This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.
Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.
The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
actionable objections have not been resolved;
consensus for promotion has not been reached;
insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
a nomination is unprepared.
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.
Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.
An editor is normally allowed to be the sole nominator of one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. An editor may ask the approval of the coordinators to add a second sole nomination after the first has gained significant support. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.
Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}}notification template elsewhere.
A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.
Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.
To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements.
If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
Picture it: Manhattan, the 23rd century. A young thief discovers that she is a Slayer destined to fight supernatural foes. Over the course of her own limited comic book series and appearances in Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight and Season Twelve, she not only learns to accept this destiny, but she also truly thrives under this new identity. This article is about that comic book character, and I hope that you enjoy reading about her.
Another Olympic article from me! Happy to see the passing of my first so I've decided to nominate this as well... It's about how Suriname's first athlete for the Olympic Games was not woken up by the head of the delegation, thus missing his only event. He was nicknamed Sleeping Beauty and the incident was mentioned at a future Olympic Games. To apologize, the Surinamese Olympic Committee gave him a plaque honoring him as the first Olympian despite never competing. Shall respond to comments, please ping! Arconning (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article concerns a war involving most Levantine powers that weakened the Crusader states in the early 13th century. In the previous FAC review it failed owing to problems with the prose, raised during the process by David Fuchs, which I hope have now been resolved. Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Lead image is missing alt text
Image deleted.
File:LittleArmeniaPrincipality_of_AntiochTripoli.jpg: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
Just to set the tone, I know next to nothing about this era of history, so I'm coming at this material fresh.
The elephant in the room is that this needs a map. As in "I can't see anyway this can be promoted to FA without it". I see it used to have a map but was deleted due to, if I'm reading this right, a lack of alt text??? I have found the folks at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop to be very friendly and helpful developing new maps for articles, so you might ask there for assistance.
Thank you for starting the review. The map was deleted because it was not verified. I try to find a verified map.
I just happened to notice 1202 Syria earthquake. If this major earthquake had any effect on the war, it would be interesting to note that.
There is no mention of this earthquake in connection with the war in specialised sources.
over the contested succession to Bohemond III of Antioch I assume "to" should be "of"?
incursions into Cilicia by either az-Zahir Ghazi, Ayyubid emir of Aleppo, or Kaykaus I, Seljuq sultan of Rum this is hard to parse, not to mention WP:SEAOFBLUE. Maybe just add some filler words: "incursions into Cilicia by either az-Zahir Ghazi, the Ayyubid emir of Aleppo, or by Kaykaus I, the Seljuq sultan of Rum"
Rephrased.
Most records of the war have survived thanks to two military orders "thanks to" seem rather informal. Also, this is kind of a complicated sentence (echoing David Fuchs's concerns at the previous review. Perhaps something like "The official archives of ... were destroyed. Two military orders, however ... documented the events of the war in extant records."
Rephrased.
As a matter of style, I wonder if the entire "Sources" section would work better as a footnote. I don't feel strongly either way; I'd like to hear what other reviewers think about this.
As I recall, the section was added at a reviewer's suggestion, and I still believe it is useful to our readers.
Saladin crushed the Jerusalemite field army "crushed" sounds a bit informal.
Rephrased.
When Bohemond failed to include Cilician Armenia in his truce with Saladin in 1192, Leo invited him ... who does "him" refer to? I think it's Bohemond, but this could be made more explicit.
I think the sentence is clear in context, since Bohemond is named in the following sentence.
One of the problems I'm having is that most of these names are unfamiliar to me, which makes it harder for me to follow the story. Obviously, the names are what they are, so I'm just mentioning this to put in context why some of the things that seem clear to you are things I'm struggling to get through. RoySmith(talk)12:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand how challenging it can be to follow the text because of the unusual names. I have recently gone through more than a dozen articles on Chinese and southern African royalty, and I also found it quite hard to keep track of who was who. Medieval Welsh and Irish names are just as difficult for me to remember for long. Borsoka (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Raymond died in 1197, shortly before the birth of his son, Raymond-Roupen did this son have higher priority as an heir than his mother? I'm guessing "signalling his unwillingness to recognise his infant grandson's claim to Antioch" addresses that question, but this needs clarifying.
Alice was the heir presumptive. As I understand the term, that means she was only the heir until somebody was born with a strong claim to the throne. What I'm asking is whether Raymond-Roupen had a stronger claim. RoySmith(talk)09:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she wa Leo's heir in Cilician Armenia, but not Bohemond's in Antioch. I expanded the previous sentence to make it clearer. Borsoka (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, is there some push going on to work on the Crusades? Some of this sounded vaguely familiar so I went dumpster-diving in my history and was reminded that Baldwin III of Jerusalem is currently at DYK. Is the Melisende from that article the same Melisende mentioned in this one? RoySmith(talk)12:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that some enthusiastic editors are especially drawn to the history of the Crusades.
When Bohemond III died in April 1201,[20] Bohemond of Tripoli rushed to Antioch ... Bohemond IV secured the Hospitallers' support by repaying a long-outstanding loan I'm having trouble keeping all the Bohemonds straight. Is "Bohemond of Tripoli" the same person as "Bohemond IV" and/or "Bohemond IV of Antioch" from the "Claimants to Antioch (bolded) with their relatives and allies" diagram?
Rephrased.
Nobles who supported the claim of Raymond-Roupen—the posthumous son of Bohemond III's eldest son—fled to Cilician Armenia Again referring to David Fuchs's previous comments, this sentence is hard to parse, since I have to sort out the double son-of relationship. Why not just "Bohemond III's grandson"? It's also not clear how the "posthumous" part comes into play. Does being born after your father's death affect the line of succession?
Rephrased.
Shortly after Bohemond's arrival to Antioch Two items here. One is that I need to go back and sort out which Bohemond we're talking about here. I guess Bohemond of Tripoli, which I think is the same as Bohemond IV, but I'm not sure about that. Also (and this may just be a regional English thing), I think you want "arrival at Antioch", not "arrival to Antioch".
Rephrased.
However, invasions by Bohemond's allies—az-Zahir Ghazi and Sultan Suleiman II of Rum—invaded Cilician Armenia, forcing Leo to retreat in July 1201 As a general comment, this is an overly complex sentence. If nothing else, you want to drop "invasions by", which duplicates the later "invaded".
Deleted.
alerting him to Bohemond's dealings with Muslim rulers insert "the" before Muslim, perhaps?
Rephrased.
a truce was brokered by Aimery, King of Jerusalem and Cyprus This reads like a list of three people who did the brokering: 1) Aimery, 2) the King of Jerusalem, and 3) Cyprus. How about "a truce was brokered by Aimery (the King of Jerusalem and Cyprus) and the papal legate, Cardinal Soffredo.
Rephrased.
In May 1204, Bohemond did homage to Marie of Champagne, wife of Baldwin, the first Latin emperor of Constantinople, thereby recognising Baldwin as the lawful successor to the Byzantine emperors another overly-complex sentence. Who was the first emperor: was it Marie or Baldwin?
Rephrased.
25 December 1205 that's Christmas Day; it seems odd not to mention that here. Or was it not actually Christmas Day in the calendar in use at the time? Which I guess would be the Julian calendar?
(this is slow going, next time: Conflicts with the Church)
I think the previous sentence ("Bohemond had ... returned to Antioch") makes it clear, but slightly rephrased the sentence.
In 1208, Patriarch Peter ... forcing him to take refuge in the citadel. It's not clear who "him" refers to. Bohemond, I think, but not sure.
Rephrased.
Leo entered Antioch with a small force how many men in a small force? Later on you talk about John of Brienne having 50 knights. Is is that a large number compared to John's small force?
Rephrased.
Both Raymond-Roupen—maternal grandson of Leo's elder brother, Rupen—and John of Brienne—husband of Leo's elder daughter, Stephanie—rejected the will and laid claim to Cilician Armenia another of those highly complex sentences. Between the sea of dashes and the complicated relationships ("maternal grandson of Leo's elder brother", "husband of Leo's elder daughter"), this is nearly unparsable.
Rephrased.
That does it for me for a first read-through. For me, this was a bit of a slog, rather than "engaging" as WP:FACR 1a requires. I'll come back and take another look after some other reviewers have had their say and the prose evolves a bit. Please ping me by the time the coordinators start looking at closing this out if I haven't done another pass by then. RoySmith(talk)20:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I am most grateful for your thorough review. Your suggestions have significantly improved the text. Please take another look and share your opinion. If you cannot support the article's promotion, I will withdraw the nomination to avoid wasting the valuable time of other editors. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would hate to see you withdraw this. It's an interesting and important topic, and the fact that I've found some problems does not in any way mean I've wasted my time. Looking at things from the other side, the reviewers of my FAC nominations find lots of problems. We work on resolving them and the result is an improved article. I don't think anybody's time is being wasted here so I encourage you to just be patient and see what other editors have to say before making a final decision. RoySmith(talk)12:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards opposing on prose. The text is a mish-mash of English and American spellings: recognising (twice), recognised, signalling and neighbouring as opposed to favored, traveled, fueled and defense, as well as some non-existent words – responed and resticting – and some nonsensical phrasing: how do you "orchestrate" an assassination? Tim riley talk07:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate the care you put into prose standards. I have gone through the text to standardise the spelling and correct all typos ([1]). As a non-native speaker I often miss distinctions between English variants, which is why I always turn to the Guild of Copyeditors for guidance. Borsoka (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second nomination of American football player Jayden Daniels. For any new commenters, he's known for his 2023 Heisman Trophy-winning college football season and his debut NFL season in 2024, with many considered it the best rookie season in league history. The first nomination was closed prematurely two months ago according to previous commenters, with consensus there seemingly leaning towards support. There has been a few updates to the article since its state at the previous nomination (changelog). — Dissident93(talk)17:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a passing comment, I am concerned about the stability of this article, with its subject being a talented QB who is at the very start of his professional career. ~ HAL33321:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very familiar with some of the standards needed for this promotion, but does stability mean .. why make him a Featured Article now, if he ends up failing in a year or so? More time needed? Honest question here. I was just going on how the article was presented and the excellent work that was put into it. For example, I know Vontaze Burfict is considered a good article, not the same as featured, I get that, but I'd say that the status is more on the way it was written, not on his accolades. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HAL333 my interpretation of the stability criterion is related to edit wars and tendentious editing. Even tho he is a pro QB, his article shouldn't change much other than updating statistics or providing brief narrative for each season (not contentious or controversial stuff). Considering during the offseason there won't be a lot, I think it's fine to say that overall, his article is stable. I don't believe the stability criterion has ever been meant to prevent an article about a young person with their career still front of them from being featured. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 19:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I brought a death article here some time ago and was told that it was "way too early" to be a FAC (despite the death having been over a year prior). Just look at Mahomes or Brady's article - a substantial portion of the article reflects events and commentary that occurred after their respective rookie seasons. I might have to lean oppose as a result... ~ HAL33319:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously welcome to oppose for whatever reason you want. That said, the criteria states: stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. Your interpretation of this criterion could be applied to almost anything, with some assumption that almost any topic could be incomplete because its full history hasn't occurred yet. Every building still standing doesn't include information on its redevelopment or demolition. Every company company could still have notable business or products to create. I mean, every country will never be complete until it has fallen.
Daniels is considered a dual-threat player, being adept at both passing and running with the ball. recommend deleting "considered". He either is or isn't, as described in the sources. If the sources support it, than just state the fact.
He played three seasons of college football for the Arizona State Sun Devils (2019–2021) and two withfor the LSU Tigers (2022–2023).
He won the 2023 Heisman Trophy among other player of the year awards after scoring 50 touchdowns with nearly 5,000 total yards. I believe you need some commas in there, after "Trophy" and "awards"
His rookie season is regarded among the greatest in NFL history, by who? Sports commentators? Journalists? Coaches?
His rookie season is regarded among the greatest in NFL history, with him named Offensive Rookie of the Year after setting the rookie quarterback record for rushing yards in a season and leading the Commanders to their most wins in a season and first NFC Championship Game appearance since 1991. long, run-on sentence, and the "with him" part is really clunky. Recommend splitting up into two sentences.
Daniels also threw a Hail Mary touchdown during the season, a rare feat, to win on a play known as the Hail Maryland. I am on the fence on whether this truly necessary in the lead. The article only references this fact using one sentence, that is about the same length as the sentence in the lead.
You need to define the acronym "NFC" in its first use in the article
Early life
and was raised in nearby San Bernardino. I personally think "but" sounds smoother here than "and"
He also ran track, and played basketball and soccer as a youth (note the added commas)
due to being considered undersized for the position at 125 pounds considered by who?
Inland Division playoffs that year before being eliminated in the semifinals. not clear this is referencing 2015, recommend restating
He played 53 games at Cajon and set CIF-SS records with 210 touchdowns[c] and over 17,600 total yards.[d][9][12] Daniels also participated in hurdling and the 100-meters, 200-meters, 400-meters, and 4 × 100-meters relay sprints at the school recommend starting the first sentence with "Daniels" and the second sentence with "He"
College career
He suffered a minor knee injury against the UCLA Bruins and missed the following game. is him missing one single game in one season worthy of his article, all things considered? Maybe as an attached phrase to another sentence, like "Despite missing one game due to a knee injury, Daniels... blah blah"
In the 2020 season, Daniels and the Sun Devils played only four games because of the COVID-19 pandemic. can you add something about his season? Maybe just his stats or something Its kind of jarring going into the next sentence.
He led the Pac-12 in completion percentage (65.4%) for the season and led the team to a 8–4 "led" is repeated, maybe "guided the team"?
ranked Ole Miss Rebels, giving them their first loss of the season I rarely like "them" as it often leaves some specificity to be desired? Maybe ranked Ole Miss, giving the Rebels their first loss of the season
after running for a 25-yard walk-off touchdown and two-point conversion in overtime I am not sure this meets the exact definition of a walk-off TD.
In Week 3 and 3, he earned SEC offensive player of the week honors fix
awards; he was the third LSU player to win the Heisman after Billy Cannon in 1959 and Joe Burrow in 2019
Professional career
He was named later named the fix
a minor rib fracture against I would drop "minor"
Five of which occurred within the final 30 seconds-->Five of those touchdowns occurred within the final 30 seconds
with his season regarded among the greatest by a rookie by who?
Player profile
Daniels is considered a dual-threat quarterback by who?
uses virtual reality (VR) as part of his training, using software designed "uses" and "using" is repetitious. Recommend rewording.
Personal life
I would consider the detail about his sister's name and the photo of his mom as WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. I get his mom is an agent, but she doesn't have a Wikipedia page. So it justifies using her name, but I would say her photo is overkill.
The prose in the first paragraph of this section is very choppy. Just short, factoid statements. I'm not going to give specific comments, but please work to create a stronger narrative and smoother transitions between sentences.
He is signed to Agency 1 Sports can you incorporate this sentence into the following sentence?
Rookie trading cards of Daniels are considered valuable, by who? Or just state "they are valuable"
General comments
I am not entirely on-board with the "Player profile" section. Considering such a short career at this point, I feel like this is overkill. Lamar Jackson has one, which is shorter than this, and he is arguably the biggest dual threat QB since Vick (who doesn't have this type of section). Brett Favre, who was widely known for two decades as a "gunslinger" with a unique playing style doesn't have this type of section. I think this could probably be trimmed and wrapped into his "Professional career" section. I wouldn't oppose for this comment, but would be interested to see what other reviewers have to say.
In instances where you have more than 3 consecutive inline citations, I would recommend using {{Multiple references}}
The majority of comments have been addressed, hopefully satisfactory. I kept the Hail Maryland in the lead though, as an article for it exists and was named the season's moment of the year. I also don't see why a player profile has to be correlated with career length. The playing and training style of Daniels has received plenty of coverage so it shouldn't be WP:UNDUE. There's no reason why Vick as a dual-threat or Favre as a gunslinger couldn't have more added to their own sections. It should also be fine to name his sister if a few sources mentioned it. — Dissident93(talk)22:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chiarenza and Cau (2016) – Notation is inconsistent in the article, and should be "In 2016, Chiarenza and Cau …" or a similar non-technical alternative
Fixed
You need to introduce/explain important terms (neotype, syntypic teeth, antorbital fenestra, merged OTUs (operational taxonomic units), and many more). "type species" is not even linked in the lead.
"SGM-Din 1" – explain that these are collection numbers, and link abbreviation to the respective museum
Fixed
Starting from the portion of the brain closest to the tip of the animal's snout is the forebrain, which is followed by the midbrain. – That's not a complete sentence.
Fixed
carnivorous theropod dinosaur – suggest removing "carnivorous" or "theropod" to avoid MOS:SEAOFBLUE and simplify the first sentence of the lead.
Fixed
a crest running along the medial (right) face – does not make sense; is the crest only on the left maxilla?
Fixed
Sources
Source 79: Journal seems to be wrong
Replaced with broader, more accurate source
Os dinossáurios carnívoros: A sua descrição e modo de vida – language tag? Also suggest to add trans_title
Fixed
Eine Bonebed-Lagerstätte aus dem Wealden Süd Tunesiens (Umgebung Ksar Krerachfa) – same
Fixed
Figueiredo – we need at least the author initials
Fixed
Why is the review of Carrano et al. (2012, "The Phylogeny of Tetanurae (Dinosauria: Theropoda)") not cited? It has an entire page reviewing this genus specifically.
Brusatte and Sereno (2008) "Phylogeny of Allosauroidea (Dinosauria: Theropoda): comparative analysis and resolution" is another review not used here.
Mortimer, Mickey (2023). "Carnosauria". The Theropod Database. – That's a private website; I don't think it can be used as a source, especially not for taxonomic opinions.
"Dinosaur Facts and Figures" – This book (has a "page needed" tag btw) looks like it is directed to children, not a scholarly source?
Contains scholarly opinions
Singer (2015). "JuraPark na tropie nowych dinozaurow z Maroka" – Is that a blog post? In any case, this is used to source a size estimate, but I am unconvinced that size estimates made outside of the academic literature are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Removed, but is the only main source on Osteoporosia gigantea
Spot checks – Checking everything that seems suspicious to me.
Lapparent (1951, 1960) described several Carcharodontosaurus teeth from the Continental intercalaire Formation of Guermessa, Tunisia.[9][34]
I don't immediately see how source [34] is related to this information.
Regarding [9], the source does not seem to call it a "formation"?
They refer to the same thing. Should I include a source that states this?
The source lists several localities, not just Guermessa? Please explain.
I will expand as it is a broader area
The most distinctive trait of Carcharodontosaurus' skull is the sculpted exterior of the maxillae, which is unique to the genus. C. iguidensis has antorbital fossae limited to the proximity of the antorbital fenestra, a crest running along the medial (right) face of the maxilla, and a process along its midline. These traits are missing in C. saharicus, differentiating the two species.[8]
The source does not seem to say that it is the "most distinctive trait"? Also, the more recent 2012 review by Carrano (which you do not cite) does not even give that feature in the amended diagnosis.
C. iguidensis has antorbital fossae limited to the proximity of the antorbital fenestra – First, the wording is close paraphrasing; the source says "antorbital fossa limited to the proximity of the maxillary fenestra", which is almost identical. The only differences in your wording seem to be clear errors: First, the source says "maxillary fenestra", not "antorbital fenestra" (those are different!). Also, you have "antorbital fossae" in plural which is inconsistent as you have "antorbital fenestra" in singular (there is only one of each on each side of the skull).
and a process along its midline – is this referring to the "anteromedial process" of the maxilla? If so, it is anteromedial, not along the midline.
Fixed
Also, you imply an exhaustive list of diagnostic features, but the source gives an additional one (in the braincase). Therefore, you should be clear that the mentioned features are only examples, not the complete list.
So much for now. I am somewhat worried about sourcing, but it's still early days. If you could go through the entire article carefully, making sure that text-source integrity is always warranted and there is no more close paraphrasing, and then ping me, I would be happy to do more checks if you want me to. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding some info for the size compared to other theropods. As for the published skeletal, it is inaccurate following the description of Tameryraptor and the discovery of other carcharodontosaurids like Meraxes. AFH (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I'm seeing a lot of unnecessary WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[2]
There has been a pretty long debate about the size of Giganotosaurus compared to other large theropods, and as far as I remember, Carcharodontosaurus was often discussed in these, so I wonder if this article could have more of that?
Any reason why this published skeletal[3] isn't used?
This looks a high quality and well-illustrated article. The images seem to all have relevant and appropriate licenses:
Ultimate Dinosaurs Carcharodontosaurus.jpg is from Flickr and has an appropriate but older (CC BY 2.0) Creative Commons tag.
Lost holotype teeth of Carcharodontosaurus saharicus.png has an appropriate Licence Ouverte 1.0 tag.
Tameryraptor (holotype, SNSB-BSPG 1922 X 46).png has an appropriate CC BY 4.0 tag.
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus theropod dinosaur (Kem Kem beds, Upper Cretaceous; Gara es Sbaa, Kem Kem region, southeastern Morocco) 3 (15375691822).jpg and Carcharodontosaurus saharicus theropod dinosaur (Kem Kem beds, Upper Cretaceous; Gara es Sbaa, Kem Kem region, southeastern Morocco) 2 (15352983706).jpg are from Flicr and have older CC BY 2.0 tag.
Longest theropods.svg has an appropriate CC BY-SA 4.0 tag.
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus skull reconstruction.png, Carcharodontosaurus jugal bones.jpg, Right maxilla of Carcharodontosaurus.jpg, Carcharodontosaurus nasal and lacrimal bone.jpg, Carcharodontosaurus postorbital bones.jpg, Carcharodontosaurus braincase.jpg Endocasts of Carcharodontosaurus.jpg, and Carcharodontosaurus teeth.jpg have appropriate CC BY 4.0 tags.
Carcharodontosaurus.png Acrocanthosaurus restoration.jpg, Carcharodontosaurus.png, Life reconstruction of Meraxes gigas.png, and Mapusaurus Roseae restoration.png have appropriate CC BY-SA 4.0 tags.
Alpkarakush kyrgyzicus.png Tameryraptor markgrafi.png have appropriate CC BY 4.0 tags.
Giganotos Db.jpg has an appropriate PD tag.
The following public ___domain images are also used: Orange pog.svg, Red pog.svg, and Steel pog.svg
The assassination of a member of the royal family was one of the IRA's early 'spectaculars', but it proved to be a contentious one for them and they were criticised heavily for killing a 79-year old along with an 82-year old and two teenagers. This has been through a complete rewrite and PR recently; any further constructive comments are most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first para of "The Troubles in the late 1970s" is not very informative or nuanced, suggest you borrow modified text from the "Troubles in the late 1970s and 1980s" section from your FA article on the Brighton hotel bombing, which is far better. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is already lifted from the Brighton bomb article! It looks better on that page because of the second half of the paragraph, which deals with some of the stuff in the five years between Mountbatten and Brighton and how it affected Thatcher's policies - obviously no valid here. - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like the amount of background given, would trim the potted bio for Mountbatten and not have either his nor those for "Thomas McMahon and Francis McGirl" under separate section headers. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me have a think about this. The reader who knows nothing about this needs to get a quick grasp on why he was a target and why it was such a big deal at the time. - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that amount of background on Mountbatten is due, but it needs to be reworked. The first paragraph of 'Lord Mountbatten' reads a bit too much like a sequential list of resume-like titles. When we get to the later sentence "The IRA had considered the assassination of Mountbatten since the start of the Troubles", I really don't have a grasp of who Mountbatten was, his attitudes towards Ireland, or why the Irish targeted him? Proximity? His connections to the royal family? A perceived association with imperialism? Did Mountbatten himself have any notable views on Ireland/the Troubles? His apparently somewhat liberal stance on India (from my brief perusing) might be an interesting parallel/contrast with Ireland. Was he simply a symbol of the English elite? ~ HAL33317:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons are further down, when the IRA acknowledge it was them behind the bombing. This bit is solely the background about who he was. His position on Ireland was fairly liberal (although he abhorred the violence of the paramilitary organisations), but it was simply because he was a member of the royal family and part of the British state that he was targeted. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see in the opening lead para, a better indication of Mountbatten's gravitas, clout and universal popularity, as well as summary of the far-reaching political impacts of his murder. Ceoil (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistencies regarding use of Oxford comma: "Mountbatten, his grandson Nicholas Knatchbull and Knatchbull's grandmother Doreen Knatchbull." vs. "members of the Royal Family, members of fourteen other royal houses, and Thatcher"
I might suggest shortening "to combat the rings of those smuggling weapons to Ireland" to "to combat weapon smuggling to Ireland", but feel free to disregard.
One possibilityThe best of the available images in my opinionExample
If possible, could you add another image of Mountbatten in the 'Lord Mountbatten' section? Perhaps one of him in formal military attire or next to someone like JFK or Ghandi. It would be a visual way to communicate his importance/connection to British royalty/elite.
Or maybe either of theseimages from '76. This one is very cool as well.
The problem with that section is that on my screen it's covered by the infobox, which means any image would be pushed into the McMahon and McGirl section and probably push into the section below. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's not a dealbreaker if you don't add an image, but on my laptop screen (standard dimensions) the infobox does not enter the 'Lord Mountbatten' section, even with the "small text" and "wide" options. The IRA Campaignbox does however, but only if opened (which isn't the default I think). ~ HAL33313:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The castle was a country house built for Lord Palmerston and was owned by Lady Mountbatten." - dropping the second "was" sounds more natural to me, but that might be BrEng/AmEng
"Mountbatten was still breathing when he was pulled from the water, but died within minutes." - Do sources describe his injuries? Especially his fatal injury/injuries? Was there an autopsy?
I'll go over the sources again, but I don't recall there being any further details, nor of anything that came out of an autopsy (although being a royal would have meant the press wouldn't dwell on the details). I'll get back to you on this. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Lord Brabourne had badly broken legs, which were saved by surgeons." - This is nitpicky, but "saved" doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Is there a more matter-of-fact way to put this?
Let me have a think about this: I think it's a standard term (in BrEng, at least), but I'll see if there is anything else that fits the bill. - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The IRA claimed responsibility at the same time as the second attack? Is there a connection between the timing? I only ask because "five hours after the bombing" is repeated back-to-back, which is a bit awkward.
Possibly, although if there was a connection it's never been disclosed and none of the sources even speculate that there may have been a connection. I've reworded to avoid the 'five hours' repetition. - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider shortening "who had recently been elected prime minister" to "recently elected prime minister"
All looks good - happy to support. I still encourage you to add another image of Mountbatten, but its absence doesn't violate any FA criteria. ~ HAL33323:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That he was related to the British royal family is mentioned previously. Why is his relationship to a monarch who had died decades before the events is relevant?Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Depth of relationship? He was the second cousin to a late king. For justification, I refer to WP:5P1: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", but is not "an indiscriminate collection of information". Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in an article about Ireland's geography. You could also educate our readers about lobster pots, or the making of bombs in this article. Will you? Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...County Monaghan,... County Leitrim,... I would rather clarify that Carrickmacross and Ballinamore are in Ireland/near the Irish-Northern Irish border.
Although Co Leitrim shares part of its border with the North, Ballinamore - the important place in this narrative - isn't that near. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mountbatten always dismissed the threat... Some context? ("When he was asked on the issue, ..."/"When IRA leaflets named him as a potential target...")
... Timothy and Nicholas... I would add their surname (Knatchbull) as well, because the first's full name will be mentioned in a subsequent sentence.Borsoka (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean here, but I suspect most people know Ireland is an island (clue is sort of in the name for a start) - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read the lead, but I think it could (and should be) shortened by at least 10%. For instance, in the second sentence, the text "on the Mullaghmore Peninsula near the village of Cliffoney, County Sligo," is quite redundant.Borsoka (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a reliable source that establishes a clear connection between Thatcher's campaign for the Conservative Party leadership and the assassination of Lord Mountbatten, please provide it. Without such sourcing, including this material would appear to be an example of WP:SYNTH. Adding context is valuable, but we should avoid inserting information that is not directly relevant to the subject of the article. Borsoka (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And there was me thinking you'd discontinued the review. It's germane to the background of the subject - you can't view the events without context. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter, about some of which we obviously disagree. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Mountbatten, a retired British statesman and relative of the British royal family, was assassinated on 27 August 1979 by Thomas McMahon, an Irish republican and a volunteer for the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA).: any way to rework this so that it doesn't look as though three people were involved? Perhaps "... on 27 August 1979. Thomas McMahon, an Irish republican and a volunteer for the PIRA, planted ..."?
50 pounds (23 kg) of gelignite.: of the explosive gelignite? On one level, it's pretty obvious that this is something to do with a bomb, but I suppose it could have been e.g. containing 50 pounds of nails.
flakes of green and white paint on McMahon's boots, a paint smear on his jacket—which matched the paint from Shadow V: this sounds as though we've got two different paints. Could we do something like "found traces of green and white paint, which matched the paint from Shadow V, on McMahon's boots and jacket"?
McGirl was acquitted. -- and yet we've confidently named him as the accomplice. Could you give me some reassurance from the sources that we can do so? I note that the Belfast Telegraph called him the "alleged accomplice" (admittedly, with pretty obvious eyebrow-raising) in 2019, and I can't see such a definitive statement in the cited sources. Incidentally, in unsuccessfully trying to corroborate this, I came across the lovely detail that he told his police interrogators that he "didn't plant a bomb on that boat", before being reminded that nobody had thus far mentioned any boat...
Which ones? I couldn't find any which didn't append "alleged" or similar. We don't actually use the word in the body, so it isn't directly cited. The relevant chunk is cited to Reddy, who I don't think directly says it, and to a Times article from the time of the trial: I didn't read that one, but I would be utterly amazed if they claimed his guilt days after his acquittal, British libel laws being what they are. UndercoverClassicistT·C16:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Knatchbull, From a Clear Blue Sky is one that uses the actual word. Others are clear in his complicity and participation but don't necessarily use the word "accomplice". - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...that's the same Timothy Knatchbull who was one of the victims! I'm sorry, but of all people I don't think he gets to be counted as a dispassionate apportioner of guilt. The difficulty is that nobody disagrees on what McGirl did, but saying that he was an accomplice implies that he was part of the plot, which is contrary to what the court ruled (or at least, the court ruled that there was reasonable doubt as to the truth of that). All the sources I've seen discuss him in the context of the bombing and mention that he was acquitted, but none actually say that he was part of the actual bombing. If there are others which do, we need to cite them to be able to support what we've written.From what I've seen, we can and absolutely should say that McGirl picked McMahon up after the bombing, that they drove away through the night, switched cars, that he gave false information and so on -- but in the lead I think we need to say something closer to McMahon placed this on Shadow V on the night of 26 August 1979 before meeting a fellow IRA operative, Francis McGirl, who drove him away. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we're taking such an overly strict interpretation based solely on what the Irish courts said, then we can't say "fellow IRA operative": according to the Irish court, McMahon was acquitted of being a member of the IRA. Either way, even if he was "only" a getaway driver, then he's still an accomplice (even though there are sources that say he was also a bomb maker). - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then we're back around -- if we have sources that use a stronger framing, we should cite them, but at the moment I can only see reliable sources that go no further than "alleged accomplice". We're being more categoric than any of them and, so far, the only source I've seen that endorses our approach (Knatchbull) fails a lot of the hurdles for WP:HQRS. If good sources do it, let's cite them: if they don't, we shouldn't. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Witherow, Tom (19 May 2024). "Call to Prosecute IRA Man who Made Bomb that Killed Mountbatten". The Sunday Times. p. 4. It refers to him as an accomplice. I'm not sure we need to cite it specifically to justify using the single word "accomplice": he was at the very least the getaway driver (which is an accomplice), possibly he had a bigger role, but that's only vaguely hinted at by various sources. - SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would put the same term in the body and cite it there, so that we're covered under MOS:LEAD (that what's in the lead actually is in the body) and MOS:LEADCITE. After all, it would be perfectly theoretically possible for someone to drive a criminal away from the scene innocently -- they might have been lied to about what their passenger was actually doing. I don't know the intricacies of Irish law, but I would imagine that McGirl would have been convicted as an accessory to murder if it were blindingly obvious from the evidence that he had been part of the plot. As far as I can see I don't there was a real sense, at the time or since, that the trial was a miscarriage of justice.Incidentally and interestingly, this Irish Times article says that McGirl is believed to have planted the bomb -- there's a couple of reliable-ish looking hits on Google Books that do the same. UndercoverClassicistT·C18:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She introduced an intelligence-led approach: this can be read in a few ways (fill in your own joke about military intelligence being a contradiction) -- we really mean that the intelligence services would take the lead. I wonder if it would help to be explicit and saying that she changed the previous situation whereby things had been led by the armed forces and the RUC, with no real joint apparatus?
Tweaked. I think the fuller explanation is better kept in the body, rather than diving into too much detail here, but I'm open to being persuaded on the point. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
US intelligence and law enforcement became more proactive in investigating IRA arms procurement in the US, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation set up a specialist unit to combat Irish weapons-smuggling rings.: what does Irish mean here -- in Ireland, or Irish-American? Less important, but I wonder if we can do anything about the repetition of "US ... US".
Let's go on a bit. I'm wavering as to how far the "accomplice" bit is personal caution or criteria, especially as WP:BLP doesn't apply, but we can always look at some other bits in the meantime:
"cabin cruiser" is a fairly obscure term, especially so early in the lead. Is there an easy way to get the word "boat" in -- other than the link, nothing in the lead actually makes it obvious what Shadow V was.
The unionists—also known as loyalists—wanted Northern Ireland to remain within the United Kingdom; republicans wanted Northern Ireland to leave the UK and join a united Ireland: is the past tense correct here? It's a bit like saying "the Thirty Years' War was fought between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics followed the Pope while Protestants didn't" -- they still do and still don't.
Yes, I chewed on this -- but then I think of something like "John Smith was shot outside a McDonald's in 1992. McDonald's is an American fast food restaurant", or "I met Lady Gaga last week. Gaga was a singer." Clearly, in at least the latter case, we'd use the present tense for her profession, and it's not obvious to me what the statute of limitations is as long as the present-tense statement remains true. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We dip our toe briefly into the confusing morass of IRAs, PIRAs, INLAs etc in the second paragraph of the 1970s section. I don't know whether it would be wise to dip any further, but the (P)IRA and the INLA probably need a brief introduction. I notice that we introduce the INLA further down but not here, which is probably a mistake.
Thatcher was described by her biographer Jonathan Aitken as being "numb with shock" at the news: I would add of his death, since we were just talking about her election.
I'm sure you don't need me to correct The Chief of the Defence Staff is the head of the United Kingdom's Armed Forces, but for those playing along at home, we need to insert professional -- the monarch is the head of the Armed Forces. Incidentally, when I copied this over, I noticed that the apostrophe was curly rather than straight: it should be beaten into shape. UndercoverClassicistT·C18:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mountbatten kept the 28-foot-long (8.5 m) cabin cruiser Shadow V moored in the local harbour, which he used for fishing: the harbour or the boat? If the latter, would move the relative clause after Shadow V.
Mountbatten had spent thirty years holidaying at Classiebawn Castle on the Mullaghmore Peninsula near Cliffoney, County Sligo, Ireland: I think someone else mentioned this too, but it does sound as if he was taking a very long holiday indeed.
When asked, Mountbatten dismissed the threat: I think we need to expand when asked to actually form a question, even if just "when asked about it". Am I justified in saying that we could add openly to the preceding sentence about the planning?
No, I don't think so. None of the sources say they were "openly" planning it - indeed, it would be an odd step for a clandestine organisation to be open about planning a murder. I've expanded the "asked" bit. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno -- it's pretty common terror tactics to "warn" a prominent person that their days are numbered. But what we have here is fine, as long as that's what the sources say -- it was hardly a huge leap of logic that they might have been interested in him. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
refused to allow members of his protection onto his boat: protection team, protection detail or similar?
by an unknown man using the modified controls for a model aeroplane: can we say anything about how we know this -- in particular, how we know it was a man? Did a witness report seeing a bloke in a balaclava fiddling with a remote control?
We know if because the source says, but doesn't go into any further detail, unfortunately. I suspect info was picked up by the security services at some point, but not enough for any further action, but that's just my OR. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a first aid post: I was going to call compound modifier here, but it seems that "first aid", like "death metal" is very rarely hyphenated since the 1950s or so.
Dowager Lady Brabourne (in "Assassination") is hereafter referred to simply as "Lady Brabourne": it should surely be the Dowager (per the Telegraph, anyway, but in any case can we just drop it here? I did find a 1959 style guide that noted that the term was rarely used "these days". See also, later, the joint funeral of Dowager Lady Brabourne and her grandson Nicholas.
the IRA attacked the British Army on the east coast of the island at Narrow Water Castle outside Warrenpoint, County Down, near the Irish border: I would group the place bits of the same hierarchy together, so the IRA attacked the British Army of the island at Narrow Water Castle outside Warrenpoint, County Down, on the east coast near the Irish border or similar.
Looking at a picture, it's more a gateway than a gatehouse.
All the sources specifically say "Gatehouse". It's possible that the building was completely destroyed, which would explain why it doesn't show up in modern photographs. - SchroCat (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would mention that sixteen of the dead were paratroops, or alternatively that two were from the Queen's Own Highlanders: the comment that Eighteen soldiers were killed in the two explosions; it was the biggest loss of life in the Parachute Regiment erases them a little, though we do mention one of the highlanders elsewhere.
in The Irish Press, the writer Tim Pat Coogan observed: I would cut the writer, as he was its editor. Without disagreeing with him, "observed" needs to be reworked to something subjective per MOS:SAID.
the death of Mountbatten in Ireland and of the shooting at the survivors from south of the border at Warrenpoint confirmed their suspicion: I think the of needs to go here. I'm not sure "confirmed their suspicion" is quite the right thing -- it wasn't that they didn't know for sure that the IRA were making attacks from Irish territory, it was that it was now embarassingly and undeniably public.
flakes of green and white paint on McMahon's boots, a paint smear on his jacket—which matched the paint from Shadow V: I would rework this as we did in the lead, for the same reasons.
at the Special Criminal Court in Dublin: definitely cut in Dublin here (it's the second mention in a short section), and perhaps even from the first one, as it had been introduced further up.
McGirl died in March 1995 when the tractor he was driving overturned, killing him instantly: there have been a couple of news stories reporting an allegation that this was an IRA assassination. Nothing has been proven, obviously, but worth including? After all, we've decided that we don't need to wait for a court's judgement on other matters here.
This feels as if it may be a little too tangential for this one. That and the fact that the reference in the Guardian uses the magical words "According to the Daily Mail", makes me shy away a little. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note 72 (about overflight): the source has quite a lot more that Thatcher pressed Lynch for, such as a deepening of cooperation in the intelligence field between MI6 and Irish Special Branch; the institution of dedicated Garda crime squads on the border; RUC attendance at the interrogation of IRA suspects in Garda stations. I assume none of those actually happened, but they probably should be mentioned (it's a short paragraph anyway). Otherwise, everything we've written checks out.
Just a few somewhat pedantic military history-focused comments:
Mountbatten oversaw the handover of Singapore in 1945 and the local surrender ceremonies there, as it followed the general Japanese surrender. Saying he "recaptured" the city is technically correct, but overstating things. If you want to get into fighting he oversaw in 1945, see his role in the Netherlands East Indies that year.
The brief bio of Mountbatten is also rather kind to him. Modern historians usually note that he owed most of his stellar career to his royal connections and he was at best competent in the various roles he held, and totally out of his depth in some of them. The only role that he's generally seen as having been the best choice for was being the last viceroy of India where the royal connections were important.
"it was the biggest loss of life in the Parachute Regiment since Operation Market Garden in 1944" this can't be correct given the parachute regiment was involved in considerable hard fighting for the remainder of the war, including Operation Varsity. The article on the ambush says it was the biggest loss of life since the Second World War, which seems more likely - though I'd specify that it would have been the biggest loss in a single incident . Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"important voyages" seems like a MOS:PEACOCK issue. I think the following sentence explains their significance, so it can probably be dropped. "pioneering" is also used later in the lead, which is technically another peacock issue but I think is still alright if you decide to keep it.
"all skills he would need one day to command his own ship" --> "all skills he needed to command his own ship" or the even more concise "all skills needed to command a ship"
"the conflict that would later become known as the Seven Years' War." --> "the conflict that became known as the Seven Years' War." 'later' is also redundant unless one considers the possibility of some kind of time-travel loop.
"experienced the first of several ship groundings he would face during his career" --> "experienced the first of several ship groundings he faced during his career"
"two incidents occurred that would be repeated, in various forms, many times during Cook's voyages:" --> "two incidents happened that recurred in various forms throughout Cook's voyages." or maybe "Cook first experienced two phenomena that recurred throughout Cook's voyages."
Other uses (like "This voyage would have two ships and") are fine because they are in context hypothetical.
"He served during the Seven Years' War, and subsequently" - the use of "subsequently" is misleading as it implies that the following happened after the war. I suggest something like the more concise "He served in the Seven Years' War, during which surveyed and mapped much of the entrance to the St. Lawrence River amid the siege of Quebec." My alternative may need tweaking to clarify that he saw combat.
Done. Rewrote as He first saw combat in the Seven Years' War, when he fought in the Seige of Louisberg. Later in the war, he surveyed and mapped much of the entrance to the St. Lawrence River during the siege of Quebec. Noleander (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I read this, I should note that the prose is exceptional in all other regards.
"although he did not have the rank of Commander or Captain" - Should those titles be capitalized? Elsewhere the lower case is used for the title alone: "promotion to captain"
"reported sightings (later disproved) of Terra Australis" - Can you add a brief note explaining this? What were the sightings and how were they disproved?
Done. Added a footnote: Wallis' crew reported seeing Terra Australis near Tahiti. Cook's first voyage travelled extensively around Tahiti, and found the reports to be mistaken. The sightings were possibly cloud banks or islands.Noleander (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two sentences beginning with "Cook – following his secret orders – began..." both use em-dashes. Could you switch up one for variety?
"In the expedition's first direct encounter with Aboriginal Australians" - there was an indirect encounter?
Done. Added sentence in preceding paragraph: During this stretch, Cook saw several Aboriginal Australians on shore, but was unble to draw close enough to make contact.Noleander (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Cook became increasingly tired, harsh and volatile during his final voyage" - Do sources describe or propose a reason for this change? Did his crew or officers suspect a reason? Could you expand on this with a sentence or two? Did it approach Bligh/Bounty-level discord?
No, it was never close to Bligh/Bounty. The cause (and existence) of the 3rd voyage harshness is debated by Cook scholars. My recommendation is to leave it as-is (which includes a footnote representing a minority view). The articles Death of James Cook or Third voyage of James Cook could be expanded to include more details about the topic. Here are some words from Beaglehole that established the foundation of the issue (B. 1974, pp=711-712):
Isaac Smith, on the first and second voyages, never thought [Cook] severe: he was both ‘loved’ and ‘properly feared’ by the crew, The third voyage evidence is ... linked with that of his harsh, his quite inhumane, treatment of native pilferers— outbursts of rage as uncontrollable, evidently .... It shows a character almost on two planes, and a hypothesis of some physical cause is hard to resist. The strains of the voyage were wearing and worrying, a continuation of the strains of two other voyages. A tired man, fundamentally, the commander must have been. Continued responsibility for his own men, continued wrestling with geographical, nautical and human emergencies might, had his physical and mental constitution been less powerful, have made him go limp. He did not do so, but the inner tensions of an able mind were set up, and exacerbated. To that sort of tiredness add the effect of the violent illness from which he had suffered on the second voyage, the ‘indispositions’ to which he was subject on this third voyage. We have a man tired, not physically in any observable way, but with that almost imperceptible blunting of the brain that makes him ... a perceptibly different man. His apprehensions as a discoverer were not so constantly fine as they had been; his understanding of other minds was not so ready or sympathetic. He ‘flared up’ like a man with a stomach ulcer. That is not to say that an ulcer is necessarily the answer to our problem. [emphasis added]. Noleander (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"threatened them with stones, clubs and daggers" - Oxford comma not used, unlike elsewhere.
The caption "Resolution and Adventure in Matavai Bay during the second voyage, as painted by expedition artist William Hodges." is not a full sentence and does not need a full-stop.
Those are all my nitpicks. This is probably the best-put-together and most enjoyable article I've reviewied here in some time. Well done. ~ HAL33317:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very satisfied with the article, and only a few tidbits and suggestions from me:
There are some inconsistences in the article in linking countries, such as in the lede, where New Zealand is unlinked but Australia and Hawaii are linked. Also, as a side note, I would prefer a link to Australia (continent), as the text refers to the continent itself, not the modern-day country, but it's your choice.
I think an explanation beside scurvy would be helpful in the lede. This is because some people might be unaware of what it means. I think this would be helpful for scurvy, at least, but not for all terms, such as cannibalism, which I assume most people are familiar with. Even I didn't know about scurvy until a Redditor sent me a video about the Dundonald, which essentially described what scurvy was and how the crew avoided it by eating a plant rich in vitamin C.
Done. Added gloss so it now reads His pioneering contributions to the prevention of scurvy, a disease common among sailors, led the Royal Society to award him.... (emphasis added). Focusing on "sailors" seems more important in the context of this article than emphasizing "dietary deficiency"; though both are correct. Some may nitpick and say it was only common among sailors that went on long-duration voyages ... but the lead should not get too far into details such as that. Noleander (talk)
For consistent British English, please change license to licence. And maybe the other instances of -ize to -ise?
Does British English put quote marks before punctuation marks? If so, this could be changed?
The quotes are following the MOS guideline MOS:INOROUT which is to put the punctuation (e.g. final period) inside the quote if the orginal quoted text has the punctuation at that spot; but outside if the original text does not have the punctuation. That MOS guideline is the same regardless of Eng/US variant. If there is a quote that does not follow that MOS guideline, let me know. Noleander (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also note File:James_Cook_Coat_of_Arms.svg seems to be missing an alt.
I'm a bit confused about the capitalization of "indigenous". Most of the article doesn't capitalize it, but I note "the claiming of Indigenous lands without" is capitalized.
Done. Thanks for catching that. Indigenous should only be capitalized when used as part of a proper noun e.g. "Indigenous Tahitians"; lowercase when used in a generic sense (e.g. applied to multiple groups). Ditto for "Native Hawaiians", etc. Noleander (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the 30th note, it reads "but they don't give a number", which seems kinda informal, so I would prefer if it read "[...] do not [...]".
A few more things, @Noleander:. I still support, but on a second read-through, I thought these things are worth mentioning.
In the lede, it mentions "when he fought in the Siege of Louisberg", which at first doesn't seem like an error, but the linked article uses the spelling "Louisbourg", so I believe this is a mistake. Also, note that in the following sentence it reads “siege of Quebec" in lowercase, while the first instance uses title case.
In this part, "landed in Poverty Bay", I think "at" is correct instead of "in". Don't know if this is a British English thing, but in the text "a tradition for sailors worldwide", I think "among sailors" would flow better.
Also, there's a wikilink that shows "strait" only, most people (I assume) don't know it's a specific strait. As per MOS:EGG, it should show "a strait" instead.
File:The_Bay_and_Harbour_of_Gaspey_-_map_by_James_Cook_1758.png: when and where was this first published?
Updated the source details in Wiki Commons to state date & ___location of publication: This is a map, hand drawn by Captain James Cook in 1758, and published in 1759 (in London, UK).Noleander (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the source details in Wiki Commons to state date & ___location of publication: This painting was painted in 1902 in Britain (not Australia). The painting was published and exhibited in that year, in Britain. UK copyright law for 1902 is "life of author plus 70 years". The painter, Fox, died in 1915; adding 100 years to his death yields 2015.Noleander (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the source details in Wiki Commons to state date & ___location of publication: This is a photograph of a page from the 1770 journal of Captain James Cook. After Cook completed his first journey in 1771, he had several copies of the journal made in London. He published the journal by distributing several copies in London, including one to the Royal Navy, and one to John Hawkesworth (book editor). The making and distribution of copies is described in Beaglehole, 1955, pages clxv, cxcii-cxciv. Hawkesworth used the journal as a source for his own book An Account of the Voyages. Copies of the journal have been passed around, read, and quoted for over two centuries. One copy is in the National Library of Australia. This photograph is an image of a page from the copy of the journal held in the National Library of New Zealand.Noleander (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Cook_Three_Voyages_59.png: see MOS:COLOUR and what is the source of the underlying data?
I have asked the creator of the map, User:AlexiusHoratius, to help with the MOS:COLOUR issue. When an update is available, I'll post a notification here. Regarding the sources, they are listed in the map's Wiki Common page here. The same sources are also listed in the article in the footnote within the map's caption. Noleander (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Question: Regarding MOS:COLOUR - If the image has a caption that provides color samples which identify the meaning of each shade, would that satisfy MOS:COLOUR?
An example of this is the FA article Virgo_interferometer which has a map which uses three colors. It appears that the colors are permitted in that FA article because the caption has color samples, so a visually impaired reader can compare the color in the caption to the color in the map and correlate the caption to the map regions
If that is a valid approach, then the map in the James Cook article already has a caption that includes three color samples and identifies each one. To make that map more understandable to visually impaired readers, I updated the caption to display blocks of color (rather than the textual word red that was used before). Can you take a look at that and see if it is sufficient? Noleander (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no. Colour blocks can be sufficient when shades are very visibly different, as in that example. Here the difference isn't shade, it's colour - and red-green colour blindness is one of the most common forms. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:James_Cook's_portrait_by_William_Hodges.jpg: source link is dead.
The source of that image was the National Maritime Museum's web site here. That museum removed many images of their paintings & photos from their website recently, so the image is no longer on that website. The painting is very old, and is now in the public ___domain. What is the consequence of the dead URL? Does that require the image to be removed from the article? Unfortunately, I cannot find a copy of the painting on any other web site ... but I'll keep looking.
@Nikkimaria Thanks for doing the image review. I have responded to the issues above. The MOS:COLOUR issue of the map is being worked on, and may take several days to resolve. I'll post a note here when it is completed. Noleander (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“the first European to visit the east coast of Australia and the Hawaiian Islands” → should read “the first recorded European to visit..."
Dutch explorers had mapped the west and north coasts much earlier, so “first European” is misleading.
Done. Though I wonder if some editors will wince at "recorded" because it is 100% certain Cook was first European to visit East coast of Australia; and 99.99% certain he was first to visit Hawaii. Noleander (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...for the first voyage of three that he would lead.
“During his third voyage, when Cook was asked by a Hawaiian to prove he was a warrior, Cook showed the scar” → “During his third voyage, when a Hawaiian asked him to prove he was a warrior, Cook showed the scar”
During the overnight excursion, his two black servants, Thomas Richmond and George Dorlton, froze to death.
How about naming the servants in the previous section?
That is feasible, but the article is using the informal convention of naming minor members of the crew (e.g. those without WP articles) only when they die (e.g. the four marines in Hawaii; or in Batavia: "... Jonathan Monkhouse (midshipman), John Satterly (carpenter), and John Ravenhill (sail maker)...". Noleander (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Naval"→ "naval"
Navy/naval to be capitalised when part of a proper noun (e.g., Royal Navy).
"seven crew members died while in Batavia"→"seven crew members died"
The phrase "while in Batavia" is redundant here.
Removing "in Batavia" might make it harder for readers to grasp. The sentence is The stay in Batavia marked the onset of the most severe outbreak of illness and death endured during any of Cook's voyages: seven crew members died while in Batavia, and a further 23 perished on the return journey to England.The sentence begins by identifying the "severe outbreak of illness", then specifies 7 deaths while in Batavia, and 23 more after departing, yielding a total of 30 for the outbreak. Removing "while in Batavia" gives The stay in Batavia marked the onset of the most severe outbreak of illness and death endured during any of Cook's voyages: seven crew members died, and a further 23 perished on the return journey to England. which could be misinterpreted by many readers (is "seven" the full outbreak from the prior phrase?). I was able to trim one word: I changed it to The stay in Batavia marked the onset of the most severe outbreak of illness and death endured during any of Cook's voyages: seven crew members died while in Batavia, and a further 23 perished on the return journey to England. But maybe I'm overthinking it? Noleander (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Shortly after his return, Cook was promoted in August 1771 to the rank of commander."→"In August, Cook was promoted to the rank of commander."
You can obviously reword it as you like as long as we don't make it wordier.
"Banks was replaced by the German naturalists Johann Reinhold Forster and his son, Georg Forster."→Banks was replaced by the German naturalist Johann Reinhold Forster and his son, Georg Forster.
“'Naturalist' singular highlights Johann as primary, while Georg is identified by full name.
"I will not say it was impossible anywhere to get in among this Ice, but I will assert that the bare attempting of it would be a very dangerous enterprise and what I believe no man in my situation would have thought of. I whose ambition leads me not only farther than any other man has been before me, but as far as I think it possible for man to go..."
Do we need this quote in full or can a portion of it being summarised?
I recommend keeping the full quote: this is Cook's most famous and most quoted phrase. Cook was plain spoken, and - in all his voluminous writings - one finds very few quotable lines. This particular quote is one that all of his biographers quote in full and analyze. It is special because is a bit poetic, but also because Cook was extraordinarily humble, and this is one of the very few times he boasts a bit. Noleander (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the Science, technology, and seamanship section as well. It's well written (and so I've nothing to suggest). MSincccc (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be mentioned that Cooktown is named after him?
The "Commemorations" section used to include a huge list of things named after Cook, but there are two subarticles for that kind of detail: List of commemorations of Captain James Cook, and List of places named after Captain James Cook. So most of those items were removed from this top-level article. Both of those sub-articles are named in the "main" template at the top of the Commemorations section. But if you think that particular town is especially important, it is an easy matter to add it. Noleander (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find category for fictional rabbits for the second image DONE
Just to check :), do we have more usable character images?
Do these sentences have inline citations?
Further complicating regular broadcast of Tomorrow's Pioneers were controversies surrounding...
Uncle Hazim's biological and familial relations to Farfour's cousins, Nahoul the bee and Assoud the rabbit, are unclear.
Assoud hinted in episode 302 that he would be replaced by a tiger when he died.
in the arms of his parents. His brother, a rabbit named Assoud, was notably absent, though he replaces Nahoul as the co-host.
"Electronic Intifada" is considered generally unreliable per WP:ELECTRONICINTIFADA, but I don't think it's a problem, as it is attributed in text as a potentially contentious claim. DONE
Can we make episode tables wider like here, Fargo season 5? I could be missing some rule regarding table format.
A couple of refs end/start with double quotes (""). All the quotation marks inside the refs title should be swapped with apostrophes. For example: "PMW Transcripts "Hamas Mouse: Blame the Jews" and "Hamas steals Mickey Mouse image to teach hate and Islamic supremacy""
the show is considered to be the successor to an earlier Hamas-broadcast children's radio programme titled Afnan and Aghsan This sentence out of the lead isn't mentioned in the body
The lead doesn't need to be cited per WP:LEADCITE, but I don't know if it's a FA criteria.
There are some claims that are controversial in the lead and should be cited. I couldn't find any extra images for the article on Wikipedia, but I'll continue making formatting edits. I will include the Afnan and Aghsan info once I'm feeling better - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 12:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I need to make the episode table longer, as there's a lot of missing information that can't reliably be found. Some episodes are partially or totally lost media, but I'll do my best to at least reformat the episode table somehow... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 07:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've removed the graphic ticks. Per the instructions at WP:FAC, "Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages". Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the State of Palestine, various social, cultural and children's institutions funded by Hamas have become an integral part of their agenda. ---> In the State of Palestine, Hamas-funded social, cultural and children's institutions have become an integral part of their agenda
and they engage in incitement... ---> These institutions engage in incitement...
I'm not sure about the word "via" that I added; it feels perfectly reasonable, but a touch informal. I guess we'll wait until someone has problem with the word.
to broadcast to both Palestinian and global audiences. --> targeted at both Palestinian and global audiences
The network's children's shows ---> The children's shows broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV
I also see the download links; but we still need to cite: In 2009, recording studio Al-Molatham shot a high-quality music video of the song "Deprived you of Attiari" (Arabic: يا من يحرم أطياري) from her first album. The video features Saraa walking through rubble and singing a plaintive song about being a mother in Palestine. Images of gravely injured infants are displayed in the background. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saraa was the ideal choice to present the show because of the events that she had witnessed, including military activity around her home. ---> Saraa was the ideal choice to present the show as a witness to Israeli military activity close to her home.
Despite the messages in Tomorrow's Pioneers Chronologically, I (a reader) don't know what kind of message Pioneers are sending. Terrorism-adjacent message?
During gaps between shooting Tomorrow's Pioneers, Saraa took the opportunity to develop her singing career. She has performed several concerts in support of her music, recorded several songs with Palestinian children's songwriter Fekry Namous, and has starred in at least one music video, which was hosted on the Palestinian PALN internet network This doesn't seem to be verified by the ref [23]. Maybe there was something, but wayback couldn't capture it.
In the video, Saraa sings about the Hamas youth movement, its presence in the schools, and the division between Israel and Palestine. ---> In the video, Saraa sings about the Hamas youth movement and its presence in the schools, as well as touching upon the division between Israel and Palestine.
Saraa sings about the Hamas youth movement, its presence in the schools This doesn't appear to be verified by ref [24]
His name comes from a diminutive of fa'r, which means "mouse" in Arabic. Couldn't verify this one.
"You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists" and "We will return the Islamic community to its former greatness" by liberating Jerusalem and Iraq, among other countries in the Islamic world that have been "invaded by the murderers." These direct quotes can be paraphrased into the indirect ones for better flow
In episode 105 (aired 22 June 2007) Not necessary to mention the date, as all the release dates are listed in the table below
File:Farfour.jpg - There is no direct link; simply "Still image captured from Tomorrow's Pioneers". Thus, I can't verify this is actually from the show. Is there any sort of direct link, ie a YouTube video or newspaper clip, that attributes this image?EF516:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine now, although the deseret.com link should be linked at the NFF template (which has been done). EF516:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the regiment raised in what is Malawi while it was still the British Central Africa Protectorate. It was important not only in the development of the military of that country but, through serving in many campaigns in other parts of Africa, including the Somaliland campaign against Muḥammad ibn 'Abdallāh Hassan and the War of the Golden Stool against the Ashante, earned a reputation rare amongst colonial troops for their skills and professionalism. Amongst their troops were the first Malawian soldiers to be awarded medals by the British Empire and the first Malawians to visit Great Britain. The literature includes first-hand accounts from those that served as well as secondary sources. I feel it is important to raise the profile of African history and show the part that African and Indian service personnel paid as active agents in the destiny of Africa during the turn of the 20th century. This is my first FA nomination so any help to bring it up to standard is appreciated. simongraham (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, welcome to FAC! I'll start off with an image review.
File:British_Central_Africa_rifles_on_return_from_Ashanti,_west_Africa._Nyasaland.jpg: is there a reason the uploader would have the right to release this work under the given license? Ditto File:Sikh_Detachment_with_British_Central_Africa_Rifles_from_Ashanti..jpg. I'm concerned given that the uploader has had multiple uploads deleted for copyright concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thank you very much for responding so fast with this review. I think you have an excellent point and have removed the images, replacing them with one that I know is public ___domain with an alt text. simongraham (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to FAC -- a couple of quick ones for now, trying to pick up the pedantic MoS points:
The Second Battalion Central African Rifles after returning from the War of the Golden Stool: this looks odd to me as British military style. British style guides generally prefer the ordinal and no the, with a comma optional but more likely in historical as opposed to journalistic writing -- 2nd Battalion, Central African Rifles. Alternatively, you could do The second battalion of the Central African Rifles or similar.
Fixed.
five companies: A and B: as it would be "A Company" (not "Company A") in British parlance, it's usual to restate the word: so five companies: A Company and B Company...". However, this isn't a strict rule.
Fixed.
In any case, forming the First and Second Battalions of the new regiment etc should have no capital letters.
Removed.
Per MOS:QUOTE, we use " rather than ' in most contexts.
Done.
We need an endash (–), not a hyphen, in Martini–Enfield.
Fixed.
Each of the enlisted soldiers was issued with two uniforms: enlisted soldiers (as opposed to officers) is American English: in British English, "enlisted" means "conscripted". The British equivalent is other ranks.
Changed.
I think we should rephrase it was still acceptable to beat African troops to avoid saying that beating people is, well, acceptable as long as they're African.
Rephrased.
In the bibliography, titles should be consistently formatted, at least for a given type of source. It looks as though we're mostly going for title case, but this isn't consistent. Make sure to check MOS:DASH too.
I was following the sources themselves, but have adjusted them for consistency.
There are two sources listed in the bibliography but not used: you can use a script to check for these automatically.
Source Njoloma, James; Stuart-Mogg, David T. (1998).... does not have any citation referring to it. If it is a source that readers may benefit from, and you want to keep it in the article, consider moving it to a (new) "Further Reading" section.
Good spot. Fixed.
Source year differs: 1900 vs 1901: Correspondence 1901, p. 15. vs Correspondence relating to the Ashanti War, 1900.
It was published in 1901 but covers 1900.
p vs pp typo: The London Gazette 1901, p. 5975, 5976.
Fixed.
Author wikilinks: Although not required for FA, curious readers will be pleased to see wikilinks for source authors. Many authors don't have WP articles, but Willoughby Verner does, so consider adding |author-link=Willoughby Verner and also for other authors, if available.
Added.
For books that have no URL, consider using the Google Books URL (if available) even if the full book text is not freely displayed. For example: Boeder, Robert B. (1981). Alfred Sharpe of Nyassaland: Builder of Empire. Blantyre: Society of Malaŵi. that book is in Google books at https://www.google.com/books/edition/Alfred_Sharpe_of_Nyasaland_Builder_of_Em/Mt9BAAAAYAAJ And tho the full text is not there, Google _does_ provide a Search function. Internet Archive, which the article is already using for several books, is superior to Google Books for source URLs, but if IA is not available, Google Books is a fallback.
Added.
Add URL for Internet Archive link: Campbell, Guy (1986). The Charging Buffalo: A History of the Kenya Regiment. London: Secker & Warburg. ... this book is online in IA at https://archive.org/details/chargingbuffaloh0000camp
Added.
Publisher hard to read: : East Africa Command in collaboration with the Ministry of Information, East Africa can you add some wiki links to make that easier to parse, e.g. to East Africa Command or Ministry of Information, East Africa, etc.
Wikilink added.
There are five citations to The Times e.g. "Naval & Military Intelligence". The Times. No. 36186. 15 August 1899. p. 10. Are any of those viewable online? They must be long out of copyright, is there a free archive somewhere? If so, consider adding a URL link.
There is an archive for The Times available through Newspapers.com[4] and Gale[5] that are accessible through the Wikipedia library, but they need a wikipedia login.
Optional style suggestion: The Citation list is clean, but has five lengthy cites for The Times. Consider moving those down into the Bibliography/Sources section, and use harvnb/sfn ... to get a super clean look. There are several ways to use snf/harvnb with anonymous sources: see Template:Sfn#No_author_name_in_citation_template, Template:SfnRef#Usage, etc. Not required for FA, just tossing it out there.
Consider adding wikilinks to Society of Malawi, Historical and Scientific for sources that name that publisher. Curious readers can go to that article, which may lead to other useful resources. Simply change journal=The Society of Malawi Journal to journal=[[The Society of Malawi Journal]]
Added.
Overall, the sources are high-quality and solid. They all appear to meet the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. I don't see any sources that are low-quality, suspicious, or marginal.
Spot checks: in progress (heads-up: I'll need you to email me some pages from some of these. I'll give you a list soon):
11 - Boeder 1981, p. 71. Later in the year, a force of two European officers, ten Sikhs and seventy troops was deployed against Kazembe. Equipped with a Maxim gun and a 7-pound mountain gun, the force destroyed the stockade and, again, negotiated favourable terms with the chief. - Need copy of portion of the page
18 - Marjomaa 2003, p. 423. Nearly 30 of the contingent died from the cold alone - Verified.
It is on page 423 of the copy of the journal available at jstor, accessible with a wikipedia account.[8]
20 - Verner 1906, p. 59. On 1 August, Colonel Willoughby Verner led a detachment of the First Battalion in what was termed the Anglo-Portuguese Nquamba and Mataka Expedition. - Verified.
27 - Correspondence 1901, p. 15. The force, including 70 Sikh and 200 African troops sailed, via Cape Town on 11 July, to West Africa - Verified.
31 - Hall 1939, pp. 328, 332. From that the British force, including the Second Battalion, marched to Esumeja, to defeat the Asante army commanded by Queen Ashantuah, but the leaders fled or surrendered as they advanced - Verified.
33 - Armitage & Montanaro 1901, p. 178. Together, these forces undertook forays into nearby towns and villages, including the religious centre of Ejisu, that routed the remaining Asante fighters. - Partially verified Source spells it "Ojesu" ... is that the same as Ejisu?
Yes, it was the central base for the Asante queen.[10]
41 - The London Gazette 1901, p. 5974. On 2 January 1901, the force arrived and were accommodated at Bathhurst, present-day Banjul, on 10 January. - Verified.
46 - Moyse-Bartlett 1956, p. 125. Local recruitment took place by ulendo, place-to-place visits targeting a specific area and people, that encouraged a particular ethnic group to form homogenous military units - Need copy of portion of the page
It is on page 125 of volume 1 on Google books.[11]
I do not have a copy of the original book and, when I received copies of the two volumes, I noted that this particular statement is not backed up by the text. I have therefore removed it. I have also adjusted and expanded all the references to Moyse-Bartlett to the two volumes available on Google books. Please tell me if you would like to see any of the pages referenced. simongraham (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
55 - Baker 2001, p. 80. By 1902 this had reversed and the guns were proving more accurate, the use of the Martini–Enfield deemed, in the words of Captain Gough, an "unqualified success" - Not entirely verified: the article says "reversed and the guns were proving more accurate," but the source says that the guns were always (potentially) accurate, but the soldiers were not accustomed to using it (firing it? assessing accuracy on the firing range?) The guns did not become more accurate, the soldiers became better trained/accustomed to them, correct?
That is a nice spot. Amended.
57 - Verner 1906, p. 51. The policy was to rarely move officers so they understood the local conditions well and invested in their quarters to make them as comfortable as they could. - Verified.
@Simongraham: - I'm doing some spot checks (above). Can you email me (thru Wikipedia) the four pages identified above as Need copy of page? Or, if those pages are available online, give me a URL link? Thanks.
@Noleander: Thank you for your welcome and your thorough review. These were very helpful comments. I have added URLs where the sources are online but am aware that they may not be the editions that are used to research the article, as I use a library to access physical books, journals and newspapers rather than solely relying on online sources, so there may be minor differences. The Society of Malawi Journal is, however, available on jstor[12] so hopefully you will be able to access that online through the wikipedia library. Please do take a look and tell me if there are hard-copies that are still needed. simongraham (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The new URLs for the "need copy of page" items do not show me the page text ("no preview available"). So, for the four "Need copy of page" above, I'll need a photo of the pages. (Or, a URL if you can a site online where the page is visible to the public without an account).
Sorry for making you do that work, but the FA review guidelines specify that the first FA nomination submitted by an editor has to be scrutinized heavily. Subsequent FA nominations you make will not have to undergo this much scrutiny. When I first obtain sources for my FA articles that are difficult to access, I make photos or screen-grabs of the key pages and save them. Even tho I have eight FAs, I still do that, in case the material is ever challenged. Every nominator has to be able to provide the text of every single source. Noleander (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: Thank you for your understanding. Responses above. Please be aware that your request may be difficult in some jurisdictions as scanning and emailing copyright material may not legal. I also feel it would be to wikipedia's detriment if its Featured Articles could only be edited by editors that use sources that are available digitally. I am aware that not every editor has access to high-quality library resources but I find offline resources can be of great benefit to an article. simongraham (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a source review, all that is required is the snippet that directly verifies the material in question -- this is rarely more than a page, and usually about a sentence or two. Sending such a small quantity to an individual person for non-commercial academic purposes is considered fair use (or equivalent) in almost all of the world. There's no need for it to be available digitally -- it's perfectly fine to photograph or transcribe a print source. It might be worth noting that the standards at WP:DYK recently changed so that good faith can no longer be assumed for sourcing -- if the reviewer cannot access a source, the nominator has to provide the relevant chunk or the nomination cannot pass. UndercoverClassicistT·C22:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simongraham - Thanks for providing links to the remaining four spot checks. I was able to verify two of the four. The other two were Google Books, but the preview feature did not include the desired pages. The FA source review procedure suggests that random citations be selected from the article, which is how the above spot checks were selected. It would not be random if the spot checks were limited to those sources that are available online. If you're not comfortable with emailing a fragment of a page, we can leave this source review in its current state (I would mark it "inconclusive" or "incomplete"). Also, you could post a note on the FA Talk page ... the FA coordinators patrol that page, and they would respond with advice regarding the not-online sources. Noleander (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: Thank you for your patience. I am now in a jurisdiction that I can access the relevant books and scan pages so have made adjustments accordingly. Please see above. simongraham (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I love you, but not enough to die for you"; if you lived in New York in the 1990s, you know that line. If not, then this article will explain it to you. For 10 years, this young couple shared their most intimate details with millions of subway riders as they struggled to navigate a romantic relationship in the middle of a deadly epidemic.
The campaign was contracted to Conill, a Latino marketing agency, who determined ... Agency Conill - seems pretty significant for this article. I guess they were/are too small to have a WP article?
We don't have an article on them. I vaguely remember looking at starting one, but couldn't find enough material, so that didn't go anywhere.
I'm having a hard time picturing how this worked visually: Frames vs Episodes: Each episode consisted of how many frames?
A single episode was displayed in subways for an entire year. Were all the frames (the entire episode) shown in a single "Strip ad"? Or did each strip ad have only a portion of the episode?
Yeah, I can see how that could be confusing. Let me think on this a bit.
The InfoBox shows two frames with caption "First two frames of Episode 1" .. this may lead readers to conclude that the image is displaying the entirety of a single strip ad. Is it a full strip ad? Or is that image a fragment of a single strip ad?
George Foy describes his protagonist riding the subway, reading the "forty-eighth installment" of Julio and Marisol... Now I'm really confused :-) If "installment" means episode here, how does "48" relate to the 8 or 9 episodes the article defines? Or, does "installment" mean a single strip ad (2 frames)? Were the episodes published as a sequence of several (e.g. ten) strip ads, and the ten strip ads cumulatively composed an episode? E.g. ten strip ads x 2 frames each = 20 frames per episode?
The "forty-eighth installment" is a joke but I can see that the humor is obscure if you're not familiar with the subject. I've dropped that part.
Clarify timing & duration: The action played out in slow motion: nine episodes were posted in subway cars at a rate of approximately one per year,... Was a given episode displayed for the entire year? Or was a given episode displayed for, say, 3 months, then there was a gap until the next episode appeared?
Clarify "Strip ad" - A caption says "Strip ad", but that phrase does not appear in the body text. Probably should.
In a 2007 guide to LGBT comics, the strip was ... Here "strip" is used, but as a reader, I'm puzzled: does it here mean "strip ad"? Or "Comic strip?
Time frame in lead: Reader has to wait for 2nd paragraph to get: ... of about one episode per year from 1989 to 1997. I was eager to learn who/what/when/where in the first paragraph. Consider placing "1989 to 1997" in the 1st paragraph of Lead, and "one episode per year" in the 2nd paragraph.
Done
More precise wording for telenovela aspect: The storyline, unfolding in a telenovela format, ... and ... the strip was described as including all the essential elements of the telenovela genre: "melodrama, illness, love, death, tears, suspense, hot babes, and handsome men" The word "format" may be confusing for some readers. Telenovela is a TV show; and "format" suggests the physical layout and composition. Yet the 2D paper advertisement is far from a TV screen. Even if the sources use the word "format", it may be best to use editorial override and provide readers with a word that helps them understand it is the events, relationships, and emotions that are shared, not the physical format or layout. Consider "telenovela themes" or "telenovela-style themes" or "telenovela concept" or "telenovela motif" or "telenovela-inspired" or "inspired by telenovelas" or something like that.
