypes".
    • Done
  • "The first production model flew on 18 September 1967" – I suggest joining this to the previous sentence: ", and the first production model flew on 18 September 1967". A new sentence seems best for beginning about the deliveries, and it could start with wording such as "Subsequently," or "Then," before "on 29 April 1968".
    • Reworded
  • ", standing up in April 1972" – It may be worth revising comma usage here and clarifying what was stood up.
    • Reworded
  • "United Kingdom" should probably be "UK".
    • Done
  • ", as well as the four prototypes" – The comma should be removed.
    • Done
  • "The bulk of the UK's specially built Phantoms" – I suggest "However," to start this sentence.
    • Done
  • "(28 × FG.1 and 94 × FGR.2)" – I think this would be best moved to immediately after "the bulk of the UK's specially built Phantoms".
    • Done
  • "while the two cancelled sets of airframes" – "and" would be better than "while".
    • Reworded
      • Comma before "as well" should be removed.
        • Done
Other UK Phantom proposals
[edit]
  • "Royal Navy" should probably be "RN". I recommend doing a search through the whole text and changing this wherever appropriate.
    • Done
Other proposed Spey-powered Phantoms
[edit]
  • "McDonnell concluded that more power was needed than the J79 turbojet could provide to operate from the smaller decks of British carriers, and as a result, consulted" – The first comma should be moved to after "and".
    • Done
  • "Royal Air Force" should probably be "RAF". I recommend doing a search through the whole text and changing this wherever appropriate.
    • Done
  • "McDonnell approached the Royal Air Force with its model numbers" – To avoid ambiguity, it may be best to delete "its".
    • Done
  • "model numbers 98CJ and 98CM, which was an F4H-1" – There seems to be some confusion between singular and plural here.
    • Done
  • "McDonnell continued studies" – For flow, "also" may be good before "continued".
    • Done
  • "proposing afterburning Mk.101 engines in 1962, while trials of an F-4B fitted with an extendable nosewheel oleo took place aboard USS Forrestal in 1963." – "and" would be better than "while".
    • Done
  • "model number 98ER was the basic version; model number 98ES had drooping ailerons, and model number 98ET had" – The semicolon should probably be replaced with a comma.
    • Done
  • "which was identical to the F-4D variant, but would have" – The comma should be removed.
    • Done
  • "an entry to the Naval Fighter Experimental competition" – I recommend "into" instead of "to".
    • Reworded
  • ", intended to replace the failed F-111B program" – Comma usage may need revision. Clarification seems necessary regarding what was intended to be replaced.
    • Reworded
  • "F-111B program" – "programme"?
    • Changed to "project"
  • "Although it shared a significant amount of commonality with the UK's versions of the Phantom, including the use of the Rolls-Royce Spey engine, the proposal" – To avoid ambiguity with commas after an "although" construction, I recommend "It shared a significant amount of commonality with the UK's versions of the Phantom, including the use of the Rolls-Royce Spey engine, but the proposal".
    • Done
  • "saw the proposal rejected a second time" – For flow, I suggest "nevertheless" before this.
    • Done
RF-4M
[edit]
  • "after the order for the F-4M was being finalised" – Was this during or after finalisation? If during, maybe "when" instead of "after" would be best. If after, "being" should perhaps be removed.
    • Changed to "while"
  • "due to cost issues" – I feel a comma is needed before this.
    • Done
  • "cost issues. So, McDonnell" – I recommend merging these sentence to read "cost issues, so McDonnell"
    • Done
  • "Although the RF-4M would have had some advantages, primarily in that it would have had greater range, as it would have been able to carry a centreline fuel tank, it was discounted" – The "Although" construction creates ambiguity here. The need for commas means "as it would have been able to carry a centreline fuel tank" could pertain to the wording that comes before or after. I suggest beginning with "The RF-4M would have had some advantages, primarily in that it would have had greater range" and continuing by breaking the text up into two sentences with "However," at the start of the second sentence.
    • Done
      • The comma after "But" should be removed.
        • Done
  • "the cost would have been greater" – Because "greater" is used shortly before this, "higher" may be a good alternative here.
    • Done
  • "Ultimately," – For flow, I suggest "therefore," after this.
    • Done
F-4(HL)
[edit]
  • "the goal of improving catapult performance and lowering approach speeds" – Should "goal" be "goals"?
    • Done
Panavia Tornado
[edit]
  • "An alternative idea" – For flow, I suggest ", however," after this.
    • Done
      • I suggest adding a comma before "however".
        • Done
  • "which had been in service for over a decade by 1980, and was beginning" – This comma should be removed.
    • Done
  • "or even cancel the Tornado entirely and purchase the F-15 with" – I suggest "and even that the Tornado be cancelled entirely and the F-15 be purchased with" (as this follows on from "proposals were that"
    • Done
  • "In the end" – For flow, I feel "though" or ", however" would be good after this.
    • Done
      • I suggest adding a comma before "however".
        • Done
  • "four squadrons; the two FG.1 units, plus two FGR.2 units" – a space and a dash would better than a semicolon here, and I suggest another dash (with a space each side) after the four squadrons are listed. However, I may be confused about which are the four squadrons. I think that's my fault, but the text here about squadrons isn't clear to me.
  • "Germany based" – This should be hyphenated.
    • Reworded to deal with both of above suggestions
      • The comma before "and two stationed in Germany" should be removed.
        • Done
BAe Sea Harrier
[edit]
  • "STOVL" is used before the full term is given.
    • Swapped with full term
  • "while three years later" – "and" would be better than "while".
    • altered to two sentences
  • ", conducted a series of" – This comma should be removed.
    • Done
Aircraft on display
[edit]
  • "The below list details the full list" – The first use of "list" may be unnecessary.
    • Removed
  • Notes such as "not on public display" and "painted in ... " may be best in parentheses immediately after the aircraft rather than placed after the location.
    • Put into notes
  • "the 74 Squadron Association" – Should "No." be included before "74"?
    • Done
      • Dot needed after "No".
        • Done
  • "the BPAG obtained" – For flow, I think "therefore" would be advisable before "obtained".
  • "in Kent, and one of only two remaining complete examples, with the ultimate goal of displaying it in" – I advise starting a new sentence after "Kent". New sentence suggestion: "This was one of only two remaining complete examples, and the ultimate goal was to display it in"
    • Reworded paragraph to deal with both of above

Bella Beacon (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Latest set of items from Bella Beacon dealt with Hammersfan (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Variants
[edit]
  • Instead of their abbreviations, the full terms Royal Air Force and Royal Navy are used in this section. Is this intentional?
    • Yes
  • I think "UK specific" should be hyphenated in each case.
    • Done
      • Hyphens are missing in the final two instances.
        • Done
Specifications
[edit]
  • For consistency, "Max" should perhaps be "Maximum".
    • Template - unable to change
  • In the Strike section, spaces are missing between figures and units.
    • Done
  • "the rest of the UK's Phantoms," – This comma should be removed.
    • Done
  • ", and containing the following" – This comma should be removed.
    • Done
  • "forward facing" should be hyphenated.
    • Done
  • "oblique facing" should be hyphenated.
    • Done
  • "sideways looking" should be hyphenated.
    • Done

Bella Beacon (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Latest set of items from Bella Beacon attended to Hammersfan (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Items from Bella Beacon in bold responded to - responses in italics. Also sectioned Hammersfan (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Really great to work through this with you. You've definitely added some lovely finishing touches to the (already excellent) article, and, like I said, some of your changes are much better than the suggestions I made. Actually, was "No." needed before "74 Squadron Association"? I queried its absence, but I'm not sure that it's included in the association's name. Bella Beacon (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Captions
[edit]
  • "Initially delivered to air defence units in green-grey camouflage (left), the RAF later adopted a pale grey colour scheme for its Phantoms (right)." – I suggest starting a new sentence after "(left)".
    • Done**
  • "McDonnell Douglas proposed a variable geometry version of the Phantom in the mid-1960s, which was offered as a potential Phantom replacement." – Suggestion: "In the mid-1960s, McDonnell Douglas proposed a variable-geometry version of the Phantom, which was offered as a potential Phantom replacement."
    • Done
Notes
[edit]
  • For consistency, you may want to look at use or non-use of abbreviations in Notes.
    • Checked and amended abbreviations - I've elected to no longer use "FAA" throughout the article, as it just doesn't sound right (I would never say "FAA", but would always refer to it as "Fleet Air Arm")
  • Use and non-use of links should perhaps be looked at too. A few currently appear in later mentions instead of first mentions. Some links are also provided more than once. This may be intentional, but I thought I'd flag it for possible revision.
    • Removed significant number of links to items also linked in main text - only ones remaining should be items not linked in main text
  • Note b: This ends with a comma rather than a full stop.
    • Done
  • Note f: The comma should be removed in both instances before "and".
    • Done
  • Note g: ", with Eagle and Hermes undergoing major refits, to provide a three carrier force" – I suggest "while Eagle and Hermes were to undergo major refits. This would provide a three-carrier force". In addition, I think "out of service dates" should be "out-of-service dates".
    • Done
  • Note j: The 's in "Ark Royal's" should not be italicised.
    • Done
  • Note k: The 's in "Eagle's" should not be italicised.
    • Done
  • Note l: The 's in "Victorious's" should not be italicised.
    • Done
  • Note m: The 's in "Hermes's" should not be italicised.
    • Done
  • Note n: "Therefore, the FG.1 is the first mark of Phantom, and operates in the fighter and ground attack roles, but not reconnaissance" – I recommend removing both commas. Conversely, a comma seems necessary before "in addition to the fighter". I'd remove the comma before "and operates solely".
    • Done
  • Note o: "a specific unit in the Royal Navy that specialises" – To be strictly correct, I suggest "a specific Royal Navy unit that specialises".
    • Done
  • Note q: "record breaking" should be hyphenated. In addition, I recommend removing the comma before "and".
    • Done
  • Note t: "angled to 8½°, and her catapults replaced" – I recommend removing the comma. I also think "bow mounted" should be hyphenated. In addition, would "a second mounted on the waist" be clearer with "catapult" added after "second"? Later in the note, should "had recommissioned" be "had been recommissioned"?
    • Comma removed; bow-mounted now with hyphen; "second catapult" added; left final point as the text is a legitimate way of saying it, and I think it sounds better
  • Note v: "it would also have required the retention of a quantity of increasingly obsolete Sea Vixens" – To be strictly correct in view of the preceding text, suggestion: "the retention of a quantity of increasingly obsolete Sea Vixens would also have been required"
    • Done
  • Note w: "The Buccaneers of 809 NAS were delivered to St Athan and turned over to the RAF at the same as 892 NAS's Phantoms." – Is the word "time" missing?
    • Yes, added missing word
  • Note y: "As replacement for the cancelled F-111K, the RAF began" – To be strictly correct, suggestion: "To replace the cancelled F-111K, the RAF began"
    • Done
  • Note aa: "The runway at Stanley had to be extended following the war to be able to operate the Phantom." – Suggestion: Following the war, the runway at Stanley had to be extended to be able to operate the Phantom."
    • Done
  • Note ac: "; the Buccaneer had served alongside the Phantom in the Fleet Air Arm, making it the second time" – I suggest a new sentence instead of a semicolon. I also suggest "this" in place of "it".
    • Done
  • Note ad: I recommend a comma before "of naming".
    • Done
  • Note ae: I recommend removing the comma before "but ultimately".
    • Done
  • Note af: "both the F-14 Tomcat and F-15 Eagle" – I recommend deleting "both", because the next sentence begins "Both". For flow, I suggest adding "however," after "logistical differences,".
    • Done
  • Note ah: "as a result of the latches securing the radome failing in flight, causing the radome itself to swing open" – Suggestion: "as a result of the radome swinging open in flight, due to failure of the latches securing the radome"
    • Done
  • Note ar: "The two Canberra reconnaissance squadrons were reformed on the Phantom" – I may just be misunderstanding this, but is "on" the word intended? Either way, I recommend a comma after "Phantom".
    • Yes, that is the intended phrase. Comma added
  • Note au: I feel the full stop should be deleted.
    • Done
  • Note ay: I recommend inserting "it" after "and".
    • Decided to leave as is
  • Note bb: "500 gallon external tank" and "310 gallon external tank" – Each figure should be followed by a hyphen instead of a space.
    • Done
  • Note bc: "But, to use this, it would have required" – Suggestion: "But using this would have required". "Additionally, Red Top was larger and heavier than Sidewinder, which would have reduced the Phantom's endurance, would have required the missile rails under the aircraft's wings to be modified to allow it to be carried, and, at approximately £18,000 per missile, was around six times more expensive than Sidewinder." Suggestion: Additionally, Red Top was larger and heavier than Sidewinder, reducing endurance, and would have required the missile rails under the aircraft's wings to be modified to allow it to be carried. Furthermore, at approximately £18,000 per missile, Red Top was around six times more expensive than Sidewinder.
    • Done

Bella Beacon (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attended to points from Bella Beacon under "Captions" and "Notes" Hammersfan (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you mean that BB has formally supported promotion, I am not seeing it. Could you point me towards it? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild - Go to the start of Bella Beacon (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/McDonnell_Douglas_Phantom_in_UK_service/archive2#Bella_Beacon) and there is a message in bold indicating support Hammersfan (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but it seemed at best ambiguous - not being in line with either the FAC instructions ("To support a nomination, write *Support, followed by your reason(s)") nor other custom and practice. But no worries, it is easy to check.
  • Hi Bella Beacon and many thanks for the thorough and constructive review here. Just for the avoidance of doubt, if you could confirm that you formally support the promotion of "McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service" to Featured Article - or not, as the case may be - it would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Gog the Mild – thanks for looking at everything and pointing out that I wasn't very clear. Sorry about that. I confirm I support, as the article is extremely well-researched, well-written and well-referenced. Bella Beacon (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
I am happy with the abbreviation. My query is why the sole mention in full is not as 'air staff requirement'? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I am confident it should be "Air Staff requirement" if it is not referring to a specific document, as it is a requirement issued by the Air Staff, which is a specific organisation. So, in that context it would be like "United Nations Security Council resolution". I've changed it accordingly Hammersfan (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 12 March 2025 [31].

Holden Commodore (VE)

[edit]
Nominator(s): 750h+ and OSX 13:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before I say much i'd like to give a large thanks to OSX (unfortunately inactive since 2016 due to a Commons dispute), who brought this article to featured status in 2007, from which it was demoted in 2020; this would not be possible without him. This article is about the VE Commodore—the first generation of the fourth generation of the Holden Commodore, which is one of the most, if not the most influential automobile produced in Australia. The VE was called Holden's "billion dollar baby" as the company spent over A$1.03 billion developing it.

I recently brought this article to GA status four years after it became a FFA, thanks to a review by Averageuntitleduser for which I am very grateful. The article recently received a copyedit from Dhtwiki, which I am also very grateful. If successful this will be my eighth FA. I was a bit hesitant to bring this article here, but, all and any reviews are appreciated. Enjoy! 750h+ 13:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support on prose from VW

[edit]

Lead

  • Could the references 1 and 2 be moved to the article body?
    • Quotes should be referenced in the lead.
  • Holden introduced the VE body styles in stages, beginning with the sedan in July 2006. Before this, Holden stated they would manufacture two parallel generations of Commodores until the launch of the station wagon and utility. Variants by Holden's performance vehicle partner, Holden Special Vehicles, were released soon after the sedan's debut alongside the long-wheelbase WM Statesman/Caprice models.

Mentioning "Holden" in consecutive sentences throughout the article can be avoided.

    • Fixed.
  • Denny Mooney was appointed chairman of Holden in January 2004. "Chairman" could be delinked here as per MOS:OL.
    • Done.
  • The development of the VE prompted Holden to redesign its facility in Elizabeth, South Australia, which would facilitate the assembly of entire sections of the car off the foremost production line.

Elizabeth, South Australia has already been linked in the same section above. Hence it should be delinked here as per WP:DUPLINK.

    • Done.
  • Why not link the Holden Elizabeth Plant in the first sentence of the same section: Official manufacture of the VE sedan began at Holden's production facility in Elizabeth, South Australia, on 13 July 2006.
    • Done.
  • The method was first used by GM and won the SAE Australasia's 2006 "Automotive Engineering Excellence Award". Can an alternate reference be used to cite this sentence (rather than the PDF cited)?
    • Done
  • Unveiled at the 2007 Australian International Motor Show in Melbourne,... You could de-link "Melbourne" here.
    • Done.
  • The design of the tailgate is compact enough to open in just 268 millimetres (10.6 in) of space, a feature publicised in Sportwagon television commercials. "Television commercials" could be delinked here.
    • Done.

Production

  • In November 2006, Toyota released their key Aurion model to the Australian market.[234] In late 2005 the front-wheel drive Mitsubishi 380 was launched to indirectly compete with the Commodore, but was discontinued with the 2008 closure of the Mitsubishi Motors Australia plant in Tonsley Park, South Australia. Shouldn't 2005 launch by Mitsubishi precede the 2006 launch by Toyota?
    • Done.

A good initial read. Suggestions above. Velworth (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: all done unless responded to. Thanks, 750h+ 14:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Models
  • Replacing both the Commodore Executive and Acclaim, the Omega was the entry-level option, with basic standard equipment. The second comma could be dropped from this sentence.
Velworth (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc: done. 750h+ 00:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+ A fine article, indeed. I have no further improvements to suggest to the prose. Velworth (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
The licensing for each of the images is fine. Velworth (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • The references to articles published by The Sydney Morning Herald are missing a paywall tag.
  • How does one access reference no. 2?
  • Could you please confirm the reliability of Geelong News, Carsales,GoAuto and Drive?

MSincccc (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can access references number two through Proquest; Proquest is accessible for free through the Wikipedia Library. Drive is owned by Fairfax Media, which is the same company that owns The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, both reliable per WP:RSP. Removed Geelong News sources. Through a consensus that included some of the most active editors within the Automobiles project, we've agreed that GoAuto and Carsales are reliable sources, alongside several other Australian automotive sources. 750h+ 12:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the reliability of Street Machine and Wheels magazines? I would also suggest the link to YouTube in reference no. 26 be replaced as per WP:YOUTUBE-EL. MSincccc (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wheels is one of the most well known Australian sources on the site, and have been used on nearly every single article relating to an Australian car; Street Machine is published by the same company. Wheels has been used by the Sydney Morning Herald ([32] [33], The Age [34] [35], GoAuto [36] [37] and also by Drive [38]. This page is about an editor who formerly worked at Wheels and is now working at Drive. Also the YouTube source does not need to be replaced, as, per WP:YOUTUBE-EL, sources in an article can be used when they are "an official video channel from a major publisher". In this case the presenters in the video are Deborah Hutton and Mark Skaife; and the video shows the Holden production facility and processes. Best, 750h+ 16:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc: does this constitute a pass? 750h+ 13:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+, I am satisfied with the sourcing but would like to review the article once more. My schedule is rather full until the end of February, so please give me some time. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+ I am satisfied with the sourcing of the article for the time being. I will let you know if I have any further suggestions later. MSincccc (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks 750h+ 10:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sourcing and images. @750h+ Apologies for the delay; I was busy with my lessons. Best of luck with your nomination. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC - Support

[edit]

Comments to follow in a day or two - SchroCat (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: any updates? no problem if not 750h+ 17:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! Got sidetracked and the busy. Will pick up on this shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're being a bit inconsistent with your serial commas. You have " Chevrolet Lumina, Chevrolet Omega, Bitter Vero Sport and Pontiac G8", but "trim, increased standard equipment, and reduced fuel consumption". Glancing down I can see elsewhere where it's not used and used – these should be made consistent
  • "could easily swapped between variants": "easily be swapped"?
  • There are eight "however"s in the article, which could probably be reduced by at least four
  • "up to 12 percent": elsewhere you have "per cent"

Done to the start of Model year changes: more to follow. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: all done. thanks, looking forward to your subsequent comments! 750h+ 11:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only a couple more:

  • "and lighting colors": you have "colours" elsewhere
  • "At the time of its launch in Australia Ford's": Comma needed after Australia for clarity

Hope these help - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: both done, thanks for the reviews! 750h+ 03:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]
  • Lede is good. I'm definitely not a car person, but I was a bit confused if the Sportwagon was a VE or not; it might be clearer to call it the "VE Sportwagon" at its first mention in the lede?
  • Development section good. Do any of the sources mention what the difference between the three interior styles was?
    • it's in the name if you think about it (functional for the basic trims, performance for the sports models and luxury for the high-end models) But the sources don't mention what the difference is, simply the trim levels that us it.
  • I assume due to the link 'Active Select' is the Holden brand name for manumatic? To prevent having to click the link to find out what that is, it'd be better to put (manumatic) in parenthesis afterwards.
    • done
  • Holden disclosed the upgrades involving the MY09.5 updates This sentence is confusing. Is there a way to avoid using "upgrades" twice in a row?
    • done.
  • similar to the High Output engine this is the first time you mention the High Output engine in the article, so there's no frame of reference to what this is similar to.
    • fixed
  • A couple ENGVAR errors: There's one usage of "color" instead of "colour", and the commonwealth spelling of matte is matt.
    • fixed

@750h+: @OSX:, That's all from me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: all done much thanks for the comments ! per the agreement if there's any GAN/FAC you'd like me to review let me know. 750h+ 03:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
750h+ Support Looks great to me! I'd say Nosy Komba needs some more reviews :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord query

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: this nomination has been open for 2 weeks and 3 days. Three supports, and an image and source review have been completed. Can i open a new nomination? 750h+ 07:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+, as per the FAC instructions "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them." Since this is a co-nomination, you're not required to ask for permission in such cases. FrB.TG (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 11 March 2025 [39].

Cher

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cherfc (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Cher, an American cultural icon whose career has spanned music, film, television, fashion, Broadway, and the occasional infomercial. I began working on it back in 2012, when my English skills were about as questionable as Cher's decision to star in Burlesque. Over the years, with the invaluable help of editors like GabeMc, Wikipedian Penguin, Noleander, SNUGGUMS and AJona1992, the article has gone through countless improvements and achieved GA status.

Thirteen years (and three failed FACs) later, I think the article finally has what it takes to meet Wikipedia's highest standards. While I've grown from a teenager fumbling with sentence structure to a Family Medicine resident with limited free time, my fascination with Cher hasn't wavered. I may not always be able to reply to feedback immediately, but I promise to address every suggestion thoughtfully.

This article has been extensively rewritten, expanded, and carefully trimmed down to ensure it provides comprehensive yet concise coverage of Cher's legacy. I'd appreciate your help in ensuring it meets FA standards and earns a place among Wikipedia's finest work. Thank you for considering this nomination. Cherfc (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Noleander Comments by Noleander

[edit]

I got you, babe. It has been 13 years since I did an FA review, so if I have a mistake in the formatting here, anyone should feel free to edit my comments and adjust the indents, bulletting, etc. Noleander (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Image selection and layout is superlative ... probably one of the better photo collections in all of Wikipedia. Noleander (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really glad you think so—it's a great collection to work with! Cherfc (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Support" ... don't see any remaining issues that would prevent promotion to FA. Noleander (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! I appreciate hearing there are no remaining issues. Cherfc (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AJona1992

[edit]

Thanks for the ping. Unfortunately, I won't be able to review the article as thoroughly as I'm shipping out to boot camp this weekend and won't be able to contribute fully. Good luck with the FA! Best – jona ✉ 16:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, and no worries at all! Wishing you all the best at boot camp. Take care! Cherfc (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review (Pass) from LEvalyn

[edit]

Thanks for the speedy corrections and well done again on a thoroughly-researched article with a lot to cover! Happy to support on sources. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really appreciate your support. Glad the sources are working well! Cherfc (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review (Pass) from Noleander

[edit]
  • I think some images are missing "alt" tags for visually impaired; e.g. File:TeenIn11968a.jpg About half the images have "alt", half do not. Remember that the alt text should not repeat the caption, but instead should describe what is in the photo: painting a picture with words. This is mandatory for FA.
Correction: I may be wrong about "alt" requirement: MOS says "In addition to a caption, alt text – for visually impaired readers – should be added to informative (but not purely decorative) images" ... so I am wrong to say that _all_ images must have "alt", only the informative ones do. In my opinion, based on the fact she was a style icon, all of the images in this article are "informative", that is, visually impaired people will want to hear a description of her outfits, hair style, etc. Noleander (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up! I've added alt texts for all the images now. Let me know if you spot anything else that needs tweaking! Cherfc (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright check: Pass. ... all images include details that indicate valid copyright permissions for use in WP.
  • Images Layout: Pass.
  • Image coverage & appropriateness: Pass.

Noleander (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink Review from Hurricanehink

[edit]

I figured I should review such a fabulous person, considering I have an FAC of my own. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the fabulous work for this fabulous icon! I left a few replies - the article is nearly there for me. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now! Thanks for the edits. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Hurricanehink! I appreciate your time and feedback. Cherfc (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

This has been open for six weeks, and discussion has stalled. Unless there's further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next few days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SNUGGUMS Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]

Sorry for not getting to this sooner, but hopefully my comments aren't too late. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: No problem at all—thank you for taking the time to review the article. I've addressed all the points you raised and made the necessary modifications to clarify timelines, wording and attributions. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the changes and whether they resolve your concerns. Of course, if you have any further suggestions for improvement, I'm happy to make adjustments. Looking forward to your feedback. Cherfc (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, and see my above responses. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Thanks! I've made the necessary updates. Let me know your thoughts and if anything else needs tweaking. Appreciate your time! Cherfc (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and I just made a minor tweak here afterwards. Now offering my support following the page's improvements. Well done! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Thanks, I really appreciate your support and feedback—both back then and now! Cherfc (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 March 2025 [43].

Black Widow (Natasha Romanova)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Widow was not widely known outside of the comic book world until she was first played by Scarlett Johansson in 2010, but the spy-turned-superhero has a history stretching back to the 1960s. Variously depicted as an empowering female role model or a hypersexualized damsel in distress, Black Widow has appeared alongside the Avengers and Daredevil in addition to several short comic book series of her own.

This is my second comic book superhero FAC following Iron Man. The Black Widow article is modeled after the Iron Man article, using similar structure and sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of an image review (Toadspike)

[edit]

Gonna kick this off with an image review, but due to my inexperience with FAC I would appreciate someone double-checking my work. Toadspike [Talk] 06:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first three images are fair use and everything looks good. Some of the fair use rationales could be a bit better, for instance File:Tales of Suspense 52.jpg says "Illustration of a specific point in the article.", where it should probably say something like "Illustration of first appearance of Black Widow." to emphasize why this particular cover image was chosen. On the other hand, File:Avengers36panel.jpg has a very thorough rationale, which is good.
  • None of the images have alt text. MOS:ALT seems to say that they should all have alt text. For the infobox image, I believe the alt text goes in the |alt= parameter.
  • The caption of File:Avengers36panel.jpg mentions a "bouffant hairdo", which is never explained in the prose. Either explain its significance in the prose or, if not significant, remove it from the caption.
  • The license of File:Goldene Kamera 2012 - Scarlett Johansson 4 (cropped).JPG is good but the image fairly low-resolution. This Commons category shows that we don't have tons of alternatives, but I encourage you to take a look and maybe search Flickr for alternatives too. If there's a free image of her in costume/in character that'd be even better!

I've made all suggested changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now, image review passed. Toadspike [Talk] 06:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

[edit]

My knowledge of comics only extends to ones published last century, so this is only a partial review. Looks pretty good. Some comments:

  • "This made her one of several Iron Man villains who become good by defecting from the Soviet Union to the United States". The only other one I can think of is Hawkeye, who probably deserves a mention in this context.
  • "Her redemption coincided with Marvel's departure from a good versus evil portrayal of the Cold War." Contrasted with the quote above, this doesn't quite make sense.
  • "Black Widow went one year without being in any new comic books, until she appeared in Avengers #76 (1970) to end her relationship with Hawkeye". Hawkeye was Goliath at this point.
  • I would like to mention the Black Widow appeared again in Avengers #83 (December 1970) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The source lists Crimson Dynamo, Half-Face, and (Hulk villain) Gargoyle as examples, while Hawkeye never actually worked for the Soviet Union. I've adjusted the wording of both sentences a little, and I've added a note about Goliath. Regarding Avengers #83, there's a huge number of individual appearances that don't affect the character and aren't mentioned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I was always fond of Avengers #83 and the "up against the wall male chauvinist pigs" battle cry. Too bad Roy Thomas didn't take it to heart. Anyhow, Support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PanagiotisZois

[edit]

@Thebiguglyalien: Heyo. I went through the "Feminism and sexuality" section again. At this point, your thematic separation of this section is clear; unless I understand something incorrectly. First, we have the discussion of how Black Widow challenged traditional gender roles; though she abided by them in some ways. Then we have a discussion of the character's relationships/connections to male characters, and how in different ways, she was dependent on them. Lastly, we have a discussion of her sexualization. Having said that is the section about the Red Room "mak[ing] her infertile" and giving "her a permanent hourglass figure" something that really belongs in the first paragraph? Seems like it's a more appropriate fit for the paragraph on sexualization. Unless you'd try to argue that Natasha having an hourglass figure fits in with the idea of her abiding by (some) traditional gender roles. That, and her being infertile also connecting to the same topic. As for "Her sex appeal was again featured prominently", is the word "again" necessary?--PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote. The Iron Man article has a section about the character's alternate counterparts. Do any of the sources on Black Widow make references to her alternate counterparts? At the very least, I would assume some coverage would have been dedicated to her Ultimate Marvel counterpart, given that she's essentially an inversion of Natasha's mainstream counterpart, as a figure that's introduced as a hero, only to turn out she's a villainous Russian spy that kills Hawkeye's family. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PanagiotisZois I've made the suggested changes, including a rearrangement of the 1990s section in a way that I think makes more sense. I didn't see any helpful coverage of the Ultimate Universe version beyond the mention that she exists, which is in the publication history section. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, from what I read recently online, it seems that Black Widow didn't last long in Ultimates. Having looked over the article again, I have to say that it looks absolutely phenomenal. Great work on it. The "Communism and Russophobia" subsection still makes me feel like things could be reorganized in a better fashion, but I can't figure out how; it seems appropriate as is. Part of me also things the lede could be a bit longer to properly summarize everything in the article, but given its length, that would be essentially impossible and just result in a lede that would be large enough to act as its own article, lol. (Though I do wonder if the "Publication history" section could be expanded to such a large degree it could be split off to be its own thing.) Anyway, rambling over. Great work on the article, and I'm more than happy to support its promotion. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: This is somewhat random and doesn't impact my support or anything on this article, but I've been thinking about it and I'm curious. From my understanding, although Black Widow's birth name is Natalia, she's almost always referred to as Natasha; the anglicized version of her given name. But what about her family name? Is it primarily given in sources and the comics as Romanova or the anglicized version of Romanoff? Because in the case of the latter, this may require the article itself to be renamed.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see both names as essentially equivalent as far as character identification is concerned, and I couldn't tell you which is more common in the 60 years of publication. I figure move proposals are outside the scope of FAC, but I'd be fine with it either way. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: I understand. As I said, this was less about the FAC, and more out of curiosity over the article. Having said that, I hate being a stick in the mud, but I noticed that for some reason, certain issues in the article as cited in the main body as "#20" whereas others are cited as "No. 20". I guess either one could work, though personally I'd prefer the former, but you do need consistency. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using the # has been standard in writing about comics as long as I can remember, although No. may be more in line with MOS. I see numerous instances of # in practically every since superhero comic book article here for what it's worth. BOZ (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Though as I said earlier, I don't mind either option. There just needs to be consistency. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They were just changed yesterday so they can either be changed back, or any remaining can be changed to "No." BOZ (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Generalissima

[edit]

I will look over prose later! (was notified of this from the Wikimedia discord) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima It looks like the other reviews are about finished now, if you're still interested in this article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I completely forgot about this - my bad! I'll do a quick prose review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede looks good.
  • Couldn't see any problems in publication history.
  • Maybe it'd be useful to give a one or two words of context for what Hydra is? Not a dealbreaker either way.

Support, since this seems to pass the FA criteria! Great job, very well-written article. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Octave

[edit]

A few points on prose:

  • "She was designed by artist Don Heck, for a story plotted by Stan Lee and written by Don Rico under the pseudonym N. Korok": superfluous comma?
    • Fixed.
  • "This version of Black Widow was infatuated with Tony Stark's looks and wealth, and she was easily distracted by jewelry": do we need "she was" here?
    • Fixed.
  • "Comic Book Resources has stated": I think it makes sense to mention the writer for CBR, e.g. "Brian Cronin of Comic Book Resources has stated".
    • Not a reliable source and not sure why this was added, I've removed the sentence.
  • Are the quotes around Natasha Fatale needed?
    • Removed the sentence.
  • "Black Widow went one year without being in any new comic books, until she appeared in Avengers": superfluous comma?
    • Fixed.
  • "John Romita Sr. designed a new costume for Black Widow based on the 1940s Miss Fury comic strip, but Colan was the artist for the series": not sure that "but" is the correct conjunctive here, I wouldn't say these facts aren't contrasting.
    • Fixed.
  • "as one of heroines": missing definite article.
    • Fixed.
  • I think a link for telepaths would be beneficial.
    • Done.
  • "Although she shares the title with Nick Fury, he only briefly appears and the book, and she instead teams with Night Raven in his first appearance in Marvel's mainline continuity": not sure what "and the book" is meant to mean?
    • Meant to be "in the book", fixed.
  • "It was the first comic book series to solely feature Black Widow as the main character, having previously shared each book with other heroes excepting only her standalone 1990 graphic novel": modifier is unclear and seems to apply to the series, not Black Widow.
    • Rewrote this entirely.
  • "story arc, was written by Marjorie Liu and drawn by Daniel Acuña": I think "which was written" works better.
    • Added.
  • "A new Black Widow series was created for the Marvel Now! branding in 2014, created by Nathan Edmondson and Phil Noto": undesirable repetition.
    • Switched to "published under the Marvel Now! branding"
  • "the artist Flaviano": the rest of the article seems to use false titles, should this be consistent?
    • Fixed.
  • I think Macchio can be safely linked again in § 2020s since he was last mentioned four sections ago.
    • Done. I've always felt that duplicate links can be useful, especially in articles like this.
  • "She also appeared in a three issue limited series": hyphenate "three-issue".
    • Done.
  • "Natalia "Natasha" Alianovna Romanova was born in Russia, where she was thrown from a burning building in Stalingrad": I feel the prose after the comma fits better with the next sentence.
    • Agreed, done.
  • Is there an appropriate link for "cellular degeneration"?
    • Not done: There probably should be, but I looked through a few articles and didn't find any that seem appropriate. A medicine editor might have more insight on this.
  • "and she was shown to fear them more than her she feared her adversaries": typo.
    • Fixed.
  • "Throughout her 20th century appearances, Black Widow was primarily defined by the men around her": hyphen for "20th-century".
    • Fixed.
  • "working with him to against Iron Man": something's gone wrong here, this is ungrammatical.
    • Changed to "to fight Iron Man".
  • "She worked with... She began a romance with...": could we reduce the repetition?
    • Reworded.
  • "flash back" is the verb: I think you're looking for "flashback", the noun.
    • Fixed.
  • "present day" should be hyphenated.
    • Fixed.

That's all for now, please ping me when you're done and I'll take another look through. Best, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 02:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UpTheOctave! That should be everything except for the cellular degeneration link. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support on prose. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 17:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Comments by ZooBlazer

[edit]
  • I'd recommend you run the tool for mdy dates since the article has {{Use mdy dates}}, but many of the refs are not in that format.
  • Black Widow is naturally independent, and she capably works alone. Black Widow projects - Just reword one of the sentences to not consecutively start with "Black Widow"

Neither thing is too major and the article looks to be in really good shape. Nice job with it so far! -- ZooBlazer 17:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the repetition, I'm not sure how to go about switching the dates automatically. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the script for the dates for you. Happy to support now. -- ZooBlazer 02:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

Is there a reason this article doesn't cover the MCU version of the character in detail, and instead leaves that to Natasha Romanoff (Marvel Cinematic Universe)? I'm not a comics expert, but if they are the same character, I don't see a justification for having two separate articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily because they're not the same character; not quite. Within the Marvel Universe, you have a Multiverse, where each story takes place in a given fictional world. For the Mainstream Marvel Universe that we see in the comics, that would be Earth-616. Conversely, stuff like the Marvel Cinematic Universe or the Avengers Assemble universe take place on other Earths. Black Widow does appear in those universes, but she's a different character/version of Black Widow. Also, the MCU version of the character is notable enough to have her own article, so there really isn't any reason for this article to extensively cover the MCU Black Widow. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an in-universe (so-to-speak) perspective, violating MOS:INUNIVERSE. This article seems to be clear that they are the same character ("Natasha Romanoff was portrayed by Scarlett Johansson in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) franchise from 2010 to 2021. Johannson's portrayal brought increased attention to the character and influenced Black Widow's depiction in comics.") and also discusses other-universe varieties of the character: "An alternate version of Black Widow was created for the Ultimate Universe in the 2000s, where she is a member of the Ultimates.", "Black Widow: Forever Red, a young adult novel featuring the Marvel Cinematic Universe version of Black Widow, was written by Margaret Stohl and released in 2015." If the MCU version of the character is notable enough to have a dedicated article, there should be a thorough summary in this article per the summary style guideline. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really concerned about the in-universe aspect, but I can attest that the sources treat them differently for the most part. This actually made it difficult to find sources for the comic book version because many of them were specifically about the film version. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't think we should even have a summary of the MCU article, which seems to be a subtopic variant of the character, at least from what PZ said above about the "multiverse"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article already has a brief summary of the MCU counterpart in the lede, talking about how Johansson portrayed the character from 2010 to 2021, and how this variant helped popularize Black Widow and influenced her depiction in the comics. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to adding a few more sentences in the "other media" section. Are there any specific details you had in mind besides the actress and appearances in "other media" and the brief mentions in "2010s" and "reception"? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 do you have any further thoughts on this or specific aspects of the film version that should be included? Or are you good with the current coverage in 2010s and in other media? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Hello. Review forthcoming.

As this is not your first FAC nomination, I will spot check 10% of the article's citations. If there is a defect in over 20% of references checked, I will spot check another 10%. Any partial fail does not count as a fail unless there is an overwhelming volume. Let's get started.

Reference [11]

  • Article text: Her redemption coincided with Marvel's attempt at a more nuanced portrayal of Soviets than depicting them as inherently evil.
  • Outcome: Partial fail.
  • Rationale: Romanov is mentioned on this page, but the previous depiction of Soviets (e.g., as "inherently evil") is not mentioned on this page.
  • Nominator response: Removed.

Reference [115]

  • Article text: [Red Guardian] was believed dead, and he later sacrificed himself to save [Black Widow].
  • Outcome: Pass.
  • Rationale: Supported by the citation.
  • Nominator response:

Reference [90]

  • Article text: As a communist spy, she was a foil for Iron Man and his symbolic representation of American values.
  • Outcome: Pass
  • Rationale: Sums up a page of content in 20 words – maybe they should've hired you as an editor.
  • Nominator response:

Reference [81] and [82]

  • Article text: Black Widow projects an air of confidence in her civilian life [81] and is self-assured in her physical appearance and her ability to leverage it [82]
  • Side-note: I believe this sentence could be rewritten; it doesn't read right to me. I don't like rewriting others' work, so... maybe reframe around her civilian identity vs super spy persona?
  • Outcome: Pass
  • Rationale: [81] If anything, this is an over-extrapolation of one word; [82] easy pass.
  • Nominator response: This was a tough one when writing the article. I've condensed it down into a single idea, hopefully this is better?

Reference [5]

  • Article text: {{[blue|Black Widow first took the role of a supervillain in Tales of Suspense #64 (1965) after the Soviet government gave her a costume and equipment when they forced her to continue working for them.}}
  • Outcome: Pass!
  • Rationale: Supported by the citation
  • Nominator response:

Reference [95]

  • Article text: The trauma and painful history Black Widow endures is tied to her Soviet origin.
  • I have selected the above not at random, but because the emphasis seems like it should be flipped: "Black Widow's Soviet origins are the root of her traumatic and painful biography."
  • Outcome: Partial fail.
  • Rationale: You are paraphrasing a paragraph here, I believe — Such a memory ‘often alters the way facts are perceived’ (Jelača 2016, 11). Thedistorted, yet specific places and dates, connecting the Widow to Russian historic events,can be read with Jelača as trauma storytelling rather than details provided for historicalaccuracy. The murder of the Romanovs, the disregard for the lives of the individualsoldiers during World War II, and the individual personal experience during her spytraining merge into a single message about the Widow’s place of origin as a place of multiple traumas — but it doesn't quite support the text. This can be straightforwardly fixed by changing to something emphasising how BW has been associated by writers with Soviet history (a point you make very well later).
  • Nominator response: Reworded, though I don't know if I'm happy with it.

Reference [98]

  • Article text: and Black Widow's rejection of American gender roles in the 1960s reflected the otherness that she represented as an agent of the Soviet Union
  • Outcome: Pass!
  • Rationale: Supports by the citation
  • Nominator response:

Reference [128]

  • Article text: while comic writer Nathan Edmondson attributed this longevity to her archetypal depiction coupled with a strong identity.
  • Note: Spot-checking this one because I don't quite understand what it means. Is Black Widow the archetypal spy? Or femme fatale? What is her strong identity in comics, her backstory, the trauma?
  • Outcome: Partial pass
  • Rationale: Well, he definitely said that. I'll be honest: I don't get this. This heading begins by saying that BW was not really popular until she was in Iron Man 2, but this would also support a citation that says she has been popular for 40 years. I have no concerns with the source, but the actual content feels a bit like empty PR talk. Curious to know your thoughts on this one.
  • Nominator response: Removed, unless you have any other ideas. I kind of get what he's saying, but there's not enough context to describe it in more detail.

I'll halt the spot check for now – will do a biblio check and finish the rest off tomorrow. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on bibliography

Hi ImaginesTigers, just checking that this is a pass for both a source review and a spot check? Or are you still waiting for some nominator responses? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{[replyto|Gog the Mid}} I've got a few more spot checks to do but the biblio passes. Should complete the rest of the spot checks tomorrow, but I won't provide my sign off until I have responses/discussed some of the topics raised. Thanks — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers I've addressed everything to this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My time is much more limited right now but I've checked a few more at random with no issues. Support from a sourcing POV.

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • I am not sure that "plotter" will convey much to most readers. Perhaps rephrase or explain in line.
  • What is a "primary design"?
  • "Black Widow has been the main character in several comic issues since 1970, and she received her own Black Widow series in 1999. She is frequently a supporting character in The Avengers and Daredevil." "has been" and "received" in the first sentence and "is" in the second. ?
  • "wields a bracelet on each arm that fires electric shocks and projects wires to traverse skyscrapers." You checking that each bracelet can do each of these?
  • "projects wires to traverse skyscrapers". Do you mean something like 'projects wires she uses to traverse skyscrapers'?
  • "her struggle to define her own identity as a spy". I don't think this really reflects the more nuanced explanation in the main article.
  • There are two mentions of the "Red Room" in the lead and nine in the main article, but no - that I found - explanation of what this is. As cite 73 aptly puts it "What is the Red Room in Marvel Comics?"
  • "femme fatale" is English - femme fatale - and so doesn't need italics. (That said, foreign language words that aren't proper nouns should use lang templates, not just italics.)
  • "Black Widow has been adapted into a variety of other media, including film, animated series, and video games. Natasha Romanoff was portrayed by ..." The switch from Black Widow to Natasha Romanoff jars. If the latter is preferred for the film (and if so, why?) then a fuller introduction of the filmic character is in order. I note that in the following sentence "Black Widow" is preferred again.
  • Replaced with "a version of the character".
  • "Johannson's portrayal brought increased attention to the character and influenced Black Widow's depiction in comics." Could you point me towards the text in the main article which this is a summary of. Thanks.
  • It's a summary of the beginning of the "Reception" section and the start of the "2010s" subsection. At least the parts that are about Natasha's MCU counterpart.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2010s: "Black Widow became more widely known to the public after the character was adapted to film in Iron Man 2 (2010). The film's emphasis on her as a spy instead of a superhero influenced how she was portrayed in comics over the following years." and Reception: "Black Widow was not well known in popular culture until she was adapted to film in Iron Man 2 (2010). After her film appearances began, the character developed a strong fan base"

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 March 2025 [44].

Pari Khan Khanum

[edit]
Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the most famous princess from the Safavid dynasty of Iran, a cunning figure deeply involved in two succession crises, through which she was able to eliminate two of her brothers and was only defeated at the end because of the interference of another powerful politicking lady. Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]
General
  • "However": the word occurs six times in the present text. It is generally an unnecessary word, but where you feel compelled to use it you must use a stronger stop than a comma in "Pari Khan was requested to succeed her brother, however she refused the offer" and "She ordered the officials to remain in Qazvin and wait for Mohammad's arrival, however, Mirza Salman Jaberi, the former grand vizier...". (And "but" would be better as well as shorter.)
    • Reduced the number of However and replaced them with But
  • When a word such as "harem" is familiar in English you either don't want the language template at all or should add "italic=no" at the end of the template, and I'd say the same goes for "tomans" as our Wikipedia article on that topic doesn't italicise the word, and it is in the OED unitalicised.
    • Done
Other points
  • "wrote five eulogies in her praise" – can one write eulogies that are not in praise?
    • Amended
  • "her assistance and favour was coveted" – two nouns but a singular verb.
    • Deleted one verb
  • "Mohammad Khodabanda, was blind" – but in the lead you say he was "almost blind" [my italics] – not the same thing.
    • Amended
  • "due to his Georgian maternal origin" – the article seems to be in BrE, and although in AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
    • Amended
  • "Afterwards, per Pari Khan's request" – the dictum "prefer good English to bad Latin" applies here. A simple "at" instead of the clunky "per" would improve the prose.
    • Replaced with 'at'
  • "read a khutba" – I think it would be a kindness to your readers to add an inline explanation of the term (as you do for "takhallus" and "ghazal") rather than obliging them to click away from the present article in search of explanation.
    • Added an explanation
  • "Ismail may have also been planning to kill her, evident from a letter" – this sentence doesn't quite work. In the first place, I'm not sure "evident" and "may have been" sit happily together, and in the second, the prose reads oddly: something on the lines of "It appears from a letter sent by Pari Khan to Ismail that he may have also been planning to kill her" might be smoother.
    • Replaced the sentence
  • "the influence of Pari Khan, causing them to openly oppose Pari Khan" – infelicitous repetition of the name; I suggest a pronoun the second time.
    • Deleted
  • "Pari Khan had an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 tomans" – this seems to me pretty meaningless without some attempt to convey inline how much 10,000 tomans were worth at the time. There are many ways of addressing this sort of point: a comparison with the central government's annual income, for example, or with the typical income of someone of the period, or the cost of building a warship – anything you can reliably use as a comparator.
  • "only one poem is proven to be written by her" – if we are in BrE, you want "proved", rather than the American (and Scottish) "proven".
    • Done
  • "Tahmasp I considered poetry as an antithesis to his piety" – were there other antitheses? If not, I'd replace the indefinite article with a definite one. And the usual preposition for "antithesis" is "of", rather than "to" (and personally I'd knock out the "as" as well).
    • Done
  • "a poet from Kashan who was awarded with the title malek al-sho'ara" – "with" seems superfluous here.
    • Deleted
  • "identified by Iranologist Paul E. Losensky" – crashing false title, such as you very sensibly eschew elsewhere.
    • Added the indefinite article to these cases
  • " a 'brave martyrdom' ... 'princess of the world and its inhabitants' ... 'the Fatima of the time'." – only single quotation marks?
    • Added two marks
  • "The presence of these two women speak of other smaller female influence" – singular noun – presence – but plural verb – speak.
    • Is 'indicate' a better replacement?

I hope these few comments are of use. Tim riley talk 11:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After a final rereading I am happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It is an excellent read, the narrative is clear, the tone is neutral and there are some good illustrations. How comprehensive the article is I, as a layman, cannot say, but I'm willing to take it on trust. Certainly the sources look impressive, up-to-date and varied. Meets all the FA criteria as far as I can see. Tim riley talk 10:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorWhoFan91

[edit]

Image review

The sources check out- the images are very old given with the correct information

Reference formatting

  • Sources-I'm think you don't need to provide pages here, only in the sfns. Also, Losensky Paul 2018 then 2019(I believe it goes year first, then title, instead of the opposite)

General comments

  • "her favoured candidate, Ismail Mirza,": might as well add "her brother" here too, it's added before her other brothers
    • Done
  • "Ismail I being succeeded by Tahmasp": "as Tahmasp himself did from Ismail I" or something would be better
    • Done
  • Poetry- some more about her poetry would be good, if anything could be found
  • Also, some more examples and info about her influence might be good too

That's all from me. I'm leaning support, but will decide after someone does a spot-check. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoctorWhoFan91, is this a pass for the image review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it passes an image review. Sorry, should have been clearer about that part. DWF91 (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Amir Ghandi, it is nice to see another of your nominations. My comments:

  • In the biblio, link to Rudi Matthee, Sheila Blair, Kioumars Ghereghlou.
  • Consider linking to the archive.org URL [45] for the Zanān-i Sukhanvar?
  • Capitalize titles consistently per MOS:CT? You have mostly used title case. However, you have used sentence case in Ahmadi 2021, Bijandifar 2005 and Szuppe 2003. Consider converting these to title case?

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Is "Royal Women and Politics in Safavid Iran" a prominent source? "Ghereghlou, Kioumars (2016). "Esmāʿil II". Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition. New York. ISSN 2330-4804. CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)" has an error message, but I am not sure if it needs to be handled. A diverse set of sources, in terms of formatting, nothing else that jumps out to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jo-Jo Eumerus; regarding the source in question, I will quote what I wrote in the GA review of this article: "Birjandifar is an expert with a PHD,[1] whose work has been published by major journals such as Iranian Studies. This thesis itself has been cited by major Safavid experts such as Colin P. Mitchell"
Regarding the second issue, I have amdended it by adding a publication place. Thanks. Amir Ghandi (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC) Amir Ghandi (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Outta curiosity, why is the "Encyclopædia Iranica" cited twice online and once offline, and every time with different formatting? By which logic have some books Google Books links and others don't? I think I saw Brill or DeGruyter full text links to some of the books, too. Same question about why some sources are cited as entire books and others chapter-wise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, the inconsistency in Iranica sources came from me copy and pasting them from other articles into here; I've now changed all of them to Iranica Online. I also opted to remove all Google book links. I don't think I have linked any of sources to Brill and DeGruyter, please inform me if it is otherwise. And regarding the last question, some of these books are collected and edited by a person and each chapter has a different author; I opted to cite such sources to their chapters. Amir Ghandi (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

As always, these are suggestions not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.

  • A map showing the main centers of Safavid power (Sistan, Qazvin, Shiraz, etc.) would be illuminating, if possible.
    • Done
  • "she was well-loved by her father" this seems to understate the body, which states she was his favourite daughter and that he took her advice before even her brothers. Some words to this effect would be useful. You could probably remove "From an early age" as well, as she wasn't influential among the Qizilbash as a child.
    • Done
  • "of the prominent leaders of the militant Qizilbash tribes": "of the" duplication, and the body does not verify "militant", i.e. "favouring confrontational or violent methods".
    • How about 'martial' or 'militarian' to indicate that the tribes were part of the Safavid military?
  • "Despite her expectations" best to clearly state what the expectations were.
    • Done
  • "He died from poisoning in 1577, and Pari Khan may have been the mastermind behind his assassination." could be simply rephrased to "Pari Khan may have been the mastermind behind his assassination in 1577.
    • Done
  • "With her endorsement, her elder brother Mohammad Khodabanda was chosen as Ismail's successor. Mohammad was almost blind, and this fact made him a suitable choice for Pari Khan." a bit clunky; the sentences could be combined to merge the phrases on "endorsement" and "suitable choice". Also, it is not nearly as clear-cut in the body that he was a suitable choice for Pari Khan
    • Done
  • "influential wife" is not really supported by the body; Khayr al-Nisa gained the influence after Pari Khan's death.
    • Deleted 'influential'
  • "and successfully plotted her death. Pari Khan was strangled at the age of thirty." could be combined to "and engineered Pari Khan's strangulation at the age of thirty" or similar
    • Done
  • "like Abdi Beg Shirazi and his Takmelat al-akhbar" would work better as "Abdi Beg Shirazi's Takmelat al-akhbar
    • Done
  • "to take leadership of the ineffective Safavid court and gather hundreds of loyal followers" two things: firstly gathering hundreds of followers is not really that distinctive, and can probably be deleted; secondly "taking leadership" is understating it a bit, seems to be more "dominating".
    • Done
  • " in her aunts, Pari Khan Khanum I and Mahinbanu Sultan, both daughters of Ismail I" Ismail I isn't previously mentioned, so probably best to eliminate that phrase and simply say "paternal aunts".
    • Done
  • "the Safavid historian Afushta'i Natanzi deemed her" is not quite what the source says; it says "Safavid historians" and cites Natanzi, who may well have quoted other contemporary sources.
    • Changed the sentences, I think it should be good now.
  • "In" is the usual word after "culminated".
    • Changed 'to' with 'into'.
  • "along with" is confusing in this list, but the problem is fixed by removing the two words.
    • Deleted
  • "had affairs with the wife" how do you have multiple affairs with one person?
    • Amended
  • See WP:INTOTHEWOULDS for "would slander", "would go to her", "would support", and "would ask".
    • Changed all of these.
  • "Until Ismail's arrival" "until" requires a verb, so "until Ismail arrived" would be better.
    • Done
  • "Pari Khan expected gratitude from her brother.[23] But Ismail was disquieted by the Qizilbash's deference to Pari Khan." sentences could be combined
    • Done
  • "aggressive behaviour which stemmed from Ismail's cold demeanour towards Pari Khan" not entirely clear what this means
    • This is the sentence from the source: "Isma'il ordered the murder of Sulayman Mirza, a full brother of Pari Khan Khanum, on the grounds that the prince had become belligerent because of Isma'il's aloofness toward their sister." Essentially, he wanted to defend his sister's honour, but was aggressive while doing so.
  • "with poisoning being suspected by the court physician" would work better in the active voice
    • Done
  • "with the bureaucrats of the realm obeying her decrees" unneeded
    • Deleted
  • Best to say where the state treasury was.
    • Done
  • "Shamkhal Sultan then increased the number of guards at Pari Khan's residence, which caused more animosity between the royal couple and Pari Khan" if Shamkhal Sultan was affiliated with the shah, best to outright say that. Is he the same as Shamkhal Khan, and if so, why was he murdered?
    • No, Shamkhal Sultan is her uncle (Khan being my mistake here). The increasing of her guards was not an act of affiliation towards the shah, it was the opposite.
  • "When the shah and his wife were approaching the palace" unnecessary
    • Delted
  • "who was awarded the title malek al-sho'ara (the poet-laurate) by her decree" clunky
    • Changed to active voice
  • Is one source sufficient backing for the claim "Pari Khan Khanum is regarded in modern historiography as the most powerful woman of her era"?
    • Added a source from Oxford

A nice article, and as such my comments are restricted to prose nitpicking. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arcticocean

[edit]

This is a review of the prose, section by section, and suggested improvements of the content typed in green.

  • Infobox:
    • Painting of a seated princess, most likely Pari Khan Khanum1 – Should this image caption give a date, or date range, for the painting of a princess?
    • Added the date range.
    • Religion – is the religion of such historical importance that it needs mentioning in the infobox? I have no knowledge of this particular region and time, so perhaps being of Shia Islam (as opposed to other sects, for instance) is historically relevant, and I'd be content if you had a special reason for specifying the religion there. Otherwise, I would struggle not to view this as gratuitous WP:TRIVIA. (Existence of an infobox parameter is not justification for using it!)
    • I removed it; it's not a significant detail.
  • Lead:
    • The prose here is of very high quality.
    • From an early age, she was well-loved by her father and was allowed to partake in the court activities – the second 'was' is a redundant verb.
    • Deleted
    • In a society that imposed harsh restrictions … gather hundreds of loyal followers. – This sentence needs no improvement, but it comes at an odd place, and I wonder if transplanting this sentence to the beginning of the paragraph would result in the whole flowing better.
      • I moved the first sentence into the top of the paragraph, is it looking better now?
  • Early life:
    • caught the interest of her father – perhaps the sources say that or not, but I think 'caught the interest' is too vague. Would other wording be more encyclopedic?
      • Done
  • Career
    • Ismail was Tahmasp's second son … better ally in Haydar. – this part of the paragraph jumps around a little, but some re-ordering would allow you to give a full treatment of Ismail and then one of Haydar. That would be easier to follow and less likely to confuse or require re-reading.
      • Re-ordered the paragraph
    • smear his image as a traitor – I think this has to be reworded, e.g. "smear him as a traitor" or "smear his image as being a traitor". Although the true meaning can be understood in spite, the wording strictly seems to mean that he was already a traitor.
    • Replaced
    • Mohammad Khodabanda, and Shuja al-Di – the comma should be removed.
      • Removed
    • She and the Qizilbash came to the agreement … began her second de facto reign – it would be helpful to have a date or year specified somewhere here. The coverage of this chapter of her life feels… atemporal.
      • Done
  • Poetry
    • Does Haghighi need to be placed into quotation marks, particularly if italics are already being used to print the transliterations?
      • I actually think the italics should be removed as well, since Haghighi is a proper noun here.
    • was able to fulfil Pari Khan's request – is adjective "able" correct here? Perhaps closer to your intended meaning would be "answered Pari Khan's request"?
      • How about 'fulfilled'?
  • Assessments and legacy
    • I am wondering whether the section title would be better just as "Legacy" but I am reluctant to interfere, as article layout and headers is a very personal editorial choice. Consider whether the shorter version is better, but don't worry if you like it as is.
      • I think for brevity we can changee it to "Legacy".