Rephrased as "in a style similar to a telenovela"
Similar ad campaigns directed at other demographics? The article emphasizes that the ads were aimed at Hispanics. Were there parallel ad campaigns run by the subway that targeted other demographics?
I'm not aware of any, but it's certainly possible they existed. Certainly none achieved the same cultural impact.
Was this ad campaign ever used outside the subway system? Ever used in another city?
The sources generally talk about the subway, and that's how I remember it. But, it's likely it was also in the buses, since they're both run by the MTA. I'll see if I can find anything that definitively talks about the busses. I'm virtually certain this never ran outside of New York.
Further Reading: that section has a single op-ed piece Getlin, Josh (July 22, 1991). "Ad Nauseam : Is Nothing Sacred? Apparently Not, Judging by Ads in N. Y. Subways". Los Angeles Times. It doesn't look especially insightful or important. I think of "Further Reading" as items that curious readers can go to get deep, comprehensive, broad coverage. This looks like a random op-ed that was once used for a cite, then its sentence was removed :-) Consider either (a) If the op-ed has a key fact/insight: then put that fact into the article & it becomes a cite; or (b) remove the op-ed entirely. No big deal, just musing.
It doesn't add much, so dropped.
The big issue that you touched on in several comments is mostly one of nomenclature: how do "frame", "episode", "strip", "installment", "campaign", etc, all interact with each other? I'll spend some time thinking on this before I make any changes. One of the issues here is that most of the sources assume the reader is already familiar with the campaign and understands all of this context already, so there's no source that comes out and says "Each episode consisted of N frames" or anything like that. The best way to make this obvious would be to just show it, but as far as I can tell, there's no PD argument I can make so that's out.
@RoySmith: Agree, you cannot state "Each episode consisted of N strip ads" or "Each strip ad contained 8 frames"; but you can look at images within Reliable Sources, and then state in the encyclopedia's voice "Some episodes contained over 14 strip ads" or "Episode 4 contained 13 strip ads" or "Some strip ads consisted of 8 frames" or "A strip ad from episode 6 contained 6 frames" etc. The article must give the reader some sense of the layout and quantity of the advertisements, even if it is only specific numbers from individual episodes or ads. Noleander (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: The best I've been able to come up with so far is that perhaps I could download https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/surviving-and-thriving/images/OB2207.png (or a crop from that) and include that in the article. I think a reasonable argument could be made under WP:NFCC. For example, Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information we would have two non-free images. The existing one in the infobox shows the artistic style, and Maria saying the "I love you but ..." line. This new one would show the general layout of what a "strip ad" looks like, and how the individual frames are laid out, including the info panel with phone number, etc. I think that (plus a little "the sky is blue" text) would go a long way towards answering many of your questions.
I've added some more detail about the ad format, and the photo-novella style which I think answers many (but perhaps not all) of your questions. @Nikkimaria: could I impose on you to look at the NFCC argument I outlined in the previous paragraph; do you think this would be acceptable? That image comes from:
As for "Was a given episode displayed for the entire year?", I'm pretty sure the answer is "no", but that's WP:OR and it seems unlikely that I'll be able to find a WP:RS that talks about this.
Today is #WorldAIDSDay. Many New Yorkers will remember "Julio and Marisol," also known as "Decision / La Decisión,” the popular public service comic strip and HIV/AIDS messaging campaign from @nychealthy that ran in subways and buses from 1989 to 2001. It followed a couple, Julio and Marisol, as they navigated their relationship in the midst of the early AIDS epidemic in #NYC. The campaign, which ran in both English and Spanish, raised awareness about the risks of contracting HIV, and educated the public about prevention methods. Intended as a photo-novella, Julio and Marisol was a high-drama illustrated soap opera, drawing in riders with strong facial expressions and emotional dialogue. Each successive episode continued the storyline, with scenes involving Julio and Marisol’s friends and family members Marco, Raul, Luisito, Anita, Iris, and Rosa. Some characters came to test positive for HIV, or be hospitalized with AIDS; others worried about contracting the virus. A familiar part of #NYCsubway and bus riding for a decade, Julio and Marisol was a unique and effective method of communication about the AIDS crisis. The campaign’s long run meant that riders became invested in the story; interpersonal tension between characters lasted years in the minds of New Yorkers. Marisol’s trademark sentence “I love you, but not enough to die for you” became an iconic and sobering symbol of the time. Image 1, from the #NYTMCollection shows one of the final episodes of Julio and Marisol Image 2, courtesy of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, shows an episode of Julio and Marisol from 1999. Image 3, courtesy of the National Library of Medicine, shows the English and Spanish covers of two comic books showcasing the full series, which were released in 2001.
Maybe that points in the direction of some interesting sources?
Yup, UndercoverClassicist found that for me during the Peer Review and it's used as a source here for a couple of things. Regarding the images, yes, the entire strip is available on line at various places. The problem is, it's likely that all of those places are violating copyright by reproducing the images and per WP:COPYVIOCopyright-infringing material should also not be linked to. If I could convince myself (and my reviewers, but first myself) that they were linkable, then they would also be uploadable to commons and I would do so. But I don't think I could get away with that. RoySmith(talk)16:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I was not clear: when I referred to the instagram post, and said "Maybe that points in the direction of some interesting sources" I was saying that the text in the Instagram may contain information that leads to new sources that may be useful for the article. I wasn't suggesting adding external links to infringing web sites. Noleander (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander Thank you for prodding me to dig a bit deeper. I found a bit more about the later episodes (12, 13, 15) and added that. You also asked about other campaigns; I found one mention of a planned chlamydia campaign and added that to the end of "Production history". RoySmith(talk)15:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That instagram post above says the full set of strips were published as in comic book form. The article already says ", in comic book form, and..." ... is it possible to find the Comic Book publication data and put it into a "Source" or "Further Reading" section? (do comic books have ISBNs)?
That instagram post above says that the ad was called by two names, so maybe include "La Decision" as an alternate title in bold in the 1st sentence. I see the alternative in the InfoBox, but probably should also be in bold in 1st sentence. The campaign was bilingual, so the English "Decision" (not "The Decision") was also an alternate title (as indicated in images shown in a Google image search)" ... perhaps present the alternate name in bold as Decision/La Decision (include both languages together, separated by a slash or something).
I read the MOS link, but I'm not sure it relates to what I was suggesting. I was commenting on the title of the article ... the ad campaign appears to have several names: "Julio and Marisol" "La Decision" and "Decision". I was suggesting that the various names (that are not used as article title) could be in bold in the 1st sentence. That is endorsed by the MOS "first sentence" guideline. Noleander (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the images I see in a Google image search is named "La Decision XV", as in 15. That makes me think that each (or, at least one) one-year episode had at least 15 strip ads.
One of the images I see in a Google image search shows that one single strip ad contained two rows of frames, about 6 to 8 frame total. Perhaps that was the typical layout? Even if you cannot find a RS that specifically says that, the WP voice could accurately say (in the context of describing the strip ad appearance) "... One strip ad from 1993 contained 8 image frames, arranged in two rows of four...". That is valid, as long as the editor (you) saw the image published in a Reliable Source (no need for the image to be free-to-use; the editor can observe a copyrighted image and report what it contained).
Consider including a few quotes from the ads. WP permits small quotes based on the "fair use" exception to copyright. See WP:Non-free_content#Text and WP:Non-free_content#Text_2 which say, among other things, Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea.
I understand, but if all the images are copyrighted (so none appear); and if the article does not supply any sample quotes, then the reader is left feeling empty. Tens of thousands of WP articles have quotes ... perhaps try some and see if any FA reviewers object?
Ah, victory. I finally remembered where I had once seen the comic book form. JSTOR, of all places! I've added it as an external link. It is CC by-nc-nd, which means we can't import them into commons, but should meet the requirements of WP:EL. Note that this format appears to contain all the same individual frames, but laid out to fit on book-shaped pages rather than in the horizontal format of the original subway ads.
I've also gone through and verified that the only remaining places I use "strip" in the article are explicitly "comic strip" which should eliminate any confusion over comic strip vs strip ads. Let me know if this resolves your remaining questions. RoySmith(talk)18:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Date range: the article has campaign that ran from 1989 to 1997 in the (source is a 1997 article). I see source https://www.instagram.com/p/C0UT6bUvSnX/ (NY transit instagram) says "...the popular public service comic strip and HIV/AIDS messaging campaign from @nychealthy that ran in subways and buses from 1989 to 2001."
Wording: The campaign was most well known for the print ads that ran... doesnt sound as smooth as it could. Consider The campaign was best known for the print ads that ran... or similar
Could the relevant language template be added to the mainspace?
I don't understand what you mean.
The template which says Use American English.
Done.
My count tells me the lead's 163 words long. Could be expanded?
I believe the lead satisfies WP:LEAD's requirement to provide a summary of [the article's] most important contents. Is there something in particular that I missed which needs summarizing?
I see that you are presently reworking the Reception section. Will the article undergo (significant) changes in other sections as well? MSincccc (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not anticipate any more significant changes to the article. My expectation is that over the next few days, legions of new reviewers will swoop down, heap praise upon the current version, and issue their stamps of approval. Should that not come to pass, I may indeed be forced to make changes :-) RoySmith(talk)11:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may return with further suggestions (as I did for Abramson), but the article is at present too well presented for me to withhold my support. MSincccc (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Storyline
“two young lovers while they confront” → “two young lovers as they confront”.
“intravenous drug abuse” → “intravenous drug use” (more neutral).
Day 1
“thinking how smart his kid brother is” → “thinking how smart his younger brother is”.
The line from the original is "Smart kid protecting himself", so I think we're OK using the word "kid".
“I was dumb wrong” → add [sic] if verbatim from the script.
It is indeed verbatim from the original, but I don't see a need for [sic]. That implies we're intentionally reproducing something that's clearly wrong or a misprint. Neither apply here.
General
Episode numbering: 10, 11, and 14 are missing; consider a brief note if intentional.
Tense consistency: some sentences use present (“shows Julio”), others past (“took place”). Recommend standardising.
Suggestions from readers
“After episode 2 included a request for ideas” → “After episode 2 requested ideas”.
Split the long sentence: “over 100 people sent in suggestions, ranging…” → two sentences.
“would be working in a pet salon where Marisol brought her poodle” → “works in a pet salon, where Marisol brings her poodle”.
“get HIV from a prostitute” → “contract HIV from a prostitute”.
“ends both their lives in a murder–suicide” → “commits a murder–suicide”.
“wanted to see the couple apologize and get back together” → “favored reconciliation”.
“…cultural attitudes which discouraged condom use” → “…cultural attitudes that discouraged condom use”
"Which" is more British; that is standard for restrictive clauses in American English.
“Hispanic facial features” → “Hispanic features” (the alt text)
James Baron of The New York Times described the series as "one part steamy soap opera, one part language instruction, and two parts AIDS education service".
Fixed the first two. As for the quote, It's one of the best quotes in the article and succinctly summarizes pretty much everything there is to say about the campaign. Leaving it out of the lead would be, in my opinion, a mistake. RoySmith(talk)18:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Background
Pre-marital → premarital
American English.
Additional factors included recent immigrants not knowing English and being poor, both of which limited their access to health care and information.
→ Additional factors included recent immigrants’ limited English and poverty, restricting access to health care and information.
You could simplify the current sentence.
The action played out in slow motion: nine episodes were posted in subway cars at a rate of approximately one per year, with the leisurely pace becoming a defining feature.
→ The story unfolded slowly, with nine episodes posted in subway cars at roughly one per year, the pace becoming a defining feature.
The section mixes past (“were posted”) and descriptive present (“played out in slow motion”). The narrative flow could be made uniform.
I changed premarital. If I may be so bold, I think the other suggestions are just matters of style so I'll leave them as is. I believe I've already addressed all your points regarding Reception, but let me know if I've missed any. RoySmith(talk)12:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After episode 2 included a request for ideas → After episode 2 requested ideas
I don't know, but I think a good de minimus argument could be made here since the gist of the image is to show what a generic interior car card looks like, and the details of the particular ad are not important.
De minimus is typically applied when something is in the background; here it's being featured, even if as an example. Compare something like this: the car cards are definitely de minimus here, but (because) that doesn't do a good job of exemplifying them. If the point is generic example rather than specific artwork, a good alternative if copyright status can't be determined might be to create an original example. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Production history, paragraph 1: "The campaign ran in the New York City subway (and also on MTA busses)" - "New York City Subway" is a proper name, so all four words should be capitalized. Maybe you can link "MTA busses" to MTA Regional Bus Operations?
Done
Production history, paragraph 2: "The ads were run in the advertising space above the car windows in a horizontal format known as interior car cards" - There is a missing word here.
Some of the refs are tagged as requiring subscription when they don't necessarily need subscription to access, This includes the NYT (for post-1980 articles, you can access a limited number of articles per month without an account, so they should be marked with |url-access=limited) and newspapers.com (the clippings are completely free to access - only the urls with /image/ in them require a subscription).
for post-1980 articles, you can access a limited number of articles per month without an account are you sure about that? When I try to open any of the NYT links I have in an incognito window, I get prompted to create an account: "Create a free account, or log in. Enjoy limited free articles ..." RoySmith(talk)01:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, the prompt does say "limited" free articles. Unfortunately, there's no option to mark a CS1 citation as "limited access but only if you don't use incognito or are logged in". Nor is there an option to mark a citation as "limited access but only if you have a qualifying print disability that's recorded by archive.org". – Epicgenius (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I question the value of this field at all. Everything we do is supposed to be to provide useful information, or at least a better experience, to our readers. It's unclear to me how this improves their experience. If the little icon wasn't there, the reader would just click the link and the site would tell them they need a subscription, or they've used up N of their free articles for the month, or whatever. Wouldn't that be just fine? In fact, it would be more accurate because it would track whatever policy changes the site might implement in the future. Maybe a site decides to allow access to a URL if the HTTP referer header indicated this was a click-through from a wikipedia article? Or they removed the paywall completely? Or make it stricter? So, you've invested effort to notice that I used the wrong tag and to educate me about it. And I've invested effort to fix the tags. But have our readers really received any value from this? I don't think so. RoySmith(talk)13:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, my preference is to not use the tag at all, so I agree with you on that. However, I just mentioned it since, somewhere along the way, someone decided to mark these urls as needing a subscription. Maybe it marginally helps the reader by saving them an extra click if the source is paywalled; if the source is limited-access, on the other hand, they may still click it. Just my two cents. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
someone decided to mark these urls as needing a subscription that was almost certainly me. But only because in some previous FAC some reviewer insisted I needed them :-( RoySmith(talk)14:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CSECTION, I would be wary of dividing reception into praise and criticism sections, since it can lead to WP:NPOV issues if sections are largely devoted to positive or negative reviews. This is further complicated because the second paragraph of the "Criticism" section includes a review that isn't even negative - specifically, Danto's review. Instead, I'd group the reviews some other way. For example, you can have different subsections devoted to artistic style; cultural commentary (specifically how it's discussed in relation to the Hispanic, Black, and LGBT communities); cultural impact (e.g. how people from around the world requested copies); and educational usage.
Lead:
In the infobox, is there a reason New York City Department of Health isn't linked? I get not linking the other parts of the infobox, but New York City Department of Health isn't a WP:OVERLINK.
Para 1: "Julio and Marisol (officially titled Decision in English or La Decisión in Spanish)" - If "Julio and Marisol" isn't the official name of the campaign in either language, where does the name "Julio and Marisol" come from? For that matter, the lead doesn't mention at all that Julio and Marisol are the characters in the campaign (it doesn't even introduce them).
Actually, I think it may be beneficial to beef up the lead a bit. For example, the fact that the ad campaign targeted the Hispanic population because Hispanic people didn't tend to use condoms.
Para 1: "The campaign was praised by public health officials, but drew criticism from family values advocates." - This seems like this would fit in the next paragraph. Also, maybe the nature of the praise and criticism can be elaborated upon (for example, people praising how it was structured similar to a telenovela or soap opera, or people's criticism that it didn't feature gay or black characters".
OK, I've addressed most of those. I need to think about how I might rearrange the Reception section, so I'm going to hold off making any changes there until I've let that roll around inside my head a while. RoySmith(talk)16:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added a little bit more, found a couple of good images, and re-integrated my sandbox back into the article. Note to self (and anybody else who is listening): If you copy-paste a bunch of stuff including reference to somewhere else and then copy it back, VE just goes off the deep end and makes a total mess. Don't ever do that. RoySmith(talk)01:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Background
Para 1: "Over the next decade, New York became the major locus of infection in the United States with epidemiologists estimating that half of the gay men and three-fifths of the injection drug users in the city were infected" - Should there be a comma after "in the United States"?
Para 2: " "Gender relations take a different tone and tenor with Hispanics ... Machismo is prevalent and women are not taught to talk about sex, and also are not socialized to being confrontational to ask their partner to wear a condom". " - The period after the quote should be placed just before the quote mark, because the quote is a complete sentence, per MOS:LQ.
Para 2: Also, "Factors included recent immigrants not knowing English and being poor" doesn't seem like stereotypical behavior. I'd say "Other factors included..." As a matter of fact, shouldn't this be put after the Catholic Church sentence, since that sentence kind of explains the stereotypical behavior?
Para 3: "Officially titled Decision in English (La Decisión in Spanish)" - I suggest rewording to get rid of the parentheses, e.g. "Officially titled Decision in English and La Decisión in Spanish".
"The story follows two young lovers for several days while they argue about the dangers of unprotected sex during the AIDS epidemic" - I would move "for several days" to after "while they argue", to make it clear that these are in-universe days. Otherwise, it sounds like the story took place in several real-world days (contradicting the lead, which says the campaign took several years), not several in-universe days.
I just dropped the "several days". I also changed argue -> confront the dangers, which better aligns with the full story line.
Is there a reason the first two sentences are in present tense and the last two in past tense?
Do you mean "David Hinckley ... described"? That's past tense because it's talking about an action Hinckley took in the past, i.e. he wrote an article. The present tense sentences are present tense per MOS:PLOT.
I know that the following three subsections fall under MOS:PLOT, but do any reliable sources actually mention the content of the episodes?
In an earlier version, I had citations to various sources for specific items, but got rid of them. It left the text cluttered and I don't think added any value.
Day 1:
Para 2: "then discovers that both of his friends use them" - Is "them" referring to condoms?
Yes. I think that's pretty clear as written.
Fair enough, I reread the sentence, and I agree "them" has a clear referent. Though, a rule of thumb I like to follow is that, if people raise questions about specific wording, it might not actually be clear even if I think it is. - EG
Para 3: "Julio leaves Marco and Miguel, and encounters his younger brother," - Per WP:CINS, I suggest adding "he" before "encounters" (or alternatively, removing the comma after "Miguel").
Done
Day 2:
No concerns
Epilogue:
Para 2: "Episode 13 was announced in August 1999." - Do you know if this was ever released? Do any sources talk about what this is about?
What you see is all I know. As noted, the historical documentation is sketchy.
Para 3: "The episode was posted in 2024 on the New York City Transit Museum's Instagram" - The Instagram source is fine for this specific sentence fragment. However, my concern is that it might not be appropriate to use this for "it is unknown when or where it was originally published", since that requires additional secondary analysis that the Instagram post doesn't provide. I acknowledge that this info may be hard to find, since it's already mentioned that the production history after episode 8 is incomplete.
I'm open to concrete suggestions what to do here.
I suggest perhaps just removing "it is unknown..." - EG
Done.
Suggestions from readers:
No concerns
Another general comment:
Would it make more sense to put "Reception" after "Production history"? This is how I usually see these sections laid out in other art-related articles.
I don't see any real value in that. I think the reception section is more interesting, so I think it makes sense to put it first. I'm not bothered that I made different editorial choices than other authors.
The reason I suggested this is because, as a reader, I thought it might be better to learn about the production history first. Reading the article, I didn't really comprehend why they stopped at eight episodes until I read that section (specifically, the "Production gaps" subsection). - EG Epicgenius (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW: I also thought the sequence of sections was not ideal. Not only because the convention for WP articles is invariably Plot/Production/Reception; but also because production precedes reception chronologically (as production of J & M unfolded in real life). Having Reception before Production is a bit jarring, as if seeing "Death" section before "Early Life" in a biographical article. Noleander (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Para 1: "'ubiquitous faces of the [Metropolitan Transportation Authority] MTA'" - Usually, the acronym is put after the thing it stands for, but in this case, it looks unwieldy. I'd just say something like "'ubiquitous faces of the MTA', or Metropolitan Transportation Authority". Or even "'ubiquitous faces' of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority"
Rephrased.
Para 2: "Health Department Associate Commissioner Steven Mathews said the department had received hundreds of letters asking for reprints" - As of a specific date?
Added
Educational aspects:
Para 1: "Examples include a Ben Casey series about a young drug addict, Incredible Hulk character Jim Wilson, who has AIDS (#388, "Thicker Than Water"), a Justice League issue which teaches children how to use prescription medicines safely, and Dennis the Menace educating children about poisons in the home" - This specific sentence is hard to follow. Maybe you can use semicolons to separate the different parts of the list - this is usually done when the items in a serial list have commas.
Done
Para 2: "'The situations in the story are the kinds which people may see themselves in, situations which people can relate to'." - Per MOS:LQ, the period goes before the quotation mark as this is a full sentence.
Done.
Para 2: "Librarians Kristine Alpi and Barbara Bibel used Julio and Marisol as an example of educational materials" - Unless Alpi and Bibel actually used these as educational materials (in which case Julio and Marisol is one of the several educational materials they used), I would use "cited" rather than "used".
Done
Para 2: "while admitting that there was value in educational campaigns, said" - I would change this to something like "admitted that there was value in educational campaigns but said..." Otherwise, you have two parenthesis (rhetoric) adjacent to each other ("Hispanic AIDS Forum's executive director", "while admitting that there was value in educational campaigns"), which would be awkward.
Para 1: "$60,000 (equivalent to $128,000 in 2023) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grant" - I know this isn't the intent, but having two parenthetical comments almost next to each other, like here, is awkward.
Para 1: "Episodes 1-9 were republished (in two editions with different cover art) as a bound comic-book with the original graphical content rearranged to fit the book format." - Two comments. "Episodes 1-9" should be "Episodes 1–9", and "comic book" shouldn't need a hyphen because it's not being used as an adjective.
Para 2: "Ads ran above the car windows, in a horizontal 11-by-44-inch (28 cm × 110 cm) format" - This sounds like the horizontal cards near the ceiling, which also run above the doors. In fact, nearly all NYC Subway cars from that era had interior car cards running the entire length of the car, not just the windows.
Para 2: "an information block" - I get what you mean, but I would describe this as a "panel" even though it doesn't have a drawing.
Para 3: "Work began in the spring of 1998" - I don't recommend using seasons per MOS:SEASON, but if you do, I suggest "Work began in spring 1998".
Para 4: "The campaign was contracted to Conill, a Latino marketing agency; the initial contract only covered the first episode, with subsequent episodes managed internally by the Health Department using freelance artists." - I'd probably rephrase it to consolidate the info about Conill in one clause; for example, "The first episode of the campaign was contracted to Conill, a Latino marketing agency, with subsequent episodes managed internally by the Health Department using freelance artists."
Para 5: "but English versions were provided in response to popular demand" - I suggest "but that English versions..."
Para 5: "a three or four month" - This should be "a three- or four-month" because the numbers modify the word "month".
Production gaps:
Para 1: "with 20% of the cars" - 20 percent of each car, or one out of five cars?
Para 2: "He also said that the department was working on a new campaign featuring a character named Lydia, to teach people about chlamydia" - Did this end up happening?
Popularity:
Para 1: "The series became sufficiently well known to be used" - I suggest "The series became sufficiently well known that it was used" or "The series was well known enough to be used".
Educational aspects:
Para 2: Is Maldonado's comment specifically about Julio and Marisol, or was it just about educational campaigns?
Social impact:
Para 1: "HIV-positive character in Doonesbury" - Doonesbury should be italicized
Para 1: "In a 2007 guide to LGBT comics, Julio and Marisol was said" - Who said this?
Para 3: "which he labeled as "tactful omissions"" - Is there a reason he said they were tactful?
Consistency in (hushed tones!) capitalization of quotes, e.g "retrospective noting that "The campaign’s long run..."" or "called it an "interminable AIDS..."" and "the series was one of the "ubiquitous face..."" or "and that "Without question...""
I'm not actually sure what is the right thing to do here. I've asked on WT:MOS.
Aye, it never occurred to me to ask...
"The series is so well known, it has been used as" > "The series became sufficiently well known to be used as", perhaps; the comma seems misplaced?
Done
" He can even apply for a [low cost] public-service-announcement spot. His group might be eligible"." MOS:LQ: "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material", which this is.
Done.
" large customers", naturally I assumed this was a reference to obesity in already cramped cars!
Well, yes. But rephrased anyway.
Thanks for this. It was a fucking hardcore period, and some of the advertising, unlke this, was downrights brutal (and,if I remember, often offensive, although as a kid I ddn't yet see that of course). Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix12:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
everything resolved from my point of view; the issue of the WP:QUOTECAPS/WP:CAPQUOTES is yet to be decided, and in view of the likelihood that
WT:MOS moves at a slightly faster than glacial rate; we can't let it hold things up. After all, the FA has to follow MOS, and MOS ... has yet to speak :) —Fortuna, imperatrix15:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. For now, I'll just leave it the way it is but I'll be happy to come back to this if consensus develops at WT:MOS and/or amongst the other reviewers here. RoySmith(talk)15:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saving a space (by which I mean very little). I said my piece at PR but the article has changed a bit since then; if anyone else wants to jump in ahead of me, that would probably be to the good. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to remember whether I knew about Julio and Marisol before RoySmith brought them to Wikipedia, but I can't figure it out. I haven't been to NYC before 2005, so probably not in NYC. Anyway, to review a little:
Is it correct that we have no clue who the artist(s) was/were?
See below.
Storyline: I am not sure why you attribute the "pretty girl" and "nice-looking boy" to a secondary source but the "frank discussions" are just sourced to the comic.
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but there is no source for "frank discussions". WP:CITE only requires citations for "material challenged or likely to be challenged", It seems unlikely that anybody who had any familiarity with the material would challenge this statement.
Epilogue: "The history of the campaign is incomplete after episode 9" do you mean that you don't know what exactly was published when, or that this has been lost completely despite being quite recent? The comic book from [12] and JSTOR seems to end after Episode 9.
A little of all of those things. Presumably there were episodes 10, 11, and 14, but I can't find any mention of them. Episode 13 is mentioned in passing, but I haven't been able to locate it. I've made it "documented history", perhaps that reduces some of the confusion?
Reception: this is the reception of the subway strip version; is there a separate reception of the comic book? Interesting in the comic book is that it asks the reader for suggestions for Julio and Marisol stories. The comic book seems to answer also the "Requests for reprints" but is only mentioned much later?
The comic book was just a repackaging of the same content that ran in the subway ads, so no, there's no distinct reception. I've added a bit to the first paragraph of "Production history" which hopefully explains that better.
I really don't get the Hulk image here.
I've added a little bit more context. This section is talking about the history of using the comic book genre as a way of teaching important health lessons to children, and The Hulk specifically had an story about a character with AIDS.
Production history: how should I imagine the "broadcast versions"? audio? animation? film?
Ah. I've changed it to say "radio", which is the word the source uses. That should at least make it clear we're talking audio, but beyond that I have no information. RoySmith(talk)08:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"artist Stephanie Siefken, a native of Colombia and the Health Department's Cross-cultural Affairs Director, assigned to the project" just to confirm, she just happens to be an artist, but she is not the artist who drew Julio and Marisol?
"subsequent episodes managed internally by the Health Department using freelance artists" the source says "The department decided to handle future episodes on its own, with help from a freelance graphic designer and an artist who draws each panel." so there seems to be a single artist (at least after the first episode) but we do not know who it is.
Yeah, that's a good question (alluded to in my "see below" comment). It's possible Siefken is the person who did the drawings, but I have not been able to find anything that says she was. Given the uniformity of style, I suspect it was the same person doing all of them, but that's pure speculation, and given the number of years this ran, maybe not even a good guess. So a bit of a mystery there.
Production gaps: "the department was working on a new campaign featuring a character named Lydia, to teach people about chlamydia". that is quite a cliffhanger for the article to end on; what happened to Lydia? There is a short and a drag performer; any connection? does the NYC Health department still advertise?
I was asked by another reviewer about other campaigns. I found that, so I added it. Yes, I agree it's a little abrupt, but not sure what else to say here. I looked at the IMDb link. Despite the title, my best guess is that's unrelated.
Will look through your responses later. A photo in the subway would be awesome; I don't know if this can be used but it could certainly be linked to as external media. —Kusma (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(You might have a good case for FUR with that—it's absolutely the topic of the article and it's not so good quality that it would impinge any commercial rights.) —Fortuna, imperatrix16:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it to the Storyline section. I guess the worst that could happen is somebody objects to the FUR and I have to take it out, in which case we're no worse off than before. RoySmith(talk)22:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
..., both with normal sexual desires I would delete this text. For instance, oral sex is abnormal or a taboo for many religious people, but others have been practising it for ages.Borsoka (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying what the source says: "normal, healthy appetites for life, including its physical pleasures"
I understand the quoted text describes their life motivations/inclinations as normal and healthy, not their sexual desires.
The quote from the source is "They were attractive singles with normal, healthy appetites for life, including its physical pleasures". I can't think of any plausible way to interpret "physical pleasures" other than "sex", especially in the context of an ad campaign urging people to use condoms. RoySmith(talk)16:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Lead:) The campaign has been described as "one part steamy soap opera, one part language instruction, and two parts AIDS education service". I would delete this sentence. Alternatively, name the quote's source.Borsoka (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is attributed in the main body: James Baron of The New York Times described the series as "one part steamy soap opera, one part language instruction, and two parts AIDS education service", but OK, I'll repeat that in the lead per MOS:CITELEAD. RoySmith(talk)16:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nihilism is a family of views that reject certain aspects of existence, including the ideas that life is meaningless, that moral values are baseless, and that knowledge is impossible. The article is a level-4 vital article with over 1.2 million page views last year. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was quietly counting on a thank button click (which I’ve yet to receive), I may lack the initiative to review this as thoroughly (or even at all) as the last. What do you say Phlsph7 ? MSincccc (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, it seems I have underestimated the motivational forces unleashed by a thank button click compared to a regular thank comment. Let me rectify this oversight. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read upto the end of the Epistemology section. The prose is already well written and properly cited; hence I have nothing much to offer here. MSincccc (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Metrological nihilism
non-composite → noncomposite (American English spelling).
There were some discussions in earlier FA reviews about when to add birth and death dates in parenthesis. I usually add them only in the history section since the chronology is most relevant there. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the above, I am inclined to support but it's worth noting that I am the only one to have reviewed it so far (almost a fortnight since the nomination). Looking forward to your thoughts on the above. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the review and all the helpful comments. Button-based gratitude delivered! Let's hope that some more reviewers find their way to this nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As always, the article is outstanding in its simplicity and clear language. A quick read-through revealed no major issues, but I hope my relative ignorance of philosophy can help in making this article even more understandable.
I struggle a bit with this sentence: "In the field of epistemology, relativistic versions of nihilism assert that knowledge, truth, or meaning are relative to the perspectives of specific individuals or cultural contexts, implying that there is no independent framework to assess which opinion is ultimately correct.". It nags me that I still don't know what epistemology is, despite having been taught this term on many occasions, and despite the sentence defining it implicitly. Can the sentence be shortened or split to be easier to parse?
In metaphysics, one form of nihilism states that the world could have been empty, meaning that it is a contingent fact that there is something rather than nothing. -> Don't understand what this means.
I struggle with the sentence "Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/) is a family of views that reject or negate certain aspects of existence", in specific the word negate. To me, that word means saying it's not true, which is not the way the word seems to be used here? Is it jargon to use it in a different sense?
I'm surpised to see existentialism described as "other negative attitudes toward the world". Having only (attempted to) read Beauvoir, I associate it with authenticity and freedom. I don't think the sentence describing existentialism makes the link to nihilism clear.
I replaced "negative" with "disillusioned", which should work given its proximity to absurdism and the denial of objective value. I also tried to better clarify the relation to nihilism. Existentialism was not initially part of the paragraph but the inclusion was requested at the GA review. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A related approach, articulated by philosophers such as Roderick Chisholm, assumes that a criterion is required to validate knowledge claims. Asserting that one cannot discern this criterion without already assuming some form of knowledge, it implies that knowledge is impossible --> I don't understand what this means.
I didn't see any images of women, any women mentioned in the text. Is this field so devoid of women?
The article discusses Karen L. Carr in a footnote. She is critical of Rorty's antifoundationalism, so we could add another footnote after the short sentence on him to mention her. I'm not aware of many other candidates to mention. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The annotated links in the see also section are not always clear. Annotations work best when making a link to the existing article. Acosmism, cynicism and post-structuralism can probably do with a hand-written explanation. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In what was possibly the most difficult article I've ever written, I present to you Mongush Buyan-Badyrgy. I've always been fascinated by obscure countries and locations, but even I had never heard of the Tuvan People's Republic until this year! Buyan-Badyrgy is one of the most important figures in the history of the Tuvan people. Adopted as an infant by the noyon (chieftain), who traded cattle to his family in exchange for him(!), he ascended to the noyon position himself at around age 16 after his adoptive father's death.
Despite his youth, Buyan-Badyrgy was a "natural diplomat" and an important figure as the question of Tuva's future was debated. A letter he sent to Russian Emperor Nicholas II resulted in the Tuva region becoming a Russian protectorate. A few years later, in 1918, a decision was made that Tuvans would be allowed to have their own state. He chaired the All-Tuvan Constituent Khural in 1921 which resulted in the establishment of the Tannu Tuva People's Republic, a nation that received partial recognition during its existence.
Buyan-Badyrgy chaired the new General Central Council, thus becoming head of state and government. From 1921 to 1927, he served many roles, including as Minister of Foreign Affairs, General Secretary of the ruling Tuvan People's Revolutionary Party, prime minister (as Chairman of the Council of Ministers), and head of investigation. However, Soviet Russia still maintained significant influence over the new country. Attempts to convert Tuva to a Buddhist theocracy by Buyan-Badyrgy and others proved increasingly irritating to Soviet leadership, and in 1929, they helped launch a coup. Buyan-Badyrgy was removed from office, imprisoned and then executed without trial, aged 39 at his death. Tuva was later annexed into the Soviet Union. Following the Soviet Union's fall, he has become a revered figure in the region, with several monuments made of him and the second-highest Tuvan honor being named the "Order of Buyan-Badyrgy". I thank AirshipJungleman29, who reviewed it for GA and encouraged me to take this to FA. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Suggest adding alt text
File:Buyan-Badyrgy.jpg: source link is dead, needs an author death date and a US tag
As mentioned, the source link is dead and there doesn't appear to be any archived versions of it. Some Russian websites use the picture, e.g. this, as well as the "Personality in history" source in the article, but I don't see either of them list an author or the date of the picture, ugh. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Буян-Бадыргы_и_русский_чиновник.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
Appears to have been taken by K. D. Mintslova (К.Д. Минцловой), but I'm not sure of the author's death or when it was first published, although this story briefly describes it: And here we see what the founder of Belotsarsk, the head of the Russian population in Tuva, Vladimir Gabaev, looked like. The photo is quite well-known. However, it was not reliably known that it was V. Gabaev in the photo, so in various publications this photo is called "Buyan-Badyrgy and a Russian official."
I support this article's promotion to FA status. I've had a look at the sourcing available to me with relation to my work on Mongolia, and found no omissions on the article subject worthy of note. Maybe a sentence or two of context could be added here and there, but that's no big deal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of "with...being" expressions that, in my view spoil the prose.
with several monuments being built of him and the...
Split into two sentences: Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Buyan-Badyrgy has become a revered figure among Tuvans. Several monuments have been built of him and the second-highest honor of the Republic of Tuva is named after him.
with the overall head of the territory being the amban-noyon
Changed to your below suggestion.
with him being an "unconditional supporter of an independent and self-sufficient Tuva."
How about At the congress, Buyan-Badyrgy "showed himself to be a cautious, attentive, moderately democratic politician," according to Khovalyg, being an "unconditional supporter of an independent and self-sufficient Tuva" – does that work?
with it being divided into six kozhuuns.
Changed to This meeting created new subdivisions for the state, which was divided into six kozhuuns.
with the kozhuun conflict being resolved and Tannu Tuva remaining independent;
Changed to your suggestion below.
with the TPRP being the only party and the Tuvan section of the Communist International.
Changed to your suggestion below.
with the first recipient being Kenin-Lopsan.
Changed to your suggestion below.
In the third one, "with him being" is grammatically wrong, it should be "his being". Same goes for the fourth, "it being" which should be "its being". The others are mainly, not entirely, stylistic. How about something like:
and several monuments have been built to commemorate him and the second-highest honor of the Republic of Tuva is named after him
and the overall head of the territory was the amban-noyon
with the kozhuun conflicts' being resolved" (possessive before a gerund)
with the TPRP's being (possessive before a gerund)
Here "located" is redundant. " located in Barun-Khemchik kozhuun (administrative division), a region of Tuva." Just "in" is enough.
Done.
Instead of "Khaidyp had no children himself" how about "Khaidyp had no children of his own"?
Done.
Instead of "However, with the new Chinese government hoping to reintegrate Tuva and Mongolia as part of its territory, the majority of Tuvan leaders" I suggest, "As the new chinese government hoped to reintegrate Tuva and Mongolia as part of its territory, most of Tuvan leaders..."
Done.
Is the Further Reading item of value? It's an odd mixture of a wikilink and an incomplete citation.
I could remove it if you like. It's a two-volume book written by Mongush Kenin-Lopsan on Buyan-Badyrgy's life; I couldn't locate any copies of it myself which is why I wasn't able to use it in the article.
Please be mindful of WP:NONENGPLAG when using non-English sources. For example, citation 5 has "Сын арата вырос в царских условиях", which translates from Russian as "The son of Arat grew up in royal conditions" and in the article we have "He grew up in royal conditions". This is a little too close. My O-level Russian is not up to the standard needed to check all the citations, but Google can be useful here.
Maybe He was raised in royal conditions? – I'm struggling to come up with a better way to reword that sentence...
I have taken the liberty of deleting it and adding "royal" to this sentence. "Khaidyp had no children of his own and thus raised Buyan-Badyrgy as the heir to the royal noyon title."Graham Beards (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier this year hantaviruses were in the news because Betsy Arakawa, the wife of actor Gene Hackman, died from hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS). This article is about the outbreak that led to the discovery of HPS and the viruses that cause it. The article went through peer review, during which it was improved greatly with the help of CFCF and WhatamIdoing. Afterwards, it sailed through GAN without issue. I've continued work on it since then and think it has a chance of becoming a featured article. Of note, I already communicated with Nikkimaria regarding the images, so they should be fine. Also, if this article becomes a featured article, then I believe it will be the first FA for a natural disease outbreak. Velayinosu (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution of the TEM image of the virus is not as good as the original. (See [13]). I don't have permission to overwrite the original file, perhaps we should upload this one. Graham Beards (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried using the original but am not used to uploading images so I don't know if I did it correctly. What do you think? Is it better? Velayinosu (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's some issues with WP:overcitation, which will make a source review more challenging. Usually, for non-controversial statement like "Genetic analysis of SNV has indicated that it has existed in its natural reservoir since long before the outbreak" wouldn't need more than one citation, maybe 2. Three or four citations is only appropriate for quite controversial statements.
Two prose suggestion:
Investigators quickly found other people with the same symptoms as the couple, and further investigation discovered a new hantavirus as the agent responsible, Sin Nombre virus (SNV), and identified the western deer mouse as its natural reservoir. --> Investigators quickly found others with the same symptoms as the couple. Further investigation discovered a new hentavirus, the Sin Nombre virus, as the cause, identified the western deer mouse as its natural reservoir.
A brief comment on WP:Overcitation-issues is that there is limited guidance on the appropriate way to cite outbreak investigations on Wikipedia. WP:MEDRS posits using only secondary sources, but there has been a discussion about specifically outbreaks and surveillance data, where citing the original source may be better. For this reason, to me it could make sense to cite both the original primary sources and a verification in secondary litterature. CFCF (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to edit the article tomorrow to address the overcitation and prose suggestion. But I'm not sure if mesa and butte are too much of jargon. If someone doesn't know what they are then they can just click the links and look at the pictures. The purpose of that paragraph is to provide context about the environment the outbreak occurred in. Some outbreaks occur in urban areas, some in battlefields, and this one in a desert. Describing that environment helps to paint a picture in the minds of readers. Velayinosu (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most people read on mobile, so it's quite annoying to click on these kind of links, wait for the new page to be loaded, go back to the old page. My guess is that roughly 20% of people know what these words mean, and that the rest of the sentence already gives a good enough description of the environment. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm the one who has suffered the most because of the actions of BoJack Horseman"
This article is about a season of the American animated dramedy BoJack Horseman. Released on Netflix in 2018, season 5 deals with a wide array of themes and controversies that made their way around Hollywood (or Hollywoo, if you’re a BoJack fan) around that time. Before I touched the article, it was pretty much void of any information minus a few reviews, but I have added a few filled-out sections and a plethora of information. After obtaining good article status just today (thank you to @It is a wonderful world: for that), I think the article is at the best possible quality it could be and I welcome your criticism. I’m hopeful this’ll pass and won’t crash and burn like Diane and Mr. Peanutbutter's marriage (topical reference!) Crystal Drawers (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would provide a descriptor for Mr. Peanutbetter and Todd in the lead. I think that it is important to include this kind of additional context for readers who may be unfamiliar with BoJack Horseman.
For this sentence from the lead, Other on-going plots include continued romantic struggles between Mr. Peanutbutter and Diane; and Todd's struggling relationship with Yolanda, his girlfriend., I do not believe that the semi-colon is used correctly.
The lead claims that that multiple critics discussed the season's emotion and commentary, particularly with the #MeToo movement, but this is not really represented in the "Critical response" subsection. For instance, the #MeToo movement is only brought in a single sentence by a single reviewer.
I would also encourage you to look over the "Critical response" subsection in general. I would recommend using WP:RECEPTION as it is a great resource. There is not a lot of structure here, and I would be mindful of overusing quotes. Certain instances like "[big] tragedy" or "triumph" could be paraphrased. I would avid having a quote in every sentence in a paragraph for instance. This part is just a personal preference, but I do not find it particularly helpful to include a number or letter rating in the prose. In my opinion, it just takes up space that would be better used on discussing the actual review, but I know other editors disagree with me on this.
The quotes at the end of the lead seem unnecessary to me. All of them could be paraphrased without losing anything.
The structure for the lead seems a bit odd. The lead ends with information about the season's production while splitting up information about its reception between the second and third paragraphs. I would instead follow the framework of the article by having information on the production first and ending with information on the reception.
The infobox image should have WP:ALT text. I would make sure that all of the images have ALT text.
I would move the "Cast and characters" section after the "Episodes" section. See Grey's Anatomy season 17 and True Detective season 1 for examples of what I mean. I think that it makes more sense to start with the episodes.
Diane Nguyen, Mr. Peanutbutter, Todd Chavez, and Yolanda Buenaventura are all linked in the article, but not in the lead. I get where there may be some potential sea of blue concerns, particularly with linking Diane, but I wonder if you could find a way to link the characters in the lead, not only for consistency with the article, but also because these links would just be helpful.
I hope that these comments are helpful. My brother absolutely loves BoJack Horseman so I will always have a soft spot for this series. My comments are primarily about the lead, although I have a quick comment on the lead and I have raised concerns about the structure and overuse of quotes in the "Critical response" subsection. I will continue my review once everything has been addressed. Let me know if you have any questions, and I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments! I’ve gone through and finished all of them. My only question is if the alt text for the infobox image is okay, because I’m worried it may come off a bit awkward Crystal Drawers (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. How would having ALT text for the infobox image come off as awkward? I have used ALT text for infobox images in the past (and I have been encouraged to do so). In my opinion, every image should have ALT text to help those that need it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Below, I have pointed out a few things that were unaddressed and had added some additional comments:
The lead is still structured with the information about the season's critical reception coming before the season's production. Again, I would think that since the lead should be an overview of the article, it should follow more of the structure of the article, and by that I mean talking about the production and going into the reception. I know that articles and leads can be structured differently though so I would be curious to hear why you chose this approach?
I mentioned above that the quotes at the end of the lead are not needed. There is still on there, ("[give] all the juicy parts to the white people"), and it can be paraphrased without losing anything. I know that quotes in the lead can be helpful in certain contexts, but I do not think that quotes would be necessary in this instance.
I would remove the following part from the lead, (with one such critic calling it a "truly sustained artistic response" on the #MeToo movement), for a few reasons. This part introduces a new quote that is not used in the article, and this should be avoid as the lead should be an overview of the information found in the article. I'd also avoid including a single reviewer in the lead, as it gives it undue weight in my opinion. Like with quotes, I could see how discussing a single reviewer's opinion in the lead can be helpful. I just do not think that this is the case. I do have further comments about the #MeToo Movement below.
I did further research into the season and the #MeToo Movement. This Vulture article about the season addresses the #MeToo Movement with its female characters could be helpful. This article from The Mary Sue could also be helpful, as well as this book from McFarland & Company. Based on my admittedly superficial research on this, I would think there would be enough coverage on this to warrant a dedicated paragraph in the "Critical response" section. If that is the case, then I could see more of a reason for the #MeToo reviews for being mentioned in the lead.
I would still recommend that you look through the "Critical response" subsection further and use the essay that I linked above. I think that this section would need substantial work in order for this article to be a FA. One big thing that stands out to me is how much of the first paragraph from this subsection focuses on "Free Churro" and how this information would be better suited for the episode article and not here.
Did you see if there was any scholarly coverage about this season?
I would italicize BoJack Horseman in the citation titles per WP:CONFORMTITLE. For the reference titles, show titles should be italicized and episode titles in quotation marks.
It may be helpful to add a brief overview sentence at the start of the lead to let unfamiliar readers know that this show takes place in an alternate world where humans and anthropomorphic animals live side by side. I could see some readers who are unfamiliar with the series being confused by this aspect.
Again, I hope that these comments are helpful. Let me know if anything is unclear. I am uncertain if this is prepared for the FAC process. To be clear, I am not opposing this nomination, but I am wondering if this article would benefit from going through the peer review process or if it would be helpful to try and find a mentor. Either way, best of luck with the article! Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I’ll try to have most of these done by Monday. For the scholarly coverage question, I did look into it and most just covered specific episodes. The reason i covered Free Churro is because that episode received significant praise from critics and is the most iconic thing to come out of the season. I will look into the two sources you gave me (thank you for those). Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. Take as much time as you need. There is no need to rush. Thank you for clarifying about the scholarly analysis. That makes sense to me. As for "Free Churro", I think that it would make the most sense to use reviews that bring up the episode in the context of the overall season (as in praising it as a highlighting or connecting it with broader elements from the season) and to cut parts that are primarily about the individual episode (like the comment on how Will Arnett should win an Emmy Award for his performance). Let me know if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry for taking longer than I said I would on finishing this up, but every comment should be completely addressed now! I incorporated one of the articles and the book link you gave me into the article (thank you for those, again), but I did not use one because I was unsure if the site it is from was reliable or not. I think, given how there is now a full paragraph of the MeToo discussion, the sentence in the lead is justified. Thank you again for the comments and the articles Crystal Drawers (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. Thank you for looking through my comments. I will look through the article further in the next few days, but please ping me if I have not gotten back to you by Friday. I do have a few quick comments here. For the lead, I would have a more general statement about the #MeToo movement. Now, that there is a full paragraph on the subject, highlighting a single critic and their quote gives it even more undue weight.
I think that it would be helpful to have a topic sentence for the second and third paragraphs of the "Critical response" subsection to provide a clearer structure. The third paragraph is clearly about the #MeToo movement analysis, while I think the second paragraph would benefit from a clearer direction if possible. It is okay if it is not possible, but I believe that it would be beneficial to think on it further.
Lately, I would remove VanDerWerff's comment about Will Arnett deserving an Emmy Award for "Free Churro". It has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph, and it is more suited for the episode. Since "Free Churro" has its own article, I would keep this subsection devoted more so to commentary about the season, and praise for an actor in a specific episode is not really about the season. If you absolutely want to keep this though, I would recommend making a short paragraph about how critics praised "Free Churro" as a standout for the season, as there appears to be enough discussion to warrant that from what I see, and putting it there.
When characters are first mentioned in either the lead or the article, their full name should be used (if they have one of course). By that, I mean that it should be Todd Chavez and Yolanda Buenaventura in the lead and BoJack Horseman and Diane Nguyen in the article. Only after the character's first mention should their first name be used by itself.
For the "Episodes" table, I would add more context to the notes. I would add the season and the release year. For example, I would change the first note to something like the following, As depicted in the season three episode "Start Spreading the News" (2016). In its current format, readers may not be aware of what is being discussed until they hit the link.
It may be helpful to format the "Cast and characters" section into columns, like with Grey's Anatomy season 17, but this is just a suggestion so feel free to choose what you think is best.
I would be mindful of using one-word quotes, as they are typically unnecessary and can detract from the longer, more impactful quotes. Three examples that I found are "repugnant", "signal", and "rigged". These are not one-word quotes, but I would also paraphrase something like "kept tracking" or "needs to get sober and get therapy" as neither things need to be represented in a quote or unique enough to necessitate using a quote.
I am uncertain about this quote, "happening in BoJack's life [and] in the life of Los Angeles". It is a bit obvious in my opinion because of course writers are going to think about what is happening in a character's life and world when developing storylines. I looked at the source, and I would think that it would be more helpful to reframe this part to discuss how the writers tried to develop storylines more organically rather than forcing in real-life influences.
While I was looking at the following source, I noticed that Philbert was compared to True Detective, and I was wondering if this comparison was brought up in any other coverage and if it is worth bringing into this article (even to just briefly provide an example for the genre of "male anti-hero" television series brought up in this article)?
I would further clarify this sentence: (It was also used as a way to offer commentary on the character of BoJack and the series itself.) What is the commentary? On its own, it is so vague that it really does not mean anything.
The "Production" section uses "according to" a number of times to the point that it becomes slightly repetitious. I would say even taking out one instance would avoid that. For instance, this sentence, (According to an interview with Bob-Waksberg, early planning for season five started in 2017.), could be shortened to (Early planning for season five started in 2017.), as this information does not seem contentious enough to need an attribution to Bob-Waksberg.
I am not sure if the Wanda Sykes image is really necessary. It awkwardly cuts into a section heading, and I am not entirely sure why Sykes is being highlighted with an image when she appears to just be one of several guest stars who appear in the season. If a person had to be added here, I would say someone like Issa Rae would be a better fit given her nomination, but I am not sure if an image here is really that necessary.
As I stated above, I think that it would be beneficial to have a separate paragraph for the "Free Churro" praise. I believe that it would help with the structure with the "Critical response" subsection. On a related note, I am uncertain about this part, (The season includes one of the series' most acclaimed episodes, "Free Churro"), from the lead. I do not see it supported in the article. On a somewhat related note, this article from Animation could be useful as it praises the episode as one of the best episodes of the season.
I would still recommend looking the "Critical response" subsection overall to avoid having paragraphs come across as a random listing of critics and their opinions. That is why I recommended a separate paragraph for "Free Churro" and for the #MeToo Movement. It would be helpful to see if there are any other common themes in the reviews. For instance, multiple reviews pick up on how the season can provide some type of commentary.
On a related note, it may be beneficial to have the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic information as a separate paragraph to lead this subsection and then get into the critics and their reviews in subsequent paragraphs.
I do note some repetition in the article. For instance, in the second paragraph of the "Critical response" subsection, there are two sentences in a row that use "called", and for the subsection's third paragraph, "suggests" is also used for two sentences in a row. It is minor, but it is best to avoid that kind of repetition whenever possible.
I would remove the following sentence: (In an interview, series creator Raphael Bob-Waksberg called the season their "best job of any season of juggling the episodic with the serialized [and] making each episode feel special".) Not only is it repetitious as Bob-Waksberg has already been introduced at this point, but he is not a critic. A review of someone from the show does not belong in this subsection.
This is not required for a FAC, but I would highly recommend archiving your web sources to avoid any potential headaches in the future with link rot and death.
For the Tally citation, I would not use the publisher (McFarland) as the means of identifying it. I would use the author's last name. On a related note, if only one book is being used, then separating into its own separate column is not necessary.
I would be consistent about using title case for the citation titles.
Works and publishers are treated inconsistently in the citations. For instances, there are instances where both the work and published are listed (like with The Hollywood Reporter and MRC or with Entertainment Weekly and Meredith Corporation), while in other instances have only the work (like with Vanity Fair and Variety). Even The Hollywood Reporter and Entertainment Weekly do not always the publishers in their citations This should be more consistently. I do not think that the publishers are necessary for these online publications
The Netflix link at the bottom of the article does not work for me. I get an error screen. It may not be on the streaming platform anymore, so I would look into this.
I hope that this review is helpful. Apologies for the amount of comments. Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything clarified. I hope you are having a wonderful week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I’m not aiming to get all these comments addressed tonight, but I just wanted to say that, for your comment about how some animals are linked and some aren’t, I have removed all mentions of character's species from the episode tables except for the one saying Princess Carolyn's baby is a porcupine, as I believe adding it adds extra context for the reader. Let me know if this is an issue Crystal Drawers (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take as much time as you need. I believe this should be my last set of comments. I agree with your change to removing the characters' species, aside from the instances with the baby, as I agree with your rationale. Aoba47 (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the one about paragraphs in critical reception, I created ones for MeToo and "Free Churro", but, given there were only 4(?) reviews left, I thought creating a separate paragraph out of the two sentences left that are connected would make the section look a little messy, so I just turned the remaining reviews into their own paragraph and put the connecting ones right next to eachother. Let me know if this is an issue :)
I also want to note that it is giving me trouble when I try to link the authors Wikipedia page to the citations, as I get an error message every time. Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I forgot to mention that all your comments should be addressed now (minus the aforementioned authors name link in the citation). Thank you for all your comments, they’ve really improved the article and I’m incredibly thankful for them Crystal Drawers (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I have linked the author names with this edit. Apologies for this edit, which introduced a number of errors. I am not quite sure what I was thinking there, but I have reverted that. I have concerned about the citation formatting, which I will list below:
My comment about the book citations was not addressed. The shortened note should be the author's name, not the publisher.
Citation 9 needs to be in title case.
For Citation 31, Black-ish and Black Panther should be italicized. Check all of the citation titles to make sure things that should be italicized are italicized. BoJack Horseman is not italicized in Citation 24 and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not italicized in Citation 28.
Aren't You Bojack Horseman? Critical Essays on the Netflix Series is not formatted correctly. Right now, it is formatted like a book written by Harriet E. H. Earle. It is actually a collection of essays edited by Earle. Based on the page number, you are actually cited an essay by Juliana Varela. The citation needs to be adjusted to accurately reflect the source. I would also think that the book sources should be in alphabetical order.
Just out of curiosity, how much of this collection have you read? I only ask because although I do not have access to the source (as the Google Books preview is quite limited), but when I see essays from it on Google Scholar, there would seem to be more information to mine from it, potentially to even have a separate "Themes and analysis" section like with True Detective season 1.
There are still odd issues with the work and publisher parameters. Rolling Stone and Vulture are not linked in certain citations, and The Hollywood Reporter is treated like a publisher in some citations when that should not be the case.
The cite magazine template is used in several spots where a web page is clearly being cited instead.
There are several citations that empty parameters, like magazine=, that should be removed. There is no reason to have empty parameters in citations.
This is not required, and I know people have different opinions about this, but I would remove the access dates from the archived sources. The access date lets readers know when a site was last active, but that information is not necessary as an archived version is available. However, I do understand that this is a matter of personal preference.
Apologies for adding another slew of comments after saying that the last set would be my last. This are directly primarily at the citations structure, and prior issues that have not been resolved. I think that I will stop my review here. I believe that this article can be a featured article somewhere down the line, but I go back to my previous comment about whether this would benefit from going through the peer review process. I hope that these comments are helpful and best of luck with everything. I love BoJack Horseman, and I hope to see related articles reach FA level in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the 2007 tornado that practically obliterated the town of Greensburg, Kansas, killing twelve people. The tornado is one of the most famous in the weather community, notably due to it being the first EF5-rated tornado to ever touch down on this planet. 95% of Greensburg was destroyed and became a focal point of a huge cleanup and rebuilding operation that captured the minds of architects, eco-tourists, and many more people. This is FAC #5, and I'm hoping this is the last one. I've done a 144-reference spotcheck and made corrections as appropriate (as advised at the last FAC) and I really can't think of a single reason why it'd fail (as opposed to the last few FACs, which had either prose, sourcing or verifiability issues). EF514:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment (I’m on vacation and mobile this week). How was the 205 mph winds measured/estimated? Tropical cyclone articles usually talk about satellite estimates or Recon, so what is the tornado equivalence? I’m asking beyond just the damage being rated EF5, but how the 205 mph was estimated? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink mobile, hope your vacation is going great. I can't find a single direct source but a Wx Underground blog says that "A preliminary damage survey by the National Weather Service found that the storm likely had 205 mph winds, putting it just above the 200 mph wind threshold for an EF5 rating", meaning the wind speed was estimated via a damage survey; two EF5s from the 2011 Super Outbreak were given the same 205-mph estimate in the same way. I'm hesitant to include this source, however, as it's a blog and likely not of FA quality. — EF515:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KSN also states "The tornado track indicated that the tornado was on the ground for nearly 29 miles and recorded surface winds as strong as 205 miles per hour", but that isn't very helpful. — EF515:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finally getting around to finishing my review! Apologies I didn’t get to it sooner, I had to attend a funeral and I was away from my main computer for a week. The article is generally pretty good, but there are still some trouble spots. Hopefully nothing too difficult to manage!
General
I mentioned before about the winds being an estimate, and asking for further explanation about that. Since the article talks about how the NWS determined the seven houses with EF5 damage, could you then mention what the threshold for EF5 is? The infobox says 205 mph was the highest estimated wind, which was an estimate based on the storm damage, right? The main reason I’m focusing on this is the comparison to a hurricane article. Any time I review a hurricane article, I want to know the basis for the winds/pressure (usually Recon, direct measurements, or satellite estimates). So that’s why I’d like a bit more clarity on how the wind speed was determined.
In the first sentence, you mention EF5 before defining the (Enhanced) Fujita scale. Should it be reworded so you can say something like “rated an EF5 on the Enhanced Fujita scale”? Not everyone knows what EF means, and if they’re older they might know about the change, so the part about “first to be rated” is good stuff, just wondering about the ordering.
”The tornado touched down in northern Comanche County, moving to the north while continuously widening.” - source? The met synopsis mentions the supercell in Kiowa County, then the tornado touching down south of Greensburg, but nothing about Comanche as far as I can tell. I’m reading/reviewing this on a plane (from my phone, airplane mode), so apologies if I missed it.
”The tornado eventually entered Kiowa County, crossing U.S. Route 183 before reaching a peak width of 1.7 miles (2.7 km) to the south of Greensburg before entering the city.” - could you reword so you don’t have two “before…” clauses?
”The tornado greatly affected the economy and population of Greensburg as a whole; the population…” - could you avoid saying “population” twice in such short succession?
”Kansas is located in Tornado Alley,[5] the region of the United States in which the most tornadoes occur.[6] Cold and dry air from the Rocky Mountains and the West Coast of the United States drops into Tornado Alley, while moist and dry subtropical air is pulled inward from the Gulf of Mexico.[7] The cold air pushes under the warm and moist air, pushing it upward;[7] this updraft causes the development of thunderstorms.[8]” - I appreciate this background info, but I don’t know if any of it is needed after “in which the most tornadoes occur.” The rest of it could be incorporated into the met synopsis, where I’m guessing cold air came from the west and interacted with warm gulf air?
Tornado events not caused by this phenom have occurred in the past, so connecting them by default would be WP:OR. Unfortunately the only decent source I could find for the metsyn isn't an FA-level source, so I WP:NUKEd it while doing the aforementioned spotcheck. EF520:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
”Research conducted by meteorologist and tornado historian Thomas P. Grazulis, however, concluded that F5-rated tornadoes have struck Kansas since 1895.” - this seems more appropriate in a Kansas-specific tornado article, since it’s just a blanket statement that strong tornadoes affect the state, and having too much background info might undermine the significance of this tornado.
”The most intense supercell thunderstorms, which are thunderstorms with a rotating mesocyclone, developed in the early evening hours of May 4 across northwestern Oklahoma and southwestern Kansas.” - seems a bit off to me, as far as a narrative. By adding info about the air masses (see above), then you would have some more context for the storms developing. But the current wording feels like a definition, with “The most intense supercell thunderstorms, which are…”
”The rotating supercell that later produced the Greensburg tornado was accompanied by several short-tracked tornadoes.[26] One of these small tornadoes, located on the westernmost side of the mesocyclone, began to rapidly strengthen, rapidly growing shortly after touching down at 9:03 p.m.” - this could be clearer that this is the narrative for the main tornado
”As the main tornado continued through rural areas oil tanks were destroyed, with oil strewn across pastures and a road.” - a comma and/or better sentence structure would help here.
”The very large tornado continued to grow in size as it approached the city of Greensburg from the south. The tornado then reached its maximum width of 1.7 miles (2.7 km).” - could be a dumb question but how was the width determined? If it’s the damage on the ground, then something like “as determined by damage” would be helpful, since I doubt they knew it was that big while it was on the ground.
”The tornado weakened slightly as it entered residential areas in southern Greensburg” - this is the first time the tornado’s strength is referred to in the body of the article. Am I missing something? When did it become an EF5?
Am I missing something yes (/gen), the tornado's intensity is mentioned several times throughout the summary, including completely leveling a section of the building at EF4 intensity and near homes that sustained EF4 damage. EF516:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, you don't say when it was an EF5. You mention the tornado forming, then you mention the EF4 damage, but don't mention the EF5 until the end of the section. It's jarring. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moved up. There are no references stating exactly which properties at which locations sustained EF5 damage, but stating "in Greensburg proper" is as close as it'll get. — EF519:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
”The Greensburg meteorite was found and recovered near the Ellis Peck Farm east of Greensburg a few days afterwards.” - this could use context, like is it a tourist destination? It’s mentioned out of nowhere.
Aftermath
I don’t get why there’s aftermath and a separate rebuilding section.
”A Daylight Donuts coffee shop and the local bank were heavily damaged or destroyed by the tornado.[66] In addition, three schools were destroyed and electrical service to the city was cut by the tornado.[67]” - why is this in aftermath?
No idea, moved to "impact" section.
”The 5.4.7 Arts Center, named after the date the tornado occurred,[68][69] became the first sustainable LEED-platinum building in the state of Kansas and the first in history to be built by students following its opening on June 16th, 2008.” - students? I’m assuming kindergarteners unless told otherwise :P
I suggest combining both schools in the aftermath, since they’re both mentioned under the Delmer Day section.
”The Kiowa County Memorial Hospital was reinforced with internal vertical steel beams that extended along the floors and ceilings, along with double-thick masonry walls.” - this could suggest that the hospital was reinforced as a result of the tornado, or that it was already reinforced beforehand (which I think is the case). I suggest rewording a bit.
”Despite this, the hospital sustained heavy damage, and a 9,900 pounds (4,500 kg) steel beam was lifted” - grammar (a 9,900 pounds)
”The damage survey conducted by structural engineers Timothy Marshall and other engineers concluded that winds of 147 miles per hour (237 km/h) were needed to lift and toss the beam.” - why is mph spelled out?
”The survey also noted recommendations for the newly implemented Enhanced Fujita Scale, recommending that two new Degree of Damage (DOD) indicators be added to the list of 23 existing indicators to evaluate the scale of damage to load-bearing masonry buildings and timber-frame buildings.” - did this happen?
”During the event, meteorologists working with UMass deployed the instrument for approximately 70 minutes, detecting ten tornadoes produced by the Greensburg storm.” - this feels like it should belong under “satellite tornadoes”, not aftermath.
”In April 2009, U.S. Representative Jerry Moranintroduced the Greensburg, Kansas Recovery Extension Act to extend recovery funds through June 2010.” - didn’t Moran later become a senator? Something like “then-congressman” would be helpful if that’s the case. (Will delete this if I look up later that Moran was not a senator)
I went ahead and changed it to "then-U.S. representative". Moran is still an active U.S. senator (actually the most senior member of the U.S. Senate in 2025), so it is better to phrase it like that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)16:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is clunky, but "then-congressmen" would actually be incorrect since "congressmen" just means someone in the United States Congress, which he still is a member of. When Senator Moran retires or leaves the U.S. congress, I would want it changed to "then-congressmen", but at least at the time of this FAC, "then-U.S. representative" is needed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
”The Kiowa County Memorial Hospital was the only building that was an exception to the LEED platinum requirement, although the hospital later garnered an LEED Platinum certification.[117][118] In 2010, after planning to be rebuilt and being completed in March of the same year at a different ___location within Greensburg,[117][127] the Kiowa County Memorial hospital became the first in the United States to operate using carbon neutral energy.” - probably more important the town got its hospital back, not that it had LEED certification, so I suggest some reorganizing here, namely emphasizing when the hospital was rebuilt first. The hospital info is spread over two paragraphs, so it should be combined and streamlined. The hospital has an article already.
”The Kiowa County Memorial Hospital was the only building that was an exception to the LEED platinum requirement, although the hospital later garnered an LEED Platinum certification.” - Eeks, this sentence appears twice verbatim in back to back paragraphs.
”Prior to the tornado, the county relied on an informational pamphlet from the 1990s as its emergency action plan; the pamphlet reportedly provided inadequate preparation in the event of a significant disaster.” - did this change?
There unfortunately aren't many sources on mitigation in Greensburg, and the 160 refs are really most of what I was able to find on the event itself (as required at WP:FACR). EF502:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason the “casualties” section is after the aftermath? Seems more like a subsection of “impact”.
Not sure, but made a subsection of "aftermath" as imo the casualties are part of the tornado's aftermath and not impact itself, since someone died in September from the tornado. EF502:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the person died because of injuries sustained during the tornado. An example of an aftermath casualty is if there are downed power lines, and someone touches it afterward, or if a tree got damaged during a storm, then struck someone days later. I don't know if that's the case here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda get the inclusion of the tornadoes near Greensburg going back to 1923, but most of them don’t seem to have much relation to the 2007 event. The first two could be part of background if you wanted to indicate previous tornadoes affecting the city, but idk about listing every tornado since 2007, not when three barely did anything.
Fair enough, I'll mention the 1923, 2012 and 2025 tornadoes, all of which either directly impacted Greensburg (1923) or were described as being similar to the 2007 event (2012 & 2025). EF502:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So that’s it. Let me know if you have any questions about my comments. I know you want this to be featured and not have to wait two more years (for the 20 year anni)! Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tornado eventually entered Kiowa County, crossing U.S. Route 183, before reaching a peak width of 1.7 miles (2.7 km) to the south of Greensburg, before entering the city. - Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the tornado's left turn before entering the city a major enough aspect of this event enough to be put in the lede? Departure– (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kiowa County, the county in which Greensburg is located, was declared a disaster area in the immediate aftermath of the tornado. - I feel it's relevant to specify if this was at the Federal or State level, if not both. Departure– (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the "green town" built by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Long-term community recovery plan. - Why is "Long" capitalized here but not earlier in the lede? Departure– (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: No, never! Well, maybe next tornado season. I have been busy with an off-wiki project that's taking up a lot of my time and energy but I can come back to this sometime tomorrow and help finish this review. I only went through the lede as of now. Thanks! Departure– (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas sees the second-highest number of tornadoes per state, - It's unclear what this is measuring. It should be specified if this is tornadoes per square mile/area, average tornadoes per year, or tornadoes in the historical record. Also, add a note of what the first state for either metric is (done here for Texas). Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of these eventually produced 20 to 22 tornadoes, including the Greensburg tornado and its satellites. - This unclear figure is stated so matter-of-factly with no explanation. Would an "at least" work here? Also, explain what you mean by "satellites".
Multiple supercells first developed near the Kansas-Oklahoma border, - Unclear what relation these supercells have to anything. The previous sentence introducing the Greenfield tornado should be moved past here. Also, describing the supercells as "multiple" is redundant with the "s" at the end of "supercells" and makes this awkward in a way I can't describe. Maybe "the day's first supercells"? Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Greenfield article has been engraved in your brain, lol. Really, though, I've reworded it.
Over the next hour the cells combined into one large supercell near U.S. Route 183. - Was this every single cell over this part of Kansas merging, or just one or two? "The cells" means the previously introduced one which cover a very large area. Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At around 8:30 p.m., storm spotters began reporting wall clouds, - I think it's important to clarify what a wall cloud is to the uninitiated, and to explain where it was spotted. Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This hook echo was accompanied by the Greensburg tornado, is awkward, because to my knowledge hook echos and tornadoes are innately linked and the use of "accompanied" implies they were independent of each other. Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
which touched down at 9:03 p.m. south of Greensburg. - How far south? Miles over rural prairie and farmland make a difference when the tornado was close to two miles wide at one point. Even naming what part of the county will go a long way here.
The entire first section of the Tornado summary section should be moved to somewhere towards the end, maybe under a section called "coverage" or something of the like. Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Around 800,000 cubic yards (610,000 m3) of tornado-related debris was removed from Greensburg in the aftermath of the tornado. - Is it possible to attribute a date to this claim ("this much debris was removed by April 8, 2008")? Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The damage survey conducted by structural engineers Timothy Marshall and others concluded that winds of 147 mph (237 km/h) were needed to lift and toss the beam. - How is this specific claim relevant? It's well within the scope of the tornado being of EF5 intensity, and the rating of damage to the building isn't brought up. Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The study was noted as being one of a few ever conducted to observe both an EF5-rated tornado and two separate storm modes, which refers to separate movement types of severe storms. - I don't accept this definition of "storm mode" as-is. "Movement types" is ambiguous to me, as it could mean the orbiting satellite storms, subvortices, or splitting left- vs. right-moving storms, as opposed to simply supercells and squall lines. Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something "storm modes" is how it was written in the source, although it doesn't expand on it. Looking up "storm modes" gives me that definition. Do you have any suggestions (/gen)? EF517:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that my IPBE right expires tomorrow and if I have the same issues obtaining it like I did last time it may be a bit before I respond. EF522:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be conducting an image review for this article. The article contains 24 different images. Only images with issues will be listed below. All other images were reviewed and are satisfactory. All images (minus the first one discussed below) have satisfactory captions in the article. Issues below (minus the first one discussed below) are for Commons/copyright-related templates. Courtesy ping for nominator: @EF5:. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)17:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Greensburg tornado entering town.jpg - Non-free file (NFF). Following numerous and extensive discussions/RFCs on the Commons and English Wikipedia over the last year, including contact with the NWS legal team and EN-Wiki administrators who also are legal professions, the conclusion and general consensus is that a photo of tornado can qualify under the Wikipedia:Non-free content, so long as it is showing something discussed in sources, such as the size of the tornado, shape, ect..., as individual tornadoes are an unrepeatable event and the word "large" has been used to describe the size of a tornado between 0.1 to 2 miles (0.16 to 3.22 km). Several photos of the tornado exist, none are free content to the best of my knowledge, even after a search. I am able to find several references to the tornado and "dark", "night", or "darkness". NFF justification currently does not reflect this, and neither does the image caption in the article. This needs to be fixed, or some other non-dark/night justification needs to be shown.
File:Greensburg radar.jpg should reflect which NEXRAD site as the source, and NWS, FAA, and USAF should be the author. Current source URL ([14]) listed is also a dead URL. If an archive exists, that should also be linked in the summary template, such as in the description. A more detailed description would be beneficial for readers. File:Radar image of the 2023 Amory EF3 tornado.png is an example of a good radar capture description uploaded to the Commons.