This is a fascinating and comprehensive treatment of the subject. You have also preserved through your tone and pace a certain intrigue, which is fitting for the subject. Well done! I am likely to support promotion and will confirm that later. arcticocean ■ 11:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Dabīrsīāqī & Fragner is given as 1982 in the text and 2020 in Sources.
    • Fixed
  • "She played a central role in the succession crisis". Could her name be given at her first mention in each paragraph. (This would also avoid consecutive sentences starting with "She".)
    • Done
  • Does "eliminated" mean killed, or that she had them killed? If so I suggest saying so.
    • She indeed had her brother killed, but since the sentence is followed by 'his supporters' whom she didn't kill, we can't use that verbe. However, I rewrote the sentence, any thoughts?
  • "and she was also compared to Fatima". Suggest deleting "also" as you have not mentioned her been compared to anyone else. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 March 2025 [46].

Mandell Creighton

[edit]
Nominator(s): Fowler&fowler and Tim riley talk 17:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an outstanding Anglican bishop who might well have become Archbishop of Canterbury but for his relatively early death. Most of the work on the article has been done over quite a long time by Fowler&fowler, who has entrusted me, in his absence abroad, with bringing the text up to FA level, which I hope I have done. Tim riley talk 17:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MSincccc

[edit]
  • Among his Merton friends he was dubbed "The Professor", or "P". "Among his friends at Merton..."?
  • The group friendship was intense, like many such in that time. "The group's friendship..."?

Minor comments above. I will provide further suggestions later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are both fine as they are, me judice. Please don't feel obliged to "provide further suggestions later". Tim riley talk 19:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley Please don’t worry, I won’t trouble you. The article has been a good read so far, and I’d like to go through it in full. I assure you, my comments hereafter will be precise and to the point. MSincccc (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vicar of Embleton
  • During their ten years in Embleton the Creightons—he in his 30s and she, for the most part, in her 20s—between them, wrote fifteen books. Is mentioning "he in his 30s and she, for the most part, in her 20s" necessary here?
I inherited this from the text written by the principal editor, and didn't and don't feel the need to delete it. Tim riley talk 15:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could Sir Edward Grey be introduced in short here? (the statesman Edward Grey...)
I don't see how his occupation is relevant to his generosity in funding the building. Tim riley talk 15:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bishop of Peterborough
In June 1896 Creighton represented the Church of England at the coronation of Czar Nicholas II in Moscow,... MSincccc (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. Tim riley talk 17:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of his magnum opus, History of the Papacy in the Period of the Reformation, R. J. W. Evans writes,... Evans could be introduced as "the historian" here, though I will not insist upon it.
MSincccc (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley I hope my feedback has been constructive, and I will strive to improve next time I review an article at FAC/PR. I would be happy to support this article's promotion. MSincccc (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MSincccc (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Fowler&fowler

[edit]

I'm delighted to see this at FAC, nominated by Tim riley. Unfortunately, I'm unable to take part.

Tim was the first to offer a peer review years ago, so he's been associated with the article from the get-go. He has added much to what was there, creating a significant revision. I thank Brianboulton of happy memory for his critical and careful insights during an earlier FAC; it had to be closed because of impending travel. Creighton was one of the great men of the late Victorian age. I hope success in Tim's effort will bring wider notice to Mandell Creighton's many achievements. An early death robbed of many more. To the extent my opinion matters here, I offer Tim riley's effort enthusiastic support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]


  • I notice a few lapses of MOS:GEOCOMMA: should be Embleton, Northumberland, and later. This applies after e.g. "Merton College, Oxford" as well.
And now done, I hope. Tim riley talk 19:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow, I hope. Unsurprisingly, the writing is crisp and lucid, and makes for a very enjoyable read. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I hope?" Me too. Look forward to it. Tim riley talk 17:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creighton as Bishop of London, by Hubert von Herkomer.: no full stop (I'm being lazy in not just fixing it myself, I know).
  • A self-made man, Robert Creighton continually exhorted his sons to work, imbuing them with a sense of independence. This later allowed Mandell to make career choices that were unorthodox for his background: I don't see any of this on the cited page. Has a citation to another source dropped out? I also don't see any particular reference to Robert's short temper, and the source says that there was "no stimulus of literary interest", which is not quite the same as "few books" (I took it to mean that Robert didn't encourage his children to read literature). The author talks a lot about "liberal principles", but I must admit that he seems to be using "liberal" in a different sense to what I would understand, and I can't really figure out what he means by it.
Yes, I'm still not clear what is meant by the term here. I get the sense that it's being used to invoke a kind of nineteenth-century working-class autodidactism -- hard work, personal discipline, temperance and practically-minded education? After all, "liberal" usually means "generous" or "giving lots of freedom", and both of those seem pointedly inappropriate for Robert Creighton. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As his poor sight prevented his participation in sports he took with enthusiasm to walking: this isn't really supported by the source: he goes on (on the next page) to suggest that he never played cricket because his eyes were poor, but also to talk about spending four years in the boat club. Fallows says that he "showed no proficiency at games" (for which read "rugby and cricket"), but that to me seems to imply that he played them (albeit badly).
We've said that he was prevented from participating in sports; I don't see that stated in any of the sources, and several state or imply that he did participate in sports. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unimpressed by that, but will change "prevented" to "inhibited" Tim riley talk 19:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • At Merton, Creighton became a tutor in Modern History, which Kirby describes as "a relatively new subject which few were then prepared to teach".: it would be nice to have some background as to when Modern History was introduced at Oxford. The first Regius Professor in the subject had been appointed in 1724, and there had been a professor of it in Oxford since 1622, so I"m not totally sold on Kirby's judgement here. See this old article on JSTOR for the subject at Oxford prior to 1841.
Right, but WP:DUEWEIGHT applies -- if we're going to present one person's view of an issue, we have a duty to make sure that we're not missing out important context or making it seem unchallenged when it isn't. In this case, I think we at least need to clarify that "relatively new" means "two centuries old". I'm not disputing that it was unfashionable, but at the moment the quote without context is a little misleading. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Feel free to add whatever you think is duly weighty as your desired counterbalance. Tim riley talk 19:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was to remain devoted to the doctrines of the real presence and apostolic succession throughout his life, although he had little sympathy for ritualism.: the links are absolutely essential here, which isn't ideal. Suggest clarifying how these doctrines related to the division between high-church and low-church Anglicans, perhaps? I'm not sure how germane it is to go into detail as to what the beliefs were, as opposed to what they meant institutionally.
  • After some speculation by friends about whether Creighton would commit to taking holy orders, he was ordained deacon: I think we need to be absolutely clear that this was taking holy orders, since he didn't (yet) become a priest, and most readers won't really understand the difference (I must admit that I don't). Suggest "he did so by being ordained..."?
  • blue and white pottery.: suggest adding some sort of gloss that this was East Asian (inspired?). Without clicking the link, we might think Wedgwood.
  • Does that matter? Them as is curious can click on the link, and them as isn't can read on whether or not thinking of Spode willow pattern. I am in no position to say authoritatively whether it was East Asian or merely East Asian inspired. Tim riley talk 13:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Getting somewhere: I'll take another break there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • and began to formulate some ideas on the education of children: on its own, this seems hardly remarkable: most people have ideas about education. Do we know if he put these ideas into print or practice? I notice the blockquote on the right, which seems to suggest that he published at least some of them.
  • Creighton had already corresponded with the historian Lord Acton: we didn't actually introduce Acton on first mention, and I think it would have been useful to do so, to establish what business he had reviewing works of church history.
  • I agree and will do so. (Mind you, didn't you turn me down like a bedspread when I suggested something similar at one of your FACs?)
  • Creighton also wrote dozens of book-reviews and scholarly articles: seems like an odd hyphen when we previously went for home schooled.
  • many scholars such as the educator Thomas Arnold had asserted the identity of the Church and the nation: this surely doesn't mean what it says: that Arnold thought that the Church of England and England were the same thing? I can wear something like "inseparability of", "vital importance of the CofE to the nation" vel sim. Later we say "that to be English was to be Anglican", and that seems more plausible, even if not quite the same thing.
  • The present wording accurately quotes the source: Still, he can hardly be faulted for acquiescing in the common sentiment of the day, supported by many notables such as Thomas Arnold who thought the church and the nation were identical. I can't disagree that if he really thought that, then Arnold was as much of a well-meaning ninny as that sneering twerp Lytton Strachey painted him, but those are the ipsissima verba. Tim riley talk 13:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to the Cambridge Alumni Database appears to be dead. Is it really the best source to say that he got the Dixie job?



  • There is a very large sandwich between the infobox and both images in the Cambridge Professorship section.
  • The principle is not to compress the lines of text, which diminishes their readability. Personally, I've always treated a quote box, infobox etc as a special type of image. I'll have a look at the MoS later on to see how firm the prohibition seems to be. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't dispute the aesthetic undesirability of sandwiching text between two pictures, but having a picture to one side and a quote box to the other seems aesthetically fine to me. As to readability on a typical landscape screen, the only para in this section that stretches the full width – "Creighton invited Acton to review the two volumes ..." – runs to 174 characters (excluding spaces), and there is a consensus among experts that the optimal line length for readability onscreen is between 45 and 75/80 characters to a line. To put that in context, in 12pt Times New Roman in a Word document at standard setting that single onscreen line takes two and a half lines. As to print: taking at random from my shelves Owen Chadwick's The Reformation I find the character count per line from arbitrarily chosen lines on page 109 is 43–48. I do not for a moment believe that the sandwiching of, e.g. "From his arrival in Cambridge, colleagues turned to Creighton ... contributing from", reducing the line length to 126 characters (excluding spaces) is deleterious to readability: the reverse is true. Tim riley talk 10:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a small bit of sandwiching, but nothing that impairs readability or the reader experience, I think. The screen has to be really narrow for there to be a real issue, and at that narrowness, that's the least of the problems. From a purely technical point, the MoS is a set of flexible guidelines which we deal with an interpret with a measure of common sense, rather than the tablets of stone, so we can allow a fair bit of leeway on some points, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look, on quite a small screen (a bit less than a foot by diagonal) -- the section Schro talks about does look very cluttered on that, and it's quite information dense (image, caption, paragraph and quote all competing for attention) which does, I think, hit readability. On that screen, you get about 70 non-space characters per line. Granted, Chadwick seems to have made do with much fewer (and, I think, much fewer than any ordinary book I can find to hand), but I do think it would be better un-sandwiched than not. On the other hand, I agree with you both that this isn't a hard rule, and I can see (without sharing) the reading that the MoS is primarily concerned with the aesthetic undesirability of going image->text-> image. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  • moving it away from exclusively political history and widening its scope: this seems slightly tautological ("widening its scope by moving it ..."?) Do we know what he had added to it?
  • It's not only tautological: it's also wrong. I misrepresented the ODNB which says "contributing from his arrival to changes in the historical tripos and its examination, with more choice and more open-ended questions". I'll reword. Tim riley talk 13:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • He supported Cambridge's two new women's colleges, Newnham and Girton,: I don't think it would hurt to put a date on their foundation. By the by, I'm pleased to note that this doesn't seem to have been that unusual: Creighton's contemporary Robert Alexander Neil also gave lectures at the women's colleges.
  • he and his household lived in the close there during university vacations: perhaps clearer as cathedral close?
  • Yes, good. Will do.
  • bringing visiting scholars to lecture to the clergy of diocese: of the diocese?
  • a subject on which he would write scholarly articles: can we footnote some?
  • I see a small sandwich between the images in the Peterborough section., and a big one in the "Educational reform" subsection.
  • For Creighton, the Peterborough appointment, which he felt duty-bound to accept, meant the effective end of his academic life.: was this anything more than Creighton's decision? After all, Rowan Williams (and Josef Ratzinger) managed to do a fairly good job of juggling high church office with academic respectability, and indeed to return to the academic world afterwards. Obviously, being a bishop is a lot of work, but plenty of people do and did produce academic work while having other large demands on their time.
  • You may be right, but it seems clear that Creighton saw things differently. "He was still battling in his own mind the career question that had long dogged him – church or university". (Covert, p. 171)
  • Yes -- perhaps resolving the ambiguity of "for Creighton" ("as regards Creighton" or "in Creighton's mind"?) would help: "As Creighton saw it, the Peterborough appointment ..." vel sim?
  • Done 15:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

One more hop, I expect. I hope some of this is useful, and apologise for the length. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS I had promised to stay out of this, not to mention that the exigencies of real life usually make it so or that Tim has a better ear for language. However, past progressive or, for that matter, past perfect is sometimes mixed with past simple in narrative writing as opposed to descriptive writing to change the flow or the point of view. ("Invite" is not a state verb where the progressive (or continuous) is not possible). Thus, we could have had, "Soon Ward was sitting down to invite ...," or "Soon, Ward had invited ..." This is different from using the past progressive for a series of events (Soon, Ward was inviting X to dinners in his rooms.) What the injunctions of MOS say about this, I wouldn't know. But I don't object to your rewording either. Very incisive points. Please keep them coming. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- I think that works very well when we are talking about the beginning of an ongoing process (as with the Latin imperfect, used for the continuous aspect): however, there was only one Valentine's Day lunch, so we are talking about a single event (Latin perfect, or the aoristic aspect). Taking the terminology out of it, it just caught my ear as a slightly unusual phrasing, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it was wrong to begin with. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the knowledge that much of the above is now resolved or at least replied, I'm going to press on, and then set about organising what's here into "live" and resolved:

  • The Leicester boot-and-shoe trade strike of 1895: boot-and-shoe-trade?
  • Although Creighton seemed to subscribe to a broad branch theory, that the real Catholic Church was a collection of national churches which included the Church of England, the Church of Rome, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, he was firm about asserting: as it's quite a beefy one, I'd suggest taking the parenthetical part of this (that the ... Orthodox Church) and using dashes rather than commas to separate it.
  • Creighton also succeeded Frederic Leighton as President of the Committee commissioning the Survey of London: president of the committee.
  • Done.
  • low church clergy in his diocese: hyphen.
  • The controversy had begun in the wake of the Oxford Movement: I think it would help to put a date here, as the Oxford Movement was not exactly new by this point: can we say "had begun in the 1830s"?
  • Kensit called for Creighton to take a firmer public stance against high church rituals: hyphen in high-church.
  • the services of the Church as laid down in the Book of Common Prayer: italicise BCP (MOS:CONFORM).
  • Already italicised in main text. As this is in a quote I think it should remain as printed: the authority of a bishop seems to me to outrank that of the MoS when it comes to episcopal typography. More seriously, it gives a flavour of his writing, which it would be a pity to homogenise out. Tim riley talk 12:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm: this is unambiguous in the MoS, which has For titles of books, articles, poems, and so forth, use italics or quotation marks following the guidance for titles. I'm not sure I really see this as a point of style or personality, rather than just a fairly inconsequential mark of the conventions of the time. What do you think it shows us about him that he didn't italicise? UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that Creighton's letters were edited for print, so one can't be sure, but he seems to have put all book titles into quotation marks except for The Book of Common Prayer (or The Prayer Book), the Bible, books of the Old and New Testaments, and the Authorised Version. That he made that distinction seems to me to deserve respect. Tim riley talk 14:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very well -- I'm persuaded that it's an intentional distinction, and so MOS:CONFORM doesn't apply. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • during this same period, a nephew caught sight of Louise and her husband locked in passionate embrace: euphemism, I wonder? But I imagine you're sticking closely to the source here.
  • on one occasion tying a daughter to a table leg to aid her in recognising her folly: I am a little uncomfortable with the phrasing of "to aid her in recognising her folly": given that we're describing what would now (if not then) be considered child abuse, it feels wrong to so uncritically adopt the father/perpetrator's point of view. Can we more neutrally say what she did: "for stealing some strawberries" or similar?
  • Redrawn.
  • When the children grew older, the family's outdoor pastime of choice became hockey. Many clergy visiting him at his London residence, Fulham Palace, found themselves unable to refuse Creighton's enthusiastic invitations to join in.: I'm remembering our earlier conversation that C's eyesight was so bad that he couldn't play sports. This would seem to count against that. Do you feel that the article is consistent in this respect?
    The same occurred to me, too, but the sources are pretty clear. Better spectacles by the late 1890s than in his youth, perhaps? (And of course playing hockey in the garden with children is quite another matter from facing a 160 gramme hard cork and leather cricket ball hurled at you at 80 mph by a strapping undergraduate.)
  • When the author Samuel Butler received an invitation to visit the Creightons in Peterborough in 1894, he was dubious about accepting until his secretary noticed in the letter a flake of tobacco inadvertently left by Creighton: any idea why that persuaded Butler?
I had the same thought, but if the source is silent, nothing to do here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "And you think that souls like herring cannot be cured without smoke?": suggest linking "herring", and perhaps Wiktionary-linking "cured", to help non-native readers get the joke. I'm sure I've heard a variation on this elsewhere...
  • Evans 2009: missing a point after the final initial (W).
  • "[It] constitutes one of the first great attempts to introduce the British to explicitly modern and European history: where italics are used for emphasis, use an em template rather than simply changing the format (it helps screen readers).
  • Creighton had a parallel career in the clergy of the Church of England from the mid-1870s until his death.: thinking on this, it strikes me that it isn't true: for most of that time (after 1891), the careers weren't parallel, because he gave up academia to focus on the Church.
  • Creighton saw himself as someone interested in actions, in contrast to Acton, whom he considered to be interested in ideas. Although Creighton did not personally consider the popes to be guiltless (for example, amidst writing the third papacy volume, he wrote, in a letter to a friend, that working on the Borgias was like "spending one's day in a low police court"), Creighton was emphatic that public men be judged for their public and not private actions. In a lecture on "Historical Ethics" he gave in the wake of his dispute with Acton, he said, "I like to stand upon clear grounds which can be proved and estimated. I do not like to wrap myself in the garb of outraged dignity because men in the past did things contrary to the principles which I think soundest in the present".: is this all cited to Creighton 1905? The first part might be a dangerous level of synthesis if so. Would be best if a secondary source can be found to corroborate.
  • "(The) general trend of the Church", he wrote, "must be regulated by (the English people's) wishes. The Church cannot go too far from them": what's the function of the round brackets here? Clarifications added by the editor normally go in square ones.
  • He saw the Church of England not as an abstract entity existing independently in space and time, but as rooted in England, its people, and their history.: fair enough, but I'm surprised that anyone ever thought of it as anything else.
  • among them the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and Glasgow and Trinity College, Dublin: being very picky, there is no University of Harvard.
  • Societa Romana di Storia Patria: needs a grave accent on the first a, a lang template (use italic=no) and perhaps an ILL to the Italian article on the topic.
Yes, I think you're right there. It's a tricky one when we're writing in English but using non-English terms that don't have English equivalents. This one isn't really naturalised, so agree that treating it as Italian is a good call. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brock 2000: point after editor 2's initials.
  • Harrison et al: should be in title case.
  • Kirby 2016: endash in date range.
  • The template documentation advises not including publisher location when it is contained in the publisher: so don't give "Cambridge" for a CUP volume.
  • Hmm. The CUP doesn't always publish in Cambridge, just as the OUP publishes in London and New York as well as in Oxford. I think it will be more helpful to leave the location intact, particularly if the MoS's advice is not compulsory. Tim riley talk 12:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. It's not even in the MoS, but rather in the template documentation (although many published style guides agree). I won't insist, as we're consistent thus far in including all locations, and you have a perfectly good reason to do so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robbins 2008: use the "series" parameter for the series name.
  • Holland 1921 appears to be out of order.
  • Yes. I assume he was originally listed as Scott Holland, Henry. I think Scott was a given name rather than part of an unhyphenated double-barrel, but I'll do a bit of digging before going nap on H here. It isn't always clear. When did the Bonar in Bonar Law become part of the family's surname? The D'Oyly Cartes too, some would say. I'll see what I can find and either move the entry up to H or change the surname in the entry. Tim riley talk 12:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Later: he was quite definitely Holland tout court. Shall relocate him northwards. Tim riley talk 14:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced about using "Lord" as a first name in a bibliography. I would give his first names and keep the wikilink.
  • I don't agree. Every opera lover knows that Kobbé's Opera Book was edited by Lord Harewood, but most wouldn't know he was called "George". More people might know Acton's Christian name, but he's still better known as Lord Acton. Tim riley talk 12:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I've poked through a few style guides: they're fairly evenly split, but Chicago agrees with you, and that's good enough for me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Members of the Survey Committee" is the title. As this is a digitisation of a printed book, I wonder if "cite book" would be a better template: this would allow you to put the series information (the rest of what we currently have as the "title") into the series parameter?
  • "The announcement that we make...": should be in title case. Also seems to be out of order (along with "The Late..."), if we're alphabetised as if the article were not there: otherwise, "Opening of..." is out of order.
  • This is tricky. The words in sentence case here were not in title case in The Times: they were the opening words of a separate but untitled article (such things being quite often seen in those days). I don't think I can pretend they are a header and capitalise them. Tim riley talk 12:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to press some wrong button or other and deleted some of the changes I'd mentioned above. I hope I've tracked them all down and restored them, but if you happen to spot anything I've claimed to have amended but haven't done so, please yell. Tim riley talk 14:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creighton received honorary doctorates from many institutions, among them universities: did he receive an honorary doctorate from any institution that wasn't a university (Harvard is one, as is TCD)? If not, suggest "these universities", if you don't want to make a bigger redrawing.
Indeed: I'm going to go to support -- I still mean to come back and look at the issues that are live above, but I don't think even the harshest reviewer could say that they push the article below the FA standards. Certainly, my own sluggishness shouldn't hold the article up any further. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bless you, my child! I'll gladly attend to any further UC points as and when you post them, but will meanwhile tell those who wait like greyhounds in the slips (SchroCat and Serial, I have you two in mind) that they are fine to weigh in here. Tim riley talk 17:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Oops! It shall be done. I'm hoping SchroCat doesn't spot this, as when it isn't you prodding him for omitting alt text, it's me prodding him.
  • File:CreightonFamilyCarlisle2.jpg: the tagging here doesn't make sense - you've got a tag saying the image was never published before 2003, but then credit it to a source published 2000
  • Nikkimaria, grateful for advice. Happy to upload locally if you can advise how to tag an 1870 photograph first published in 2000. I imagine there's some free use tag available, but failing that, fair use of a non-free image would do, I assume?
  • File:Mandell-Creichton-aged-27.png: per the UK tag, the image description needs to include the steps taken to try to identify the author
  • Nikkimaria, pretty sure. The author of the 2000 book thanks family members for providing photographs, and these two were provided by a grand-niece and the wife of one of the subject's grandsons. The creators' names are not given and are presumably not known (as two names of creators are given for other images not used here). The book has a copyright notice dated 2000. Tim riley talk 09:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I'm not seeing an appropriate PD tag for the situation as described - it appears that these would still be copyrighted until 2047. If a fair-use argument can be made, that's a potential option. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Nikkimaria. I'll regretfully remove the family group and the 1870 portrait. There is another portrait first published in 2000 that could replace the latter; it's by Bertha Johnson (d. 1927), from the family archives dating from 1878. I think this should be out of copyright in the USA and in Britain. If so, can you advise me which copyright tag to use if I load it up? Tim riley talk 09:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Victorian Marriage: Mandell and Louise Creighton., 2000, London: Hambledon and London. ISBN 1-85285-260-7.

Serial, support

[edit]

Full review to follow, but on the beginning of the reformation: Tim's on solid ground here, to be honest. The ~1517 consensus hasn't shifted. It's true that MacCulloch starts (operative word) the story in 1490, but that's general background. Catholic theology (purgatory, transubstantiation, papal primacy etc) and social context (printing, humanism etc), which he can afford plenty discussion of, with nearly 900 pages to play with... but he specifically states elsewhere that Luther's affirmation and the beginning of the reformation were interconnected, and notes that events of the 1520s were the direct corollary to, again, the beginning of the reformation. Anyway, see you soon... I've got to work on my current thesis, that WWI started in 1871 :) Serial (speculates here) 15:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely concur with your last point. If someone had smothered the infant Bismarck in his cradle the 20th century would have been a lot better for practically everybody except Lenin, Stalin and Hitler. I look forward to the further pleasure of your company here when you're at leisure. Tim riley talk 15:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: and Tim, am preparing to review now. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the border country city of Carlisle": lots of adjectives, is it absolutely relevant that Carlisle is in the border country? Doesn't seem particularly pertinent to his career generally.
  • regularly rather than continually? The latter does rather sound as if it was a constant process.
  • "Creighton's younger brother James": Above you refer to Creighton as Mandell; personally I think you should do so here, as the last Creighton you have referenced is a Michael, eight words previously
  • "As Robert was short-tempered, family life could be fraught": I wonder if "Robert was short-tempered, and family life could be fraught" might read more smoothly.
  • Yes. Done.
  • "an inspirational headmaster": have previous reviewers raised "inspirational"?
  • "the Rev William Bell": I'm sure this is fine, OOC, but why not "Reverend William Bell"?
  • "classical subjects": any chance of more specifics as to what he won prizes in? (It might remove the need to repeat "classics", which is used again in the next sentence.)
  • Is "abiding " necessary?
  • Note [b]: portionista.
  • Not quite with you. Can you elucidate, please?
  • When did he walk to Durham. I ask, because "once walked" sounds a little... informal; almost hearsay?
  • To stop your readers immediately clicking over to gogglemaps it's probably worth noting that it was a distance of ~250 miles/400 km, so he presumably averaged over 80 miles/130 km a day. (Wow. Really? Say he walked 10 mph, that's an average constant speed of 8 miles an hour. Never mind Durham, he should have walked to Stirling Lines  :)
  • "with whom Creighton developed a shared liking"
  • "perfect frankness", "these surroundings": IS THAT THE END OF THE sNTENCE PER MOS:LQ.
  • "three other students": curiously vague! Why their anonymity?
  • Why were group friendships often intense at this time?
  • Perhaps a note explaining what the OUA 1854 actually did by way of reform?
  • Any figures for his salary or its doubling?
  • "Autumn of 1872 ... summer of 1874": MOS:SEASON applies.
  • What's "varying advice"? As in dissenting opinions(s)?
  • Yes.
  • [I highlighted that the pele tower is on the right-hand side of the building in the image, for those who don't know it's a square crenelated box; rv if this is unsatisfactory]
  • Did he already possess an extensive personal; library at Oxford, do we know? It seems unlikely there would be a large amount of Renaissance papal history to be found in the vicarage...
  • How friendly were the friendly girls?
  • Quotes preceded bty a comma have an u/c opening letter, but with a colon, l/c?
  • "The Creightons, particularly Louise...": Perhaps "he and Louise were evidently depressed..."
  • "and led him to regard": not either "which led him to regard" or "leading him to regard"?
  • I'd rather like to hear more on his "pungent humour"!
  • "cope and mitre" is already bluelinked vis à vis Moscow.
  • If the doctrinal conflict was to "continue beyond both the Victorian and Edwardian eras", what did it continue until? (1939?)
  • "...as part of an era in British historiography": please define this era.
  • Robbins needs to expanded and linked on first usage.
  • Re. the image of his PBO memorial, this one is less likely to give your readers a crooked neck...

Talking of images, any chance of putting in one from St Paul's which is mentioned below?