File:Tornado warning for Greensburg, May 4, 2007.png needs additional work. It is a screenshot from the Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM), which has a copyright disclaimer page explaining their product is in the public ___domain. Image is good and fine for the article, in general. Copyright template should reflect two parts: one for IEM's copyright and one for NEXRAD's copyright, as both are clearly visible.
I will address shortly. Funny enough, Commons is blocked on the laptop I make most of my edits with, but I'll just do it on my mobile device. EF517:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Nynetjer, third pharaoh of the Second Dynasty of Egypt in the Early Dynastic Period, in the 28th century BC. He ruled Egypt for around 40 years and had a large gallery tomb built for himself in Saqqara. Although Nynetjer is the best attested king of his dynasty, his reign is still poorly known. Political unrest and religious troubles seem to have erupted towards the end of his reign, leading to a partition of the country for one or two generations.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A first batch, mostly focusing on the lead and bibliography. On a quick scan through, I'm picking up a couple of grammatical or idiom lapses; a good proof-read from some fresh eyes might be beneficial. UndercoverClassicistT·C15:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
some time in 29th to early 27th century BC -- not quite grammatical. Are these dates for Nynetjer specifically or for the Early Dynastic Period generally? Likewise, between 35 up to 49 years: between 35 and 49 years. This will need correcting in the infobox too.
Tentative fix. These dates are for Nynetjer alone. The problem is Egyptologists are higly uncertain on the matter and have proposed dates differing by over a century. All the dates they proposed are reported in the footnote 2 accessible from the infobox. Here is what they proposed c. 2810 BC, 2810–2760 BC, 2790–2754 BC, 2785–2742 BC, 2767–2717 BC, 2760–2715 BC, c. 2700–2660 BC. This spans no less than 150 years ! Do you think I should present these dates in another way ? This is the way it was done for all other FA articles on pharaohs. I propose to clarify the lead sentence with "The dates for his reign are uncertain, Egyptologists have proposed that it took place at some point between the late 29th and the early 27th century BC for 35 to 49 years, most likely circa 40 years." Iry-Hor (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would work in broad terms, though NB the idiom: better as Egyptologists have proposed that it took place at some point between the late 29th and the early 27th century BC for 35 to 49 years, and most likely lasted around 40 years. The phrase "the reign took place for X years" doesn't really work in English. UndercoverClassicistT·C18:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to make it more obvious what the list of (I assume) alternative names in the infobox actually is? In particular, I'm not sure all readers will grasp what [Netjermu deprecated] means: suggest replacing that with an EFN that goes into some more detail (e.g. "The rendering Netjermu, proposed by the Egyptologist SuchAndSuch/made under the SuchAndSuch transliteration system/popular in the nineteenth century (or whatever), is no longer considered correct.")
Fixed So these are names by which Nynetjer is called in various Egyptological publications. For simplicity I have remove the "deprecated" mention and kept Netjermu since this is used in old publications (early 20th century). Note that all ancient Egyptian names of the king are given in the infobox if you click on the [Show] button. Iry-Hor (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox image caption is a sentence fragment, so no period (MOS:CAPFRAG)
I think the lead could do more to help non-Egyptologists through it. See, for instance, These suggest that royal activity was largely confined to Memphis and its vicinity: was Memphis just another city?
Fixed I say "The likely locations for these events indicate that royal activity was largely confined to the capital Memphis and its vicinity in Lower Egypt".Iry-Hor (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
on its first dynasty premises: not quite the right idiom, I don't think: on its premises here would normally mean "on the same physical site".
but became more sophisticated: can we elaborate a little as to how?
Fixed I gave more details from the main text: "The administrative structure of the state continued on its first dynasty basis but became more sophisticated, with the earliest evidence for the nome regional management system dating to Nynetjer's reign.".Iry-Hor (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link on "later periods" to Late Period of ancient Egypt is an easter egg to me -- suggest using a date range here if "between 664 and 323" is intended.
Fixed I removed the piping altogether because in fact the tomb was reused in several different periods, so it is better not to single out one over the others.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the tomb proved to still contained some of the original funerary equipment of the king when excavated. This included hundred of jars that once held wine, beer and jujube fruits<,> as well as many stone tools<,> some of which seem to have been used in a ritual feast at the time of Nynetjer's burial: some grammatical wonkiness here.
Fixed I propose: "Although used as a necropolis during Egypt's later periods, the tomb still housed some of the original funerary equipment of the king. This included hundred of jars that once held wine, beer and jujube fruits. Excavations have also produced numerous stone tools, some of which seem to have been used in a ritual feast for Nynetjer's burial. "
The subterranean tomb was likely built with associated superstructures none of which subsist as they were levelled and overbuilt by subsequent pharaohs.: ditto -- needs a comma before none and another word for subsist -- "remain"?
Fixed I wrote " The subterranean tomb was likely built with associated superstructures, none of these remain as they were levelled and overbuilt by subsequent pharaohs.".Iry-Hor (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note 96 -- is that a plate number? Format as such if so.
I don't understand, what is the issue with this ? Indeed I mean to say that on pages 3 to 8, in plates 2 to 9 the objects to look at are those numbered 2 to 8. What format should I use for this ?Iry-Hor (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah -- I think the numbers may have shifted; my fault for not being clear. It's the note that currently reads Petrie & Griffith 1901, pp. 26–27, see also Pl VIII.13.. -- "Pl" should surely be "pl. " if it stands for "plate"? NB also two full stops at the end. UndercoverClassicistT·C18:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seperately, there are one or two places where |p= is used instead of |pp=, or vice-versa -- this is easiest to spot outside the editor view (you'll see e.g. "p. 1–2"). UndercoverClassicistT·C18:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography -- book titles should consistently use title case. We are currently inconsistent as to whether to write "volume X" as part of the title or to use the |volume= parameter.
Fixed I think. I kept only thr volume unchanged in the few cases where it is an integral part of the main title of the book (see e.g. Baker's book).Iry-Hor (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can still see a few titles in sentence case: Baines and Málek 2000, for instance. Emery 1964 has a hyphen where a dash is needed. In Kahl 1994, 0. is an ordinal, so needs the dot after it. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed as far as I could see (especially with the dash, I have trouble seeing the difference between hyphens, endashes and emdashes).Iry-Hor (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A tip, if you want one -- you can copy-paste an endash and then use ctrl/cmd-f to highlight them. I tend to do the inverse and ctrl-f for hyphens, which helps me see if any are in the wrong place. UndercoverClassicistT·C07:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Caps on "Loeb Classical Library" (it's a proper noun). Ditto "British School of Archaeology in Egypt", "Facts on File" and "Cambridge World Archaeology" (series names are names nonetheless).
Málek 2000 is missing a ___location. The template documentation advises against using locations when they're part of the publisher's name (e.g. Oxford University Press), but that should be applied consistently or not at all.
Archaeologically, Nynetjer is the best-attested of the kings of the early second dynasty: confusingly, here we probably shouldn't have the hyphen!
Fixed I think I get it from the articles you sent, the hyphen should be present if the words make up a compound adjective, is that it ?Iry-Hor (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost -- if they make up a compound adjective and are used attributively -- so "he is the best-known king" but "the king is best known for his seven wives"; "I saw a well-dressed woman on the street" but "the woman was well dressed, unlike her husband". That's the most of it, barring a couple of exceptions like old-fashioned, short-term and tongue-tied which are always hyphenated, and a rarer few like death metal band which almost never are.. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His name appears in inscriptions on numerous[1] stone vessels and clay sealings from his tomb at Sakkara.: this has a citation in mid sentence, which isn't great for readability. Could it be moved after the full stop, perhaps multi-cited with another?
Fixed this was meant to justify the use of the word "numerous" which could be seen as biased but is indeed used by the source. I have moved the citation at the end of the sentence (I prefer to keep it there so it is clear the source is used to justify this sentence and note the next one).Iry-Hor (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
king Seth-Peribsen etc -- per MOS:PEOPLETITLES, "King" should be capitalised when it's used as if part of someone's name. However, if you want to avoid that, you could use "the king Seth-Peribsen" (in Roman topics we tend to try to avoid "Emperor Hadrian" if we can as anachronistic). UndercoverClassicistT·C07:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I removed the word king altogether since it is clear either from context or from clicking on the link to Seth-Peribsen's article.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further attestations include ... in a mastaba in Giza and a tomb in Helwan: as you can see when we cut out the intervening words, this isn't quite grammatical -- we need a noun phrase before in. "Inscriptions"?
Fixed well spotted, I have cut the sentence into pieces: "Further attestations include a small ivory vessel from Saqqara[21] and sealings bearing his name from the tombs of three elite individuals in North Saqqara.[22][23] Additional sealings were uncovered in a mastaba in Giza[24] and in a tomb in Helwan." Is that satisfactory? Iry-Hor (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we explain what a serekh is, to satisfy MOS:NOFORCELINK?
Done, I changed the sentence to afford the space required by an explanation: "Nynetjer's name also appears on a rock inscription near Abu Handal in Lower Nubia which shows a serekh of the king. A serekh is a rectangular symbol enclosing a royal name and representing the façade of a palace surmounted by the Horus falcon. It is the oldest form of royal titulary from ancient Egypt." Iry-Hor (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relative chronological position of Nynetjer as the third ruler of the early second dynasty and successor of Raneb is a consensus among Egyptologists.: that's a lot of citations. Do we really need all of them? If so, can we bundle them to reduce the wall of blue?
I do not know how to convey the idea of "consensus" other than providing all these citations ? Indeed none of the sources explicitely say that this is a consensus even though they all say the same thing. So if a reader challenges the idea that this is a consensus, how should we persuade him/her ? Perhaps I could include all of these citations in a single footnote if you think this is better.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:SYNTH, we can't simply list sources to indicate consensus anyway -- we need a source that actually says "the consensus is..." After all, there are presumably a few oddballs who disagree or have disagreed, and another editor could otherwise line all of them up and say "look, there's consensus!" for the opposite conclusion. At a minimum I'd put multiple sources in one footnote, but the previous point may be more important anyway. UndercoverClassicistT·C12:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
whose serekhs are inscribed in seemingly chronological order on Hetepedief's right shoulder: Hotepsekhemwy, Raneb then Nynetjer: comma after then. I must admit, on its own, this seems pretty weak evidence -- surely there could be some other logic to the order (the three "best", in order? Pronunciation?) -- but then I'm not an Egyptologist.
I see your point, I think Egyptologists work by combining evidences, all of which are too weak to prove anything on their own. Indeed there are historical sources supporting this order of succession (if you accept name variants) and archaeological evidences suggest that e.g. Nynetjer reigned after Raneb (because he reinscribed his name on his predecessor's on some stone bowls) or that Hotepsekhemwy was the dynasty founder (notably because of the meaning of his name and the troubles at the end of the first dynasty after Qaa). Taken together these clues strongly support the idea that the inscriptions on Hetedief's shoulder really is just what it seems: a list of kings in chronological order.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further archaeological evidences support this theory, notably stone bowls of Hotepsekhemwy and Raneb reinscribed during Nynetjer's rule: evidence supports (evidence is a mass noun in English). We tend to avoid notably, interestingly etc as WP:EDITORIALISING -- if it weren't worth noting, we wouldn't be bothering the reader with it.
the oldest is the Old Kingdom royal annals: if we're going to say that something is the oldest X, we should probably say how old it is.
Fixed I moved up a passage of text that was presenting this source later on in the article. Now the sentence reads: "Several historical sources also point to the same conclusion. The oldest of these is the Old Kingdom royal annals now known after the name of its main fragment, the Palermo Stone. These annals were likely first compiled during the early fifth dynasty, possibly under Neferirkare Kakai (mid-25th century BC) around whose reign the record stops.[38][39] These annals are considered to be a reliable witness to Nynetjer's rule in particular because they correctly give his name "in contrast to the corrupt, garbled variants found in later king lists" (Wilkinson).[40] While the Palermo stone does not preserve the identity of Nynetjer's immediate predecessors[...]".Iry-Hor (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is the Aegyptiaca (Αἰγυπτιακά), Ptolemy II (283–246 BC) by Manetho: I'm struggling to parse this title: are we saying it's the Aegyptiaca, written by Manetho during the reign of Ptolemy II? I probably wouldn't include the Greek script, as this is the English Wikipedia and relatively few readers can read it (plus it's practically identical to the Latin transliteration/translation).
Yes the title is Aegyptiaca, I gave the original Greek title as well but can remove it. This sentence appears word for word in over ten additional FA articles on pharaohs but this is an interesting problem: should we report the original title of an ancient book or only its translated one ??Iry-Hor (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, we just use the English: "the Iliad not Ἰλιάς, "the One Thousand and One Nights" not أَلْفُ لَيْلَةٍ وَلَيْلَةٌ. If the original title is vitally important in context, we can always footnote it (I tend to do this when referring to works not generally available in English, so that interested readers can actually find them -- see e.g. n. 136 on Ludwig Ross). UndercoverClassicistT·C12:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it is now known only through later writings by Sextus Julius Africanus and Eusebius. According to the Byzantine scholar George Syncellus: again, dates would help here.
Aegyptiaca recorded "Binôthris" (Biνωθρις) or "Biophis" (Βίοφις): as above, I'm not sure the Greek script really helps here -- it's not as if the letters are distinct in English but easily confused in Greek.
In this situation, unlike the Aegyptiaca for which I feel neutral, I would prefer to keep the Greek version here since this is the name of the king in the ancient source. I guess the chance is small that someone reading this is also an avid reader of Syncellus in his original Greek but it feels to me like an information would be missing.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm -- we haven't given the names of the various Egyptian kings in the original script, so this seems an odd place to stand on it, especially as transliteration between English and (ancient) Greek is completely predictable: there's only one way to write "Binōthris" (NB the macron used on the o) in the ancient Greek script. Being more pedantic, there's a mistake in Biνωθρις -- the second letter is a Latin i and the accent is missing. UndercoverClassicistT·C12:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the names of the kings in the original ancient Egyptian script are given in the articles, please click on the [Show] button in the infobox, we provide the hieroglyphs, their transliteration and translations. This is the case for all names in all FA articles on pharaohs and in most pharaoh articles. The problem that the [Show] button is not often noticed is recurrent but we haven't found a solution in spite of extended discussions on the matter. Some of the issue is technical: we can't significantly alter the infobox source code (e.g. to make the button bold or larger) we could only alter its left/right position which we did so as to make it more noticeable. For the mistake on the "i" of Binothris I fixed it, but for the accent on the o, I follow Waddell's rendering of the Greek in the Aegyptiaca which has "ô".Iry-Hor (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not of all the kings, though -- we don't name Seth-Peribsen is hieroglyphs, so why name Binothris in Greek script? Using a circumflex to mark a long vowel is outdated (see WP:GREEK) and risks confusion with the circumflex accent ῶ, often now written with ^ as the accent. Per MOS:CONFORM, we don't need to retain purely typographical features if they don't otherwise fit our MoS. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I get your point about Peribsen and other kings mentioned in the article. That said Binothris and Biophis are both referring to the main subject of the article. I am not sure what to decide, it is true that we are getting farther from the era of classic studies when scholars got to know ancient kings from classical latin and Greek texts prior to their true ancient names. I corrected the ō as you indicated. I propose to put the Greek versions of the names in footnotes to settle the matter. Do you agree ?Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Binôthris likely being the Hellenized form of Banetjer, the name used for Nynetjer during the Ramesside era: strictly, I would italicise the first two names in this sentence per MOS:WORDSASWORDS.
Following Helck who points to Nynetjer's celebrating a sed-festival to support a reign of at least 30 years (in note 5) -- I think this could do with some explanation. Was a sed-festival usually celebrated after three decades of rule, for example?
Fixed. Yes indeed, throughout Egypt history and with very exception (Akhenaten...), the Sed festival was a rejuvenation feast that was first celebrated only on the kign's 30th year of reign. After that the feast could be held more regularly, as much as the king felt the need to replenish his forces. This is explained later on in the main text, it is unfortunate that the footnote comes first. I have updated the footnote with an explanation "Helck points to the celebration of a sed-festival by Nynetjer. This was a rejuvenation feast that could only be held after three decades of rule. Consequently, according to Helck, this supports a reign of at least 30 years." Iry-Hor (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the Turin Canon gives him 96 years of rule: what's the Turin Canon?
This is explained earlier in the main text, under "Relative Chronology". It says "The second-oldest historical source on Nynetjer is the Turin canon, a list of kings written under Ramses II". Should I recall that here ?Iry-Hor (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, in Africanus' version of the Aegyptiaca, Binôthris, the third king of the second ynasty is credited with 47 years of reign: a couple of things here: "Africanus's" per MOS:', italicise the title, and macron for circumflex in the transliterated Greek. It might be worth making it a bit clearer that this is (probably) our man -- not everyone will have read (or fully digested) the preceding subsection, especially if navigating via the ToC.
Fixed, I wrote "Secondly, in Africanus's version of the Aegyptiaca, Binōthris, the Greek name given to Nynetjer, is credited with 47 years of reign" although it sounds as if the "name" not the man was credited with 47 years of reign.
Yes -- perhaps Binōthris -- as Nynetjer was known in Greek -- is credited...? Although earlier we were a little tentative as to whether they were 100% definitely the same person (we seemed to leave it on "probably"). UndercoverClassicistT·C15:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Well the issue is that nothing is really completely certain in historical/archaeological studies of such remote periods (after all Nynetjer died over 4600 years ago!). I wrote "as Nynetjer was most probably known in Greek".Iry-Hor (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does "Sed festival" have a capital (or a hyphen)? We vary on both counts.
Fixed you are right I changed my mind several times and it shows. I will remove the hyphens and capitalize the word Sed throughout.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a well identified Egyptian king: hyphenate well-identified
The Palermo stone, main fragment of the Old Kingdom royal annals,: the main fragment -- but what does main mean here? "Largest"?
Fixed yes it means largest, the annals were engraved on a large stone slab from which survives 7 pieces which represent only a small portion of the original record.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note 6 is massive. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but would like some convincing that it's (all) of value here.
Well I am not sure either. This section was already in the main text of the article when I started working on it. I did not see mistakes in it so had no reason to remove it, but I also have no special reason to keep it. I am really neutral on this.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
an "adoration of the celestial Horus", Although not: something is wrong with the punctuation here.
Although not mentioned on the royal annals: in, I think, as we're talking about them as a text rather than an artefact (cf. mentioned in the inscription).
Another bowl of the king mentions a chapel of Hedjet: what does "bowl of the king" mean -- owned by him? From his reign?
Clarified it means the bowl bears the king's name. It was either an equipment owned by some institution (like the chapel) or a funerary bowl prepared as an equipment for his tomb. I wrote "Although not mentioned in the royal annals, the goddesses Bastet and Neith must also have received cults as witnessed by stone bowls on which their names are associated Nynetjer's. Another bowl bearing the king's name mentions a chapel of Hedjet [...]"Iry-Hor (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Contra this opinion: I think this is a bit informal and a little MOS:JARGON for our purposes here.
Fixed I wrote "This could point to royal activity being largely confined to Lower Egypt during his reign. The inscription bearing Nynetjer's name found in Nubia could point to an exception to this observation, as it may be a clue that he sent a military expedition into this region [...]"
the expedition is not mentionned in the surviving fragments: typo.
An historical source dated to the third dynasty: an historical source is a bit vague -- any idea what we're talking about here? Can we put a rough calendar date on the third dynasty?
Fixed Sure, I wrote "According to the annals of the third dynasty (27th century BC) this census involved an enumeration of gold and land".Iry-Hor (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing of a seal impression mentionning (caption): typo.
From at least the reign of Sneferu onwards this extended census included cattle counts—under which name it became known—while oxen and small livestock were recorded from the fifth dynasty onwards: again -- most readers won't have a sense of these as chronological markers.
The datings of these inscriptions, made of black ink, is difficult (note 9): dating is singular. I would probably go for "Dating these inscriptions ... is difficult", just for idiom.
this treasury did not function as envisaged by a modern reader (note 10): how are we deciding what "a modern reader" will be envisaging at this point? Honestly, I think this footnote does a lot of good, and could be condensed and promoted to the body.
agricultural produces and/or stone ware: "and/or" is discouraged per the MoS: can we be specific? Could they choose whether to administer crops or vessels? Did it vary over time?
Although a single estate prodiving natron. Typo. Worth glossing briefly what natron is used for, per MOS:NOFORCELINK?
Fixed. I wrote "Although a single estate providing natron—a type of salt used for curing food, cleaning and in the mummification process—is known from a seal impression [...]".Iry-Hor (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having just read the Administration section, I think we could structure it more effectively to put the bottom line up front -- that Nynetjer's reign shows the earliest evidence for some major increases in the state capacity of Egypt and the areas which the state saw as "its business". At the same time, it's not clear how far geographically this state actually stretched.
Historical records preserve conflicting lists of kings between the end of Nynetjer's reign and that of Khasekhemwy, who oversaw military campaigns against the North of Egypt: north. Can we give an idea of how long this period was? On another note, we've fairly consistently used Upper/Lower Egypt, so "north of" reads a little oddly.
Fixed concerning the north of Egypt. For the period we really can't give any idea, indeed the mid second dynasty is one of the most obscure periods in the history of Egypt, nobody is sure how many kings reigned, over which parts of the country and for how long. Essentially between Nynetjer and Khasekhemwy nothing is certain except that Seth-Peribsen was in there. I think this represents a gap of one or two generations but could be more: specialist of the first dynasty see it as finishing c. 3000 BC to 2900 BC and those of the third dynasty, in particular Djoser the first 3rd dynasty king, all agree on a date c. 2650 BC for him. This would imply at least 250 years for the 2nd dynasty but if you add up what is known you are nowhere near this tally and nobody has proposed a coherent way to plug that gap (most of the tentatives have been by moving the first dynasty forward in time but this disagrees with radiocarbon dates for example). So there is a big question mark of completely unknown temporal size in there.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm -- completely unknown, as in we don't know whether it was a thousand years or two weeks? I think we can probably do something here, even if it ends up as "a gap of at least 100 years" (or whatever) and a footnote explaining the complications. UndercoverClassicistT·C12:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done I added "The period from Nynetjer's death until Khasekhemwy's coronation is very obscure and the understanding of it has seen little progress in Egyptology over the entire 20th century. Consequently, an accurate estimate of its length is impossible, the total temporal duration of second dynasty remains debated by Egyptologists and boils down educated guesses of one to two centuries". plus citations for each claim.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing:
This is manifested through he abandonment of the first dynasty necropolis of Abydos: typo (the abandonment). Hyphen in "first-dynasty".
. A tentative to counteract this trend could explain why: missing something: was an attempt intended for a tentative?
Fixed yes I mean that the king may have attempted to please Upper Egyptian interests with this, or reinforce their claim to what was a remote part of their realm as seen from Memphis.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the novel cultual emphasis put on Ra by Raneb: typo.
Fixed. I did mean "cultual" as in "cult", because Raneb emphasised or gave a new role to the god Ra. I changed this sentence to solve also your next point by " For Grimal, the establishment of the cult of Ra by Raneb and the emphasis on Bastet and Sopdu, both Lower Egyptian deities, on Raneb and Nynetjer's behalf may have been perceived as too favourable to northern Egypt". I kept northern here to avoid repeating Lower Egypt.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
may have been perceived as too favourable towards the north of Egypt.: see earlier on "north of Egypt", but I think the connection needs explaining anyway.
In this case, the division of Egypt would have been peaceful at first, as possibly witnessed by the joint mortuary cults in Saqqara of Senedj and Seth-Peribsen: are these two his sons? We haven't introduced Senedj at all, and haven't really given a proper sense of where Seth-Peribsen fits into the story.
Tentative fix. My bad, Senedj is introduced but later in the text. Nobody knows the family relations between the kings of the time, in addition, nobody is sure which king fits where and when in the story... To avoid problems at this point in the text I propose to simply update with "[...] as possibly witnessed by the joint mortuary cults in Saqqara of two subsequent second dynasty kings Senedj and Seth-Peribsen, would might have ruled over Lower and Upper Egypt [...]"Iry-Hor (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, to address the problem of feeding the Egyptian population, Nynetjer split the realm into two and his successors ruled two independent states until the famine came to an end.: I don't really see how that would help -- surely, if anything, splitting the state makes it harder for regions in food surplus to assist those in famine?
I believe that you are thinking about a state that is far too organized for that time period, when even basic administrative structures that we take for granted had not yet been invented (much of these came with the first pyramids). In particular, an effective redistribution of food (and the apparatus needed to do so) was non existent and people subsisted locally. Anyway the source does not really say how splitting the state would make it easier to handle, perhaps the late Roman empire is a good example for us ?
Bell's theory is now refuted by Egyptologists such as Stephan Seidlmayer, who corrected Bell's calculations: refuted means that we're categorically saying it's not true. Is that so? In that case, we need to rework the initial framing of Bell's theory to make clear that it belongs in the past (WP:FRINGE). More generally, we spend a lot of time in this paragraph talking about something we ultimately conclude didn't happen.
Fixed no it is only in Seidlmayer's eyes that it is refuted. Hoffman shared Bell's ideas and Wilkinson mentions them as well. I have updated the whole paragraph: "In contrast, Egyptologists such as Barbara Bell and Michael Hoffman believe that an economic catastrophe such as a famine or a long-lasting drought could have affected Egypt around this time.[116] Therefore, to address the problem of feeding the Egyptian population, Nynetjer may have split the realm into two and his successors ruled independent states until the famine came to an end. Bell points to the inscriptions of the Palermo stone, where, in her opinion, the records of the annual Nile floods show constantly low levels during this period.[111] Bell's theory is not accepted by some Egyptologists such as Stephan Seidlmayer, who objects to Bell's calculations. For Seidlmayer the annual Nile floods were at their usual levels at Nynetjer's time up to the period of the Old Kingdom. According to him, Bell had overlooked that the heights of the Nile floods in the Palermo Stone inscriptions only takes into account the measurements of the nilometers around Memphis, but not elsewhere along the river. Any long-lasting drought is would therefore less likely to be an explanation.[117]" Iry-Hor (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
all attempts by modern Egypotlogists at reconstructing events from the end of Nynetjer's rule: typo. Does from mean "around" or "after"? If the latter, is that true until (say) 30 BCE?
Fixed, I have clarified, basically Wilkinson emphasized in several articles what I wrote in the new version of the introduction of the present section, namely that really nobody knows what happens between the death of Nynetjer and the coronation of Kasekhemwy. Keep in mind that, while not as famous as the intermediate periods, the mid second dynasty is actually even more obscure... I wrote "As Wilkinson remarks, all attempts by modern Egypotlogists at reconstructing events between Nynetjer's end of reign and Khasekhemwy's ascend to the Upper Egyptian throne remain highly speculative owing to the lack of strong, direct evidence on the matter".Iry-Hor (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear whether Nynetjer's successor voluntarily shared his reign with another ruler, if there were rival claimants to the throne, or if the Egyptian state was split later, at the time of this successor's death: I feel like we should get the elephant out of the room first and say that we're not sure who Nynetjer's successor actually was.
Done.
have Wadjenes as Nynetjer's immediate successor and as the predecessor of Senedj both of whom are poorly known.: dodgy grammar here -- both of whom? I would cut at Senedj and look to rework the rest.
I propose "All known king lists from historical sources such as the Saqqara list, the Turin Canon and the Abydos table have Wadjenes as Nynetjer's immediate successor, a king who is poorly known. These sources claim that Wadjenes was succeeded by the equally obscure Senedj. Wadjenes and Senedj may or may not be the same as Weneg[note 10] and Nubnefer, shadowy rulers who could have ruled shortly after Nynetjer too." Here we are in the midst of chaos: nobody knows who reigned where and when among these guys and we don't even know if these are various names of the same person/people.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
indicating that an ennemy had invaded the historical seat of Upper Egyptian power: typo.
He started his reign in Upper Egypt under the name Khasekhem, "The powerful one has appeared",: I can see why it matters to translate his new name, but do we really need to do so for his old one?
Actually I think it matters because it first name indicates his sole allegiance to the god Set, which represented Upper Egypt at the time (he was only much later considered to be an evil god by Egyptians!), while his second name indicates his allegiance to both Set and Horus, a clear sign of reunification of the country.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
records him “fighting the northern enemy within Nekheb”, indicating that an ennemy had invaded the historical seat of Upper Egyptian power: I'm not sure it does indicate that -- Augustus Caesar would be very happy with how credulous we're being about royal propaganda! "Invaded" in particular is a loaded word...
Tentative fix what if I say "an enemy was closing in on Nekheb" ? I mean if Khasekhemwy was really fighting there, his enemy has indeed set foot in the heart of Upper Egypt. That said, I share your opinion: I think we are really buying into Khasekhemwy's propaganda here, but we really have no choice because we have absolutely no other source !Iry-Hor (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Later in his reign he added Horus to his serekh, changed his name to Khasekhemwy which means "Two powers have appeared" along with the addition "Two lords are at peace with him", having reunited Egypt at last.: is it undisputed that he did reunite Egypt? If so I would put that up front.
Done, yes I am yet to uncounter a source doubting that Kasekhemwy overcame his enemies (the precise identity of which is not clear though). Everybody agrees that Egypt was united after him (Djoser of step pyramid fame was his likely son!), while most Egyptologists agree that Egypt was in troubles before him. I moved this info up front.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tomb of Nynetjer was discovered by Selim Hassan: can we introduce him at all?
next to a natural wadi running west to east: most readers won't know what a wadi is. Is there such thing as an unnatural one?
Done I have added an explanation. A wadi is dry river bed that is active during flash floods. Some wadis may have artificial origins, e.g. from a deep dug trench as around Djoser's pyramid.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but also ensured that the tomb remained hidden from the Nile valley: was this usually a priority for royal tombs? The whole "big white pyramid" thing suggests that they generally wanted to be seen...
Ancient Egyptian rulers were aware of tomb robbers since at least the first dynasty and while their tomb locations and shapes were dictated by religious motives, they included much anti-theft devises (in particular granite portcullises). While the source does not explain why it was a plus to have the tomb hidden from the Nile valley, from the context of the discussion I understand it to mean that the realm of the dead was hidden away from that of the living, i.e. from Memphis. I can't really say that as the source does not expand on the why though.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to Erik Hornung, the choice of Saqqara over the Abydos burial grounds of the first dynasty points to some neglect of the older Upper Egyptian center of power in favour of Memphis, which might have contributed to an Upper Egyptian reaction in the troubled times following Nynetjer's rule: we've already said this: I don't know whether there's a better way to organise the information, but just dropping this bit in twice doesn't seem right. We should also pick a spelling of Saqqara/Sakkara.
Fixed For the sentence that is repeated, I agree, so I have removed it and incorporated the link to the first-dynasty necropolis in the first instance of the sentence, earlier in the main text. For Saqqara, I have decided in favor of the spelling with two q since this is spelling used in the article on Saqqara.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What remains is not sufficient to determine the layout of the structures nor if they were made: or if they were made (single negative in English, double negative in French).
I would put some kind of link on "niche stele" -- I had to look up what it was, and I suspect I'm in the minority of readers in that I already knew what each word meant on its own.
a mortuary temple and a serdab: similarly... and a what?
Done, link to Mortuary temple and I have added a short explanation for serdab. A serdab is a special type of room housing a particular statue of the king representing his Ka, a specific part of his soul. The room is sealed but for a small slit allowing his soul to move from the statue to the outside and back, as he wills.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
8 m (26 ft) to 10 m (33 ft): you can do this more elegantly with the convert template: try {{convert|8|to|10|m|ft}}, which gives 8 to 10 metres (26 to 33 ft). There are a couple of other examples.
Is there a good map of Saqqara/Sakkara that shows all the tombs we talk about? I notice there's one at Gisr el-Mudir, but Nynetjer is (understandably) missing.
Unfortunately I could not find that on wikicommons. There are maps in the recent articles by the excavators of Nynetjer's tomb but I am sure this is copyrighted.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image here is a map of Saqqara, and it's freely licensed. It shows the tomb of Unas -- we could either include it directly and say "Nynetjer's tomb is underneath that of Unas", or add some indication to the map of where exactly it is, if that would be appropriate. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I uploaded a new picture based on the one your suggested with the approximate ___location of Nynetjer's tomb beneath that of Unas on the map.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copper tools marks: marks left by copper tools is probably best -- the usual word is toolmarks, but copper toolmarks would mean that the marks themselves were made of copper.
The tomb shows great architectural similarities to the Gallery Tomb A some 130 m (430 ft) to the west: don't italicise names of features. We would also usually drop the the -- just "the tomb is similar to Gallery Tomb A"; "the tomb is bigger than Grave IV", etc.
The tomb itself became the locus of renewal funerary rituals: when?
Fixed I meant that the tomb was, by its novel architecture and from its inception, the locus of renewal rituals. I changed the sentences to "Yet Nynetjer's tomb marks an important development in monumental royal mortuary architecture with its extended labyrinthine layout involving numerous rooms. The tomb was the locus of renewal rituals as it incorporated a dedicated cult place".Iry-Hor (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tomb shows great architectural similarities to the Gallery Tomb A some 130 m (430 ft) to the west: can we give a sense of what the similarities are?
At the southern end of the tomb, a group of chambers seems to be model of the royal palace: not quite grammatical. A model, perhaps, but we probably want something a bit more careful like "to mirror the layout of...".
Fixed I will add the word "a" that was forgotten. The source does not say that the layout mirrors that of a palace, it only says that the tomb is a kind of model of a palace. My understanding is that it is not just the layout that was palace-like, but also the function of each room symbolically reproducing the function of palace rooms.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These comprise the main burial chamber towards the southwestern end.: chambers comprise a chamber? Something seems off there.
The whole burial site is highly unstable and is in danger of collapsing.: is this a feature of its construction or how it's fared in the millennia since? This bit seems to jump forward at the moment: it would be good to have something like "Since its construction, the tomb has been left highly unstable by erosion as well as the recent construction of Highway XYZ running over its top..." (or whatever the causes are).
Done yes this is how the tomb fared over time, although the sources do not point the finger at any one culprit (Unas causeway or otherwise). At any rate, I am sure the original builders did not mean the tomb to collapse on the king's body...Iry-Hor (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another room produced the fragments of a further 420 unfinished and unsealed wine jars: cut the.
and less than ten jars of beer: slightly odd phrasing: perhaps up to ten? Even then, how would the excavators know -- you can normally estimate the minimum number of vessels (e.g. by counting bases), but I don't see how you could estimate the maximum unless you can also be sure of the minimum, in which case there would be no fuzziness.
I think they say "less than ten" because some fragments may not be from a beer jar. So they have at most 10 beer jars, perhaps less. I wrote "up to", I think this level of details is sufficient for the article.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excavations of the tomb also yielded 144 to 151 stone tools comprising knives with and without handles, stone sickles, blades, scrapers, hatchets and many further fragments of stone tools: needs a slight reworking: fragments of stone tools are not themselves stone tools.
Fixed This is the point, they have fragments and reconstructing the original tools produces 144 to 151 pieces, depending on how you assemble some fragments together. I replace by the slightly less precise "yielded about 150 stone tools".Iry-Hor (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This necropolis remained in use sporadically until the early Christian period, when the nearby monastery of Jeremiah was built in the sixth century.: are we saying that the building of the monastery marks the end of the necropolis's use? If not, would try to put a more precise date on the latter (and the early Christian period, which doesn't start in the C6th). If so, would rework slightly for clarity.
Tentative fix. I do not have a precise date for the abandonment of the necropolis, the source links it to the early Christian period and points to the construction of the monastery. In any case, the (pagan) necropolis certainly would not have been used after the nearby monastery had been built. I do not know what to write except "This necropolis remained in use sporadically until the early Christian period, when the nearby monastery of Jeremiah was built (c. sixth century)"Iry-Hor (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could divorce them if no direct causal/temporal relationship is suggested? I assume the source treats the monastery as a terminus ante quem, in which case we could do This necropolis remained in use sporadically until the early Christian period; in the sixth century, after it had fallen into disuse, the nearby monastery of Jeremiah was built.
The hard quartzite is difficult to work, especially with the bronze and flint tools available to the Egyptians at the time. It is therefore remarkable that they could already handle this hard rock so well: this is a bit WP:EDITORIALISING, WP:PUFFERY and so on -- we don't generally say "this is notable", "this is interesting", "this is surprising" and so on, but rather let the reader decide when to be interested, surprised, etc.
Looking back again at note 8, I would probably remove it -- it's massive, difficult to read, and I can't see that it adds value or is particularly important in context. We could perhaps provide a link in a source to the full text if anyone really wants to follow it up?
Check the system for capitalising after a colon in a title: I was always taught to do it (so Sharknado 2: The Second One), but we prevaricate (see e.g. Hoffman 1990 vs Hornung and Lorton 1999).
You've given place and publisher for the journal source Simpson 1956, but I can't see that you've done so for any other journals. It's not usual to include this, except for books.
I'm happy so far -- I'll leave the review open for now, as I may come back and do some spotchecks, but it seems that A. Parrot below is likely to be on that as well, so I'll see how things develop. UndercoverClassicistT·C21:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way A. Parrot (talk·contribs) I wanted to ask you a question: a second pharaoh article is ready for FAC, namely Userkare. Do you think it is a good idea to post it as the same time as this one or should I wait for this one to be (hopefully) promoted ? I mean in terms of reviewer fatigue.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made several small prose edits. Feel free to look them over and discuss any change you disagree with.
Thanks, in particular I was hesitating on the capitalization of all dynasties as in "Second Dynasty" versus "second dynasty". I happy to revert back to the capitalized version.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very reliably and extensively sourced, as usual. Old sources are used in a very limited way, to report on archaeological evidence and not to interpret it. While I'm not especially knowledgeable about the Second Dynasty, the picture given here fits with what I know from the sources I have (e.g., Wilkinson 1999 and Kahl 2007).
There are two oddities in the source list. One is that Katary 2001 is mis-titled. It seems to be the OEAE article on taxation (which matches the author and page range), but it says it's the entry for Saqqara (which is already listed correctly as Chauvet 2001). I assume this was simply an error in copying the template and forgetting to replace the title= field.
The other oddity is more significant. I think Wilkinson 1999 and Wilkinson 2005 are the same in different printings (my PDF edition is dated 2005, but the text is the same as the 1999 print edition). These listings and the associated citations will need to be consolidated before I can do a spot-check. A. Parrot (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved Yes this was a real problem, upon inspection I think I understand its origin: my physical copy of the book is the 1999 one and I also have an e-book copy which says "Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005." But below it says "ISBN 0-203-20421-2 (Adobe e-Reader Format) ISBN 0-415-18633-1 (Print Edition)" and indeed on OCLC 0-415-18633-1 is the 1999 edition. My understanding is that the book was only physically printed in 1999 and bears the 0-415-18633-1 ISBN while the e-book is dated 2005 and has ISBN 0-203-20421-2 or 0-203-02438-9. Unfortunately the print and e-book have different page numbers. Since there was a single Wilkinson 1999 reference, I updated it to the e-book page numbers pp. 73-75.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I spot-checked 20 citations. Most presented no problem, but I found some irregularities.
You cite Hornung 2012 as if it were a unified volume, but while some of your citations are to overview sections that were apparently written by the editors, several of the citations are to the chapter written by Kahl. It might make more sense to have a separate entry for Kahl's chapter, similar to the separate entries for other contributions to larger works like the OEAE articles.
Citation 63 (Kahl 2007 pp. 44–46) is odd, because although those pages discuss the possible evolution of Ra's cult during Nynetjer's reign, they don't discuss the events mentioned in the previous sentences.
The truth is unfortunately I do not have access to this book so I kept a reference to these pages that was inserted in the pre-existing text before I started significantly editing the article. I just removed this reference. All the references to Kahl's 2007 book are either from pre-existing edits or from things I inferred from secondary sources quoting this book. This is a bit unsatifactory.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have the book, and all the other citations to it check out—but are there any other sources in the article that you didn't vet yourself?
No this is the sole one I could not check yet kept because the book is absolutely central to the subject matter here. Note that in the current version of the article, there are only four citations to Kahl 2007's book, n. 13, 31, 37 and 63. Number 31 is consensual, it says that Raneb was Nynetjer's predecessor, n. 37 is about resinscription of older vases under Nynetjer which Kahl himself talks about in other sources like in Hornung, n. 63 is reported in secondary sources (it is the translation of a name), only n. 13 was something I could not verify: it should say that Nubnefer may have been a successor of Nynetjer on p. 16.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 101a (Baines and Málek 2000, p. 32): Baines and Málek don't quite say that later records give conflicting lists of Second Dynasty kings, though one could argue that they imply it.
Ok it is true they don't directly say that so I removed the reference at this point. In the "Succession" section more details are given on this: historical sources (Abydos king list, Turin canon and Saqqara Table) do give conflicting lists of rulers.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 103 (Wilkinson 2005 p. 69): "…the understanding of it has seen little progress in Egyptology over the entire 20th century." This goes farther than Wilkinson's text, which says "…scholars today are scarcely more confident about the internal history of the Second Dynasty than were their predecessors a generation ago."
(Unsolicited peanut-throwing) The idiom of this doesn't quite work ("over the last generation"?), but in any case it creates problems with close paraphrasing of the source and with writing something that is already out of date -- Wilkinson wrote that twenty years ago, which is about the standard definition for a generation! I would suggest explicitly quoting Wilkinson and putting a date on it: The period from Nynetjer's death until Khasekhemwy's coronation is very obscure; Wilkinson wrote in 2005 that negligible progress had been made on its internal history over the preceding generation or something to that effect. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to specify the year, we should probably use the year the text was written. I've changed it and added an "origyear" parameter to the Wilkinson citation.
The citations for the first four sentences of the "Succession" section are strangely structured. It's a block of text with one citation in the middle of a sentence, then four citations in a row at the end. Can they be restructured so it's more clear which statements are attributable to which source?
It's better structured, but you support the text about Wadjenes with a citation to Wilkinson 2005 p.73, which discusses Weneg but does not mention Wadjenes as far as I can see. A. Parrot (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me Wilkinson equates Wadjenes with Weneg by reading the Ramesside era king lists as having Weneg as successor of Nynetjer, when litterally these lists read "Wadjenes". Indeed he says "Ninetjer’s immediate successor, at least in the north of Egypt, was a king whose nswt-bỉty name has been read as Weneg" and cite Grdseloff for this, when Grdseloff is the one who proposed Wadjenes = Weneg and explained the why. I have added a footnote adapted from the article on Wadjenes that explains Grdseloff's reasoning for Wadjenes=Weneg (and indeed it is about the writing of their names).Iry-Hor (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a couple of passages I found unclear and then I'll be done...
"For these Egyptologists as well as Grimal, the god Ra took over the role of the king's progenitor…" I know what this means, more or less, but it needs some clarification for readers who may not be familiar with Egyptian royal ideology. And it needs to say who Ra took over from—Horus, I presume?
Tentative fix. I am a bit uneasy for the Horus claim. For now I wrote "For these Egyptologists as well as Grimal, the god Ra took over the role of the king's progenitor—that is the ancient Egyptians started to see their ruler as the offspring of the sun deity—a role previously occupied by Horus. Within this context, Nynetjer's name should be understood as meaning "He who belongs to the god (Ra)"." The issue is I don't have a reference for the claim about Horus's role before Nynetjer's reign. Grimal says nothing about which deity was seen as the progenitor before. I am turning to Schott on this, I have his 1950 book but must translate it again to understand if he mentions Horus on this.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In this idea, a tomb room stood for a courtyard or for the entrance to a house, itself symbolised only by the massive bedrock." I understand the sentences around this one, but I don't understand this sentence itself. I checked the source it's based on, and I still don't understand that part.
Clarified. I have clarified as much as I could in the main text. Lacher-Raschdorff notes that in the tomb it is hard to discern what was meant to be inside versus outside. She notices that the ceiling of some rooms and corridors were painted with stars, so should be understood as outside spaces, and given that many of these rooms where too narrow to be usable as storage (in fact they cannot functionally be used for anything), they were meant to symbolize streets and courtyards. Then the walls of these underground chambers, i.e. the massive bedrock were to be understood as the houses of the city and the tomb is to be seen as an inverted model of a real city. Inverted in the sense that subterranean chamber = street, solid bedrock = buildings. Hence while you stand inside of a tomb room, you are symbolically standing outside in a model/mock city with palaces and cult places for the king to live his eternal life. She notably points to Djoser's dummy buildings, which is exactly the same concept but built above ground: the buildiong are solid and have no internal rooms because they are not functional buildings but symbols replacing what was solid bedrock in the underground galleries of the 2nd dynasty.
I wrote: "Its extended labyrinthine layout may have been meant to represent a city, rather than a simple system of corridors and magazine chambers. Firstly, many rooms of the tomb are too narrow to be functional and some had their ceiling painted with stars. For Lacher-Raschdorff this indicates that the tomb chambers symbolically represented open courtyards or entrances to dummy buildings, themselves modelled only by the walls of the underground chambers, that is by the massive unhewn bedrock. According to Lacher-Raschdorff, "the entire maze functioned as a model residence, with small streets, courtyards, dummy houses and dummy magazines". Several special groups of rooms can be discerned, three of which being model cult-places. At the southern end of the tomb, a further group of chambers seems to be a model of the royal palace which comprises the burial chamber. The idea of a model city inside the royal tomb complex was continued after Nynetjer's reign as can be seen from Djoser's pyramid complex, which comprises dummy rather than fully functional buildings with no internal rooms.".Iry-Hor (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Siegfried Schott has proposed" – opinions vary on this – I know UndercoverClassisist disagrees with me – but I think when we say "Joe Bloggs says so-and-so" we should briefly explain who JB is to let readers know why they should care what he says. Thus, either "the Egyptologist Joe Bloggs" or "Joe Bloggs in his 2010 [title of book]". I do not press the point.
"the chancellor of the treasury of the king " – I was intrigued by this title – retrospectively conferred by modern Egyptologists, I assume, as we are long predating the Latin cancellarius here.
Good point, I think you are quite right, the source mentions "The treasury was headed by the "Royal Chancellor," a central title within the administration, attested from the early first dynasty", it seems that the original translator chose this word to translate what must be some sort of overseer. I have added a reference to this sentence of the source.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Archeological evidence confirms the existence of the treasury" – but everywhere else you use the spelling "archaeological", which is the preferred spelling in the Oxford English Dictionary.
"is very uncertain... is very obscure " – you might lose one or both adverbs here.
Done, I removed the first "very" and removed the bit of the sentence with the "very obscure". It now directly says "Wilkinson wrote in 1999 that negligible progress had been made on the internal history of the Second Dynasty over the preceding generation."
"light-colored hieroglyphs " – another intrusive AmE spelling
A purely stylistic point, and not one I'm pressing, but in BrE "was likely built", "were likely first compiled" and "likely being the Hellenized form" etc would normally be given as "was probably built", "were probably first compiled" and "probably being the Hellenized form". (For no reason that I can explain "likely" is idiomatic English if you put an adverb in front of it – "most likely", "very likely" and so on).
I understand, this is typically the kind of subtleties I miss every time I write an article. I have changed to "probably" throughout.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above points are important enough to prevent my supporting the promotion of this excellent article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. I wish I could have read it before I visited Saqqara a couple of years ago. – Tim riley talk14:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a very obscure short-lived early 20th century attempt at reviving the Federal Republic of Central America. The Federation of Central America, consisting of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, didn't even survive for one year before it fell apart following a military coup in Guatemala. I've asked around for FAC advice for other articles, and I think that this one best fulfills the FA criteria. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 09:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... a natural disaster that journalist Eliot Kleinberg argued might have caused "the most deaths of black people in a single day in U.S. history." The hurricane caused at least 2,500 deaths and possibly 3,000 or more, the vast majority near Lake Okeechobee. About three-fourths of the deceased were black migrant farm workers, with many of their bodies tossed into mass graves and mostly forgotten about for more than half a century. The storm is the fourth deadliest hurricane in the history of the United States and the second deadliest ever in the continental United States.
I created this article several years ago (passed GA review in 2017) to expand upon the information available on Wikipedia about this tragedy and because the main article on this hurricane could become too large because the same storm also devastated parts of the Lesser Antilles. With the 100th anniversary of the Okeechobee hurricane in September 2028, I have put in a lot of effort in the past few months to improve the article – including several grammar checks and reviews of the sources for the purpose of verifying info – with the goal of becoming a TFA around the centennial. Thank you in advance for feedback on this article.
12george1 (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a subarticle of 1928 Okeechobee hurricane, so a clear link to that parent article should probably be in the first sentence. I see a link to the parent article at top of InfoBox; and there is a link to the parent, kinda hidden, in the 2nd sentence: The storm originated from a tropical depression ... Consider changing the first sentence to be The effects of the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane in Florida included at least 2,500 fatalities .... MOS:FIRST says "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence, although there are exceptions...". That doesnt say that that the full article title must be bolded in the first sentence, just that the topic of the article has to be the (grammatical) subject of the first sentence. Bottom line: first sentence should do what is best for the readers, and that is give them a clear link to the parent article.
Section Effects_of_the_1928_Okeechobee_hurricane_in_Florida#Economic_aftermath has a quote box: {{quote box | ... quote=Reports of storm damage greatly exaggerated. Damage negligible and confined almost entirely to Palm Beach ...}} Quote boxes are essentially prohibited by MOS guidelines (MOS:PULLQUOTE) for two reasons: (1) they give tremendous emphasis to the quote ... a huge "LOOK AT ME" directed at the reader. and (2) placed on the side, as they are, the reader is deprived of key contextual information from the preceding body text. Thus, block quotes are reserved only for very famous, impactful quotes. Consider changing to use template:blockquote (see MOS:BLOCKQUOTE) ... which is a nice middle ground: still shows the quote, but not ostentatiously, and reader has good context from body text leading into it.
I glanced at some images, and most appear to have good free-to-use data (but I'm not claiming this is an image review). For image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1928_Okeechobee_hurricane_2.jpg it uses {{PD-heirs}}. Is there a requirement to provide a link or other data that gives some evidence that the heirs gave permission?
I've never dealt with {{PD-heirs}}, so I'm not sure either. @Tysto uploaded the file and added it to the article. I assumed it's usable because of the ≥95 years in the US rule, but I don't know if it was published then and the author is named and has been deceased for less than 70 years (if that's relevant)--12george1 (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "page size" tool shows a prose word size of 10,885 prose words. The WP:SIZERULE suggests a limit if 9,000 prose words. That is not a hard limit: "[over 9,000] Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." Since this article is a sub-article of the wider-scope 1928 Okeechobee hurricane article, I would expect the latter to have a reason to waive the 9,000 target (but sub-articles? not so much).
Thanks for doing the trimming ... I know how painful it can be to remove text that took time to craft. But if it makes the article more inviting to general-public readers, it is worth it. Noleander (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote should probably end with a period: All damage figures are in 1928 USD, unless otherwise noted
There are some huge paragraphs in the article. To pick a few random examples:
Lead paragraph The most extensive damage occurred ... in Palm Beach County alone.
In Jupiter, the hurricane ... in Jupiter totaled approximately $900,000.
On September 19, West Palm Beach Mayor ... and West Palm Beach combined
In collaboration with the Extension Division ... to local chapters
I don't think there is a MOS rule on recommended paragraph size, but the FA criteria say the prose should be "engaging". To me, that means that an FA article invites readers with a welcoming aesthetic. I find the numerous large paragraphs a bit intimidating and off-putting (and I'm a compulsive reader, so that is saying something :-). Consider crafting the paragraphs to be more inviting and digestible to the general public.
Needs a section that focuses on the racial issues. The article describes the horrible impact to the African-American community. Readers would benefit from a section title that steers them to a section that focuses on that impact. Example: say a reader is short on time and wants to learn how the black communities were devastated, and was there any Jim Crow or racist explanation. So they scan thru the Table of Contents: yet they don't find a section on that. So are they forced to read the entire article? If the sources support it, consider offering a section to readers that helps them jump that that information (e.g. rename an existing section ... but only if the sources support it, of course). Note that the parent article has such a section: 1928_Okeechobee_hurricane#Racial_issues
Consider providing reader with inflation-adjusted dollar values e..g for damage value in InfoBox (and also in Lead section): ... damage totaled at least $25 million ... It is pretty easy using template:inflation. Example:
... damage totaled at least $25 million (equivalent to ${{Format price|{{Inflation|US-GDP|25|1928|r=2}}}} million in {{Inflation-year|US-GDP}}).
Should only take a couple of minutes to do that for all the 1928 dollar values in the article. Many readers won't grasp the $$ magnitude otherwise.
The project ended the practice of using inflation templates many years ago. I believe the reason was because wealth normalization is better, which "reflects inflation, changes in personal wealth and coastal county population" according to Blake et al. 2011. For example, that's why they estimated that the hurricane would cause $35.3 billion in damage in 2010 and not $317.49 million (the value if I convert $25 million in 1928 to 2010)--12george1 (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prose improvement: More than a day prior to the storm making landfall in Florida, forecasters such as Richard W. Gray, chief meteorologist at the Weather Bureau office in Miami, believed that the hurricane would not threaten the state. For example, Gray predicted on September 12 that the storm would move westward and eventually dissipate over the Yucatán Channel. These two sentence could perhaps be combined. The "More than a day prior" leads the reader to think you will identify an event (such as a prediction), but instead it says Gray "believed" something ... which is not an event that has a specific time. "For example" is not needed ... and should go away if the 2 sentences were merged.
Prose improvement: . The American Red Cross estimated the number of fatalities at 1,836, which remained the official toll until 2003, when the National Weather Service revised the fatality count to at least 2,500. Consequently, the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane is the second-deadliest cyclone in the contiguous United States, behind only the 1900 Galveston hurricane, and the country's fourth deadliest overall, after Hurricane Maria in 2017, the 1899 San Ciriaco hurricane, and the 1900 Galveston hurricane.[44][45] Additionally, the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane constitutes the deadliest weather event on the East Coast of the United States.[46] This revision occurred because the burial sites at Port Mayaca, Woodlawn Cemetery, and the pauper's cemetery in West Palm Beach collectively containing 2,343 bodies and a 1958 letter...
"constitutes " is not the best word there
The sentence " This revision occurred because ..." belongs immediately after the "... 1,836, which remained the official toll until 2003, when..." sentence
... the country's fourth deadliest overall, after Hurricane Maria in 2017, the 1899 San Ciriaco hurricane, and the 1900 Galveston hurricane.... Is it possible to tighten by linking to some list of deadliest hurricanes (e.g. List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_records#Deadliest_Atlantic_hurricanes? Normally a list like that is not written out in body text.
I’ve been looking forward to George nominating this. It’s a great read, and I even laughed at one part (at the newspaper owner being called a “jackass”). There’s a few issues with the article, but nothing substantial enough to oppose. I hope the comments are easy to address, since this is a great example of what a hurricane effects article should look like.
Lead
”making this the fourth-deadliest tropical cyclone on record in the United States and the second-deadliest on the country's mainland.” - the link should probably be when you say “fourth-deadliest” since that’s mentioned first.
”The most extensive damage occurred in Palm Beach County.” - since this is a Florida sub-article, maybe specify “The most extensive damage in Florida…” so it’s clearer you’re only going to be talking about the state (even though yes it’s in the title)
”In West Palm Beach, the storm demolished 268 businesses and affected 490 businesses and destroyed 1,711 houses and damaged 6,369 others.” - this is a bit clunky. I’m sure every business was affected to some degree (rainfall, businesses closed). Maybe something like “In WPB, the storm destroyed X buildings while also damaging Y.”
I feel like the third note, talking about damages in WPB, should be in the body of the article, since references don’t usually go in the lead.
Understandable thought, but the note mentions that Judge E. B. Donnell tallied about $33.9 million in damage for Palm Beach County alone, which is in contrast to "damage totaled at least $25 million" (for the entire state) later in the paragraph, so inserting that note as early as possible might be better--12george1 (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
”At least hundreds of structures suffered damage in Palm Beach.” - hundreds implies at least 100, so I think you can lose “at least.”
” An already faltering economy in Florida as the land boom ended and fell into turmoil even before the Wall Street crash of 1929 and the Great Depression began.” - check the grammar here, it seems off, and I suggest rewriting to make the point clearer.
”In West Palm Beach, stores sold food and thousands of candles, kerosene lamps, and boards.” - this sort of thing pops up from time to time in hurricane articles. Idk if it’s needed, since the stores were presumably selling food before the hurricane was active. If you want to indicate the preparations, maybe something like “WPB Residents prepared by purchasing emergency supplies such as…”
”Wind gusts may have reached 160 mph (260 km/h) at Canal Point, though the anemometer blew away after reporting sustained winds of 75 mph (121 km/h).” - so how was the 160 mph estimated?
That's from the MWR, which doesn't elaborate: "reaching an estimated velocity of 160 mph about 10:45 pm. The wind force decreased rapidly after 11 p.m."
”Significant impacts to agriculture occurred, with the storm partly destroying one of the largest citrus crops on record, with approximately 6% of oranges and 18% of grapefruit lost, respectively.” - could you rewrite so you don’t have two “with…” clauses in the same sentence?
”Winds damaged windows and roofs in Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood, but caused minor impact overall.” - I suggest changing the last part since overall there was a lot of damage, just not in these places.
”A boy drowned in a ditch near where his family sought refugee and 51 other people suffered injuries in Broward County.” - the first part makes sense, but the last part seems like an add on. Maybe have the 3 deaths in the county in the same part?
”Overall, the hurricane obliterated 1,711 homes and damaged 6,369 others, rendering about 2,100 families homeless, while also destroying 268 businesses and impacting 490 others.” - similar to before, could you clarify where this “overall” is?
”In Riviera Beach, the storm destroyed 500 homes and impacted another 1,000, while demolishing approximately 100 workplaces and damaged 50 others.” - I suggest removing “impacted another 1,000” unless the impact here is specifically damage. Also, the last part isn’t exactly grammatically correct.
”Strong winds also toppled telephone poles, cars, seventeen windmills at the Pennock Plantation, and two 300 ft (91 m) towers at the Naval Radio Station Jupiter Inlet.” - the winds toppled cars? Otherwise this works fine.
”In addition to extensive structural impacts and loss of life, the hurricane also destroyed virtually all crops and damaged over 150 tractors.” - could you clarify where this was for? The whole region around the lake? A specific county?
”Many boats and barges listed at various angles in the canal and the remains of custard apple trees, twisted metal roofing, lumber, and wood piled against the bridges and littered the streets.” - I’m not too up on boat terms, and forgot for a bit that “listed” is a nautical term that I’ve probably read before but can’t remember exactly what it means. Could you use a more common word than “listed”?
”Will noted that only four tall royal palm trees and piles of rubble remained of Sebring Farms,[125] while just six out of sixty-three people sheltered inside a house survived.” - did you mention this “Will” person before? Because if you did, I’ve already forgotten, and I’m reading the article beginning to end.
”Isaac West's store lost its roof during the storm, forcing its occupants to move into the restroom.” - I didn’t want to point out every business name that seemed superfluous, but I think this is an example where you probably don’t need to mention the exact name, unless the business is still around or it has a wiki article.
I see “Chosen” mentioned a few times. Since that’s such a common term, could you specify what it was, since I don’t believe there’s a wikilink until the aftermath.
”In the former, the hurricane reduced some railroad tracks to "a twisted ribbon of steel.," according to Robert Mykle.” - remove the period from the quote. (I’m on a plane in airplane mode now reviewing this or I’d do the minor edit lol)
”The storm toppled at least 260 telephone poles in Highlands and Polkcounties combined,[154]: 1 while windows shattered at business buildings, signs toppled, several roofs and chimneys suffered damage,[154]: 1 and about 10% of oranges and about 50% of grapefruit were destroyed in the latter.” - too much for one sentence.
In the second aftermath paragraph, maybe specify that the medical actions were to prevent the spread of disease? Some antivaxxers might get the wrong idea if they didn’t know what stagnant floodwaters can do in the tropics.
”On November 18, every Catholic church in the United States contributed a portion of their offering, with $84,200 in aid given to Florida and Masonic lodges nationwide collectively donated more than $107,000.” - are the Masonic lodge donations part of the same collection from the Catholic Church?
”Palm Beach casino owner E. R. Bradley, gubernatorial candidate Doyle E. Carlton, and financier and banker J. P. Morgan each donated $10,000” - not to be picky, but who did they donate the money to? Was there a centralized relief agency? (ARC I’m guessing?) Or was it to the state?
Bradley and Morgan to the ARC. Carlton collected about $10,000 from Tampa and personally distributed the money. Fixed accordingly--12george1 (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
”San Francisco's city council donated $10,000 to South Florida without discussion.” - love that a city across the country did it, but… “without discussion”? Surely the city councilors read the papers and said they had do something? I feel like the last two words aren’t needed, unless I’m missing something.
”The city issued 3,165 permits for building and major repairs between October 1 and June 30, 1929,[188] and condemned many severely damaged buildings for demolition in October 1928,[186] but over 300 condemned structures remained standing until June 1930, when the city manager was finally authorized to execute the order.” - fascinating stuff! Wish it wasn’t all in one sentence.
”Because of disabled vehicles, flooded roads, and limited food and water supplies at the south shore Lake Okeechobee communities, Dr. Buck ordered nearly 200 women and children to walk to West Palm Beach.” - was this person mentioned previously? If so, could you put a reminder who he was? Same question if he wasn’t mentioned.
”With the storm occurring just two years after the 1926 Miami hurricane, when a similar pattern had been noticed,[22] one lasting result of the 1928 cyclone was improved building codes.” - I know a similar thing happened after Hurricane Andrew. Are there any examples of those codes changing?
The image caption under “American Red Cross” has a period at the end, but it’s not a complete sentence. Again, sorry for the minor note, I’m on a plane :P
”In Dade County, the Miami Red Cross Citizens Relief Committee was established, providing aid by transporting "hundreds of loaves of bread, gallons of milk, pounds of coffee and sugar, blankets, cots, and medical supplies.” - who said this quote? Alternately, could you rewrite it so you don’t need to quote anyone?
”Additionally, a rumor circulated, which even garnered sympathy from Governor Martin, that an ARC worker struck Levi Brown on the head and shoulder with an axe and said a racial epithet as Brown ate in a mess tent. However, Brown later admitted that a person attacked him in a restaurant with a meat cleaver.” - somewhat interesting, but it was a rumor. Is this needed?
”Several local clergymen conducted a funeral service, attended by about 3,000 people, including educator Mary McLeod Bethune.” - was this person notable? If not I don’t think you need to include Bethune.
"The Mysterious Affair at Styles Fountains", anyone...? Actually, it's not that exciting at all, no real denouement (although Greenwell seems to have been as popular as Alfred!). Another vignette from days of yore. All comments welcome, mes chers amis. —Fortuna, imperatrix14:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The death of Abbot Robert Burley led to violent argument over his successor This is out of chronological order, as it precedes the disputed election the previous sentence talks about. I'd first say that Burley died in 1410, then go into the problematic election and succession squables.
Done, also tweaked wording.
dissension among the monks continued for the next 20 years. So, this takes us up to 1430, then we suddenly jump to October 1442. What happened between 1410 and 1442? Was there no abbot?
Well, nothing exciting seems to have happened; I've glossed the next two abbacies, though.
It is on this account that Greenwell was a regular visitor to Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury's caput, Middleham Castle and to Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, at Topcliffe Castle This is kind of confusing. It's a list of three things:
Richard Neville
Middleham Castle
Henry Percy
but the plethora of commas serving different purposes (and all the blue links) makes that hard to parse. Perhaps adding another "to" in front of "Middleham Castle" would clarify things.
Absolutely right. I've completely recast these sentences, splitting them up for clarity (hopefully—if it works?)
it only possessed 33 other monks Is "possessed" really the right verb here?
Changed to 'housed'.
at the time of the poisoning outside of the lead, this is the first time a poisoning is mentioned. I think you want the body to be able to stand on its own without requiring the reader to depend on facts that are only introduced in the lead.
Removed.
Poisonings within enclosed religious communities were rare Is this actually what the source says? I would assume that most of what happens in an enclosed religious community never becomes public knowledge, so how do we really know that?
I've clarified that it's relative. As to how much we know, well, they might have been enclosed, but they weren't secret. Eileen Power wrote >700 pages on Medeval English Nunneries :)
This was not the first attack on an abbot with poison this century "this century" makes me think of the current century. There's probably a better way to phrase this.
Done (15th)
Downom made him a bowl of soup ... when it was requested that he taste the dish as far as I can tell, the "him" in the first sentence is Greenwell, but the "he" in the second sentence is Downom. This is kind of confusing. And apparently despite Downom's refusal to taste it, Greenwell ate it anyway. Was this tasting in the sense of "Does it have enough salt?", or "Prove to me it isn't poison", i.e. was Downom supposed to be a Food taster. This is all kind of confusing.
I've clarified the object of the sentence. As to the tasting thing, unfortunately the sources aren't that detailed. I don't think even abbots had official food tasters—things would have to be anarchy in the monastery for that to be the norm!—but I agree that it indicates a suspicion that was curiously ignored. But unfortunately, I'm ORing. I've clarified that this is a gap in our knowledge.
in 1451 he was forced, says the writ, to provide securities This is the first time a writ is mentioned, so that's a big confusing.
Expanded that it was a legal instrument bollocking the abbot.
placed under a bond of £2000 Give some estimate of how much that is in modern times.
I've inserted the conversion template; also I've added contemporary contextualization.
At the end of the lead, following which he disappears from the record, I think the use of the present tense "disappears" is correct, as the disappearance is ongoing, but I can't help think "disappeared" works better. Perhaps we have somebody better at grammar than I am who could weigh in here?
I don't mind either way, but perhaps Brother Riley could opine? I would be grateful for the advice too.
The subsequent abbatial election was heavily disputed,[3] with bitter argument, accusations of electoral fraud, violence,[4] climaxing in the physical eviction of the incumbent, John Ripon and his replacement by Roger Frank maybe "... and violence, which climaxed in ..."?
Thanks.
they declared for Ripon what does that mean? Perhaps a BrEng thing?
I didn't realise, but apparently yes; according to Merriam-Webster, in AmEng it's "to officially say that one will take part in (something)", while in BrEng "to officially say that one supports (someone or something)". So the latter sense? I could change it to "found in favor of", but I was trying to reduce verbiage.
edicts forbidding the molestation of either Fountains or its residents at least in AmEng, "molestation" implies sexual abuse. Is that the intended meaning here?
I see that M-W calls it "somewhat old-fashioned", so fair enough. How about "interference" in?
apart from Greenwell, it only housed 34 other monks by 1447 I would simplify this and say "it only housed 35 monks". It may be a slight loss of precision, but worth it to avoid some complexity.
Absolutely.
It was also not to be the last known attempt I think you can drop the "to be".
Ditto.
it would be seen by the motherhouse, Cîteaux Is this Cîteaux Abbey?
Ah, yes, it appears to be linked later, so move the link up to here.
It is unfortunate that the 15th Century monks did not keep more detailed records, but lacking anybody finding a cache of contemporary security camera tapes, the record is what it is so we have no choice but to accept that there are gaps and questions that can't be resolved. Support. RoySmith(talk)19:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually less certain on this than I was on "Background"; while I often differentiate between them (my last FAC had two sections, using both), it's a matter of length, to me, and avoiding stubby paragraphs. I consider the aftermath to be the events immediately following the end of whatever topic, while later events are things that happen much later. Probably a slightly subjective definition, but. So the Eng. Invasion Scot., was long enough to warrant both, but this has only a bit of aftermath and even less (known) later events.
"By the 15th century, Fountains Abbey—approximately 3 miles (5 km) south-west of Ripon" - clarify here that Ripon is in Yorkshire (mentioned in the lead but not the body)
Done.
"with bitter argument, accusations of electoral fraud, violence[4] and climaxing in the physical eviction of the incumbent" => "with bitter argument, accusations of electoral fraud, and violence,[4] climaxing in the physical eviction of the incumbent"
Good call!
"It was eventually necessary for the abbots of Jervaulx and Rievaulx to intervene and restore order,[5][6] who declared for Ripon" => "It was eventually necessary for the abbots of Jervaulx and Rievaulx to intervene and restore order;[5][6] they declared for Ripon"
Ditto.
"Notwithstanding Fountains' wealth and importance, apart from Greenwell and Downom" - first mention of Downom in the body so give his full name
Right, so at this point the only important figure is the abbot, so I've removed the mention of Downom...
"A monk, William Downom, was accused" - ah, now you introduce him, even though he's already been mentioned......
...which means this introduction now makes sense chronologically?
"Greenwell survived,[20] and Downom confessed to his crime" - so even though Downom was asked to taste the soup and refused, Greenwell still ate it.....?
Yes, Roy asked the same :) it's annoying, but the sources completely elide the issue (and that's because the Letters to Citeaux also elides it. I've read it several times, but it remains undiscussed. There's several (totally OR of course) possibilities. Perhaps the abbot didn't want people knowing he'd been stupid enough to eat soup after its preparer had refused to taste it; or perhaps, even, Greenwell (who was already sick, remember) didn't eat it, but relapsed, and took the opportunity and a little real politik to get rid of an established troublemaker. All very interesting but not much use to us, I'm afraid Chris).
I know we shouldn't be editorializing in wiki-voice, but could you say something like "The historical record gives no explanation for why"? RoySmith(talk)15:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not much from me: the heavy lifting has already been done (I must remember to turn up late in the day at other FAC pages).
"Downom appears to have brought a degree of peace to the abbey upon his election" - Have you inadvertently written "Downom" instead of "Greenwell" here?
Uughh! Can I claim the classic today's-deliberate-mistake trope.
There are two statements at the end of the lead that don't quite square with what you say in the main text. In the lead you say "Downom had ... joined Kirkstead Abbey in Lincolnshire, following which he disappears from the record". Both statements are a bit more definite and unqualified than your main text (my italics): Little [not nothing] is known of Downom after his expulsion from Fountains, although he appears to have subsequently joined Kirkstead Abbey, Lincolnshire, at some point.
I think that's fixed Tim, I've added about disappearing from the records.
As there are several references to elections of abbots it would helpful to have a footnote explaining who were the electors and how the elections were conducted - secret ballot or what?
Right, I've added a (hopefully not too fat) footnote which hopefully clarifies the procedure.
Red links in opening para of main text: there are three. Is there a realistic prospect of articles being written about these three abbots?
Good point. No, probably not, even by me. So delinked. However. It occurs to me that the thing that they have in common/gives them notability is the election dispute. And since we've already got Keldholme Priory election dispute at FA...
On a stylistic point, I think percentages are better in words than in figures and symbols in the prose of an article - thus "six per cent of all poisonings ... twenty per cent of recorded poisonings" rather than "6% of all poisonings ... 20% of recorded poisonings". But the MoS is no longer prescriptive about this, and it's your call.
Right, I see what you mean. The only problem (perhaps) is spelling out 2.4% though?
Flagged Ealdgyth in case she's interested. I wonder, are there any contemporaneous sources? I wonder if Kerr 2008 and Thornton 2019 should be formatted more like a journal or magazine than its current form which reads like a book. Is Kerr 2009's publisher right - Google Books seems to have a different one. "Fountains Abbey in the mid-fifteenth century" apparently has an ISBN, should it link to that rather than OCLC? Baker 1997 needs to be disambiguated I think. Most of the sources look reliable but this isn't a field where I am an expert. I could only spotcheck #1 and I dunno if "principal source" or "notorious scandal" can be derived from it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for taking this Jo-Jo Eumerus, replying to your points one by one for (my) convenience.
Ealdgyth: I'm always happy to have the expert in early-medieval ecclesiastics look in on late-medieval politics :)
Contemporaneous sources: The Letters to Cîteaux are contemporary (although an edited edition?) and are quoted from.
Kerr 2008 & Thornton 2009: they use {{cite journal}} already?
Kerr 2009's publisher: Change Bloomsbury to Continuum?—the former bought the latter and it no longer exists. What say you?
Baker 1997 disambiguation: Baker is already disambiguated by the year.
Most of the sources look reliable: Indeed, all the sources are produced by academics who are subject experts in the field, either with the university presses, established publishing houses, or double blind-peer reviewed journals.
Spotcheck: There are two sources here. Baker 1977 is pretty clear that the only info we have is "a dossier of letters and deposition", i.e. the main source. Baker 1977 explicitly calls the case notorious (and the other source, Kerr 2008 calls it a scandal, but in an any case I read the terms as practically synonymous in this context).—Fortuna, imperatrix12:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get notorious, but "At some point not long after, the affair became public knowledge and a notorious scandal for the Cistercian Order in England"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, i see. "At some point not long after" comes from Kerr, who says "There was great scandal at the Yorkshire abbey of Fountains in the mid-fifteenth century when it was suspected that one of the monks, William Downom, had attempted to poison Abbot John Greenwell for refusing the pottage William had prepared". Personally I think it's a fair assumption that it became known around the time it happened (Kerr implies that with "when it was suspected", I think—that one followed the other), but if you prefer I could change it to just "At some point, the affair ", thus avoiiding the question of precisely when it became knowledge? —Fortuna, imperatrix12:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an early battle between the Durrani and Mughal empires. It was apart of the first invasion of Ahmad Shah Durrani, and despite a reversal in the battle, it did not waver him from invading India, and he'd lead another eight punishing invasions of India thereafter. This critical battle saw the Afghans take to the field against the Mughals despite being outnumbered 5:1, and they put up a good fight. In the GA review, I was told this would have a shot at FA, so I'm here to go for that given additional improvements. Noorullah (talk) 06:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a first nomination -- in which case, welcome to FAC.
I have some queries about the sourcing. Featured Articles need to be a representative survey of the high-quality scholarly literature about their subject. This article cites a total of seven sources, which seems a little low, especially given that three are by the same author. In addition, all but two are around or over fifty years old, none as I can see are published in major academic presses, and one appears to be a textbook. Could you give your take on what makes these high-quality sources and whether the sourcing of the article reflects the totality of the sources available? UndercoverClassicistT·C12:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist I've added two additional regarding numbers of both armies.
I believe these are high quality sources as these individuals are considered leading historians on their subjects (especially Sarkar); Hari Ram Gupta, Jadunath Sarkar, and Ganda Singh. There also is no textbook, I think you're mistaken on that. For concerns to possibly WP:AGEMATTERS, I don't believe there's any reflected change/concern there, there are a few sources cited within the last few years - 20 years. Noorullah (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On these individuals are considered leading historians on their subjects -- I'm sure they were in their lifetimes, but Gupta died in 1992, Sarkar in 1958, and Singh in 1987. Sarkar in particular published almost all of his work before the Second World War, and did much of it before the first one -- the field of history looked pretty different back then! In other words, two out of three were dead almost forty years ago, and all thirty years ago -- who are the leading figures in their field who are still alive?
there are a few sources cited within the last few years - 20 years: I make it seven cites out of 45 to a work from the twenty-first century, or in other words 84% older than 25 years.
I'm not sure I see an answer to my question, more to the point: what reason do you/we have to believe that these works represent the total body of the best scholarship in the subject available in 2025? UndercoverClassicistT·C18:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist No, the advanced study is a three volume study on the history of India, it's not textbook related.
"who are the leading figures in their field who are still alive?" - For Afghanistan, I guess I'd say Adamec (which has been added per my most recent edits), while I'm unsure conclusively for India, really.
"what reason do you/we have to believe that these works represent the total body of the best scholarship in the subject available in 2025?" - I've researched extensively across google scholars/books, and JSTOR, and they all typically cite Sarkar, Hari Ram Gupta, and Ganda Singh. Lee (2022) (in article) commonly cites Ganda. Given the scarcity of dedicated modern studies on Manupur, the historians cited remain the most detailed sources on the battle itself, and are still regarded as standard references in the field. Nonetheless, I've supplemented them with Adamec (as said) for numbers. Noorullah (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do acknowledge the scarcity of dedicated modern studies on Manupur. I gave it a brief look myself on Google Books, JSTOR etc -- while I did find one or two more sources, there wasn't an obvious wellspring of material to draw upon. However, I do a lot of my writing on topics generally studied in non-English scholarship, so I also know that languages other than English (and publishers outside Europe/North America) are generally not well represented in those databases. Honestly, the comment that I'm unsure conclusively for India, really. worries me -- it's not as if Indian history is a small field. If you don't have at least a broad sense of who's publishing stuff in this area of scholarship, how can you be sure that you've managed to get a thorough grip of all that scholarship? Likewise the historians cited ... are still regarded as standard references in the field -- what are you basing that assessment on? UndercoverClassicistT·C18:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist On your point about having a thorough grip on the scholarship I agree this is important, but dedicated modern studies on the Battle of Manupur remain scarce, and the only recent work I found that directly covers the engagement is Irfan Habib’s History of Civilizations of Central Asia (2003), which mentions Manupur only briefly (p. 287 [15]) in the wider Durrani invasion.
-
"what are you basing that assessment on?" - They're still commonly cited in modern scholarship, for one the referenced Lee’s book in 2022 (which cites both Ganda Singh and Sarkar throughout his book), even Irfan Habib's book cites Ganda Singh, showing that although these works are older, they continue to serve as the foundation for much of the battle’s historiography (and in general, the history of the region), with newer sources building on (or) corroborating their narratives. Noorullah (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're still commonly cited in modern scholarship: to be clear, by "modern scholarship", do you mean Lee's book? Habib is not cited in the article. If we have statements in older works that are cited in newer ones, it's best practice to cite the new scholarship, since that affirms that this particular part of the older work is still considered current (other parts, naturally, may not be). However, if the totality of our sense of "modern scholarship" is two books, I'm back to my earlier worries. UndercoverClassicistT·C19:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Yes, Lee and Irfan is who I'm referring to as modern scholarship. "it's best practice to cite the new scholarship", I agree, I'll add Irfan to a relevant area, but as I said he only briefly touches the topic of Manupur, he mentions the number of the Durrani army, and the critical incident that led to their defeat (a wagon of explosives firing).
I'm defining modern scholarship from the two books to show that though these works are much older, they're still commonly cited and serve as the base for the history of the region in general among modern scholarship. Noorullah (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Looking at even more modern scholarship: Noelle-Karimi's The Pearl in Its Midst [16] cites Sarkar and Ganda Singh as well for the Durrani invasions into India [17] (footnotes 62-66, 69, 71-78) - Sarkar 1988 & Singh 1981 (the bibliography section of the later book shows this is Sarkars and Singh's relevant 1959 books respective to their actual years)
Showing from their bibliography:
"Sarkar, Sir Jadunath (1988 [1932]), Fall of the Mughal Empire, Vol. I, 1739–1754, repr. New Delhi: Orient Longman. Sarkar, Sir Jadunath (1991 [1934]), Fall of the Mughal Empire, Vol. II, 1754–1771, repr. New Delhi: Orient Longman."
I don't think the citation argument holds up. I read an article earlier this week that is currently in press with a major journal -- that article cites scholarship from 1899, because it's standard to refer readers to older works that have covered the same ground -- that doesn't necessarily imply that these works represent the cutting edge of the field. At the moment I would have major reservations about criterion 1c: I don't think we have evidence here that 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. I suspect we've both said all that we can on this -- I would be interested to hear from a reviewer with expertise in the scholarship on this area. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist, my initial thoughts would be that if there was an area of eighteenth-century history under-explored by modern scholarship, it would be the Afghan Durrani state, for reasons of modern geopolitics if nothing else. My preconceptions have proved accurate. There are no leading figures in the field who are still alive, because there is no field to speak of. Historians of the Mughals and the Marathas treat the Durranis as a sidenote at least until the Third Battle of Panipat, while general historians of Afghanistan also skim over Ahmad Shah's early campaigns to focus on Panipat. You won't find more comprehensive sources on the subject than Sarkar and Singh. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Qamaruddine_Khan.jpg: where was this first published, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Ditto File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Patiala.png
File:Camel_gun_-_pg_18_-The_last_voyage_-_Annie_Brassey.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
I agree with TheNuggeteer in the GA review that this has an excellent chance at becoming an FA.
The writing is of a generally high standard, but I suggest a Peer Review would pull up any significant issues. For example, I am sure it is "mounted" rather than "sumounted" in "Heavy casualties surmounted on both sides".
Please order the Bibliography alphabetically.
For more sources, I suggest looking at Journal of Military History and other peer-reviewed journals. Some may have what may look like incidental mentions but could add other perspectives or dimensions. For example, see Satyanarayana's comment that the Mughal casualty figures were kept secret and his explanation why.[18]
As well as Lee, I suggest it could also be worth looking at some more of the more generic books like Black [19], Grewal[20], and Tanner[21]
Suggest using shorter paragraphs and adding some subtitles to aid the reader.
Many of the paragraphs have multiple sourcing but it is not clear which sources relate to which parts of each paragraph. Is there a way to help the reader?
The article on camp followers is linked in the infobox but not in the text. Reading that article, it does not seem to relate to the same period or continent, although it has a globalize tag.
The article could have more illustrations. Is the battlefield map in the GA review worth including or is there an alternative image, either contemporary in a reliable source? Are there images of the other protagonists like Ahmad Shah Durrani?
Consider a table of the orders of battle listing each side’s commanders, troop strength, and artillery.
Review phrases like “were completely picked apart while being unable to give a response” and "largely focused on pleasure-seeking" for WP:NPOV, or to ensure that they are attributed appropriately.
While I personally like the use of words like "pulverized", please ensure that this does not drift into WP:WTW.
Suggest adding a section on the historiography of the battle, and its position in the literature.
Suggest expanding the aftermath section to include the wider legacy of the battle. This could include its impact on the development of units like the Dal Khalsa and the Purbiya as well as future incursions by the Durrani and the internal politics of the empires.
The ending of the article is a bit of a cliff-hanger, "The Mughal victory did not discourage Ahmad Shah,[43] who wished to avenge his defeat." It invites questions like "how?" and "when?" Suggest instead that the last paragraphs should be a reflection on the battle, particularly its legacy and impact on later society.
I've addressed many of these things, adding onto the article including the incorporation of Black, Grewal, Satyanarayana. (I did not use Tanner since I could not access his book).
-
"Suggest using shorter paragraphs and adding some subtitles to aid the reader." - Yup, working on this.
-
"Many of the paragraphs have multiple sourcing but..." - Most of the sources intentionally cited to this corroborate with each other on the matter, but I've made some a bit more clear.
-
"The article on camp followers is linked in the infobox..." - Camp followers does pertain to this period, the linked article just needs work.
-
"The article could have more illustrations..." - Yup, added some more. The battle one you're referring to in the GA isn't that battle, but an example I used to illustrate to the reviewer.
Otherwise, have added a lot into the article addressing most of your other comments. Let me know if there's anything else you might notice. Noorullah (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah That looks good. I have made some adjustments to the references as some of the names were the wrong way round, but otherwise, I feel that this is very good progress to FA. Pending a thorough grammar and source review, which will be undertaken by others, I am happy to support. simongraham (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting piece, but the prose is nowhere near FA standard, and I'm sorry to say I must oppose. Here is some of the writing I object to:
"Moin ul-Mulk, taking to lead the Mughal army" – needs rewriting in English: something like "taking the lead of…"
"inflicting heavy casualties unto them" – "unto" should be "on"
"opened correspondence with the Afghans" – should be "entered into". one opens correspondence with a paper-knife.
"affirm Shah Nawaz as governor of the Punjab" – "affirm" needs to be replaced by "recognise" or some such
"plundering and massacring the city" – one massacres the inhabitants, not the city
"a colossal host of over 200,000" – we do not need the editorialising "colossal"
"bringing in a artillery piece" – "a artillery" should be "an artillery"
"placing it atop a hill overlooking the Mughal camp" – "atop" is risibly quaint: "on top of" is what is wanted here
"However, while in prayer, a cannonball struck him in the waist" – a gem of a dangling modifier: a praying cannonball!
"comprised mainly of Rajput cavalry" – "comprised of" should be "comprising" or "consisting of"
"when the battle would begin" – "when the battle began"
"On the right wing where the Rajputs were stationed" – needs a comma after "wing" unless there was another right wing where the rajputs were not stationed
"Mughals killed much of the Afghan gunners" – "much" should be "many"
"allowing them to seize the position" – allowing whom? Mughals or Afghans?
" delivered to alleviate the center" – "relieve", not "alleviate"
"firing upon the Mughals " – "upon" –> "on"
"nightfall came" – "night fell"
" Muhammad Shah, however Mughal casualties were initially kept a secret" – needs a stronger stop than a comma before "however"
"Throughout Ahmad Shah's reign, he'd lead a total of nine invasions of India,[50] nearly 1 and a half million rupees " – MOS:N'T
"Ahmad Shah had withdrew from the region" – either "had withdrawn" or just "withdrew".
I think I'm going to have to agree with the comments above, and also oppose this.
"In 1747, Ahmad Shah Durrani began his first invasion of India": Who? This is the first line of the body and I need to click away to get vital information. We need to know who he is, because he's invading India and the first place mentioned is Kabul. Given Kabul is in Afghanistan, readers are automatically going to be confused without a little more context
"suzerainty": either an inline explanation for this rather uncommon word, or a link. If there isn't a good WP article to assist, perhaps there's something at the Wiktionary?
"plundering and massacring the city": one can plunder a city, once cannot massacre it: one can only massacre the inhabitants
" the brink of desertion", "the colossal Mughal host": lovely purple prose, but not terribly encyclopaedic language
That's just in the Background section (and I've still a little confused by the events, if I'm honest). I'd agree that withdrawing this and going to PR, or perhaps then Milhist A-Class, would be a good process for this one. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last nomination got archived before I could add my comments, which I then added on the talk page [22]. I have nothing more to add, and think that this is an excellent article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, it's not ideal, but there may not be much we can do about it. I agree that having no image of Jianwen Emperor is better than having a problematic image. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article also explains that the Jianwen Emperor is one of only three Ming emperors not to have an official portrait; the reason is closely tied to the Jingnan campaign. Regardless of whether this portrait is actually added to the article, I do think the fact that he doesn't have an official portrait like the other emperors is fairly notable and perhaps should be included in the article. Malerisch (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Phlsph7's view that it's better not to have an image at all than to have a problematic one. As mentioned, File:Jianwen Emperor.jpg has been uploaded to Chinese forums and websites in Chinese for quite some time and is also widely used in China, but no source can verify it. I don't want to end up like the case of the portrait of Tang Gaozong, which was taken from the web and used for many years before being confirmed as that of Song Gaozong (and is still widely used on Chinese forums and websites). Min968 (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying there's no verifiable source that this picture is of the Jianwen Emperor, it's not enough to just write a name on the picture. Previously, there was also a case where a member uploaded a picture displayed at the Ming Tombs, claiming it was of the Chongzhen Emperor, but it was later confirmed to be of the Tianqi Emperor. Min968 (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source I linked [23] says "However, Zhu Yunwen does indeed have one portrait that has been passed down" (但朱允炆的确有一张画像留传下来), and the caption for that portrait is "A half-body portrait of the Ming Emperor Hui painted by a Qing artist" (清人绘制的明惠帝半身像), so I'm not sure why you think there's no verifiable source. Did your other examples have sources like this? Malerisch (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was saying, "uploaded to Chinese forums and websites in Chinese for quite some time and is also widely used in China". Min968 (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So... we have a reliable source from a history journal/magazine that says that it's a portrait of the Jianwen Emperor and analyzes the portrait to date it to the Qing dynasty; and we have the physical portrait, on which his name is clearly written. But this is being dismissed as "uploaded to Chinese forums and websites in Chinese for quite some time and is also widely used in China". What sort of proof are you looking for? I'm interested in what other reviewers think. Malerisch (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for probing more deeply into this! Who uploaded the image or where they got the image from can be relevant factors. But I think the most important point is just to have a reliable source that confirms (1) the copyright status and (2) that the image depicts Jianwen Emperor. So if we initially get an image from a shady website but a reliable source confirms (1) and (2), we should be fine.
I'm not an expert on Chinese sources, but I would assume that The Paper (newspaper) and National Humanity History fulfill the minimal requirements of reliable sources in this case. Or are there good reasons to think otherwise? For the copyright status, we need to confirm that it is old enough to be public ___domain. From an automatic translation of the National Humanity History article, I get However, a portrait of Zhu Yunwen has indeed been passed down. ... The original’s provenance is unknown, but judging from the style, it appears to have been painted by an earlier artist. This is not ideal but it should be sufficient to confirm the age.
Whether the article confirms that the image depicts Jianwen Emperor is a more challenging topic. What I get from an automatic translation is that no official image survived and that the image we have was produced later. However, it's questionable how authentic this image is, like the clothing. Maybe someone who actually knows how to read Chinese might be able to do better.
One option would be to present the image not as a lead image but somewhere later in the text, together with a short indication of the difficulties and possibly an explanation for why there is no official portrait. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I missed it initially, but the article analyzes the portrait after saying that its provenance is unknown and concludes that it was created during the Qing dynasty (1912 or earlier), which should be good enough for copyright. As the article points out, it's certainly not an accurate depiction of the Jianwen Emperor (the artist had no idea what the emperor looked like, and various other details are anachronistic), but it's clear that it was intended to be a depiction of the Jianwen Emperor, so a caption like "Posthumous illustration of the Jianwen Emperor, Qing dynasty" would be appropriate, in my opinion. Malerisch (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that ___location is fine with me. Though unless I missed it, the article doesn't definitively say that it was painted during the Qianlong era, just during the Qing dynasty (possibly based on a series of portraits by Yao Wenhan). Malerisch (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the whole article in detail, but I feel that the article is far too certain in saying that the Jianwen Emperor died in 1402 palace fire. I've quoted what the sources for this article say about the fire below (no cherrypicking). Several present the issue of whether the Jianwen Emperor survived as a genuine unknown:
Chan 1988 (this is The Cambridge History of China), p. 201: During the melee that followed the arrival of the prince's armies, the imperial palace compound inside the Nanking city walls was set ablaze. When the fire subsided, several badly burned bodies were produced and declared to be those of the emperor, his wife empress Ma (married in 1395), and his eldest son Chu Wen-k'uei (b. 1396). The true fate of the emperor remains a mystery. It is not certain that he actually burned to death; he may have fled the capital disguised as a Buddhist monk, as later historians sympathetic to his cause have alleged. The official histories had to proclaim that the emperor and his eldest son had perished; otherwise, the Prince of Yen could not possibly have claimed the throne.
Chan 2005, p. 67: The fate of the Jianwen emperor remained a mystery: either he died in a blaze of the imperial palace compound inside Nanjing's city walls upon its fall, or, as popular legend claimed, fled the capital in a monk's disguise and lived to an advanced age. The official histories of the Yongle reign had to declare that he, as well as his eldest son, had died. Otherwise the Prince of Yan could not have legitimately claimed the throne. However, private histories sympathetic to Jianwen, which appeared as early as the Jiajing period drawing heavily on anecdotes and rumors, promoted the popular notion that he had "vacated the throne" and survived as a Buddhist monk to his natural years amid a profusion of miraculous legends.
Dardess 2012, p. 34: Then it was reported that the imperial palace was on fire! Who set the blaze? No inquiry was ever launched. The bodies of Jianwen's empress and one of his sons were later found in the charred wreckage. The other son, a baby, was rescued, but placed under house arrest (he was released in 1457). No certain trace of Jianwen was ever found, although various legends had it that he had somehow escaped.
de Heer 1986, p. 60: It was said that, at the Yung-lo emperor's behest, [Hu Ying] had travelled for almost two decades up and down the empire in order to trace the possible whereabouts of the Chien-wen emperor, who might have escaped the burning of the palace when Chu Ti took Nanking in 1402.
Goodrich and Fang 1976, p. 404: No facts about Chu Yün-wen after July 13, 1402, exist at present, and modern historians must form their own opinions about the intriguing puzzle of whether he survived.
The other sources pick a side:
Cotterell 2008, p. 228: At the time it was believed that Huidi had been burned alive in the firing of the imperial palace, but it later transpired that the twenty-year-old emperor, disguised as a Buddhist monk, had escaped into the countryside, where he lived a wandering life for years. Apprehended at last in 1441, after the death of the usurping uncle, he was allowed to spend the rest of his life in quiet seclusion.
Dreyer 1982, p. 169: In the confusion that occurred as the latter took control of the city, the imperial palace caught fire, and the emperor and empress burned to death. ... a charred corpse purported to be that of Emperor Chien-wen was buried, but rumors persisted that he had escaped and survived.
Tsai 2002, p. 70: In the midst of the confusion and panic, the imperial palace enclosure within the city walls caught fire, and Jianwen disappeared. He and his wife were likely burned to death, although legend has it that he escaped via a secret tunnel with the assistance of some twenty people in various disguises and later became a Buddhist monk, hiding outside Suzhou. Other rumors suggested that Jianwen fled overseas and prepared for a comeback.
This article just flatly states that Three bodies found at the cremation site were later identified as those of the emperor, his wife, and their eldest son, which is cited to Chan 1988, when the source actually says that the bodies were just "declared" to be those of Emperor and co., and that it's in fact a mystery. The lead also has the same issue: Despite three bodies found at the cremation site later being identified as those of the emperor, his wife, and their eldest son, rumors of the emperor's survival and refuge in a Buddhist monastery emerged. In my opinion, per WP:NPOV, the article shouldn't take a side, like how it's treated in The Cambridge History of China. Malerisch (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks good. Despite three bodies found at the cremation site were later announced to be those of the emperor, his wife, and their eldest son needs to be reworded though: "despite" is a preposition, not a subordinating conjunction. Also, I'm not sure that cremation site is the best term to use here, as I didn't see cremation mentioned in any source. Dying in a fire isn't cremation. Malerisch (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... Lincoln's first, somewhat scandalous Secretary of War. Simon Cameron was involved in politics in Pennsylvania for seventy years, even after his retirement and until his death at the age of 90, living during the lifetimes of every US president from Washington to Truman, and he knew a good many of them. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the job was ideal for a young man interested in politics," - close paraphrasing of the source - "The work was ideal for a young man interested in politics"
Given the low-income nature of Cameron's early jobs, I think it's necessary to explain how he got the money for the purchase of the Republican - per Kahan, p. 12, a loan from an uncle
The Crippen book from the 1940s clearly wouldn't have had an ISBN originally - were you using a reprint for the article?
"divested himself of his interest in the printing trade and ceased to be an active journalist, though he ensured his state contracts would be transferred to his brother James" - cited to Kahan p. 13 but the ebook version on the Wikipedia Library has p. 14 - are you using a print version with different pagination or is that an error?
"Cameron's view concerning slavery remained much as it had during his first term in the Senate." - Kahan states pretty directly on p. 125 that "Cameron’s assertion that he abhorred slavery aside, his actual concern seems to have been the negative effect that slavery had on free white labor, an issue he had raised as far back as the early 1830s." which doesn't seem to be brought in the article anywhere and which seems to be worth a sentence.
"In 1858, Cameron campaigned for the Republicans in Pennsylvania, who were rewarded with control of the state House of Representatives, although Democrats maintained a one-vote majority in the state Senate, Democrats previously had a majority of Pennsylvania's seats in the federal House of Representatives; they were reduced to five out of twenty-five seats" - very run-on. In the comma after Senate intended to be a full stop? Hog FarmTalk00:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Goodwin, pp. 4659–4662."- While I do not own a copy of this book, I have seen one, and it did not appear to be 5,000 pages long. The citation indicates that this is a Kindle edition - is the Kindle edition measuring based on paragraph count or something?
I am not certain but something similar to that, I think. I've been using them for at least ten years, as I cannot get all electronic books as pdfs. I can add a note that Goodwin pages are Kindle locations, which I've sometimes done?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"who spent a quarter million dollars on items including straw hats and linen pantaloons, which were not usual items of uniforms" - as Kahan notes that the amount spent on these non-regulation uniform items was less than one-tenth of the amount spent questionably, I think it's more useful to address the $250,000 of questionable purchases in a more vague manner. As an aside, I do vaguely remember reading years ago a reference of a regiment wearing straw hats at Bull Run; this mentions the 2nd Michigan being issued straw hats and linen pantaloons, although that is neither here nor there for this article
I'm less familiar with Cameron's role in the Civil War than I ought to be, and having read the literature on this topic thoroughly you'll be more familiar with the sourcing than I am, but I am very very surprised to not see a mention of the failure of Union military attempts in an article on the failed Secretary of War, given that severe political backlash against the Lincoln administration over the defeats at the First Battle of Bull Run (where Cameron's brother was killed) and the Battle of Ball's Bluff. Is this truly given no significant weight in the sources?
"and any sway Curtin had left in the party was destroyed when he supported the Liberal Republican Party and its presidential candidate, Horace Greeley, in 1872" - I'm struggling to find this on the cited pages of Kehl?
Is the Evans thesis a high-quality RS? WP:THESIS notes there are some considerations even with doctoral thesis. Is there evidence that this 60+ year old doctoral thesis has been " been cited in the literature, supervised by recognized specialists in the field, or reviewed by independent parties" or that it has made a significant scholarly impact?
I'm inclined to say so. Just offhand, it is cited in Kelley (fairly contemporaneous), the ANB article on Don Cameron, and three times plus inline discussion (page 260) of Evans' conclusions in Kahan. If Kahan thinks that what Evans thought should mean something to us, I'd say we can go along. I could look further if you want but I think it's going to come out as an acceptable source on Pennsylvania politics of the 1870s.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Kahan, pp. 292–284." - is this backwards or an error?
Should read 281-284, obviously my fingers slipped.
I've deleted the tag relying on first publication and rely on the tag asserting that the Brady-Handy collection has no known copyright restrictions.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a whopper of an article, and I'll need more than shot at it. First comments, down to the end of Election of 1860:
"Initially a supporter of James Buchanan, who succeeded Buchanan" – I had to have two goes at this: at first reading it looks like an error (Buchanan succeeded Buchanan?) and I wonder if "whom he succeeded..." might be smoother.
"but within two years was living alone with his wife" – looks a trifle odd: if he was living with his wife he wasn't alone. Perhaps something on the lines of "he and his wife were living alone..."?
"Dr. Peter Grahl, a Jewish physician in Sunbury" – is it material that Dr Grahl was Jewish?
"Lorenzo da Ponte, a librettist for Mozart and other composers" – sorry to be pedantic, but the Da in Da Ponte is capitalised (I've been caught out on that myself in the past!)
"Polk declined to consult Cameron on Pennsylvania federal appointments, though he had been advised to make an ally of Cameron" – perhaps replace the repetition of "Cameron" with "him"?
Hi Wehwalt, I hope you've been well. Placeholder here. Hopefully I'll have time to start the review this weekend. It looks interesting. 15:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Moisejp (talk)
That's great! Quick update that I am working my way through reading the article. It's very long but I'm making headway. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln told two of his advisors, "I am in a quandary. Pennsylvania is entitled to a cabinet office. [Lincoln had received] hundreds of letters, and the cry is 'Cameron, Cameron!' ... The Pennsylvania people say: 'If you leave out Cameron you disgrace him.'" - should "[Lincoln had received]" be "I have received" or maybe "[I have received]"? It's a direct quote by Lincoln so it seems odd to change the viewpoint, or have I misunderstood? Moisejp (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working through my second read-through but it's been a busy week, thanks for your patience. I'll try to finish soon. I'm anticipating supporting. Moisejp (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished reading through and am happy to support on prose and comprehensiveness. One other small point, if you think is worth clarifying, you could. The brusque letter Lincoln sent Cameron on January 11, 1862, did Cameron see it? I wasn't sure whether he did, and if so what was the point of substituting a warmer letter—or maybe such letters would become public, so it was a matter of not making Cameron lose face in other people's eyes? Moisejp (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he did and showed it to Chase and then Seward. Lincoln seems to have had a tendency to act quickly and then retroactively modify. I'll make this clearer. Thanks for the support. Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that qualifies as a common profession not to be linked but I'm inclined not to. If the reader doesn't know and is really curious about the connection with Mozart, they can click.
One of the other contenders, former representative Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, played down suggestions Lincoln might take second place on a ticket led by Cameron, Lincoln's supporters discussed the possibility of Cameron as vice presidential candidate, hoping it might win the crucial state of Pennsylvania.
The sentence needs to be split into two sentences or joined with a conjunction.
Tenure (Secretary of War)
...has been taken by some historians to mean that, even amid the rapidly-worsening secession crisis, that Cameron did not take his new position seriously.
The second "that" (the one before "Cameron") is redundant.
for which Cameron's skills in business and politics proved unequal.
"proved unequal"→ “proved inadequate”
I’ve read up to the ‘Return to the Senate’ section. I’ll try to finish it by the end of the weekend.
“African-Americans” → “African Americans” (standard in American English).
Fourth term and resignation
Is the name of the Republican legislature known?
Clarified.
Can we use "his wife" or simply "Margaret" rather than using "Margaret Cameron" on three occasions? The same issue with "Don Cameron".
I've thrown in a "his wife". I consider this area a bit perilous because of some might comment of her being more than his wife, she had a name. As for Don Cameron, I'd prefer not to call a man who served a hair under twenty years in the Senate himself "Don". It feels a bit informal.
also shown by his willingness to let Cameron be discomfited during the long battle over his appointment.
A typo.
Bottom line
Well, Wehwalt, that’s all I have to offer. As a young amateur relatively new to this subject, I hope any shortcomings are excused. I’ve added a few more suggestions, mainly on grammar and clarity. Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hats off to you for maintaining such a long article with apparent ease. It has helped me to understand Cameron’s life and the perception of him, despite this being my first encounter with him. Support. Till next time — now that this chapter has come to a close. MSincccc (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link to what I can only assume should be Cameron machine is formatted weirdly and is currently a redlink.
Your SFNs are simply beautiful.
Not sure how the grammar works on this, but should "After ten years in his third stretch in office, he resigned, arranging the election of his son Don Cameron in his place." be "After ten years in his third stretch in office, he resigned, arranging the election of his son, Don Cameron, in his place." If I'm wrong don't mind me.
Where it is stated: "He then purchased the Republican, and merged it with the Intelligencer." I would take the comma off of the end of "the Republican."
Probably the same as above with "Secretary of State John Quincy Adams was elected, and made Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky his successor at the State Department." after the word "elected."
With " The president had originally pledged to serve only one term, in changing his mind he enlisted Cameron to get the Pennsylvania legislature to pass a resolution urging him to change his mind and run again in 1832." I would put a comma after the word mind. (Also maybe a but before the in.)
"The Grahls, childless, treated him like their son, and he..." has a slight excess of commas - I might reword to "The childless Grahls treated him like..." to cut down on that.
"merged with another local paper, ultimately costing Cameron his job." - is "ultimately" needed?
"but Cameron arranged a delegation that would back Van Buren" -> but Cameron arranged a delegation that backed Van Buren"
"The Whig-backed Tariff of 1842 was protectionist in nature" - is "in nature" needed?
I've rephrased a bit. The debates on the tariff at the time focused on whether the tariff should be for the purpose of financing government or protecting American industry, and I'm trying to capture that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"New Orleans, though after 1874, without his wife Margaret, who died that year." is choppy and could probably be rephrased for clarity/flow.
Interesting that we aren't using year numbers in the references. Crippen 1942 is somewhat old but I see that it has numerous favourable reviews - has it stood the test of time? "Pennsylvania Politics 1872–1877: A Study in Leadership Without Responsibility" is a thesis; has it been frequently cited or used? Everything else seems OK but I didn't do any spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only use years in the refs for disambiguation and there was no need in this article. Crippen is inline mentioned three times in Kahan's 2015 biography of Cameron and cited to a number of times and there's no indication from what Kahan says that Crippen is out of date. Evans is repeatedly cited in the literature, see my comments in Hog Farm's review above. Thanks for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2015 Trophée Éric Bompard would have been just another figure skating competition were it not interrupted by the November 2015 Paris attacks. The competition results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, the background and history have been extensively re-written to incorporate changes made to 2021 World Figure Skating Championships, the sources are properly formatted and archived, and relevant photographs are used. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and I look forward to any constructive input. Bgsu98(Talk)18:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll conduct a source review of this article, though it should be noted I am still new to this (I've only conducted one for Terraria so far) so patience is greatly appreciated. Icepinner23:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig reveals the top match is 17.4%, where unparaphrasable phrases have been detected (ex: ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating). All results are not copyvios.
Spot-checks are recommended for 10-15% of the article's sources, though given the size of this article, 20% of its sources will be vetted. An RNG will be used and the sources up for inspection will not be listed for fairness. I will also focus on [2], which is the most cited source, and [15], a Facebook post.
[2] Is it possible to provide excerpts for [2]? If so, please do so here or send me a photograph of the pages cited via my Discord (this is an exception under the "no contacting me on Discord DMs" rule).
[7] Besseghier is mentioned in the source. However, I am not too sure whether the source mentions that it was a host pick; he is under France but that doesn't necessarily imply it was a "host pick"
France was hosting the event; ergo, any French skaters added after the original assignments were host picks.
[11]/[12] Where does it say that Ge was removed from the roster on 28 September? The sources were published in October. Also I'm debating whether this is improper synth considering it's not mentioned he was removed due to visa issues.
Date changed to October 7. The second source confirms the removal from the French event was due to the visa. "So have to say sorry, but seems French GP will be unable to make it because of visas."
I interpret it that they speculated they probably couldn't make it, not that they can't actually make it, but I'm willing to accept it if appropriate justification is made
That is a giant stretch. A visa is required for Uzbeks to enter France, Ge states that he won't be able to procure a visa, Ge is removed from the competition. I don't see a problem here.
Alright fair enough. Can be keeped
[15] is it really the best source you can find? Surely there has to be coverage of their partnership ending. Also debating if it's improper synth
Different source added.
now approved
[17]/[18] Although [18] does mention that Amodio had an injury which affected his skating career, it mentions that he withdrew from the 2016 European Figure Skating Championships. Once again, improper synth. Is there a better source to this other than his Twitter account?
Different source added.
approved
Also, why does [18] have the "limited access" parameter? I can access the source just fine. If it's registration, then the content of the article doesn't change after registering for an account I can remove that.This source is now gone.
[23]
[29]
[33] most of the claims are checked out, though the claim that 1,500 people attended the concert is not supported. I've also added the editor's name to the citation, though this can be freely reverted if it's against "consistent source formatting"
Apologies for the off-topic comment but I feel this an issue that should be raised. I'm struggling to see how the article's treatment of the November 2015 attacks follows DUEWEIGHT/SCOPE; whilst brief contextual info is needed, going into this level of detail is perhaps not needed, considering how the attacks led the competition to be cancelled.
I have pared this section down.
Thanks. Do you think it's possible merge the November 2015 attacks and the aftermath section into one, by the way?
There is an Aftermath section which covers followup of the competition, the ISU's response, and Éric Bompard's termination of their sponsorship. It makes sense that followup of the attacks would be included there as well, as all of those events were post-November 13.
Alright, I don't see how it can be merged into one section so we'll just leave it at that
[37] is there a better source for this? The source is a rather opinionated article on migrants and the Schengen area. Also, the claim that seven of the attackers died is not supportedThis source is now gone.
I'm still a bit unsure how to proceed. Technically we can use the source but I want to know whether there are better sources available (ex: interpretation from the NYT, BBC, etc, since it was a major incident)
Okay, maybe I'm lost, because the numbers changed while I was editing. Which source are you referring to?
[36]. The source is still present
New source added. It is now no. 34.
[34] needs the subscription symbol in its citation
[41]
[45] All of the short programs had been completed on 13 November hours before the attacks began This is not mentioned in the source. The closest is an athlete slept early before the attacks commenced. I will also enquire whether there is a better source for this, though I imagine this competition wasn't covered that much by secondary sources. The author's bachelor's degree in journalism somewhat helps him with the "reliability" mark, though looking at [54], it seems that anyone with an interest in skating can contribute.
Paula Slater (from Golden Skate) is a respected and well-known skating journalist, credentialed by the ISU.
What source(s) back up this claim?
WikiProjects are empowered to determine the reliability of sources in their particular area. Golden Skate is one of the sites that has been vetted by the FS community (WP:WikiProject Figure Skating/Style guide#Referencing) and determined by community consensus to be a reliable source. Pingning User:Figureskatingfan.
Given there is consensus by WP:FIGURE that it's a reliable source, it passes the source review.
Also the cancellation of the medal ceremony is not present within the article.
Irrelevant. Since the competition was not finished, of course there was no medal ceremony.
Ok fair enough
[49] I've added quotation marks to the "act of war" statement
[54]/[55] I'm concerned with [55] along with the website in general; The author appears to be self-published, considering how the only thing that even "helps" with her credibility is her interest in skating.
I've already addressed this above, but I also added a different source.
The added source is sufficiently independent and therefore accepted. Likewise, which source(s) say she is credientialed by the ISU?
Some of the links for the citations are presented as archived links even though their links are active. I don't know if it's considered as "strict", but I would like to see this change reflected
Fixed.
The lack of reliable, secondary sources on the competition itself is a bit concerning; Out of the 55 total sources, only [2], [18], [19], and [44] fit the bill. The Golden skate website and The Irish Times news article could fit the bill, though that needs some discussion. The article heavily relies on primary, non-independent sourcing for the competition itself. All the other reliable, secondary sources are used for the attacks, which in itself is overly detailed and needs to be trimmed. It's okay to use a few primary sources for basic info, but if the article heavily uses primary sourcing, then it's a bit of a problem under WP:PRIMARY
Given that WP:FS STYLE advocates for WP:IGNORE, such sources are fine for the FA.
Some citations use "pp" for single pages. This should be corrected accordingly
@Bgsu98: I am nearly done with the source review, I just need the scanned pages. Overall, the sourcing for this article is a bit iffy in my opinion. Given that I am relatively inexperienced with FAC and sports articles, I will request for comments from someone who has experience in this field. Icepinner02:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Icepinner: I have e-mailed you the pages. I will address your other concerns tomorrow. I do agree that the text dealing with the attacks is overly heavy; I imported the text from the article's main page and already shaved some of it down. I will take another look at it tomorrow. Thank you for taking the time to do the review. Bgsu98(Talk)03:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98: I am satisfied that this meets the necessary FAC criteria for sourcing. I shall there support this nomination in terms of sourcing. Great work! Icepinner22:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will do a full review in due course, but as a drive-by comment I feel that the "aftermath" section should be merged into the "attacks" section, given that all of it relates to the attacks and their immediate impact on the competition and not really any sort of aftermath of the competition -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This series also provides the viewing public with additional televised skating, which was in high demand" - tense changes mid-sentence? Everything else in the background section is in the present tense apart from that one verb........ Done
Any reason for the Changes to preliminary assignments section to be a bullet-pointed list rather than prose.......?
The original format on these articles featured a bulleted list, but at some point, the Project switched to a table format. I have converted the bulleted list to a table. Bgsu98(Talk)20:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the Required performance elements section relates only to the short programme. Obviously that's the only part that actually took place but is there a way to indicate that they would normally have been expected to do more.......?
I guess I can add clarfication that the free programs would have been held the next day – although that is already mentioned elsewhere in the article – but I certainly don't want to load up the article with competition elements for components that did not take place. Bgsu98(Talk)20:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The opening action of the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War; relatively minor in terms of numbers involved but had significant consequences for the later campaign. The action potentially led to British overconfidence in their superiority over the Zulu on the battlefield and also to the Zulu king selecting the British centre column as the main target for his army. The column was defeated and almost wiped out at the Battle of Isandlwana ten days later. I created the article in 2020 and it has recently passed a MILHIST A-class review - Dumelow (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to get a better scan of the original, which I have now uploaded locally under a published abroad pre-1930 license - Dumelow (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto
File:Sihayos_kraal_action_map_(cropped).png,
I think the most appropriate tag here is Crown Copyright as a published work of the Intelligence Branch of the Quartermaster General’s Department of the British Army, I have switched to this tag - Dumelow (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sihayos_kraal_action_map_(cropped).png: see MOS:COLOUR. Ditto File:Sihayo_kraal_satellite.png
This one might be a bit tricky. I am red-green colourblind and when I created the route overlays I chose colours that appeared distinctive to me. If you've any suggestions for better colours for each line, let me know and I will change them - Dumelow (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest instead changing the line formatting - eg having one line as solid, one dashed, one dots, etc. That ensures that no matter what form of colour-blindness someone has, they can distinguish between the lines. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's a great idea! I've had a go, let me know if it needs any further changes. I've just changed the satellite photo. I removed the map overlay as the underlying map has errors and it didn't really add anything. I've added an additional image to the background section, which I think is helpful in depicting three of the detachments involved. It should be OK as published in London in March 1879 - Dumelow (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Natal_native_contingent.jpg needs a US tag and a description of the work undertaken to try to identify the author
"reconnaissance in force" - is that different than a "reconnaissance force"? Or is this simply BrEng?
It's a military term to indicate a scouting party that is sufficiently strong to engage in combat with the enemy rather than just to locate them and report back. It is linked in the article to Reconnaissance#Reconnaissance-in-force, which hopefully explains it to those that aren't familiar? - Dumelow (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The British lost 2 members of the NNC killed and at least 14 wounded." - I don't think that "and at least 14 wounded" is grammatical - where's the verb?
"The NNC became pinned down but Hamilton-Browne led one company, to assault the Zulus in the rough ground." - that comma isn't needed and should be placed before "but"
Good idea, it's a South African term for a ford, particularly in undeveloped frontier country. I am away from my books for about a week or so, but I think there is a good explanation in one of them, I will add in a footnote to define the term when I can - Dumelow (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "below the belt" in quotes? If it is a direct quote, it should be immediately followed by a citation. If it's because it's a colloquialism, perhaps Wiktlink instead.
It's a quote from the source, I have duplicated the citation from the end of the sentence for now. I'm away from my books for about a week or so but will double check if it is attributed to anyone in particular by Snook. I remember looking around for other sources but finding nothing more specific. It is perhaps down to Victorian prudishness, the implication is that he was struck in the genitals - Dumelow (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No luck. Snook (2010) has "he was standing not far from the foot of the bluff, waving his sword around, when a rock thrown from above hit him painfully 'below the belt'. Even the NNC NCOs, men well accustomed to the sporting langauge of the frontier, were mightily impressed by the stream of Gaelic oaths emanating from the doubled-up major. Black decided to retire for a moment or two to regain his composure, and on falling back through the bush came across Glyn, Clery and Browne, who had been eyewitnesses to his discomfiture. One of them was thoughtful enough to express regret at the major's 'wounding', at which all three collapsed into fits of laughter" - Dumelow (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And (this out of curiosity more than anything) why the lower case 'kraal', compared to the upper case 'Drift'? They don't strike me as being particularly different, albeit one man-made and the other natural.
I don't know but the preponderance of (but not all) sources don't capitalise "kraal" in "Sihayo's kraal", but do "drift" in "Rorke's Drift" and "Fugitive's Drift". I suspect it is because the former hasn't survived as a modern placename but the latter have (both drifts also have tourist lodges named after them which probably helps) - Dumelow (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, in the first sentence of the lead, the word "kraal" may be accepted as part of the name without explanation. However, I really would briefly explain the word when it appears in the second sentence. You provide a lengthy footnote, which is interesting, but I still did not know what the word means in this particular context. I suggest to add a brief explanation in brackets, e.g. "settlement" or "cattle enclosure", just that readers do not have to follow the link to the footnote. The footnote won't be available when reading the blurb that will appear on the main page.
I have moved the footnote to the second mention of kraal. I am a bit reluctant to add a clarification in brackets when it is wikilinked to kraal here, but happy to take other opinions - Dumelow (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NNC became pinned down but Hamilton-Browne led one company, to assault the Zulus in the rough ground. – What does "rough ground" mean here?
Likely to be rocky ground with vegetation, when I am back next week I will check the sources to see if there is anything specific. The implication is that it would be difficult to quickly move up to the Zulu position and therefore the attackers would likely suffer losses by fire from the defenders - Dumelow (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Knight (1992) has "amongst the boulders" and Snook (2010) has "Browne pressed on into the scrub", I have used "Zulu warriors who were hiding among boulders, shrubs and caves at the edges of the gorge" in the previous paragraph. Happy to take suggestions as to better wording here ("boulders and scrub", "cover", "difficult ground"?) let me know - Dumelow (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Zulu warriors retreated up steep path leading to the top of the cliffs – "the" missing?
The men of the NNC with rifles opened fire, causing the company under Hamilton-Browne at the foot of the cliffs, who were also under fire from the Zulus, to take cover. – I can't follow here. Take over what? Why did opening fire caused it?
I think you have misread "cover" here, meaning terrain that offers protection from incoming rounds. We don't appear to have a decent article on it, the best I could find was Enfilade and defilade, where the latter term means firing from cover. What I am trying to convey with this sentence is that Hamilton-Browne's men were already under fire from the Zulu but were forced to take cover (and hence stop their attack) when their comrades opened fire dangerously close to them - Dumelow (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
number of obsolete firearms and a brand-new wagon were also recovered from Sihayo's kraal. – Much earlier in the article, you stated that they "recovered" prestige staffs. Shouldn't these two lootings be discussed together, maybe even in one sentence?
Yes, great idea, I have merged them and included mention of the livestock that are dealt with in more detail in the "Aftermath" section. I am not sure why I used "recovered" here, I have switched to "took", the staffs were undoubtedly loot as they would have been the personal property of Sihayo but I don't think we can class the removal of weapons as looting - Dumelow (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The action seems to have convinced him to order an attack the Centre Column – "at" missing?
The British soldiers recovered a number of Sihayo's carved prestige staffs from the kraal. – "Recovered" is a quite positive verb, when the source speaks about "looting". I think we should call it by its name. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Sun was the continuation James Bond novel from Kingsley Amis, published in 1968. It pales a little in comparison to Fleming’s work, but it’s still a decent read, if you like this sort of thing. After being a GA for a decade, this article has been through a recent top-to-tail rewrite to bring it up to the standard of our other Bond articles. All constructive comments most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Academic or overly dense phrasing – The article often adopts a tone closer to literary criticism than to accessible encyclopedic writing. For instance, from the Themes section:
Black observes an emotional and social sadness throughout Colonel Sun. The social sadness is a reaction to the culture of modernity and mourning what was being lost in its place.
This could be rewritten in plainer language without losing depth:
Historian Jeremy Black argues that the novel expresses a sense of loss, capturing nostalgia for a world disappearing under the pressures of modernity.
The original looks plainer than the suggested replacement, which has aspect of purple prose (“capturing nostalgia”). As we’ve already introduced Black, we wouldn’t describe and full name him again. - SchroCat (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Passive voice and weak verb use – Some sentences use passive constructions that sap energy from the writing. For example:
Sun has been sent to sabotage a Middle East détente conference which the Soviet Union is hosting.
More active revision:
Sun is dispatched to sabotage a détente conference hosted by the Soviet Union in the Middle East.
I will go through again to see where there is any unnecessary passive voice, although sometimes the use is deliberate. The example here is in the present perfect tense (ie the action started in the past and either continues into the present or has relevance to the present), so that is correct, given the context. “Sun is dispatched“ would be wrong, as it’s already happened. - SchroCat (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it is still passive in any case. Not that we need be afraid of the passive when we want to emphasise what is done rather than who is doing it, particularly if we are not saying who is doing it, as here. "So-and-so was elected President of XYZ" is better than the contrived active voice "The people of XYZ elected him President" and "He was crowned King of ABC" is preferable to "The Archbishop of Such-and-Such crowned him King of ABC", "President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas" is better than "Dallas is where President Kennedy was assassinated". Tim riley talk13:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped quotations – Quotes are frequently inserted without proper framing or analysis. For example:
As de Sade explains in The Philosopher in the Boudoir, “through cruelty one rises to heights of superhuman awareness...”
Improved version:
Sun justifies his sadism by citing the Marquis de Sade, who argued in The Philosopher in the Boudoir that “through cruelty one rises to heights of superhuman awareness...”
Redundancy and repetition – The article sometimes repeats information across sections. For instance, the fact that Amis drew on a Greek holiday appears multiple times in similar phrasing. These can be consolidated to avoid redundancy and improve flow.
Yes, it’s deliberate. There are times where repeating a fact unavailable, as the effects of that fact cover different aspects of an article. - SchroCat (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tone fluctuations – The article at times swings between neutral summary and sharp academic critique without consistent transitions. For example, quotes from reviewers in the Reception section are occasionally dropped in too abruptly. These would benefit from better framing to maintain an even tone.
Note: I want to emphasize that I think this article meets the Featured Article criteria—it’s thorough, well-structured, and clearly the product of a lot of careful work. My comments are nitpicks offered in the spirit of refinement, not because I believe they block promotion. This is already excellent work, and any suggestions I’ve made are just meant to help polish it even further.
I had a handful of minor quibbles at the peer review, all of which were satisfactorily dealt with, and rereading for FAC I have found nothing else to query. Happy to support. The article seems to me to live up to the high standard of the rest of the Bond series of articles. Readable and literate, widely and evidently well sourced, balanced and as well illustrated as I imagine possible. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk15:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources seem consistentish, but with many I don't know about the authors or publishers. None of these I checked seemed unreliable. Is Hiscock prominent enough to be mentioned? One might wonder the same about the other news sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jo Jo. In terms of your queries, Hiscock is only used once, but it's in The Bookseller, which is a high-quality source for information on the British publication industry. In terms of the rest of the news sources, most are used for the Review section and the others are on specific points; all are reliable for the information for which we use them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Any chance I could open a second nom? This one is two and a half weeks in, has three supports and has cleared source and image reviews. No probs if you'd rather I wait a little longer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Raymond Benson—the author of continuation Bond novels" - maybe specify "Raymond Benson—the author of continuation Bond novels published between [whenever] and [whenever]" to give more context
"as China had developed hydrogen bomb capability in 1967 and the Sino-Soviet split that took place across the 1960s culminated in 1969 with the Sino-Soviet border conflict" - maybe change to "as China had developed hydrogen bomb capability in 1967 and the Sino-Soviet split had been taking place across the 1960s" as the 1969 events hadn't happened when this book was published
"The paperback version was also popular and was reprinted ten times in three years" - "also" presumably in addition to the hardback? But that's not been mentioned....
"The novel is the only non-Fleming Bond work adapted as a comic strip by the Daily Express. It was written by Jim Lawrence, drawn by Yaroslav Horak and published from 1 December 1969 to 20 August 1970; it was subsequently syndicated worldwide" - the first sentence kinda makes it sound like the previous sentence related to the comic strip so I would suggest re-arranging to "The novel was also adapted as a comic strip by the Daily Express, the only non-Fleming Bond work to be adapted in this medium. The comic strip was written by Jim Lawrence, drawn by Yaroslav Horak and published from 1 December 1969 to 20 August 1970; it was subsequently syndicated worldwide."
"Glidrose took action and made him change the name of the British Spy" - "spy" does not need a capital letter
"a gold coin whose value was fixed " => "a gold coin the value of which was fixed " (a coin is not a person)
This article is about a species of commonly encountered leech found in eastern North America. The leeches grow up to 8.5 cm long and have striking orange spots on their backs and a mottled, dull orange underbelly. Their saliva, like that of several leech species, is of scientific interest, and it contains a blood-thinner dubbed "decorsin" which may be unique to the species. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 16:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport: The 19th century sources are a bit much. Are there not more modern handbooks to use at least for the description and ecology sections? 1960s and later is most ideal. LittleJerry (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will do some more thorough searching around if 19th-century sources are discouraged, but the answer is probably "not really".
Moore (1901) says: "this fine leech is so well known and has been so fully described by Say ('24), Leidy ('38), Verrill ('74), and Brooks('82), that only a few notes on certain features need to be added." I use Leidy and Brooks the most of those four.
More recent is Sawyer (1972) who does provide a brief description (on page 67), and I cite him a little as well. I've included the more recent sources that I can find, but Brooks provides the best description of the internal anatomy. The description section isn't really too heavily reliant on 19th century sources anyway. At my count there are only eleven sentences in "Description" which are sourced only to 19th-century sources, mostly in "Anatomy". There are 30 sentences in the section, so that comes to 37%. In "Ecology" there are zero citations to 19th century sources, so I'm not sure what the problem is there. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 22:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After some initial specific searches for field guides, handbooks, and papers with diagnoses, it seems that there certainly are guides and handbooks with descriptions of M. decora, they're just not nearly as detailed as the sources used in the article. Continuing. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 23:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy is a bit outside my field of expertise, so I'm mostly reading this for prose and I'll leave the more technical comments to others.
Per WP:MTAU, some terms that could benefit from in-line definition: ocelli, ganglia, pharynx (maybe the explanation you've got now is enough for that one), acetabulum, osmotic shock, epididymes, testisacs, ovisacs, oviducts, transcriptome, phylogeography, digestive tract symbioses, gut microbiome
All leeches have 32 segments, but they are all also covered with external rings called annuli I'm not sure what "all leeches" means in this context. Do you mean all individuals of this species, or all species across Hirudinea? I'm guessing the latter, but you could be more explicit.
Clarified. The latter.
a nervous cord running the length of the body is "nervous" the right word here?
Possibly not, but Brooks called it a "double commissural cord" which seems a little technical, and also outdated in terminology. I'll look around for some better phrasing.
where the other nineteen connect to four or fewer nerves each Perhaps "while the other ...", or maybe "whereas the other ..."?
Fixed.
connected to the ocelli by five optic nerves I'm curious how five nerves connect 10 ocelli.
Fixed.
Macrobdella decora has three long jaws having only two myself, I'm unclear how three of them work. The cited AMNH paper has a photo, but I can't figure out what it's trying to show. Perhaps a diagram would help?
Added a description ("chitinous blades with sharp, serrated edges").
Each jaw uses a saw-like motion to cut open the skin specify that it's the victim's skin.
Done.
the first tenth or so of the leech's digestive tract You can leave out "or so"; I think readers will understand this is an approximation without that.
Done.
M. decora has ten pairs of testisacs located from segments in the lead you say "ten testisacs", here it's ten pairs.
Fixed. It's ten pairs.
including hirudin, an anti-coagulant coagulation is complicated magic, and I would imagine different species have somewhat different coagulation pathways. Does hirudin work only on certain species, or is it universal in its effect?
It seems hirudin inhibits thrombin, like most anticoagulants. Our article on thrombin of course focuses on thrombin in humans, because of course nothing else matters, apparently, but thrombin is also present among other mammals [25][26] and amphibians [27], and presumably in other animals as well. This source says that "heparin" is "a universal mammalian anticoagulant", whilst implying hirudin isn't. This paper discusses hirudin and thrombin in detail, but only in the human pharmacological perspective. I'll do some more digging, though.
They are also found on Prince Edward Island I'd say something like, "at the eastern end of their range ..."
Fixed.
The leeches may be panmictic I think you mean "The various species of leeches may be ..."? Or maybe not? In any case, clarify.
Spot checks – Randomly picking text blocks (text until next inline citation) to check.
First block in "Taxonomy" – OK.
Last sentence first paragraph in "Taxonomy" – OK.
Macrobdella decora is a medium-sized leech, growing between 5 and 8.5 cm (2.0 and 3.3 in) long, and weighing from 1.48 to 3.69 grams (0.052 to 0.130 oz).[8]: 67 [9]: 155 – The second source supports this, but the first says 5 to 9 cm instead and no weight estimate, so I wonder why the first is cited to begin with. A minor issue is that the estimates are based on six specimens only, hence the highly precise numbers; maybe these should be rounded, or it should be stated that the numbers are based on six measurements, but it is not a strong point and I leave it to you.
M. decora has a large muscular pharynx which accounts for the first tenth of the leech's digestive tract. The stomach, a large pouch composed of smaller sacs, is not nearly as muscular as the pharynx, but it occupies about five sixths of the leech's whole body and is subdivided into eleven chambers. The intestine extends from behind the stomach and narrows towards the anus. The last part of the intestine is the colon, followed finally by a small rectum. – When reading this, I thought five sixths of the leech's whole body refers to body volume, as is somehow implied by your use of "but" which makes the connection to the muscular pharynx. But the source in fact says "body length", so your wording is slightly misleading. Unrelated to sourcing accuracy, note that "composed of smaller sacs" is redundant with "subdivided into eleven chambers". Maybe the latter phrase is more accurate than the former.
First part of "Parasitism and diet" – OK
Historically, M. decora was not used very often in bloodletting, despite its common name as a "medicinal leech". – OK
Last sentence of article – OK
Conclusion: Text-source integrity is of high standard – except for a few very minor issues, which I listed above.
'Prose
The leeches have also been recorded hunting amphibian larvae: in 2020, a leech was found predating Ambystoma tigrinum larvae in Minnesota. – I do not see why you single-out amphibian larvae here, when you already mentioned that they prey on amphibians? Furthermore, I suggest using the common name of the species instead of the binomen.
Cladogram seems to be unsourced; it should be directly attributed to a source since it is the opinion of a particular study.
The part about bloodletting could do with an additional sentence for context (the use of the European medicinal leech), to prepare the reader for the following text.
This article is about the third group of NASA astronauts, nicknamed "The Fourteen". They had the highest death rate of any group: four of the fourteen (28%) were dead within four years. But six of them flew to the Moon (one of them twice) and four walked on it, two of whom are still with us. In an attempt to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Adopt an astronaut, I am submitting the article to FAC. Hawkeye7(discuss)00:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"By the deadlines," There were multiple? Even if so, maybe better rephrase around it.
It says above "Civilian applications had to be submitted by July 1, 1963; military ones were due by July 15". Changed to 'By the July 1 and 15 deadlines" Hawkeye7(discuss)21:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to know if there were applications from women, although they would not have met the stated qualifications.
You are inconsistent in linking the names of the colleges attended by the astronauts. You probably don't need to add "at Newark" to "University of Delaware" as it's the main campus and probably was more so then.
Your rationale for linking Gemini/Apollo missions in the list is obscure. Sometimes you link on second mention after (maybe) linking the first time. Gemini 9 is linked as 9A on third mention.
Changed Gemini 9a to Gemini 9. The mission designation was changed to 9A after the original crew was killed, hence that is the name of the Wikipedia article. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, not sure I like beeing the bump in the road. To be honest, if you asked me a few days ago, I would have said "hard oppose". I've softened a bit since then. I still don't think the table is a good way to do things but I'm hoping to hear from others with more FAC experience than me as to whether I've brought up a legitimate problem or if I'm just tilting at windmills. RoySmith(talk)16:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I guess I'm the one who knows something about 1960s astronauts. The article reflects the story of how Group 3 came to be as I understand it as well as the relevant information about the individual astronauts. The article seems a reasonable method of putting together that information, so I'll Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least for the momemnt, just a few comments from a quick read:
I think the Background section could be trimmed considerably. It's not that that stuff isn't interesting, but I had to scroll down two screenfulls before I got to anything about the subject of this article.
the minimum flight hours was lowered to 1,000 I would give a little more context around this. For example, the minimum for an ATP is 1500 hours, although for sure, 1000 hours in a jet fighter is worlds different than 1500 hours doing primary flight instruction in a piston single.
Some sections suffer from MOS:OVERLINK. I suggest going through the highly blue sections and figuring out what's not really essential to link. For example, does it really help the reader to have a link to Hampton, Virginia? One of the worst sections for this is the first paragraph of Demographics. I would suggest unlinking all of the ranks; I don't really think most readers will want to click through to Major (rank) or Captain (armed forces), and eliminating all those links will improve readability.
Links do not deter from readability, and ranks are not widely understood by the general public.
I disagree. And so does the MOS where it says Overlinking in general is a style issue partly because of the undesirable effect on readability. and An article is said to be overlinked if it contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify those likely to aid a reader's understanding. (the latter in MOS:OVERLINK).
I'm curious why you elected to set out the group members as a table. I would think running prose would be easier to read. The table layout is especially difficult to read on narrow screens, such as a mobile phone.
I agree with RoySmith here, I think MOS:OVERSECTION will look a lot better. I looked at the style followed in NASA Astronaut Group 9 onwards, it is pretty basic yet seems appropriate there. I think a little bit of bio. with that style would be appropriate for this page and all other astronaut group pages. Manav2311 (talk)
The plan was always for Group 9 onwards to be replaced with this style, which we developed for the adopt-an-astronaut project. It enables sorting. Groups 1 and 2 are already featured and use it. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following. Where on that page does it say group members need to be laid out in a table? And even if it does, I don't see how a conversation between a handful of people six years ago overrides the MOS or what reviewers today are saying. RoySmith(talk)11:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Attached is a (simulated) screenshot from an iPhone 12 Pro. The text in the table is completely unreadable. Trying a few other similar simulated devices (and my physical phone), these results are typical. RoySmith(talk)12:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Hey, Hey. I think all of us can agree if MOS:OVERSECTION looks good (both on PC and Mobile version) AFTER someone coverts the table to this format then we can scrap (partially) the previous format and develop a new one. One which probably looks good and appropriate to today's style. Otherwise, we can always revert the changes. Manav2311 (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think all astronauts have their own wiki pages, so why not give a brief description of only their role (while training) and their missions and achievements here and just add " main article (name of astronaut)" below the oversection. that is the reason why I was asking to tweak the table in the first place. all the career information is already there on astronaut's page so why unnecessarily write it here too? Manav2311 (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what has been done. Each astronaut of the group has a brief summary of their career. The relevant part of the MOS is MOS:LISTS: a list of items whose descriptions contain more than one paragraph may present better as sections in a stand-alone list article, while tables are better-suited to associating content than description lists, especially when there are multiple values for each item. So the MOS says to use a table. Hawkeye7(discuss)18:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another really bad layout, in a reasonable window size on my desktop. Surely that's not a useful way to be presenting this information to a reader? With running text layed out as paragraphs, this would be perfectly readable in a wide range of window sizes. By putting it into a table, you force a fixed layout and prevent the browser from usefully adapting the layout to the screen size. RoySmith(talk)19:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine on my laptop (screenshot, right), logged out so this is what a regular user will see. The table contains no fixed widths, so the browser is completely free to arrange it as it sees fit. I also tried on my iPhone, and the text is quite readable; you have to swipe right to see it, and the sorting works. (Are you using the desktop version instead of the mobile version on your phone?)
Screenshot of NASA Astronaut Group 3, pixel 6a, desktop view
Screenshot of NASA Astronaut Group 3, pixel 6a, mobile view
Here's two more. These are screenshots from my physical android phone (pixel 6a). One is in desktop view, which is what I usually use. The other is mobile view, which I suppose is what most people use. The first one (desktop view) is at least readable for the most part, it's just badly inefficient use of screen real-estate, which is at a premium on a phone. The second one (mobile view) doesn't even have the main column of text visible until you scroll right, which to my mind is a reasonable approximation of unusable. RoySmith(talk)21:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS you owe me a barnstar for figuring out all the steps needed to generate a screenshot on my phone, upload it to drive, download it to my desktop, then upload it to commons :-) RoySmith(talk)21:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an experiment, I have tried to reduce the number of columns in the table, which helps slightly, but does not completely resolve the issue on small screens. See this revision. —Kusma (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to figure out is why you want to do the table at all. I see it as having severe layout problems, with the only offsetting benefit being the ability to sort by birth or death order, and I'm just not seeing that as a big enough benefit to offset the layout issues. Is there something I'm missing? RoySmith(talk)01:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS calls for tables, and every current featured list nomination bar one uses them. If you want to change the guidelines, you will need an RfC. Hawkeye7(discuss)02:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Michael Collins, one of the few who had been through the process in 1962, said it was of polar bears having sex in the snow"MOS:VULGAR at least quote them and add a relevant source (I couldn't open the source PDF). Although, I would suggest removing it all together and adding "to test how people reacted to visual-sensory deprivation" or sth else that seems appropriate.
"The operations branch was headed by Nine astronaut Neil Armstrong" I think everyone knows Neil Armstrong at this point so we can remove Nine astronaut or the more appropriate usage will be the Next Nine astronaut.
"President John F. Kennedy was disturbed at the lingering discrimination against African Americans in the United States in general and the armed services in particular, and in 1962 he brought pressure to bear on the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, General Curtis LeMay to nominate an African-American astronaut candidate. The USAF selected Captain Ed Dwight, a B-57 pilot with 2,000 hours in high-performance jets, an aeronautical engineering degree from Arizona State University, and outstanding performance reviews, for training at the USAF Test Pilot School.[29] Dwight graduated with Class 62-C in April 1963. He was the third African American to attend, after John Whitehead, who had graduated in 1958, and Joseph Watts, a civilian, in 1960. The fourth would be Robert Lawrence in 1966; by 1984, six had graduated.[30] Dwight then applied for the ARPS, and Robert F. Kennedy told LeMay to ensure that he was accepted. The commandant, Colonel Chuck Yeager, protested, saying that there were other pilots that had been rated higher than Dwight. All were accepted, so Class IV had fourteen members instead of the usual eight.[20] "Why in hell would a colored guy want to go into space anyway?" Yeager asked, adding: "And if it was left to me, you guys wouldn't even get a chance to wear an Air Force uniform."[31] Dwight was ranked eighth in his class. Along with the seven ahead of him, Dwight was recommended by the USAF for NASA astronaut training "without qualification" in July 1963.[29] Dwight was not one of the final candidates, although classmates Scott and Freeman were." could be shorten a lot as the article is about Astronaut Group 3 and not people who couldn't qualify for the group. Also, the quotation by Yeager might promote hate/anger, so I would suggest to remove it altogether.
Recruitment panel could be made more easy to comprehend if converted into the format similar to NASA Astronaut Group 8. Also, achievement section (eg. Buzz Aldrin - 2nd man on the moon) could be added similar to NASA Astronaut Group 9
The recruitment panel for Group 3 consisted of only four Mercury Seven astronauts and test pilot Warren North, whereas that of Group 8 was much larger and more diverse, so point form seems inappropriate. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the table issue is something that should not be hashed out here (maybe someplace more general). Tables such as the ones in the present article are great and useful on the desktop while sometimes a bit annoying on mobile. We have large amounts of Featured content that has similar issues on certain small screens / skins / browsers and a specific FA isn't really the place to have this discussion. Anyway, I'd like to review the article text.
I see. I would suggest to at least merge the name and picture fields as in the version I linked to in Roy's section above. —Kusma (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, it is fairly short and not very wordy. Some context may be missing for those who haven't read the articles about the first two astronaut groups (like most people who read such an article when it is main page TFA)
The lead is also a bit short and does not cover the whole article (it could spend a sentence saying why new astronauts were needed and a little on demographics and training).
Background: "Civilian applications had to be submitted by July 1, 1963; military ones were due by July 15, to give the services time to pre-screen their applicants." are you saying that civilian applications were scrutinised more deeply and so they had an earlier deadline? With the military ones mentioned closer to "to give the services time" it sounds a bit the other way round?
Ah, you mean the services screened these before the candidates applied? Maybe I'm thick but perhaps this could be clearer. —Kusma (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Collins felt that the interview was easier the second time around." why was he interviewed twice? or was this for an earlier selection? If yes, then mention that he had applied before.
Demographics: Was there any change to the height and weight requirements compared to previous groups? (In other words, is the "slightly taller" just statistical noise or does it mean anything?)
It have been statistical noise. The height requirement was firm, but it is possible that it lay less heavily on the selection committee's minds because of the more spacious Apollo spacecraft. The story goes that C.C. Williams spent the night before testing standing up so he would be shorter. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One-word description of Jerrie Cobb would be nice, I did not know who she was.
I know, I remember reading up what the Apollo XIV astronauts were up to during their training in an ancient meteor crater in Germany. —Kusma (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What did they do for the remaining 3 hours? The subjects you mention add up to 237.
"The Fourteen were divided between two branches." was there a difference between the branches, and what did they do? You only tell us one was called "Apollo" and another one "operations".
Legacy: this isn't really legacy, it is just a repetition of deaths/spaceflights/moon from the table. Is there nothing to say about the 50 years between 1975 and 2025?
New heading is much better. I no longer expect much more here; I guess anything that could be added would be more about the individuals than the group, so unless there is a The Fourteen memorial somewhere this should be fine. —Kusma (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pretty good article overall, but I think a few more explanations would help. Ideally, try to get someone who knows very little about 1960s astronauts to review this so you get more information about what context is missing. —Kusma (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We end up naming most of the astronauts in the lead -- seven for their moon missions and then a further three for being non–test pilots. We could bite the bullet and give everyone a brief namecheck as to what they ended up doing, perhaps especially the four who died in service. Alternatively, we could link those not mentioned in the text in the infobox caption.
On average, its members were ... slightly taller and heavier than the previous two groups -- unless they were very heavy indeed, we need than those of the previous two groups.
By 1961, NASA was confident that Project Mercury had overcome its initial setbacks, and the United States had overtaken the Soviet Union as the most advanced nation in space technology: better as and that the United States, as this wasn't an objective fact -- as we point out a moment later.
The selection criteria for the third group were similar to those for the Next Nine: we didn't actually say what those were when we mentioned the Next Nine. I'd suggest moving this to the end -- set out the criteria first, and then say that these were the same as applied to the Next Nine, except for the leeway on being a test pilot.
On that schedule, the NASA Chief of the Astronaut Office, grounded Mercury Seven astronaut Deke Slayton, could foresee a shortage of astronauts, although he doubted so many flights would actually be flown.: This is a tricky sentence to parse: in particular, the word grounded makes it something of a garden path (I was getting into the groove of "the chief ordered Slayton not to fly...", when it eventually became apparent that it was totally different). Suggest a light reworking. Perhaps we could spin this out into a sentence: something like the NASA Chief of the Astronaut Office, Deke Slayton – who had originally been selected for the Mercury Seven, but grounded following a diagnosis of an irregular heartbeat – ...? This would also have the advantage of clarifying that "grounded" wasn't a punishment; I wondered about that on first reading.
Our article on John Glenn says that NASA only dropped the test pilot requirement in 1965. I assume that's an error there and that it was a "preference" between 1963 and 1965?
The other key criteria were unchanged from the previous selection: this isn't quite true, if I read Next Nine correctly -- those astronauts were allowed to have degrees in the biological sciences, while Group 3 applicants were not, according to this article.
Candidates were relieved that "we were not subjected to the indignities endured by the original seven." At that time little was known about the performance of the human body in weightless conditions and "their physical test included having every bodily orifice probed and checked.": the quotes read awkwardly here (especially with the "we") and, in any case, need attributing. I like the line about "subjected to the indignities" but we could probably do something more elegant with the prose. How about "the physical examinations conducted on Group 3 were less invasive than those for Group 1, who had been selected when little was known about the performance of the human body in weightless conditions: David Scott later remarked that the candidates were relieved "not to be subjected to the indignities endured" by their predecessors in having "every bodily orifice probed and checked".
By the July 1 and 15 deadlines, 720 applications were received, of which 492 were from military personnel and 228 were from civilians: better as by the [final] July 15 deadline, surely, as this was the total at that date?
There was a greater emphasis on academic credentials.: I think this would be better at the end of the first paragraph of "Selection process", perhaps as the penultimate sentence, since it seems to describe how the panel made their shortlisting decisions rather than the written criteria. Unless you mean to make the slightly unkind suggestion that they made the criteria more rigorous by excluding biologists?
Moved down.
Something I notice in the infobox: why is "The Fourteen" (no quotes) given as the "name" of the group? Usually that parameter is the article title: I can wear "The Fourteen" (with quotes) as an alternative name placed beneath it, but in any case it should probably have those quote marks so that we're clear it's an unofficial name. I know it's been done like this in the previous FACs, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all...
Another finalist, Michael Adams, would be posthumously awarded his Astronaut Wings for X-15 Flight 3-65-97.: it might be worth making explicit that the flight killed him, rather than that he was only recognised decades later than a successful flight.