  • "unjustly overshadowed wife": what, is this a quote?
  • "served the community over two world wars and for well over a century and continues to do so to the present day": Holy Pearl and Dean, Batman! :) suggest removing the entire sentence.
  • "with later revisions": "heavily revised by"!
Nice one, Tim, a very interesting read. Apologies again for my (severe) tardiness. Hope you can use some of these points. By the way, if you don't use them all, I will take you to ANI and report you for ignoring me while also looking forward to any future collaboration  ;) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for some excellent points, Serial. All attended/responded to, as above. (I chuckled at your clever impression of someone or other throwing his toys out of the pram!) Tim riley talk 16:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very childish I know  :) I'm glad you could use some of this, your responses have been, as ever, fantastic, and I'm happy to support Creighton's promotion to FA (safe in the knowledge of course that even if he does not want the promotion he will not shirk the responsibility!) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I say! You really have read the article good and proper and then some. Bless you! And thank you for your support, Tim riley talk 18:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

[edit]

The prose reviews look extensive here, so I'll focus on doing the sources instead. Be here within a day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Very little to complain about here. The following caught my eye, however:

  • Ref 106: This one is in sentence case, whereas the other news reports are in title case
  • I arm-wrestled a bit with UC, above about this. It isn't a headline but merely the first line of an unheaded news item (not uncommon in those days). I don't think I can pretend it was a headline and capitalise it. Tim riley talk 17:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 153–155:Is there any reason why these are formatted differently to the other web references, where (the sfn has been used)?
  • 155 is down to me – my very recent addition replacing a large screed of puffery with a succinct entry. I don't suppose you could take pity on me and translate all three citations into your impenetrable SFN (Sadistic Footnote Nastiness) code? I really have tried, I promise, but it's beyond me. Tim riley talk 17:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robbins, Keith (1993). The publisher should be "The Hambledon Press", not "Hambledon and London"
  • Webb, Beatrice (2000): This is the only one without a publisher location
Reliability and scope

Nothing at all to complain about here. I ran additional searches to see what else was around, but there were no better sources I could find, nor are any of the current sources problematic for the information they support.

In other news:

  • Is there a reason the columns in Works by Creighton are of uneven length? If "Cardinal Wolsey, 1888 †" is moved before the break, it would even them up.
  • "Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and Glasgow and Trinity College, Dublin": any reason why not "Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Glasgow and Trinity College, Dublin"? The current version makes "Harvard and Glasgow" look like some merged technical college, which is unfair on Glasgow, at least.
  • I'm not sure why not - are you basing that on it being a constituent college, rather than a full university? (Grudgingly) OK if you are, but II think that's a bit of distinction without much of a difference. - SchroCat (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these are of use. - SchroCat (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You bet they are. Thank you! While you're here, I'd value your thoughts on the exchange, above, between UC and me about sandwiching text between images on one side and quote boxes on the other. (I've added some white space above and below the exchange to make it easy to spot.) I think it's fine from the user's point of view (positively beneficial in fact) but I'd like to know what you (and anyone else of course) may think. Tim riley talk 17:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Books: Creighton, Mandell. Would one not normally expect to see the first published listed first?
  • I dithered about this and am biddable. The involvement of Mrs C as editor of the 1903 book led me to list the books in the present order, but I'm happy to put the 1887 book before it if you think that's more appropriate. Tim riley talk 22:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "until a London oculist prescribed glasses to correct the fault." Is it known when this happened?

What a fine read. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gog. I am very conscious that the core of the article is not my work but that of Fowler&fowler, and I hope between us we have got the text to FA standard. I have much enjoyed Creighton's company these last months and weeks and I'm pleased you have found him a fine read. Tim riley talk 22:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 March 2025 [47].

Christmas Tree Farm

[edit]
Nominator(s): Medxvo (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Christmas song by Taylor Swift, which recalls her childhood memories over an upbeat pop tune. She wrote, recorded, and released it in under six days, and it was met with positive reviews from music critics who retrospectively listed it as one of the best Christmas songs. Fun fact—Ms. Swift had, in fact, lived on a Christmas tree farm during her childhood.

I would like to thank Sophisticatedevening and CatchMe for participating in the peer review and providing helpful comments, and I would appreciate any comments from all editors. Medxvo (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

[edit]

As a self-proclaimed Swiftologist, I'm a little embarrassed to admit I have not listened to this song in full. Hopefully that helps with neutrality though.

I'm not sure about the Easter eggs in "Me!" as it's a little fan service-y. The Holiday EP is justified imo. Ippantekina (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "Me!" sentence and that she revisited the farm since that would also be irrelevant, and made some adjustments to the Holiday EP bit and added its position on the Billboard 200 chart as I thought it would be a bit relevant. Let me know what you think, Ippantekina, and thanks again for the review. Medxvo (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose I tweaked the quotation marks to adhere to the MOS. Great work overall! :) Ippantekina (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

brachy08 (passed)

[edit]

hi! thanks for inviting me to this review =D. i kind of... did listen to it in full, so that might not help with neutrality xd.

NegativeMP1

[edit]

I, too, have never listened to this song in full. So let's take this as a chance to see if this article makes any sense to someone unfamiliar with the subject. Comments will follow in the coming days, most likely. λ NegativeMP1 20:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the article and everything seems perfectly fine to me. I couldn't find any real issues to point out, so I'm happy to lend my support. λ NegativeMP1 21:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Media & source review

[edit]

I will take care of both of these. Hog Farm Talk 00:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 22-second length of the music sample falls in line with the 10% guidance at WP:SAMPLE
  • FUR is acceptable for the infobox album image
  • I'm okay with the FUR for the music video image, given the Chiu commentary and the obvious significance of this to the general topic of Ms. Swift's musical career

Pass for the image/media review. Hog Farm Talk 00:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Republic Records released a live recording at iHeartRadio's 2019 Jingle Ball for digital download and streaming on December 19, 2020" - is there any hope for getting a secondary source to demonstrate the significance of this?
  • Is there truly not a secondary source for the picture disc to demonstrate the significance of this? I normally don't review music articles much, but I'm not a huge fan of discussing and listing actively-sold products without having an independent source to demonstrate the encyclopedic significance of said actively-sold product. For instance, one of my favorite albums ("The Funeral" is a standout of songwriting in my opinion) apparently comes according to Amazon in streaming, MP3, CD, and vinyl. I vaguely remember this coming out on a "special" vinyl edition a couple years ago, which has been picked up in basically 0 independent RS. Now it's a moot point, as I don't think an article could ever been fleshed out on that album, but it's an example of where do you draw the line?, with the caveat that anything Swift does is going to be a bigger deal than Turnpike. Why should be discussing individual variations upon the same product in an encyclopedia, if we can only source that to a sales site and the product itself? There's much better documentation for the Old Timey Version, the original release (of course), and to a lesser extent the live IHeart release, but there's got to be a line drawn with minor derivative products somewhere. Where is that line, though?
  • Secondary sources look reliable for what is being cited?

Some source-text integrity checks (let's do 8 for a decent sample):

  1. "Paste's Jane Song dubbed it "twinkly, fresh, and happy"" - OK, with the caveat that the source quote does not contain the Oxford comma
    Removed the comma. Medxvo (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "A collection containing the original, new, and live versions was released in November 2024" - supported by the source, but this appears to be a press release? Is there truly not a secondary source that can used to support the significance of this thing?
    Probably just the Hindustan Times source, which should be a reliable source in India, though I was uncertain about adding it. Could you confirm and share your thoughts? Medxvo (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "A behind-the-scenes video that showcases the three-day creation process of "Christmas Tree Farm" was released on December 23, 2019" - OK
  4. ""Christmas Tree Farm (Old Timey Version)" reached number 84 on the national chart of Sweden in the last week of 2023." - OK
  5. "Rolling Stone's Patrick Doyle lauded her vocals during the performance, which featured "Beach Boys-y harmonies and a Wall of Sound arrangement""
  6. " Esquire's Bria McNeal described the track as "dazzling" and added that it became her favorite Christmas song after discovering it in 2024." - OK
  7. "Mylrea (84 out of 161)" - OK
  8. "Time Out's Liv Kelly similarly lauded her tribute to her childhood home and the youthful and nostalgic feel of the song" - OK

Really my only concern here is the use of non-independent/commercial bits to support a few minor pieces, leading to due weight concerns with those. Hog Farm Talk 01:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, I appreciate the thorough review! I've responded to the concerns above and I'm open to suggestions. Medxvo (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Medxo: - One thing that I might suggest would be to use the sales/press release sources to support the details such as the date that can't be supported in the other sources, while including the independent source as a second reference to provide due weight support. Hog Farm Talk 21:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Thanks, should be done now with this edit. Please me know if anything needs further adjustments. Medxvo (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And pass for the source review as well. Hog Farm Talk 22:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CatchMe

[edit]

All improvements were made, including my comments in the Peer Review. I have no comments, so I support this nomination for the FA criteria. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 05:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review:

  • "was released to all digital music platforms in November 2022." It is hard to say that a song is released to every digital music platform in existence. Suggest removing "all"
  • "The track was released to all digital music platforms on November 23, 2022." Same as above.
  • " it evokes the music of Mariah Carey and Phil Spector, according to Jon Pareles of The New York Times and Nate Jones of Vulture." -> "Critics stated that evokes the music of Mariah Carey and Phil Spector."
  • In this section, the lyrics are used to help prove that the prose is correct or to describe the plot. Wikipedia uses a Wikipedia:Summary style and doesn't require lyrics to "prove" that the prose is correct. I suggest removing the lyrics, and just describing the plot with summary style prose.
    • For me, adding the original lyrics after the sourced lyrical commentary is a way to inform the readers about how these lyrical concepts were incorporated in the track itself (which is the case of the intro and its succeeding sentence). For the hook and the refrain, there is no commentary about these lyrics, so I'm afraid adding my own summary or analysis would fall under the WP:OR territory, and that's why only the original lyrics were added there. Medxvo (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:PLOT will cover OR concerns, as it is assumed that the song itself is enough of a citation. You can also cite the song as a footnote and put the timestamp of the lyrics: this would be better because having the lyrics might be a copyright concern, especially for a long quote. Z1720 (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: I do understand the copyright concerns, so I've removed the intro lyrics and made other adjustments here. I'm still unsure about personally analyzing the lyrics as per Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry, which says that this is not recommended and is linked as a guide at MOS:LYRICS. I also don't think that music is part of the fictional material that is discussed at MOS:PLOT, as it is also not included as part of the guideline's related projects. Please let me know what you think. Medxvo (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Critical reception" section uses an "X says Y" style a lot. I suggest reading WP:RECEPTION for tips on how to avoid this. The article does not require a quote from several critics.
  • "It additionally reached number 19" Delete "additionally"
  • "It additionally reached number 13 in Croatia," same as above.
  • Did a lead and infobox check: all information there is in the article.

Please ping me in responses. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Z1720 for the review, I've responded to your concerns above. Please let me know if anything needs further adjustments. Medxvo (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Medxvo: Only one comment about the lyrics. Reception section and other changes look good. Z1720 (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Z1720, apologies for the double ping. I responded to your concern above if you'd like to take another look. I hope you're doing well! Medxvo (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 March 2025 [48].

For Your Eyes Only (short story collection)

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: it's been a decade since Casino Royale hit FAC, and this is the final Bond book for FAC. It was Fleming's first short-story collection and there are some interesting points in the stories. This has been through a rewrite recently and all constructive comments are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll review this. Hog Farm Talk 00:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which four were the TB episodes? It's stated that From a View to a Kill was one, as was For Your Eyes Only, but which were the other two? I'm guessing the Maugham one was the odd one out?
    It's a point skated over by the sources. They all say that "From a View to a Kill", "For Your Eyes Only" and "Risico" are based on the TV scripts, but then they are silent on both , "Quantum of Solace" and "The Hildebrand Rarity". I've changed the lead to say three, although Benson clearly says four, but annoyingly doesn't clarify which four. I'll do some more digging around to see if I can find out which if the two it was and add that. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there nothing to say about the plot inspirations for Hildebrand?
    Nothing much - I've added a line in there (which mostly repeats the bit about being in the Seychelles), but there's precious little else. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the subtitle was changed to Five Secret Exploits of James Bond; in later editions, it was dropped altogether" - is changed the best word here? My understanding from reading through the article is that the UK version ended up not having a subtitle at all?
    It had the changed sub-title for a few of the early editions, but dropped for later editions. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Raymond wrote of the stories that "all but one ... are well up to 007's high standard";" - do you think it would be due weight to indicate as a footnote which one Raymond didn't like?
    He doesn't clarify, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fourth adaptation, "The Hildebrand Rarity", did not appear until six years after the comic-strip versions of the other stories and it ran between 29 May and 16 December 1967" - the previous paragraph states that the "For Your Eyes Only" strip ran in 1967 as well - is that date a mistake?
    Good spot! Yes, that was also in '61. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Griswold 2006 is published by a self-publishing service - I'm assuming you have a rationale for this being a high-quality RS? I'm a little surprised that this didn't come up in the peer review
    Although it's an SPS, it's been cleared at FAC before (it's already used in most of the Bond FAs), and at the Reliable sources noticeboard, who are happy enough, given the background. Roughly, that background is that Griswold's work is classed as an approved reference book by Ian Fleming Publications, the family company of Ian Fleming and holders of the copyright to all Fleming's works. The work has been accepted by Raymond Benson, continuation author of Bond novels from 1997 to 2003 and writer of The James Bond Bedside Companion as a serious source and has been cited in academic works, such as Biddulph, Edward "Bond Was Not a Gourmet": An Archaeology of James Bond's Diet Source: Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Volume 12, Number 2, June 2009. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Hog Farm. All addressed, with the appropriate tweaks in these edits. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, the three vs four TB plots is a bit awkward but there's not much that can be done unless there's a hidden source somewhere that clarifies this. Hog Farm Talk 01:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:For_Your_Eyes_Only-Ian_Fleming.jpg: source link is dead

Support from Velworth

[edit]

Source review

[edit]

Using a random number generator to pick cites to check, I will examine citations 2, 7, 8, 14, 26, 35, 40, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 63, and 70 as numbered in this diff. Unfortunately I have less time at this exact moment than I anticipated, but I will be back to check the remaining cites over the next few days. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall source comment: the only item in the "sources" list that raises an eyebrow for me is the citation to WorldCat. It seems unusual to cite a database query. What it is being used to support that the print bibliography does not cover?
    I've used it on all the other Bond books without problem and it's not uncommon on FAs. It supports the point that the book has not been out of print since publication. Gilbert's bibliography does that too, but as it's 13 years old, this is covering the gap from then to now. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I see. I think WorldCat would be acceptable to support something like the languages a book has been translated into, but it doesn't contain information about the years that a book is in print. We could reasonably infer that the book is in print during each year for which a new edition is released, but there were no new editions 2017 to 2021. To be clear, I'm sure the book was in print continuously between 2013 and now -- I just don't think WorldCat can verify that. In this instance, I think it would be best to remove the WorldCat cite and just say "as of 2013" for this detail, or see if there is a more recent source that state it has not gone out of print. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to remove the WorldCat cite partly because of the languages bit, partly because it supports the claim (a small gap of a few years of print does not mean a book has gone out of print). Again, this technique is something that is not uncommon on FAs. - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since WorldCat does not contain any information about whether a book is "in print"-- only about which editions have existed-- I disagree that it supports the claim in question. Frankly, I also consider WorldCat a WP:PRIMARY source, and this debate suggests that it may not meet the criteria that the information can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge; my opinion is certainly shaped by the specialized training I have as a professional librarian. (My background as a librarian also allows me to agree that, with this many editions it would be odd if the book was out of print during that time-- but that's an inference about probability, not concrete information from the source.) It strikes me as entirely possible that the previous FAs made the wrong call or were using WorldCat in more supportable contexts (i.e., for claims about the existence of editions/translations). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On reflection, this may be a case where we need input from additional editors. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think common sense comes into play here. (I speak as another - though retired - librarian.) This method of reference is very typical of articles up to and including FAs. I think it is wholly adequate. Sometimes proving the glaringly obvious beyond a peradventure is not possible, but it really doesn't need to be. Tim riley talk 13:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on this below to say that, beyond the references given, if a book has had a new edition nearly every year, then per WP:BLUESKY, it is fair to say that it has not been "out of print". -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is "citing that the sky is blue". You can say that it has received X (count) of reprintings to the same effect without making the synthesis that it was never out of print (which leaves open the questions of what regions and languages). We shouldn't claim anything that isn't plainly in the WorldCat directory listing. czar 15:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the book has never been out of print - none of the Bond books have, and the number of reprints shown in the ref show that quite clearly. This method of demonstrating the point has been used in FAs as long as I can remember - I recall the late Brianboulton using the method in his FAs, and that's going back over a decade, and the technique has continued since then. - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 verified without close paraphrasing.
  • 7 checked out for 2 of the 3 uses, but I don't see support for this can be seen in Bond's internal monologue of thoughts on p 369.
I've blocked it our for the moment, as it's got the wrong source on it - but I have a large stack of them to go through to find out the right one. I'll have to dig further for this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may just be on p 370 of that source; I only had a limited preview access so couldn't easily look there myself. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose it's habit from my GA reviewing, where the spot-check is required -- and I think source-text integrity is one of the areas where a second pair of eyes can be most vital. But yours was easy :) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 is cited to Ian Fleming: The Bibliography, which I can't easily access. Willing to AGF here since it's exactly the kind of claim a bibliography would cover well and I haven't seen other red flags.
  • 14, 26, 35, 40, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50 all verify without close paraphrasing.
    • Technically for 26, it's p. 270 of Griswold which verifies the "between 15 and 18" part of dating Risico to October 1958; the cited p 5 just says "October".
  • For the Lindner book, you could include a link to the borrowable IA copy.
    That's the wrong edition. There isn't an IA version of the edition I used. - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about using the 1960 Times review to say The critic for The Times also thought for the female characters, the short form "allows them only walk-on parts". The full line is, And the girls, though a short story allows them only walk-on parts, are as wild and luscious as ever. The current article phrasing suggests that the Times review is critical, but the full quote sounds to me like the reviewer is ultimately satisfied with the female characters (at least, according to their idea of what they are in the story for...)
    I'm fine with the way it is. We're not saying anything that the critic wasn't, not putting his words in a misleading way. - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. In that case, my only outstanding concerns are the bit about Bond's internal monologue, and the discussion about WorldCat above. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
[edit]
  • An organization thought that comes to mind as I review: it feels like many of the story-specific details in "Background and writing history" would be better placed in their story's relevant paragraph in "Development" - "Plot inspirations".
    They fit in either section, but as these are more to do with the background, I've gone with that. - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Style", leading off with the "Fleming Sweep" in this way is a bit disorienting, especially since the short stories presumably don't have chapters? (Or... do they?) It might feel more grounded to start with something more like "The short stories share a narrative technique seen in earlier Bond novels..."
    There is no source that would cover that addition and it would be SYNTH / OR to force the point with a citation that covers the novels side of things. I've tweaked to remove the word "chapters". - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "critical reception" section in general feels quite choppy. There are a few points of connections between reviews, but I think taking another look at it with this advice in mind would be beneficial. I also find myself curious about whether there has been any change in the reception over the past sixty years, since all the reviews are from 1960.
    The reviews are already organised according (as far as is possible to the limited number of contemporary reviews) to the themes that are present. I'm not going to look at anachronistic reviews - none of the other books in the series have them, and it would look too odd for this final work of the fourteen to be an outlier in this respect. - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these. - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Will review this. Will try to get to this within three days. 750h+ 13:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat i'll review this. I have an active candidacy on the Holden Commodore (VE) if you'd like to review (don't feel obliged).

lead
  • written as an homage to 'an homage' is grammatically incorrect
    Both are correct, depending on whether one pronounces the 'h' or not, which depends on its meaning. Here, as the meaning if about a tribute to a another work, it's pronounced /ɒˈmɑːʒ/ (without the 'h', so "an" is correct. The OED gives more details and a pronunciation guide on the point, as well as examples of "a homage" (for /ˈhɒmɪdʒ/) and "an homage" (for /ɒˈmɑːʒ/). - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh i didn't know this! thanks for this bit of info 750h+ 09:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
plots

No problem here.

background and writing history
  • Fleming agreed to the deal, and began to write outlines comma is not needed
  • Bond short story and it began a long association between remove "it"
    The meaning (or the emphasis of it) changes a tiny bit, so I've tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • had two names prior to publication ==> "had two names before publication"
development
  • The idea of the underground hideout in "From a View to a Kill" was inspired by ==> "The underground hideout in "From a View to a Kill" was inspired by"
  • The story also provides an indication of the ==> "The story indicates the"
    I'll demur on this one, I think - I prefer the current version. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all good, i don't see a problem. 750h+ 09:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • M's request to take revenge on the murders ==> "M's request to take revenge for the murders"
publication and reception

No problem here.

adaptions

No problem here.

Excellent work on the article @SchroCat: as always!

Many thanks 750h+. Mostly done, with a couple of exceptions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, happy to support! 750h+ 09:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Maddening how on rereading for FAC one spots minor things one has missed at PR. My apologies (yet again). Here are my latest gleanings – but just a handful: ¬

  • "The collection contains five short stories" – perhaps "consists of" or "comprises", making it clear that the collection doesn't contain anything else,
  • "Bond is ready for him, however, and kills the assassin" – maybe lose the "however"?
  • "the chief of counterintelligence for the Cuban secret service" – the OED hyphenates "counter-intelligence"
  • "all three work for von Hammerstein" – with posh Germanic surnames it is X von Y but simply Y when it's just the surname: thus, "Herbert von Karajan" but "Karajan's recordings". So I think you should lose the "von" here and below. (Unless, that is, Fleming includes the von even when surnaming him, in which case I suppose you have to go with his version.)
  • "As a result, Masters' work ... Masters' plan" – not ess-apostrophe-ess? (Fowler (2015), p. 58: Names ending in -s: Use 's for the possessive case in names and surnames whenever possible; in other words, whenever you would tend to pronounce the possessive form of the name with an extra iz sound, e.g. Charles's brother, St James's Square, Thomas's niece, Zacharias's car.)

Nothing there to prevent my signing on the dotted line, so I'm happy to add my support for the promotion of the article. Sad to think it will be the last of SchroCat's Bond articles here – a fine corpus across a decade. – Tim riley talk 18:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all these, Tim. All sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ssilvers

[edit]

Well done, SchroCat! Some mere trifling suggestions to consider, though I don't consider any of these of any importance:

Lead
  • " adaptations of plots for a television series" Should we add "episides of"?"
  • "Three of the stories were adaptations of plots". Later we say "four".
  • The word "format" appears 3 times in the Lead. Perhaps one of them could be recast? For example, he "undertook minor experiments with the format"?
Background and writing history
  • "a television show based on Bond". Should we say "a television show based on his Bond character?
  • "although CBS later dropped the idea". How about "but" instead of "although", as the later event did not change the fact that he wrote the outlines?
  • ", and the short story collection". I would remove the initial comma.
  • "which was also the original title of the books," -- "book" singular? Do you mean Moonraker or a different book?
  • "an homage to a writer he greatly admired" -- perhaps "an homage to the writer, whom he greaty admired"?
  • "The story was another idea". To avoid repetition, how about "This was adapted from another idea...."
  • "with his experience he and Blanche Blackwell had undergone" -- how about "with his and Blanche Blackwell's earlier experience in Pedro Keys, two islands off Jamaica, where they had...."?
Publication and reception
  • The first paragraph of "Publication history" has a lot of semicolons. Perhaps one could be an "and" or "at/for a fee of"?
  • "it was dropped altogether" How about "the subtitle was dropped...."?
  • "Critical reception" says "thought" and "wrote/writing" each 7 times. Felt? said? commented? believed?

BTW, I have no problem with the World Cat reference. Combined with WP:BLUESKY, I'd say that if there has been a new edition nearly every year, it is fair to say that the book has not been out of print. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ssilvers. Most of your suggestions all done here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
Many thanks Gog: He Now Speaks! - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 5 March 2025 [49].

Dracula

[edit]
Nominator(s): — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcome to my house! Enter freely and of your own will."

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) is among the most famous pieces of English literature. Work on this article began as a contender for the 2021 Core Cup, coming second, then pushing a little further to GA level. This year I decided to expand further. I am grateful to several editors for their contributions, but especially PR reviewers (DoctorWhoFan91 & LEvalyn) and Aemilius Adolphin, who has been superb at spotting misconceptions about the novel busted by recent scholarship ... And gosh, there are many! I hope you enjoy reading it. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Vlad_Tepes_002.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag.
  • Source link replaced by another editor
  • File:Stoker_Dracula_Notes_Personal.jpg
  • File:Dracamer99.jpg: who is the artist and what is their date of death?
  • Bram Stoker died in April 1912. When Universal Studios tried to create a Dracula film in the 1930s, they realised Stoker messed up the copyright filing and the novel was reclassified as public domain in the United States.
  • Oh. No. Not saying that. I don't know who made it. I've removed it
  • Stoker indeed messed up the copyright filing in US, but Universal was unaware of this, or if they were aware they certainly didn't tell anybody. Rather, Universal purchased from Stoker's widow the rights to the book, stageplay, and Nosferatu, and thence produced the film, which Universal had been eyeing to do as early as 1922. — JEB
  • File:Dracula1931BelaLugosiColorCrop.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Dracula1931BelaLugosiColor.png
  • Removed both of these
  • File:Bela_Lugosi_as_Dracula,_anonymous_photograph_from_1931,_Universal_Studios.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • Removed, can't find the original publication via image search

Also, not an image comment, but there are a number of harv errors that should be corrected before a full source review is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria. I'll look at the images today. Regarding the Harv errors: I think you're referring to the error that appears when you do not use a source as a footnote. I don't know how to fix this: the links need to be there because I reference other chapters in the books by different authors. If you could give some advice on how to stop the error, I would appreciate it. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 08:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few others (which I'll highlight in my review), but to get rid of the one's you're referring to, see Thunderball_(novel)#Books and follow the formatting for Lindner and Strong. - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (I think). Thanks. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striving for transparency: images are not my strong point and these concerns makes me want to remove the images because I don't really know what to do. I fear that might cause other issues, though. Would appreciate any experienced hands giving me a bit of advice on this bit. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 11:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking: if you look at the copyright tags on the image description pages, you need to make sure (a) the tag conditions are met. For example, this tag on Commons indicates that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States.", so if there's no US tag that's a problem. And (b) there should be evidence that the tagging is correct. For example, File:Dracamer99.jpg has a tag indicating it's PD because the creator died over 100 years ago, but the artist is not named. Is it known who they are and that they died over 100 years ago? If no, this tag should be replaced. (The work is recent enough that it's very possible the artist did not die over 100 years ago).
Sources link will hopefully be an easy fix - check whether they're available in archival services like the Wayback Machine. If not, are there other links available to verify the tagging?
For missing US tags, the Hirtle chart lists the most common US tags available and when they should be used. You'll see that in most cases the tagging is based on publication date - check your sources to see if they include that information, or include image credits that can help you identify it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be better now. I've added Alt Text, too. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Passerby comment
[edit]

I've updated the licensing on File:Dracamer99.jpg and it should be safe to use & restore to the article. The artist appears to be unknown - previous upload seems to have thought Stoker himself was the artist by claiming a 1912 death date, which seems very unlikely. While the artist is unknown (at the very least, the edition's front matter doesn't attribute an artist), this was a US-first publication, so the artist's death date doesn't actually matter anyway - the British edition lacked this cover art. SnowFire (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the case of an 1899 publication in the US first like this edition of Dracula - we're safe. It's pure public domain, hence the tag. And yes, it applies to both cover art and the text.
  • The problematic case would be something like... it turns out that this cover art was actually published in a British magazine in 1898. The US publisher got permission from the British artist to reuse their work. Also the artist was like 20 when he made it, and lived to age 100 and only died in 1978. Then we'd have a piece of art that was public domain in the US, but still under copyright in the UK. Even then, we could still use the art, just we'd have to move the image from Commons back to English Wikipedia as it wouldn't be public domain in the source country (required for hosting on Commons, not required on en wiki). The above scenario is purely hypothetical and there's no reason to think it's true for this particular image, though.
  • The other problematic case would be something like... a book published in the US in 1940 didn't have the copyright renewed and fell into public domain. However it reused cover art that'd been previously published in 1936 from a source whose copyright WAS renewed. That would be awkward and would get into de minimis discussions, but probably the result is the hypothetical 1940 work's text being public domain, but not its 1936 cover art. That's definitely not the case here though, with everything safely pre-1930. SnowFire (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some image suggestions

[edit]

Dracula is a famously "visual" subject, so I think there is room for the article to have some more images included. I took the liberty of doing some searching, and I offer the following ideas (I have checked the licensing for all of these):

  • An image of Henry Irving for the paragraph There is almost unanimous consensus that Dracula was inspired, in part, by Henry Irving.
  • This is a great idea! I've used the first one of Irving. Thank you.
  • Something evocative for the sexuality section, several options: [50] [51] [52] [53] -- though honestly, all the examples seem to be mostly about sexually vulnerable women, rather than sexually aggressive ones, so maybe better to leave them out...
  • A crucifix moment for Religion, superstition and science
  • A a Bela Lugosi Dracula in "Adaptations", before the Christopher Lee image (or maybe this one?)
    • Ah, I see Nikkimaria flagged the first one as having an ambiguous origin, but the second Lugosi image is definitely usable.
I've put the 2nd one in!
  • Maybe too silly, but... I think this guy is cute and a fun illustration of the idea in "Influence" that Dracula is the iconic vampire.