Two other finalists later died in aircraft accidents: Alexander Kratz Rupp on June 11, 1965, and Darrell Cornell on October 10, 1984. Finalist John Yamnicky was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77, and was killed when it crashed into the Pentagon during the September 11 attacks.: I wonder if this is a bit out of place in a section on the selection process -- perhaps better in the later section when we talk about where everyone ended up? It's certainly jarring to jump from 9/11 back to the announcement.
The official announcement of the astronaut selection was made at a press conference at the MSC in Houston on October 18: as we've just mentioned September 11 2001, I think we should restate the year here (but see comment above).
Doesn't have to be in order to be a compound modifier -- someone can be a track-side mechanic or a machine-gun operator, for instance. Here, as the two-word phrase "command module" describes what he was a pilot of (as distinct from being a command pilot of modules), a hyphen is wanted. UndercoverClassicistT·C21:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that argument stacks up -- we're not talking about using a different name, but punctuating the name in accordance with our MoS -- the fact that it's been done against the MoS in another article (especially one that has never undergone a review that would check for MoS compliance) doesn't really shift the dial. Even if this were a different name for the purposes of WP:COMMONNAME, the latter is about article titles. With that said, there are a couple of phrases where the compound modifier isn't hyphenated, usually because it's treated as an inseparable pair -- I discovered this for variants of "death metal band" in the course of a different project. Looking on Google Books, there's a good case that this is another one. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't normally link Rome, and a script flags "Chicago, Illinois" as an overlink, but then I can see value in having all the home towns linked consistently.
We have a small MOS:LEAD discrepancy -- the lead says that the jet pilot time had to be in military jet fighters; the body doesn't. Civilian jet aircraft were available (and presumably the reason the three women could apply?)
Corrected the lead. The requirement was for jet pilot time. In theory, you could accumulate this by flying a commercial jet airliner, which were flying at the time. However, women were not permitted to fly commercial jet airliners in the United States until 1973, and there is no record of anyone at all qualifying as an astronaut in this manner before 2008. It would be really interesting to read the applications from the two women, but we do not have them. Jet time could have been accumulated by flying a jet for a manufacturer, like Jerrie Cobb did, or, if your pockets were deep enough, you could buy a jet and fly it around. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While all of group 3 had time in jet fighters, some spent most of their hours in jet attack aircraft, so I have removed references to fighters in the lead. Aside: although the test pilot requirement was relaxed, those without test pilot experience were rated lower, and all were earmarked as Lunar Module Pilots, which was, despite the name, a co-pilot. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a jet fighter pilot: jet-fighter pilot (move the link to cover).
Personal taste, but it seems a bit weird to abbreviate "Sc.D." on first mention (in the table) but not "USAF". I note that we haven't abbreviated other degrees in the table.
. Cernan was backup pilot, and later prime pilot for Gemini 9 in 1966: comma after prime pilot (it's parenthetical -- he was initially the backup pilot for Gemini 9).
In May 1969 he was the lunar module pilot on Apollo 10, the "dress rehearsal" for the Moon landing,: I would look to rework the scare quotes (and think about MOS:IDIOM).
the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York,: we didn't actually say it was in New York the first time (for Aldrin), but now it's second mention in the table (and we're not linking), maybe just abbreviate to "West Point" here and in subsequent rows?
He left NASA in January 1970, and became Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs: decap the title (MOS:PEOPLETITLES), as the titular article does. Ditto others like Cunningham then became Chief of the Skylab branch of the Astronaut Office and to become Director of the U.S. Peace Corps in Thailand., Schweickart became Commissioner of Energy for the State of California
the Lunar Rover: capitalised as a proper noun, but I think we want either the actual name -- Lunar Roving Vehicle -- or to decap this as a nickname (like "Moon buggy" in the eponymous article).
Water survival training was conducted at Naval Air Station Pensacola: this stands out as the only place in this paragraph where we haven't told readers where it is.
What's with the order of the subjects in the training course? It's a long list with a lot of hours, which possibly veers into WP:TMI, but if we're going to enumerate each one, surely we should arrange them in descending order?
The second paragraph of "Training" is one gigantic sentence. Suggest breaking at least once -- after "designers and engineers" would be a natural place.
Separately: some of the use of those sources is questionable: for instance, Cunningham himself is the only source we offer for why he was added to the list, and he seems just about the least reliable witness possible for that particular fact!
Not convinced -- it's a nice story, but I don't think we can apply the Criterion of embarrassment to this particular case. It seems like exactly the sort of thing a modest person might say to an awkward question: "why do you think they picked you?" "well, thirteen would have been an unlucky number, wouldn't it?" What do you mean by "bolstered with additional details"? A story doesn't become more credible because it's more complicated. If we mean that other sources back it up, or provide corroborating information, why not cite them? UndercoverClassicistT·C09:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he was recommended by the USAF for NASA astronaut training "without qualification" in July 1963: possibly a case for MOS:QUOTEPOV: was this phrase actually part of his reference?
I think QUOTEPOV still applies, so would cut the quote marks. It's a conventional enough phrase that they aren't needed for attribution, copyvio, plagiarism etc. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dwight was not one of the final candidates: so what happened there? If the USAF recommended him, surely his application would have gone before the selection panel? One piece missing here but present in Next Nine is how the different services collated and put forward applications: was it still the case that the USAF itself sent the applications in? We imply something like this with to give the services time to pre-screen their applicants but don't actually clarify whether they did that pre-screening (most didn't for the Next Nine).
It can be assumed, but it certainly isn't clear from our text -- I don't know whether it's clear in general. When we say "final candidates", I assume we mean the successful fourteen -- this could be a little clearer, I think ("successful candidates"?), as "final candidates" implies the last ones left before some last winnowing process. UndercoverClassicistT·C21:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They were sent to Brooks Air Force Base for medical examinations between July 31 and August 15: would amend to "The selected candidates" or similar -- they isn't great as the start of a paragraph (better to restate the antecedent) and it looks grammatically as if it should refer to the panel.
Michael Collins, who had previously been interviewed during the 1962 selection process, felt that the interview was easier the second time around. The panellists were no longer strangers, the questions they asked were no longer unpredictable, and he had the benefit of having attended the United States Air Force (USAF) Aerospace Research Pilot School (ARPS).: this stands out a bit to me: it seems to be hovering between saying "the interviewers went easier on Group 3" and "it's easier to pass a test if you've tried it once already". We seem to be talking specifically about Collins's experience here (see the bit about the ARPS), so I wonder if we're giving it excessive prominence in a section establishing how selection worked. Presumably the interviewers were strangers and the questions unpredictable to everyone else?
Only Collins; the others were Navy officers. But Bassett, Collins, Eisele, Freeman, and Scott were all ARPS graduates, so ARPS was successful in increasing the number of USAF astronauts. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By May 1963, while there were enough astronauts for the needs of Project Gemini, the schedule for Project Apollo called for four crewed Earth-orbit missions launched by Saturn I rockets in 1965; between two and four launched by Saturn IB rockets in 1966; and six or more Earth-orbit and lunar-orbit missions launched by Saturn V rockets, commencing in 1967. On that schedule, the NASA Chief of the Astronaut Office, grounded Mercury Seven astronaut Deke Slayton... he calculated an attrition rate of about ten percent per year. It followed that Project Apollo might require another ten to twenty astronauts. Slayton's maths confused me a little here. I think it would help to clarify that (and for how long) the Gemini and Apollo projects were planned to overlap, and how many astronauts would actually be on a mission.
Four Apollo missions per year would require 8 x 3 = 24 astronauts, given each had a full backup crew. With 13 astronauts on hand, another 11 would be needed. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting an explanation in the article rather than the FAC -- I think the fact that each mission needed two crews of four is good info at this point, given that we're trying to walk the reader through how NASA came to its idea of how many astronauts it would need. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two crews of three. Added this to the article. In fact, although this was not known in 1963, a third crew, the support crew, consisting of four astronauts, was formed for each mission. So each mission required ten astronauts, but only two missions were flown each year except in 1969, when four were flown. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's some good advice about making tables accessible here -- see in particular regarding captions and row scopes.
It doesn't have row scopes, which are asked for in MOS:DTAB alongside column scopes (which it does have). It does have a caption -- I'm not sure that a caption that just duplicates the section header is much good, but the MoS doesn't explicitly pronounce on that. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While six of the Nine had bachelor's degrees, and three had master's degrees, just six of the Fourteen had only bachelor's degrees: I would cut just as editorialising: 6/14 is 43%, which isn't an undisputably tiny number or obviously a totally different kettle of fish from 66%, especially given the small total numbers involved. It might also be worth linking the different degrees so that those unfamiliar can see what they represent (though I think you've done a good job of structuring the passage to get the point across even to people who aren't totally sure of the difference).
Looking again, I think reordering this would make it clearer and more effective. How about While six of the Nine had bachelor's degrees and three had master's degrees, seven of the Fourteen already had master's degrees; three more were working on one, Cunningham was working on his doctorate, and Buzz Aldrin had a Doctor of Science degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. We could end that by saying that six only had bachelors' degrees, but we did state that as a requirement earlier, so you might want to leave it out. Oh, and again -- just "Aldrin" without the Buzz? UndercoverClassicistT·C21:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anders was responsible for significant photography, notably the Earthrise photographs: I would rephrase this -- "significant photography" is ambiguous in context (really important photos or lots of them?) and in any case is slightly editorialising: why not just "was responsible for photography including the Earthrise photographs"? We would hardly be bothering the readers with his insignificant work or things that were not worth noting.
"Achievements" is an odd title for a (very short) section largely concerned with tragic and premature deaths. More generally, it hangs a bit oddly given that most of the astronauts' achievements were enumerated in the table. One option would be just to cut it and move the information into there, but I would suggest something slightly more radical -- rework the "Group members" table so that the content covers their careers before selection, and then work their careers after becoming astronauts in a renamed "Achievements" ("Service history"?) section. This would allow you to be more synthetic and point out, for example, that several of them were on the same missions, that many ended up in administrative posts, and that a smallish number had interesting and varied post-NASA careers.
We now have a paragraph at the end of the Training section which isn't about training. I'm not sure the penultimate paragraph is really in the right place either. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I really do think now that the organisation is odd, and likely to be unhelpful to many readers. Most of the information about what the Fourteen did in their NASA service isn't actually included in the "Activities" section, but in a column of a table called "Group members". I really can't see that anyone coming across the article with fresh eyes would intuit that this is the place to go to find out, for example, which missions these astronauts flew, or what the notable achievements of the group were. I note Parsecboy's comments below, which hit the same theme from another direction -- as currently conceived, the table doesn't really fit with the article structure. I'm not going to insist on any specific solution, but I do think we need most of the information about their NASA careers post selection to be moved into some sort of appropriately named prose section. As I said above, my personal approach would be to turn that column into "pre-selection career" and reorganise accordingly, which would seem to make the most sense given where it actually comes in the article. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bibliography has quite a lot of books that aren't totally independent: either NASA publications or books (co-)written by people involved in this story. In the biblio, I count only Atkinson and Shafritz, Burgess x2, Hamblin, Sanders and Weitekamp where I can't see any sort of COI -- of those, Hamblin and Sanders have other very small question-marks in that they're primary sources, non-academic and the latter is very openly pushing a (completely understandable) agenda. I'm not sure how much independent historical writing there is on this topic, but could you give your thoughts on how the bibliography here matches up to the overall shape of the field?
In case it wasn't clear, I meant that Hamblin and Sanders are among the relatively few "obviously" problem-free sources! I'm basically happy with what you've written in the "bibliogaphic essay" below, but I'll go through later to make sure that autobiographies etc can carry the weight the article puts upon them. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The artice draws on a wide range of sources. There is not a great deal on the astronaut selection and training process, except for the Mercury Seven and the Group 8.
NASA histories There are the main sources for any article. They are independent of NASA, but the authors have access to NASA's primary source documents. Some of these can be downloaded through the NASA hub, but most are not accessible, and it is hard to find even those that are available unless you know exactly what you are searching for. In the case of this article, the histories are only used for deatils about the programs. Unfortunately, they say little about the selection processess. A recent book covers astronaut training in science.
Astronaut biographies and autobiographies. The best ones are those written by the astronauts themselves. Collins and Cunningham actually did write their own. This still happens, but is rare. Most American autobiographies are ghost written, based on interviews with the astronauts (like Cernan's). Some of the biographies are like this too. NASA has also conducted an extensive oral history program. This has produced a lot of good material, with the usual caveats for dealing with oral history, but no oral histories were used with this article.
Books by other researchers. Springer-Praxis and the University of Nebraska have series on space subjects, and these are generally of very high quality. In particular, Colin Burgess has published a series of books on the selections. (He is up to Group 8.) He has no access to NASA internal documents except those available online, but has otherwise gathered material widely and interviewed many astronauts and other participants. This has been my best source.
I'd also note that NASA has no particular interest in sugarcoating anything that happened in the Apollo era. A NASA source is not biased because it is sponsored by NASA. I think I addressed this at greater length in one of the FACs for one of my Apollo articles, I will look into it but not tonight. Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was in this FAC. While the focus was more on whether such sources are primary or not, it amounts to the same thing, too much NASA. But the response is the same. Just because a book or site is published under NASA auspices doesn't make them other than reliable, secondary sources. NASA does not promote a party line on how Apollo must be presented, and if it did, it would be noticed and remarked upon in other secondary sources.. Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I debated whether I should even open this can of worms, but this strikes me as more of a list than a "proper" article. To my mind, this is fundamentally a page that lists the members of the group. The line between list and article is blurry, to be sure, and I'm not going to die on this hill, but I wonder if this is the right venue. As an example, List of chronometers on HMS Beagle, List of aircraft operated by Scandinavian Airlines, and Bayreuth canon are all FLs that are fairly text heavy (and the structure of the Scandinavian Airlines list is very similar to this page).
I find it odd that halfway through the sentence, you change from listing the number of people from each branch of the military to naming specific individuals from the USMC and who were civilians - seems we'd want to keep the structure parallel (i.e., 7 Army, 4 Navy, 1 Marine, and 2 civvies)
Having said how dangerous being an astronaut was, I wanted to note that pilots often crashed in that era. (Yamnicky is a bit of an outlier, as he crashed five times and walked away.) I can remove them if you think it is not relevant. (They all have their own articles.) Hawkeye7(discuss)20:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... Louis Abramson, one of New York City's prominent architects of the 20th Century, with a career spanning over 50 years. Abramson is perhaps best known for the Daughters of Jacob home in the Bronx. Not only is the building distinctively shaped with eight radial spokes but the street it sits on is also oddly shaped, following the path of the backstretch of the old Fleetwood Park Racetrack, which was my first FAC. RoySmith(talk)19:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Daughters_of_Jacob_Building,_circa_1920.jpg: the source description identifies a 1931 publication; is a pre-1930 publication known?
File:West_86th_Street_Jewish_Center_1918_photo.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:667_Eastern_Parkway,_Brooklyn_Jewish_Center.jpg
Later commissions included several restaurants for the Horn & Hardart,...
Could the the before "Horn & Hardart" be dropped?
I don't think so. Drop the adjectives and it's "for the chains"
His introduction to architecture came when he took a job as an office boy and later a draftsman for John H. Duncan, a well-known New York City architect. Do we need "well-known" before "architect"?
Dropped
New York Rabbi Mordecai M. Kaplan envisioned transforming the synagogue "from solely a place of prayer to also a place of recreation: from a congregation to a Jewish center ... a place for Bible and basketball, Gemara and games, learning and luncheons, prayer and ping-pong.
Two points to make:
The quote is missing a closing quotation mark.
The quote is good but it could be summarised instead of using the exact words. I leave it to you.
Added the quotation mark. I think there's value in leaving it in the original words to convey not just the facts but also the flavor.
Abramson designed the Jewish Center at 131 West 86th Street in Manhattan.
Why is "in" included inside the blue link?
Fixed
The Turkish bath is mentioned (and linked) twice in the article.
Unlinked the second one.
In a February 1917 report,...
Report by?
Reworded.
Just a few thoughts on re-reading — hope they're useful.
The building, with capacity for 200 patients[38] was to provide expansion space for the New Utrecht Dispensary, which later became Maimonides Medical Center.
Missing a comma after "patients".
Built in 1926, Abramson designed this Tudor style nine-story apartment building in the Tudor style, with a façade of irregular brick with stucco panels framed by wooden strips and a roof featuring peaked gables.
To a surface level reader, it would look as if "Tudor style" has been repeated more than once in the same sentence.
In 1935, Abramson was named by Mayor LaGuardia to a list of 50 architects who would be eligible to bid on large municipal projects; those which would cost more than $100,000 (equivalent to $1.7 million in 2023).
Could the phrase "who would be" be dropped from this sentence?
Ugh, I'll admit I'm not really a grammar expert, but I think it makes sense the way it is. It implies that if at some future time the architect submitted a bid, it would be considered valid at that time. Future perfect, maybe? I think the semicolon (indicating a greater separation of ideas than a comma) is correct too, but I'll be happy to defer to those with better grammar fu. RoySmith(talk)17:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Centers; a new": should be a comma, not a semi-colon (a semi-colon should only be used to separate grammatically complete sentences. The second part of isn't a grammatically complete sentence).
Is Louis Gerard a person or a company? I think a couple of extra words to clarify would probably help
"named by Mayor LaGuardia to a list" sounds awkward to me (although it may just be an ENGVAR thing). "Added to a list" or "included on a list" sounds much more natural than "named to a list".
"projects; those": same semi-colon issue as the first point
"The building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2009.[22]": This is a bit too short for a paragraph, and could be merged into one of the neighbouring paragraphs.
"Abram's design" -> Abramson's design
"began, however, a lawsuit": the "however" doesn't being anything to the party
"Reid panned Abramson's work": is "panned" an encyclopaedic term? It is better than "criticised"?
I've addressed all of those. On the question of Louis Gerard, there's often little distinction between an architect and their firm, and the source isn't explicit, so I just went with the "office" wording the source uses. Thank you for your review. RoySmith(talk)11:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, looks great. I may only be able to offer some tiny suggestions, mostly optional.
... he worked in the practices of John Galen Howard, and Louis E. Jallade. Not sure about the comma between "Howard" and "and"; but if they are two distinct practices, I can see why the comma may help readers grasp that.
Rephrased.
... started his own firm in 1912 and was issued an architectural license in 1914 Seems odd he started the firm before he had a license. Was the firm focused on drafting & other architecture-adjacent activities before he had the license?
Yeah, that is a little odd. I suspect there's some work you're allowed to do without a license and/or you need to get an outside firm to sign off on your work, but that's pure speculation. It is however what the source says, so unless you feel a need to change it, I'm inclined to let it stay as written.
"Inspiration and influences" section? Early in his career, Abramson developed an appreciation of the work of McKim, Mead & White, being especially fond ... Abramson also said he admired the work of Cass Gilbert, especially "his modernity ... his breakaway from the classical school". Many articles on musicians have sections about other musicians that influenced or inspired them. Is there enough material to justify a sub-section here titled "Inspiration and influences" or something like that? If there is not, it is fine as-is.
Let me think on that. If I can think of a good way to do that, I might give it a shot, but for the moment, I'm thinking the current chronological presentation makes sense.
Dates/timeframe? .. he also worked on the fundraising, running a campaign for the ... and Abramson designed a number of Jewish Centers, including the first one in Manhattan.... Some readers may want to know the year.
I added a year for the campaign. As for the second part, unfortunately the source is vague: "Louis Allen Abramson designed the very first official Jewish Center in Manhattan, as well as many others of the type". I'm pretty sure that means the 86th Street Jewish Center in 1917, but the source doesn't actually say that, so I don't think I can either.
Seating capacity was variously reported as either 800 or over 900 people. Odd phrasing ... draws attention to the sentence, not in a good way. If there was a significant controversy about the capacity, say so; otherwise might be better to simply say Seating capacity was between 800 and 900 people..
I've always struggled with this sort of thing. I've got two sources: one says 800, the other says "more than 900". I could use your "between 800 and 900" wording, but to me that implies the restaurant could be set up with different table layouts for different events, and I'm not sure that's actually the case. For now, I've made it "almost 1000", but I'm open to better suggestions.
Built in 1926, Abramson designed this nine-story apartment building in.. The name of the building is in the section title "210 West 78th Street", but is not repeated in the body text. I don't think I've ever seen body text assume that the reader has read & grasped the section title. Some people might argue that the body text should stand on its own. I'm not aware of any platform/device issues (?? are there some phone renderings were section titles are hidden?) Not a big deal ... just pointing it out. [Edit; I see the "West 135th Street library addition" section does not have this issue]
Fixed.
No "personal life" section or data in InfoBox?
Yeah, it has been pointed out to be in previous reviews that I don't say much about his personal life. Unfortunately, what you see is what I've been able to find.
Image check: I see that the InfoBox photo is copyrighted (or, not free-to-use); but it has an appropriate fair use justification; and is used only in this one article. So, not problem.
Sure. Oddly enough, this project started out as my wanting to write about that building; I was riding my bike through the area one day when I saw the building and had to stop and stare and wonder what the heck I was looking at. As I got into my research and learned more about Abramson, the focus morphed. But, yeah, I can generate at least a stub for that.
A reference quality tool is reporting warnings on two items in the "External Links" sectioN:
"Louis A. Abramson's 1926 210 West 78th Street". daytoninmanhattan.blogspot.com.
"The Jewish Center - 131 West 86th Street". daytoninmanhattan.blogspot.com.
Apparently those sites are considered mere blogs and are on some kind of list. Doesn't bother me, provided you have scrutinized them for accuracy & veracity.
The bloger, Tom Miller, seems to be a bit of an expert on the architectural history of New York (https://www.blogger.com/profile/13542224816886418433) with a couple of published books and writing credits in Architectural Digest and The New York Times, so I'm not terribly concerned about this. I'm not sure I could make a strong enough WP:EXPERT argument to justify them as a direct source, but I think good enough for EL.
The lead is a touch on the short side but it covers the key points. It should be mentioned that he started his own architecture firm.
My personal style is towards shorter leads, but I've added that he started his own firm. If you can think of any other essential items that are missing, I'll be happy to consider adding them.
Gaps in information mean the 'Education an early career' section is quite disjointed. We catapult from his birth in the opening sentence to his marriage in the second. Who were his parents and what did they do? Did he have any siblings? This information may not be available, but if so it would be worth addressing this absence as it is information typically included in biographies and I expect that readers would want to know why it's not mentioned.
Unfortunately, I have not been able to find anything else of significance. His obituary mentions "two grandchildren, and five great-grandchildren", but that's about it. If you think it would be useful, I could add something like "little is known about his family".
I think that including a short note that there isn't much published about his family life would be a workable option as that is addressing the gap. I'd noticed the Find a Grave entry which hints at some interesting family background, but the breadcrumbs didn't lead to anything I could find online and I doubt the libraries near me would be helpful. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Abramson's works are grouped thematically this does mean the chronology is all over the place. We find out in the penultimate section that by 1919 Abramson had established a "reputation for designing hospital buildings". If nothing else, it would be good to see this statement built upon but it seems oddly placed. There is a case for grouping the buildings thematically, but I'd be interested in hearing how a thematic approach was arrived at rather than chronological.
I just thought it was the most logical way to approach things. I tried to do thing chronologically within each major section.
I note that the "Questionnaire for Architects' Roster and/or Register of Architects Qualified for Federal Public Works" is a primary source and used appropriately per WP:ABOUTSELF.
The source cited for Abramson's time in Seattle suggests that the information derives from an interview. Has this been tracked down to see if Abramson went into more detail on what he got up to there?
I think you're talking about the Serra, Bollack, and Killian source? As far as I know, that source is the only report based on that interview. I'm not aware of any raw transcript, if that's where you're going.
That's the one. The authors seem to be working from an interview, but they don't cite it (it's not that kind of publication) so where it is, if it still exists is something of a mystery. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On page 211 (the introduction to this chapter of the book), it says "The three architects whose interviews are recounted below ...". It then goes on with sections titled Israel L. Crausman, Louis Allen Abramson, and Marvin Fine. Anthony Robins interviewed these three people and wrote about each of them based on those interviews. So, I'm unclear on what else you're looking for. RoySmith(talk)15:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Education and early career' section talks about the University Club and Penn Station. Where the latter has been shown to influence his work (ie: the architectural lettering) it makes sense to include it, but unless the same influence can be said of the University Club I'm not sure that it needs to be included.
I added a little bit more about his interactions with the University Club.
That section ends in 1935, and then we jump back to 1916 for the next section. This perhaps needs some rearrangement (eg: mentioning the bid in a later section).
I see your point, but I'm not sure where it would be better to put it. I could shove it into "Later life", but I don't think that it would make sense there. I'm open to specific suggestions.
On a related note, we're not told if the 1935 bid was successful.
I think what you're asking is if he ever bid on any municipal projects? I haven't found any evidence that he did.
I don't know that he did or not. I do know that of all the architecure firms in the city, he was considered good enough to make the short list. That seems significant to me. RoySmith(talk)16:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Home of the Daughters of Jacob Abramson's first big commission?
I have not found any record of earlier commissions, but it would be WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH for me to conclude from that lack of evidence that it was indeed his first.
...replacing the existing home run by the Daughters of Jacob at 301 East Broadway in Manhattan, which could only house 200 people. Rather than the street address is it possible to give the reader a distance between the two?
Sure, added that.
A fifth story added to the building in 1938 Was Abramson involved in the design of this extra story? If so, change the passive voice to something active.
It seems likely that he was. My guess is the original plans included all 5 stories in the design but they only built the first 4 initially, pending additional need and fundraising. But that's just speculation and I haven't found anything that says authoritatively either way.
In his book by the same name There are two sentences between this and the phrase "schul with a pool" so I think it bears repeating, or drop that phrase and just start with Jewish historian David Kaufman…
Yeah, I struggled with that when I wrote it. Let me know if the current version works better.
The new version works.
[Malkind] followed Abramson's lead introducing traditional Judaic symbols into the ornamentation of neo-Classical design This is the first time the reader finds out that Abramson used this approach. Perhaps this piece of information could be mentioned earlier where it puts Abramson front and centre, and this becomes a call back with the emphasis on Abramson's influence rather than presenting a new detail about the content of his work.
Done
On aspect of Abramson's work was using traditional Judaic symbols in the ornamentation of neo-Classical design: Should the first word be 'One'? Richard Nevell (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As this was an Orthodox synagogue I suggest changing this to As the center included an Orthodox synagogue
Done
For the 86th Street Jewish Center there is conflicting information on its planned height: In February 1917, the building was described as being planned to be 8 stories tall but later we are told The expansion to the originally planned full height of 10 stories was announced in July 1919
Could I get away with claiming the second figure is in octal? As far as I can tell, my statement is correct (i.e. it was reported that way), but the NY Times just got it wrong. Not sure what's the best way to handle that.
If you're not averse to a footnote, the difference could be handled there. Alternatively, perhaps drop the mention of the earlier figure. The principle that the later source may be more accurate as the building was already underway at that point seems reasonable. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:DASH I believe that 27-35 Crescent Street, 2710-2714 Broadway, and houses at 211- 217 should use endashes.
Done, but grudgingly. See my Signpost essay on this topic.
In the section on '116 John Street', I think a more linear narrative would be preferable, beginning with Kovacs purchasing land and then saying that Abramson was commissioned to design a 35-story office.
Done
Did Abramson serve in WWI? From my very superficial understanding, he would have been at the upper end of the age bracket for conscription.
I have not found anything that says he did.
Going by the dates of the buildings mentioned in the article, Abramson's busiest period seems to have been the 1920s and 1930s. What was he up to from the late 1940s onwards? When did he retire? What happened to the firm he started? If these are gaps in the sources, that might need to be acknowledged in the article.
I would imagine he had lots of other work which simply wasn't covered by the press or which was significant enough to mentioned in books or reports. It's not clear what I could say about this which wouldn't be WP:OR / WP:SYNTH.
Four of Abramson's buildings are mentioned as being listed heritage assets. Perhaps this could be developed into a combined 'Death and legacy' section? That would also mean that there isn't a one-sentence section.
In the section on Abramson's death there is no information about his family. Were his wife and two daughters still alive (update: I've accessed the NYT obituary and I think it's worth including that they outlived Abramson)? If we don't know I think that needs to be addressed in some way.
Clearly there's a lot more documentation available about Abramson's work than his personal life. Though much isn't said about it, there are traces of his character in details such as claiming not to understand a brief so designing what he wanted, or disagreeing with a client's vision so concealing his designs until work was already underway. Those details add some flavour. It's an interesting article but, as can be seen above, I do have some questions about how the gaps in information should be handled. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few details to the last section. As for there not being much available about his personal life, that's true, but I don't see that there's anything that can be done about that.
PS, there is actually some information about his family but it's all find a grave and other WP:UGC sites that are unsuitable for our use. I did use the full names there and did some searching for WP:RS that might mention them but drew a blank. RoySmith(talk)22:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a few more points that occurred to me:
There's a useful quote on page 215 of the Robins piece: "Abramson was reluctant to ascribe any role to the influence of specific contemporary monuments or architects". That could be developed into a short sentence for the 'Education and early career' section as it illustrates that it is tricky to pin down his influences.
Added
Based on a note on page 631 of the 'Real Estate Record and Builders Guide', n 1917, he had an office at 220 Fifth Avenue could be revised to 1915.
Done
On pages 188 and 189 this book from the University of Minnesota Press mentions that Abramson was commissioned for the YWHA project because of his work on YMCA buildings. It also mentions that he worked with Jallade on them, which is a connecting thread from the 'Education and early career' section to 'Jewish centers'.
Yeah, I'm aware of the WMCA project(s), but I haven't been able to find enough to be worth saying anything about without it being a bare name-drop.
On the subject of hospitals, Abramson designed the Long Island Jewish Medical Center and Zucker Hillside Hospital. Though neither hospital's Wikipedia article mentions him, I think it could be mentioned in Abramson's article.
As I've researched this, I found lots of mentions of buildings he did, but I've only included in the article buildings where I was able to find something significant to say.
While I couldn't find much about it, would it be worth noting that Abramson designed the extension to the Harlem branch of the New York public library? It would link thematically to the West 135th Street library.
More than thematically; they are the same building (look carefully at the photos). The name has changed at least once in its history.
That turned out to be a good find, thanks for locating it. I added another paragraph.
The index of The Multicultural Modernism of Winold Reiss 1886-1953 indicates that Abramson is mentioned a few times. Is there anything which might enhance the information on their collaboration that's already in the article?
It's unclear what you're referring to here.
I don't have access to that book. Was there something specific in it that you thought might be of interest?
I'm only going by the index which shows that Abramson was mentioned a few different pages, but I have no idea whether it's detailed information or just passing. As the collaboration with Reiss is pretty reasonably covered in the present version of the article, tracking down a copy of the book isn't essential. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it will help turn up anything else, but I noticed that a couple of sources from the 1910s spelt Abramson's first name as 'Lewis'. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: We're getting close. There are a few outstanding points regards: municipal projects; 86th Street Jewish Center; and I'd be interested in your view on moving the mention of NRHP listings to the 'Later life' section as an aspect of Abramson's legacy. I think that's probably it unless I've missed something. I don't anticipate new points at this stage. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I know I literally just said that I don't anticipate new points but there is one I meant that raise that I promptly forgot. Everyday Masterpieces; Memory & Modernity looks to be a book; is there a year of publication and perhaps an ISBN that could be added to the reference? Richard Nevell (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the question of moving the NRHP listings to a "legacy" section, I'd prefer not to do that. This goes back to my comment about only listing building that I had something to say about. Having a distinct list of NRHP-listed buildings would give the impression that it was an exhaustive list, which it may not be, so I think the organization I have now makes more sense. RoySmith(talk)16:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FN16 – the link should be chapter-url to link the chapter, not the book. It also needs a year, publisher ___location and ISBN
Done
FN 22 – needs a state
Done
FN 24 – Ditto (as it's a 63-page document)
Done
FN 25 – Ditto (as it's a 32-page document)
Done
FN35 – "Riviera, At Top": lower case A
I think you mean FN 36, but done.
FN40 – "an Impresario In the": lower case I on "In"
Done
FN 48 – Ditto (as it's an 88-page document)
Done
Range and reliability
I note the discussion on the blog postings in the external links. I tend to avoid them whenever possible, but the author seems to be just something of an authority so I'll let them slide, although it wouldn't surprise me if people take them out later, citing ELNO
Overall these are a mix of academic, newspapers, industry publications and government records. The newspapers are used sparingly and appropriately
Wider searches show no obvious missing sources (although I'll caveat this by saying I'm by no means a subject specialist nor do I have access to any specialist libraries) (edited to make a rather important addition! - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC))[reply]
I'm confused. Did you find something I missed? Or did you mean "... did not show ..."?
This article is about a former cinema and Broadway theater opened in 1930. Located several blocks off New York City's Times Square, the Mark Hellinger Theatre has a Baroque interior that doesn't quite match its brick facade. It was used mainly as a movie palace for its first two decades, and it hosted Broadway shows from 1949 to 1989. Since then, the theater has been used by the Times Square Church, which continues to maintain it. Except for the marquee outside the theater's entrance, a casual passerby would never know this was anything more than a church.
This page was promoted as a Good Article nearly four years ago. After a copyedit, I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MallardTV, thanks for the comment, but I already bundled a lot of the sources before nominating this. There are no more than three citations for each claim, which is acceptable per WP:CITEKILL. Otherwise, the sheer number of sources is not an FAC criterion, and is actually more beneficial for verifiability than a single source would be. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate. I never noticed how much my FACs relied on feedback from a relatively small number of reviewers, but this seems to have slipped through the cracks. I'll ask around to see if there's interest in reviewing this article. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)][reply]
I think that may be an example of MOS:OVERLINK, and I was previously advised to remove this link in a GA review about another Broadway theater (I forgot which one). However, let me know what you think. - EG
legitimate theatre is a confusing enough term I might gloss it in prose in the lede and first usage in the body
Done. - EG
That's all for prose for me. The rest of it seems quite solid.
As for sources:
All claims are cited with inline footnotes. Some SFNs are used throughout, and consistently.
Cimino (2013) has a different title casing than the others, and also has a space before the colon. It's also unclear why it needs an OCLC, since it has an ISBN
Various periodicals are missing ISSNs, but some have them. Keep this consistent one way or another.
I removed the ISSNs for consistency. All of these publications are reasonably well-known enough that they may not be necessary. - EG
Sources are verifiable and high-quality, appropriate for the subject matter.
"and the pair performed live at Spy Bar in New York City" => "and the pair performed it live at Spy Bar in New York City"......?
Added "it"
"She also provides the song's background vocals, as does Clarence" - who's Clarence?
I don't know either! It's just listed as "Clarence" in the liner notes. I think it might be her cat??
In that case, I would maybe write "and additional background vocals are credited to Clarence" or similar. The current wording kinda makes it sound like the reader ought to know who Clarence is, if that makes sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
" 'Whenever You Call' is a pop song" feels repetitive from the lead. Can the genre information be merged into the following sentence?
Moved to next sentence
What's the encyclopedic relevance of the recording's exact length?
It is part of the infobox template and so needs to be cited elsewhere in the body.
This seems like a case where the subject serves as the implied primary source for the information, so I wouldn't expect a citation is needed for that to be in the infobox (feel free to correct me if a policy or guideline prohibits this). Even if a citation is needed, whether or not this should be included in the prose is a separate question; the information can simply be cited in the infobox. In my view, the length being mentioned in the prose feels unnecessary. —TS
"received comparisons to" may sound more natural as "was compared to".
Changed to "was compared to"
Maybe the music nerd in me is talking, but I find it semantically strange to read that a song "moves" with a tempo — a song has a tempo. That and the following phrase "building toward a climax" also creates the implication that the tempo ramps up over the song, which the source does not state.
Changed to "has a slow tempo and builds toward a climax"
Citation numbers from this revision. Finally, someone other than me who uses {{sfnm}}s!
Did a dozen or so text–source integrity spot-checks during the review with no issues found. The few offline sources I couldn't access are accepted assuming due diligence was done, as the nominator is an experienced FAC contributor.
Citations 30 and 40: p. → pp., use en dashes (MOS:DASH).
The first number refers to the section. ie 6-11 = section 6, page 11.
Then I might use the |loc= parameter so that is clearer: |loc=§ 6, p. 11 or |loc=section 6, p. 11. —TS
Slightly confused by Carey 1998. I'm assuming this is the music video mentioned in § Live performances and video, but the formatting makes it look like it's citing the concert itself. Change the title to Whenever You Call (with italics), |type=concert → |type=DVD (or whatever).
It is citing the concert itself
There's a couple of issues with that. Firstly, Wikipedia can only use sources that have been published; unless there is some publicly available recording of the concert, it cannot be cited. (Out of curiosity, how did you come by this quote?) Secondly, even if a recording exists, why should a passing comment Carey said once on stage be given the same weight as claims from reliable sources? —TS
The quote could use a pass for punctuation. "thatitmind" → "thatinmind".
Fixed
Garland 1997 could use the volume and issue numbers.
Per MOS:& "retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, the title of a work...". The ampersand is officially part of the newspaper titles and articles titles here.
The ProQuest link for Verna 1997 seems to be broken, but this one — ProQuest227095770 — works for me via TWL. Add the volume and issue numbers, and I'd appreciate if you could take a second look for other magazine or journal citations that are missing these.
The ProQuest link is to the full PDF scans of Billboard which is on a separate database that I accessed through my university. TWL has different links as it only has access to a separate text-only database. Added volume and issue numbers.
MOS:WEBITALICS (see the footnote) advises that most of the |publisher= parameters should be |work=s or their equivalents to italicize the titles.
I am uncertain about the following part from the lead, (while others thought it lacked artistic growth). I would think that the criticism is more about Carey not showing artistic growth with the song and not the track itself having a lack of growth (as I do not think that it would be capable of that).
I have a question about this part, (closer to hip-hop from the ballads). The Piatkowski source specifies these ballads as middle of the road, pop numbers. Would it be worthwhile to add a genre here to provide more of a contrast? It is okay if it is not necessary, but this did catch my eye so I was curious about this.
The #1's article says that the "Whenever You Call" single release was canceled due to the impending release of Rainbow and its lead single "Heartbreaker" and cites this Marc Shapiro book to support it. If this is true, I think that would be helpful to add here. The #1 article cites it to page 117 of the Shapiro book, but I do not see the information there. I still wanted to ask you this anyway just to clarify things.
Since the single release was canceled, I was surprised that a single cover was still made. Was there any information about this? According to the Spotify link, it was released in September 15, 1998, but I know that release dates on streaming services can be wonky at times. If there is nothing more to this, that is okay of course, but it is interesting that a cover and a video were released for this duet, but not a full single push.
Would it be worthwhile to add an artist and year for "Love Hurts"? The article does not clarify which version that they are referencing, and this song has been covered a great deal so I can understand why this is not included, but I was curious.
I hope that these comments are helpful. Just to be clear, I have only looked at the prose, aside from a stray comment about the infobox image. I do not see any major issues, and a majority of my comments are clarification questions. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again, but I doubt that I will find anything further. Best of luck with the article! Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about East Island, a low-lying, uninhabited island in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands that forms part of the French Frigate Shoals. It covers the island’s ecological significance, historical use, impact of Hurricane Walaka in 2018, and subsequent partial recovery. MallardTV Talk to me! 22:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mallard, the notes are uncited if you could fix that as a first off. The article is very interesting; this is just a quick comment. Also, it would be very helpful if you could mention or link the improvements made since the last FAC nom (which IMO was closed too hastily) so reviewers can get their bearings — and it would give you credibility for reviewers choosing where to focus their attention and maybe dig deeper. Ceoil (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is the sources which are still mostly from newspapers. MallardTV, is this something you have access to to address - Wikipedia Library might be a great help. The article is not very controversial, really very well written and most interesting. A first-time mominator needing some guidance, so obviously a stringing source check is; am digging. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil Thanks! I've looked for scholarly articles covering the island's "washing away," but I haven't come across any. As it's been seven years since said incident, I'd assume they are out there. I just can't find them for the life of me. The concensus of the first round here at FAC was that I didn't include enough scholarly content. I have sourced from many for my ecology section, but that's all that seems to have readily accessible scholarly coverage. Thanks for the compliments on my writing too! MallardTV Talk to me! 13:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
" It also hosted numerous ground-nesting seabird species, including albatrosses, shearwaters, and terns." - I might drop "numerous" as it's not very encyclopedic or exact. If you have an exact number, use it. If not, the partial list illustrates that it the island supports multiple bird species, making "numerous" redundant anyway.
Citations are nicely organized.
Can you describe the 'Tanager Expedition' as American in the lead?
I might suggest "from 1944 until its decommissioning in 1952" --> to the more concise "from 1944 until its 1952 decommissioning"
Again for concision: "Since that time, the island has remained uninhabited" --> "The island has since remained uninhabited"
Is there an image of the island's reformation?
The note beginning "The Guano Islands Act..." needs to be sourced.
"was later included" - I would drop 'later' as redundant
"using a seaplane" - is this bit necessary?
Is there some article subsection you can link for "pupping site"?
"but was initially delayed" - I would drop "initially"
"reduced to a fraction of its original size" doesn't really mean anything. That fraction coul be a decrease of 4/5 or 1/100. Can you be more specific?
"The loss of land raised concerns among conservationists" --> "The loss of land concerned conservationists"
Is it necessary to refer to 'Dr. Charles Littnan' with the honorific?
I have no more gripes. Happy to support this well-composed article. And I always enjoy creating fun little spin-off entries from a major article rewrite. ~ HAL33315:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Categories: article is in both Category:Northwestern Hawaiian IslandsCategory:French Frigate Shoals. But the latter (FFS) is a sub-category of the former (NHI) so the article should only belong to one or the other. Normally, you'd use the subcat (FFS). See "diffusing categories" in Cat guidelines ("Pages (and sub-categories) should not normally be placed in both a given category, and any of its subcategories or parent categories."
Placement of paragraph: Prior to its loss in 2018, East Island had a relatively high mean elevation of approximately 7.5 feet (2.3 m) above mean high water... that paragraph is within the "Seabirds" section. But the overall thrust of the paragraph is loss of landmass (and loss of habitat). Whole paragraph should probably be in "Geography" section or higher level within "Ecological significance" section.
Sources: capitalization of source titles: Suggest making the titles of all sources use a uniform capitalization scheme (e.g. all Sentence Case; or all Title Case).
Repeating facts: in section "Seabirds": ... by the effects of Hurricane Walaka, a powerful Category 4 storm that struck the atoll in October 2018. The storm's surge and wave action .... This is near the end of the article; but the storm was already explained in detail earlier.
Repeating x3: in Geography section: In October 2018, Hurricane Walaka, a powerful Category 4 storm, passed directly over the atoll. The resulting storm surge and wave action eroded most of East Island, ... That is three times the storm's impact is described, in these three sections:
2018 hurricane and partial submergence
Geography
Seabirds
That's all I have. Offhand, it looks like a decent article; but I wonder if it could benefit from another Peer Review before the FA nomination? Also (just a suggestion) perhaps the nominator is interested in doing a few FA reviews before nominating? That is not required before nominating an article for FA, of course, but it is a great way to learn some of the FA criteria. Noleander (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have the feeling that the lead section rater buries the lede, as they say. You mention the island's destruction, as you call it, well before you explain what happened in 2018. My belief is that you don't leave the reader wondering. I would add something to the lead paragraph to the effect that it was formerly much larger before much of it was washed away in 2018. Something to tip off the reader the island is still there.
Consider saying what it is that a LORAN station does.
And what is the source for the dimensions given in the lead?
Does the inclusion in the Bird Reservation indicate that it was included in the Territory of Hawaii? I would not think it was ever a part of the Kingdom of Hawaii. I just think if possible it could be made clearer when the island became part of Hawaii.
Well, they have to have citations somewhere, either in the lead or mentioned supposed by cites in the body of the article. Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean, do you feel you've done as I suggested or if you haven't, explained why you dont think its a good idea to do as I suggested? Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. I may revisit on other factors if this FAC attracts someone who knows more about the topic area than I do. Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a full review, maybe not. I'll see how much I write.
First off, "endangered" does not need to be italicized in the lede.
This is something I see more with New Zealand-area articles, but is there a local/native name for the East Island? Actually, why is it named East Island anyway, and who named it?
Since you go into more detail about the fauna later, you don't need the binomial names of the monk seal and sea turtle in the history section. And even then you only need to state the binomial names once.
I recommend demoting section "2018 hurricane and partial submergence" to a subsection under History (do not further demote the Recovery subsection though).
Thank you for remembering to use {convert} templates
Link Trig Island please, and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands the first time it's mentioned in the body as well.
Why, under the monk seal subsection, is there a paragraph about Tern Island? Is it really relevant? Also is there any information on the seals more recent than 2019?
Both the seal and sea turtle subsections have "historically" in their opening sentences and the repetition is rather noticeable.
In the second paragraph about turtles, you use the word "capacity" three times. Rephrase, please.
Link tiger shark and italicize binomial name.
Link the algae species. Even if there's currently no articles for them, all extant species are considered probably notable.
As much depth as you go into about the seals, turtles, birds, and algae, there's practically nothing about anything else living there. Crustaceans? Fish? Molluscs? You briefly mention invasive arthropods- has there been any work on removing them (or did the Walaka do that for us)?
@SilverTiger12 I've adressed all concerns other than the name, which I cannot find any reason for anywhere. It was called Turtle Island until fairly recently but I can'y find out why it changed. I'm actively searching for info on more animals as well. MallardTV Talk to me! 22:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to go through every animal species alphabetically and get them to featured article status. Of the first 10 genera, I've got 4 to featured article and 2 more to good article level. The suggestions in the past, from excellent reviewers here and at GAN, have been critical to this success. This one, however, is a challenge. There is very little literature for this genus, and the primary article which this is based on has an addendum published in the International Journal of Zoology and Animal Biology, which some consider an inappropriate source. However, this addendum is absolutely critical to the article. So we will see what you think on the subject, and hopefully some flexibility is allowed as it's just an addendum and not a new research paper! Mattximus (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 5 has a {{predatory publisher}} template next to it. If that's the case, I'd recommend you to remove it from the article and find a replacement, if possible. I cannot find it on Beall's List, therefore it also could be a mistake. I'm not an expert, it just catched my attention. Vacant0(talk • contribs)17:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I couldn't find it on Beall's list either, but a good article reviewer suggested I add it. Please consider the reasoning in my introduction as to why I cannot remove it easily. I removed the tag since it isn't on Baell's list but happy to add it if another user requests it. Mattximus (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked it now and the journal does not appear on Beall's List but its publisher Medwin Publishers does. As I said, this just caught my attention. It's up to you whether you want to keep it or remove it. The source reviewer should determine whether it is acceptable to use this in a FA. Vacant0(talk • contribs)20:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Predatory or otherwise, content in the International Journal of Zoology and Animal Biology is licensed under CC-by-4.0, so you could upload the images for use in this article. I checked to see if the other sources were and noticed there is a problem with the DOI and PMID for Amin et al 2021. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great suggestion! I've uploaded all pictures from the paper and added two of them to the page. Captions could use a once over. As for the DOI, another user said the same thing, but I checked and the DOI is accurate to the paper. I'm confused but clearly you are correct. I'll keep exploring why the discrepancy. Mattximus (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus - What's your case to be made for that paper published in a predatory journal to be a high-quality RS? Is there any WP:USEBYOTHERS occurring here? Since FAC requires high-quality RS, not the best sourcing available on a topic, if this paper isn't a high-quality RS then this FAC nomination is a non-starter. Given the extent of reliance on this source, I really think this is something that should be determined as early in the FAC process for this article as possible. Hog FarmTalk00:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point. I will try to argue it's use in this case. First, there is no other source. Even though it's not on Beall's list, I also don't like using low-quality papers, but in this case I have no choice. Second, it's not a new study, it's an addendum to another study by the same authors that was published in a reputable paper (which I cite). I can assume they used the same methods. It does add a critical piece of information that the article needs to be featured. But the judgement on this lies with my peers. Mattximus (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reference section is strong with good peer-reviewed journals. I prefer to separate the references and use the sfn template as I find it easier to check the sources as I only have to look at a single page to check the validity of a claim but I believe the structure used in the article is fully compliant with what is needed.
Suggest extending the lead. It is currently only 190 words so there is space to extend it so that it meets the MOS:LEAD requirement that it "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Areas to look at may include:
summarising its taxonomical relationships.
including the naming authority and date of first description.
highlighting the distinctive or novel aspects. Was it the first genus in its group found in mammals? If so, it would be good to have that clearly stated early on. For example, would it be appropriate to include a second sentence like "It is the first genus in its family known to infect mammals rather than birds, and its discovery has implications for acanthocephalan taxonomy and evolution."
There are a few layout changes I suggest it could be worth looking at. For example, the sentence starting "The proboscis has a truncated cone shape" is very long while the paragraph starting "The organism has no neck" is very short.
Suggest separating Discovery and research history from Taxonomy as its own section.
I think these two go together as, in this case, the research is the taxonomy, it's essentially a catch and label study. No physiology or any experiments were conducted which would have constituted a research history. Mattximus (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest separating Ecology and life cycle as its own section.
I would have to respectfully disagree on this one as the life cycle is the ecology. It's entire environment is the host itself, so it doesn't really have any meaningful existence or ecological interaction with other species outside of a host (apart form an egg in poop, but even then it's the host's poop). Mattximus (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest it may be worth including a Phylogeny section to explain the evolutionary importance of the genus in more detail. For example, it there any information in the literature on whether the lack of a neck neck and the suspended proboscis receptacle are evolutionary innovations tied to its parasitic lifestyle in mammals?
This is an excellent suggestion and I can say with confidence that there is no evolutionary explanation in published literature related to this feature in this genus. There is a paper about evolutionary adaptation in the class it is in, but not about the suspended proboscis receptacle which is a trait of this genus, just the general proboscis architecture in this class. Mattximus (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The grammar is mostly excellent, with only a small number of changes I can see. For example, the sentence that starts with "I. sanghae infests the black-bellied pangolin" contains multiple close repetitions of the previous sentence.
There is good parenthetical explanations of terms, such as lemnisci and proboscis. Is there a reason that monotypic is not explained?
I added to the sentence the name of the only species and how it is by definition the type species. This should allow the reader to infer the definition of monotypic? Let me know if this works. Mattximus (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest it may be also mentioning the conservation status of the worm's pangolin hosts and whether that has any impact on the long-time viability of the genus.
I agree with your suggestion, but I do not know how to incorporate this statement without a source and not run afoul of WP:OR. If you have a suggestion I'm very happy to incorporate it, I think it's a good addition. Mattximus (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything in the conservation literature, such as Bernáthová et al 2024[29], Heighton & Gaubert 2021[30], or Olufemi & Sodeinde 20q5[31], although I do not believe any of them mention the parasite directly. simongraham (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing mentioning the parasite itself sadly, but of course we can infer, however what if another species can also be infested? This we do not know, so it remains speculation to include this I believe. Mattximus (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: That looks excellent. I am extremely happy to support this article, based on others being happy that the article does not require a peer review and that a source check passes. simongraham (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More than three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read this through a few times on different days and unfortunately I keep coming to the same conclusion: that this fails WP:FACR 1a: "prose is engaging". WP:MTAU says Wikipedia articles should be written for the widest possible general audience and Articles should be written in encyclopedic style, which differs from the technically dense style found in scholarly writing aimed at specialists. This feels like it's written at a level which would be appropriate for a graduate-level course in parasitology. I'm not a taxonomist or zoologist by training, but I am familiar with the fields. If I'm finding much of this an uphill slog, I would imagine most of our "widest possible general audience" will be unable to make any progress at all.
Normally I start out this sort of review with a list of technical terms I've found which need some kind of in-line explanation. I could do that here, but the core problem is the overall style of writing. For example
The discovery of a parareceptacle structure in Archiacanthocephala is novel, representing an important taxonomic and evolutionary discovery that bridges understanding between different acanthocephalan groups.[1]
or this sentence:
The reproductive system is compact but well-developed, featuring a round uterine vesicle (a sac involved in egg storage and transport that is 387 μm long x 322 μm wide) with anterior and lateral lobes encircled by complex uterine tubules and connected to a tubular structure, a large uterine bell (a funnel-like opening continuous with the uterus for directing eggs) that lacks the glandular structures typically found in related species, and a terminal gonopore (external opening for reproductive discharge).
The definitions you see in the second example were added to help make it more accessible. Unfortunately or not, it's a technical article and is written in the style of the other featured article nominations for this phyla. There unfortunately isn't much in the literature that isn't of technical nature, as all that is known about them is only one or two published scientific papers. Since we can't do WP:OR, we are stuck using only technical information. I can, however, clarify any technical jargon I failed to link or explain. If you'd be kind enough to point to terms that remain obscure, I will add definitions or links. Mattximus (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a little break I am back at FAC with yet another article on a season in the history of Gillingham F.C. For this one we step back just over 90 years, to a season which included what has been called the darkest day in the club's history, when one of the team's players actually died of an injury sustained during a game. Any feedback will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - sadly I don't think so. If I read that template correctly, it would need to have been PD in the UK as of 1/1/96 and I don't believe it was because, according to our article on the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, "Essentially, the 1988 Act and amendment establishes that copyright in most works lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator if known, otherwise 70 years after the work was created or published". So I guess on that basis, I have to remove the image.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a nit-pick for now. In note b, you say "Brown lists Baldwin as the scorer". I don't know that we all check the references as we read, so perhaps "The club historian, Tony Brown, ... " Jimfbleak - talk to me?15:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did wonder with the two cup competitions whether the single-row tables added anything to the text, but I guess it's a standard format, so happy to SupportJimfbleak - talk to me?08:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"a run of ten games in which Gillingham alternated defeat away from home and victory at Priestfield Road" -> I might suggest "a run in which Gillingham alternated between away defeats and home victories over ten games" for clarity
"after playing only 14 games in a Gillingham shirt" -> "after just 14 appearances for Gillingham" for concision
Strongly disagree when the currently using match details is used, and considering FAR for the other FA using this detail description method. Dropped into neutrality when opponent information being omitted, violating WP:FANCRUFT. Detailed discussion opened a month before this nomination submitted, but no general response. KyleRGiggs (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand at all what "when the currently using match details is used" means. What are you saying the issue is? This article follows the exact same format as nearly 40 other articles on Gillingham seasons which have been promoted to FA without any issue as well as other FAs and GAs such as 1926–27 Cardiff City F.C. season -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that you have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Season article task_force (a seemingly little-visited page (only two previous edits in 2025)) in which you basically insinuate that you will attempt to delist every club season FA because you don't agree with the formatting which is used in every single one of them. Nobody at that talk page appears to agree with you. @FAC coordinators: , I would respectfully request that this opposition be disregarded -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about football article, just basically WP:FACR. The result list does not comply with neutral nature. I even don't understand why current policy guidelines could be accepted when failing the criteria for a featured article. @FAC coordinators: , I would respectfully request that a guideline review for the football club season article to be reviewed. KyleRGiggs (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"After winning four times between August and December," four times in how many games? Giving the total number of games played in this time period will help contextualise how badly they were playing.
I think the December paragraph is too long and has too much information about each individual match (except the December 1 match, that information is a good length for the subsequent death of the player). I am not sure if we need the scores of each match, as information that they lost every match is sufficient and I don't read any notable events from any of those matches. Also, as a reader I am more likely to go to the "results" table to find a score of a specific match than read the prose.
I think some information can also be trimmed from the April paragraph as it is also quite large. I would keep notable information about specific matches (such as "It was the final Gillingham appearance for George Kidd,[18] who was transferred to Luton days later.") and remove specific, non-notable details about a match (like "Clapton Orient twice took the lead only for Gillingham to quickly equalise each time and the game finished 2–2".)
The "Aftermath" section seems to be more about the aftermath of subsequent seasons, not this one. I would expect a paragraph about what happened in the post-1934-1935 off-season: were any players let go? Were any players signed onto the club to improve noted deficiencies? Any changes to the managerial team (and were any non-changes notable or surprising)?
I added some detail of players who left and arrived. There was no change of manager (as the article notes, he was in post until 1937) and I can't find any source that expressed any views on this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add an image of Sim Raleigh beside the paragraph that mentions his death: his article has a not-great image of him so I don't think it's mandatory to include.
Infobox check: no concerns. The kit does show black shin guards/socks which are not mentioned in the article: if there's a source that can verify this information it might be worth adding to the article. If not, I don't think its a big deal.
Support. Forgot to mention above that I made some copyedits to the article while I was reading that can be reverted if not helpful. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In line with the other articles, there's a mix of books and contemporary news reporting; both of these are acceptable for the information they are supporting
This article is about... Bruce Springsteen's seminal 1984 album Born in the U.S.A.. A collection of songs about the American Dream, working-class struggles, and even some humor, this was a defining '80s record — one that some still think is tied a little too closely to the '80s. Nevertheless, somewhat dated production aside, this is one of Springsteen's best, and one whose massive success shaped his career path for the rest of the '80s into the '90s. This was a collaboration with Moisejp and we believe it is finally ready for the star. We are looking forward to any comments and concerns. – zmbro(talk) (cont)14:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have been half-following the article since the expansion in January, and reread about two-thirds tonight. Impressions are that it's extremely comprehensive and well researched, the sources are first rank for the topic, the writing is crisp and clear, and without having spot-checked, the claims ring through from the bios have read over the years; also I know how diligent the nominator and Moisejp are in fact checking. This is a placeholder until have more time to think through; only two gripes for now:
In places we get too deep into the weeds eg what is a "true music video"...do we need "The video for "Dancing in the Dark", Springsteen's first true music video|[then in the notes]...Springsteen's first actual music video, for Nebraska's "Atlantic City", did not feature Springsteen himself, instead featuring black-and-white footage of Atlantic City life shot by Arnold Levine".
Thanks, Ceoil. I've trimmed the discussion of the "Dancing in the Dark" video, including removing mention of the "Atlantic City" video, and the "I'm on Fire" video. Moisejp (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is some overciting, with several statements followed with four to five references.
I've trimmed most places to have no more than three citations, and I trimmed to two for a couple of spots that seemed especially uncontroversial (e.g., release data of album). But:
""Glory Days" is an energetic synth-rock song that follows a protagonist speaking with old high-school classmates – a former baseball star and a popular girl now divorced with two kids – in a bar reflecting on the "glory days" of their youth with sadness." I don't have access to two or three of the sources. Zmbro, is this one you could look at and see if any citations seem superfluous?
"Not all reviews were positive, with several crits highlighting the use of similar lyrical themes as prior albums." I felt perhaps four citations is justifiable here, but Ceoil and Zmbro, do you disagree?
Yes, meant to clarify, in statements like that, the amount of citations is necessary to avoid a "list of critics". Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few "Attributable to multiple sources" instances in the Notes. I think I might have seen that Ceoil you mentioned this in a previous FAC of Zmbro's, but I didn't go back and see how you two resolved this. Did you reach consensus about the best way to handle these? Moisejp (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, would avoid breaking up readability with ref clutter by restating "Born in the U.S.A. is a rock and roll, heartland rock,[99] and pop album,[51][100] with elements of folk and rockabilly.[101] as — "Born in the U.S.A. is a rock and roll, heartland rock and pop album, with elements of folk and rockabilly.[51][97][98][99][100][101] and then reduce the refs as much as possible from there. At least one of the refs used has mention more than one influence; my instinct is that the more refs the more dubious the claim. This is an example only.Ceoil (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As another example...."In February,[72] Landau felt the album was still missing a lead single that would introduce Springsteen to a new pop audience. After an initial disagreement about the need for another song, Springsteen came in the next day with "Dancing in the Dark" written;[78][79][80] it was recorded shortly after.[81]" — The flow of the sentence is broken up by the citations, why is "February" cited before Landau; the cites are anyway too numerous unless there is disagreement.Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Givng the line up of the E street band in the sentence "He "intended" to rerecord the tracks with the E Street Band – Roy Bittan (piano), Clarence Clemons (saxophone), Danny Federici (organ), Garry Tallent (bass), Steven Van Zandt (guitar), and Max Weinberg (drums) " seems weak given ye are mentioning them in the context of songs (its implied but not said) they were not part of.Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceoil, I've addressed this one by delaying listing the band members, and mention of the Power Station, until later—see what you think. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(When I was trying to make the edit above, it said there was an edit conflict, and I thought I was doing the right procedure to cede the other person's edit, but I don't see anybody else's edit here. Apologies if I somehow overrode another person's edit.) Moisejp (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Contrasting with the album's livelier sound, Born in the U.S.A. continues several of the lyrical themes from Springsteen's previous records, particularly Nebraska.[102][103]" - this seems confused - maybe cut or rephrase "Contrasting with the album's livelier sound"
As a more general comment, the overview paragraphs to the "Music and lyrics" section are mainly quotes from music critics and are insufficiently synthesised. They don't say anything about the substance of the music and lyrics themselves, more what critics thought of them. Are there more analytical book-type sources that could be used for better insight. For eg we get that BITUSA "continues several of the lyrical themes from Springsteen's previous records, particularly Nebraska" and ""filtered the dystopian gloom of the Nebraska songs into the living world of love, work, and the hobbled pursuit of happiness", without being told, for those not seepend in Springsteen lore, what those overriding themes actually are. I would cut the quotes and structure the introductory paragraph much more generally: as if the reader had never heard Springsteen before. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ceoil. Mini-update that I'm in the middle of trying to rework the second paragraph of "Music and lyrics" (offline for now) to remove the quotes and better synthesize the themes for the reader who may not be very familiar with Springsteen, as you suggest. Hopefully will have something to show in the next few days. :) Moisejp (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is my stab at rewriting this paragraph, is it more accessible than before? If it's even somewhat of an improvement, we can use it as a starting point for hopefully further improvements. I paraphrased just about all the quotes but ran out of paraphrasing steam right near the end. ;-) Moisejp (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It reads very well. But wonder if the paragraph "The album still attracts mixed assessments" is warranted as it doesn't strike me as true and reeks of a "on the one hand" false balance. Tbh would delete this whole perhaps cherry-picked paragraph given that the overwhelming positive consensus seems to be increasing with age (saying this as an ex-punk that intensely disliked the album at the time). Ceoil (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's beneficial to keep it because it can't be entirely one-sided. Moisejp and I discussed this before we nominated. The material may seem cherry-picked, but it's really all we could find within reliable sources, and you should at least try to have both sides represented so there isn't an WP:UNDUE situation. – zmbro(talk) (cont)21:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was also going to reply that it would seem quite radical in an FA candidate to only mention positive appraisal. I'd be very hesitant to remove the paragraph unless there was clear consensus from all reviewers. Moisejp (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Outakes" section makes for hard reading and is basically a list. Could do with expansion and converting to prose to make a wider point on how prolific he was at the time, as well as his songwriting and self-editing technique. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zmbro, do you have a source that explicitly makes the point how prolific this level of output was? I was thinking Marsh described it as such, but just now when I looked, I couldn't find it. That would be a start to addressing Ceoil's concerns. Ceoil, could you expand a bit on what you hope for regarding "his songwriting and self-editing technique"? Also, you found the section list-y but I'd argue that myself as a fan of the artist and album, this is the kind of detail I'm interested in (this outtake was released here, this other outtake there)—but would this detail work better for you in a footnote as opposed to the main body of the text? Moisejp (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can recall. I can check tomorrow but Moisejp is right, Springsteen's level of output is noteworthy, especially for this album. All outtakes were mentioned on all of my previous Springsteen FAs, and they should also be mentioned here. – zmbro(talk) (cont)02:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The recording sessions yielded between 70 and 90 songs; some were released as B-sides, others saw release on compilation albums, while a number remain unreleased. mmm not sure if this is lede-worthy..
I would argue it is. I'm sure Moisejp would say the same.
To butt in, think this is lead worthy as gives good insight into his prolificacy at the time, which maybe the article could better cover. Ceoil (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The iconic cover photograph of Springsteen true that, but this wording can steer towards POV-ish..
Removed iconic
But the cover is iconic, it was photographed by the high brow and legendary Annie Leibovitz, a print is in the MoMA[32] and Rolling Stone named the sleve as one of the 100 best ever [33] with the great quote from Bruce "In the end, the picture of my ass looked better than the picture of my face...so that’s what went on the cover.” Not seeing POV here. Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
best album covers ever
Done
It was a massive commercial success POV
Removed massive
"massive" might not be the right word (maybe worldwide commercial success) or something; it has sold + 30 million copies to date, so "it was a commercial success" seems to massively understate.
Maybe this could be better connected to the next raised point below, and "massive" and "best-selling album of 1985" or even of the 1980s- could be merged. Ceoil (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the best-selling album of 1985 is this worldwide/in the US/Anglosphere etc.?
Worldwide I believe
Suggest adding year for the tour
Added
Formatting: suggest italicising (or de-italicising otherwise) in ref titles and templates per MOS:CONFORMTITLE
Should be fixed
Suggest bundling up harv references using {{sfnm}} for readability
I don't think that's entirely necessary. Groups of 4 or more are already bundled into notes and 2 or 3 shouldn't affect readability too much. – zmbro(talk) (cont)15:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Springsteen himself did not promote the album
Done
Springsteen and his guitar tech Mike Batlan could you elaborate on "guitar tech"? I'm not sure what that means..
I'm not sure if autobiographies can be used as a source, but I'll leave this to the ref reviewer.
They most certainly can be, they just constitute WP:PRIMARY
Born in the U.S.A. is a rock and roll, heartland rock, and pop album, with elements of folk and rockabilly.[h] I think the refs can be attached directly to the next without being relegated into a footnote, for readability
"slamming" guitars, "massive" drums, and "front-and-center" vocals. can these be paraphrased?
Link rockabilly in its first instance and de-link the rest
Done
the rock photographer Annie Leibovitz mmm I'm not sure if Leibovitz is a "rock photographer", maybe "portrait photographer"?
Changed
Not something serious, but I myself try not to use "respectively" per WP:RESPECTIVELY
As the tour has its own article, I would trim down the "Tour" section... for example, probably the bit about Springsteen recording "We are the World" is irrelevant to this article, as are the details on every leg where a summary could do.
My main issue with substantial trimming is the fact that the Tour article itself is in poor shape and does not have many of the points that are listed here. I'd love to get Moisejp's opinion on this but I'd assume he'd agree. Although the "We are the World" bit probably could be cut out... – zmbro(talk) (cont)20:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I skimmed the section a day or two ago, nothing besides "We Are the World" jumped out at me as being a clear candidate to cut. I've got to go out now, but I'll try to have a more careful look later today or tomorrow, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ippantekina, thanks so much for your comments throughout the article! About this point about the tour, how strongly do you feel it should be trimmed? Like Zmbro, I'd personally rather keep this good content alongside other good content (i.e., in the album article) rather than moving it to an article in somewhat poor shape (the tour article). I'm actually even partial to keeping the one "We Are the World" sentence. That said, if you feel especially strongly that the section in the album article should be trimmed, possibly we could work out some bits to move. Moisejp (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #96 [Scott, Rogert; Humphries, Patrick (2013).] why is this not formatted using {{sfn}} as with the other book sources?
As you can see, most of my comments are nitpick-y, and the rest of the prose reads extremely well and engaging. In my opinion, this album is fine... and as a non-American I find it hilarious that TikToks of families vibing to the title track keep circulating every 4th of July. I do have to agree with several critics that its sound is extremely 1980s-dated, although certain tracks remain my guilty pleasure maybe for a week or two each year, like "Dancing in the Dark". Happy to support once my points are addressed! :) Ippantekina (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is certainly my era and I went to a couple of the concerts (one of the Philly Spectrum dates and one of the Giants Stadium dates the following year).
"the bedroom of his Colts Neck home between December 17 1981 and January 3 1982" maybe "house" for "home". And why no commas in dates? What does MOS say about this?
"According to the author Dave Marsh," Some reason for the "the"? A false title would be OK.
"although Springsteen added electronic textures he retrained his rock and roll roots" Should retrained be retained?
You fully introduce Julianne Phillips in the music video section and then do it again in Tour.
"East Rutherford" That's pretty borderline for not needing a link or state name or both.
"Nebraska...I never got it." Is this the proper spacing for an ellipsis?
Thanks so much for your review, Wehwalt! That's cool that you attended two of the shows. I have fixed everything above except for the "the" one. It seems there are two camps on Wikipedia with sometimes strong opinions about whether "the" is more correct/natural in these situations. I'm personally in the no "the" camp, but I believe Zmbro is strongly in the "the" camp. Zmbro did most of the writing in this article, with I believe "the" used consistently throughout, and so I prefer to cede to Zmbro here. Thank you! Moisejp (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. I had wanted to go to the earlier shows he did in NJ to open the arena but tickets were tough and transportation a problem. I was at school in Philly in 1984, so I could just take the subway, and by the Giants Stadium shows in 1985, I had a car. Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the first Chinese-made feature-length film. Produced by a group of students in Shanghai, the film was based on a scandalous murder that captivated the minds of the Shanghainese. Although it is no longer extant, there is sufficient scholarship on the film to provide a very detailed look at it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pass on image review; images are relevant, properly tagged, and have alt-text.
Prose:
Lede good. Perhaps gloss verisimilitude? I would also add the approximate runtime to either the infobox or the lede.
I've piped verisimilitude to "accuracy to real life" with a link. As for the run time, I've included (approx. 100 to 120 minutes) in the infobox, as per Wei. Unfortunately, the nature of early cinema means that a more accurate length is not something that can be guaranteed. Reels could be up to fifteen minutes for silent films, but varied in length; The Chinese Motion Picture Market (1927, page 5) notes, for example, that productions by The Commercial Press had reels of lengths that varied from 200 feet to 1,000 feet. That's part of the reason reels are standard for early cinema. I've linked reels to Reel#Motion_picture_terminology to make it more intuitive. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Xiaolin Daiyu also a courtesan? Should be introduced as such if so.
In historical record, yes. Unfortunately, as the film is lost, it cannot be confirmed with a viewing; the summary by Zhang only says "Wang's friend, Xiaolin Daiyu". Zhang doesn't cite the source for this summary; it could be historical record (assuming that "verisimilitude" didn't include any sort of magical realism like in some of the stageplays), or it could be a short summary distributed to promote the film (说明书, shuomingshu) like this one for Heroine Li Feifei. Although this could be a WP:BLUE situation, WP:REF would consider assuming she was a courtesan in the film to be OR. As a compromise, I've added {{further}} and directed it to Murder of Wang Lianying#Murder to provide a more detailed summary of the crime itself. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You link Shanghai in the lead, but not in the body.
Interesting it was shown in Taiwan; not really relevant to the article but it'd be cool to see how Taiwanese (under Japanese rule) cinema and mainland Chinese cinema interacted.
I know, eh? Lee's discussion of the Eraku-Za/Yongle Theatre provides some general context that is really interesting, including the fact that Taiwanese viewers generally didn't appreciate early mainland Chinese cinema and that the copy of Yan Ruisheng used secondhand reels (so previously screened elsewhere, likely Amoy given that's where the consortium was based)... honestly there's probably enough information on the cinema for an article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made some copyedits while reading: feel free to revert if not helpful.
Optional: "Initially, the filmmakers considered hiring cast members from existing stage productions. Ultimately, they decided to cast amateurs." -> "The filmmakers initially considered hiring cast members from existing stage productions, but ultimately decided to cast amateurs." To eliminate some commas
Optional "The Commercial Press's filmmaking division also made available to the crew its indoor studio." -> "The Commercial Press's filmmaking division also made its indoor studio available to the crew." I think this sounds better, but I'm OK if other disagree.
"In this, they were aided not only by the extensive coverage of the court case, but also their own personal familiarity with the culprit." -> "In this, they were aided by the extensive coverage of the court case and their own personal familiarity with the culprit." To tighten up the language
"The most expensive balcony seats were reserved prior to the premiere, and per-day revenues reached 1,300 yuan (¥126,095 in 2019) per day." delete one of the "per day" mentions?
"the earliest Chinese film known to have survived in its entirety – the short Labourer's Love (1922) – was produced the following year." This feels off topic and I think it can be removed from this article.
I must clarify that I don't know enough about purely Chinese sources to judge their reliability. I'd say " Shanghai Chronicles" supports that it was almost 9800 prostitutes in 1915 not 9700. Otherwise, it seems reliable and consistently formatted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... The final and possibly most controversial film of Soviet director Sergei Eisenstein. Ivan the Terrible has a history that is possibly more interesting than the film itself. Commissioned on behalf of Joseph Stalin as a sort of hagiography of the Russian tsar, the film's production was troubled by the onset of World War II in the USSR; the first part received a Stalin Prize, the second part was banned just weeks later and would only be released years after Eisenstein's death, and Eisenstein died before ever completing the third part. It's made its way onto some "Greatest of All Time" lists and even onto one "Worst of All Time" list.
Hello Jaguarnik. I'm glad to see this article at FAC. I'll have time to take a look over the article on the first or second of August, but I'll likely stick to reviewing the references; I hope more experienced reviewers can improve on my GA prose review. Kind regards, Pagliaccious (talk)11:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Em dashes are not spaced—as the one in this sentence is not. See WP:EMDASH.
removed the spaces.
Sentences like "A biopic starring Nikolay Cherkasov as Ivan IV of Russia, the film chronicles [...]"—where the subject of the sentence comes directly after some information about it and a comma and is then followed by the rest of the sentence—look out of place in encyclopedic writing, being more reminiscent of the style used by e.g. newspapers. It's not necessarily wrong, but should be used sparingly if at all to maintain WP:Encyclopedic style and tone.
Since the article already classifies the film as a historical drama, I removed the label of biopic and rephrased the beginning of the sentence as "The film chronicles the reign of 16th-century Russian tsar Ivan IV (Nikolay Cherkasov) [...]". The rest of the sentence remains the same.
There are some places where the full or abbreviated title of the film (i.e. "Ivan the Terrible" or "Ivan") should have italics, but does not.
Went through the article and added italics where appropriate.
On a similar note: if the article says "Part I" (or "Part II") with a capital "P", I would take that as an abbreviation of the full title and render it as Part I (or Part II) in italics. This does not apply to phrasings like "the first part" (a descriptive phrase).
Likewise, I've added italics.
The article is not consistent when it comes to the capitalization or not of "Tsar"/"tsar".
Lead
Is Prokofiev making the music really such an important aspect (going by coverage in the sources) that it warrants mentioning in the very first sentence of the lead?
I suppose not. I've moved it to the end of the introductory paragraph. Let me know if the wording seems fine.
"a two-part Soviet epichistorical drama film written and directed by Sergei Eisenstein" – per MOS:FILMGENRE, the first sentence should state "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". Do sources call it an "epic historical drama" with that specific triple descriptor? If they do not (as I suspect they do not), this needs to be changed to the single genre that best reflects the sources ("Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources.").
Changed to simply "historical drama"; I think out of the two labels, "historical drama" gives the most information to the reader.
"Eisenstein had planned to finish Parts I and II of the film by summer 1944, but due to delays in production, completed only Part I by 1944. Part I was released in 1945 and received a Stalin Prize. Part II was completed in 1946 [...] Eisenstein had planned three parts for the film, but with the banning of Part II, filming of Part III was abandoned." – this leaves me wondering how far along Part II was by 1944 when Part I was finished. Had it begun filming? Had it finished filming? This information is in the body, and it should be possible to very briefly state it here.
added "but production delays meant only Part I and partial principal photography of part II was completed by 1944.", although this does seem to me a bit awkward.
"Eisenstein had planned three parts for the film, but with the banning of Part II, filming of Part III was abandoned." – if I understand the body correctly, filming had begun and was ended prematurely (as opposed to being planned and never started). See if you can't phrase this in a way that makes this clear.
Rephrased as "Eisenstein intended for Ivan the Terrible to be a three-part film, and had begun filming for Part III, but abandoned production of Part III after the ban of Part II."
"The visuals and scope of the film have received praise; reception of other aspects of the film, such as the acting and plot, is mixed" – "has been mixed" would better match the tense in the first part of the sentence.
Fixed.
The infobox says "Part 1" and "Part 2" in one spot. The rest of the article says "Part I" and "Part II" with roman numerals, so this should be made consistent.
Fixed.
I'm not entirely sure how well the final paragraph reflects the body, but this will need to be reevaluated once my comments about the body have been addressed.
Plot
"amid animosity from the boyars" – link and gloss boyars.
"He sends for his old friend, Kolychov. Alexei Basmanov suggests that he instead surround himself with men he can really trust, the oprichniki. He offers Fyodor in service to him as the first oprichnik." – given that Kolychov here is Fyodor Kolychov, the last sentence should be clearer that Alexei Basmanov offers his son Fyodor Basmanov in service to Ivan, lest the reader confuse one Fyodor for another. I did get that right, didn't I?
"Ivan declares the establishment of the zemshchina and oprichnina" – gloss.
"Ivan, lacking allies, asks him to become metropolitan of Moscow." – should probably clarify that this is an ecclesiastical position.
"Shuiskiy and Belskiy, both of which wanted him to sign a trade contract with the Livonian Knights and the Hanseatic League, respectively" – both or respectively?
"The first option was about Lawrence of Arabia, and the other was about the Beilis affair. Additionally, Eisenstein had in mind a film about Pushkin." – all three of these things should be glossed. Lawrence might for instance be glossed as "British World War I officer".
glossed Lawrence of Arabia and added a brief description of the Beilis affair.
"Eisenstein met with Andrei Zhdanov, who instead commissioned on Stalin's behalf a film about Ivan the Terrible." – I feel like this, too, should be glossed. I might also suggest mentioning here that Ivan IV of Russia was known as Ivan the Terrible; the two ways of referring to him are used interchangeably throughout, so this would be good to establish early on.
Glossed Zhdanov and added for Ivan IV "commonly known by his epithet "the Terrible"".
Unfortunately, that source (Perrie) only says "An official campaign to promote a positive image of Ivan the Terrible was launched in the winter of 1940–1, with the commissioning of a play from Aleksei Tolstoi and a film from Sergei Eisenstein." I could remove this sentence to avoid this problem, but I'd rather not. I'll say simply "1940", although that could have readers wondering when exactly in 1940, but I don't see an alternative.
Oh. "The winter of 1940" (in the Northern hemisphere) is generally understood as the winter of 1939–1940, for future reference. I think "the winter of 1940–1941" should be fine, since it is unambiguous (it could only refer to the winter in the Northern hemisphere). TompaDompa (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
"An official campaign to commission works of art depicting Ivan the Terrible in a positive light was launched in the winter of 1940; at the same time as the commission of Eisenstein's film, a play about Ivan was commissioned, to be written by Alexey Nikolayevich Tolstoy, and several operas about Ivan were in the works, however, the operas would be abandoned following the invasion of the USSR that year." – the invasion was not in 1940 but 1941, as correctly stated later in this section. This is also a rather lengthy sentence, and it might be better to split it.
That's a very silly mistake I made! In an earlier version I had written about an opera about Ivan the Terrible being prepared in May 1941. I removed that sentence, but forgot to remove the "of that year". Fixed, and I split the sentences.
New comment: "However, the operas would be abandoned following the German invasion of the USSR in 1941." – this is a relatively clunky use of the "would" construction (there is an essay about it called WP:INTOTHEWOULDS, if you are interested; personally, I take a more moderate stance on the issue than the essay does), and it would be better to rephrase the sentence. "However" also seems a bit clunky, for that matter.TompaDompa (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was an edit made in a copyedit by another editor. I've changed it to "were" and removed "However."
"Eisenstein submitted the first draft of the screenplay to Mosfilm in May 1941." – Mosfilm should be linked and glossed.
Mosfilm is mentioned in the infobox as one of the studios that produced the film, but I'll gloss and link it anyway.
"Bolshakov requested that he remove the scenes with the English, due to historical inaccuracy, with which Eisenstein complied, although he shot the scenes anyway." – this is a bit awkwardly phrased. Also, did he comply in the sense that he removed the scenes from the script, the finished film, or both?
Sources seem to indicate that he removed them from the script, although they're not very clear. Added specifics.
"Mosfilm evacuated most of their actors and professionals" – See if you can't rephrase this in a way that doesn't imply that actors aren't professionals.
The sources say "the Moscow and Leningrad film studios were evacuated to Alma-Ata", however, this is a bit vague, as there were multiple film studios in each city, and the reader doesn't really need to know that the Leningrad film studios were evacuated. So I've cut it to just "Mosfilm was evacuated to Alma Ata". Hopefully this sounds alright.
This section mentions the political considerations a bit. I seem to recall there being somewhat similar political considerations regarding Eisenstein's previous film Alexander Nevsky (1938). Do the sources compare the two in this regard?
I'll look through the sources. I believe Alexander Nevsky has been mentioned by the sources in a similar context, but I would need to look.
Summarizing what Perrie 2001 gives me: the historical figure Alexander Nevsky was reassessed in a much more positive light for halting the eastern movement of the German nations in the Battle of the Ice, and was used as a contemporary analogy (World War II and the fight against the Germans). The film was commissioned as a "parable of anti-German militarism" (quoting directly from Perrie). Similar thing happens in Ivan, with certain parts of the plot written to represent the fight against the Germans. I also read something interesting, that Eisenstein meant the battle against the Kazan Tatars in Part I of Ivan to represent the fight against Japanese (same thing for the fight against the Tatars of the Golden Horde in Nevsky), but this analogy backfired, because Tatarstan was a "fraternal republic". I think both pieces of information could enrich the article.
"Casting for the film began in spring of 1942." – again, MOS:SEASON.
Changed to "early 1942".
"makeup artist Vasily Goriunov used adhesive to glue back the flesh on Cherkasov's face." – to me, "glue back the flesh" suggests re-attaching it. I'm guessing this was something more like stretching the skin to get rid of wrinkles?
Correct, he pulled back the skin to get rid of wrinkles. I've changed the wording to "pulled back" instead of "glue back".
"as he felt that the most important part of a shot was the "living" actor, while Eisenstein focused primarily on lineal form" – I daresay most people reading this will not understand what is meant.
I could remove it entirely, the important part is that Kuznetsov and Eisenstein clashed over how the role of Fyodor Basmanov should be performed.
"an adaptation of Boris Godunov" – should be in italics.
Done.
"Eisenstein had worked exclusively with cinematographer Eduard Tisse for most of his features" – "exclusively [...] for most"?
Oops. I had planned to fix that. It's fixed now.
New comment: "Since 1924, Eisenstein had worked exclusively with cinematographer Eduard Tisse for his features." – I gather that's "features" in the sense of "feature films" (as opposed to short films). The noun "feature" should not be used in this sense in a general-purpose encyclopaedia like Wikipedia—use "feature film" instead.TompaDompa (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected.
"Eisenstein had planned to finish the film by summer 1944" – again, MOS:SEASON.
Modified to just "1944".
"Production of the film was transferred to Moscow." – how come?
"Shooting was completed in autumn 1945." – again, MOS:SEASON.
Because sources don't mention exactly when the shooting was complete (beyond "autumn"), I've modified to just "completed that year".
None of the sources give Eisenstein's personal reasoning for choosing Romm to play Elizabeth, although two sources speculate that it was to emphasize the blurring of gender roles. One source in Russian, Kushnirov, compares the "masculine" Elizabeth to other masculine female characters in Eisenstein's films, such as Yefrosinya in Ivan and Vaska's mother in Alexander Nevsky. Another source, Neuberger (2019), also discusses the blurring of gender roles, comparing the masculine Elizabeth with the feminine Sigismund. However, I cannot find anything discussing Eisenstein's own reasoning.
I would add something (brief) about the speculation, then. I reckon that other readers will be curious about it just as I was. TompaDompa (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should I add it in the section "Gender and homoeroticism"? I think such speculation would fit there.
The first and third paragraphs are overly heavy on verbatim quotes.
"Part I has been seen by critics as supportive of the ideology, while Part II is seen as more critical." – the use of "critics" in the sense of reviewers/commentators (presumably) is less than ideal here in this particular sentence as it could be interpreted as "detractors" in this context.
"Critics generally agree that Ivan is meant to represent Stalin." – I feel like this should be more upfront. It is, after all, the core tenet of the entire "Ivan as Stalin" subsection.
"the Boyards [sic] bring" – per MOS:SIC, the typo should simply be fixed.
Removing it as part of the removal of too many verbatim quotes.
"Stalin approved of a suggested change to show Ivan winning the Livonian War, although in fact he had been defeated" – was this to have been in Part III?
I'm guessing the negative portrayal of religion was influenced by political considerations. Do the sources comment on these?
Source from Halperin comments that the authorities felt there was too much religion in the film, and that Part II should present "a more complex relationship" between Ivan and the Church one critic felt that Part II should present a more complex relationship between Ivan and the Church, but also that in the 1940s, the Soviet government was softening their policy towards the Church, and that Eisenstein's film contrasts this softening of policy.
I added the context of the Soviet government policy to the article. I may add the context of the criticism of the film later, once I figure out how to properly incorporate it.
"Eisenstein was metaphorically killing his own supposed homosexuality" – this hints at important context that should be stated explicitly, namely that Eisenstein's contemporaries believed him to be homosexual and that he denied this (going by what it says at Sergei Eisenstein#Personal life).
According to Neuberger (2019) he did in fact have relationships with both men and women. I added this.
"Eisenstein believed that adult cruelty was the product of childhood vulnerability and fears, such as the vulnerability suffered by young Ivan. Due to his fear of vulnerability, he kills those closest to him" – here we have "vulnerability" thrice in close succession, which becomes repetitive. It also does not seem like it is necessarily the best word in all three instances?
"The film depicts individual power and an independent Russia as only possible through violence and retaliation." – I'm not sure I quite understand what this is saying. "Retaliation"?
"Daniil Lyakhovich asserts that the portrayal of tyrannical power in Ivan the Terrible is unusual in Soviet film because it is of "glory, bought with blood"." – I'm not sure I quite understand what this is saying. "Unusual [...] because it is of 'glory, bought with blood'"?
Release
"Ivan the Terrible, Part I was screened for the Committee on Cinema Affairs in October 1944. Members of the council were disappointed with the film [...] Council members such as Aleksei Dikiy, Igor Savchenko and Boris Gorbatov" – surely "council" should be "committee" here, no?
"criticized Eisenstein's failure to characterize Ivan as a powerful and accomplished leader." – that it was a failure is an assessment, and as such should not be stated in WP:WikiVoice.
"The quality of the acting and style also was criticized." – I'm guessing the intended meaning is "The acting quality and acting style [...]"? The current phrasing parses as "The acting quality and style quality [...]".
"premiered in Moscow on 16 January 1945" – I see in the explanatory footnote that the date has also been given as 20 January. It is not entirely clear to me why the 16 January date is taken as authoritative here?
"In spite of the objections of the members of the Stalin Prize committee, the film ultimately received the prize on 27 January 1946." – I feel like I'm missing something here. If the committee objected to it, could they not simply decide to not award the prize to the film? Or was the committee split on the issue, with some being in favour and others opposed?
"Such a film about such a Russia, the Kremlin - could serve as fantastic agitation against us." – normalize dash use in the quote per MOS:CONFORM.
"Ivan the Terrible was restored under the direction of Karen Shakhnazarov and presented at the 2015 Cannes Film Festival. In 2021, it was re-released for theaters in select Russian cities." – if this means both parts, that should be clarified.
Reception
The first paragraph here is overly heavy on quotes from critics saying more-or-less the same thing.
"consistently ranked as one of Eisenstein's best films" – this seems a bit dubious. Eisenstein didn't make very many films, so being one of the best isn't saying all that much.
"According to Yuri Tsivian, it has been called "the most complex movie ever made"." – do I understand it correctly that Tsivian quotes somebody else as saying so?
"Contemporary reception, however, was mixed." – I suppose this is meant to summarize the next few paragraphs and as such does not require a separate citation? Even so: if there is a source that makes this point explicitly, it would be good to cite it here.
"The first part was received ambivalently by audiences in the USSR upon release." – the rest of this paragraph gives a different impression, namely that audiences did not like it at all.
Vsevolod Vishnevsky should be glossed, especially since the next sentence reveals that Vishnevsky was able to view Part II in 1947—i.e. before its official release—suggesting a fair amount of importance.
"In the United States, Part I was met coldly by critics. Part II, upon release in 1958, was met with general acclaim." – is the second sentence still referring to the US, specifically?
As much as I complain about the overuse of verbatim quotes, Roger Ebert's pithy "it is one of those works that has proceeded directly to the status of Great Movie without going through the intermediate stage of being a good movie" is a great quote to use; I would say that this is roughly the threshold for when a verbatim quote is preferable to paraphrasing.
The Sight and Sound poll is probably the most prestigious film poll in the world. It is likely that the reader here does not know that and thus does not understand the significance—they are likely to think it roughly on par with a poll in e.g. Empire or [[Variety (magazine)[Variety]].
"It was also included among Harry Medved's The Fifty Worst Films of All Time." – when? That's important context that should definitely be included.
I extensively copyedited the article, mainly trimming verbiage and repetitious wording. It's mostly good, although still in need of polish throughout.
I would strongly recommend reorganising the Reception section to be completely chronological. I don't understand why it begins with multiple quotes repeatedly calling it "complex". There's also little retrospective critical discussion about how the film was influential.
I also think there needs to be a separate subsection that discusses the sets, costumes and maybe makeup; there are some hints as to the visual grandeur of the movie, but it isn't really fleshed out. The Music section can also be expanded, especially since there's a whole article about it, and the composer himself is a great to match Eisenstein.
Since the movie seems to be in public ___domain you should add more screenshots. For example showing the color cinematography etc.—indopug (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The film is in public ___domain in Russia, but it's possible I may need to remove it from the article, because it might not be in public ___domain in the US as I previously thought. As for the influence of the film, unfortunately I was unable to find anything that talks about the film's influence, other than a brief mention that it might have influenced Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev. Most of the sources discussing Eisenstein's influence focus on his theories of montage and Battleship Potemkin, not this film. On the subject of sets, costumes, etc, I haven't had any luck with finding sources that talk in depth about those either, beyond a few anecdotes (for example, Cherkasov's face being glued back to make him look younger.) There are however sources that talk more about the music, so I'll see what I can extract from those.
By the way I really appreciate the copyedit. I still have much to learn and the edits really helped the prose.-Jaguarnik
Looking over this, I am impressed with how this article has improved since its days as GA. Apart from issues mentioned above, I can honestly suppose this being promoted. Great job.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...crowned as the tsar of all Russia... I would mention that he was crowned the first tsar.
A Livonian ambassador... I would link "Livonian" to Livonian Order.
Introduce Alexandrova Sloboda as a town.
In Moscow, Ivan declares the establishment of the zemshchina and oprichnina. Explain it with a few words.
In May 1940, Sergei Eisenstein ... Introduce him with two or three words.
Introduce Maureen Perrie, Viktor Shklovsky, Dwight Macdonald, Thomas Waugh, Kristin Thompson, Ronald Bergan, Efim Levin, Ivan Pyryev, Alexander Dovzhenko, Yuri Tsivian with one or two words.
This article is about a twelve-volume Yiddish encyclopedia that was published over more than thirty years, during which time most of its audience and many of its editors were killed in the Holocaust, and the project transformed from a fairly typical general-purpose encyclopedia to a memorial to prior Jewish life and culture. I'll note that this article relies quite heavily on one author—Barry Trachtenberg—as he is the only scholar to do extensive scholarly analysis of the text; were it not for him, this article would be little more than a stub. I have searched hard and I'm reasonable certain that I have included the sum of scholarly analysis on it. Thank you so much for your time, and I hope you enjoy the article! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Raphael Abramovitch, a socialist politician, → Socialist politician Raphael Abramovitch sounds better to me
I do not think that "regime" should be capitalised in this case.
"was released three years after Abramovitch's death" it would be useful to state the year when he died
Also suggest wikilinking Yiddish in the first sentence. Same goes for the first mention in the body, because I see that it is only wikilinked way down below for some reason.
Introduce Algemeyne Entsiklopedye in "The probeheft, a 36-page soft-cover sample volume of the encyclopedia".
I thought of wikilinking Menshevik but then it could be the case of overlinking (three wikilinks next to each other). What do you think? I'll leave this up to you. (It seems like this is first wikilinked in the History part of the article).
"covering topics alphabetically from alef to Atlantic City" was this also done in Yiddish or English?
Again, antisemitic is mentioned in the second paragraph and isn't wikilinked, while antisemitism is in the third paragraph (this should be removed).
why are volume 3 and 4 paras combined?
There appears to be false titles within the article. At some parts there are none. This should be consistent throughout the article.
I notice that Yidn series do not feature years unlike the Normale series? Is this intentional?
"This would be the fifth and final such volume" → "This was the fifth and final such volume"
"biographies of historical figures such as Henry Ward Beecher and Dieterich Buxtehude was absent" – I think that were absent would be gramatically correct here
I must admit that I really had to cherrypick because I was unable to find any major issues within the article. Overall, good job on the article! Vacant0(talk • contribs)17:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm having a bit of trouble accessing the most cited book (Trachtenberg 2022), so it would be awesome if anyone else able to see it could take a look at some of those, but here is a look at some I could access.
Ref 25: The David Golblat part about Ilustrirte yidishes leksikon checks out, however the book says it was part of an effort in "1912-13"? The text says "A similar attempt in the early 1920s by the South African Yiddish publisher David Goldblatt" so I'm not sure this lines up.
"the encyclopedia's main audience – in the Holocaust," – I would just link "Holocaust" and not the "the" with it.
"After decades of proposals and failed attempts" – The "proposals" bit is unnecessary, I would just go with failed attempts.
Fair. -G
"in the Yiddish press" – I would drop the "the" here.
I don't know, I think it scans better with the "the".
"by the anti-Zionist socialist Ben-Adir." – Also drop the "the" here, and is that their full name?
That's his pen-name he is most known by - I introduce both names the first time I mention him. And the "the" is necessary to avoid a false title. -G
"extremely positive and supportive" – These essentially mean the same thing here so only one is needed.
The word "however" appears twice in the text, it is listed in WP:WTW as a form of editorializing.
Removed. -G
"from previously published volumes of the encyclopedia." – Were there volumes that were not published? If not I would go ahead and drop the word "published".
@Sophisticatedevening: Thank you very much! Just checking in on the source review stuff - you did a spot check, but did you check to see if it passes the FA criteria for source quality overall? Just checking, cause I know the coords like such things being explicitly stated. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that this article uses both spaced en-dashes and unspaced em-dashes. This should be consistent.
Fixed. -G
Lead:
Para 1: "Additionally, a small sample volume was released in 1932." - Is this usually considered part of the Normale or Yidn series, or was it an entirely separate thing that just happened to be included in the Algemeyne Entsiklopedye later on?
Actually, maybe the sample volume can be mentioned in paragraph 2 instead?
Good idea. -G
Could the "Reception and legacy" section be briefly summarized in the lead? It is the only major section to not be summarized.
Done. -G
Probeheft:
I assume this was published in Yiddish like the rest of the encyclopedia, but this isn't explicitly mentioned.
Clarified. -G
"Ten of the entries were related to Jewish culture, including articles on Hirsh Lekert, Cantonists, and the Khazars." - Should this be in present tense, since most of this section is in present tense?
Good point.-G
Normale series:
Para 2: Do the sources mention why the second volume included fewer and shorter entries on Jewish topics?
It doesn't seem so. -G
Para 5: "Although further volumes of the series were planned, they were never completed" - Out of curiosity, where in the alphabet did the series end?
It says, no? Made it more clear. -G
Para 6: "Many articles within the encyclopedia have bibliographies, although this is inconsistent; some have none, drawing criticism from reviewers" - I'm not sure if "this is inconsistent" is redundant, since the sentence then goes on to say that some articles have no bibliographies, which implies that it's inconsistent.
Good point. -G
Yidn series:
Para 1: "various Jewish topics written by experts in the respective field" - I think "respective fields" might be the correct way to say this, since it's related to "various Jewish topics".
Makes sense. -G
Para 4: "three short essays on Jewish history and culture in Mexico, Brazil, and Cuba" - Is this three total (one per country), or three each per country?
one per country. clarified. -G
Para 5: "These essays, written by a variety of influential scholars (many of whom had not previously contributed to the encyclopedia), are generally organized by country, and give a history of the persecution of Jews before and during the war, life under occupation, and details on how Jews survived or engaged in armed resistance" - I suggest splitting this into two sentences (e.g. after "organized by country"), as this sentence is relatively long.
Done. -G
Background:
Para 1: "roughly concurrent to another German encyclopedia" - Should this be "roughly concurrently with another German encyclopedia"?
Done. -G
Para 2: "these encyclopedias were specialized on Jewish topics, and did not seek to cover general knowledge" - I recommend removing the comma here, per the explanation given in the essay WP:CINS.
Done. -G
Para 2: Do we know how much content Di Algemeyne Yidishe Entsiklopedye and Goldblatt's encyclopedia covered? I noticed that the article mentions that Hillel Zeitlin and Shoyl Stupnitski's encyclopedia gets halfway through "aleph", but it doesn't mention how far the other two encyclopedias went.
Para 2: "A February 1931 meeting of various prominent Jewish intellectuals in Berlin (including Meisel, Dubnow, Tcherikower, and Shalit) convened to evaluate the plans for the encyclopedia. " - This should be "was convened". People convene at meetings, but meetings are convened; if you remove the parenthetical comments, this would be "A February 1931 meeting convened to evaluate the plans for the encyclopedia", which is unwieldy.
Para 3: "Political and organizational rifts emerged over its development. Editors, contributors, and critics debated the proportion of the encyclopedia to be focused on Jewish topics." - Would it be useful to combine these sentences, or at least join them using a semicolon?
Para 1: Is there a reason "5000 double-sided pages" has no comma separator, but "40,000 entries", "160,000 to 200,000 entries" do?
Para 1: "Poet and encyclopedia contributor Daniel Charney " - Elsewhere in the article, you put "the" before the occupation to avoid what may be seen as WP:FALSETITLE. This should be consistent here. (I don't think, however, that "encyclopedia contributor and poet" would need "the" before it, though, even if you do choose to avoid false titles.)
Para 2: "A core group of editors (including Abramovitch and Tcherikower) regrouped the Dubnov Fund in Paris, although some contributors had fled to other European countries." - This should be either "had regrouped ... had fled" or "regrouped ... fled" for consistency.
Para 2: "To reduce the cost of printing runs, encyclopedia" - This should be "... the encyclopedia".
Para 3: "They were denied bank loans, and attempted to solicit donations from their contacts in United States" - The comma is not necessary here.
Para 3: By the way, where did they end up printing the volumes, if not in Belgium?
Publication in America:
Para 1: "along with a small portion of the fund's administrative documents" - This should be "a small number", unless you really meant a small piece of each document.
Para 1: "Most administrative and financial records were lost, as was the stockpile of around 12,000 books from previous volumes of the encyclopedia. These were republished in New York" - I assume it was the surviving documents and the manuscript for Yidn Giml that was published, not the items that were lost. Therefore, I would suggest swapping these two sentences.
Para 2: "The encyclopedia's intended audience, Yiddish communities in Eastern Europe, were destroyed." - Despite there not being any ENGVAR template here, I assume you're writing in American English because of certain grammatical characteristics elsewhere on the page (e.g. the use of -ized spellings). If that is indeed the case, "audience" is a singular mass noun, so it should be "...was destroyed".
Para 3: "Abramowitz died in 1963" - This person is never introduced in the article.
Contributors:
"Anarchist Alexander Berkman" - Again, I'd be consistent in using or not using "the" before the occupation.
Reception and legacy:
Para 1: Shouldn't Charney's comment from paragraph 1 of "Prewar publication" go here?
Para 1: "disapproving that the article on the Zionist leader Max Nordau" - I get what you mean, but "disapproving" is not usually used in this way (you typically say that someone "disapproved of" something). Maybe "disliking"?
Para 2: Zionism should be linked when it's first mentioned (in the Normale series section). You could link it down here (or not), but you should link it up there too.
Para 2: "The historian Bernard Dov Weinryb" - Is he an example of the Zionist academics mentioned in the previous sentence?
A second attempt to bring this article to FA in time for the 25th anniversary of its maiden journey. This rail system is one of my username's namesakes and one that I take whenever my schedule allows; both spectacular in scenery and a pleasant way to commute. I do not think the article is in need of substantial changes, but some housekeeping has been completed to bring some statistics up to date. I have made some comments at WT:FAC#An increasing scrutiny on the quality of sources used in FACs to explain my objections to some previous comments on sourcing that may be relevant for new reviewers. SounderBruce21:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping, but unfortunately I don't see how this is substantially different from the previous nomination. My objection there was to the sourcing and it is substantially the same now as it was then:
@RoySmith: I will once again question why "local" sources from professional news organizations (some of which are Pulitzer winners) aren't in line with the FACR. There is no prohibition of them, and these can be considered high quality for the areas they cover (local and regional news), much more so than the out-of-state examples given in the last review that had some obvious factual errors. It is unreasonable to expect a niche topic such as local infrastructure to have the same array of available sources as a broad topic, and frankly it goes against the spirit of the FA process to close it off to only a select few areas with wide academic appeal.
As for the use of Sound Transit sources, primary sources are also not prohibited in the criteria and their use is sanctioned within reason under site guidelines. I can respond to specific examples in the article that may need a look and address those concerns where appropriate, but just being given a list with no specific direction is not productive. Throwing out all 88 sources is also not possible unless we want to have an article that is out-of-date and lacks relevant information. SounderBruce22:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much has already been written on this so I'm hesitant to go down this path again, but you asked so I feel obligated to respond. My primary concern is the self-published sources (i.e. what Sound Transit is saying about itself). It's OK to use some material from Sound Transit to source basic facts, but when the majority of the sourcing is from the company itself, that's a red flag or to use your term, not "within reason". That the rest of the coverage is local isn't wonderful, but by itself would not be fatal. RoySmith(talk)23:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know which specific Sound Transit sources are problematic and would be against the FA criteria or other site policies. Of the 88 listed sources: 17 are simply used for annual ridership figures; 2 are annual reports and development plans with basic specifications and other facts; and 6 are schedules, rider guides, and explanatory webpages on policies. None of these are being used to cite remotely controversial passages, nor do they require any analysis. SounderBruce05:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are looking at a bit of a philosophical dispute about which sources to use in a FA. My sense is that it'd be better to frame it as an article content issue - are there reviews, opinions, polls etc about this railway line? As it stands, the article is heavy on the technical specifications which are most propitiously sourced to the company itself. #28 is a bit of an unexpected source. Source formatting seems consistent and other than this philosophical point reliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for your comments. I am still uncertain how any article on public infrastructure would be able to be written without a generous use of sources from government entities or sources derived from them (as is often the case with news reporting, especially from less-scrutinizing national outlets). I take pride in how much care I put into selecting sources, as Sound Transit (like any entity looking to remain high in public approval) does display a naked bias in some materials, but never in the raw statistics and basic specifications that this article relies on. I really hope that a resolution to this question can be found, as it is immensely frustrating to see this nomination grind to a halt for an entire summer over a point of contention that has never been previously an issue. SounderBruce21:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that the article had not passed the first FA nomination. I read thru the comments in the first nomination (the ones that sort of sunk the FA approval); and I also read the discussion about sourcing in general at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#An_increasing_scrutiny_on_the_quality_of_sources_used_in_FACs; and I also read User:Roy Smith's comments immediately above here in Nom #2. The issues raised (for two distinct FA nomination, both on mass transit topics) were:
Articles should reduce their reliance on local, small-scale news outlets (i.e. strive more to find larger, more independent news sources)
Articles should reduce their reliance on primary-source publications of the agency that runs the mass transit system (i.e. strive to find independent or secondary sources)
Both of the points above are laudable goals; and it looks like the discussions covered some very important, yet subtle, concerns. After looking at the article again, I am prepared to Support it a second time. The nature of the Sounder Rail is that it is not going to get lots of outside or 2ndary coverage; and likewise the primary sources are going to be the only source for lots of facts and figures. This is precisely the kind of article where primary and local sources are okay (for some material).
But before posting a "Support" here for this 2nd nomination, due diligence requires me to gather a bit more info to make sure I have a full understanding of where we are now. Questions for nominator: During the discussions about the sources (in FA nomination 1, or in the FA Talk page) did anyone point out some non-local sources or non-primary sources that could be used for the article? Did you incorporate any of those sources? Why or why not? Did you yourself discover any additional (after June 2025) non-local or secondary sources for the article? Noleander (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: Thank you for returning to this nomination. RoySmith did point out a handful of potentially usable non-local sources, but most were 20+ years old and largely contained out-of-date information that, in my view, does not serve the reader better than citing The Seattle Times or The News Tribune. As for the primary sources, there was no alternative offered, and the removal of such sources would mean cutting a substantial amount of content that would lead to a less comprehensive and complete understanding of the topic. I am working on integrating the research paper (included in "Back to the Future"), but quite a few pages are missing from the Google preview and the only library with a copy has limited hours. I have also sought other non-local sources, but have none that are of the same quality or better than those already used in the article. SounderBruce05:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should reconsider excluding Back to the Future. Graduate students publish all the time in scholarly journals and stuff so I don't really see why this is different? Heartfox (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: I am reconsidering and will add information from that source once I have my hands on a physical copy (hopefully in the next week, depending on when the library has open hours for the reference section). SounderBruce05:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I supported this nomination previously, and am pleased to support this nomination. I've read Roy's comments in the previous nomination and above, and I think that - to be frank - they're entirely wrong headed. The Seattle-region news sources are reliable and include some well known newspapers, so I can't see any problem with using them. The primary sources have been used appropriately, with a good range of resources being used. Roy's comparison to the Singapore media and government sources is fundamentally invalid: Singapore does not have freedom of the press and its government institutions are not as transparent and trustworthy as those in actual democracies, so it's like chalk and cheese. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looked through the prose throughout the article. It's in good shape. Only the mildest of quibbles:
In 2024, the system carried a total of 1.9 million passengers, or an average of 7,300 on weekdays. Does this not include the aforementioned weekend special trips?
The figure does not include weekend ridership, which is counted separately by the Federal Transit Administration.
Lines section is good.
The two lines carried a total of 1.92 million passengers in 2024 might be important to contextualize this here with the fact that the vast majority of traffic is on the S Line; in fact, it might be a big enough disparity to note in the lede as well. (I know this gets brought up in the Ridership section, so it should just be brief mentions outside of that.)
Added.
Stations good. Why is welcome mat in quotes?
Clarified that they are called welcome mats but are not literally mats.
Service and operations quite good.
Rolling stock and future expansion also good.
Re: the sources, I honestly don't understand what the problem is. It obviously meets notability, so citing very reputable papers like the Seattle Times and the PI is fine. Like is the New York Times really going to run articles on Seattle transit; cmon. Out of diligence I checked Google Scholar and I could only really find brief mentions of it when commuter rail in the US in general was being described. Back to the Future did come up while searching, and I would highly agree with Heartfox above that you should add it back to the article; it seems to be the closest thing to proper academic coverage of the topic, and if FAs are supposed to incorporate a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, it seems pertinent to incorporate it. That's all from me, SounderBruce! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The next one in the series, this article is on a class of two German armored cruisers built before World War I (a class of ships the Germans were apparently not great at designing, given that both of these were sunk during the war). The article passed an A-class review at MILHIST last month, so should be in pretty decent shape, but I look forward to working with reviewers to correct any deficiencies that remain. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Prinz Adalbert class was a pair of armored cruisers built for the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) under the terms of the First Naval Law.: I'm chewing on the last part here. Most readers won't know what it was, except that it was a law to do with the Navy and that there were later more of them. It feels to me like, if this is important enough to include in the first sentence, we should also include some explanation of what it was (perhaps as the second) -- on the other hand, if we don't think it particularly matters if readers understand it, is it really important enough to give it some of our most valuable real estate?
How about adding ", which initiated a major naval expansion program." for context?
a gunnery training ship: a gunnery-training ship (probably all linked), I think, assuming we mean a ship intended to help teach sailors about gunnery? See later in body too.
There's not a specific link for that, but agree that it should be hyphenated
while Friedrich Carl initially served as the flagship of the High Seas Fleet's reconnaissance forces.... I appreciate this must be getting tedious, but I'll beat the drum again -- it wasn't called the HSF until 1907.
Facepalm
was quickly sunk by Russian naval mines off Memel in November: I would remove quickly here, since we've given the date, and there's a possible misreading that there was not much time between hitting the mines and sinking, which the body contradicts.
Makes sense
The sinking killed 672, the greatest single loss of life for the German fleet in the Baltic during the war; there were only 3 survivors of her sinking.: a bit repetitious: how about only 3 sailors survived?
Works for me
Armored cruisers were vessels that generally possessed side armor intended to serve on foreign stations, as a fast wing of a fleet of battleships, or to attack or protect merchant shipping. Side armor differentiated them from large protected cruisers that only incorporated an armor deck for defense against enemy fire.: the first sentence goes a bit wonky here (what's the antecedent of intended?) Suggest Armored cruisers generally possessed side armor, which differentiated them from large protected cruisers that only incorporated an armor deck for defense against enemy fire. They were intended to serve on foreign stations, as a fast wing of a fleet of battleships, or to attack or protect merchant shipping..
Done
The First Naval Law in Germany, passed in 1898, envisioned -- I think we can be a bit more explicit here -- didn't it order their construction?
Not all at once, as they were to be scheduled out over a lengthy period, and in fact, the Germans only ever built nine of them
Right, but I still think envisoned makes it sound a bit passive, whereas the Naval Law was -- at least if I'm not misunderstanding -- causing these ships to be built. UndercoverClassicistT·C19:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the main battery barbettes: main-battery (compound modifier)
Good catch
a new propulsion system that was about 10 percent more powerful than Prinz Heinrich's increased the ships' top speed by 0.5 knots (0.93 km/h; 0.58 mph) compared to the earlier vessel: can we get a sense of how fast they ended up? It seems odd to go from a percentage increase of power into an absolute increase of speed -- was that a big jump or a trivial one?
It's a bit messy, since just about all of the German armored cruisers failed to meet their design speeds (and in this case, no speed advantage materialized once the ships were in service) - have added some details here.
The design suffered from a number of defects, some of which were common to German armored cruiser designs: I could do with having this explained to me a little. At the time, weren't there only two German armored cruiser designs that had been tried? Are we suggesting that the Germans made a habit of some of these defects in later designs? I wonder whether the sentence would be better cut back to defects.
Yes, some of the design faults were repeated through all of the armored cruisers, save the last one (and the only one that could reasonably be called a first-class ship, SMS Blücher) - this wasn't specific to the Germans; most navies in this period were designing follow-up designs for ships that were still under construction (and usually 2 or 3 iterations before the first ship was in service). Such was the pace of naval construction at the time. As an example, design work on the American Tennessee-class battleships began in January 1915, the same time construction of their predecessors (the New Mexicos began. You have to skip past twomore to reach a class that had actually entered service.
I think the propulsion system changes makes the most sense where it is, since it's in the context of changes from Prinz Heinrich. I did split off the failure to make design speeds and merge it into the following paragraph, since that was also a problem that affected other German ACs.
They lost up to 60 percent speed with the rudder hard over, but suffered only minimal speed loss in heavy seas.: I'm not sure I get the connection here -- on first glance, I thought that heavy seas somehow made it that putting the rudder hard over cost less speed than it did on calm water. Was this all a consequence of having one rudder rather than several?
They're unrelated - split the sentence to avoid confusion
The propulsion system was rated at 16,200 metric horsepower (16,000 ihp) for Prinz Adalbert and 17,000 PS (16,770 ihp): I would spell out "metric horsepower" the second time, or flag that PS is the abbreviation on the first.
Done
the gun is 40 times as long as it is in bore diameter: it isn't long in bore diameter, but wide; suggest "the gun's length is forty times its bore diameter".
Works for me
for close in defense: close-in defense.
Fixed
These guns fired an 40-kilogram (88 lb) projectile: a 40-kilogram.
Good catch
only seven men were killed in the attack: what's the principle behind numbers as words or figures? I don't think it's consistent through the article.
Depends on context - guns and armor thickness are never given as words, but otherwise, if the number is one word, it's spelled out, unless it's in a string of numbers where some should be expressed in numerals
The sinking was the greatest single loss of life for the German Baltic forces for the duration of the war: should forces be fleet -- were there any land forces counted as "Baltic"?
Clarified
Hildebrand and Steinmetz -- hyphenate ISBN.
Done
Will come back and do some spot checks, as I've advocated on FAC talk for them, but for now this looks in excellent shape -- the comments above are, as usual, mostly pretty minor and several could be considered optional. UndercoverClassicistT·C08:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks as promised.
Note before starting: many of the most cited sources are not easily available online (Gröner, Hildebrand et al, Dodson). Campbell et al, Halpern and Herwig are available on Archive.org, but only via special access. This means that most of the citations are out of my reach to spotcheck directly, and would be for most reviewers. Of course, that's not the nominator's problem, but as this is something of an experiment, worth putting on record. I'll do this from what I can get hold of.
Note 2 (Campbell et al) -- not totally sure about this one. The source has Germany, not having the budget to build both colonial cruisers and fleet scouts, tried to find a compromise which soon proved to be a miscalculation -- but that's explicitly talking about the Kaiserin Augusta, which was a few years earlier. We're at least heavily implying that this was true of the Heinrich and Bismarck, but Conway's passes over both of them without saying it.
I think it's implicit, as only a few years (and only a single intervening class of cruisers) had passed between Augusta and Bismarck
Not sure we can "do" implicit: after all, WP:V has Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source., and the usual standard is that a source needs to explicitly say what we need it to. There might be a more precise way to phrase this, or another source that can be brought in to support? UndercoverClassicistT·C16:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree; it's unreasonable to expect the authors to repeat the same general statement in every section in a fairly space-limited book. But I can provide another reference. Parsecboy (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note 3 (Herwig) -- everything checks here apart from According to the law, one large cruiser was to be built per year, so work began immediately on a follow-on vessel to fulfill the requirement, which I assume is in Dodson. You could consider moving the multi-cite or just the Herwig citation in front of this sentence, to be clear on what's coming from where.
I think I had bundled it since Dodson also covers the earlier sentence - but fine to split them up as well.
Note 10a (Conway's, guns and shells) -- Conway's gives the MV as 2559 FPS, so I think we should adopt the same level of precision, and ideally put the unconverted measurement first.
Made some updates/corrections (and added some material from Friedman), but in general, metric should be used first for metric countries, regardless of the source's preference.
10b (Conway's, secondary guns) -- similarly, here we have 88.2 lbs for the shell and 2625 fps. I think our conversion of the range is slightly off - C has 15,200 yds, which is 45,600 ft, or 13,899 m.
Fixed as above
10c (8.8cm guns) -- similar -- 15.4 lb shell, and either 2526 or 2264 depending on the age of the TBD (not sure what that is?) -- I assume we're rounding the former. Range of the former is given as 9940 yds, or 29,820 ft -- dead on what we have.
As above
The question of rounding figures isn't set in any guideline, as far as I know, so very happy to discuss here.
I don't feel strongly about it either
Note 18a -- this may be close to the line for CLOP, particularly in terms of structure and some very similar phrasing.
Side-by-side comparison
Corbett (with omissions)
Wikipedia
Admiral Behring ... was ordered to attack Libau to prevent its being used as a base by the unwelcome intruders [UC: British submarines]. ... [I]n the small hours of the 17th, as the Friedrich Carl was proceeding to her covering position, she was twice struck by a mine about thirty miles off Memel, ... By a fine effort the flagship was kept afloat ... the operations against Libau went on ... blockships were sunk to complete the work ... by 6.30 a.m. the crew of the flagship had been taken off and she was left to sink
Behring was ordered to attack the Russian port of Libau, which was believed to be acting as a staging area for British submarines. On 17 November, while steaming to Libau, Friedrich Carl struck a pair of Russian naval mines off Memel. The ship's crew managed to keep the cruiser afloat long enough to allow nearby vessels to take off the entire crew before she sank; only seven men were killed in the attack. The remainder of the operation proceeded as planned, however, and several blockships were sunk in the harbor entrance
I don't see anything particularly close in this example - maybe "Behring was ordered to attack Libau", that that requires eliding material in both sentences to make them fit.
Yeah, there's not really a way around that - in the above example, it wouldn't make sense to say that the ship struck mines before the Germans were ordered to attack it (which is obviously a bit of an extreme example, but the point that we're constrained by the chronology remains). Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
18b has everything except the transfer to the Cruiser Division, which I guess is in Hildebrand et al?
Yes, that's in Hildebrand
Note 20 (Halpern) -- unless I'm reading p. 195 wrong, it looks as though Heinrich and Adalbert sailed on 2 July, after Hopman received radio reports of the engagement early that morning? The bit about the torpedoing, naturally, checks out.
I don't have Halpern in front of me at the moment, so I'll have to look at this later
Yup, you're right - fixed
22a (Halpern again) -- I don't see Prinz Adalbert's repairs were completed by September. She took part in a sortie into the Gulf of Finland toward the end of the month that resulted in no action. -- the first mention of Adalbert on the page is the 23 October sortie. The rest checks.
Good catch, that bit is in Hildebrand (which I had overlooked when I summarized that article for this one)
22b (ditto) -- doesn't actually give a casualty figure, so we're forced to infer that the ship had its usual complement of 675 aboard -- possibly a bit dangerous (what if someone was on leave/sick on another vessel/fell overboard the night before?). Nor does it actually say that the ship sank immediately, though that seems likely to happen when a big chunk of it has just been blown up. Again, possibly close to the CLOP line:
The casualty figure comes from Gröner
Side-by-side comparison
Halpern
Wikipedia (with omissions)
One of the cruiser's magazines exploded, and there were only three survivors. It was the heaviest loss of the war for the German Baltic forces.
E8 ... detonated the ammunition magazine ... There were only three survivors. The sinking was the greatest single loss of life for the German Baltic forces for the duration of the war.
On this, the only close phrasing I see is "There were only three survivors", which I've tweaked - sometimes, when you paraphrase your paraphrased text, you end up back around to the original. Thanks as always for looking so thoroughly! Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following the changes made above, I'm happy here -- I raised the CLOP queries for discussion, but don't feel strongly that there's a problem with either, given the obvious secondary considerations (especially following chronological order) that account in part for the similarity of structure. Happy to support the article's promotion. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"intercepted by the submarine E8". I would specify British submarine.
Done
I assume that it is not known whether they ever inflicted damage on enemies?
No - Prinz Adalbert was present for a bombardment of Russian forces in April 1915, but it's not clear whether the ship actually opened fire or was part of the screening force (I would suspect the latter)
"safely evacuated" evacuated seems a bit odd when applied to a ship. Perhaps "rescued" or "taken off" instead
Opted for the latter
link reconnaissance, metric tons, knots, squadron, kilowatt (some of these just need to be moved to first use)
Done
Delete mounts from "turret mounts" as that makes me think of the supporting structure in the hull rather than the turret itself, which is what you're referring to.
Done
Convert the range for the 88s in yards, not feet
Good catch
I would substitute "armored citadel" for "central section/portion"
Done
In the armor diagram, tell the reader than the red lines show the armor
Overall, this is a fascinating article! It has great prose and wonderful details about their design. This is my first FAC review, so apologizes if I am overly strict/focus on the wrong things.
The basic hull size and shape remained largely identical. Hullform would be a better term imo, but that may be too much jargon.
I think size and shape is probably more widely understood, but I'm not strongly opposed to changing it
It may be good to have Wikidictionary links for transverse and longitudinal.
Good idea
They had a transverse metacentric height of 0.734 m (2 ft 4.9 in). What does this do for the casual reader? While metacentric height is linked, the average reader would still have a hard time connecting the value with the description. Normal values (ie. length, height, crew) give the reader a relatable scale to understand and compare topics, which they can not do here. While the GM article mentions that A larger metacentric height implies greater initial stability against overturning in the lead, they would have no understanding of what counts as a ‘large’ value. As a naval architect apprentice with a background in seakeeping, my gears were turning when I read this. Under what load condition was this measurement taken? Was this value taken when the ships were first built, in service, or from an initial design (this significantly alters the context)? How stable is a GM of .734 m in relation to dreadnoughts? Also, what should I do with that information, as someone who appreciates the meaning? The prose already explains how they handled at sea. Should I calculate the righting angle?
Those are good questions - Groner doesn't provide any additional context (nor does he define how the figure was calculated, unlike many other specifications). Probably best to remove it since I can't really place it in context (beyond providing GM for other German ships of the period, which is probably not all that helpful)
Dürr water-tube boilers Is the mention of Dürr repetitive with the company mentioned afterwards, or is that a brand name?
There is a specific Dürr boiler (which is now linked)
You can wikilink ducted with Duct (flow). Same idea with drag with length-to-beam ratio and aspect ratio.
Good idea
they were made self-supporting. What does this mean? Did they feature a strong shaft log? Were the shafts conjoined with the hull?
Dodson doesn't provide any more details, but I'd assume he means they weren't braced apart from the hull fairing
Is there a reason why the two ships had different machinery outputs?
Nothing specific - it was pretty common for ships of the period to vary in performance, since building them was a bit more art than science
one on either end of the main superstructure. I’ll also add ‘fore and aft’ afterwards.
Done
The vessels' armament system. Since the armament is not unified, I would not describe it all as one system. Removing that word would make the most sense imo.
Removed
Could you mention Krupp Steel in the armor section? Also, would it make sense to also mention why sloped armor was advantageous in itself?
Linked to Krupp armour - I think trying to explain it here would verge into WP:SYNTH territory. What we really need is an article that explains deck armor, but that will have to wait for another day
being used as a torpedo training ship. Would both used as torpedo training ships make more sense?
No, Prinz Adalbert was used to train gun crews, while Friedrich Carl was used for torpedo training
which was believed to be acting as a staging area for British submarines. ‘acting as’ is redundant.
Charles of Blois was having the best year of his life: the French king had backed his claim to the Duchy of Brittany, and supported him with a huge army, which had rolled over the duchy and captured his rival claimant. His rival's wife donned man's armour and fought on, but was now trapped with her last adherents in Brittany's westernmost fastness, besieged by land and blockaded at sea by a mercenary flotilla. The English had blustered and postured for the past five years of phoney war but Charles knew they were short of money, ships and good sailing weather. What could possibly go wrong? (Dedicated to Harrias.)
This is the last of my series on the first two years of the Breton Civil War. I worked it up to GAN where the estimable Mr riley did the honours. I now offer it up all and sundry to pick at, in the hope that it can be worked up to FA level. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Brest_-_Le_Château_-_PA00089847_-_011.JPG: as France does not have freedom of panorama, this should include an explicit tag for the chateau. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not much from me: I said pretty much all I had to say at GAN. A few very minor drafting points that caught my eye this time round. They don't affect my support.
Good evening Tim and many thanks for the review. After dealing with the many issues I have with written English at GAN you might reasonably have felt that you had done your bit.
There is a certain inconsistency about numbering – "14 mercenary Genoese galleys" but "He sent fourteen foreign galleys", and "sent twenty-one French vessels" but "overwhelmed the galleys, burning 11". This doesn't greatly bother me but would perhaps be better if it were consistent.
How odd. Now standardised on numerals, except where a number starts a sentence.
The order of citations [20][13] and [21] at the end of the Background sections looks a trifle odd.
I guessing, correct me if I am mistaken, that you have a preference for citations to be in number order? If so, WP:REF, at WP:CITEORDER has "There is no consensus for a specific ordering of citations ... In particular, references need not be moved solely to maintain the numerical order of footnotes as they appear in the article."
Just for the benefit of your mental health Tim, reordered.
"The castle is described as a key ducal stronghold by the historian Michael Jones" – is the use of the passive voice preferable to the active here?
You phrase that so politely as to leave me a little unsure as to what your preference is. I have changed it to 'The historian Michael Jones describes the castle as a key ducal stronghold '.
"they were slow moving in comparison" – could do with a hyphen in "slow-moving", I think
I shall have to have a word with the hyphen-brownies, who do not seem to have been on the ball with this article. (See WP:GOG1 for "(I don’t like hyphens, but strangely a gang of brownies follow my articles around, inserting them where necessary.)"
I am reminded of Lynn Truss's "Nowadays the fashion is against grammatical fussiness. A passage peppered with commas... smacks simply of no backbone. People who put in all the commas betray themselves as moral weaklings with empty lives and out-of-date reference books." And in turn of your famous "You sir are the kind of barbarian who would insert a comma after the third word of the King James' Bible". From memory, I wish I had saved the original. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"French-held south coast ... largely Montfort or English controlled" – the hyphen in "French-held" is right, I think, and perhaps you could give similar hyphens to "Montfort-" and "English-controlled".
Quite right.
"annual income in peace time" – "peacetime" is a single word according to the OED and Chambers.
All too minor to prevent my support for the promotion of this article to FA. It seems comprehensive and impartial, is well and widely sourced (you've got your money's worth from Sumption 1990, but Cushway 2011, Rodger 2004 and Wagner 2006 are all well-represented too). The sources are reasonably recent (except for Williamson 1944, but you've also cited 21st-century authorities at both mentions). Very nicely illustrated, and, as usual from the Gog war machine, a clear and interesting read. Happy to support. Tim riley talk08:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you included {{Use British English}} at the top, silly people like me wouldn't have cause to gripe about odd spellings like "despatch".
I thought I had, sorry.
(Inserting Riley oar) Dispatch is the older form, and the etymologically more correct one. According to Fowler "despatch is a variant introduced by Dr Johnson in his dictionary of 1755, probably in error. Either form is correct in modern usage". I trust this sufficiently confuses the matter. Tim riley talk17:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Philip found the idea of having a relative as the duke attractive, it would bring ... I'd change the comma to a colon.
Ok.
She acted decisively, recalled the field army from western Brittany, took command[12][13] and moved to Hennebont, a small but strongly walled town with access to the sea. after using commas to build a list in the first part of the sentence, switch to some other punctuation to set off "a small but ..." so it's clear it's not just another item in the list.
Ah, yes indeed.
and then contrary winds I know that boats (especially the boats of the day) could only sail in certain directions based on which way the wind was blowing, but I suspect many people don't know this. Thus, it's worth explaining what a "contrary wind" is and why it was a problem.
Getting them out of harbour was the real issue, but let's see how succinctly I can do that. Hmm, given that it is clear from context that a "contrary wind" was a bad thing which delayed the fleet sailing I suspect that most readers will skim over it. That being so, a footnote seems a good way to deal with this, rather that break up the narrative with a technical tidbit. See what you think of what I have done.
Brest Roads I also know that "roads" is a (possibly antiquated?) term for harbor, but most people will find this confusing, so worth explaining.
Not at all antiquated, and definitely not a synonym for harbour. In US English it would be a roadstead, which Wiktionary gives as "(nautical) A partly sheltered anchorage; a stretch of water near the shore where vessels may ride at anchor, but with less protection than a harbour." Brest Roads is already Wikilinked at first mentions in the lead and main article; and in the article put into context with "Brest was little more than a village, significant only for its castle and its advantageous position on the north shore of the large, sheltered expanse of the Brest Roads (the Iroise Sea) close by its narrow exit to the sea (the Goulet de Brest)."
but extreme difficulty in assembling ships,[note 2] despite draconian measures taken by Admiral Robert Morley, and then contrary winds, caused this date to be repeatedly put back as before, setting off "despite draconian measures taken by Admiral Robert Morley, and then contrary winds" with something other than commas (i.e. parens or dashes) will help the reader correctly parse this as "extreme difficulty in assembling ships ... caused this date to be repeatedly put back
Very true. And done.
The section on galleys is right next to a photo of a cog, misleading the reader to think that they're the same thing. Maybe add a picture of a galley and move the cog image down to the section that talks about cogs?
Sadly I am unaware of any images of 14th-century ocean-going (ie adapted for the Atlantic, as opposed the less challenging conditions of the Mediterranean) galleys. Anywhere, not just on Wikipedia. (I have been looking since at at least 2020 when I wrote Battle of Sluys.) (Or, for that matter, Wikipedian images of any 14th-century galleys.) As a least worst fix I have dropped the image of the cog to below the text on galleys to be alongside that on cogs - does that help?
Hi Roy, you have - I think inadvertently - put your finger on the nub of the issue. What we have there is a 140 year old imagining of a galley by an unknown person for an unknown function, with no information on whether it is intended to be a merchant or war galley, or is equipped for the Mediterranean or the Atlantic, and no idea what - if any - sources they based the image on. Imagine me trying to include information from a written source with that provenance? High quality? Pah! You see the problem? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Galleys is linked twice in quite close succession.
That was deliberate, but second incidence removed.
Link names in captions?
Done.
"The 14th-century Tour Tanguy on the River Penfeld" Add the word tower in the caption? At first I was unsure if this caption described the harbour itself or something like that.
"Charles of Blois as envisaged in 1621" Give context in caption? "The husband of Joan Who wanted to" or some such.
Done.
"This army overran all of eastern Brittainy" As this is the start of a new paragraph, could specify whose army it was?
Done.
Link Portsmouth and Southampton.
Done.
Link Breton Civil War in article body too.
Done.
"When the Duke of Brittany died childless" why not name him? Also, the article body doesn’t explicitly state he was childless.
Named and main article tweaked - good spot, thank you.
"the title was contested by Charles of Blois and John of Montfort. Charles was the nephew of the French king, Philip VI (r. 1328–1350), who supported him with a large army." you mention Charles' allegiance, but not that John was the half-brother of the duke, which seems rather crucial. Either way, that John was from Brettany should be clarified.
The relationships, claims and legal situation - both Breton and French - are full of nuances and there is no logical stopping point to them. The main article has "his [John III's] younger half-brother, John of Montfort". I don't feel that the details of his claim need to go into the summary that is the lead, any more than those of Charles. The reason why Charles had a large French army at his back does (IMO) need a brief explanation in the lead. I have added a little further background on John of Montfort to the main article.
Yeah, my main issue is that it is not clear now that one of the claimants actually was from Brittany (while you make clear that the other was not), which is important to understand the context? FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are aspects of the prose style that seem a bit awkward to me: see in particular:
military assistance, which was promised. // It was slow in coming and the Montfortist forces were pushed back across Brittany (better to restate a noun?)
The English ships carried only 1,350 fighting men, a force far smaller than that of the French army. But seeing so many English ships crowded into the Brest Roads (informal/choppy tone?)
On John III's death John of Montfort acted quickly and installed friendly garrisons in most of the towns and castles of Brittany by August. Then the French declared Charles the rightful heir.
So far I'm feeling that this is personal taste and all of these are fine, but I'll put them on the record in case I've inadvertently stumbled across something you'd think is a mistake. UndercoverClassicistT·C08:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UC and thanks for the heads up. Yep, these are all personal choice and are all typical of my prose for FACs. And while I make more grammatical errors than the average editor I usually garner positive comments regarding my overall prose style. That said, I try to avoid squabbling with reviewers over relatively minor points, even if my personal feeling is that a proposed change makes an article worse; so if any of these grate excessively, tell me what you would like them changing to and I amend accordingly.
Nevertheless, when the Hundred Years' War broke out in 1337 between France and England the Duke of Brittany, John III (r. 1312–1341), fought alongside his feudal lord the King of France, Philip VI (r. 1328–1350).: this is a long sentence. I know we've previously discussed the value (or not) of the regnal dates in this sort of context -- my thinking here would be that they add obstacles where we would be wiser to smooth things as far as we can.
Fair point, both removed.
despatched an army to support Charles: as dispatch can also mean destroyed, we may wish to use sent, which would also exorcise the ghost of Dr. Johnson, above.
Done.
She despatched her senior counsellor, Amaury of Clisson, to Edward III, the English king, with the ducal. Lots of commas. "Edward III of England" to get rid of two?
I, for reasons I struggle to articulate, dislike that formulation; but I also dislike excessive commas, so done.
the flow of events went against the Montfortists in the face of Charles huge military superiority: Charles's.
Whoops.
extreme difficulty in assembling ships: we had this one before, I think -- did he not have the right screwdriver?
Rephrased.
but extreme difficulty in assembling ships – despite draconian measures taken by Admiral Robert Morley – and then contrary winds, caused this date to be repeatedly put back: the comma doesn't feel right here, partly because we don't (and can't) have a comma before to start the parenthesis ("difficult in assembling ships, and then contrary winds, caused this date...). Suggest a light reworking.
Indeed, I was thinking that as I made the amendment above. Done.
The historian Michael Jones describes the castle as a key ducal stronghold: presumably, he means this before it was, well, the only ducal stronghold.
There were still plenty of ducal strongholds, just not held by the Montfortistas.
Their leader, Hugh Despenser was: comma needed here.
Drat.
The reinforcements Charles received in July allowed him to put his galleys back to use.: I don't quite understand this one -- wasn't Charles on the other side? Is the point that Charles now had warships (having previously beached his fleet), so there was something for them to metaphorically shoot at?
This follows on from "A force of French and mercenary galleys cruised off the north Breton coast, but there was so little English naval activity that they were beached and their crews went ashore to fight as infantry." in Background.
Yes -- perhaps something like "gave him the opportunity to put..." would work better, given that? After all, allowed suggests that he had previously been prevented from using them, which wasn't the case -- it was only that there were more useful things he could do with the crews. UndercoverClassicistT·C16:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These galleys were warships and had little transport space for men or equipment, a large galley might carry 150 men, of whom only 25 would be able to fight at sea: comma needs to be something stronger -- semicolon or colon, or perhaps a dash. I think this is probably a case where I'd be inclined to change at least the first men to something like troops -- weren't their crews mostly men? UndercoverClassicistT·C20:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to a colon.
Possibly I am being a little pedantic, but many passengers would not have been troops or soldiers and so the broader term seems more appropriate.
The French galleys were supplemented by galleys hired from Genoa and Monaco.: French fleet was, to avoid repetition?
If I were to do that I would need to preface it with something stating that the French fleet included some home grown galleys, which I work in here a little more naturally.
Morley applied a heavy-handed policy of threats and confiscations which bore fruit: MOS:IDIOM, perhaps.
Rephrased.
by mid-August 140 transports were assembled, with 120 warships to escort them: this brings me back to my wondering, in another article, as to whether Charles was a great optimist/complete idiot in sending 21 ships to "trap" a fleet six times his size, but that may not be something on which we can pronounce.
Weell. Livingstone and Witzel have gone on record with "Charles ... was a military incompetent" when considering his record generally. Although it may not be as stupid as it seems: the galleys' manoeuvrability in confined areas such as harbour mouths, shallow water capability and ability to operate against the wind would acted as powerful force multipliers. But that is entirely OR.
The English fleet took just three days to reach western Brittany -- editorialising? Was that unusually quick?
It was bogglingly swift. The next article but one in the series has Edward's fleet taking three weeks - 6 - 26 October.
My preference would be to add an efn with "a typical sea journey took three weeks", if we have the sources to do that. But that's by no means an insistence. UndercoverClassicistT·C16:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I have no evidence of how long a "typical" journey took; and doubts as to whether it is useful to talk of such a thing. OR: These times are over and above the difficulties of getting cogs out of harbours, which necessitated a relatively limited range of wind directions and speeds. (Not the same for every harbour.)
Indeed -- I suspect that asking how long it would take a single ship to get from A to B is a completely different question to how long it would take several dozen ships, with the right supplies, people, etc, to do the same and all arrive at vaguely the same time. UndercoverClassicistT·C18:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
to execute hit and run tactics: hyphens here.
Inserted.
Could we at some point tell (or show) the reader where Gascony is? It pops up a lot that Brittany is on the way from England to there.
Sure. Map added.
Williamson caught my eye in the source list -- old-school imperialist historiography now nearing its telegram from the King. It only ever seems to be multi-cited -- what weight is it carrying, and do we really need it?
He is used for a couple of harmless details, for which I feel he is fine. That said, I could probably find them elsewhere. I shall pension him off but delay doing this for when I am wading through the source review below.
Most style guides would capitalise During in a title (the usual rule of thumb is prepositions of five letters or more).
Indeed, as does Wikipedia - MOS:5LETTER. I was thrown by the hard copy not capitalising it(!)
Clarendon Press is linked when other publishers (apart from Routledge) aren't. I can understand the desire to do away with "shouldn't that be OUP?", but the usual form is to link all or none.
That will be me copying and pasting and not noticing the link, which I have removed.
Note 1: all checks from Sumption -- though I would extend the page range to cover 33 as well.
Page 33 was deliberately excluded, but now added back.
Note 4: we have a lot of text covered by the multi-cite, which makes verification more tricky. It does talk about John fighting in the HYW (though it takes a bit of subject-matter knowledge to realise that the sub-conflicts mentioned are part of the same thing), his death and the complicated succession. Everything about Charles checks straightforwardly except Joan's claim was exercised through her husband, Charles of Blois -- Sumption is clear (p. 370) that Joan had a perfectly good claim, at least de jure, under Breton law, and presents the marriage as a means of ensuring that: A better gurantee of Jeanne's succession could hardly have been found. There is little doubt that that was John III's object. However, we then have a bit about Charles being de facto set up as the heir apparent, so I'm not sure whether this is meaningfully different from what we have or whether it would simply overcomplicate the narrative with the minutiae of succession laws. Allmand puts it as In April, John III, duke of Brittany, died, leaving two possible heirs, his half-brother, John de Montfort, and Charles de Blois, whose claim was through Jeanne, a niece of the last duke, which actually inverts the emphasis from what we have and, I think, seems to be a better concise explanation?
I am unsure whether this is an all clear or not. I don't think you are saying that any of the text is not supported somewhere, nor that any is contradicted anywhere. Inverting a relationship when transferring it from source to article seems a fine way of avoiding an over-close paraphrase to me. If there is anything not covered in the sources, perhaps you could spell it out for me? Thanks.
I think I came to this in the course of writing -- our framing is "Joan had a claim to the duchy, by virtue of being married to Charles." My suggestion is that it's both clearer and closer to the source to say "Charles had a claim to the duchy, (partly) by virtue of being married to Joan". This avoids a couple of potential confusions, such as the possible misinterpretation that Joan had a claim because she was married to Charles. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am now thoroughly confused. Our current framing is "both his niece, Joan of Penthièvre, and his younger half-brother, John of Montfort, claimed the dukedom". Seems straight forward to me. The next sentence includes "Joan's claim was exercised through her husband, Charles of Blois". Which also seems straight forward. How could this cause a "possible misinterpretation that Joan had a claim because she was married to Charles"? More importantly, just what wording would you suggest replace and/or supplement any of this?
Looking back over Sumption, I'm less worried. My concern was that we'd flipped the emphasis as to who was actually doing the claiming, without a source to allow us to do so, but Sumption is doing it the same way as we are (that Joan was the one who would be claiming the duchy, and Charles a means to help her do so, rather than vice-versa). I'm not sure I agree with you on the phrase "Joan's claim was exercised through her husband" -- it's one of those where the broad strokes of the meaning are obvious enough, but when you drill down it becomes difficult to tell exactly what it means. Does it mean, for example, that Joan's claim was transferred to Charles, so that he would be duke in his own right? Does it mean that Charles was the one who was going to press Joan's claim to be duke/duchess in her own right?
It is meant to be a broad brush statement. The legalities were disputed at the time. Even John III disagreed with himself. Summary style, entirely sufficient for the job it is being called on to do. Almost any sentence in any article could be drilled down over exactly what it means. (And we have had this same conversation in a couple of other articles in the series and this is what we ended up with.)
Not convinced -- it's not so much that this is brushing over details as that it doesn't have a clear meaning -- at least not one that I can see. What were you trying to communicate with it? UndercoverClassicistT·C
Then let us try "... both his niece, Joan of Penthièvre, and ... claimed the dukedom. If Joan's claim was upheld her husband, Charles of Blois ... would succeed John III as duke." (In "John III died on 30 April 1341, leaving no children and a disputed succession; both his niece, Joan of Penthièvre, and his younger half-brother, John of Montfort, a senior Breton nobleman, claimed the dukedom. If Joan's claim was upheld her husband, Charles of Blois, a well-connected and militarily oriented French nobleman who was also a nephew of the King of France would succeed John III as duke.") with the husband part supported by Wagner ("upon the duke’s death in April 1341, both Charles, by right of his wife, and Montfort claimed the duchy ..."), which seems to cut through a lot of the froth.
I think this has come up before, but I had forgotten about it, so thanks for the nudge. I am not fully convinced, but it would probably be helpful to add it. However, I don't see anywhere to pipe it where it would not be an Easter egg. Any thoughts?
Something like If Joan's claim was upheld her husband, Charles of Blois, a well-connected and militarily oriented French nobleman who was also a nephew of the King of France would succeed John III as duke by virtue of their marriage? Or, conceivably, something more complicated like If Joan's claim was upheld her husband, Charles of Blois, a well-connected and militarily oriented French nobleman who was also a nephew of the King of France would succeed John III as duke, as medieval law passed the right to a married woman's titles to her husband? Could even put the link and the long explanation in a footnote? This is the last quibble I have: I've already gone to Support, so it's very much advisory at this point. UndercoverClassicistT·C10:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not enthusiastic about "her husband" twice in one sentence, nor "her husband ... their marriage". So I think a footnote is the way to go. I have kept it brief, but included the link. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note 8a: I don't see He was willing to commit considerable military resources to achieve this and despatched an army to support Charles on p. 14.
You are quite right. Sumption went walkabout somehow - probably me reading what I wanted to see in Allmand rather than what was there. Remedied.
Note 8b: we have turned a "client" ruler into a ruler in Brittany at least partly under his control, which implies rather more independence.
"at least partly" includes eg 'largely' to me
It does, but it's a bit like saying that you believe I have at least two limbs and an IQ of at least 34. A client ruler, in normal parlance, is very much under the control of whoever's client they are. "At least partly under his control", to me, suggests "under control in name, but mostly not in practice".
In Cushway, we have Philip feared de Montfort would ally with England, which seems an important reason for intervention that we haven't mentioned, but we don't have anything about an unclear level of control: the closest thing is At present, the Breton coast was proving dangerous for English shipping. Control of it would ease contact with Gascony.
In a couple of other articles I have used "Philip, correctly suspecting that John was negotiating with the English" or similar, but that didn't make the summary-style cut this time as being unnecessary detail.
Hm -- I think we're now in danger of misrepresenting the scholarship, since we go into quite a lot of detail about one part of the argument (that Philip wanted a compliant relative in charge) -- the "carrot", if you like -- but then miss an important second part -- the "stick" that Philip had to positively move against the Montfortists. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chewing it over I have put "Philip, correctly suspecting that John was negotiating with the English" back in. A couple of sources suggest that Philip was going with the flow until this "stick" emerged. (Do sticks emerge?)
Note 28 mostly checks, though I'd extend the page range to cover 399.
Done.
Strictly, we don't have significant only for its castle and its advantageous position on the north shore of the large, sheltered expanse, and this word might be worth removing. If it was also significant for its pretty church or its well-regarded local cheeses, that probably isn't relevant here.
Added "militarily".
Note 32: the source has D'Aurea and Grimaldi's remaining fourteen galleys. We've turned that into He sent 14 foreign galleys commanded by Carlo Grimaldi, seemingly losing a commander and the probably important point that these were all the galleys available to these particular officers.
D’Aurea added.
14 galleys were allocated to the blockade of Brest. Other galleys were available, eg those mentioned two sentences later, which were not allocated to the commanders tasked with blockading Brest. I don't see how "He sent 14 foreign galleys commanded by Carlo Grimaldi and John D’Aurea to blockade Brest from the sea." fails to make it clear that Grimaldi and D'Aurea had 14 galleys at their disposal.