Also available are some book covers from 1901 and 1919. It both surprises and bothers me that most images in Commons are from the films, rather than the books; apparently, that Swedish serialized version was the first illustrated edition, and its illustrations are not exciting. They are collected here, but I couldn't immediately think of good uses for any. If have an idea for one, though, I'd be happy to help with some image editing to make them more visually legible. You've mentioned feeling uncomfortable with images, so I'd be very happy to assist if you like. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), would you kindly review these image changes? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stoker_Dracula_Notes_Personal.jpg still needs a US tag
Thank you LEvalyn. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) Let me know if I can help (or get help) with anything else. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

To follow in a day or two. - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting and organisation
  • The Daily Mail only barely passes the threshold (per WP:DAILYMAIL), but having the use sit in a quotebox without the context of associated text brings too much attention to what is a rather weak source. I'd suggest merging this within the text as a block quote and ensuring there is sufficient context to justify it.
  • I can see it says Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. In this context, I think the Daily Mail is completely fine to include because it is a primary source for Dracula's reception in 1897. The source makes no claims other than its response to Stoker's novel. I don't feel strongly on the block quote so have removed it.
  • I have thought about this overnight and would like to re-include the quote:
  • The Daily Mail is a fine source in this historical context.
  • It is a primary source for contemporary reception, directly quoting the paper's view rather than using it to support anything.
  • It provides great flavour for a very dry area of the article, including some Victorian hallmarks (melodrama and misogyny). What do you think, SchroCat? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs)
  • I think it's fine to bring it back, but not in a quotebox - only if its inline and with appropriate context. You'll be expecting too much from readers if you expect them to be able to pull out the Victorian aspects (the m&m) without it being framed in some sort of context. By that, I mean that if a 19 year old from South Africa (as a random example), reads it, will they understand the cultural and historical nuances you want them too if it's just sitting in a box that highlights it as something special? - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.
  • It is a direct comparison to the works of Ann Radcliffe, mentioned in detail in paragraph 1.
  • It is too complicated to condense for the prose. It is also sort of funny – again, in a very dry section.
  • It notes that it was written in 1897; I would expect any 19-year-old to recognise that, yeah.
For now, I will restore; if no other reviewers comment on it, I will actively solicit views from other reviewers. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It notes that it was written in 1897; I would expect any 19-year-old to recognise that: but they wouldn't understand the historic-cultural context you think you show. And that goes for an 18 year old in the US and in the UK too: you're presuming too much pre-existing knowledge for whatever it is you're trying to show.
    The problem with boxes is that they draw the eye to something that people are going to assume is more important than text in the main body. And here you are, proposing that something a highly dubious source of very low repute is given a far more prominent position than things worth including in the body that have background and context that aid their understanding.
    Have a look at MOS:PULLQUOTE (and although this is not a pullquote, it's only a tiny piece of formatting away from that): "This unencyclopedic approach is a form of editorializing, produces out-of-context and undue emphasis, and may lead the reader to conclusions not supported in the material". If this article passes FAC, it will end up on the front page, and at that point people will remove it or dump it into the body. It's far more preferable to use the quote properly with context and background to actually inform the reader of its point, rather than confuse or mislead them. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What conclusions could the reader draw from this? It is not sourcing an editorial opinion. It is simply a primary source for reception, and a historical document, presented without context because context is not required.
  • If it does on the front page, I think it'll be fine. Since it was added in June 2021, the article has received 4,983,000 views. Readers are too busy posting "Dracula is GAY NOW?" on the Talk page to consider anything like this. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's your call, but I'm not going to sign off a source review which gives such undue prominence to a source that is all but blacklisted. Others may disagree and sign off on it, but I won't, so it may be best if request another reviewer to complete this. The sources are pretty much in good order now and good luck with the remainder of your nom. - SchroCat (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's disappointing. Fair enough. Thank you sincerely for the time you spent on it.

Highlighting the above to other reviewers. SchroCat and I had a dispute over the permissibility of a 1897 Daily Mail review extract. I feel it is not that different from a photograph (which, in theory, could substitute for it); you can see SchroCat's objection above.

As I understand it, the Daily Mail was deprecated, in part, because of doubt over the reliability of their historical archives. There are 2 high-quality sources in the article that attest to its authenticity; it is supporting material for this content. It is not used to justify an opinion and functions as a historical primary source in a picture-free section. Thank you. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it's not necessarily the use of the quote itself, it's having it disconnected from the article by having it in a quote box, rather than as a block quote - and the MoS tends to back this up. The fact it's from such a low-grade source that we're giving higher attention just makes it worse. - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the quote charmingly exemplifies 19thC literary criticism on the Gothic, and is present in a "primary source" capacity which makes the deprecated status of the modern-day Daily Mail largely irrelevant. I think it's nice to 'illustrate' the Gothic comparisons and the reception of the novel as frightening, especially since there are no images. The quote exemplifies several major points about the vibe of the 19thC reviews, and I don't think someone whose eye skipped right to this quote would be misled about the book's reception.
However... as someone who just read a biography of Ann Radcliffe that spent a whole page describing diary entries where she ate completely normal food, because people in the 19thC were obsessed with totally crazy rumours about her like this raw beef thing... I think a different primary-source quote might have less collateral damage. Is there something from The Bookseller, maybe? ImaginesTigers, happy to help look for other options if you like. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks LEvalyn. I'd like to wait for some more views. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 1897 Daily Mail quote should be kept and in the existing quote box. It is a quintessentially Victorian literary comment that captures the difference in standards between the contemporary critical milieu and our own times today. My immediate reaction upon reading the quote was: "That is an amusing and engaging quote that reminds the reader how much has changed between then and now."
I concur with LEvalyn regarding the irrelevance of the current Daily Mail's deprecated status as this is a primary source literary review from over a hundred years ago. My one difference of opinion is that I don't think most readers will assume that either Ann Radcliffe (whom I adore as an author) or Bram Stoker actually fed on raw beef or any special diet based on that quote. Instead, I think most readers will react with a smile or a chuckle at how much literary criticism has changed in a hundred years. — Flask⚗️(talk) 19:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Flask. I'll keep waiting for more input. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re probably right that the rumor in this context won’t mislead people about Ann Radcliffe. I personally find the runours entertaining and, as you say, indicative of how different 19thC criticism was. I mostly felt like I ought to mention it on behalf of the 18thC scholars I know who do get very annoyed by such things. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn: I'd be very happy to include an EFN in the caption, if you think that would be any use. I've searched for sources that mention the beef thing but have come up short so far. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No… no, even imagining an efn makes the complaint feel silly. “NOTE: Ann Radcliffe did not really eat raw beef.” That’s not necessary. Having had some time away from this article to let my mind settle, I retract my fears for Radcliffe’s reputation. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though I personally find it odd, eating raw beef is fairly normal around here. Toadspike [Talk] 17:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the quote from the contemporary review in the Daily Mail should be kept in the quote box. The Daily Mail of 1897 was a very different publication from the current one and it is only quoted in order to give readers the flavour of contemporary responses to the novel. It makes the article even more vivid and informative. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to outdent so I'm just arbitrarily starting again. I will have a look over this for a sign-off on the source review later today or sometime tomorrow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right. I didn't see anything in Schro's formatting section that wasn't completed. Looking over the sources, I see reliable publications from established authors and subject-matter experts, so nothing of concern there. Schro has already called out the Miller source and gotten that on the record as reliable in terms of her being an SME, so that's done. Two websites are used, both reliable publishers. Contemporary reviews are used judiciously. As to the Daily Mail quote, I think there's a reasonable consensus to go ahead with it, on the basis that readers are unlikely to mistake the Mail's assertion as fact, and that it establishes the quality of criticism that Stoker was subjected to. No spot check done. I'm satisfied that this passes a source review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thank you PMC. @FAC coordinators: , let me know if there is anything else I need to do. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from LEvalyn

[edit]

I am very glad to see this at FAC! It looks like you're already in very good hands with SchroCat for a source review, so I'll focus on general prose/content comments. My thoughts on this version, being more nitpicky than at Peer Review:

  • I know there was a discussion on the talk page about how much to summarize the plot in the lead; I like the more-detailed summary currently in the lead. I would even consider changing attempt to kill him to "hunts and kills him".
  • Done!
  • Stoker's notes do not mention Báthory; he probably found the name Dracula in Whitby's public library while on holiday, selecting it because he thought it meant "devil" in Romanian. I'm not sure why these two facts are connected by a semicolon. I'd actually suggest just deleting "Stoker's notes do not mention Báthory" since the lead already gives the high-level important info that this inspiration is no longer considered credible.
  • Done!
  • Following publication in May 1897 maybe "its" publication?
  • Sure!
  • Harker awakens in bed -- could this be cut from the summary for concision?
  • It can; done.
  • a "bloofer lady" (beautiful lady) -- this bit of dialect also seems like an extraneous detail, unless decoding it is significant to the plot
  • Need to keep this one – added by another editor.
  • The four go to her tomb I'm not sure who "the four" are
  • Fair! Done.
  • Dr. Seward's asylum elsewhere in the summary he is just "Seward", which seems more appropriate
  • Fair, but I think it's useful to higlight that he is a doctor when mentioning he has an asylum.
  • Jonathan Harker and Arthur Holmwood follow Dracula's boat on the river, while Quincey Morris and John Seward parallel them on land. probably also ought to be last name only
  • Done :)
  • After routing the Romani -- two sentences in a row have this "After..." construction; I think you can accomplish some concision as well by cutting this and changing the hunters converge and attack it to "the hunters attack and rout the Romani"
  • Tightened!
  • In context, the clause an obituary for him in The Daily Telegraph, saying could be removed to focus on the content of what Caine wrote.
  • I'd like to keep this as part of the "who, what, when, why".
  • In footnote g, There is a reference to Vámbéry in the text, I'm not fully clear which text "the text" is -- Dracula?
  • Yup! I'll change text to novel.
  • Likewise, McNally suggested in 1983 that -- I think it's been too long since the Vlad inspiration began for "Likewise" to be sufficient as a transition. Maybe something like "As another possible historical inspiration, McNally suggested..."
  • Changed.
  • Praise, rather than a suggestion --it's definitely an improvement to have the provenance of Dracula's notes in a footnote. This whole composition section of wonderfully improved.
  • <3
  • suggesting the reason as last-minute title change this was a bumpy read; I wonder about entirely rearranging the information: "The title may have been changed at the last minute (printer's copy etc). Belford suggests that a title change could account for the "shabby" physical quality of the book." Maybe even say here that it was yellow with a red title and no image...?
  • I really like how paragraph 2 begins, so would prefer not to move this around, but I have rephrased!
  • You certainly fixed that bumpy sentence, but now I feel like this sentence is confusing: The surviving publishing agreement were signed and dated May 25, 1897; Miller suggests they were a formality. -- we don't have the context (yet) that the contract is possibly signed literally the day before the book was published.
  • Fixed!
  • To protect his copyright interest -- specifically his copyright interest in stage adaptations, right? Maybe spell that out.
  • Not clear: Miller casually says stage but Browning says all adaptations. It would technically be OR if I used the relevant legislation to work it out, so I figured the as-is was fine. Let me know what you think.
  • The ambiguity that I want to address is, without a bit more info, it reads like he's protecting his copyright interest in the novel-- which can't be right. Maybe "his copyright interest in adaptations" and leave it unspecified whether that's stage adaptations or all adaptations?
  • Understood now. Should be fixed!
  • critic David Seed writes that has been that "this" has been? or even that "its epistolary structure" has been?
  • Rephrased
  • Critics highlight the structural context within the fashion of 19th-century diaries and travelogues this feels contorted and I'm not sure what it means. Maybe just, epistolary structures were popular in 19thC travelogues and published letter collections? (I actually think epistolary novels had substantially declined in popularity by this point of the 19thC, after having been super popular in the 18thC...)
  • Travelogues remained popular into the 19th century; imperial scouts loved to travel while writing accounts of their time and how much they missed their family.
  • What you've said here makes sense, but the sentence Critics highlight the structural context within the fashion of 19th-century diaries and travelogues still doesn't convey much information to me. Specifically, "the structural context" is not a very informative phrase, and I'm not sure what it means to "highlight it within the fashion". Can you try something more like "Critics note that..." and state whatever fact you have in mind here? Is it that the book matches the style of popular diaries and travelogues?
  • I have looked for some more sourcing on this and come up blank. Portions of the early Harker chapters were essentially lifted from imperial scout journals, as context for you; for this section, though, it usually just a passing mention made by scholars that it was in style at the time. I'll try rephrasing but limited by sourcing here :(
  • More praise rather than suggestions: the "Gothic genre" section is much improved! Good flow and a good high-level summary.
  • <3
  • The citation in note p looks mis-formatted?
  • Sadly not. I have an Apple Books version of this, and have never been able to get a PDF (or the actual book). I'm using the location field to cite locations.
  • That part's fine, when I was looking at the note the problem was that the citation was smashed directly in the note rather than being a footnote--but it's fixed now!
  • coincidentally also published in 1972 cut? seems distracting
  • I've rephrased, but the 1970s are when Dracula's critical reappraisal happens, so I will keep the general sentiment.
  • Something has gone wrong grammatically here: Several mentioned novelist Wilkie Collins and The Woman in White (1859) were especially common
  • My bad; a mistake added yesterday. Fixed.
  • The British magazine Vanity Fair noted that the novel found Dracula's disdain for garlic funny just to be clear, the review said the novel thought it was funny? or the review thought it was funny?
  • Fixed!
  • Jonathan Harker's excitement over the prospect of being penetrated in context I feel like we need to specify, penetrated by what?
  • I think no on this one; the source doesn't say (although it clearly means fangs). The ambiguity and euphemism is part of what the scholar is highlighting. I think having a reader wonder, "penetrated by what?" is a good thing here. They should go engage with the criticism off wiki if they want to know more! (Maybe they, too, are excited to be penetrated.)
  • Praise again: the new "Sexuality and gender" section is a great improvement over the previous, and much more successfully reads as a signposted series of key ideas.
  • <3
  • I still think this sentence suffers by separating the main subject and verb so far: The vampire hunters use many weapons—including Christian practices and symbols (prayer, crucifixes and consecrated hosts), folkloric practices (garlic, staking and decapitation) and contemporary technology (typewriters, phonographs, telegrams, blood transfusions and Winchester rifles)—in their battle against Dracula. Grammatically, the most important information (that they combine Christian, folkloric, and technological tools) is treated as subordinate to the uninformative statement that "vampire hunters use weapons". I really think something like "The vampire hunters' many weapons come from a range of traditions: (list the three)" guides the reader to pay attention to the right pieces of information.
  • I'll work on this today (need a bit more time to review sources).
  • While largely set in England, Stoker was born, pedantic, but grammatically this suggests that Stoker is set in England... "While the novel is largely set..." would fix it.
  • Good catch – fixed!
  • the vampire represents the death of feudalism really it's his defeat that is the death of feudalism, right? because he "is" feudalism?
  • Oddly, no. Dracula's undeath (i.e., his life) is what represents feudalism.
  • Victorian psychiatry ("alienism") is there any helpful wikilink or footnote that could give more explanation of 'alienism'?
  • No :( There really should be. I could red link it.
  • Hmm.. our disambiguation page alienism says the term is just the Victorian word for psychiatry, which suggests you could change the parenthetical aside to "(known as 'alienism')" or cut the parenthetical entirely. The best wikilink option I could find was Psychiatry#Medical specialty which "Victorian psychiatry" could plausibly point to but also isn't necessarily helpful. Your call on how to handle this section, I just think it's too confusing throwing the word "alienism" in parentheses without more of a hint on what it actually means.
  • I've added "known as" to the paranthetical! It's a fair point. I'm not keen to relate alienism to modern psychiatry given how much of it was pseudoscience.
  • Brian Aldiss writes that, if Count Dracula represents the disease itself and Renfield's madness is a symptom of advanced infection -- main verb is missing
  • Should be fixed!
  • a Hungarian silent film that premiered in 1921—this release date has been questioned by some scholars some kind of polish is needed here. A film that likely premiered in 1921, though this date...?
  • Fixed :)
  • Hi JEB. I'm not sure I can utilise this source. Wikipedia has strict guidelines around permissible sources. After looking into the author, I am not sure I would be able to argue that he is a Dracula subject-matter expert. What do you think? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs)
  • Dracula has been adapted a large number of times this whole paragraph might be better placed at the start of the Adaptations section.
  • Moved!
  • rendering all other vampires BS or AS for clarity, I think the footnote about "Before Stoker or After Stoker" need to be in the main text. Since BS can also mean bullshit, it's challenging to get to the right interpretation withouse help.
  • Fixed :)
  • Praise: the bit about public domain licensing in 1930 makes much more sense in "Influence", good job re-homing it.
  • Just to reiterate my prior comment about Universal purchasing the book/film/play rights, Universal maintained a relatively iron grip on the novel and its dissemination, that is, until 1962 when the novel was "(un)officially" public domain. After that point, the novel and the character were fair game to all and spread rapidly across the planet. (See John Edgar Browning, Dracula in Visual Media). — JEB
  • New concern after some of the revisions: Count Dracula's cultural omnipresence is widely reported to have negatively impact academic analyses of the undead. He is "the reference point" to which all other vampires are compared. -- this seems to repeat/continue the Hughes bit at the end of the previous paragraph, and makes for a weird first sentence of the new paragraph. If it were me, I'd consider ending paragraph 2 with "The character of Dracula is "the reference point" to which all other vampires are compared. William Hughes writes critically of the Count's cultural omnipresence, noting that the character of Dracula has "seriously inhibited" discussions of the undead in Gothic fiction." and then start paragraph 3 with "One factor that may have contributed to the novel's enduring status is its early entrance to the public domain. In the 1930s...."
  • The novel's enduring status is a result of the various Universal pictures and other licensed media. The reprint copyright of ther novel was licensed from one publisher to the next, decade after decade, which is 'how' the novel stayed in print (see J. Gordon Melton meticulous descriptions at https://www.cesnur.org/2003/dracula/; 'why' the novel stayed in print is because of its popularity to readers, which was fueled in part by Universal.

Overall, this is a meticulous and thorough article that effectively summarizes an enormous quantity of material. I am really impressed with how much it has improved since the Peer Review, when it was already very strong! I made a lot of notes above but most are just "for your consideration" ideas. When you've had a chance to think about them, I expect I will be very happy to support. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your time and kind words, LEvalyn. I've implemented most of your suggestions and responded in-line to each. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 09:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the fixes and the comments! I only had a few further follow-up notes, discussed in more detail inline above: publishing agreement, copyright interest, travelogues, alienism, and my new note about the end of the "Influence" section. None of them are dealbreakers, though, so I am happy to support. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Thank you so much LEvalyn. I've responded again to your queries and really appreciate the time you spent. Hope it was an entertaining read! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support  Comments  from Noleander

[edit]
  • Overall, the prose is top-quality, coverage is thorough, the cites look ample, and there and nice illustrations. Great article!
  • Thank you.
  • Lead: An epistolary novel, the narrative is related through letters, diary entries, and newspaper articles. Not sure if the phrase "An epistolary novel" betnefits the reader here in the lead. Putting it in 2nd sentence looks like the editor is showing off. That fancy literature term is better in the body, IMHO....in fact, i see it already is there in the section "Epistolary structure". Just start the lead sentence with "The narrative .."
  • Not the first time someone has said this, so I've made the change but kept the wiki-link to the term.
  • Following publication in May 1897, Dracula was considered a frightening work by positive and negative reviewers. I'm not sure what the point of that sentence is. I think it could be deleted and the two following would suffice (tho some word-smithing to the latter sentences is needed in that case). That "Following ..." sentence is confusing: of course the book was considered frightening by all reviewers. It is a frightening story. As a reader, I had to stop and try to figure out what point you are trying to make; and I never did.
  • This is fair. Rephrased.
  • In a letter to Walt Whitman, Bram Stoker described his own temperament as "secretive to the world", but he nonetheless led a relatively public life. This sentence is a bit confusing: Was Stoker a recluse or not? Is the point that he lied to Whitman? or that he had a complex character? Or is the point that he was introverted, but forced to live in the public eye for the sake of his career? Whatever the point is: clarify it. Also: There is no cite on that sentence.... is that sentence based on a scholarly work? If so: what is the source saying? What is the source's point?
  • His natural temperament was shyness but he led a public life. I believe this is clear from wording, but I am open to changing it; if it confuses you, it is likely to confuse others.
  • That sentence has the quote "secretive to the world" which is a primary source; the editor's job is to present that to the reader in plain language. Maybe something like BSs job as a house manager for theater XYZ involved a large amount of daily interactions with other people; but he was a private man, and presented a bland facade to the public, keeping his inner feelings to himself. Not a show stopper if you leave it alone, I'm just trying to help the reader.
I get where you're coming from. I've asked some friends for an uninformed opinion on this one and there wasn't any confusion about what it meant. Let's keep this one unresolved for now. Bolding to draw some attention to others — would appreciate feedback from other reviewers.
  • The commenter's suggestion, "BSs job as a house manager for theater XYZ involved..." is a far more accurate characterization of Stoker.
  • @Noleander: Hello! Right above this message is a reply from John Edgar Browning; I contacted him a few weeks ago. I have my answer now – yours is better – so I've tweaked it. Take a look for me (and see the related comments directly below this one). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs)
  • @ImaginesTigers: Amazing that you obtained some input from an expert in the field ... nice! Paragraph about whitman/privacy looks good. My only suggestion is: having a quote tells the reader that the quoted fact is super important; so having "secretive to the world" quoted may not deliver the info in the most neutral/factual way. Consider paraphrasing in your own words, if possible, based on input from Browning. Noleander (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: Please accept my apologies. I must have accidentally edited on a different tab – my changes weren't saved and didn't make it into the article! Have a look now; sorry again. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers: - No worries. Looked at newest version, and it all looks good. Hope to see the article on WP Main Page soon! Noleander (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nolenader: Articles can't run on Main Page more than once every 5 years, so if it does pass I might want to preserve the run for the novel's 130th anniversary in 2027. If others disagree that is fine IMO, it's a while away. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is no citation on a sentence, the information can be found in the next citation; if info is spread across multiple sentences, I consider it a little tacky to slap a footnote onto every sentence when the information is all on a single page. You can find it in Hopkins (2007)'s Bram Stoker: A Literary Life (p. 4): On the one hand, his role as Acting Manager of Sir Henry Irving’s Lyceum made him one of the most publicly recognisable figures of Victorian London; no evening at the Lyceum was complete without Stoker, in evening dress, greeting the guests at the top of the stairs. On the other, he was intensely private. As Stoker himself wrote to Walt Whitman, whom he greatly admired, ‘I am equal in temper and cool in disposition and have a large amount of self control and am naturally secretive to the world.’
  • I have no problem with a string of 2 or more sentences with a single cite at the end of the string. I only mentioned "no cite" for that sentence as a clumsy way of suggesting that maybe the source (wherever it is found) could provide some illumination leading to clearer wording.
  • Ah, understood!
  • "On the one hand, his role as Acting Manager of Sir Henry Irving’s Lyceum made him one of the most..." is a very, very adequate description. — JEB