It was more the difference of emphasis -- that Grimaldi and D'Aurea had a force of fourteen galleys, and he sent them/it in full, rather than that he selected fourteen galleys and then put these two men in charge. However, as we've now got it, the difference is pretty small. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note 38: The English did not have a purpose-built navy; Edward owned only three warships. This is true, though Sumption points out that he also owned some smaller logistical ships, and that the ships were fitted out as fighting ships even if two hadn't been built for that purpose -- though p. 174 implies that most states who did have permanent galleys used them as trading ships as well as fighting ships, so I wonder if we're being slightly unfair and anachronistic. Sumption only gives the origin of two of the ships, though I gather from other sources that Christopher was also originally a merchant ship. In theory, we probably should cite something for that.
I read this as the article text passing the spot check - "This is true" - but your wanting further nuance/detail. There is a book's worth of potential information on the English navy (anachronism alert) in 1337 which I am happy to discuss (as part of the normal review) but I am quite content that the summary-style summary of it is sufficient, given that there is detail on the ships actually involved in the engagement.
On the other hand, Sumption puts a slightly different spin on The King relied on requisitioning the merchant vessels of English traders -- we make this sound like ad hoc confiscation, but S. describes a longstanding and legally-entrenched system whereby the Cinque Ports (specifically) were obligated to provide ships in exchange for freedom from normal taxes. In other words, it's not quite that England was just neglecting naval affairs (though it was), and more that the English system operated by means other than a standing royal fleet.
"we make this sound like ad hoc confiscation". No we don't - "By English common law, the crown was required to compensate the owners of ships impressed into service". And see Sumption 175-6 and 264-5 for the actual contributions made by the Cinque ports - the only ports with a "special arrangement", see page 48. Sumption states on page 176, in the context of the inadequacy of the Cinque Ports' contributions, "By long tradition ... all [other ports] were liable to have their ships and seamen pressed into the King's service in return for compensation", which I believe is reasonably summarised in the article.
I didn't know anything about this before reading the article -- when I did, I got one idea of how the process worked, which was (basically) that the king scrabbled around and confiscated any merchant ship he could find, paying off the owners in a manner similar to Ships Taken Up From Trade during the Falklands War. When I read the source, I got quite a different idea, that at least much of it was a longstanding arrangement by which (some of) the merchants would have expected to provide their ships in times of war, and enjoyed privileges in peacetime because of that -- much more like a classically "feudal" vassalage obligation. Unless I've misunderstood one or the other, my current impression is that we're citing the source but saying something importantly different -- but again I don't have background knowledge to smooth it out. UndercoverClassicistT·C07:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you are saying. Trying to boil a response down to less than thesis level is an interesting challenge. A summary-style, uncited response incoming shortly.
Right. I think you are looking at this from a nice neat 20th century English law perspective. In most times and places things were far from that neat. This is Medieval:
There was a broad understanding that the king could claim merchant shipping in war time for some purposes for some period on payment of the traditional rates of compensation. The ship owners and captains were massively unimpressed by this and would much rather their competitors' ships were impressed while they reaped the bumper profits caused by the shipping shortage. Many masters could only be relied on to sail where the king told them to with a virtual or even actual sword at their back. Plus: there was fundamental disagreement on which ships could be impressed, for what purposes, for how long, what happened if payment was late or not forthcoming at all, how weather delays effected this understanding - I could go on at some length but you could probably make up your own edge cases. Plus: there were centuries of accretions of exceptions, exemptions, special arrangements (often for services rendered or cash tendered), understandings, and an almost complete lack of grasp of the big picture. (Edward in particular was poor at this at this period.) And so Sumption for example can write "By long tradition ... all [other ports] were liable to have their ships and seamen pressed into the King's service in return for compensation" (possibly even while keeping a straight face). He the continues "the only thing which commended [this system] to the crown was that it cost almost nothing in peacetime. It had everything else against it." He then goes on for pages with examples of the everything else - a personal favourite is that it was "normal" for the requisition of a fleet to take six months. (Six months!) Skip to page 398, the paragraph commencing "The logistical difficulties of the English government". (You could probably have a good stab at guessing what follows without reading it.)
In short there was a nice, neat, simple-looking system which stunningly was less fit for purpose even than the feudal levy. You and me could have a lengthy planning session to come up with a "system" to cripple the English fleet and still not come up with something more likely to fall apart under the stress of reality. (In 1345 the English got their army embarked, it sat in the ships for five weeks - mostly on the far side of the Channel - disembarked - in England! - to air the horses and never re-embarked. Apparently Edward was ready to chew nails. My point being that it is difficult to overstate how dysfunctional the apparently straight forward system was.) Then, because none of this was enough of a handicap, much of the sailing took place in winter. Truly, it would be difficult to make this up. (Cushway referring to April 1342 "A Council of Mariners was hurriedly summoned for the th, so that the king could browbeat them into compliance." NOT a "the merchants would have expected to provide their ships in times of war, and enjoyed privileges in peacetime because of that" situation at all.
They did eventually improve things - difficult not to from that low base. The 1346 expedition (the Crécy campaign) went reasonably well. Apart from no ships at all turning up at the time and place agreed for resupply. And the horrendously complicated 11-month siege of Calais worked. One gets the impression because of Edward's raw willpower to make it.
I have rambled. I dunno to what extent this addresses your point, although for simplicity I have tried to stay with Sumption as that is where you seem to perceive there is a problem. Rodger is good for a next step up overview. Anyway this is what is boiled down to "By English common law, the crown was required to compensate the owners of ships impressed into service, but in practice the king paid little and late, which caused shipowners to be reluctant to answer summonses to arms." in the article. Which is not cited to Sumption. (PS reading between the lines in Cushway, Morley was credibly threatening to hang some of the more recalcitrant shipowners.)
This is interesting -- thank you for putting it all together. Am I reading correctly that, in practice, the Cinque Ports with their cushy arrangements played a relatively minor part in the whole thing? UndercoverClassicistT·C20:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Cinque Ports had a very cushy arrangement, for which they were supposed to furnish 80 ships. In practice they didn't manage half of that, fewer than some other single ports. If you are using Sumption, see the top of page 176. Personally I think Rodger's summary - 124-125 - is good, including how the system was overhauled from 1347 and how it eventually led to the collapse of the English merchant marine. The Cinque Ports contribution wasn't - IMO - minor, but your "relatively minor" seems fair. Waay off topic from the article of course.
Note 44: this section of Cushway is only talking about the 1340 raid, and doesn't link it to the events of 1342, meaning that we don't have direct support for The English were familiar with Brest and how to approach it from the sea as just two years earlier a squadron under Morley had attacked the port and captured a fortune in merchant shipping. Since we don't know for sure if anyone other than Morley was involved in both actions, I'd be tempted to rephrase to focus on his experience rather than a nebulous idea of collective memory.
Morley, as Admiral of the North - one of the two most senior English naval positions - led a fleet which "invaded the port" of Brest capturing more than six ships. Two years later much the same fleet under the same command does it again, albeit without his being present. Phrasing this corporately seems both normal and reasonable to me. I make no suggestion of any individuals or ships being present at both actions.
I make no suggestion of any individuals or ships being present at both actions.: Here's the rub, as Hamlet almost said. If we can't make that suggestion, then what do we actually have to base this on? It reminds me a lot of the sort of lazy commentary often made by ancient historians, who will say things like "the Romans were adept at infantry combat" as if it's some kind of genetic characteristic, with no thought of how such skills were created and maintained. On the other hand, if we can say that at least one English person there in 1342 had actually been to Brest before, we should be able to cite someone for that, and might even say it ourselves. UndercoverClassicistT·C21:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we are going to agree on this, so in the interest of keeping the spot checker happy I have changed it to what I think you are after "An English fleet under Morley had attacked the port just two years earlier and captured a fortune in merchant shipping, demonstrating his awareness of how to approach it from the sea."
I'm not sure we are, but I'm still highly unconvinced. Flip the original framing into any other context and it makes no sense at all -- "the British forces liberating Arnhem in 1945 knew the place well because British paratroops had fought there in 1944"? But now we have a non sequitur -- Morley wasn't anywhere near Brest at the time, so why do we care that he knew the way in? In a modern military with institutional memory, formalised planning and so on, the idea of a nation learning from previous experience makes sense, but it seems anachronistic here. And then we have the more important OR issue -- Cushway, cited, is entirely a narrative of Morley's campaign -- he doesn't make any mention the 1342 operation in relation to it or bring it up when he later describes that story. I really can't see how this can stay in with the sourcing we currently have. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. The fact of the raid added to the introduction to Brest as a port but as a background footnote.
Notes 28c and 32e: these support a lot of text. I don't see what role, if any, was played by the Bayonnais galleys is not recorded or Their eventual fate is not recorded in either, though neither record anything on this front -- however, we can't jump from a gap in two sources to say that this gap exists in human knowledge. Similarly, I don't think we explicitly have where the galleys' shallow draught might allow them to find at least temporary safety -- it seems reasonable, but also like it's an explanation that's come from us rather than our sources.
I see that UndercoverClassicist has some additional comments about the sourcing that need to be factored in. On my part, source formatting seems consistent and most sources seem reliable, save for the point above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have two mentions of Sumption in the prose and on both those mentions he has been linked along with being described as "the historian". You could drop "the historian" in the second case.
One is in the lead which is meant to be a stand-alone introduction, hence Sumption being introduced both there and in the main article is, IMO, correct.
...made for the nearest rivers, where the galleys' shallow draught might allow them to find at least temporary safety.
What's the use of the comma after "rivers"?
The way I use commas one is needed there to denote the separate clause. However, as I will take any excuse to reduce the comma count I have deleted it anyway.
Good spot. Both lower-cased to follow the usage of the HQ RSs.
Bottom line
All upto the usual Gog standards. It barely needed revisions. Another of Gog’s 100YW pieces sorted. One final read to be certain. Nearly there. MSincccc (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sebele II was the chief of the Kwena people in present-day Botswana until he was deposed by the British colonial administration and replaced by his brother. I've been working on Botswana-related articles for a few years as part of my philosophy that deep coverage of one area is a better way to fight systemic bias than shallow coverage of many subjects, but this is the first time I've submitted one to FAC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸16:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: are the Bakwena the same as the Kwena tribe?
Yes, Bantu languages like Setswana use prefixes the way we use suffixes. My understanding is that Kwena is to Bakwena as Canada is to Canadians. Would you suggest using a single word throughout?
Not necessarily. I kind of like using the correct plural forms from whatever language, be it French or Latin or Setswana. Maybe a footnote??
Early life and family: "He was the son, along with his sister" sounds a bit weird to me.
Reworded.
At what age was he at Tiger Kloof?
Clarified that it's secondary school.
Where did he live before he moved to Witwatersrand?
Unclear, there's only so much sourcing for figures like him, especially before his reign began.
Kgosi: not necessarily something for you to do, but Ntsweng isn't really an article about the place (in particular, I couldn't find coordinates; I desperately need maps to understand where all the places are)
The target is currently the only place that describes the ___location. I might try to get an article going with a couple paragraphs if I can find the sources.
"Sebele's advisors ... filed complaints against him ..., but they remained a minority" this is peculiar. His advisors were his main opposition?
Changed to "headmen". Essentially they were tribal leaders below Sebele.
That makes more sense.
Colonial opposition: "After considered a trial" considering? having considered?
Considering. Fixed.
I am generally a bit confused by the status of dikgosi during the colonial administration: was there some formal agreement on who had what powers?
As far as I can tell, it was a constant power struggle, which was the case for Sebele more than anyone.
Policies: "His tribal age regiment, or mophato, underwent bogwera for several months." can you explain the terms? What is an age regiment? What does undergoing bogwera entail? The red links do not help.
It's kind of hard to get into this stuff without explaining the entire culture in every article about sub-Saharan Africa. I don't think that the exact process of bogwera is relevant so much as that it was deemed un-Christian.
Perhaps filling the red links would be helpful. (Back in 2006, many red links would have been a showstopper at FAC; I am glad they no longer are). Bogwera occurs several times, I think it would be good to explain it.
I have it describe bogwera as a rite of passage every time it comes up, I don't think the actual process is as important as how it was perceived by Christians. It's on my list of articles to create. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸01:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without at least a footnote to describe what it is, I am lost. First he goes somewhere else to do it, then his age regiment spends several months doing it, then the 30 year olds are prevented from going to school because of it, and later his entire tribe takes part. A weird rite of passage. —Kusma (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removal: How far away is Ghanzi?
According to the Ghanzi article, it's on the west side of the country. The sources just say he was sent to the city, the same way you might say that someone from New York went to Los Angeles.
Exile and succession: "The people are said to have stood or raised their hands upon Kgari's appointment, which Rey argued was an indication of their support." who said that? it seems to contradict "the Bakwena were outraged by Sebele's removal" or did Rey misunderstood the crowds?
My presumption is that Rey was deliberately misinterpreting their protest as support. I've described the dispute a little more clearly without adding my own original research to accuse him.
Better.
I find that I have lots of stupid questions that I wouldn't have about European royalty. I'm not sure how many of the things I am clueless about should be explained in this article, but I would wish for a little more to make the article more self-contained for people clueless about Botswana. It certainly looks like Botswana's history is worth looking into in more detail. —Kusma (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I have time I'll comment more fully, but for now, a few first impressions:
"His allowance of traditional religious practices" – seems a slightly odd phrasing: "allowance" is rarely used in the sense of "allowing".
Changed to "acceptance"
"made him enemies with the Christian tribal headmen and the London Missionary Society" – I can't parse this wording. Does it mean "made him an enemy of"?
Yes, fixed.
bogwera – the first of twenty red-linked terms or names in your text. See WP:RED – "Add red links to articles to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable". Unless you are planning to create an article on bogwera or believe that someone else is going to create one, I suggest you explain the term in an explanatory footnote and remove the red link. I recommend you also apply the criteria of WP:RED to
Almar Gordon Stigand
Charles Rey
European Advisory Council
Howard Neale
James MacGregor
Kebohula
Kgosing
Kgwanyakgwanyang
masotla
matimela
Moiteelasilo
Mokgalagadi
Molefi
mophato
Native Advisory Council
Padi
Phetogo
Rowland Daniel
Tumagole
I think you're misreading WP:RED. It says to do the opposite of what you're suggesting and to preserve red links wherever the subject could plausibly have an article. Red links are unfortunately common on articles about the history of sub-Saharan Africa.
led by Resident Commissioner Charles Rey" – a clunky tabloidese false title. Could do with a definite article after "by" and a comma before "Charles".
General: I cannot work out your rationale for capitalising and not capitalising job titles. We have "Resident Commissioner Charles Rey" but "Britain's resident commissioner James MacGregor"; "describing him as unstable and alcoholic to the high commissioner" but "the High Commissioner of Britain's territories"
MOS:JOBTITLE has never really been intuitive to me. I've gone ahead and capitalized all of them consistently, if this is the best way to go about it?
"along with his older sister Padi and the his younger brothers" – ... "and the his ..." doesn't make sense.
Fixed.
"He was presented before the British royal family while he was in Paris" – two points here: you don't explain why he was in Paris (few rank and file British or Empire soldiers got there during WWI) and secondly, not the whole British royal family, surely? Whitaker's Almanack for 1915 lists twenty members of the royal family at the time.
The source doesn't say anything about why he was in Paris except that he was there because of World War I. Changed to "members of the British Royal family".
"Another faction that had separated from the rule of Sebele's father, the followers of Jacoba a Kgari, reunited with the Bakwena and came under Sebele's rule. Sebele was the first kgosi of the Bakwena who could read English" – I don't doubt the facts are correctly stated, but the second sentence is a striking non sequitur after the first.
This is one I had trouble finding a spot for. I've moved it to be the second sentence of the paragraph.
"This has been a response to the London Missionary Society" – the tense of the verb looks odd.
Fixed.
"describing him as unstable and alcoholic to the high commissioner" – this is the first mention of the high commissioner, and we should, I think, have a brief explanation of this official's function and the name of its holder at the time.
Added "his direct superior"
"aligned with businessman B. I. Vickerman" – another tabloidese false title. Likewise, later, "Resident Commissioner Jules Ellenberger", "Resident Magistrate Almar Gordon Stigand", "Resident Magistrate Howard", "Resident Commissioner Rey" and "Historian Jeff Ramsay".
Resident so-and-so are true titles, and I'm not aware of anything in the manual of style that disallows false titles, which read much more cleanly.Apply the New York Times's "good morning" test: would you say "Good morning, Resident Commissioner Jules Ellenberger" etc?
"hesitancy in levying fines for the parents of women who were impregnated" – unclear if the fines were for the financial benefit of the parents or were imposed on them as a penalty.
Reworded to "levying fines for the benefit of parents whose daughters were impregnated".
"on allegations that he had beat his mistress" – strange past perfect: "had beaten" would be usual.
Fixed.
"allowed Anglicanism to be practiced by the Bakwena" – the verb is "practised" if the text is in BrE (though perhaps it isn't in BrE).
Fixed. I use a British English spell check when writing BrE articles and it says it's fine, but who knows where those get their info.
"His tribal age regiment" – I cannot guess what a tribal age regiment is or was. Clarification would be welcome.
Linked to age set. It's difficult to address these things without having long tangents about the entire culture.
"overruled by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs" – one would normally expect to see the name of the secretary of state. (It was J. H. Thomas, but you'll need a citation for that.)
Doesn't seem terribly relevant, especially since the source doesn't consider it relevant.
"to allow for Sebele's removal" – the "for" is superfluous and makes the phrase mean not quite what I think you mean.
Fixed.
"He took a third fiancee" – it is usual to give "fiancée" its acute accent.
Fixed.
"but they never wed ... Susan never formally wed Sebele" – according to the current edition of Modern English Usage (p. 873), "the Old English verb wed long ago fell out of everyday use", and its use in serious prose is "irretrievably naff". "Married" would be a great improvement.
It sounds like Modern English Usage was written by self-important dogmatists who shouldn't be given the time of day. But changed.
Source Ramsey 1987 says that Sebele was made a political prisoner for eight years; I could not find "poltiical prisoner" in the article. Looks like article describes it as "exile" to Ghanzi. But is Ghanzi inside Bechuanaland Protectorate? Not sure "exile" is the right word. Do other sources uses that word?
Mbuya 1999 and Ramsay 1996 describe it as exile. Makgala 2008 uses "banished".
Lead - Readers need to be able to understand unfamiliar terms: the word bogwera" in the lead looks rather important, need a stub article for that, or - at a minimum - an informative footnote (e.g. using "efn" template) to define the term.
This is one I've been meaning to create anyway, so Bogwera and bojale now exists.
Red links overall: I see that the red links are mentioned above by other reviewers, especially bogwera. I agree with other reviewers that bogwera must be defined here in this article, if a bogwera article is not ging to be created.
Article now exists.
Article has too many red links for FA quality. I can see one or two red links on really obscure topics. Creating stub articles (to eliminate important red links) is part of the process of preparing an article for FA nomination.
This is incorrect. Nothing in the WP:FACR covers red links or being expected to edit articles other than the one that's being reviewed. I made the bogwera article as a courtesy.
Navboxes at bottom: No navbox of, e.g. Botswana?
I've never heard of an entire country's navbox being used to track all of the various non-sovereign political leaders who existed in the country's history.
Lack of a map: Sebele II was a chief, I would expect a locator map that helps readers get a feel for the geography of this person's life. Perhaps not a global map, but a map of Botswana or similar with an icon showing the primary area of Sebele's chiefdom.
Article does not, in my opinion, satisfy the FA criterion"its prose is engaging". Is it that the subject is inherently bland? Or is it the style of writing? Hard to say, but I have seen articles on bland topics that are more vibrant.
I'm not sure what to tell you, this note isn't really actionable. Are the sentences too choppy? Are there too many proper nouns in short succession? It would also be totally understandable if some people simply don't find early-20th century colonial political affairs engaging in and of itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸23:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the above reasons - by themselves - is not major; but considered together as a whole, I'm not ready to support. Certainly this is close to FA quality ... perhaps the article should go through a WP:Peer review, then come back? Noleander (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a full review. Usual disclaimer goes here that these are suggestions, not demands, and feel free to decline. Often there is a balance between concision and completeness that there isn't a proper answer for.
Overall, an impressive work. I do have some questions on source-text integrity though. This is only from reviewing the later parts of the article and not the first half, but it might be worth doing a quick pass in general.
Sebele angered the London Missionary Society further by allowing circumcision - I don't think this is interpreting the source correctly. The source says "This (encouraging circumcision, not 'allowing' it) won him sufficient popular support to quash the combined efforts of the LMS-associated elite and the British to get rid of him". It's not that the LMS was opposed to this (which would be weird), but rather that apparently encouraging this was popular and afforded him the protection of popularity (perhaps because it convinced Bechuanaland Christians he wasn't so bad?).
The LMS was opposed to this. I reworded it a bit and added a second cite.
Ahhh I see, checking the cite, it says "traditional circumcision", i.e. presumably as part of the bogwera. I think the word 'traditional' is important here and should be included in the article - otherwise, given the context of Christian missionaries, a reader (like me) may assume it means circumcision as in the Jewish and some-branches-of-Christianity ritual practice. I get that there's a similar endpoint, but the ritual trappings were considered important here by both 'sides' in the era.
He is also alleged to have instituted droit du seigneur. I get that this is not a BLP or anything and he's long dead, but I think this requires more info (and possibly a gloss for those who don't know what this term is talking about). This is basically casually mentioning "He is also alleged to be a rapist" which... well, details, who's saying this, etc.
It's just a passing mention by one source, so I've removed it.
Historian Jeff Ramsay described Sebele's reign and subsequent removal as the point that the Bakwena began declining in influence. I checked Ramsey and don't really see where this is coming from - he says that the demise of Sebele's rule (but not the reign itself) was the end of the traditional leadership's influence, but that's not the same thing as the Bakwena. p. 73 calls them the "senior tribe in the territory" and p. 74 mentions a case where another community were placed under "Bakwena overseers" (answering to Kgari) so it's not clear that the Bakwena in general 'lost' here. Makgala 2008 calls them "local Bakwena sub-imperialists" as well as the "traditional tribute" was still paid to the Bakwena.
You're right, it looks like it's describing the Bakwena royalty rather than the tribe as a whole. I've removed the sentence.
Sebele's supporters, the BoSebele, submitted the Great Petition to the colonial administration on 6 March 1933 - Optional: Maybe "a petition, called the Great Petition by Sebele's supporters" or the like? Without this being introduced, it's a little surprising and might cause people to assume that the Great Petition was already mentioned.
The Great Petition is what it's called in the sources. But it's not important and it's clearer to say "a petition", so I've changed it to that.
Kgari privately acknowledged that Sebele was the legitimate chief and resisted efforts to bring about his return - Nitpick warning: strictly speaking, yes, this is true. But the context is a letter to Sebele himself. I'm not sure how much stock is to be put in him 'acknowledging' this when he could very well have just been being diplomatic, a meaningless concession to politeness. I think actions speak louder than words, and would just say "resisted efforts to bring about his return."
That's fair. I've made the change.
He believed that he had not truly been banished, reasoning that he was still in the country while the British were not. - The source says "his" country, while "the" country sounds like a reference to Bechuanaland in both cases (which would be crazy, the British were definitely still there). I'm not 100% sure this bon mot needs to be included, but if it is, the jab he's making ("reasoning" might be the wrong vibe, this isn't debate) is that it's the British-in-Africa who've been 'exiled' from their home country. Anyway I wouldn't put much emphasis on it, this is just wry humor. If kept anyway, I'd rephrase this, as he definitely was really banished. SnowFire (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on the circumcision issue above. Looking at the earlier sections, mostly looks good. Just a few thoughts:
His allowance of traditional religious practices like polygyny Optional thought: This is technically correct. However, the lead is the most accessible section of the article, and "polygamy" is a much more commonly known word while also still accurate. Up to you.
I see what you mean, changed.
Many attempts were made by colonial leaders to undermine his popularity, promoting an image of Sebele as a violent alcoholic and forming Tribal Councils made up of his opponents. This is also true, but colonial leaders weren't a monolith. It was also (different) colonial leaders higher up the chain that said he shouldn't be removed as long as he was still popular, after all. We've also already established he was "challenged" earlier up. Maybe just "Sebele's opponents made multiple attempts to undermine his popularity..."? It sounds like jealous elites were just as big of a threat to his rule from my perusing of the sources. Again, optional, feel free to decline.
In this case I think it's important to specify the actions taken by the colonial leaders. The domestic challenges are described separately.
He was sent home with all of the black soldiers after some had mutinied against white officers. - This checks out in that the source (Ramsey) indeed uses the word "mutinied" and links it to going home. That said, I still think this might overstate the case. Our article on South African Native Labour Corps cites The South African Native Labour Contingent, 1916-1918 fairly heavily, and while it discusses some unhappiness and incidents in the ranks, I don't get the impression a full-blown "mutiny" happened (and given the context, the literal sense of mutiny is a reasonable reading). It seems the primary reason for letting the contracts expire was that the white South African leadership absolutely hated the idea of sending black Africans to Europe where they might get ideas above their station, expect better treatment from whites, etc. And while the source does say "troops", this (or "soldiers" in the Wikipedia article) also seems a bit of an exaggeration - my understanding is that South African policy of the era forbade using blacks as regular armed soldiers in the army. It's up to you, I don't want to get into original research, but neither do we have to put the strongest claims of sources in directly. I think Ramsey was shading things a tad here and using "troops" in a very broad sense. Per opening disclaimer, this is all optional since it's sourced as-is, but I'd suggest a weaker claim like "He and the other black labourers were sent home after other units had struggles with white officers."
I changed it to "personnel" and swapped "mutinied" with your wording.
Sebele's uncles, Kebohula and Moiteelasilo, had split from the tribe and remained at Borakalalo - First, I'm not sure if the current redirect Borakalalo is linking to is accurate - it's a Game Reserve. Second, using it without qualifier makes it sound like a town name, but I'm not sure that's true? Ramsey calls it the "Borakalalo Valley" even if he later shortens it to Borakalalo. SnowFire (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming it's the same ___location, but I've removed the link. Also added "Valley".
Works for me. Support. I would also consider this a partial source review as well - not a full ref-by-ref one (some sources I didn't have access to), but I read some of the main sources that were on the Wikipedia Library. SnowFire (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there's much left to do, so I'll go over the formatting issues, if any
None found
Just because I had it on hand, I checked both cites to Morton and Ramsay. They check out just fine. Page numbers would be preferred, but I suspect that the editor only had an epub edition to available. Both entries for the cites are short enough that it was not a chore to confirm their accuracy
This article is about a 2007 single by (again) Taylor Swift. It became her first pop chart success that set the precedent to even higher achievements later. Looking back, this song was a sweet tune that was both catchy and relatable: who hasn't had an unrequited love for an unattainable crush? I believe this article satisfies FA criteria and I'm open to any feedback regarding its candidature. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Swift sings with soft vocals[19] -> refs should generally be placed after a punctutation, so insert a comma before the ref
Refs should always be placed in numerical order -> and tender.[22][19][23]
Grady Smith from Rolling Stone thought that its mournful sound followed the tradition of country ballads,[23] NPR and Roger Holland of PopMatters categorized it as a pop song; the latter argued that it does not contain country elements at all.[24][25] -> I would add a "While" at the beginning of the sentence
The version released to pop radio, at three minutes long, omits the banjo, mandolin, and steel guitar, adds a mid-tempo drum loop echo effects to Swift's singing -> an "and" needs to be added before "adds"
Statements in the caption of the song sample need references (just paste those already featured in the "Music and lyrics" section)
I don't see the genre "country pop" that is included in the infobox being sourced in the "Music and lyrics" section. Also, I would include the genres in the lead too
Critical reception -> the 14 best songs written by teenagers[35] and -> comma before the ref
Vulture's Nate Jones regarded the track as the best example of Swift and Rose's "early songwriting cheat code", highlighting how "they switch the words of the chorus around at the end of the song".[38] -> I would rather include this info in the "Music and lyrics" section since it addresses the song's structure
Not done -- I think I'd leave it here because it doesn't specify how the lyrics change at the end.. I tried looking for a source but none found, so.. Ippantekina (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial performance -> In the United States, it peaked at number 13 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart[40] and at number two on the Hot Country Songs chart. Comma before the ref
The info on the awards don't belong in the "Commercial performance" section, but rather in the "Critical reception" section; I would create a sub-section called "Accolades"
peaked at number 45 on the Canadian Hot 100[50] -> comma before the ref
The notes with references are unnecessary; just insert the reference after each fact, for example: In Canada, the single additionally entered on airplay charts, reaching number 6 on Canada Country,[REF] number 16 on Canada CHR/Top 40, [REF] and on Canada Hot AC,[REF] and number 21 on Canada AC.[REF]
Swift said that although her label's personnel expected the video to be "more city" and "have an older setting" -> I would try to paraphrase these quotes since I, personally, don't quite understand what they try to say
The video received a nomination for "Number One Streamed Music Video" at the web-hosted 2007 CMT Online Awards[66] -> comma before ref
Swift said she was "stunned" to be nominated at the MTV awards -> I would say "at the latter awards" to avoid repetition
Spin and Grammy.com -> Editors of Spin and the Grammy Awards website
featured some of her video trademarks -> "video" seems superfluous to me here
Live performances -> Swift also performed the track on America's Got Talent in 2007,[77] and at Stagecoach Festival[78] and the Chicago Marathon in 2008 -> Swift also performed the track on America's Got Talent in 2007,[77] at Stagecoach Festival,[78] and the Chicago Marathon in 2008
While promoting Fearless in the United Kingdom, Swift appeared on The Paul O'Grady Show and performed "Teardrops on My Guitar", in May 2009 -> no comma before "in" is needed
1c "A thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"
Yes - Article uses a variety of country-focused sources, music-focused sources, newspapers, magazines, books, from various countries, both print and online, both contemporaneous and retrospective
1c "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources"
Yes - Article cites high-quality reliable sources. Consider removing Business Insider per WP:BI.
No - Canadian radio chart links are dead
No - Google Books links should include via=Google Books
2c "Consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes"
No - Inconsistent ___location usage (The Times has a ___location but not The Commercial Appeal?)
No - Inconsistent ISSN usage
Spotchecks (10% of 109 = 11)
ref 10 - checks out
ref 13 - checks out
ref 14 - checks out
ref 15 - I'm not sure this supports a radio and digital release
ref 22 - checks out
ref 45 - title is "Fearless Feats" not "Fearless Feat"
ref 65 - checks out
ref 69 - checks out
ref 71 - not seeing where it says she sang the song
This passes the source review. IMO WP:RSP has issues with weird/irrelevant arguments contributing to the outcome of RfCs and discussion summaries that are often superfluous of existing policies and guidelines, so I don't treat it as gospel. The author has apparently even received a LA Press Award nomination for her Taylor Swift coverage so the citation should be okay, perhaps that even makes it one of the best sources to use. Heartfox (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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) 17:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor Swift was released by Big Machine Records in North America on October 24, 2006 ==> "Big Machine Records released Taylor Swift in North America on October 24, 2006." (active voice)
by a high-school classmate, whose should "high-school" be hyphenated
whose first name Drew is mentioned in the lyrics ==> "whose first name, Drew, is mentioned in the lyrics"
Swift was on a way to attend a hockey game ==> "Swift was on her way to attend a hockey game"
music and lyrics
Swift's voice have a restraint quality "restraint" ==> "restrained" (i think)
flexible track that be categorized into pop ==> "flexible track that can be categorized into pop"
critical reception
Randy Lewis of the Los Angeles Times thought that the teenage sensibilities contributed to Taylor Swift's charm, and Deborah Evans Price of Billboard thought that the lyrics had a conversational quality that made the audience easily relate to Swift as a friend. "thought that" is used twice in this sentence. maybe some variety?
young women. Jon Bream of Star Tribune considered ==. "young women. Jon Bream of the Star Tribune considered"
in Business Insider's 2019 list the 14 best songs written by ==> "in Business Insider's 2019 list of the 14 best songs written by"
commericial peformance
In the United States, it peaked at number 13 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and number two on the Hot Country Songs chart, and it became Swift's first pop crossover success, peaking at number seven and spending 21 weeks on the Pop Songs chart. ==> "In the United States, it peaked at number 13 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and number two on the Hot Country Songs chart. "Teardrops on My Guitar" became Swift's first pop crossover success, peaking at number seven and spending 21 weeks on the Pop Songs chart."
In Canada, the single additionally entered on airplay charts ==> "In Canada, the single additionally entered the airplay charts"
music video
She invited her high-school friends, her cousin, and her brother Austin to portray fellow high-school students in the halls. The video depicts Swift and Hilton as high-school students. Swift's character is in love with Hilton's, but he is in love with another girl. three instances of high school being hyphenated, i don't think they should be
The aquamarine gown was designed by the wife of Big Machine's president Scott Borchetta. is there a way we can make it clear that Scott isn't the wife of Big Machine's president
live performances
including Florida Strawberry Festival, Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, Craven Country Jamboree, and Z100 Jingle Ball. maybe add "the" before "Florida"
It began with Swift sitting in a desk at the ==> "It began with Swift sitting at a desk at the"
came down the stairs to the main stage, to slow dance remove the comma
Thanks for the review, 750h+. I've addressed everything except for the hyphenated "high-school"; I think it can be justified in its use as an adjective :) Ippantekina (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could we add a bit of retrospective reception to the lead? Like at the end of the second paragraph? I know you've had that in other Swift song FAs, so I don't see why we shouldn't have that here, especially given this was one of her first big hits.
"Reviewing the pop version," I assume you mean the single edit? According to the text both the album and single cuts could be deemed "pop" so perhaps a clarification would be good.
Trey Fanjoy directed the music video for "Teardrops on My Guitar", and Swift developed the idea for the narrative with Fanjoy. perhaps "The music video for "Teardrops on My Guitar" was directed by Trey Fanjoy, who developed the idea for the narrative with Swift."?
While promoting Fearless in the United Kingdom, in May 2009, Swift appeared on The Paul O'Grady Show and performed "Teardrops on My Guitar". → "In May 2009, while promoting Fearless in the United Kingdom, Swift performed the song on The Paul O'Grady Show."
Thanks Zmbro for the comments! I have addressed all prose points and tagged the Telegraph with limited access, although IABot is having a crash on my end... Ippantekina (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my sixth time nominating "La Isla Bonita" for Featured Article status — as a longtime Madonna fan and committed editor, I've spent months refining every section to meet FA criteria. The article has undergone multiple peer reviews and incorporates extensive sourcing, inline citations, and balanced coverage across all major aspects: background, composition, reception, chart performance, video, live renditions, and cultural impact. I've strived to ensure neutrality, comprehensiveness, and adherence to the Manual of Style throughout. I welcome feedback and hope this nomination finally brings the article the gold star it deserves. Christian (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment: WP:SONGS suggests that a section detailing the track listings for singles should not be included in articles as a standard practice (see WP:SINGLETRACKLIST). I don't see any mention of the remixes in the article's body, let alone "extensive commentary", so the 'Track listing and formats' section should probably be removed. Leafy46 (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback @Leafy46:!. While WP:SONGS does caution against including single track listings by default, it also allows for exceptions where the content is contextually relevant and well-sourced. In this case, "La Isla Bonita" was released in multiple formats (7", 12", CD, digital single), each with varying B-sides and remixes.
Other Featured Articles of songs such as Bad Romance and Never Forget You (Mariah Carey song) retain detailed Track listing and formats sections, despite not discussing the remixes in the prose. Their inclusion has been accepted when the variations are verifiable and historically relevant, even without extensive commentary. For consistency across song FAs and as a resource for discographic completeness, I believe this section is justified here—but I remain open to consensus if trimming or merging is preferred.--Christian (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder if the inclusion of such a section in those article is due to intention or simply because it was never brought up. In the FAC for "Never Forget You", the topic is never mentioned; in the one for "Bad Romance", it was directly mentioned but not addressed or acted upon. There is also a lack of consistency amongst song FAs in regards to this: "I Don't Wanna Cry" (which was written by the same nominator as "Never Forget You" around the same time) and "Bad Blood", among others, do not contain a separate 'Track listings' section. Ultimately, I'll leave whether this should be addressed up to whoever ends up closing this discussion, due to my relative inexperience working at FAC. For what it's worth though, one of the FA criteria is that pages should follow style guidelines, and keeping a 'Track listing' section when it is not the "subject of extensive commentary" would go against the style guidelines set up at WP:SONGS. Leafy46 (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add references to the statements made in the music sample caption
I would link "travelogue" to its wikitionary entry, since it seems like a rather unusual word to me
Critical reception -> Barnes felt that while not as impactful as "Open Your Heart" -> clarify that "Open Your Heart" is the single previous to "La Isla Bonita"
Daryl Easlea, in Madonna: Blond Ambition, argued that "La Isla Bonita" and the other singles were so strong that they overshadowed the rest of True Blue. -> Daryl Easlea, in Madonna: Blond Ambition, argued that "La Isla Bonita" and the other singles released from True Blue were so strong that they overshadowed the rest of the album. (to have more clarification over which singles are meant here)
The production was frequently noted -> I'd use another wording, possibly "The song's production was a frequent topic of discussion among critics"
Madonna's vocal performance was also highlighted: AllMusic's Stuart Mason and Billboard's Bianca Gracie both singled it out as a strength -> I'd make it more clear that her voice was a strength in the song specifically
One retrospective review described -> name the publication and author
Rikky Rooksby, in The Complete Guide to the Music of Madonna, commented that the song's accompanying video would be "marginally more interesting".[28] -> This is a commentary on the video rather than the song, so I don't see it as fitting in this section
The last couple of sentences in "Critical reception" repeat the word "it" a lot; I would diversity it with "the song", "the track", the title or other alternatives
I would rename the section "Usage and covers" in "Use in popular media" since "Usage" could really refer to any usage, such as in a music video
Just a note: how do you think Micaela managed to cover the song before its release?
The Black Eyed Peas and Ozuna sampled "La Isla Bonita" in 2020's "Mamacita", which producer Johnny Goldstein credited to will.i.am's creative vision -> I would simplify to: "... an idea which producer... credited to will.i.am".
Certifications and sales -> French, Japanese and US sales should have a symbol next to them like the other ones, based on which sales they take into consideration
Refs 19, as well as 185-189 show issues; "Madonna" needs to be listed in the "author" parameter, not "others"
The refs with "subscription required" should have the parameter "|url-access=subscription" included instead
I am not truly convinced that DrownedMadonna and DVD Movie Guide are reliable sources
Link "Google Books", "Cashbox", as well as all the chart publishers (especially in the year-end chart table) in the references
A well-written and well-sourced article that flows effortlessly. It was a nice read and I was happy to get to know more about the article. I'll happily support once my points above are fixed. I'd truly appreciate some feedback on my own music FAC. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful feedback — I've gone ahead and implemented nearly all your suggestions. Here's a breakdown of the changes and notes:
Caption references: I've added references to the caption statements in the audio sample as recommended.
“Travelogue”: I replaced the word with “place” to make the meaning more accessible and avoid needing a Wiktionary link.
Critical reception clarifications:
I clarified that “Open Your Heart” is the single released just prior to “La Isla Bonita.”
I expanded the Easlea quote to specify “the other singles released from True Blue.”
I reworded “The production was frequently noted” to “The song’s production was a frequent topic of discussion among critics.”
I rephrased the line on Madonna’s vocals to make it clearer that both reviewers praised her voice in this song specifically.
The “One retrospective review described...” sentence now names the publication and author.
Rooksby’s comment on the video: I’ve moved this to the Music video section, as it fits better there.
Word repetition: I've diversified the repeated use of “it” in the final sentences of Critical reception for better readability.
Section name change: Renamed “Use in popular media” to “Usage and covers” for precision, as suggested.
Micaela cover: I havent' found a source that mentions how or why she covered the song.
Simplified Mamacita sentence: Reworded per your suggestion for clarity.
Certifications and sales:
This is one of the few items I haven’t been able to address fully. The template auto-generates the symbols based on region, and manually adding them without interfering with the template is tricky. If you have any guidance on how to fix that within the {{Certification Table Entry}} or {{Singlechart}} frameworks, I’d be grateful.
References:
I updated reference formatting as requested:
Fixed issues in refs 19 and 185–189 (moved "Madonna" to the |author= parameter).
Added |url-access=subscription to applicable sources.
Linked Google Books, Cashbox, and all chart publishers where relevant.
Re: DrownedMadonna — I understand your concerns. While the site is a fan publication, the content used is an interview with the song's creator, and to my knowledge, this interview has not been published elsewhere. I believe it holds value as a primary source, but I’m open to replacing it if the same interview can be located in a more traditional outlet.
Let me know if you have further suggestions. I really appreciate the close reading and your help improving the article! I’ll be sure to stop by and leave comments on your own FAC nomination shortly Christian (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrishm21: Thank you for your great job implementing my feedback! I've thought more about the sales in the certification table and was also informed through another FAC I reviewed that pure sales don't need symbols (since those sales are not based on the certification; which is the case here). So everything should be fine with that. As for the DrownedMadonna source ― I do see it as an acceptable ref now with your explanation, even if it is a primary source. Also, I doubt we can find it anywhere else, since DrownedMadonna conducted the interview themselves. Happily giving this article my support. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although you could expand a bit more on the release information, delving deeper into the formats and B-sides, for example, just as it appears in "I Don't Wanna Cry". Guide yourself by what is found in "Track listing and formats." Also, and this is optional, I think the 'Impact' section could go last. Apart from that, I appreciate the consistent work to improve this article and hopefully, it will be approved as FA. It deserves it. Regards, MadonnaFan (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Apoxyomenus! That's an interesting perspective—thanks for sharing it. While I'm not certain whether Otu or DK Records meet notability guidelines, their take on the song does highlight its continued cultural resonance and appeal across diverse musical scenes. Let me know what you think. Cheers! Christian (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"According to the sheet music published by Alfred Publishing Inc., the song is set in C♯ minor ―with a bridge in F♯ minor― at a tempo of 100 beats per minute, and spans Madonna's vocal range from G♯3 to C♯5" → musicnotes.com is not a high-quality source for arrangement details, particularly vocals. Many songs have dozens of arrangements available online, and it is inappropriate to select one that is not clearly the original (note "Arrangement Details gives you detailed information about this particular arrangement of La Isla Bonita - not necessarily the song.") For comparison, a more reliable source would be Hal Leonard's "Original Keys for Singers" series, which is the original arrangement of vocals, but I don't think "La Isla Bonita" is covered.
I'd like to point out that musicnotes.com has been used in other song Featured articles ("Bad Romance" and "Alejandro") In those cases, it was considered the most reliable available source for technical details such as key, tempo, and vocal range. If there is a more authoritative alternative available for "La Isla Bonita," I’d be happy to switch or remove, but in the absence of such a source, this seems consistent with FA precedent
It has also been objected to at other FACs. Anyone can rearrange a song by increasing its tempo or changing the key, etc. As I noted, even the source itself notes that "Arrangement Details gives you detailed information about this particular arrangement of La Isla Bonita - not necessarily the song". It is okay if an article does not have these details anyways. Most readers do not even know what a key is or what a vocal range means. Really this is highly technical info that while nice to have, is absolutely not essential to an encyclopedia article.
'I was unaware of this. Thank you for letting me know that specific info is not mandatory. Removed
inconsistent ISSN usage
Done. Let me know if anything's missing.
I see that the pattern is to include ISSNs when a print source is cited... but like why? All the publications already have wikilinks, and some even have URLs to the source, but ok I guess
Newspapers.com links should be clippings so everyone can see, not direct links to the full page
done
The Age ref cites page 5 but the article is on page 15 of the Entertainment Guide department
fixed the page; the section Entertainment Guide belongs to The Age.
Yes but there are multiple "page 15" in the newspaper. You need to say which page 15 of which section you are citing, which is what department=Entertainment Guide is for.
some RPM links are broken
done
what makes drownedmadonna.com a high-quality source?
See my reply above.
Unless you can establish that the fan site has a reputation for reliability or significance, etc., then it isn't really a high-quality source. It still has to be high-quality as misquotes and other things can happen. In addition, if something is only available on a fan site it is perhaps not notable enough to include in an article as it did not receive attention/was published by a better source.
what makes digitaljournal.com a high-quality source?
what makes orcasound.com a high-quality source?
Both Digital Journal and Orcasound are established online outlets with editorial oversight and bylined authors, and offer non-controversial points and brief commentary (for example, album reviews and coverage of releases). Their use here is limited to this type of information.
digitaljournal.com/about-us says "We focus on elevating voices in the news cycle so we can help businesses share these firsts with those reading or searching, as well as empower our audiences to learn something new." Why even cite this? You could just cite Rebel Heart Tour
OrcaSound is not reliable for review. You should not cite something as a review when the artists are quoted in the same article. Quasi interviews/reviews is not a good source. It looks like a press release also
Have removed both Digital Journal and OrcaSound'
what makes smoothradio.com a high-quality source? like why is some random radio station's summary relevant and trustworthy?
'removed
what makes maistocadas.br.com a high-quality source?
Maistocadas.br is aligned with Crowley Broadcast Analysis, which is a recognized Brazilian music chart monitoring service. Because the data reflects airplay tracked by a credible industry entity, the source is considered reliable for chart performance.
Can you provide a link that supports this?
is selectmagazinescans a copyvio?
removed
dont link to imgur copyvios just cite it as a physical copy
ensure all 'La Isla Bonita' has single quotes in ref article titles
can you please point out where this is not done?
ensure all-caps article titles are converted to the sentence case format used
Done. Only proper names abbreviations (CD, DVD), demonyms, titles (ie. Queen of Pop) are capitalized. Let me know If I missed anything.
"Also in 2022, Otu released a cover of "La Isla Bonita" arranged in the style of heavy metal band System of a Down, featured on the tribute album Moonic of a Down" → unless this can be cited to a secondary source and not Apple Music it's doesn't merit inclusion
removed
Is it accurate to use a chart based on Panama City and extrapolate it to Panama the country - same for Santiago and present it as a "Chile" chart? This should be specified in the prose that it is referring to city only.
done'
you should add the doi to Vinuela. the live url is available and free, so idk why the archive is used
The Viñuela source (Instituto Cervantes at Harvard University) does not have a DOI because it's an institutional report, not a journal article. DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers) are typically assigned to peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, or other formally published academic works.
I noticed that my suggestion to incorporate doi:10.1017/CBO9781316663837.016 in archive4 was not done - can you address this?
I appreciate the suggestion, but there is no requirement to use any specific source for FA criteria. I don't have access to the cited chapter and I'm not going to pay for access (it's not available through my university either). I stand by that the existing coverage already meets FA's comprehensiveness and sourcing standards with multiple reliable, accessible references. If another editor with access feels it adds value, they are welcome to incorporate it, but I won't be able to.
Per WP:FACR 1c, FA must be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". This Cambridge University Press(!) source contains five pages of analysis of the music video. If you haven't even accessed it then how can you know the "the existing coverage already meets FA's comprehensiveness and sourcing standards"? Can you at least read it and then make an argument that it would be superfluous of existing analysis cited? As multiple editors noted at archive4, the source is freely available via WP:TWL.
I have found the book (Music and Culture in the Middle Ages and Beyond) in Google Books; getting the information now.
DNA was a respected English-language broadsheet newspaper published out of Mumbai between 2005 and 2019. It was jointly operated by Zee Media Corporation and the Dainik Bhaskar group, two of India's largest media companies. During its run, DNA maintained a wide circulation and employed professional editorial standards, publishing original reporting, cultural commentary, and analysis. Its status as a major city daily during a period of intense media competition in India (alongside Hindustan Times, The Times of India, etc.) further underlines its reliability. For the purposes of Wikipedia, especially in coverage of global pop culture, it meets the threshold of a mainstream, professional publication with editorial oversight.Christian (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some links to a proof of reputation rather than a summary? Circulation has nothing to do with reliability.
ref 40 - "Madonna recorded a dubplate version" → where is this supported? - use one of the subsequent refs at the end of the sentence to support dubplate
fixed
ref 42 - ok
ref 43 - ok
ref 49 - ok
ref 55 - ok
ref 56 - ok
ref 62 - ok
ref 77 - ok
ref 85 - ok
ref 94 - "topped the European Hot 100 Singles chart on the week of June 20, 1987" - article shows it was already at number one the previous week. look to what date it went number one for the first time.
fixed
ref 109 - ok
ref 166 - ok
ref 191 - ok
ref 220 - ok
"The lyrics evoke imagery of "tropical breeze" and "nature wild and free", describing its inhabitants as people with "beautiful faces" and "no cares in this world"" → where is this supported in Matthew-Walker?
article uses a lot of "noted", "noting", "observed", (and arguably) "identify" contrary to WP:SAID
" Newsday's Wayne Robins described "La Isla Bonita" as an "enigmatic Latin fantasy" with a melody so resilient it could be interpreted across genres —from a Ruben Blades arrangement to a street-corner doo-wop rendition." → I would move this after the David Browne sentence as it relates to the production not the vocals
"Madonna described the song as a tribute to the "beauty and mystery" of Latin Americans, explaining that she had long been influenced by Latin music, particularly salsa and merengue, which she frequently heard while living in New York City" → A bit of a run-on sentence
"alongside the rest of" → along with the rest of
"The lyrics evoke imagery of "tropical breeze" and "nature wild and free", describing its inhabitants as people with "beautiful faces" and "no cares in this world" → this reads odd - also 4 quotes like this is excessive
"though he added she at least "had the decency to grow her eyebrows"" → is this necessary to include?
add some more topic sentences to the music video analysis and reception paragraphs so these can be understood better
"Tom Breihan of Stereogum referred to "La Isla Bonita" as "pure risible kitsch" and a "clumsy fetishization of an exoticized culture", though he still acknowledged it as "one of the swooniest jams in a career full of swoony jams"" → 3 quotes in one sentence does not read very encyclopedic.
Apologies for the late response, but can you perhaps respond to each point and note what specifically was done as me parsing through 50+ edits of highlighted text in the "difference between revisions" window to see what was done is a little difficult. Heartfox (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the spotchecks comments have been resolved and I added some follow-ups to the source review. I can't determine whether the prose comments were addressed or not as you have made almost 100 edits to the article since my review, so as I said above can you "perhaps respond to each point and note what specifically was done" to address it like you did for the source review. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that I am neither a native speaker nor an expert in the field, here are some comments:
—who declined it— ---> do we really need this? It looks a bit odd to have a sidenote in the first paragraph of the lead. And if I'm really picky, then this bit doesn't align exactly with the body text "The piece was presented to Jackson and Jones, but was ultimately turned down".
I’ve addressed this one —the lead and body are now consistent. The lead keeps a concise, reader-friendly summary ('initially composed [...] for Michael Jackson [...] but ultimately rejected"), which reflects the body's fuller detail that it was presented to Jackson and Quincy Jones but turned down. This keeps the intro from getting bogged down in secondary specifics, per WP:LEAD, while still making it clear the song originated as Sade-inspired demo for Jackson.
her primary partner on previous album ---> her primary partner on her previous album
Fixed
wearing a Spanish-style embroidered bolero jacket ---> the info box image suggests otherwise
Fixed; worded per source.
I knew the song". ---> I knew the song." per MOS:INOROUT
Fixed
as previous single "Open Your Heart" ---> insert her?
Fixed
I miss some signposting in the section Critical reception: which ones are contemporary and which ones are retrospective? As it stands now, I read Tom Breihan's review as if written in the 80s.
I've kept contemporary and retrospective commentary together because The section already signposts their mix in the opening sentence ('both contemporary and retrospective critics'). The reviews are grouped thematically (overall reception → production → vocals → negative commentary) rather than chronologically to maintain readability, with publication dates visible in citations for context. Splitting eras here would break the flow and risk misrepresenting the reception as two unrelated conversations rather than an ongoing critical dialogue over time.
Gypsy punk ---> wikilink?
Fixed
"stomps, claps, and shouts" ---> who are we quoting here?
Fixed
Most recently ---> find alternative phrasing, as per MOS:RELTIME
Fixed
Between 1986 and 1987 ---> this sounds a bit odd to my foreign ear ... is there a way to rephrase this uncertainty?
Fixed
Note a b ---> I have never seen references for list items done this way. Although I quite like it as a reader (less clutter), it makes spot checking quite a task. Are you following an existing pattern at FA or are you setting a precedent here?
I don't see Spain listed in the first table. Is that because it didn't have top charts at that time?
Spain did have charts at the time. The source that backs up Spain's chart position (93. Jenesaispop) only mentions the song didn't make it past the chart's top 8. It doesn't specify if it peaked at number 8,7,6,5,4,3,2, or 1. I believe how I worded it on the the section (that it reached the top 10) is appropriate.
In the alphabetical order of references in Literary sources, McKeen seems out of order
Fixed
Pp523 ---> should that be just p or is there a second number missing?
Fixed
in the Sources I can see a few Official Madonna website references. To my understanding using this far from independent source is fine for simple straightforward info like a release date. However, in the case of "The performance from her Sydney concerts was included on the 2017 Rebel Heart Tour live album." I could not verify the Sydney part with either source 146 or 147.
Fixed
[Where is exactly 'La Isla Bonita' Madonna sang about?] (in Spanish) ---> perhaps a better translation would be "Where exactly is 'La Isla Bonita' about which Madonna sang?"
Caption "The performances of "La Isla Bonita" on the Confessions (top) and Sticky & Sweet tours (bottom)." should not end in full stop, as per MOS:CAPFRAG
Can you comb through the article and ensure that all references have accessdates? I fixed one such for you.
When you are using book references for sales and stuff, within a certification template, why not use the {{harvnb}} template there as well? See the Japanese sales.
Are you able to follow a standard ISBN format for the book references for consistency? Some of the book citations use ISBN-13 vs old ISBN formats. You can use the online ISBN converter tool.
Always a pleasure to hear from you @IndianBio! I have corrected everything you've pointed out. All sources have accessdates (let me know if I'm missing one); the ISBN have all been converted, and I have changed the Oricon citing. Looking forward to your comments! Christian (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think this looks much better for consistency across the article for the literary references. I am good to support this article for its FAC nomination. —IB[ Poke ]07:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hedonism is a family of philosophical views that prioritize pleasure. This is the second nomination—the last one failed since it did not receive any reviews. As a level 5 vital article with nearly 900,000 views last year, it would be good to bring it to FA status or at least figure out what changes would be required. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, even unpleasant things, like a painful surgery, can be overall good, according to axiological hedonism, if their positive consequences make up for the unpleasantness.
→ "unpleasant things" is vague; "unpleasant experiences" is more precise.
→ "make up for the unpleasantness" sounds informal — "outweigh the discomfort" or "justify the pain" reads more encyclopaedically.
I reformulated one passage and removed some links. Nozick's criticism is often discussed so I think it deserves to be mentioned in the sections "Types" and "History". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
on intensity and duration → on the intensity and duration
Articles needed for clarity when listing multiple defined factors.
In a nutshell, I currently support the nomination. A few minor suggestions above to reduce redundancy and improve grammatical accuracy. MSincccc (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article looks really interesting, especially since I've often heard about hedonism but I probably have always had only a vague idea about what it actually is. I'll look over the whole article and once my comments are done, I'll leave them here.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
I'm wondering if it would be better at the very start of the lede to clearly state that there are three main branches of hedonism.
It could make the article more accessible, but there are difficulties in defining what counts as a "main branch". For example, some sources do not clearly distinguish between ethical and axiological hedonism, see footnote [c]. So they may categorize them as one branch rather than two. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the lede, I'm curious. Why is it that hedonism received less attention in the medieval era? Is it because with the rise of Christianity, the idea of people seeking "pleasure" was viewed as sinful/frowned upon?
You are probably right about the effects of the increased emphasis on religion. Some religious teachings are hostile to pleasure-seeking behavior. Others are not outright hostile, but have their focus elsewhere. Our source on this, Gosling 1998, mentions the fact but does not give a detailed explanation of why this is the case. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Types
"right action". I'd add ", respectively" at the end to clearly indicate that each of these three thigns corresponds to the three major branches of hedonism.
Interesting read. If one assumes it is accurate, it essentially means that all actions humans take are in some form selfish. We do nice things to the people we love? Seeing them happy in turn makes us happy. Ergo, our own pursuit of pleasure/happiness is fulfilled.
Yes, according to this view, it's a little like social tendencies are built into the way people feel so they can be selfish and help others at the same time. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking the image of Hobbes might be better on the left side of the section. From what I've seen people say, it's ideal to have images of people facing/looking towards the text, rather than outside of it. [Aesthetic hedonism, lol]
Given the size of the last paragraph, I'd recommend you separate the section about the criticism of psychological hedonism from the support it garners.
Oh, God. I'm so stupid. See, this is what being sick and unfocused does to you, lol. I meant to put this in the section about "Axiological hedonism". That the last paragraph in that section is a bit too large, so I was wondering if you may considering splitting it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit, the first couple of sentences are somewhat confusing. So axiological hedonism argues that pleasure is what determines whether something has value or not. Then you talk about intrinsic value and how it contrasts with instrumental value. Then you talk about how pleasure is valuable even if there's no external benefit, but that seems like something that'd be better suited to connect with either the first or second sentence.
Also, the section "Axiological hedonism asserts that only pleasure has intrinsic value [...] they lead to pleasure or the avoidance of pain" seems to be just a rehash of the first few sentences.
I rewrote that paragraph to explain the basic idea first and then introduce the technical terminology of intrinsic and instrumental value. I hope it's less confusing this way. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"that other things than". I'd change it to "that things other than".
"happiness of others if this happiness". Repetition of happiness. I'd recommend you rewrite it as "care about the happiness of others if 'it impacts their".
"For example, if a person feels guilty about harming others, they have a reason not to do so". Uh, what? Does that mean that if I feel bad about hurting someone's feelings, I shouldn't because according to egoistic hedonism, only my own happiness matters? It also seems to come into conflict with the previous sentence, which argues that humans should only care about the happiness of other if it impacts their own well-being. Yet here, the argument is that if I feel guilty about harming others, I shouldn't have to.
It's not generally under a person's control whether they feel guilt. I tried to clarify the sentence to focus on unpleasant feelings in general. Have a look if it is better now. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"disputed and affects". Seems it would flow better as "disputed, which affects", as the nature of pleasure and pain being disputed is directly what leads to all forms of hedonism being argued for or against.
I think either one works. I left it as it was to have the conception of pleasure, rather than the dispute, as a factor of plausibility. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Measurement
"between individuals since different". Add a comma after "individual".
I've read the article up to this point. Ideally, I'd like to go through everything and then leave comments, but I've been feeling a bit sick the last couple of days and it's hard for me to concentrate. Rather than have you wait, I'll at least leave these suggestions up here.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"ancient Greek thought" isn't exactly wrong, but why not simply say "philosophy" outright? Unless the goal is to ensure the word philosphy (and its variants) isn't repeated over and over in just two lines.
The main reason to use the word "thought" rather than "philosophy" is to avoid repetition. I think keeping the words "ancient Greek" is helpful since although hedonism was present in Indian and Chinese philosophy, it was not as important there as in Greek thought. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no no. I didn't mean the "ancient Greek" part had to change; just the "thought" part. And even that was more of a consideration. I wasn't 100% sure whether "thought" would be better over "philosophy", but I definitely agree it's better than the alternative of the same word being repeated three times in close proximity. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"As a student of Socrates, he formulated a hedonistic egoism"
Firstly, why "As a student of Socrates"? Does him being one of Socrates' students influence his philosophical thinking? Was Socrates a hedonist? The phrasing of this sentence makes it seem like it influenced the second one.
Secondly, is the use of "hedonistic egoism" intentional? Because earlier in the page, you use "egoistic hedonism".
Some sources prefer one or the other term but they are usually used interchangeably. I think you are right that consistency is better so I used the term "egoistic hedonism" throughout.
"He and the school"; clarify you're talking about Aristippus, especially since it helps you avoid repeating the word "he".
"main motivators fueling the passions". As in "one's passions"?
Hume uses the term "passions" to talk about emotional life. I reformulated the expression to avoid confusing the reader with Hume's terminology. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"advocating instead"; switch around the words for better flow.
Does "impartial hedonism" refer to utilitarian hedonism?
Yes, I added the term for clarification. I don't know if Sidgwick himself uses the term in this context, but his interpreters do. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding in my remaining comments for the article. Once these are addressed, I would like to reread the entire article once more. Hedonism is an interesting philosophy (particularly when combined with things like utilitarianism or Christian ethics) and you have done a wonderful job with this article. Admittedly, since my knowledge of philosophy is pretty limited, i had some difficulty reading and properly understanding this article; still do, lol. But I do hope that reading it through again will be easier.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Writing philosophy articles in a way that is accessible to readers with no philosophical background without leaving out central aspects of the academic discussion can be challenging. I usually aim for a level where a general audience understands at least all the most important points of the topic. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Some psychological hedonists propose weaker formulations". I kinda understand what you're aiming at here, but "weaker" seems like it could be replaced with a better word to indicate that some psychological hedonists argue that the search for pleasure isn't the only factors influencing human behaviour.
"This view asserts that the primary motivation". The primary motivation of what? Or do you mean that "humans' primary motivation for their actions comes from selfish drives"?
"secondary motivation". I might be wrong, but shouldn't it be plural?
I think both are possible in this case: we refer either to the general concept or to each individual instance of this concept. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You link altruism the second time it appears in the paragraph, rather than the first.
I believe I understand the first paragraph more clearly now, though I'm still slightly confused. I understand the distinction between X thing having intrinsic versus instrumental value. The example about money does help explain what instrumental value is. But isn't also possible to argue that money can have intrinsic value by itself for some people?
The paragraph does say that "according to axiological hedonism, only pleasure is intrinsically valuable". Doesn't that mean that whether a person finds pleasure in X thing/object is the only thing giving that value? If a person finds pleasure in the mere act of having money, doesn't that by itself make money have intrinsic value, and not just instrumental?
I guess the point of comparison used here seems a bit flawed, because it's essentially "pleasure has intrinsic value" vs. "X-thing has instrumental value", rather than being "X-thing" vs. "Y-thing" about comparing and contrasting intrinsic vs. instrumental value. But maybe that's just me.
Philosophically speaking, you raise a valid point. However, both of our sources cite money as an example of something that has only instrumental value, so I guess this is the standard view. One explanation could be the following: if a person enjoys money, the money-pleasure is different from the money itself, so the money has instrumental value as the cause of the money-pleasure. The philosopher Robert Audi developed a similar idea to what you are suggesting, in case you feel like going down this philosophical rabbit hole. He suggests that the money in your example has what he calls "inherent value" rather than intrinsic or instrumental value, see [34]. But this is not a widely held position and discussing it in the section would probably violate WP:PROPORTION. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ethical hedonism
"utilitarian ethical hedonism". Is "ethical" here necessary?
The intro doesn't do that great of a job at telling the readers that "besides pleasure and pain, some other theories on hedonism take into account this XYZ thigns instead". I mean, the first paragraph does mostly do this about happines, but then the sections on well-being and eudaimonia dont, and come off as very abrupt.
I worked on the transition between the first and the second paragraphs. The main point of this subsection is to clarify pleasure-related concepts to discuss not only what hedonism is but also what it isn't. The paragraph on eudaimonia is not strictly speaking necessary. Various sources on hedonism mention the contrast to eudaimonia, but we could remove the paragraph if it is not helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"indicating a weak form of the hedonic treadmill". What exactly does weak form mean?
This is just to convey to the reader that an effect can be measured but that it is weaker than what proponents of the hedonic treadmill traditionally proposed. For example, our source says "the evidence for adaptation is not nearly as strong as many psychologists have tended to assume." Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient
Does the source describe exactly how the Epic of Gilgamesh displays a hedonistic philosphy? I'm guessing it's with Gilgamesh himself seeking pleasure, but I'm not sure.
Forgas & Baumeister 2018 talks about an exchange between Gilgamesh and Siduri, where Siduri argues that humans should spend their lifes indulging in pleasures. However, this may be too specific to mention in the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Lucretius (c. 99–55 BCE) further expanded on Epicureanism". First reference to this philosophy, which should be linked. Also, you didn't mention earlier that Epicurus spawned an entire philosophical movement.
"greatest good for the greatest number of people". Repetition of greatest.
Normally I would agree, but "the greatest good for the greatest number" is a typical slogan in utilitarianism so it's worth keeping. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have necessarily reviewed this one since my knowledge of ethics is not that great compared to other areas of philosophy, but since this didn't get any reviews previously I thought I would have a look through and add some comments. Shapeyness (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the effort! I'm not sure about the reason for the lack of reviews. I would have thought that this type of topic would attract attention on its own, but neither the first FA review nor the peer review before it did. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Psychological egoism: since this is an empirical claim, is there any work done on it from within psychology? E.g. any studies to test if it could be true.
Sections 4 and 5 of https://iep.utm.edu/psychological-egoism/ address this point, but there seems to be no clear verdict one way or the other. This source also says that While psychological egoism is undoubtedly an empirical claim, there hasn’t always been a substantial body of experimental data that bears on the debate., so we shouldn't overemphasize the empirical arguments. I could try to include some of the points in the last paragraph of our section "Psychological hedonism". The article is about psychological egoism rather than psychological hedonism but it explicitly defines psychological hedonism as one type of this view, so including pleasure-related arguments should be fine. What do you think? Phlsph7 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this shouldn't be overemphasised given the lack of strong evidence, but I think a mention is worth it here, especially since the IEP mentions "a great deal of empirical work beginning in the late 20th century has largely filled the void" (after it says there "hasn’t always been a substantial body of experimental data"). Shapeyness (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prudential hedonism is a form of axiological hedonism I didn't see the sources explicitly saying that
I guess it depends how one interprets the passage from Weijers: Hedonism as a theory about well-being (best referred to as Prudential Hedonism) is more specific than Value Hedonism because it stipulates what the value is for. I changed our formulation to "closely related to" to avoid the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ethical hedonism is often understood as a form of consequentialism Is this true? I may have an oversimplified understanding but I thought they were distinct positions, although they can be combined to get utilitarianism. This looks like what the cited sources are saying too.
I think you are right that this is not explicitly in the sources. Utilitarian hedonism is consequentialist and I guess one could make an argument from the sources that egoist hedonism typically also is, but we may run into problems of WP:SYNTH. I used the expression "combined with" instead of "understood as" to evade these difficulties. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
holds that pleasure and pain are attitudes The first two sources look like they are saying that pleasure and pain are the things the attitudes are directed at, not the attitudes themselves - the IEP one definitely says it is the attitude itself though. Is one of these more common than the other? Quite minor, but worth aligning the detail with the more common view I think.
It seems there two closely related theories, roughly: one says that pleasure is an attitude and the other says that individuals have a specific attitude toward pleasure. For our purposes and the contrast with the theory that pleasure is a sensation, the first theory is relevant. I removed the references that seem to only talk about the second theory and added another reference for the first theory. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
welfare economics examines how economic activities affect social welfare Does social welfare mean welfare spending in this context? (That is where the link currently goes.)
No, this is supposed to be about how people feel. I removed the wikilink and changed the expression to social well-being to avoid misinterpretations. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing all these Phlsph7! I checked some overviews to compare for comprehensiveness and coverage of key topics looks good. Sources also look good, although I am not sure about Adams IV 2004 or Blue 2013, not heard of the publishers and the authors don't seem to be experts in the field (I may be missing something). I would maybe suggest adding broader overview sources to as many figures in the history section as possible - even if they are less good sources for content, they are good supplementary sources to show to the reader that these figures are historically significant. More miscellaneous comments: McClellan 2015 - is McClellan the author or the translator? Also, very minor but I realised the sources are inconsistent between Oxford Bibliographies and Oxford Bibliographies Online, don't think it matters too much but thought I'd mention for completeness. Shapeyness (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced Adams IV 2004 with a better source and removed Blue 2013. I added a few more references to overview sources. McClellan is the translator of the main part of the book and the author of the section "Translator's Introduction". I put him as author since we only cite this section in the template. I removed the inconsistencies regarding Oxford Bibliographies. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: Yes, sorry for the delayed response! I just checked the sources and that looks a lot better. And since all my other comments have been addressed, I'm now ready to support. Shapeyness (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting at the nominator's invitation, although like Peter Wimsey, "I have not the philosophic mind ... I know that philosophy is a closed book to me, as music is to the tone-deaf".
My only comments are:
"Outside the academic context, hedonism is a pejorative term for an egoistic lifestyle seeking short-term gratification" – not sure about this. Neither the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) nor the Chambers Dictionary mentions "pejorative", "egoistic" or "short-term": Chambers says hedonism noun, ethics 1 the belief that pleasure is the most important achievement or the highest good in life. 2 the pursuit of and devotion to pleasure. 3 a lifestyle devoted to seeking pleasure
I weakened our claim to not imply that this is the only non-academic usage. Our sources say:
From Buscicchi § 1. Condensed Conceptual History: For a non-philosopher ... a hedonist is a person that pursues pleasure shortsightedly, selfishly, or indecently—without regard for her long-term pleasure, the pleasure of others, and the socially-appropriate conduct.
From Weijers § 1.a Folk Hedonism: According to non-philosophers, then, a stereotypical hedonist is someone who never misses an opportunity to indulge of the pleasures of sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll, even if the indulgences are likely to lead to relationship problems, health problems, regrets, or sadness for themselves or others.Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"what is attractive and aversive" – passing over the word "aversive" which I've never seen before and is described by the OED as "obsolete, rare", if you mean by the word what I think you mean, a little clarification would help: "and what is" before "aversive" would remove the possibility that something can be both at once.
I have read the text (rather slowly) and I think I understand it. The prose seems to me excellent – clear and jargon-free; insofar as I am any judge the proportions of the article are judicious; the sources are numerous and for the most part recent; the illustrations are first rate. I hope to add my support for promoting the article to FA, but I think I must wait to see what reviewers who know what they are talking about think of it. – Tim riley talk13:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All images have obvious encyclopaedic value and are well captioned, with alt text.
It's a nice thing to have an image in the lead, I think, if at all possible: it means that you also get one when you mouse over the name for a tooltip. Any good candidates here? Maybe a multi-image of Epicurus, Hobbes, Bentham and Nozick?
Following earlier FA discussions on lead images, I'm wary of this type of lead image. I added a more neutral diagram, please see if that works. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Epicurus-Altes Museum.jpg: we haven't actually said how old the bust is on the Commons page. It's really old, but this should probably be spelled out and cited. It could theoretically be a modern plaster-cast or replica, for example, which would not necessarily be PD.
This is yet another of these broad subjects for which "comprehensiveness" is hard to assess so I'll focus on the sources. They seem to be appropriately broad and while most are Western, there seems to be some Asian stuff too. One wonders if there is African or South American stuff as well. What makes "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for reviewing the sources! I added some sources from SciELO to cover South American publishers. I'm not sure if they fulfill the FA high-quality sourcing requirements but I hope it works as a compromise. Generally, it's hard to find high-quality academic English-language sources from non-Western publishers on the subject, but I'm open to suggestions if you have specific sources in mind. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an academic, peer-reviewed source. According to the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy, it is an excellent online philosophy encyclopedia ... refereed by distinguished editorial boards and peer reviewers. The Bloomsbury Companion to the Philosophy of Consciousness also recommends the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind non-English sources and neither does policy (WP:NONENG) when the English ones aren't "of equal quality and relevance". Unfortunately I don't have any African sources at hand - merely noted that there don't seem to be many. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "supergiant" amphipod, Alicella gigantea is the world's largest amphipod, reaching up to 34 centimeters (13 inches) in length. A. gigantea live in the hadal zone of the ocean, typically occurring between 4,850–7,000 metres (16,000–23,000 ft) in depth. The large size of the species is sometimes used as an example of deep sea gigantism, though the mechanisms for this trait are poorly known. The article recently reached "Good Article" status and after a round of mentorship comments, I believe it is ready for "Featured Article" status. AxonsArachnida (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind if i restructured the page again? I think to fit some of the images properly we'd have to do so, and despite my preference of reducing the image count i don't feel comfortable with that since you uploaded those images purposefully for this. And the paper linked by FunkMonk above (the distribution study) has a range map which might interfere with the image layouts, thus the need for restructuring. Anthropophoca (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could create more space for using the map as a range map in the taxobox if we left-aligned the cladogram and unboxed it. FunkMonk (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though the range map is technically not a range map; it's basically the maximal predicted distribution of the animal based on what we know of their habitat preferences, so it should be in the Distribution section, where the same paper's contents are discussed Anthropophoca (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded both maps. I didn't realize that the photo of the amphipods feeding at the bait station (BRUV?) already in the article was "B-roll" for the paper. Anthropophoca (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all. @FunkMonk nice spotting on the CC license for the 2025 paper, I completely missed that. @Anthropophoca Good to have you here, thanks for uploading the SDM maps. I agree with adding it to the distribution section rather than the taxobox, so I went ahead and did that. I'm not very territorial, so restructure things how you see fit. AxonsArachnida (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing of the topic and comment merely on the prose:
"The species is white in colour" – not if your lead image is to be believed: it looks somewhere between beige and pink to me.