  • The article says that Stoker wrote a large amount of notes when researching the book; and the article does a good job discussing the notes. Where are the notes now? are they held in some library somewhere? Also: are the notes available in book form or online? And is that source in the article's Bibliography? Apologies if it is there: I searched for it and could not find it.
  • The notes are held by several people rather than just one, including private collectors; to this day, they remain notes that have never been made accessible to scholars. There have been several studies of the notes, but this article draws from most is Miller and Eighteen-Bisang's Bram Stoker's Notes for Dracula: A Facsimile Edition (2008). As far as I know, they have never been published separately from scholarly commentary, but I would be happy to add all studies of the notes as a dedicated subheading under "Further reading".
  • Yeah, if it is not too much work. One of the purposes of any article is to provide links for curious readers to delve deeper. Or you can leave it alone; won't stop me from Supporting for FA.
  • I think it’s a great idea and I'm happy to do it.
  • @Noleander: Hello again. I've added 3 so far (there are more) but some are duplicates (from sources that already appear), causing referencing errors. I am not sure how to fix this—do you know if there's a way to make them into "dummy" sources? Fixed with ref=none suggestion from another editor
  • My first side-note is that I have learned that the Stoker notes are still actually located in the Rosenbach Museum; I will update the article with this information.
  • My second side note is that your support was conditional on image and source review. I think it is important that I notify you that the source reviewer has recused themselves due to a dispute. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @user:ImaginesTigers If the dispute is related to the box-quote: my 2 cents is that I'm working on an article for FA nomination (may submit it next week, with luck) and I had a box quote, but I removed it prior to submitting to FA, because it is kind of an UNDUE/POV concern. The box really draws the attention of the reader's eyeballs, in a way that is a bit hype/commercial/cheesy. Also, I think the MOS discourages the boxes, and prefers template:blockquote. I have a couple of the latter in my article. I'll leave my "Support" as-is, and let other editors come to consensus on the box quote. Noleander (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thank you. I have a number in mind for what I think would constitute consensus but I don't really think I can be convinced. I don't think it draws the focus away any more than a picture would. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like none of the Sources has an "author-link" tag. That is not required for FA, but if any of the authors is particularly noteworthy, and has a WP article, it may help curious readers if you gave them a blue link to click on.
  • Help, please. I tried to do this by adding "|author-link=Lizzie Dearden" to bibliography listings but it didn't work. In order of appearance, these individuals could be linked (I may have missed some):
  • I love the "Notes" section ... it is always a good sign when the notes are more interesting that the body :-)
  • We agree on this very much. My discovery of EFN was a very happy day.
  • It seems like many critics/people refer to the book as "Bram Stoker's Dracula". Is that correct? Are there any sources that discuss that name? Not many novels are commonly referred to that way (Mary Shelley's Frankenstein?) Not a big deal, but if any sources talk about that longer name, it may be worth mentioning.
  • As far as I know, no sources discuss this. If academics are analysing a work and its author, they will often include the author's name because it will mean more readers find it at libraries.
    • Academics tend to say, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" because there are soooo many variations of Dracula in various media, both visual and print. If someone asks me about Dracula, I say, "Which one?"
  • Should review the "p" vs "pp" for page ranges. I see a mistake at Miller 2005a, p. 26, 124–125. I wish WP folks would automate that p vs pp in their software, but until they do ...
  • SchroCat caught a lot of them early on. I have fixed this and one other I found (from newly added content).
  • Reword sentence: Even within academic discussions, the boundaries between Stoker's novel and the character's adaptation across a range of media have effectively been blurred. I think that is an important point, so try to help readers understand it. I think you are saying something like Adaptations have deviated significantly from the original book, and over time, many people - including academics and critics- mistakenly believe that plot elements from some adaptations are also in the book I may be wrong there, but whatever the point is, maybe you could spell it out more for readers' benefit.
  • (Self-trout) Reviewing the source, I'm not even confident that my paraphrasing is faithfully replicates the meaning of the passage I'm referencing. Hughes writes: {{tq|The glib insistence – common to both academic criticism and the [...] discourse of Gothic writing – that the vampire and Count Dracula have become effectively synonymous has seriously inhibited the debate on the portrayal and signification of the un-dead in Gothic fiction. The eponymous anti-hero of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel has become the reference point to which the characteristics of other vampires are judged to have adhered, or to have departed from. Stoker's vampire has thus ceased to be merely a fictional character. Frequently styled as the epicenter of a cultural industry of which Dracula the noel is but a tangential fragment. Dracula the character is now a preoccupation for writers and critics, a device to be employed not merely in stylistic guise but also as an indicator of cultural implications that have become the commonplaces of a shared discourse.
  • I have implemented the following but welcome feedback:
  • "William Hughes writes that Count Dracula's cultural omnipresence is widely reported to have negatively impact scholarly analyses of the undead. He is "the reference point" to which all other vampires are compared."
  • Reword sentence: Scholars had known about the existence of the Icelandic adaptation since the 1980s because of Stoker's preface, considering it to be genuine until the Swedish translation was rediscovered. Confusing in several ways: (1) "known about the existence"... does that mean the translation was lost? When was it rediscovered? If not lost: remove "know about its existence". (2) what was considered "genuine"? the translation or the preface? (3) When the Swedish version surfaced, they discovered the preface was not written by BS, correct? So what? Why is that important for this article?
  • I completely understand your concerns here. Let me explain:
  • Originally, the Icelandic version was considered authentic.
  • When the Swedish version was rediscovered (it was indeed lost, as mentioned earlier), scholars realised that the Icelandic version wasn't a translation of Dracula: it was a translation of the Swedish version (essentially a literary telephone game.
  • I'll redraft but need more time to review exactly what the sources say to avoid issues.
I have redrafted this. Let me know if it's clearer. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got some missing text here: Elizabeth Miller writes that .[4] Early Stoker after the word "that".
  • I have absolutely no idea what I meant to write there. The attached footnote is to Bedford, not Stoker. I've removed it but will try to remember...
  • Section title "Reception" ... should that be "Contemporary reception"? Or "Reception at time of publication" ? The title "Reception" by itself, to me, means the opinion of critics and public over all time: from publication to today. But I may be in the minority.
  • I have one previous FA, League of Legends. I use Reception in that article to mean contemporary reception, with a different subheading for later reappraisals. To make this change, I need the suggestion to be repeated by 2+ editors (including yourself). It would feel out of line with our other articles, IMO.
  • I defer to the consensus of other editors re section title for "Reception"... I'm no expert in literary stuff. But the first sentence of the Reception is Modern critics frequently write that Dracula had a mixed critical .... Kinda steers the readers into thinking the section will include modern reception also. Maybe the first sentence should be "When Drac. was published the critics ...". Then a bit later include a discussion of how modern critics perceive the original critics. That leads to another question: Why even mention the modern critics? Shouldn't the editor's voice say "When the novel was published in 189x the reception of critics was mixed [cite modern historian/critic A]. Although some sources suggests that contemporary reception was generally positive [cite modern historian/critic B]. In other words: why emphasize the identity of your sources (viz the modern critics)?
It's a fair question. The answer is that John Edgar Browning is a subject-matter expert on Dracula, and favouring his opinions – over, say, scholars with 1 article on Dracula who write it had mixed reception – makes the article stronger. While all of the sources in this article are high-quality and reliable, some are given more presence than others because they are acclaimed academics on the topic. You will see many critics from this article are winners of the Lord Ruthven Award, a prize for exceptional work on the topic of vampires (or Dracula specifically).
An encyclopaedic view of a topic requires expert third-party sources to shape its presentation. Presenting only the original reception is not encyclopaedic and is more likely to lead in original research.
I may be coming off a little stronger than intended here, but if I am wrong in this, my entire approach to editing is wrong, and the effort would not be worth it. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, it is not a big deal. I was under the impression that naming a source (in the body text) - or even referring to the source ("modern critics say ...") - should only be done in rare situations. The ideal is for the body text to be written in the editors voice, re-phrasing what the sources say. So when the Drac article mentions the "modern critics say .." it kinda breaks the spell for the reader. But I defer to your judgement, and retract the suggestion. Noleander (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a section or even a paragraph that summarizes the overall perception/assessment by modern literary academics: what do modern scholars of English Literature write about the book? Of course, the section "Context and interpretation" has a lot of details, many of it clearly taken from literature academics. But where is the overview? How do modern literature academics view the book? How do they rate it relative to other classics? Has it stood up over time? what do they like about it? What don't they like about it? etc. A couple of approaches to fill this void: (a) Add a paragraph of text immed after "Context and interpretation" BEFORE the first subsection "Context and interpretation"; OR (b) add a new subsection under "Context and interpretation" titled "Assessment by modern scholars" or similar.
  • I understand what you're hoping to get out of this. Could I do it? Yes. Would I feel good about it? Probably not. The reason is that academics don't routinely consider "do I like this book" or "how do I feel about it compared to Frankenstein". They situate it within a historical context and explore the period. There is no dedicated topic for "how critics feel about the text", so it would be borderline OR and could never be representative. The article has the below comments, which touch on the topic, but any more than this would make me uncomfortable.
  • Scholars explore the novel within the historical context of the Victorian era and discuss its portrayal of gender, sexuality, race and religion.
  • Since the 1970s, Dracula has been the subject of significant academic interest; the novel has spawned many nonfiction books and articles, and has a dedicated peer-reviewed journal. The novel's complexity has permitted a flexibility of interpretation, with Anca Andriescu Garcia describing interest from scholars of psychoanalysis, postcolonialism, social class and the Gothic genre.
  • Fair enough .. if the sources don't have much, I retract my suggestion.
  • Conclusion: It is a great article, and I foresee no issues with FA approval. I'm happy to support after the above issues are resolved/addressed (pending "pass" on source & image review) Noleander (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: Replies provided o7 — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@user:ImaginesTigers See note above re "author-link". Changed to "Support". Great article. Noleander (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the diffs – very helpful. I've added one for all author/editors who should have one. I'm a little tempted to red-link some of them.
Very much appreciated your time and support. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
  • Certainly. Done.
  • Certainly; done.
    • ...with William Hughes specifically citing the influence of Irving's performance as Shylock in a Lyceum Theatre performance of The Merchant of Venice. "Performance" is unnecessarily repeated here. It could be rephrased as:
    ...with William Hughes specifically citing the influence of Irving's performance as Shylock of The Merchant of Venice at the Lyceum Theatre.
  • Changed! Another reviewer also caught this.
    • Could Ármin Vámbéry be introduced in short here as "the traveller"? It will assist the audience.
  • Given the word's usage as a substitute for Romani people (discussed on this article), I think the word would be a bit confusing. If more information is required, they can always go to his linked page. I'd ask for at least one other person to agree with you on this as a result.
  • Great question. No idea. The footnote isn't even Miller – it's Bedford! I've removed it for now (until I can potentially remember).
    • An edition of the novel released by publisher Penguin Using "the publisher" here would be finer.
  • I have changed this to "An edition of the novel published by Penguin".
  • Certainly. Done!
@MSincccc: Thank you for the feedback! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • John Edgar Browning and Caroline Joan S. Picart write that the novel... Wouldn't "note that the novel" be more appropriate in this context despite the present sentence also being grammatically correct?
  • Sure!
  • Browning is introduced in 'Reception' (with some applomb); I have introduced Browning and Picart with a single word ("scholars") and Retamar with "literary critic". Thank you
Influence
  • It was not the first novel to depict vampires, but dominates both popular and scholarly treatments of vampire fiction. Link "vampire fiction" to the article Vampire literature?
  • Makes sense
  • Wendy Doniger described the novel as vampire literature's... "The Indologist Wendy Doniger..." ?
  • I've introduced an alternate, "humanities scholar", that will make more sense to more people.
  • Patrick McGrath notes that many... "The novelist Patrick McGrath..."?
MSincccc (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure!
Context and interpretation
  • Thank you.
  • Done!
MSincccc (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Context and interpretation
  • I have done this, but I have removed the link to parasites that is right beside it. There are a lot of links in that section.
Reception
  • ...such as The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, had more restraint. Could the author's name be mentioned here (i.e. Robert Louis Stevenson)?
I haven't done this for the other novels (e.g., Frankenstein) mentioned in this section, so I will avoid it here, too. It isn't really relevant to the point for this particular case.
@ImaginesTigers This concludes my list of suggestions for the article. I hope you found them constructive. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc: They were very helpful. Thank you very much. Are you happy to support the nomination? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers Support. MSincccc (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aemilius Adolphin

[edit]

I agree with others that you have substantially improved the article since it achieved GA status. So just a few comments and suggestions:

  • Textual history: Composition
  • There's an apparent contradition here. The first paragraph quotes Bierman saying that the first notes of the novel's early chapters "differs from the final version in only a few details". The final paragraph uses the wikipedia voice to say "Stoker's initial plans for Dracula markedly differ from the final novel." This could probably be fixed by tweaking the wording.
  • I've made some changes to include more detail. I think the point of confusion is between Stoker's earliest dated notes, versus an aggregated report (drawing from many of the notes).
  • Context and interpretation: disease
  • "Stoker's grand-nephew provides evidence that Stoker died from syphilis, suggesting that the infection's slow progress meant Stoker could have contracted it while writing the novel." The theory that Stoker died of syphilis is hotly contested so alternative views should be presented. See: WP:BALANCE. Miller (2006) pp 114-115 states that Leslie Shepherd, Ivan Stoker Dixon, Barbara Belford, William Hughes and others either reject the claim outright or call it highly speculative. An alternative would be to reword the passage to indicate that it is speculation.
  • I don't entirely agree. The context is not provided within a section dedicated to biographical detail and is clearly attributed as a subjective opinion; it is frequently relevant to readings on the novel that discuss syphilis (which are legion). The way he came to this conclusion is also mentioned.
  • I understand the concern, though, so I'll make an update to the footnote.
After reflecting more on this, I believe you are right. I propose the following:
I'll remove the mention of syphilis from the section on disease; I have found some good sources to build up the social degeneration aspect.
I'll move the syphilis statement under the "Author" subheading, as Stoker's grand-nephew suggested that Stoker died for syphilis, but this is widely contested by scholars..
I'll write a detailed footnote detailing Miller, Bedford, Shepard and Hughes' objections. This would keep the article flowing but make sure detailed information is available to those who want it. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sound like a good approach. I will have another look when you have made the changes. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the changes discussed above but it's just a starting point. I will continue to expand the disease material. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adaptations
  • I suggest it would be more accurate to call the two versions of Powers of Darkness "foreign language literary adaptations" than translations. They were only loosely based on Dracula. Eighteen-Bisang and Miller (in the source cited) calls them adaptations, not translations.

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Understood. Done.
Thank you for your time and assistance! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
Your recent edits meet the concerns I raised earlier. However, I have some more comments on the latest iteration of the article which might help your ongoing revisions. I am keen to avoid unnecessary comments on a moving target, so if you could let me know when you have arrived at a version you are satisfied with I would be happy to provide further feedback on that version.
Article is pretty stable now and will only be changed as part of this FAC.
  • Lead. "The book's characters have entered popular culture as archetypal versions of their characters: Count Dracula as the quintessential vampire, and Van Helsing as the most iconic vampire hunter." Have any of the other characters become archetypes? The sentence could also be simplified. I suggest: "[Two of] the book's characters have entered popular culture as archetypes...etc."
I like the current wording for this.
  • Plot. "Soon after Harker awakens, Dracula leaves the castle, abandoning him to the women." This suggests Harker was asleep through all this. More accurate is: "Six weeks later, Dracula leaves the castle, abandoning Harker to the women."
Updated
"Jonathan Harker and his now-wife Mina return and join the campaign against Dracula." "New bride" is better than "now-wife".
Updated
"As the men find Dracula's properties, they discover many earth boxes within. The vampire hunters open each of the boxes and seal wafers of sacramental bread inside them, rendering them useless to Dracula." Better is: "The men discover that Dracula has distributed his boxes of earth around various properties in London."
Updated
"Harker and Holmwood follow Dracula's boat on the river, while Morris and Seward parallel them on land." "Parallel" doesn't work as a verb here. Better is: "Harker and Holmwood pursue Dracula's boat on the river, while Morris and Seward follow them on land."
Updated
"Quincey is mortally wounded in the fight against the Romani. He dies from his wounds, at peace with the knowledge that Mina is saved." Better is: "Quincey is mortally wounded in the fight against the Romani. He dies from his wounds, at peace with the knowledge that Mina is saved."
Updated
  • Composition. You quote Birman twice saying that Dracula was always intended to be epistolary novel, but it was initially set in Styria.
People are allowed to write diary entries and letters in Styria as far as I know
  • Publication. "Early Stoker biographer Barbara Belford noted the novel looked "shabby" because of a last-minute title change." Needs a citation. It appears to have been lost in the revision process.
Updated
"The surviving publishing agreement was signed and dated May 25, 1897; Miller suggests the signing of them one day before the official publication date indicates that they were a formality." The source should be: Peter Biel (2005), "Item 100, Sotheby's catalogue, 10 July 2001" in Miller (ed) (2005) etc. The source states there are two surviving publishing agreements: the handwritten one signed by Stoker on 20 May and the typewritten one signed on 25 May. As agreement is singular, the sentence should be: "The surviving typewritten publishing agreement was signed and dated 25 May 1897. Peter Biel of Sotherby's suggests the signing of this agreement one day before the official publication date indicates that it was only a formality." British dating should be used throughout: eg 25 May 1897, not May 25, 1897.
I haven't made the first change: Miller is fine to cite as an expert here.
I've updated the second
"Stoker organised an informal reading of the novel in the week before publication in the Lyceum Theatre." It wasn’t an informal reading of the novel, it was a reading of Stoker's dramatic adaptation.
Removed the word
"Miller states it could have been published anywhere from late May to June 1897." It isn’t Miller who states this, it is Eighteen-Bisang in Milller (ed) 2005. The citation should be: Eighteen-Bisang, Robert (2005). "The First Dracula". In Miller, Elizabeth (ed.). Dictionary of Literary Biography, Volume 304: Bram Stoker's Dracula, A Documentary Volume. Thompson Gale. p. 258. ISBN 078766841 9.
I've made the change to the prose, but the reference is now broken and I don't have the skillset to fix it.
"An edition of the novel published by Penguin in 1993 was the first to include Dracula's "missing chapter", 'Dracula's Guest'." This is incorrect. The source states that Florescu and McNally's The Essential Dracula (1979) was the first edition to include the story as part of the novel. The source should be cited as Eighteen-Bisang "Other Notable Editions," In Miller (2005 ed) etc. p. 291.
Fixed! Good catch.
The first paragraph of the section over-uses semi-colons. Some of these would be better as full stops, or colons where they: "introduce something that demonstrates, explains, or modifies what has come before." MOS:COLON.
They are fine and modify what came before.
  • Epistolary structure. Better is: "Miller writes that the "collaborative narration" reinforces the idea that Dracula must be defeated by the combined effort of his victims adversaries."
Sure, why not?
  • Sexuality and gender. "Dracula contains no overt homosexual acts, but homosexuality or homoeroticism is a theme discussed by critics." It would be better to make a more general disclaimer at the beginning of this section; viz: "Dracula contains no overt sexual acts, but sexuality and seduction are two of the novel's most frequently discussed themes." The point is that this is a Victorian novel where sex is entirely sublimated, suggested and allegorical. Readers of the article might be surprised to learn that the novel contains descriptions of felatio (it doesn't) and some might even be put off reading the novel if they think it is pornographic.
This isn't supported by the reference, which is about homosexual acts. I could go find a new source, but I think this is a bad use of time: reading the detailed analysis of a novel is not generally what people do to be tempted into reading it.
"Senf notes that Lucy is punished for expressing dissatisfaction with her social position as a woman, destroying the vampire while "reestablishing male supremacy"." The meaning of this sentence is unclear. Should it be: "Senf notes that Lucy is punished for expressing dissatisfaction with her social position as a woman. She becomes a vampire and is destroyed, and male supremacy is thus reestablished."?
It seems like you understood the meaning of it fine, if you were able to rewrite it.
  • Race. "Daniel Renshaw writes that any antisemitism in the text is "semi-subliminal", reflecting the 19th-century conception of Jewish people; he argues more broadly that the novel represents a general suspicion of all foreigners." I think the previous version of this sentence should be restored; viz: "Daniel Renshaw writes that Dracula is not himself Jewish and that any antisemitism in the text is "semi-subliminal" etc. The excised phrase undermines Renshaw's main point: that although Dracula isn't Jewish he is given some characteristics which Victorian England also associated with Jews. Thus he is best seen as as a general symbol of the foreigner. The current wording also strongly suggests that Dracula is explicitly written as a Jewish character and can be compared with "some other cultural depictions of Jews". He isn't: he is a Transylvanian nobleman and his "Jewish" characteristics are inferred by critics.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point. I jiggled it around because it was confusing in its previous form. Added back in the clause about Dracula not being Jewish and added another qualification

I have made some of the changes to the article I recommended above because I think I sometimes expressed myself poorly and you misunderstood what I was getting at. Please have a look at my recent edits to the article. If you still disagree with them we can discuss on the article talk page.

Overall I think the article meets the FA criteria and I am changing from comments to support. I also disclose that I made some minor contributions to the article.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aemilius Adolphin: Sincere thanks for your contributions! I hope you will be a vanguard for this article in future. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ErnestKrause

[edit]

I'll try to limit myself to a literary appraisal of the article based on some well known essays written about Dracula during the last few decades.

Comments

  • Regarding the novels place in Edwardian fiction, Nicholas Daly in his essay for Texas Studies in Literature, Summer 1997, states that: "For a novel that enjoys a rather ambivalent relation to the canon, Dracula seems to solicit interpretation, and critics have been generous in obliging... In this respect the critical fate of Dracula resembles that of Frankenstein, a test in which the monster who dominates the action has been seen to embody threats ranging from the emerging working class to language itself. In the pandemonium of interpretive activity around Stoker's novel, Count Dracula has appeared as the embodiment of fears about degeneration, the influx of eastern European Jews into late Victorian England, a subversive female sexuality, reverse colonization, nascent media culture, male penetration, and monopoly capital, among other things." Is this covered in your Dracula nomination article, do you agree with Daly?
I'd say these are covered:
  • fears about degeneration are covered in Disease.
  • the influx of eastern European Jews into late Victorian England is covered in Race.
  • subversive female sexuality is covered in Sexuality and gender.
  • reverse colonization is covered under Race.
  • nascent media culture is covered under Legacy.
  • male penetration (and female) are covered under Sexuality and gender.
  • monopoly capital is mentioned under Political and economic.
  • Although you mention some of the late Nina Auerbach's material in your article you do not mention her book: Auerbach, Nina. (1995) Our Vampires, Ourselves. University of Chicago Press. In the book is her feminist reading of Dracula as in her chapter on "Dracula: A Vampire of Our Own". Do you agree with her reading?
Auerbach's writing is a great resource, but I focused on a summary-style overview instead of providing analyses by all possible reputable writers.
Auerbach's view on the feminist reading of Dracula seems noteworthy; does your library have a copy of this book in order for you to check? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is Jennifer Wicke's study of mass consumption of the novel in its transition to modernist forms associated with the production, consumption and distribution, of literature as she discusses it in her essay "Vampiric Typewriting: Dracula and its Media", published in ELH 59 (1992): 467-493, Johns Hopkins University Press. Is her position defensible that the novel has aspects which move it past convention Edwardian or Victorian themes?
It's out of scope for this article, but would warrant inclusion on a page on Victorian or Edwardian literature.
  • Daniel Pick's essay studies the pre-Freudian reading of the novel from the perspectives of Charcot, Nordau, and Lombroso in his essay titled: "'Terrors of the night': Dracula and 'degeneration' in the late nineteenth century." It appeared in Critical Quarterly 30, Winter 1988. Is the pre-Freudian psychological view of Dracula worth some relevant comment in your article?
It's a fair point, but (through conversation on the Talk) we decided not to include detailed rundowns of the Freudian interpretations. The material is largely covered under the Sexuality and gender section, but introducing Freudian analysis means explaining new terminology while keeping the ground largely the same. The novel's Freudian analysis is mentioned in Dracula#Reception but it is fairly dated now; scholars have moved on. This information would be great for a Critical analysis of Dracula page but would be inappropriate here.
This was about the pre-Freudian reading of the novel; it does not require any development of Freud's model of psychoanalysis. Do you have access to this essay by Daniel Pick? Your add on comment seems to suggest that the Critical analysis of Dracula should not be mentioned on the Dracula article or only summarized very briefly. I'm not sure that all literary analysis falls into the category of Critical analysis though you should let me know how you are drawing the lines between these two forms of analysis. In the absence of your red-linked article, it seems to put some emphasis on covering this topic at some added level in the current Dracula article which you have nominated. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments to start discussion of the literary analysis of the book. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: Thank you for your questions. I've provided in-line replies. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Part Two

  • It sort of looks like you may not have access to some or most of these sources. Some of them should come up on Google scholar if you give it look there. If you do not have any of the book length studies available to you, then let me know.
  • There is hardly anything in the article other than a single reference to the Marxist reading of this book. Saying more about the Marxist reading concerning race, empire, sexuality and family should be useful to the article. Here is one additional source which might be added to your article: Geoffrey Wall, "'Different from Writing': Dracula in 1897", in 'Literature and History' 10, Spring 1984, pp15-23.
I originally suggested structuring the "Context and interpretation" article by interpretive theory (i.e., as I have done on this draft for Frankenstein. This was opposed by another editor (see Talk) and I proceeded with a themes-based approach. You could add lots of individual essays; I don't think it is necessary.
  • Your summary of the Senf article does not look like a full reading of the text as it is usually consulted in the literature. Senf reads the book as being neutral on the question of good and evil, which is seen from Senf's perspective as lacking in the content of the novel. Dracula the character is seen much in the same perspective as his enemies, with little of moral value to separate them. You do not seem to cover this viewpoint.
As above, I consulted on whether we should include a "good vs evil" theme: the answer was no. I would need a stronger consensus to make these changes given the amount of work it would include.
  • You do mention Phyllis Roth's writings but not her important re-reading of the Oedipal themes being revisited in the Dracula novel. Her main work on these Oedipal aspects appears in the Journal of Narrative Technique, no.3 Fall (1979), pp 160-170. Let me know if you do not have access to this essay since the Oedipal myth connection seems like it would improve your nominated article and be useful.
Structurally, it does not fit within the article as it exists – there is no benefit to adding a single scholar's views on Oedipian aspects from 1979. As before, I do not think it is necessary and I will need much stronger consensus to add this.
  • If you don't have access to some of these sources, then let me know. As I've stated, this is inquiry about the literary aspects of Dracula as they have appeared over the last several decades which have received heightened attention in literary circles.

If your library does not have access to these, then let me know; your overnight edits seem to suggest that you did not have access to the sources I've listed in Part One of my comments above. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: Thanks for your thoughts. This is not about access to sources. I won't be implementing these suggestions as, once again, they aren't necessary for a high-level overview of the topic. If you are interested in doing this, I recommend you create a dedicated page for exhaustive scholarly analysis into Dracula. It isn't this article. Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Flask

[edit]

Very impressive and engaging article about everyone's favorite Transylvanian nobleman. Most of my suggestions focus on sentence flow. Feel free to reject any or all my suggested rephrasings.

Sentence flow

  • Dracula was mostly written in the 1890s. Stoker produced over a hundred pages of notes for the novel... As both the preceding/opening paragraph and this one begin with word Dracula, you could introduce a bit of variation here. Possible rephrasing: "Mostly written in the 1890s, Stoker produced over a hundred pages of notes for the novel..."
Done!
  • Some scholars have suggested that the character of Dracula was inspired by historical figures including the Wallachian prince... Possible rephrasing for flow: "Scholars have suggested various historical figures as the inspiration for Dracula including the Wallachian prince..."
Done!
  • Before Dracula was published, Stoker was already well known in the theatrical world as... To avoid the back-to-back use of "was," perhaps rephrase to: "Before Dracula's publication, Stoker was already well known in the theatrical world as..." or "Before the publication of Dracula, Stoker was already well known..."
Done!
  • Dracula scholar Elizabeth Miller notes that in his childhood Stoker was exposed to supernatural tales and Irish oral history involving premature burials and staked bodies. Possible rephrasing for flow: "Dracula scholar Elizabeth Miller notes that during his childhood Stoker heard supernatural tales and Irish oral history involving..."
Done! This one still doesn't quite feel right to me.
  • ...writing romance and sensation novels, and had published 18 books by his death in 1912... The comma after the word "novels" strikes me as a bit odd given that "and had published 18 books by his death in 1912" can't stand alone as a sentence, but I imagine you are trying to spread out the citations. Possibly rephrase to: "and he had published".
Good catch; you're right about the citation. I added the "he" - thank you.
  • The novel's vampire was always intended to be a Count, even before he was given the name Dracula. Possible rephrasing for flow: "Stoker always intended the novel's vampire to be a count, even before giving him the name of Dracula."
Done :-)
  • It was attended by a small group, primarily theatre staff; Edith Craig played Mina. Possible rephrasing for flow: "A small group, primarily theatre staff, attended the reading, and Edith Craig played Mina."
Done!
  • It was not the first novel to depict vampires, but dominates both popular and scholarly treatments of vampire fiction. Possible rephrasing for flow: "Although not the first novel to depict vampires, the work dominates both popular and scholarly treatments of vampire fiction."
Done!

Miscellaneous

  • ...there is a "widely held view" that the prose is "the excised first chapter of Dracula", which Miller contests. This sentence abruptly ends the Publication section, and the reader wonders why Miller contested this claim.
Done!
  • Using HarvErrors.js, Hogle 2002 has a "CS1 maint: ref duplicates default" message.
I'm not seeing this – it looks okay to me. Can't spot any duplicate sources – let me know if you still see this.
  • Perhaps add ref = none to the last bibliographic entry for "Further reading" and for the "Other" bibliographic entries?
Added!

Overall, excellent article! I enjoyed reading it very much. You did commendable work summarizing the myriad of different critical interpretations of the novel over the past hundred years. Also, the Notes are equally engaging. Great work. — Flask⚗️(talk) 03:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flask: Thanks for the thoughts, Flask. Great suggestions – all have been made. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers Support. Again, laudable work! — Flask⚗️(talk) 21:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flask: Cheers old sport. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild: Hi Gog. Any thoughts on this nom's current status/anything I can do to push us forward? Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Just spotted that Gog's on holiday – my bad. Any advice would be appreciated. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We'll need someone to complete the source review; I'll ask around. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian Rose. What will that involve? SchroCat expressed concern about one piece of content but said "the sources are pretty much in good order now" after providing extensive feedback. Other editors have provided explicit approval (LEvalyn, Flask, Aemilius Adolphin) or stated their support was not contingent on its removal (Noleander). I can find someone to complete a source review but want to understand what in particular they're meant to review, given SchroCat's completed forensic audit. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a completed audit by any stretch when I finished (less than half done), and since I finished there have been nearly a hundred edits to the article, some of which impacted on the sources, so whoever picks up will need to start from scratch to ensure it's all done. - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Frustrating, but makes complete sense – I'll ask around. Thank you. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lazman321

[edit]

I might be willing to do a source review sometime soon. In the meantime, here are some comments. Lazman321 (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some aspects of the lead are not mentioned in the body such as the novel's popularization of archetypes.
  • There are several quotes that say this without using the word 'archetype':
  • "Count Dracula is the first character to come to mind when people discuss vampires."
  • "[The novel] profoundly shaped the popular understanding of how vampires function, including their strengths, weaknesses, and other characteristics."
  • "He is "the reference point" to which all other vampires are compared."
  • That said, it does not do the same for Van Helsing. I am a bit lazy so I have rewritten the lead. While re-reading, I want to clarify that it didn't say the novel popularised archetypes—it says some of its characters became them (i.e., Dracula became the stereotypical vampire). You write "some aspects" – I have checked but can't find any others like this.
  • The plot section uses multiple short sentences in quick succession. I recommend combining some for a more engaging read.
  • I have made some tweaks.
  • The caption of the Vlad the Impaler image contradicts the text.
  • Can you point out the contradiction for me? Stoker certainly did take his name – he notes its definition: Stoker copied the following footnote from the book: "Dracula means devil. Wallachians were accustomed to give it as a surname to any person who rendered himself conspicuous by courage, cruel actions or cunning". Do you think that should be moved out of Composition and into Influences? Since there are so many, I have tried to keep it very condensed—adding it in will make the paragraph about historical influences very, very large, so it would be my preference not to add it in. I am very happy to remove the photo of Vlad, too.
  • I'm not sure the relevance or purpose of the last paragraph of the composition subsection.
  • The paragraph before is about Stoker's notes and early concepts for the novel. I've rearranged it a bit.
  • Considering, based on what the text implies, that Dracula has been more studied as a Gothic novel than an epistolary novel, shouldn't the Gothic subsection be placed before the epistolary subsection
  • I've had a think about this one because I see where you're coming from. To me, the books' structure and prose is more relevant to the "Style" heading than genre. I don't feel strongly on which comes first.
  • I recommend removing "a point made by contemporary reviewers.", given the only source happens to be one of the contemporary reviews that happens to be mentioned in the reception section.
  • I didn't remove it, but I changed the text to be more accurate. I think it's useful to highlight that it was mentioned way-back-when.
  • Technically, the proper name is Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde; the original novel didn't have the definite article
  • Great catch. Haven't read it myself. Fixed.
  • Merge the short second paragraph of the adaptations section with the fourth paragraph.
  • I merged it with the third paragraph instead because it was the first adaptation produced during Stoker's lifetime and that paragraph begins with Adaptations were produced during Stoker's lifetime.
  • I think you should remove "Count Dracula is the first character to come to mind when people discuss vampires." After all, although Dracula is indeed the most famous vampire character, such a statement, even if sourced, is far too sweeping. There could be people out there who don't immediately think of Dracula but instead some other vampire character. A child might first think of Count von Count, while a fan of romance literature might first think of Edward Cullen.
  • I have altered the sentence to make it less sweeping, but think it's a valuable sentiment to keep.
Thank you, Lazman321—I've replied to your feedback. PMC has completed a source review – was that insufficient? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see PMC's source review. One thing that she missed is that the International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts is potentially predatory. Within seconds of visiting the main page, I get a pop-up revealing that the journal charges a fee to submit an article and that submitted articles take two to four days to approve, which is crazy to me given what the peer review process usually involves. You could argue that maybe the author is a subject-matter expert, considering she is the principal of a post-graduate school, but the one thing the source supports is that Dracula is a "quintessential work of Gothic literature". I agree with this statement, but surely there's a better source for it. As for your replies: One other thing I noticed about the lead is that the number of films made is not in the body. The caption contradicts the text because it claims that Stoker didn't take the name from Vlad the Impaler but instead from a book he read. Otherwise, I think this is a very good article on such a famous novel. Lazman321 (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for the feedback, Lazman321. Follow ups below.
  • International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts: Mea culpa. I did not vet this source and won't vouch for it or the writers. I was simply too keen to find a source that used the word "quintessential". I have not succeeded this time either. With sadness, "quintessential" has become "enduring" from Hogle (2002).
  • over 30 times: I thought I'd find this in Picart & Browning (2011) but came up short. I've reviewed the history to understand when I added it, but it looks very early. I've changed this. I'm keen to replace it with something else. The 2015 Guinness Book of World Records said Count Dracula is the most portrayed literary character on screen, with over 500 appearance 1. The GBWR can't be used to establish notability, but the significance of this will be understood by readers, which feels important for the read. Let me know what you think. I've bulked up the final paragraph of the lead with other material from Legacy.
  • the caption contradicts the text Understood now. I've removed this image as I don't believe it adds significant value for readers to see a picture of Vlad. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what is with the harvid error, but otherwise, support. Lazman321 (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your time; the article is improved and I'm grateful for it. Looks like PMC fixed the harvid error (I have no idea what I did wrong). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 5 March 2025 [54].

Virtual Self (EP)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 00:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following the release of Worlds, Porter Robinson felt pressured to release a follow-up album with a similar sound, but couldn't come up with anything. His idea, then, was to break expectations and change his musical style completely, just as he had done with Worlds. This resulted in the Virtual Self alias and its self-titled EP, where he used the early 2000s as his main inspiration for visuals and sound. Following the recent promotion of Worlds, here is another article of a Robinson album that I believe is ready for FAC. Thank you! I'd like to invite the past nominations' and PR participants (LunaEclipse, Heartfox, Dylan620, Dxneo, Aoba47, NegativeMP1, and TechnoSquirrel69) to participate in this nomination if they wish. Skyshiftertalk 00:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Virtual_Self_EP_cover_art.jpg: source link is dead

NegativeMP1

[edit]

Per my comment here, I will be providing a spotcheck on this article within the next couple of days. λ NegativeMP1 07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been struggling with staying committed to on-wiki work over the past week or so, sorry for the wait. Anyways, here's the spotcheck. I checked most uses of 3 5ths of the articles references (24/40), hopefully this is satisfactory. λ NegativeMP1 22:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pass on spotcheck. Great work. λ NegativeMP1 22:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

Dylan620

[edit]

I didn't want to assume that the article was the exact same as the version I supported for promotion at the previous FAC, so I gave it a re-read. While I am still quite pleased with the quality of the article, I do have a few new comments that I would like to be addressed before supporting again:

  • Virtual Self is a trance and neotrance EP where Robinson tried to recreate sounds from the early 2000s → Virtual Self is a trance and neotrance EP on which Robinson tried to recreate sounds from the early 2000s ('where' reads oddly when not referring to a place... though I say this as someone who has used that word as such in casual conversation)
  • I think Ultimately, Robinson resisted this idea could be rephrased in a way that doesn't use the word idea (or demo[s]) three times in two sentences. Maybe Robinson ultimately discarded them, since the sentence's placement in the article would make it clear that 'they' are the demos?
  • I think Robinson wanted his fans to reject the project would be a more concise way of saying According to Robinson, the project was far from being an attempt to please his fans; he wanted it to be something many of his fans would reject.
  • many times through Google Translate, for which he became → many times through Google Translate; he became
  • a common pop music trope, while the trance-like "Eon Break" → a common pop music trope. The trance-like "Eon Break" (breaks up an overlong sentence, and I don't think using 'while' twice in one sentence is necessary here)
  • Virtual Self shows continued in August 2018, with the two-month North American Utopia System Tour → He toured as Virtual Self from August 31 to October 4 on the North American Utopia System Tour (not 100% sure about this, since the suggested change uses 'tour' or some variant twice in the same sentence, but there is already a 'shows continued in 2018' clause a few sentences prior)
  • praised that Robinson was experimenting → praised Robinson for experimenting
  • In the second paragraph of §Reception_and_legacy, the word 'chose' appears three times in as many sentences. With respect to WP:ELEVAR, I think a couple of these usages could be replaced with context-appropriate synonyms like 'listed' or 'ranked'.

That's it, methinks; all minor stuff. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: thank you! All done! Skyshiftertalk 21:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response, Skyshifter—I did a small copyedit, but am happy to support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "as main sources of inspiration" => "as his main sources of inspiration"
  • "Following Worlds's launch" - I think maybe "Following the launch of Worlds" would read more elegantly
  • "dark-cloaked harbinger that represents tracks "Particle Arts", "Key" and "Eon Break"." => "dark-cloaked harbinger that represents the tracks "Particle Arts", "Key" and "Eon Break"."
  • That's all I got - great work! And now I have the track "Language" stuck in my head, which BBC Radio One here in the UK still play semi-regularly to this day..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Is Hypebeast (company) a reliable source? Is this Twitter official? Looks like we are using seemingly major magazines, otherwise, with consistent formatting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hypebeast is listed as no consensus in WP:NPPSG. I believe its usage is fine for this article as it is an interview and I am exclusively using Robinson's words. The Twitter is official, though I've now switched it for the official Porter Robinson account post. Skyshiftertalk 17:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

Focusing strictly on reference formatting

  • Consistent wikilinking in sources
  • Dates added where available
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Authors added where available
  • Links are live
  • Ref 22 – Missing a publish date
  • Ref 22 – The link used is currently a redirect, bypass it by updating the URL

That's all I've got. Ping me when you reply please. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: done! Skyshiftertalk 18:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 5 March 2025 [55].

Kim Kitsuragi

[edit]
Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kitsuragi is the most well-developed character in Disco Elysium, a critically acclaimed game that is often included among List of video games considered the best. The player is left to imprint their own ideas onto the player-character, while Kim Kitsuragi acts as their tutorial, mentor, conscience, and comedic foil. Critics have noted how Kim Kitsuragi is one of the best video game companions, not just for being an interesting character, but for being an interesting game character. Critics have gushed about these many small yet memorable moments of reactivity, making the player feel that their actions and choices matter. By that interactive standard, I think Kim Kitsuragi might be one of the best examples of a video game character, period.

This article reached WP:GA a few weeks ago. Crisco 1492 reviewed it with comments at Talk:Kim Kitsuragi/GA1, suggesting that this would have an easy time at FAC. I have taken a few additional steps to make sure this is ready for FA. I feel that the prose is of high quality. I also believe the sources are also of high quality, though I'd draw attention to Valnet sources. While I agree that they offer minimal value for the sake of notability, this article is clearly notable, and briefly mentioning them does help illustrate why this character is so celebrated. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Things have gotten suddenly busy for me. I'll still be around in February, but didn't expect that the process would take one month to get more feedback. I may need to pause work on this until the end of the month. If that means withdrawing the nomination then so be it. But otherwise I will revisit this in a couple of weeks. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and support from Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • Happy to see this here.

Images:

Rereading the article...

  • Any story beats worth including in the lede?
  • is designed for greater reactivity to the player's choices - Maybe "is designed to react to the player's choices"?
  • "his sexuality, who confirms that his is gay with a witty remark." - feels a bit awkward. Perhaps "his sexuality; he confirms that he is gay with a witty remark."
  • statistics - as in the character sheet? Is there a good target link for this?
  • human-computer interaction should be human–computer interaction per MOS:ENBETWEEN
  • The Mary Sue has noted his popularity in making Disco Elysium one of the best games ever written.[42] - perhaps "The Mary Sue has noted his popularity as a factor in making Disco Elysium one of the best games ever written.[42]"?

Overall, excellent piece. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through all the fixes. It's possible they might get another revision, depending on what other editors say. A note: I couldn't figure out how to fix the nitpick around File:Robert Kurvitz in 2020.jpg, and often have challenges dealing with images. I'm normally pretty good with everything else, but is this something you can help with? Shooterwalker (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]

Ah, how can I not jump in to review the best character of all time, the unrepentant spoilsport Kim Kitsuragi? Comments within the week, ping if I let it slide. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PMC: Checking back in. This nomination is still just under a week old, so take your time. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "As a non-playable companion to the player character, he assists in solving a murder as the central plot of the game" Not sure about the phrasing here. What about "As a non-playable companion, he assists the player character in solving the murder that drives the game's plot" or something like that?
  • "Created by..., Kitsuragi was created..." repetition of "created", and also, these two clauses don't go together. I might move the studio info to the first sentence, because it's not adding much here
  • "created from lead designer Robert Kurvitz's experience with tabletop role-playing games" The text doesn't link Kim to Kurvitz's TTRPG experience, and in fact, the source for the TTRPG doesn't mention Kim at all
  • "revealing Kitsuragi's character only in specific situations" - this seems to imply that Kim only appears for certain interactions. I think what you want is something more like "consequentially, Kitsuragi only reveals certain aspects of his personality in specific situations"; I'd set it off with a semi-colon
Appearances

I have some concerns with organization of this section, which feels disjointed. Although there's a limited number and no single-game character that's directly comparable, looking at other video game FAs like Chris Redfield or Lightning (Final Fantasy) gives an indication of how the best articles in this area are structured. "Appearances" concerns their role in the plot of their respective media, with other details like personality and design placed in the Concept section.

Meanwhile, in this article, Appearances is all over the place. Para 1 opens with plot, then gets into Kim's character, then real-world details of the game's development and merch. Then para 2 repeats the murder and expands some more on the plot, then para 3 gives us his personality details. I think you need to reorganize so Appearances only concerns his role in the plot, which could be expanded somewhat to compensate.

I'm going to stop here since there's not much point going further if there's going to be a radical rework. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I want to make some edits to improve this article, but I want to make sure we can get on the same page about the Appearances section. I tried to write the Appearances section in a WP:PYRAMID style, beginning with an overview of Kitsuragi's appearances (paragraph 1), a closer look at his role in the main plot (paragraph 2), and finishing with the finest details of his appearances in the game (paragraph 3). Your comment (and helpful rephrasing) that "Kitsuragi only reveals certain aspects of his personality in specific situations" is really instructive, because it explains how this character doesn't have the same linear story arc as most literary characters (or even game characters). This isn't just a random fact about Kitsuragi. It's literally what most of the sources discuss.
Expanding on his role in the plot would be incorrect, and not reflective of the majority of sources that give us paragraph three: Kitsuragi's notable moments of reactivity, as an interactive and non-linear game character. It might help to read the analysis and reception section (even short of a full FA review with comments) to understand how many reviewers fixate on Kitsuragi's appearances during the game's small moments of reactivity, with very little to say about Kitsuragi's overall story arc (or lack thereof). This is why there is an entire paragraph just about that.
As for the "Final Cut", merch, and collage mode, this is meant to describe Kitsuragi's appearances and portrayal outside of the original game release. I realize how merchandizing his bomber jacket might not exactly be an appearance, but merch is discussed under the appearances for other game character FA's including Ada Wong, Claire Redfield, Jill Valentine, Lightning (Final Fantasy), and Raichu. Would a new heading or subheading help?
Another idea would be to re-sequence the existing information. Currently, it's written WP:PYRAMID style, where paragraph 1 offers a comprehensive overview of all of his appearances, with the second and third paragraphs going into progressively more detail about his main appearance in the main game. I could move the merch and collage mode to the end of the section (and maybe even the "Final Cut" too, though it represents an expansion of his appearances in the main game that is hard to separate from the original release). Another idea that I don't like is to ignore the advice at WP:PYRAMID and WP:INUNIVERSE, instead writing this section in terms of the fictional chronology of the game. I would introducing the game's plot (all but the last sentence of paragraph 2), then describe the many smaller appearances in the middle (most of paragraph 3), and then finish with the game's ending (the last sentence in paragraph 2). (And the post-release stuff such as merch can appear right after.)
Your other comments about the lead are well-taken. I want to make sure I understand the best way to address the appearances section before I tackle these all at once. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you were going for, but nonetheless it reads as disorganized, especially when you compare it to FAs for other characters. Like I said, the first paragraph jumps around, and the second paragraph repeats information already mentioned in the first. Yes, merchandise is mentioned in other articles, but in its own paragraph separate from the plot summary (often its own section), and balanced by a larger plot section that actually explains their role in the story of their respective games. And again, personality/characterization is generally placed within the Concept or Character design section, not within Appearances. I've played the game, I'm familiar with Kim's reactivity as a character. But I've also written and reviewed my share of Featured Articles, and with a focus on article structure, and I can generally tell when something isn't working. Following a pyramidal structure is not mandatory (the page even says articles are not usually structured this way), and I don't think it's working for you in this section.
Producing a summary of Kim's role in major plot beats (like the tribunal maybe? "Kim truly trusts you" is practically the emotional high point of the entire game) is not in violation of WP:INUNIVERSE, and I'm not sure why you would think it is. Other VG character FAs spend much longer describing their role in their respective stories, in order to give the reader context to the real-world reception and analyses that follow. It simply doesn't make sense to not have that information here as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am worried about expanding on a plot point that none of the secondary sources have particularly spent time on, while having me remove moments of the character's appearances that the secondary sources do focus on.
I am also concerned about eliminating the fact that he is represented in merch, expansions, and re-releases. That's why I brought up WP:INUNIVERSE, as it seems like you're asking me to remove real world context to put the main plot of the singular game ahead of what reliable sources have discussed.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your request. I can see the merit in re-sequencing and even expanding the section, but certainly not eliminating the moments of his appearances that are discussed extensively by secondary sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood my comment. The only thing I've asked to be removed entirely, as opposed to simply moved, is the photo mode detail, which is misleading as currently written. Everything else is largely worth keeping, but needs re-organization and expansion. Per MOS:PLOTCITE, you don't need secondary citations for plot information. Primary references are acceptable for this purpose, as long as you're not performing any interpretation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I think I understand your concerns and did my best to address them. Take a look at the new version. I am slightly concerned that the big changes caused this section to lose the polish from many other editors' feedback. I'm even tempted to revert to the prior version. But if you think it's on the right track, I would like to keep going. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos following up as a courtesy. I do agree PMC's take on the first one, but maybe Shooterwalker already handled it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances 2.0
  • The article's structure is still reversed from WP:VGORDER, which is part of the MOS. All FAs must be MOS-compliant, and structure is specifically noted.
  • As a nitpick, I'd move the quote box to the right, it's a bit jarring to start with a left-placed item. Won't die on the hill of it.
  • "with additional voiced dialog featured the game's 2021 remastered edition" missing word here I think
  • Not much has actually been done to address my concerns. The paragraph structure is still awkward, particularly para 2.
    • Para 1 is fine if short, although sentence 2 from para 2 is a bit repetitive of sentence 2 from para 1, both of which describe Kim as the player's partner
    • Para 2 starts with plot for 2 sentences, then dips into his appearance, then goes into Kim's personality, then his responses to the player. A paragraph should concern a single point or idea and this one covers several.
    • Para 3 is better-focused than 2; all of the content concerns Kim's interactions with Harry, which is good. I appreciate the addition of the sentence about losing his trust and possibly getting him shot. On re-read, I'm more inclined to see this as belonging in appearances.
  • At the end of the day, I still think the article would benefit from a straightforward synopsis of what Kim and Harry actually do together. Even 3-4 sentences covering the forced story beats - "Kim and Harry conduct an autopsy, investigate a local labor dispute, wind up in a firefight, and track down the shooter" - would provide some actual context. We can't assume the reader is familiar with the game's plot.
      • "The autopsy" is specifically highlighted in the Analysis and Reception sections, but is never previously mentioned in the article!
  • "Kitsuragi's popularity led additional appearances" missing another word here
  • The statement about Collage Mode has actually been made more misleading, as it now implies that Kim's popularity led to him being included in Collage Mode. This is flatly incorrect - every single character in the game is included in that mode. It has nothing to do with Kim's popularity.
Concept
  • The ZA/UM background feels like it could be condensed. For example, Kim doesn't appear in Sacred, so the reader doesn't really need that to understand his concept.
  • "Kurvitz tried to expand..." this pertains more to the game in general, as everyone in it is microreactive, not just Kim. What you might want to do with all the broad-strokes game design info is put that into one paragraph at the beginning of this section, then start a second paragraph in which you drill down into Kim's reactivity
  • You have "occasionally" in two successive sentences here
  • "In comparison to the player character, the writers discussed what attributes and beliefs that Kitsuragi might have." It's not clear from the article that "attributes" (and "volition" in the following sentence) refers to in-game stats, and "beliefs" likely refers to the in-game thought cabinet mechanic.
  • "they discovered actor..." there's no need to cite the same source twice in one sentence
  • "Champenois recalls" - should be past tense
  • "ultimately" does nothing for the sentence and should be removed
  • "In the expanded Final Cut, Champenois became one of the few original actors retained for voice performance." could be simplified to "Champenois was one of the few original voice actors retained for the expanded Final Cut"
Analysis
  • "In the Cyberpsychology Journal..." the reference at the end of this sentence is the Wired article, not the Klimczyk paper
  • "achieves a Brechtian distancing effect" I think you need to explain this a little more, as right now it's meaningless to anyone who doesn't already know who Brecht is and what he wrote about distancing effects.
  • "when he says, 'I'd rather not talk about it."" - what is the "it" that he isn't talking about?
  • "which focus more" - "focuses" is the correct tense; "hardboiled detective fiction" is singular, not plural
  • I might break up para 2 a bit. There's enough for a separate paragraph on the racism and his queerness
  • "TheGamer has noted him..." this is reception, not analysis. So is Gab Hernandez's comment.
Reception
  • There's some redundancy in para 1, which both opens and closes by saying that commentators frequently praise the character
  • "Kitsuragi is celebrated for his role in the game's most memorable moments" - such as? This is why we need the plot beats, imo - how can the reader understand the character if they don't know what moments he's being praised for contributing to?
  • "The Mary Sue has noted Kitsuragi" - "noted" here makes it sound like objective fact. "argued" maybe, or "felt that". Also, please attribute to a person, since the article has an author.
  • Para 2 uses "moments" four times in five sentences
  • "A promotional booth at Eurogamer Expo 2022 featured a portrait of Kitsuragi, which received a flood of fan mail and fan art of the character." This would be better placed up with the bomber jacket. It concerns Kim's use in promotional material and it supports the assertion made there about Kim's popularity with fans. (I might reword the last clause a bit, as presently it reads that the portrait received fan mail, and a portrait cannot receive anything.)
  • The bomber jacket reception could be trimmed right down and included in the merch section.
  • "some suggesting that it contradicted Kitsuragi's character" in what way can a non-canonical non-narrative photo mode contradict a character
  • The "Accolades" division does not make sense. These types of sections are intended to contain specific awards, but most of what's here is simply more critical reception. Adventure Gamers and Fanbyte are both actual awards that should be named, whereas critics casually saying that Kim is one of the best characters or relationships should be integrated into the reception section.
  • "as well as Fanbyte" this could just be "and Fanbyte"

That's me for now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shooterwalker, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel good that most of these comments are addressed, with additional reviews of the prose from IceWelder and Toadspike, plus the prior reviews by BP! and Crisco 1492. I disagreed with Premeditated Chaos about adding primary sourced plot details to the appearance section. Even if there's some debate about whether that type of plot summary is normal practice or WP:OR, these aren't the plot details that are discussed in independent reliable sources, and so they are somewhat irrelevant to the character's reception. I did add enough to understand the beginning and end of the story, with a link to the main game article for those who want to know more. If there's anything else, I'm happy to make further tweaks and changes. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to chime in here: PMC did not ask you to "[add] primary sourced plot detailed to the appearances section". As an experienced editor with over 30 FAs, she highlighted WP:PLOTCITE: there is no need to source basic plot elements.
I'm only leaving this comment because this is the 3rd or 4th time I've noticed you object to content on the basis of OR when there is none – I strongly recommend you review that policy again because I think you may be misunderstanding what it means. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding my point, and we're talking about the same thing in different words. I did not feel comfortable adding plot elements without sources. I'll just repeat: "Even if there's some debate about whether that type of plot summary is normal practice or WP:OR, these aren't the plot details that are discussed in independent reliable sources, and so they are somewhat irrelevant to the character's reception." I'm just not going to add unsourced plot details unless independent reliable sources have found them relevant. Having thoroughly reviewed the research, I am confident I have included all relevant plot details for this character, as determined by the sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and citation formats by BP!

[edit]
  • Most of the publishers/websites aren't linked yet
  • ref 21, Destructoid wasn't italicized yet
  • What makes Phenixx Gaming, Comic Book Resources (this is probably a low quality source as a valnet only in video games that should be removed), Vooks, Sirus Gaming reliable? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing the source review. Let me see if I can address these concerns:
    • Comic Book Resources: Valnet is listed as "Situational" at WP:VG/RS. I wouldn't want to set a bad precedent where CBR is given more than its due weight. But I think the declaration of "gaming's best companion" is worth mentioning and preserving.
    • Vooks: This one has an editor-in-chief[56], and has been operating for 25 years.
    • Sirus Gaming: This one has an editor-in-chief and process for reporting issues with their reviews.[57]
    • Phenixx Gaming: This one has an editor-in-chief[58], and talks about transparency and credibility in their "About Us".
    If I had to stick up for one, it would be Phenixx Gaming. There is also some nuance around the use of Valnet, and how to use it situationally. I would normally let these shorter mentions go, but with a lot of reliable news sites being decimated by layoffs, I think it's important to support the less famous sites that still show a commitment to fact-checking and accuracy. Let's keep discussing. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I guess I don't have other issues with this article so far. However, you would also make sure to italicize game and film titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I reviewed the article and looked for instances that needed italics. I did my best, but let me know if I missed anything. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. I'll support this nomination. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review and the support. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up sourcing thoughts
[edit]

Hello. I want to provide some additional commentary on sourcing, particularly Vooks, Comic Book Resources, Sirius Gaming and Phennix Gaming.

  • An editor-in-chief, "report a problem" webpage, and claims of credibility are not firm indicators of reliability. Could you please provide ethics and editorial policies for each of these sites? If it can't, the information should be removed; they don't look credible to me and layoffs elsewhere in the industry, sadly, don't change that.
  • There are 6 citations to an interview with the subject's voice actor.
  • As far as I can see, the site has no editorial policy and the interviewer is not a professional journalist.
  • It was a WordPress site (now offline).
  • It isn't clear who provided the translation ("Kowden") and there is no copy of the original text.
  • All of this makes a judgement on the "who, what, where, why" of interviews-as-sources quite challenging.
  • There is another interview on the page (with the game's art director) that does provide a link to the original Hungarian translation.
  • Usually I would query the inclusion of conference papers, but the writer Jon Stone is an academic with publications in The Guardian and elsewhere, so I think this is fine.
  • I understand you're working with what you have access to, but less than 25% of the sources used seem to be directly about the character. I won't fault this but want to highlight.

Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in. I tried to avoid scholarly sources that are just random undergraduate papers, focusing on reputable journals. The academic papers should all be fine. I agree with you about the WP:WEIGHT on the voice actor. It's generally bad form to spend several sentences on a single source, and I was trying to WP:PRESERVE what previous editors had written before I began work on this article.
Other editors have raised similar concerns, so I'm going to make a few changes. I wanted to confirm:
  • I'll reduce the summary of the interview with the voice actor to one sentence, per WP:WEIGHT.
  • I'll remove Vooks and Sirius Gaming as they don't add anything that other sources don't already cover.
  • I'll keep the Digital Games Research Association paper from Jon Stone.
Would that address everything? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Shooter. What about Comic Book Resources?
I'm not questioning the VA interview based on WP:WEIGHT (I don't understand how that applies)—it's about WP:Verifiability. There is no way to confirm, for example, that it was an actual interview with the person, or that it was accurately translated, because the website is down and, even if it wasn't, it appears to be a blog that ascribes the translation to a gamer tag (!). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs)
Just to clarify: the issue isn't that the site is down, but that the site being down prevents me from searching for an editorial policy, in addition to the other issues raised. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the person who unearthed the interview, so it's been hard to dig deep and find an editorial policy. But I did find the original French.[59] And it is normal at FA to allow more raw interviews, as long as the claims are not controversial or unduly self-serving. Alternatively, I could probably replace some of it with this other interview.[60]
I'm not a fan of CBR. But a consensus of editors have found that it can be used in narrow circumstances. They pump out a lot of low quality journalism, and I'm strongly against it being used to establish notability (when they produce 12 articles about the same thing), or verify facts that are in doubt (when they seem to repeat things they see on random social media sites without much fact-checking). However, WP:VGSOURCES says about CBR that "opinions presented in editorials or list entries that satisfy WP:SIGCOV may be used sparingly to augment reception where notability has been established by stronger sources." I've used it sparingly here to indicate one more publication that celebrates this character.
Let me know if that satisfies your concerns and I'll complete the edits accordingly. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you replace the interview we can't verify (or see in its original language) with the interview in English, I'm content to sign off from a sourcing POV. If you need additional prose reviews after the others are done, you can summon me back with a ping. Thanks — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers: Just catching up on the backlog after a busy time. I went through the article and the borderline sources should be replaced or removed now. Let me know if that addresses your concerns. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from a sourcing perspective. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check

[edit]

Reviewing this version:

  1. 2 Where does it speak of his first appearance? I don't see calm and stoic either here or the other source. Nor the part about the statistics.
  2. 4 OK
  3. 8 OK
  4. 9 OK
  5. 11 OK
  6. 13 OK
  7. 15 OK
  8. 16 OK
  9. 20 OK
  10. 34 I am not sure that citing only the first author is the right way to cite a paper. And where does it draw a connection to the Brecht distancing?
  11. 35 OK
  12. 38 OK
  13. 39 OK
  14. 41 OK
  15. 44 OK
  16. 45 OK
  17. 48 OK
  18. 50 OK
  19. 52 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The appearances section is in the process of a serious overall, or potentially being reverted. But I'll speak to the comments for the other sections:
  • Re: "statistics".[2]
    • "Imagining that Lieutenant Kitsuragi has only one natural attribute pointin Motorics helps the ZA/UM team to understand the depth of his character ..." -> I changed it to attributes, just to stay closer to the source.
  • Re: "Brecht".[34]
    • "Further, the game utilizes luck mechanics, causing you to fail tests when trying to empathize or care for other characters in the game and making life harder for your partner, Kim Kitsuragi. It is constantly communicated to you, the player, that Harry Du Bois and his relatively low control over himself and his faculties, make it impossible to always do the right thing."
    • "Harry Du Bois is not a sympathetic character which the player pities or looks up to, instead the player is forced to connect with him on a different level, as described by Brecht (Willet, 1964). This distanced connection, ... allows for critical reflection"
The last one is trying to summarize a long article in a single sentence, but this is the essence of it. If we can at least check those ones off, we can revisit the other uses of source 2 just as soon as I get word about the prose review above. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just following up on this. I've worked with a few other editors to re-work some aspects of the article, including source reviews from BP! and ImaginesTigers. Do you feel that I have addressed your issues? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but note that I didn't recheck the appearances section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Between the reviews from BP! and ImaginesTigers, and my work to match your feedback, I feel confident we have it. The words "calm", "stoic" appear in the sources, and I changed "statistics" to "attributes" to match the source there, too. Thanks again for the spot check. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from IceWelder

[edit]

Fair warning: I have never played the game before. Comments are in order of reading.

Lead
  • Consider unlinking "video game" per MOS:SEAOFBLUE
  • "... in solving a murder that comprises the game's main plot." - "comprising" suggests that the murder-solving extends beyond the plot. Is this correct? If so, the sentence should at least mention what else it encompasses. Otherwise, "makes up" may be a suitable alternative.
  • Butting in on someone else's comment to say I don't think this makes sense. "Comprises" means "to be made up of", and does not imply that anything "extends beyond the plot". (I'm not sure what that even means to be honest). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only knew "to comprise" as in "to contain" or "to be made up of", so saying "a murder that comprises the game's main plot" read to me as "a murder that contains the plot", which I would have expected to be the other way around. I just looked it up and apparently it has two competing definitions that mean the opposite of each other? Ugh! Feel free to disregard my comment. IceWelder [✉] 20:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "stoic" uncommon enough that it should be linked? Ditto for "deadpan".
  • Suggestion: "Created by the Estonian studio ZA/UM, Kitsuragi was designed under the direction of Robert Kurvitz" -> "Kitsuragi was designed by the Estonian studio ZA/UM under the direction of Robert Kurvitz".
  • Is Estonia a "major" country per WP:OL, such that it shouldn't be linked?
  • "deciding to reveal different aspects" - "different" is redundant here.
  • "Kitsuragi was also celebrated" - redundant "also".
  • "... and voice performance" - were there any other performances? Otherwise, "voice" is redundant.
Appearances
  • "Lieutenant Kim Kitsuragi is assigned to partner with Harrier "Harry" Du Bois, the player character.":
    • The full name has already been mentioned, so it doesn't need to be repeated.
    • Harry's name, which I think can be shortened to "Harry Du Bois", should be moved up a paragraph to where the character is first mentioned.
    • The sentence also repeats that Harry is the player character.
    • What department is each character from? If they come from different departments, why are they not rivals like the departments are?
  • Additional comments after rewording:
    • "two different police departments" -> "two police departments".
    • "When both police districts" -> "When both departments".
    • "to partner with the player character" -> "to partner with Du Bois".
  • Is the bomber jacket his "signature" merely to the player or also in-universe, i.e. known to other characters as always wearing it?
  • Bomber jacket is very linkable.
  • "Kitsuragi is depicted wearing ... visible heritage from "Seol"" - Perhaps there is a verb missing here?
    • This sentence was restructured but it still reads weird: "Kitsuragi is depicted with ... his visible heritage from "Seol"". Perhaps "his" could be "a".
      • I have tried fixing this by removing "his" entirely. This sentence is still a little odd but in my opinion is now good enough. Toadspike [Talk]
  • The explanation of Seol should be at most separated by a comma, as it is quite relevant. Parentheses suggest minor importance.
  • "Kitsuragi serves a source of professionalism" -> "Kitsuragi serves as a source of professionalism"?
  • "Other times, he responds with" -> "He may respond with"?
  • "Different aspects of Kitsuragi's character" - "Different", as above.
  • "which also contribute to the game's tone" - I feel like this is a given, no?
  • "he sometimes cooperates with the player's more eccentric behaviors, and even shows moments of vulnerability"
    • No Oxford comma between dependent clauses.
    • The "even" indicates that this is not usually the case in the game. Is that correct?
      • I checked the source [61], which says "an empathetic enough detective can manage to uncover brief moments of vulnerability from Lt. Kitsuragi". I think this shows that this is not usually the case. Toadspike [Talk]
  • "In contrast, the player can also lose Kitsuragi's trust, or even cause him to be shot and hospitalized." - Oxford comma and "even", as above.
    • This was fixed by someone else, but removing the yellow circle makes the square bracket part ungrammatical, so I am leaving this note instead. Toadspike [Talk]
  • "including marketing and merchandise for his signature orange bomber jacket" - Since the jacket has already been introduced, this mention could be shortened to just "his bomber jacket" or even "his jacket".
  • "an 2023" -> "a 2023".
  • "where players" -> "wherein the player"?
Concept and creation
  • The image of Kurvitz looks suspiciously like a screenshot from a video link. Are we positive that the image can feasibly be under a free license?
    • Even if it is a screenshot from a video call, I'm not sure that violates copyright law. The only issue I can think of is that he might not know the photo was taken (no consent), but commons:COM:CSCR does not list Estonia. This website mentions a Personal Data Protection Act but also says "use for journalistic purposes and media coverage is permitted without a person’s consent". Please let me know if you have thoughts on this or other concerns about this image. Toadspike [Talk] 10:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that, on a video link, Kurvitz is essentially recording himself, thus the copyright belongs to him. Taking a screenshot does not make one the originator of the work. Use for journalistic purposes sounds to me like an equivalent of a fair-use (not free-use) license. IceWelder [✉] 12:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the 2019 video game Disco Elysium" - The game has already been introduced, so this can be shortened.
  • "Lead designer and writer Robert Kurvitz" - The article doesn't consistently work with false titles, so I'd suggest getting rid of them outright.
  • "his tabletop role-playing game experience, and the Elysium setting" - Bad Oxford comma.
  • "Sacred And Terrible Air ." -> "Sacred and Terrible Air." (Title Case and odd space).
  • "find the player character amusing, and occasionally indulge him" - Oxford comma, as above.
  • ""gives him a warmth that's so endearing."" -> Punctuation should be outside the quotes per MOS:LQ.
  • "what attributes and beliefs that Kitsuragi might have" - Redundant "that".
  • "not implemented in game" -> "not implemented in the game".
  • The player character cannot kiss Kim, but are there other romancing options (like flirting)? If not, this sentence should be generalized a bit.
  • "Kurvitz sees Kitsuragi as" -> "Kurvitz saw Kitsuragi as" (indirect quote).
  • "what he does for the officer is what Disco Elysium tries ..."
    • The quote is a full sentence, so I feel it should start capitalized (like the source).
    • The omission of "Let's get through this shit, it says." feels odd, as I understand that "this shit" is the "It" in "It's not fair". In my opinion, the fragment should be restored.
      • It looks like "It's not fair" has been removed, but I agree that the middle part of that quote should be included. It would be pretty long though – 45 words – so I think MOS:BQ would require a blockquote for it. Toadspike [Talk]
        • I've reworded the sentence slightly and used the quote in full. MOS:BQ is a bit vague on what it considers a "long quote" - I chose to interpret Wired's quote as not requiring a quote block. IceWelder [✉] 18:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about Revachol makes it require a French-ish accent? Is it in another country or do people from that town just generally talk like that?
    • Disco Elysium#Setting explains that the setting is in a fictional world and mentions no connection to France. The source doesn't explain either. I think this is just ~vibes~ from the creators and doesn't need to be justified in the article. Toadspike [Talk]
  • "by hiring a voiceover agency" -> "though a voice-over agency".
  • "Lead writer Robert Kurvitz" -> "Kurvitz" as he was already introduced in this section.
  • "Kurvitz recalls" -> "Kurvitz recalled".
  • "artistic director Jim Ashilevi" - also remove the false title here.
  • "... found parallels between himself and Kitsuragi, and ultimately called upon ..." - Bad Oxford comma.
  • "Champenois became one of the few original actors retained for voice performance" - I don't think "retained" means he was kept on call. Perhaps: "Champenois was one of the few original actors who recorded additional dialog". Also, were the rest recast, such that the actor was central to this point, or did only a few characters get extra lines, meaning Kitsuragi was key?
Analysis
  • "Taylor-Giles highlights Kitsuragi's reactions during the autopsy sequence" - What autopsy sequence?
    • The autopsy is briefly mentioned above: "As Du Bois struggles with a hangover and memory loss, Kitsuragi guides him to the murder victim to conduct an autopsy, becoming a source of competence and advice." Is this enough of a mention? Toadspike [Talk]
  • Lena Aeschbach
    • False title.
    • The original source also gives the name as "Lena Fanya Aeschbach". Since you otherwise use the full author names, I'd do so here as well.
    • Said source also lists two more authors; can the statement be attributed to Aeschbach alone?
      • I agree that the other authors should be listed – would "Aeschbach et al." be okay here? I feel like having a full name + et al is overkill, as is three full names. Toadspike [Talk]
  • The distancing effect is Brechtian by nature, so that fragment may be removed. It would also resolve the MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
  • "Kitsuragi's role as a moral authority and a voice of reason" -> Repeated article can be removed.
  • "Kitsuragi is often highlighted" -> "Kitsuragi was often highlighted" (at the time these pieces were written).
  • "Evan Bernick cites Kim's reactions" - For consistency, "Evan D. Bernick" and "Kitsuragi".
  • What are the "guarded political hopes of the game's authors"? Assuming that the game contains direct political commentary, this context has not been provided in this article yet.
    • I think "guarded" here is a euphemism for "there are no political hopes". The article it cites is fairly critical about Disco Elysium not taking any political position/stand. A better, more direct wording could be proposed, but I have removed the yellow circle here for now as I don't think more context is needed. Toadspike [Talk]
  • "when he says, 'I'd rather not talk about it.""
    • -> "when he says "I'd rather not talk about it."".
    • Is it important in what context this is said?
  • Why are NME and TheGamer singled out as outlets without attached author names?
  • That Seol is fictional has already been established and doesn't need to be repeated here.
    • I'd disagree – the two mentions are separated by a section and the end of this sentence is specifically about "real life", so the reminder and emphasis is warranted. Toadspike [Talk]
  • "The Mary Sue also reacted" -> "The Mary Sue reacted".
  • "Journalist Dmitry King" - False title.
  • "TheGamer has noted" -> "TheGamer noted".
  • Clarify that Gab Hernandez is also of TheGamer.
  • "Kim" -> "Kitsuragi".
  • The repeated "as" in the quote can be removed.
  • Noticing how there is a reception section coming up, everything from the PC Gamer entry already felt like reception. Perhaps you can find ways to better arrange and separate the two functions.
Reception
  • "Kim Kitsuragi is frequently praised" -> "Kim Kitsuragi was frequently praised".
  • A few more MOS:LQ instances across this section should be fixed.
  • "OVerall," is redundant.
  • "The Mary Sue has noted"
    • -> "The Mary Sue noted".
    • Who at The Mary Sue did so?
    • Saying that Kitsuragi was merely "a factor" of the writing's reception is probably an understatement, as being a major character makes this a given. Was it a "major factor", perhaps?
  • "highlights" doesn't need to be in quotes.
  • "Nintendo World Report remembers" -> "Nintendo World Report remembered".
  • "MacGregor" -> "Macgregor".
  • Moving "[Kitsuragi's]" outside the quote or paraphrasing it would avoid the brackets.
  • "the player can simply allow Kitsuragi" - Are any other allowances difficult to perform? Otherwise, I'd remove the "simply".
  • "RPG Site writer George Foster" - False title.
  • "feeling an emotional bond as they danced together, nodded at each other, and shared a stolen sandwich" - These exact situations were already mentioned earlier. Perhaps this can be shortened.
  • "Eurogamer Expo 2022" -> "EGX London 2022". Also linkable to EGX (expo).
  • "release of an official Kitsuragi-themed bomber jacket"
    • "official" is redundant.
    • Assuming you now have it linked earlier, the bomber jacket can be unlinked here.
  • "Collage Mode"
    • The mode was previously in lower-case but it should be consistent. If this is a proper name, Title Case is fine.
    • The year was already mentioned prior and could be removed here.
    • The pricing (free) was not mentioned earlier, but for consistency I believe it should be where the original mention of the Collage Mode is, not here.
    • Bad Oxford comma in the subsequent sentence.
  • I would include "ZA/UM's ongoing" in the subsequent link, similar to WP:OFTHESAMENAME.
Accolades
  • The site and newspaper call themselves "The Blade" instead of "The Toledo Blade", as does the paper's Wikipedia article. The text should reflect that, and the "The" should be within the link as it is part of the name.
  • "favorite game character of the year, who felt he" - This suggests Kitsuragi is feeling it, please revise.
  • More MOS:LQ cases here as well.
  • TheGamer again appears without author attribution, as do those citing Kitsuragi as one of the best companions.
  • "PC Gamer ranked Kitsuragi's non-romantic relationship ..." - missing italics and author.
  • The edits to PC Gammer's quote feel odd when the original is perfectly servicable. I recommend using it verbatim.
  • "Lead writer Robert Kurvitz and the rest of the ZA/UM team" -> "The ZA/UM team".
  • "Kim" -> "Kitsuragi".
  • "positive reception, mentioning that he received a lot of positive comments" - The lot of positive comments should constitute the positive reception, pheraps avoid this repetition.
References
  • Phenixx Gaming, Vooks, and Sirus Gaming all feel like unreliable sources as their senior staff have no professional credits, even if they call themselves "editor-in-chief". I wouldn't have passed them in a GAN review and strongly advocate for their removal in this FAC.
  • DOIs, ISBNs, and ISSNs are used inconsistently. It should suffice to have only DOIs for all scientific publications and only ISBNs for books.
  • In the source directly from ZA/UM, the company should be noted as the publisher, not the work, and the name should be the common name of "ZA/UM" instead of "ZA/UM Studio".
  • The German sources missing trans-titles, the GamePro one also a language tag.
  • "Rock, Paper, Shotgun" should be "Rock Paper Shotgun".
  • Critical Hits is the only cite with an attached quote. For consistency, this one can probably go too.

I haven't checked the sources for their contents and will trust the above spots checks on this. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 19:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Put in a few hours on Wikipedia today, and left this til the end, though I'm starting to lose focus. I did my best to cover off most of your comments and suggestions. If there's anything that I didn't address properly, or at all, just let me know. I plan on coming back to it and catching any remaining issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've only managed to briefly gloss over the changes for now, but I did notice that some points were not (fully) addressed, such as clarifying which department each officer belongs to in the appearance introduction. The sources with a lesser appearance of reliability are also still present. Please note if there is anything you can't or won't resolve. I'll look at going into more detail during the weekend. IceWelder [✉] 23:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IceWelder, how are you doing with this one? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Nominator has left a comment at the top of the page, just in case you didn't see it — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just popping back on. I am still following this, but wasn't counting on the FAC process dragging out to 6 weeks. I won't be able to give this serious attention until later this month. If it becomes necessary to withdraw and renominate, I won't take it personally. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the ping. I went through my points again and noted what hasn't been addressed yet with a 🟡. IceWelder [✉] 18:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:IceWelder, very thorough. Shooterwalker is on a Wikibreak at the moment, but will hopefully wrap these up once they are back. For information, the use of graphics on FAC nomination pages is discouraged , per the FAC instructions. They "slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives." Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I used emojis (functionally like letters) in place of images, I don't think load times will be greatly impacted. I can still replace them if you need me to, of course. As for Shooterwalker's absence, I probably read this shortly after the posted message, which made the issue slip my mind over the subsequent weekend. I'm not in any kind of hurry, I'd just wish the nomination to remain open, if possible, such that I wouldn't need to copy-paste my points to a prospective second nomination. IceWelder [✉] 19:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my preference as well. I suspect that the article needs only a few easy fixes now, just that my brain can't keep track of them at this exact moment. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IceWelder: I unquoted highlights, and I believe the issue of not naming the authors of the TheGamer and NME articles is no longer the case. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Cukie Gherkin. Indeed, the missing authors were already fixed, hence the lack of 🟡 after my recent re-read. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 14:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, apologies, I misread and thought it had the emoji attached. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made more changes (edit summaries should clarify which, except 'clarified' which was relevant to the Gab Hernandez note). I will also comment that I agree with the removal of Vooks, Phenixx Gaming, and Sirus Gaming. Vooks and Sirus Gaming especially, as they are used to say very little. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Feel free to strike through (or remove the 🟡) of the points you've addressed to help me (and later likely Shooterwalker) keep track of that. IceWelder [✉] 18:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I considered removing the emoji but I didn't want to overstep. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IceWelder: I don't think Estonia counts is a "major" country (emphasis not mine). No offense to Estonia, but they have a population under 1.5 million and it is entirely understandable if a reader would like to click on a link to learn more about it. Toadspike [Talk] 10:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also done some fixes, removing the yellow circle emoji where appropriate and replying where I disagreed with you. Please take a look when you have time. Hopefully I can do the rest soon, it hurts to see a FAC so close to promotion at risk of being archived because the nom is busy. Toadspike [Talk] 15:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and will look over everything shortly. Perhaps a few bold edits will follow. IceWelder [✉] 17:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Made a few edits, three 🟡s remain that I cannot answer on my own. IceWelder [✉] 18:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your work towards improving this article. Would it help if we replaced the image with File:Robert Kurvitz.png? This is the only other image of Kurvitz on Commons, and I found nothing else on Google Images and Flickr. I am also not opposed to simply removing the image with no replacement, since this one is fairly low-res. The answer to the flirting question is probably in source 17. I agree with your point about reception in the Analysis section, especially quotes like "one of the best representations of an Asian immigrant story I've seen in a video game" and "one of the most iconic gay characters in video games", which are very much judging the quality of the character/writing and not analyzing the character himself. I am busy at the moment but if no-one gets to it before me I will try to look at each quote individually to see where it fits best. Toadspike [Talk] 20:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than nothing for sure, so I put it in immediately. The other one was identified as copyvio and deleted after I put it up for notice at Commons. I'll look into source 17 tomorrow (probably) unless someone gets ahead of us both. IceWelder [✉] 21:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source 17 didn't mention the player having any romantic interaction with Kim and calls the relationship "platonic". I did a web search, and an assortment of other reliable and non-reliable sources confirm that the player cannot romance Kim: Answers to this Reddit post say this explicitly, Phenixx Gaming (much-discussed above) doesn't mention it and says "There aren’t more explorations of sexuality beyond this to my knowledge", this Ginx article explicitly says it's not possible, and TheGamer (ref 51) covers some of this in relation to the Collage Mode controversy.
tldr; no, it seems like you cannot romance Kim. Toadspike [Talk] 10:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your original comment said "If not, this sentence should be generalized a bit". I agree, but the sentence is currently describing a quote, so I can't just add romance, since that is not what Keenan said. Tacking on another short sentence after the quote seems awkward. Do you have an elegant way to phrase this? Toadspike [Talk] 10:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "Although Kitsuragi was written as attracted to the same gender, his relationship with Du Bois remains platonic, a decision that writer Justin Keenan felt would heighten the player's desire to romance him."? IceWelder [✉] 20:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That reads smoothly, but Keenan didn't say that exactly. The question was "Why can’t we kiss Kim?", to which he answered "Because the thing about desire is that it’s stronger when it’s not totally satisfied." [62]
How does this sound: 'Although Kitsuragi was written as attracted to the same gender, his relationship with Du Bois remains platonic. When asked why the player cannot kiss Kitsuragi, writer Justin Keenan responded: "Because the thing about desire is that it’s stronger when it’s not totally satisfied."' Toadspike [Talk] 08:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The writer Justin Keenan sought the lack of a kissing option to heighten the player's desire for one."? IceWelder [✉] 20:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this version is too compact. Toadspike's suggested version flows nicely. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've put my version into the article [63]. I think "the lack of a kissing option" sounds a little too technical, but IceWelder and others should feel free to adjust my wording as needed. Toadspike [Talk] 10:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a busy few weeks but I should finally have enough time to give this some proper attention. Maybe this weekend, if I have clear feedback? It looks like a few other editors have stepped in to clean up some of the writing (and even a photo), and I appreciate the help. It all looks to be constructive and consistent with the research I've put into this article.
I admit I've lost track of where we stand now, and what issues are big enough to keep this from FA status. I'll @IceWelder: and at least start there. What does this article still need? Shooterwalker (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great to have you back, @Shooterwalker! A few editors helped out with addressing my points in the meantime. The only two points still outstanding from my first pass are marked with 🟡s above. I'll try to give the article a proper second pass on Sunday. IceWelder [✉] 20:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see many markers for 🟡, which is progress. I saw your point about how sometimes the analysis section starts to feel a bit like reception. There is a lot of discussion of this character in reliable sources, and I'm looking for ways to organize this under different headings / sub headings, so the reader isn't confronted with one giant section of reception. Some blurriness aside, I think I've done a good job, but I'm open to other suggestions. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker May I suggest moving the two sentences from "Madeline Carpou of The Mary Sue" until the end of the Analysis section down into Reception? Those sentences describe how Kim is one of the best Asian and gay characters, which definitely feels more like reception to me. Other than that, I think the distribution of quotes across both sections is good. Toadspike [Talk] 11:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a simple fix. @IceWelder, do you feel that would address your remaining concerns? Shooterwalker (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say so, yep. IceWelder [✉] 19:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made the change [64]. I had to mention the Racist Lorry Driver by name for continuity, since that scene is now mentioned in two sections, but otherwise there shouldn't be anything controversial. Toadspike [Talk] 13:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I re-worked the section a little, to focus on flow and organization. @IceWelder, let me know if that covers everything. (Thanks again to @Toadspike and @Boneless Pizza! for the assist.) Shooterwalker (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had another good read today (and made an AI voice read it to me), and I think I'm happy with the current form. Support from my side! Regards, IceWelder [✉] 16:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tweaks and the support. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"For most of the story, Kitsuragi remains aloof, calm, and stoic."[2][3][10][11][12] I think these citations can be bundled together so that it will look clean. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of "citation dumped" in response to an earlier comment that those descriptors weren't clearly cited. I cut it back to three, which should hopefully be enough. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An actual review and support (Toadspike)

[edit]

I'm reading over the whole article again so that I can leave a formal support. I've fixed some things directly, and I will note others here for discussion.

  • "spending more time" sounds odd. I would expect the first day to be explained before all the other days (currently it's backwards) and "more" begs the question "more than what"? I suggest replacing these three words with "taking time", which says that they spent time on this without making a comparison.
The source, via Google Translate, says "The first day was the longest and slowest. We had to find the right tone, create Kim's vocal vocabulary, explore the range of intonations he was capable of, exclude those that didn't suit him. It wasn't about following a pre-existing model but creating from scratch, under the guidance of my two talented colleagues. The following days went by with more and more ease and fun."
  • Looks like this has now been fixed – thanks, Shooterwalker!
  • I have reworked the descriptions of academic works at the start of the Analysis section. They should all be good now. Some were originally misleading – researchers who get a paper published in a journal are not "writing for" that journal, the paper is written long before the journal gets involved. Also, Evan D. Bernick's essay on SSRN is essentially unreviewed and self-published; since the author is a subject matter expert I have no problem with the article citing this essay, as long as we describe it correctly.

I've read through the whole article now, fixed a few more small things, and am ready to support this FAC on prose quality and sourcing. Toadspike [Talk] 15:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the support. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from KGRAMR

[edit]

I decided to take a look upon the article to see if there are any lingering issues but i didn't found any at all during my rundown. My only comment would be putting the "Concept and creation" section first, the "Appearances" section second, the "Reception" section third and the Analysis section last. To be honest, that it's more of a recommendation than a obligatory change to the article. Other than that, i give this FAC my support. Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I'll stick with the sequence for now, but if other editors raise it I may revisit. I'm following the template from Ada Wong or Ur-Quan, where we tell readers what the thing is before we tell the reader how it's made. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 March 2025 [65].

The River (Bruce Springsteen album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Bruce Springsteen's fifth album, a party record...but also not. After being promoted to GA back in October, I opened a PR, where a source review was conducted by LunaEclipse, and now I'm hoping it's ready for the star. I'm looking forward to comments and concerns. This follows my previous Springsteen FAs Darkness on the Edge of Town and Born to Run, and will one day be followed by Nebraska and Born in the U.S.A.. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "The Ties That Bind" is mentioned both as a pre-written song and as one that took shape during the studio process. It's probably not worth the explaining of why that was, but perhaps another song could be mentioned instead?
  • Removed second instance.
  • "He was tasked with giving the band a more "garage" and "rugged" sound to contrast from Born to Run (1975) and Darkness,[11] " should "from" be "with"?
  • Yes. Fixed.
  • "After performing at the No Nukes benefit concerts for Musicians United for Safe Energy at Madison Square Garden with the E Street Band in mid-September,[e][39] Springsteen reconceptualized the album." I would move "with the E Street Band" to after "performing".
  • Fixed.
  • "Springsteen made a rare political statement about the election of Ronald Reagan that occurred the day before." Perhaps this could be made to say it was rare at the time.
  • Is it worth mentioning that the latter stages of the tour opened the Brendan Byrne Arena with six concerts?
  • Done
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEclipse

[edit]

Per zmbro's comments, I did a spotcheck at the PR, and as a result, I support this article's promotion to FA status. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) talk/edits 18:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Luna! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NegativeMP1

[edit]

Going to try and do this review on mobile. If not within the next couple of hours, then within the next few days. λ NegativeMP1 20:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished reading. Honestly, I have no complaints. The article is well written and a very interesting read, and this is coming from someone not too familiar with Springsteen's work (as in, I've only really listened to his hits). I'm happy to give my support. λ NegativeMP1 20:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Looks good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • References are appropriately formatted.
    fn 56: Link The New York Times for consistency
    fn 63: Link The Guardian for consistency
    fn 101, 173, 180: Link Rolling Stone for consistency
    fn 104, 185, 204: Link Billboard for consistency
    fn 111: Is this in Spanish? If so, add a language card.
    fn 111, 113: Move to the Sources section and provide page numbers.
    fn 170: Link The Los Angeles Times for consistency
    fn 182: CS1 maint error: "CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes)"
  • Spot checks:
    42, 91a, 159, 173 - okay
    100: While the original no doubt worked, the Internet Archive does not

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all the links and converted the last two books, although the page numbers aren't available. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

[edit]
  • "Springsteen originally planned to release a single LP" - Do you think a link to LP record would be useful?
  • Done
  • "In later decades, The River is regarded as one of Springsteen's finest works, although many critics remain divided on the album's consistency." - Sounds better as "has been regarded", maybe
  • Done
  • "Kenneth Partridge of Billboard retrospectively described The River as Springsteen's "new wave album"" - It seems noteworthy that the source actually says it is "Springsteen’s New Wave album, but it’s also his pop album". I think cropping that part is a bit misleading, and is there a reason the album's categorization as pop isn't mentioned anywhere in the article?
  • Added the rest of the quote
MaranoFan Added the genre and the missing categories. :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot find that "The Ties That Bind" features saxophone in this source.
  • Fixed (it was in a different source I forgot to transpose over to that sentence)
  • Some of the Rolling Stone sources should have url-access=limited, like ref 139
  • While I have not seen this comment a lot at recent FACs, some reviewers prefer that album titles should be italicized in ref titles too (MOS:CONFORMTITLE).
  • Fixed
I agree with the other reviewers that the article is extremely well-written. Really impressive work here!--NØ 06:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Marsh, 1983 needs a publisher location.
  • Fixed
  • "The album was Springsteen's attempt at making a record that captured the E Street Band's live sound." Optional → 'The album was Springsteen's attempt to make a record that captured the E Street Band's live sound.'
  • Done
  • "before deciding it did not fit his vision and scrapped it" → 'before deciding it did not fit his vision and scrapping it' to avoid the tense switch.
  • Fixed
  • "Over 50 songs were recorded; outtakes saw release as B-sides and later on compilation albums." This doesn't really flow. Consider rewording. Perhaps 'Over 50 songs were recorded, with outtakes being released as B-sides, or on compilation albums.' or similar. (I think the "later" can be assumed. I mean, when else?)
  • Done, and valid point
  • "Musically, The River is ..." What information does "Musically" convey to a reader?
  • Link "garage-band".
  • Done
  • "The River received varying critical responses on release" Surely any record would. I'm not sure this quite conveys what you want it to.
  • Changed to "Upon release, music critics praised the songwriting, the performances of the E Street Band, and the lyrical evolution, while others believed Springsteen was recycling old material and lacking in creativity." That better? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. I like to think that's what you meant to write in the first place; good criteria 1a stuff.
  • "Positive reviews praised the songwriting, performances of the E Street Band, and lyrical evolution". → 'Positive reviews praised the songwriting, the performances of the E Street Band, and the lyrical evolution'.
  • Done
  • "It has appeared on several best-of lists, while several songs foreshadowed ..." Is it possible to avoid using "several" twice in five words?
  • Removed the first instance
  • "featuring the scrapped single LP" → featuring a scrapped single LP'.
  • "the" in this case refers to The Ties That Bind. Since Springsteen had narrowed down a final tracklist (and there was only one LP that was "scrapped"), I think it's more appropriate to use 'the' rather than 'a'. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you're being specific. How about 'featuring the scrapped single LP, The Ties That Bind.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog the Mild Replies are above. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. One comeback above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Done :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "Nazak Birjandifar | MRU". www.mtroyal.ca. Retrieved 2024-11-10.