That's a preserved specimen. Its common for specimen colour to change slightly (or sometimes dramatically) during preservation. The live pictures show them as a cleaner white. In taxonomy, white as a description can be fairly subjective, so I think this would still fit. However, reading this, I feel like "pale in colour" works a bit better, so I have changed it to such.
I personally think we should stick with "white". On the photos they strike me as white, and "pale" is a quite imprecise descriptor. Most importantly, the source says "white", and we probably should reflect that here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the specifics of this trait remains" – plural noun with singular verb.
Fixed
"Many other amphipods possess either red to orange colouration" – the OED prefers coloration. And I wonder if the text would be better as "possess either red or orange coloration" or "possess red to orange coloration".
Changed to "possess red to orange coloration".
"plate like structures ... blade like structures ... hair like structures" – I'd hyphenate this lot, but I don't press the point.
Changed.
"life span" – a single unhyphenated word according to the OED.
I already reviewed this at GAN, more in general terms, so here are some more nit-picky comments. I also did copy edits (feel free to revert what what you don't like).
Despite their relative isolation from the surface, human pollution such as DDT and chlordane have been detected in specimens. – Should this be "pollutants" rather than "pollution"?
You're right. Added.
though the specifics of this trait remains under investigation. – "remain", right?
Fixed.
making A. gigantea a monotypic species. – Do you instead mean "making Alicella a monotypic genus"? A brief explanation of "monotypic" would also be nice; or just rephrase to "making A. gigantea the only species in its genus" to avoid the term altogether.
I added your latter suggestion.
In contrast to this, a 2015 study found that Alicella formed a clade with just Cyclocaris and Tectovalopsis (but Diatectonia sequences were not used in this study), which conflicts with the 2020 study – A couple of minor issues here. I suggest to dissolve the bracket "(but Diatectonia sequences were not used in this study)" and instead write ", although Diatectonia sequences were not used in this study". The "just" does not make sense to me as the included genera are not a subset of those included in the 2020 study. Finally, "which conflicts with the 2020 study" is redundant with "In contrast to this".
Cleaned this up.
link scavengers in the body, too (it is only linked in the lead)
Looks like someone else beat me to this.
Many other amphipods possess either red to orange colouration – should be "or", not "to"? Also, maybe just "Many other amphipods are red or orange" is better?
I have it as "red to orange" because that implies there's a bit of a gradient between red and orange. If it's "red or orange", that suggests it's just one or the other, which isn't quite accurate.
with some inner corner teeth, one middle tooth and the rakers (blade like structures) absent. – All these teeth are absent? But compared to what, the ancestral condition of alicellids?
Just the rakers absent. I've reworded it to make this more clear. The presence/absence of these is sometimes used as an diagnostic character throughout marine amphipoda as I understand it.
The mandible palp is attached distally to the molar – "distal" needs wikilink, but maybe you can instead write something like "is attached to the front end of the molar" or similar?
Made the latter change.
occupying the medial edge (the surface pointed towards the middle of the body) – Maybe you could just write "occupying the inner edge", avoiding the need of the explanation of "medial" (too many glosses impede reading flow)? You could even pipe-link "inner" to medial (anatomy) (i.e., inner).
Changed.
For the second gnathopod, article six is slightly shorter – should this be "In the second gnathopod"?
Changed.
The dactylus of the third to seventh pereopods (leg like structures) are quite short. – "dactyli"?
Changed
A. gigantea is the largest known amphipod in the world – I believe that "in the world" is redundant.
Removed.
I suggest to combine the last two paragraphs of "Gigantism", as we try to avoid very short paragraphs.
Combined.
it has been shown that A. gigantea has a notably faster genome size diversification rate. – Not precisely sure what that means; does it just mean that the genome size was changing faster?
Yep, sounds like you've got it. I've changed it to "has a faster rate at which the genome size changes" as this makes it easier to understand.
found that A. gigantea's realized depth range to be – the wording is quite convoluted; maybe "found that A. gigantea occurs in depths between …"?
Fixed
though there are numerous gaps in their distribution that are likely due to the scarcity of this species – this might be unclear to a reader. I guess you are referring to incomplete sampling?
Changed to "due to incomplete sampling of this species"
This indicates that this species distribution is a widespread and connected one. – This seems a bit imprecise. We don't need genetics to show that the species is widespread? Did you want to say something like "indicates gene flow between populations"?
Added.
Due to their dependence on carrion as a food source, the species may be susceptible to changes occurring at the ocean's surface. – It would be ideal to give an example here, to help the general reader understand.
Added chemical pollution and overfishing as examples.
It was suggested that this could support this species ability to survive in the deep sea – This might be a sentence that could be deleted, it does not say anything; what adaptation would not help a species to survive in its habitat?
Removed.
Presently, it is unknown if these amphipod's gut microbes are inherited from their parents or picked up from the surrounding environment. – You could drop the "surrounding" here; no reader will assume that they pick them up from an environment that is not surrounding them.
Removed.
which has a porous structure with pores averaging less than 10 μm – in diameter, I assume?
Added diameter.
Alicella gigantea grows at a much faster rate compared to other amphipods. – I think that was already mentioned earlier, could be deleted here.
Removed.
Alicella gigantea is the only species within the genus Alicella, and the species is the world's largest amphipod species. – I don't love this first sentence of the lead. That it is the only species within its genus is not the most important thing the reader needs to know first; I would move that into a second sentence, or even further down. Maybe instead "Alicella gigantea is a giant species of amphipod living in the deep sea."
Drive-by comment: Great to see more invertebrates. One piece of advice, try to avoid using too many of the same words of the cited sources "red wavelength of light is quickly absorbed by water, and never reaches the deep sea" vs ""Red light is quickly filtered from water as depth increases and red light effectively never reaches the deep ocean" from NOAA. I don't see the need to use the NOAA source anyway since Jamieson and Weston (2023) already support this statement (the paraphrasing of that source is fine). LittleJerry (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably look through the rest of the article. I feel like cite 29 is a bit too close. "Marine amphipods such as Alicella gigantea swim by rhythmically beating their pleopods..." vs "...the animal swims forward using the rhythmic beating of pleopods." Check out Wiki's policy on parasphasing. LittleJerry (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @LittleJerry I should have said: I couldnt find anything else that was too closely worded. If you're aware of anywhere else that you feel is too close, I'm happy to take a look at that. AxonsArachnida (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I wasn'taware of MDPI's practices. The citation is used just on the sentence "The gut microbiome of A. gigantea is dominated by Candidatus Hepatoplasma.". There is already another citation that supports this, so removing it is no issue. I'll defer to your judgements on this one. AxonsArachnida (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at this later this week; I'm entering this article with only the barest idea of what an amphipod is so this should be treated as a very non-expert review. Hog FarmTalk20:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"but little new information was provided" - isn't this a bit of a SYNTH issue since we're just citing this to the report being discussed, which would require comparison against the original source? It's also a bit unhelpful to provide no page range for what is apparently an 800-page source, surely the amphipod is not being discussed in the whole thing
Good point. I've removed the phrase and added a specific page number to the citation.
"Eurythenes obesus, a species described by Jeremy Barnard and Eric Shulenberger in 1976," - is this correct? There's only one reference to obesus in the cited JSTOR article that I can find, a reference to the research of one J. M. Sanderson. The enwiki article on obesus states that it was described by Chevreux in 1905.
Really good spotting. I've added the species correct author.
Is the date of 1905 for the description of obesus necessary? It isn't in the source and I don't think really adds anything (the reader already knows the general time span in which Chevreux was active his he also described the valid Alicella species).` Hog FarmTalk23:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Since red wavelengths of light are quickly absorbed by water and thus doesn't reach the deep sea, " - are you sure "doesn't" is the correct word, given that the subject of the sentence appears to be the plural noun "wavelengths"?
Swapped out "doesn't".
Is there a reason why Abyssal gigantism isn't linked in the section about gigantism, but only in the lead?
No reason at all. I've added it in the gigantism section.
Wording in Lead: This species only lives in the deep sea ... Consider This species lives only in the deep sea .... Latter sounds better to my ears; not sure if it is superior grammatically.
Agreed. I've changed this
Color: pale vs white: article says The species is pale in colour ... and Alicella gigantea however are mostly pale..., but the cited source says Like many crustaceans, amphipods are often orange-pink-red pigmentation except for species, such as Alicella gigantea, or genera, such a Princaxelia, that appear uniformly white. To me, pale is not a color, it is a modifier, akin to dark, light, pastel, muted. I suggest "white" since that is what the source says, and it won't confuse readers like me that don't consider "pale" to be a color.
Swapped pale for white.
Regarding the phylogeny diagram in the "Phylogeny" section: I'm not a biologist, but it seems like all the trees I've seen in WP are backwards from this (root on left; leaves on right). Is there a good reason for reversing? If so, what is the rule governing the direction?
I talked with Anthropophoca about this on their talk page a while back. They said "Seems like the examples of left-facing phylogenies were removed from wiki, so i can't use them for example, but it was related to the practice of selecting images which "face into the text", so to speak, which somewhat improves the appearance of articles." Although I do prefer phylogenies facing the other way, I do agree that this looks a little bit nicer.
@AxonsArachnida: Did the WP biology community create a guideline: "Clade trees are drawn with the root on the left side; unless the tree is inside an image box on the right of the page, in which case root is on the right"? If so, is it documented somewhere? I looked at Template:CladeR and it is used by only a dozen articles (ond of them is Alicella ). Another article that uses it is Hylocereeae, but that uses it in a specific, useful way (two trees facing each other). Contrast with Template:Clade (which draws trees with root on left) which is used by hundreds or thousands of articles. Also, Google says that clade trees are typically drawn with root on the left (and one of the reasons is to indicate passage of time, which readers typically expect to go left-to-right). For those reasons, the "root on right" direction of the tree in this article is really bothering me. Noleander (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(drive-by comment) For cladograms only topology matters, not orientation. Cladograms can have all sorts of formats (right, left, top, bottom, center). But I don't see any drawback with having the root on the left side either. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conservation status? Many articles on species have a "Conservation status" status bar, often in the InfoBox. Is such information available?
They do not have a conservation status at present.
Colors in map: The caption says ... whereas blue sections indicate areas of seafloor within adequate depth for the species... The ocean in that map is several colors (shallow to deep): grey, blue, blue-green, and green. I'm guessing that the the caption is trying to say that the all the blue, green, or blue-green regions are of sufficient depth. Or maybe it is limited to only the blue regions (excluding the blue-green?) In any case, it should be re-worded to clarify.
Good spotting. I've changed it to "coloured sections".
Caption needs period: Possible maximal range of A. gigantea; Black dots represent localities where Alicella have been collected, whereas blue sections indicate areas of seafloor within adequate depth for the species ... periods are only omitted in captions if the caption is a sentence fragment, per MOS:CAPFRAG.
Period added.
Suggestion: Caption Alicella feeding from a BRUV. The nearby fish are grenadiers. Consider starting with Several since readers with poor eyesight may see a white blob there and think it is a single organism. A single word makes it clear.
I didn't think of that. Added.
Wording/ambiguity: Their diet consists mostly of bacteria and zooplankton debris as juveniles, ... Some readers may think "as juveniles" applies to the nearest prior noun, which is zooplankton (or bacteria). But I suspect it applies to "Their".
I shifted "as juveniles" to the start of the sentence to make this clearer.
Could be trimmed: It was hypothesized that this could be due to a whole genome duplication, but the authors cautioned this would require further study to prove. The latter part of the sentence "... but the authors cautioned this would require further study to prove" seems implicit in "hypothesized". Not sure it needs to be spelled-out.
File:Americorchestia sp.png might benefit from a proper source citation rather than a bare URL. I see that some images lack ALT text. Source-wise I notice that many of the sources are old; is this one of the topics that are only sparsely covered by recent ones? I wouldn't use BBC News for a claim on provenance, the primary source should be preferred. I am kinda wondering where #31 speaks about the lifespan of Alicella. Aside: Didn't know that Baited remote underwater video was a thing. And that's a lot of amphipods crowding on that bait. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've cleaned up the Americorchestia wikicommons file somewhat, is there any other information I should add to it?
I've added alt text to images in the article.
Regarding the age of sources: sort of. Species articles work a bit different from regular science articles. Especially for taxonomy sections, it is absolutely critical to cite original species descriptions and subsequent revisions because this makes it easier to track changes in how the species has been categorized over the years. Because of this, it means loads of older articles are cited. And yes, this is a species that has somewhat sparse research, so it's important to cite everything.
Regarding life span: To summarize, the research article used hadal depth amphipods to examine carbon 14 isotope concentrations. They used 2 specimens of Alicella and 5 specimens of another hadal amphipod species. They then used the isotope concentrations to infer the lifespan of hadal amphipods, which they suggested to be over 10 years (roughly). They don't directly state "Alicella live for roughly 10 years", just that hadal amphipods do, but given that Alicella is one of the two species used in this study I think it is within reason say Alicella lives for over 10 years.
Yes, the BRUVs are quite spectacular. I was very lucky that the researchers who made this video gave me permission to upload them. If that is interesting to you, you should check out "the deep-sea podcast". AxonsArachnida (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1 This is so slow loading that I can't check it - it 504's.
The ITIS site is weird. Was working fine this morning, but now I'm having the same issue you had. I've replaced it with a GBIF reference since that site just works better.
The source doesn't use the words "scavenging" or "carrion" directly. They instead describe it as "necrophagous", which is just another way to say it scavenges carrion. I've added one more source that says this more directly.
4 Doesn't seem to support much; is everything in #5?
No. These two sources account for the locations/status of the holotype specimen and paratype specimen. In taxonomy its often the case that holotypes/paratypes can wind up in different collections from each other, so I think it is a good idea to have a reference for both the holotype and paratype in this case to make it clear they're both in the Oceanographic Museum.
6 Can't find anything in p.63
Page 63 is definitely correct. Take another look, I've replaced the link with one that takes you to the specific page.
11 Where is " although Diatectonia sequences were not used in this study"?
They don't state that. It's not listed in the samples they used nor does it appear in the trees they generated. I decided to mention this because the previous study mentioned Alicella formed a clade with Diatectonia and Tectovalopsis. I wanted to give the context that Diatectonia wasn't included in the current study, so the results don't indicate that it doesn't form a clade with Alicella, just that it wasn't part of the study.
14 Where is the part about cell size and lifespan?
It's the premise for the study. They state that:"It has also been suggested that, with reduced temperature and increased hydrostatic pressure, there should be an increase in cell size and life span (Timofeev, 2001), which might be an explanation for the gigantism of A. gigantea." I've removed the bit of gigantism that states "and other deep sea amphipods", since the article doesn't explicitly say that this is the case with other deep sea amphipods (although I'm sure that's obvious to most people).
15 I get the impression that it's a few haplotypes not just one. Where is "However, most collection sites for this study were in Pacific Ocean trenches, which may have skewed the results"?
Yes, there are a few haplotypes. I've reworded it to make this clearer. Regarding collection sites, the article states "It is important to note here that most of the sampling sites are concentrated in the Pacific Ocean, with limited representation from the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.". So they don't explicitly state that it may have skewed the results, but I think from context that is what they mean. I'm happy to just omit that if its a problem.
19 Are other elements worth mentioning? Also, the study suggests that the heavy metals may be more a question of availability than of pollution?
There's a bit too many, so I think it would be excessive to list them all. Also the article states that "Higher concentrations of those trace elements found in the hadal amphipods also indicated the effects of human activities occurred within the hadal environments."
Removed it. I don't know why that junk reference was added.
24 Doesn't mention Alicella, perhaps the sentence should be reworded to emphasize that it talks about the behaviour of amphipods as representative.
Reworded to be more broadly about marine amphipods.
25 OK
26 OK I guess.
27 More than 10 microns not less?
Fixed.
28 Not getting this? And also no overfishing mention.
Carrion sinks from surface waters. I've reworded to make this clearer. Not sure why I added overfishing (although it clearly has an impact). I've reworded that to say the species is dependent on the condition of the upper layers of the ocean (which the article directly states).
29 OK I guess but it needs to be clear which amphipod species this pertains to.
The authors infer that these results apply to hadal amphipods as a whole, so I feel how it is currently worded is within reason.
Not much to say because it's all rather technical.
"in the deep sea" mentioned twice in rapid succession at top of lead. I would omit the second.
"A. gigantea underwent a taxonomic revision in 1987, where the authors redescribed both original type specimens and described new specimens collected during the SEABED 2 and DEMERABY abyssal campaigns" Should where be when?
This article is about a language spoken in Cameroon by around 10,000 Nizaa people. I have significantly expanded this article from a one sentence stub to a GA. The main concern I have is the lack of media in the article; however, I think this is due to a lack of free-license images in general, not because I haven't added them. Nevertheless, any suggestions would be appreciated.
Comment as GA reviewer (see review). Given my past involvement with the article and lack of familiarity with FAC (as a first-time contributor to an FAC discussion), I won't attempt to do a full review, but I just want to mention a couple of things that might be relevant for this review: firstly, the TheilEndresen-1991 source is fully accessible to users of The Wikipedia Library. Secondly, a couple of the sources are from University of Oslo (UiO) scholars, and UiO's online repository has (fairly recently, I think) been restricted to members-only access until the content has "been migrated to the national research archive (Nasjonalt vitenarkiv) during fall 2025" (according to the 403 error message). Because of this, Kjelsvik-2008 is currently only accessible via ResearchGate and Pepper-2016 is only accessible via archive link. Kjelsvik-2002 is available via CORE as well as ResearchGate. I hope this helps! Also, I'm not sure whether consistently-formatted dates are a requirement for FA, but just in case they are, it might be worth standardising them throughout the article; I was going to do this myself based on WP:DATEVAR, but looking at the early edits it isn't clear what would be classed as the original format, so I'll defer to @PharyngealImplosive7 on that one! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A further note from me: unless there's another source that I've missed, as far as I can tell the name 'Mengaka' is only attested in one source (well, technically two—Ethnologue 1988 and Ethnologue 1992—but these are consecutive editions of the same publication with the same editor so they don't necessarily represent consensus among sources) and is actively questioned by another source (Theil Endressen 1991). It's then not even listed as an alternative name in Ethnologue 2005; this entry (p. 72) is under Suga as the primary name, with alternatives listed as "Nizaa, Ssuga, Galim, 'Nyamnyam', 'Njemnjem', 'Jemjem'". Given that the attestation for 'Mengaka' as an alternative name is pretty dubious, might it be worth removing it from the bolded list of alternative names in the first sentence of the lead? Obviously it would still be discussed in §Name, but it would just deprioritise it in comparison to the widely-attested names, and potentially avoid having to hatnote Mengaka language for disambiguation. I'd be interested to hear what others think about this issue! Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One other point that we discussed in the GA review was that §Kinship system might be a bit out-of-place in §Grammar, as it's more of a vocabulary feature, but we agreed that having a whole §Vocabulary section just for the one paragraph on kinship terminology might be a bit OTT. Does anyone else have any thoughts on what the best option is re FA layout criteria? Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! There's a couple of other points I forgot to mention... §Tonology currently says:
Endresen groups the tones into "primary tones" and "secondary tones".
I feel like the wikilink here is unnecessary, as technically a "tone group" appears to be a slightly different thing ([36]), and anyway it redirects to Tone (linguistics) which is already linked elsewhere. Later in that paragraph, it says:
The "secondary tones", which include rising (HM), falling (HL, MH, and ML), and peaking (LHM)
This is a bit confusing, as HM (high to mid) would appear to be falling, and MH (mid to high) would appear to be rising. Endresen (1991) p. 176 doesn't actually classify them further than Primary and Secondary, so it might be worth reworking this bit? Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the wikilink and fixed the error where I classified HM as rising. Endresen (1991) on page 176 does mention the tone groups:
The first four tones, that is H, M, L and LH, are the Primary Tones, which are found on all types of syllables. The flve remaining tones, that is HM, HL, MH, ML and LHM, are the Secondary Tones, which are only found on word-final syllables; they can be interpreted äa Primary Tones plus an addition: 5. H+M, 7. M+H, 8. M+L, 9. LH+M. More details will be given in Endresen (forthcoming).
Yes for sure, he discusses primary vs secondary, all I meant is that within those groups he doesn't further group them into rising and falling etc. (at least not within that passage, anyway).MH is still listed as falling in the article? The "secondary tones", which include falling (HM, HL, MH, and ML), and peaking (LHM) tonesPineapple Storage (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pineapple Storage: Yeah, nice catch for the MH tone classification. It should be fixed now. As for rising, falling, and peaking tones, those are just definitions based on what tones make up the contour. Should I remove the classifications or add a source? – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)23:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I think it's okay now! I was just concerned before that I might have missed something or maybe there was another ___location within the source that should be cited here, but now that the HM/MH thing has been cleared up, the classifications are all pretty intuitive so I don't think a further citation is needed. :) Well done again on this!! Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've modified the alt text for the images that have it. In terms of the MOS:COLOR issue, should I go ahead and remove the image or do something else (sorry, I'm not too familiar with MOS:COLOR). – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)04:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The alternatives would be to expand the legend to cover all the languages included, or add some kind of pattern or symbol to the map itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 24, 27, 31 and 34 don't point to any citation.
" Older speakers of Nizaa also pronounce /ɛː/ is also pronounced as the sequence /ar/" This feels a little wordy/confusing.
"...in one word root (xag or 'to clear one's throat'), and is not consequently, is represented the same as /h/ in the orthography." Also feels very wordy.
For ref 19, I can't find where it says in the given page for the source that says "extensive documentation began in the 1990s".
The text mentions "orthography" a lot but I don't really see anything that elaborates on what that is for WP:TECHNICAL.
All of those should be fixed. Refs 24, 27, 31, and 34 just needed "Theil Endresen" as the last name instead of "Endresen" in the sfns. I fixed the two awkward sentences as well and defined what orthography was the first time it was mentioned in the phonology and orthography section. I also removed the claim about the classification doubts resolving in the 1990s. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)18:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems quite reliant on Kjelsvik 2002, which is a "Candidate of Arts and Letters" thesis; I'm not familiar with the Danish academic structuring, but this seems about equivalent to a PhD thesis. WP:THESIS advises to use such theses which "have been cited in the literature, supervised by recognized specialists in the field, or reviewed by independent parties"; as this is a potential FA, I'd like to see evidence that Kjelsvik 2002 meets at least two of those three criteria. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: For the have been cited in the literature requirement, Pepper (2016), Pepper (2010), and Phillip (2011) seem to cite it (which are all the non-Kjelsvik-authored sources that I could find published about Nizaa after 2002). As for supervised by recognized specialists in the field, Kjelsvik (2002) states I must thank my knowledgeable and always patient supervisor, Rolf Theil Endresen, which suggests that Endresen supervised over Kjelsvik's work. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)19:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would expand the lead a bit to properly summarize the article
Nizaa has a complex phonetic inventory consisting of 65 consonant phonemes as well as numerous tones; in terms of grammar, it preserves verbal morphology much more than is typical for the Mambiloid languages. – The leas has to be as accessible as possible, and this is, I think, too technical (see WP:MTAU). Any chance to explain this for a general reader? In particular, jargon such as "verbal morphology" strikes me as possibly unnecessary; do you simply mean that verbs change? In the body, you could probably avoid quite some jargon, too.
The language is currently endangered – I don't think we need the "currently" here. Is this for implying that the classification is only temporary? But then, you don't use that word in the article body.
The language is classified as endangered. – "Classified" implies some formal decision to me, so who did classify it?
The Atlas Linguistique du Cameroun (ALCAM) estimated only 2,000 speakers however, – It would be important to note in the text when this was published.
Bjørghild Kjelsvik – you red-link her in the lead but there is no red-link in the body. Would she meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) to warrant an article to start with?
Endressen (1991) – This academic notation may feel unfamiliar to readers, and we usually write "In 1991, Endressen" or similar.
'Sewe' may also be another alternate name for the language, while 'Baghap' is the Nizaa for themselves – Can't follow – the Nizaa call themselves "Baghap", or what? But you stated that the endonym is "Nizza".
traditionally, it was thought that these animals helped a clan go through some stressful situation in the mythological past – "it was thought" means that they do not believe in this anymore, but that does not seem what the source says?
though some do practice Christianity or traditional African religions – I do not think that "traditional African religions" does this justice. Africa is a continent. Can we be more specific? Also, this implies that these people practice more than one African religion; is that really the case?
in research that was supported financially by the Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture – I don't think that is relevant?
However, his research was not published until 1991.[5] Before this, no comprehensive documentation of Nizaa had been undertaken, – This is somewhat poor wording, and the "Before this" part seems redundant since you already started the paragraph with The language was first studied extensively from 1979 to 1984.
Furthermore, because another language exists in Adamawa Region also called 'nyamnyam' – "the Adamawa Region that is also called" might work.
Leaning oppose: I am just through the first paragraphs and there are just too many issues, particularly concerning prose, but also concerning WP:MTAU. The article is in need of polishing. Hope these examples help. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: Thank you for the detailed feedback first of all.
I've tried to reduce the complexity of the article as you've suggested (as I'm familiar with the jargon, it's more natural for me to use, but I digress). A few comments specific points you brought up:
Bjørghild Kjelsvik - I'm really not sure if she meets notability guidelines?? Her papers have been very helpful in the niche field of Nizaa linguistics, but I'm not sure if that really meets criteria one of WP:NPROF. I don't think whether an article for her exists or not is really relevant to the FA nom though.
That was just a minor point, I complained that linking is inconsistent (linked in the lead but not in the body). Unlink and I'm happy. If you instead red-link consistently in lead and body, note that a red-link is saying "Hey, we lack this article, please create it", so we should only red-link if we are sure that that new article we would actually comply with our notability guidelines. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Sewe' may also be another alternate name for the language, while 'Baghap' is the Nizaa for themselves - I've removed the Baghap claim considering that neither Endresen nor Kjelsvik nor Blench mention it and because Grimes (1988) was published in 1988 may have outdated information.
though some do practice Christianity or traditional African religions - that was an error on my part; it doesn't really seem like they practice those types of religions anymore.
@Jens Lallensack: I've tried to reduce the technicality of the article by adding descriptions for most linguistic terms. Would you be able to do another review of the article and see if you understand it more this time? Thanks – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)18:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: (sorry for the repeated pings) The article has been significantly revised (see Aspet's comments below). Would you consider re-reviewing the article or rescinding your oppose vote if you don't have time to do another review. Thanks – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)20:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUser:PharyngealImplosive7, I disagree with User:Jens Lallensack on the usage of phoneme. The current lead (with sounds instead of phonemes) reads sloppily. Phonemes are a very basic linguistic term without which linguistics articles cannot be written. I say revert to "65 consonant phonemes". I would rename "History" to "Background", as I expected a diachronic analysis of the language in that section. It would be nice if you could give examples under "Nouns and pronouns". Finally, I wonder where you got "Nizaa preserves verbal morphology in general much more than most ..." from. The source seems to say (page 30 is 3 pages from the end, right?) that only Nizaa preserves strings of extensions. I'm not familiar with the term extension, but I assume it means suffix or morpheme. In that case, I don't understand it as supporting the claim that Nizaa "has more verb forms". Please, enlighten me if I misunderstood anything. It's a very important article, and good job with it so far! Aspets (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not criticize the usage of phoneme explicitly, but I do think it warrants explanation; it's the lead, and when on the main page, it will be seen by many people without any clue about linguistics. You could write phonemes ("sounds"), providing the term but also offering a short explanation in a bracket, and that will be of much help to readers. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aspets and Jens Lallensack: I've re-added "phoneme" (with an explanation in the lead of what it means). I've also revised the verbal morphology claim to instead say that Nizaa is the only Bantoid language that supports strings of verbal suffixes. Finally, I've added examples of nouns and pronouns to the article. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)20:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PharyngealImplosive7 I think a secondary concern would be that we do not infringe on Kjelsvik's copyright. I will not claim any expertise in this, but for example, are the listed nouns all of those which Kjelsvik gives? If we only list a few of her's, we should be fine. Just do not list every single noun she lists.
In the phonology, you refer to the "phonetic representation", so I assume that the table lists phonemes according to their normal phonetic pronunciation. Then, older speakers do not have any phoneme /ε:/?
I assume that Kjelsvik gives the forms for the tenses? I would add those. I would also like to get a further description of the mechanisms of the two perfects (or, if it's not very important, just a note that there exist two perfects). Currently, the description mystifies.
Please move the "Nizaa is ... permits strings of verbal suffixes" down to the same paragraph as, probably just before "A stacking of up to three suffixes to a single verb is grammatical in Nizaa". Either that or as the following sentence. Aspets (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aspets: I did not list all of the nouns she provides, though I listed every pronoun. I'm not sure if that would infringe on copyright though, and if I removed some pronouns, the list would feel incomplete.
Yes, older speakers don't pronounce /ε:/. I've put its symbol in parentheses in the table to emphasize that.
I've moved the information about the perfects down to a footnote; let me know if I should add more information in the footnote itself. I've also add every tense form. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)20:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PharyngealImplosive7 Yes, I think the way you did it was ideal. Of course we need to list all the pronouns, I was just afraid of the nouns. I think I've read enough of the article to actually review it, so I will add a new section shortly. Aspets (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the language's speakers live in and around the village of Galim, a village in the department of Faro-et-Déo. – Do we have to mention twice that it's a village?
Nizaa has a complex phonetic inventory consisting of 65 consonant phonemes (sounds) as well as eleven tones and features an oral-nasal contrast in its vowels. – I still wonder if we cannot formulate this more plainly. What about: "Nizaa has a complex sound system with 65 consonant phonemes, eleven tones, and a contrast between oral and nasal vowels"? This way, you might not need the explanation "sound" anymore, because you already make clear that it's all about sounds and the reader will be able to follow even if they are not familiar with the term "phoneme".
I think you need more wikilinks. I personally would link "vowel", "suffix", "verb", and more.
Nizaa was first extensively studied and documented in the 1980s, by Norwegian linguists – I would remove that comma
helped a clan go through some stressful situation – maybe "helped a clan overcome a difficult situation"?
The writing system of Nizaa also has not widely been adopted by the Nizaa people – You don't discuss this writing system anywhere; who invented that, and on what writing system is it based? Arabic? Or is it just the romanization system that was recently devised by that scholar?
Many also know Hausa, another regional language, or French, due to their historical colonization of Cameroon. – Do they really know French because of the colonization, or because French is one of the official languages in Cameroon today? Germans also colonized Cameroon yet they don't speak German.
Certain imprecise details of Nizaa were known as early as 1932, – Is this the best wording? "Imprecise" is the opposite of "detail", no? And if you say "certain", that somehow implies that we know what these details were, so I would expect to read about them – maybe just say "Several details of Nizaa were known …"?
Because another language exists in Adamawa Region also called 'nyamnyam – I commented on that one above already
linguists often confuse the two languages – "confused"?
Mambiloid – needs to be linked in body, too.
Finally, Roger Blench in 1988 classified the Mambiloid languages, along with another language family in Nigeria's Adamawa State, the Dakoid languages, as members of the Northern Bantoid languages, which are a subdivision of the Bantoid language family. – Link "language family". This sentence implies that there are families within a family, is that correct?
which is where the present classification originates from. – Is that sentence just superfluous? I do not see what it adds.
However, another linguist, Bruce Connell, in 1997, disagreed with this classification. He suggests – stick with one tense
genetic relationship between the Mambiloid languages and the Dakoid languages are weak. – singular/plural mismatch
contrast between oral and nasal vowels – I can't find this bit about the contrast mentioned in the body? If it is not there, it has no source? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both types of consonants are common in the languages of Sub-Saharan Africa, including Nizaa. – "including Nizaa" is redundant since it was already stated that they occur in the language in the previous sentence.
Endresen groups the tones into "primary tones": high (H), mid (M), low (L), and rising (LH) found on all types of syllables, and "secondary tones": rising (HM), falling (HL), falling (MH), falling (ML) and peaking (LHM) found on word-final syllables and can be understood as one of the primary tones plus an additional tone. – I don't think the grammar works here. Two colons? Is this supposed to be one sentence?
Any reason this article is in American English? English is one of the official languages in Cameroon, and that should be Commonwealth English, no? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of this review is mainly to make the article read well and to simplify the prose for a layman audience.
While you note that "the exact classification is still in doubt", the infobox gives a straightforward classification. Which is it? I do not see any source for it being Mambiloid, and further, do write (perhaps in a "Classification") that Mambiloid is a subgroup of Bantoid etc.
The lead could be expanded with another paragraph, breaking up the linguistic description and the documentation history. For the linguistic description, maybe add that the language features an oral/nasal distinction in the vowels, and maybe something about nouns.
How do you cite the consonant table? A tip would be to write (if the sources support this): Nizaa distinguishes between labial, alveolar, postalveolar, velar, labio-velar and glottal consonants (etc. with the manners of articulation and the labialiazation co-articulation).
Do the sources go into more detail on the tones? Specifically, I do not understand if eleven tones can occur on any syllable, or if there are eleven "accent patterns" or something similar. Some examples could help illustrate.
When explaining head-initial, give an example of an English sentence's head and modifiers. You can cite any "Handbook of Syntax" you have available.
"however, in noun phrases, the language does not strongly favor putting the main noun before or after its modifiers", this is clunky. Do you understand the exceptions and the rules? If so, you should be able to explain it more clearly. Use simple and few words.
Do postpositions fall under head-initial? Spell that out.
Give examples of possesor and possesee. Again, cite some handbook.
I do not think that "no overt grammatical marking" is the same as a "zero-marking language" (which you have hyperlinked). It should go to Relative clause#Formation methods and the appropriate entry.
"when the noun is animate, i.e. is a human or an animal" maybe "i.e. refers to".
"which marks ___location" does it work like the Slavic locative i.e. it's used when a noun has the meaning of ___location. Or is it something else?
The pronouns "in context", does that just mean "in a sentence with a finite noun"?
Does the vocative really not exist for the second person singular pronoun?
Please move "Nizaa is the only Bantoid language that permits strings of verbal suffixes" down to the paragraph where you discuss suffix concatenation.
Finally, do you have access to Eliane Sonkoue Kamdem's article "Mengaka tense-aspect system" in the Nordic Journal of African Studies December 2019 issue (vol. 28 no. 3)? Does it concern this language or is the term polysemous? Aspets (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blench (1993) states that it is a Mambiloid language and pretty clearly fleshes out the classification of Nizaa (and the Mambiloid languages as a whole). The Mambiloid languages are also part of the Northern Bantoid and Bantoid language families. Maybe that makes the entire classification issue resolved? I'm not sure.
I've expanded the lead.
Kjelsvik (2002) does include a consonant table in her thesis, so I've just added a description of the table at the top with a citation.
No, none of the sources explicitly go into detail about the tones sadly. I do mention in the wikipedia page that noun and verb roots can only take certain tones.
I've added an English example and cited Fukui (1993)
I've given a better explanation of how the nouns work.
Postpositions are a feature of head-final languages so I've updated the article to reflect that.
I've added an example of a possessive phrase.
Done.
Done.
I think so. I've updated the article to say that.
Yes, it doesn't seem to exist for some reason. I'm not sure why.
Done.
Lastly, the article about "Mengaka tense-aspect system" also relates to a language spoken in Cameroon, but it is a different language.
@PharyngealImplosive7 "Blench (1993) states that it is a Mambiloid language ..." Yes, but you need to write it in prose in the article, and give the page from which you source it.
I think with the pronouns in context, it now reads as if they take those forms either in context or in normal clauses. I'd say replace the "or" with "i.e.".
Otherwise, I think that clears up the points I've had. Regarding the footnote: WP:DUE is key here. I would suggest you make the call about which detail to go into, keeping in mind that the audience will include people who do not even know what a verb is, and avoiding copying the sources since there is copyright. Also, you need to source the footnote. Aspets (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aspets: I've explicitly created a paragraph about classification that says However, in 1983, ALCAM classified Nizaa and another language, Kwanja, as Mambiloid, which is where the present classification originates from. Finally, Roger Blench in 1988 classified the Mambiloid languages, along with another language family in Nigeria's Adamawa State, the Dakoid languages, as members of the Northern Bantoid languages, which were a further subdivision of the Bantoid language family.
I've implemented your suggestion that changes 'or' to 'i.e.' and I've sourced the footnote. Since it isn't very important anyways and because I don't want to violate copyright as you say, I'll keep the description relatively short.
I think that in the consonant section, some more prose would go a long way to help the uninitiated understand all the strange symbols. The nature of labialization and pre-nasalization could be described with reference to some introductory handbook in phonetics. You should give some background on the implosive and labial-velar consonants: mention that the language is spoken in an area where those commonly occur. Also, perhaps describe how they're produced. The same phonetics source could be used, and for the areal stuff just a handbook of African linguistics or similar.
The same with tones. A description like "which means that the fundamental frequency (f0) shifts across the word, independently of pragmatic considerations" and maybe something about the presense of tones in neighbouring languages.
Before you explain "The syllable structure V (a single short vowel) exists only in the particle a", you should illustrate what syllable structure is by showcasing some normal words in the language. "This means that only words which fit this structure are allowed, e.g. cún "tree"."
Your explanation of codas should probably change from "that follow the vowel in a syllable" to "that end a syllable". I think that's clearer.
Under "Morphophonology", I don't understand "In some types of suffixes including irregular noun plurals, vowels become /a/". What is this in contrast to? Related languages? Does the stem vowel become /a/, or the suffix's? Also, is this important to include? If it is, we can spare a longer explanation.
Maybe explain the imperfective aspect in one and the same section. Currently one finds information in both "Morphophonology" and "Verbs".
"The possessor always precedes the possessee and most adjectives, demonstratives, and numerals also precede the noun they modify." (the signs of head-initialness) should precede the slew of "however" and "alhtough". Always explain the usual situation before going into exceptions.
I actually think that even definiteness could be explained. Remember, not everybody paid attention when learning grammar in high school. However, all readers know English. Something as simple as "definite nouns are like those with the in English, while indefinite are like those with a" could make it click. Or, in the table, give definitions for the definites and plurals as well: "the house", "houses" etc.
My sneaking suspicion is that the honorific and vocative pronouns are used similarly. It might be WP:SYNTH or even worse WP:OR to put that into the article, however. Would you like to scour the sources to see if we could simplify the amount of jargon used to explain the pronouns right now?
Maybe explain the tenses before the locative suffixes? Unless the locative suffixes are heavily used, they seem to take up undue space. Always begin with the most general and important information.
"does not distinguish mothers and maternal aunts or fathers and paternal uncles from each other, calling them maaŋ and táá respectively. However, maternal uncles and paternal aunts have separate terms to distinguish them from maternal aunts/mothers and paternal uncles/fathers." is hard to keep track of. Can you simplify?
I've added some information about tones and consonants in general and how they work to their respective sections. I've also fixed the description of the codas. I have also clarified that the root vowel is the vowel that becomes /a/ as you can see in the table in the nouns section.
I split the information about the imperfective section into two sections because the first set of information is about morphophonology, while the second group of information is about grammar. I've moved the information about relative clauses before all the exception information.
I've also given examples of definiteness in the noun table. I'm not sure about whether the vocative and honorific pronouns are used similarly, and because Kjelsvik mainly talks about verbs, not nouns/pronouns, there isn't much information there anyways. I've moved the tenses info before locative info.
Finally, I've simplified the kinship section to make it more readable.
@PharyngealImplosive7 I've rearranged the layout in "Consonants" and "Verbs". Please review it and you are free to change it back if you feel it makes it worse. Personally, I think this order makes more sense.
The "Tonology" section should probably start with "Nizaa is a tonal language" using the Kjelsvik source pp. 12-13. Also, not "common ... as well". Remove the "as well".
Looking at the noun table, it looks way more cluttered now. Maybe bring back the previous table, but in the headings (Singular, Singular definite, Plural) write "e.g. a house, the house, houses"? Aspets (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aspets: I'm personally fine with the rearrangement of the paragraphs in both sections and have added that Nizaa is a tonal language and have decluttered the table. Thanks for all the detailed feedback again. Do you have any further suggestions to the article? – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)17:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PharyngealImplosive7 Yes, I have found the title Classification Interne du groupe Bantoïde by Pascale Piron from 1997. It could be used for the classification. It seems to be in French, but I could help with that. Do you have access to it?
But more importantly. It seems like Bruce Connell has written The Integrity of Mambiloid which I guess is quite important to the classification of the language. Do you have access to this article/chapter? It's from the year 2000. Aspets (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the book in French and could not find it on the Wikipedia Library either sadly. I don't want to pay upwards of $150 as well. Perhaps we could ask at WP:RX?
The Integrity of Mambiloid does seem to have quite a lot of useful information, especially Second, it is apparent that Nizaa and Ndoro are the most divergent of the group; sufficiently so that, in the absence of a strong set of unifying features, and until alternative possible alignments are considered, their inclusion in Mambiloid must at this point be considered tentative. (This, however, is not to suggest a closer link between the two.).
@PharyngealImplosive7 Yes, to satisfy the requirement of comprehensiveness it is important that any relevant information from The Integrity of Mambiloid is added to the article. Could you do that? I think we can ignore the French article for now, especially if Connell deals with it himself. Aspets (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under Background, "The writing system of Nizaa also has not widely been adopted" → "The writing system devised by ... has not been widely adopted". Also, are you sure you have the right source for this sentence?
Under classification: remove "however", "finally" and maybe write "However, Bruce Connell disagreed with this classification ...".
"connections between" → "the genetic relationship between" since you've already used "genetic group" earlier in the paragraph.
"He suggests that", remove "finally".
Under Orthography: move the first sentence to the section between the title and "Vowels", since it applies to both the vowel section and the consonant section.
Under Consonants: "doubly articulated" could probably be simplified to "articulated simultaneously" with a wikilink to Doubly articulated consonant.
When discussing the implosive consonants: "which refer to sounds" → "which refer to consonants".
Support – article is well-written and I have specifically critiqued the technical language with the purpose of making it understandable to laymen. The article's editor has been very responsive and fixed the issues, so I believe that it meets the criteria of WP:MTAU.
It is comprehensive, with every available source used which is important for this language of which not much has been written. The French source mentioned in my review is tangential to the topic, but when it is accessed it may have some information that could be added to the article.
I have not evaluated the neutrality of the article, but considering the paucity of coverage it shouldn't be an issue. The one disagreement in the classification is dealth with even-handedly.
The article is stable.
I have not assertained if there are any copyright violations in the article.
The lead summarizes the content.
The structure of the article leaves nothing to be desired.
I have not looked over the citation practices.
I have not looked over the media.
The article is the appropriate length for the topic.
This article tests whether a topic can be notable, but not able to be promoted to a Featured article. Many of the shortcomings of the article (the uncertain treatment of the tones, the lack of detail in the grammar sections) have to do with the lack of research on the language. However, the article's editor has made a good job with the available sources. While I haven't checked for copyright issues, the citation styles or media, I can to the best of my knowledge confirm that the article meets the other Featured article criteria. Aspets (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PharyngealImplosive7 I have some more comments now that two other reviewers have come with suggestions.
In Morphophonology, maybe "In the imperfective aspect, coda consonants in final syllables change ..." Remove the "also", and maybe rephrase to "the last consonant in the word" or "word-final consonants".
A "coda augmentative" – is that supposed to be a suffix or affix? I read "appendix" and that is terminology I'm not familiar with. Maybe explain the morphophonological change i.e. "(e.g. /m/ back to /w̃/.)"
Do you want to expand on the noun phrases' head-initialness in a footnote?
Under Nouns and pronouns, maybe use the word "declension"? Does Kjelsvik speak of declension?
I am kinda unsure if SIL Global#Criticism raises any questions about reliability, seems like many of the issues haven't anything to do with it and it's unclear how many of these are inside views. "Verb chains in Nizaa" and " Nominal Compounding in Nizaa – A cognitive perspective" seem reasonably cited so I'll let it stay. "Mambiloid Inside and Out: Mambiloid Integrity Revisted and The Situation of Somyev Within Mambiloid" requires additional information. What makes https://mambila.info/ a reliable source? Spotcheck:
1 I presume this info is in the subscription-needed section?
Kjelsvik, Bjørghild (31 March 2008). Emergent speech genres of teaching and learning interaction. Communities of practice in Cameroonian schools and villages. Faculty of Humanities (Linguistics PhD thesis). University of Oslo. pp. 91–134 – via ResearchGate. p. 91: "the actual site of the present head village, Galim"
13 Millet and sorgo not mentioned. Where is cattle herding?
Millet (mil) is mentioned on page 28 in the list of produce farmed, and sorghum (sorgho) is listed as one of the staple foods at the top of page 29. I've tweaked the article to show this. I also couldn't find a mention of cattle herding, but I've added another citation to Kjelsvik-2008 that discusses hunting, fishing, beekeeping and ironsmithing. Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the vowel table, each of those IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) symbols is defined as open-mid, open, close-mid, close, etc so we don't need to source that. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)18:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about a different source / was using an old version of the article. You can ignore the comments I made below. The source says The 58 phonemes in the syllable onset System are presented in table 2.There are altogether 21 labialized phonemes, not counting /w/. Notice that the unvoiced dorsal fricative /x/ is highly marginal, as it is found in one root only, /xag/ 'to clear the throat'. The glottal phonemes also have a very low frequency, being found mostly in loanwords and ideophones – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)14:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the source spotcheck by the way. The specific webpage on mambila.info seems reliable to me because it was presented at a linguistics conference in 1997.
Source 1: Yes, Ethnologue is subscription only.
Source 11: Yes, don't worry about that. Sources 10 and 4 also support this claim.
Source 13: Millet and sorghum are mentioned on the last sentence of page 28 and the first of page 29. The sentence starts with La nourriture principale des Nizaas. The cattle herding claim has been removed by User:Pineapple Storage and replaced by activities sourced by Kjelsvik (2008)
Source 15: Kjelsvik (2008) has entire paragraphs on Islamization (During the last 40 to 50 years, the Nizaa have become steadily more islamized...). Endressen (1992) also states La majorité des Nizaas sont des musulmans nominalement, mais il y a aussi quelques chrétiens. Dans la réligion traditionnelle des Nizaas le culte des ancêtres joue un grand-rôle
Source 24: It does have page numbers (pages 10 to 11)?
Source 29: Unsure what you mean. Could you please clarify?
Source 32: See the paragraph starting with Another ___domain of pitch variation is the word or syllable...
Source 36: Has a page number already?
Source 39: Table 3 lists /j̃/ as a coda, so this is fine.
Source 41: already has page numbers?
Source 43: Good catch. I've fixed the initial sentence to say that it is neither.
Source 46: Do you mean expand the information about the head-directionality parameter or something else? Could you please clarify?
Source 47: and there are a number of postpositions but also at least one preposition is mentioned by the source
Sources 50, 51, 53, 57: all seem to have page numbers, unless I'm missing something.
@Gog the Mild: (sorry if I'm doing this wrong, this is my first FAC nom after all) 3 reviewers have supported based on prose and Jo-Jo Eumerus has passed the source review and seems to have passed the close paraphrasing check as well. Would it be ok to close / promote the article or is it better to keep the nom open? Thanks – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)19:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PharyngealImplosive7: I have a background in linguistics. Glad to see other linguistics pages get to FAC and I think you've done a bang-up job here. I was planning to review this when it was a GAN, but real life got in the way. Happy to have the opportunity to add my two cents here. Going to begin with a volley of comments, follow up, and then I think the lede needs a bit of expansion to cover the breadth of the page.
In the lede, delink the first instance "endangered" per WP:SOB; you link it later in a different environment anyway.
Nyamnyam is a pejorative term likely derived from the Fula word nyaamnyaamjo 'cannibal' which is further derived from nyam-nyam 'to eat', despite there being no evidence of the Nizaa being cannibals, while Galim is the main town of the Nizaa people – Not sure that there's a reason to give us the full Fula etymology here, nor link Galim to the rest of the sentence; it's a harsh left turn. Recommend rephrasing to something like Nyamnyam is a pejorative term likely derived from the Fula word nyaamnyaamjo ('cannibal'), though there is no evidence the Nizaa have ever practised cannabalism. The name Galim comes from the main town of the Nizaa of the same name.
Can we clarify that for the reader who might go look up couscous trying to figure out what it is? Perhaps by calling it a "couscous-like dish"? ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
though some do practise Christianity a traditional religion that incorporates ancestor worship – Not sure what this is supposed to really say. Also there are two periods here.
That source quote is quite long. Any real reason for its inclusion?
Thank you for the ping! Um... to be honest, I'm not 100% sure why I put the whole quote in there... I seem to remember it had something to do with WP:NONENG, but reading that again now it only says translated quotes should be provided in the event of a dispute, so maybe I misread it before, I'm not sure. Otherwise it might just have been because @PharyngealImplosive7 said he didn't read French, so I wanted to be clear about exactly which part of the source I was referring to and what it said? Again, I don't know, but I don't think it's necessary to keep the quote; if anything, maybe get rid of most of it and keep just the most relevant bit(s)? Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
write Fula in the Ajami script of Arabic – I think it might be clearer to say that they write Fula using an Ajami Arabic script, only linking Ajami script.
However, another linguist, Bruce Connell, in 1997, disagreed with this classification. He suggested [...] – Awkward. Recommend However, another linguist, Bruce Connell, disagreed with this classification. In 1997, he suggested [...]
are tentative members of the Mambiloid languages at best – Kind of informal/awkward. Recommend can only be tenatively considered members of the Mambiloid languages
that the genetic relationship → that evidence of a phylogenetic relationship – The phylogenetic relationship isn't weak per se, but rather evidence of it is shaky, no? In either case, the term here is phylogenetic.
@PharyngealImplosive7: Yes, looks good for this first volley; I will look at the second one shortly. I've left a couple comments above and I've included a small change which appeared to have been half-fulfilled. Let me know if you have a concern about the wording. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Missed this on the first go, but shouldn't the lede pronunciation be [nɪ́zʌ̀ː ~ nɯ́zʌ̀ː]? Certainly is should be with the long marker and not a duplication of the vowel, esp since you haven't marked the syllable boundaries.
Interestingly, the sources always use /ɪ/ and never use /ɯ/, though they do list allophonic variation between the two vowels. Also the reduplication of the vowel is used to signify a different tone (/ʌʌ̀/ is different from /ʌ̀ː/) – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)00:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, with respect to [ɯ], do the sources indicate any particular conditions under which it appears? It's fine if it doesn't occur in the name itself, but if there's anything to say about allophony, we should include it. Re: tone, what difference is it signifying? If it's signalling a contour, we need to use the appropriate IPA contours, since this would be confusing to someone with knowledge of IPA but not knowledge of Nizaa in particular. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've used the more common Chao tone letters to represent the name of Nizaa (now it says /nɪ˦zʌː˧˨/. As for [ɯ], the sources again, are frustratingly vague about where each allophone occurs. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)22:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaesOfereode: Endresen (1992), the French source, has information on where each allophone occurs. You may want to check out the vowel section; I added an explanation as to what is used where. The explanation also justifies why [ɯ] is never used in the word /nɪ˦zʌː˧˨/. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)17:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, excellent addition. Couple suggestions:
Clarify "it" here (in except if it follows). A bit hard to follow for the layman, I think.
Add a contrastive example showing blocking before the excepted phonemes.
Remove quotation marks from "back" and "front"; these are not metaphors since they are literally at the front and back of the mouth mechanically. The use of "normal" in quotes is good and appropriate, I think.
Soft suggestion to reverse the order so that the reader is exposed to the onset first, the placement of the vowel, and then the following consonant whenever possible (e.g., used when a vowel is before /n/ and follows /tʃ, dʒ, ᶮdʒ, ɲ, j, ʃ/ → used when a vowel follows /tʃ, dʒ, ᶮdʒ, ɲ, j, ʃ/ and precedes /n/). This helps the reader follow the process as C1VC2 rather than C2VC1.
No short nasal vowels at all? Seems odd. Typically, a field linguist might include certain contexts for the shortening of phonemically long vowels. Anything like that in your source material?
but this distinction has been lost in younger speakers – Soft recommend to link Merger (linguistics) to "distinction has been lost". Might be worth mentioning which vowel collapsed into which.
Asking myself as well here, but since /ɤ̃ː/ collapsed, should ⟨ʌ̃ː⟩ be in square brackets (i.e., [ʌ̃ː]), or since it is an underlying phoneme in younger speakers should we keep the slash bracketing? ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Older speakers of Nizaa also pronounce /ɛː/ as the sequence /aɾ/. – One of these is the underlying representation and one of them is the surface. That means one of these needs to be in square brackets (e.g., [ar]).
Under "Short oral vowels", your unrounded vowels are organized front-to-back (e.g., ɪ ~ ɯ), but your rounded vowels are organized back to front. Why? I would guess that the underlying representation favors one over the other (e.g., unrounded vowels are underlyingly front and vice versa).
This is a very strange organization, but I don't suppose I have any real objection to it since the information isn't obfuscated in any way by its order. We can keep it as is, I think. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You only discuss marginal phonemes in "Consonants" when your "Vowels" section has two. Why? You point out that your marginal phonemes are in parentheses here, even though you do the same without the explanation above. Consider revising this.
Older speakers of Nizaa also distinguish an eighth nasalised vowel /ɤ̃ː/ from /ʌ̃ː/, but this distinction has been lost in younger speakers. Older speakers of Nizaa also pronounce /ɛː/ as the sequence [aɾ]. - this is my description for the vowel marginal phonemes.
Both types of consonants are common in the languages of Sub-Saharan Africa. – Soft recommendation to rephrase so you can include a link to Sprachbund; not a big deal though
Footnote seems most appropriate here. It'll also help justify your footnote section since I've often (I think correctly) been suggested during GANs to remove single-note sections and integrate them into the body of work whenever possible. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(combinations of tones) – I would clarify this; I think a relatively smart reader might interpret this as a polysyllabic quality rather than a monosyllabic one. For example 指鹿為馬 (zhǐ lù wéi mǎ) requires a combination of tones, but it's four words. A contour is strictly the shift of the tone within the syllable.
In §Tonology, the claim that Verb roots can only use the high or mid tones, unlike nouns, which may use any of the three levels. is cited to Kjelsvik 2002, page 18. That page says:
Verbs can have a M or a H lexical tone, as noted above. The root can be augmented with a number of derivational suffixes, and inflected with suffixes. Periphrastic forms making use of the auxiliary á / a᷆ / a etc further expand the paradigm, as we noticed above.
(By the way, while researching this I discovered that there are tone contour diacritics in the Unicode Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement block. I drafted a version of the §Tonology table using them, based on the table in Kjelsvic 2002 p. 13, which can be found here, in case you want to add that to the article @PharyngealImplosive7? No pressure either way, of course.)The only bit I could find in Endresen (1992) that discusses the tonology of verbs specifically is the text on page 43, between the diagram and the table; this is my rough translation:
This hierarchy is important both from a synchronic perspective and from a comparative and diachronic point of view. For example, in synchronic analysis we find that among monosyllabic verbs there is only one tonological lexical opposition: between the H tone and the non-H tone. In comparative analysis we find that the lexical H tone of monosyllabic verbs corresponds to the H tone of Proto-Bantu, and that the non-H (M and L) tone correspond to the L tone of Proto-Bantu; cf. Endresen (forthcoming). But Nizaa doesn’t just have the three tones H, M and L. By overlooking the downstep and the floating tones, we must distinguish between nine different tones in order to obtain a sufficient description. Other than the three simple tones, H, M and L, there are five double tones, HM, HL, MH, ML and LH, and one triple tone, LHM.
Hopefully this helps! And apologies if I've mistranslated any specific linguistic terms that I'm just unfamiliar with in French! Just let me know if there's anything that doesn't make sense. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pineapple Storage: Firstly, great translation, only a few terminology differences that were fairly easy to parse out. I have several questions still though. Are these representations in the table orthographic or are they supposed to be IPA? If orthographic, we need to include IPA. If they're supposed to be IPA, they aren't in line with typical contouring conventions. Are the tones in CVC falling on the nasal coda? I think I've seen this kind of representation before, but only on nasals. I don't think we want to give the impression that this kind of "coda tonality" is possible on coda stops. Again, highly recommending IPA contour conventions here: the current use seems to suggest a syllable break that isn't there and the mid-tone contours are difficult to discern on my screen; I can only imagine what this will be like for someone with accessibility issues. I should be able to add them, but if there are any indications about absolute tone (instead of relative; this is typically a 1–5 number), I need to know to appropriately add. Is there anything in the "Endresen (forthcoming)" that explains the tonogenesis of the mid tone? As an aside, I think CV → CVV → CVC is the more natural progression for the table, but open to suggestions. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaesOfereode: I believe User:Pineapple Storage is translating the 6 pages in Endresen (1992) that talk about tones from French to English right now. As for the tone table, I've added a separate chao tone letter column and moved the nasal coda accents to the vowel. Sadly, neither Kjelsvik nor Endresen actually gives numerical tone letters, but since there are no extra-high or extra-low tones in Nizaa, I think the chao tone letters are accurate. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)23:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
L tone in French is B (for bas) so apologies if I transcribed any by accident and left some confusing tone labels!
The translation of Nizaa mum is given as just "un" in this paper, so I'm not sure whether it's best translated as "one", "a/an", or both/either (depending on context); this is probably given somewhere else in the literature.
Wherever I've written "shift" or "shifted", that's a translation of transport or transporter; there might be a more linguistically accurate English equivalent for this, I wasn't sure.
I've translated substantif as "noun" throughout, hopefully this is accurate(?)
Endresen groups the tones into "primary tones" and "secondary tones". – Seems better to put the link of "groups the tones" rather than on "primary tones", no?
The primary tones, high (H), mid (M), low (L), and rising (LH), are found on all types of syllables. – This seems to contradict what you wrote above about the tonal quality of verbs. Clarify. Also, what is "all types of syllables"? Is this a phonological constraint (e.g., CV vs CVC) or is it a stress-based one (e.g., primary vs penultimate stress)? If it's about syllable structure, this section needs to be moved to below "Syllable structure" so that the reader can understand what the possible syllable types are.
It seems strange that you gave us a rundown of the places of articulation, but haven't made any effort to explain what a tone group is and how it works in Nizaa. I'm totally out at sea with this. Can primary tones occur in syllable-final position (see also above)? What do you mean they "can be understood as one of the primary tones plus an additional tone"? It looks like this was lifted more-or-less verbatim, but it's not clear what that means at all. Are they underlyingly two syllables and the contour arises from the surface pressures? I was so confused by this I looked at the source and it says "Tones will not be discussed in this article" but says that a forthcoming article will discuss it; I suspect it's Endresen's French-language article you've cited, which is oddly only found in the "Background" section despite clear usefulness elsewhere (no mention of nyaamnyaamjo in its sense as 'sorcerer'?)
For this question and the one above (along with the Can verb roots participate in tone contour question), I'd like to ping @Pineapple Storage: (sorry if I'm pinging you too much!) since they know French and can interpret what Endresen 1992 actually says. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)00:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the French article also refers to a "forthcoming" article that will more clearly explain the tone situation, but looking at his list of publications (of which there are absolutely loads, so apologies if I've just missed the relevant one) I couldn't immediately find that "forthcoming" work. His selected publications indicates that his subsequent work was about Fula, so I'm not sure whether the Nizaa tonology was ever published? Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, no problem! Those pages are mostly tables anyway, so it shouldn't take too long. The journal is non-commercial use only (the website specifies CC BY-NC prior to 2023) so I'll do it in a Google Doc and post the link here rather than actually publishing the text on-wiki, if that's okay? Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no tone table, which I think would be useful. More useful still would be a map of tonal diacritics since you're about to throw a lot of them at the reader and there's not really a useful way to understand it. Case in point, is sìì low? Is yîm LHL, LHM, or MHL?
Why are you marking long vowels with VV? Are they polymoraic? You should say if they are since that's what outlines the syllable constraints. The French-language source from Endresen seems to indicate that they are (p. 33).
You're not consistent with Endresen's name; sometimes it's just Endresen, other times is Thiel Endresen.
As an aside, strange that the Norwegian Wikipedia page only includes "Theil" (as do his University of Oslo, Google Scholar, Academia.edu, and researchgate.net pages!), but he seems to cite himself as Endresen (cf. 1991 p. 176)?
Why are you only discussing the lenition in coda wrt imperfectives? The source gives an example of fortition in augmentatives, which seems worthy of mention.
Okay, the biggest takeaway from these changes is that we absolutely positively must establish a universal orthography for this page; I can barely follow this page with its two principal sources competing for orthographic dominance. We cannot have "!" mark a downstep for an African language when /!/ exists in several neighboring languages; I thought I missed a new addition to phonology for a moment. Mark it with ꜜ◌ instead, since the exclamation is alternative for a typographical constraint we don't have here. The macron likewise needs to be removed. Its use in the "Sample text" section looks like a failed copy–paste; kekirā́ should be, I believe, kekira᷇, and it looks like there are similar issues passim. You should do a pass through and make sure these are rectified. I recommend just using Chao, but if you can use the prescribed IPA orthography that's fine too. Bottom line is that I don't want the reader to be guessing the whole time like I am now.
Other major takeaways:
Monosyllabic nouns can only have the syllable structures CVV and CVC – There are no instances of a (with tone) that are nominal?
Tone grouping still has not been explained. Is there not even a broad approach to this that we can use to explain to the audience what this is? I speak two tonal languages and I don't know what these groups are meant to signify; I can't even tell if this is a morphophonological or a phonosemantic phenomenon. My hunch is that it might be a sandhi phenomenon obfuscated by sound changes, but that's just a guess. The link is good and should stay, but it simply redirects to Tone (linguistics).
It's unclear why you introduce ° without giving an example.
ŋun 'boy/girl', with a mid tone, and ɓʉʉ, with a floating mid tone sound the same – They have the same tone, but they don't sound the same, right?
ɓʉʉ́ is a rising tone – You've marked a high tone here.
the result is inaudible – No. There simply is no change.
bɔ̀ɔ́ŋ 'egg' merges with the mid tone in mum when the two words are combined – Endresen has ɓɔ̨̀ɔ̨́ mum as 'one egg', seemingly unaffected by the tone shift, no? It's not merging; it simply has not been affected per above.
You need a counter-example here.
Do you have the right tone on ɓo᷄w? Seems like that's mid–high, not high–mid, but the sentence is a bit confusing.
Soft recommend placing the tone table after the second syllable.
@ThaesOfereode: I have tried to standardize the orthography by removing any of the macrons and using the hook accents. I've also used ꜜH to represent the downstep. As for your other concerns:
Monosyllabic nouns can only have the syllable structures CVV and CVC - no nouns use a with tone. That is reserved for the copula and auxiliaries.
I'm not sure how to put this into the article but I think the tones groups are just a way to show which tones are the main tones (primary) and which ones are derived through floating tone attachment, suffixing (e.g. suffixing of the L tone for definiteness), or tone-shift (secondary tones).
It's unclear why you introduce ° without giving an example. - it is just a shorthand so I don't need to write "the floating tone" multiple times, as that gets repetitive. It is used in the paragraph and in the table.
ŋun 'boy/girl', with a mid tone, and ɓʉʉ, with a floating mid tone sound the same – They have the same tone, but they don't sound the same, right? - yes right, clarified.
ɓʉʉ́ is a rising tone - I think you misread the tone table, a high tone would have an acute on both vowels (see the CVV section of the tone table)
bɔ̀ɔ́ŋ 'egg' merges with the mid tone in mum when the two words are combined - yes right, they are not merging; clarified. Also I added a counter-example in the next sentence.
Do you have the right tone on ɓo᷄w? - I had the wrong tone. Thanks for correcting me. I've scanned the entire article for any incorrect tones and have fixed hopefully all of my errors, but there still may be a few outstanding ones.
Soft recommend placing the tone table after the second syllable. - unsure what you mean by syllable.
Yeah, that's fine; I just don't know how helpful it is to the reader. What's the point of introducing a linguist's convention if you don't really use it passim. You write "floating tone" three times after the fact..
Okay.
Good fix.
Part of my frustration with the orthography. Though this has brought something else to my attention: this syllable is CVVC, no? Where is that in the analysis?
I haven't caught any so far, but will let you know if I find any.
Sorry, I meant moving the table to after the second paragraph of the section; I think the table will be useful to read before approaching the rest.
@ThaesOfereode:bɔ̀ɔ́ŋ is not CVVC, rather it is CVV with a nasal long vowel. As for the degree symbol / floating tones, I'm only using "floating tones" to describe them in general, so I think the setup is fine. I've also moved the table as you suggested. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)22:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've done a final sweep (mostly for my nitpicking that I don't think I'm justified bothering you here for). I apologize for the delay; I was going to make recommendations to the lead, but other than vaguely recommending you expand it somewhat to make it more summary, I don't have much to add. This article's writing is excellent, the facts contained therein are faithful to the source material, and the content is comprehensive in its approach to this language. Great work, PI7; I'm happy to support on prose and factual content. ThaesOfereode (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence (or source material) that says this is an underlyingly head-initial/head-final language? I understand if not, but would be great color.
These examples from Kjelsvik are excellent, but the orthography is difficult based on previous sections. What is the macron doing? I imagine length, but these are duplicated in your orthographic conventions above... and in some of your examples here. Also, is the circumflex supposed to be a LHL or MHL or LHM? Hard to tell.
I think the macron represents a mid tone? I didn't make the orthography, so I'm not entirely sure, but we should probably use Kjelsvik's orthography as at least it's standardized. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)00:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PharyngealImplosive7 @ThaesOfereode The complexity of this tones discussion is now outside my comfort zone given my (unfortunately) limited experience in Linguistics, so apologies if I've misinterpreted, but my reading of the Kjelsvik (2002) p. 13 table is that macrons by themselves only occur on the final consonant of a CVC syllable or the vowel of a CV syllable, to indicate that a three-tone contour ends with a final M tone (ie. LHM: CV = tǎ̄ and CVC = tǎm̄) because a M-tone vowel is just bare, without diacritics (so LHM: CVV = tǎa). I think given that Kjelsvik (2002) is the most recent (and most comprehensive) documentation of the tones, it would be good to standardise to her orthography, which does appear to use additional diacritics next to the vowel they apply to for CV syllables (which just needs a zero-width joiner or Template:Hair space to produce). Kjelsvik doesn't stack the diacritics (the way they currently are in the table at §Tonology for LHM, LHL and MHL) and I feel like this should be avoided as it could introduce some ambiguity about the order the tones are applied... I've done an updated version of the table at User:Pineapple Storage/sandbox/sub-sandbox 7 so you can see what I mean. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but my major concern here is that it seems to indicate that the coda can always carry tone. I have only ever seen a resonant coda carry tone and without explicit details I'm somewhat concerned about using a CVR syllable to serve as a paradigm example. @PharyngealImplosive7: My understanding is that the tone is carried entirely on the vowel or vowel–resonant sequence. Are there any examples in the literature regarding the tones shown in the table with the resonant occurring (LHM, LHL, and MHL) with a stop coda as well? ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaesOfereode: In the tone table on page 13, Kjelsvik (2002) uses accents on the coda, e.g. ta᷄m̀ or tǎm̄. I can only find accents used on 'm' or 'n' (page 150, the word is ndǔn̄); no other codas seem use a separate accent. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)23:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's one instance on page 72 of kpa᷄ŋ̀, on page 108 there's a ɗàňí (intervocalic), and page 109 nitaŋẁ, but again these are all nasals/nasalised. The only exception I could find was at the top of page 155, gu᷄r̀. Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insight here, Pineapple. @PharyngealImplosive7: Right now, I highly recommend using Chao throughout given the disparity between the two orthographies and the likelihood a non-expert may become confused by it. That said, given its use in the literature, I won't oppose on this basis alone. The choice is yours. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, this is outside my expertise, but given that you've asked for my opinion I'm happy to give it! My instinct is to go with Kjelsvik's orthography, as it seems to have been used in subsequent literature (eg. Pepper 2010), and AFAIK Chao tone letters aren't used in sources about Nizaa (routinely? or at all?). But I think it should be explained explicitly (either in the body or in a footnote) that Kjelsvik's orthography splits the diacritics out of necessity (if this is correct). She says on p. 12:
a certain splitting up of the triple tones was unavoidable, since no triple-tone symbols was available
I might be wrong, but I interpreted this as meaning that the resonant coda (m, n, ŋ, r or w) doesn't necessarily carry its own tone, but rather the vowel+resonant cluster shares a single triple-tone sequence; only a couple of triple-tone diacritics exist and they don't cover all the tone combinations in Nizaa, especially the ones that include M segments. I would guess that, in order to preserve the order of the tones in the diacritic representation (ie. rather than stacking them, which could make it ambiguous which tone is realised first), Kjelsvik spread the diacritics out over the constituent characters.If this interpretation is correct, then I think the diacritics should be explained explicitly, along with a discussion of any differences between Endresen and Kjelsvik's orthographies, just to make sure everything's as clear and confusion-free as possible. Does this make sense? Again, I may have gotten things completely wrong. But as a (comparative) layperson this is my reading of it. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow up, are these all compounds in typical language or not? The "two nouns" one is kind of throwing me. I think this should be regarded as a compound noun. Strictly speaking, is nízαὰ an adjective here or is this another compound noun? Are the adpositional phrases cliticized to the head? ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there isn't much specific information in the source. I've relabeled the "two nouns" one as a compound noun. As for the adjective + noun one, nízαὰ is an adjective because the source labels the phrase as such. As for the adpositional phrases, I'm not sure if they are clitics or not. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)22:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definiteness on nouns is marked by adding a lowering tone contour.
What is ɓaara doing? You just told us that pluralization is done through the use of animacy-based suffixes. Shouldn't the plural of sìì be sììya? Same for mbéwwu?
I've actually got no idea. Kjelsvik talks about -ya and -wu in one sentence and then throws 'ɓaara' at us in the table for regular nouns. Endresen (1992) actually defines it as the word for 'two'. I've added that to the article. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)00:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks like your sfn tag was erroring out, but I believe I've fixed it. Double check me though. Also, I highly recommend using the example njèè from "Verb chains" since it actually does use one of these suffixes to pluralize (njèèyâ). Also, does the word 'two' pluralize it per se or does the pluralization simply not need marking due to context? I don't think the source is backing up what you have written unless I missed something. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ɓaara does not appear to take plural markers. As for where Endresen talks about ɓaara, I got that information from this passage (translated into English):
Note that the M tone of the lexical tones HM and LHM “disappears” before mum and ɓaara: ɓów mum “one/a dog”, ɓɔ̨̀ɔ̨́ mum “one/an egg”, ɓów ɓaara “two dogs” and ɓɔ̨̀ɔ̨́ ɓaara “two eggs”. The “disappearance” is the result of a “shift” [lit. “transport”] of the final tone of a syllable to the following syllable:
Anyway to link the kinship system to its archetype (Iroquois kinship, it looks like)? In any case, recommend a {{broader}} tag, either Iroquois kinship or Kinship terminology
a 'younger sibling' nā́m is seen as disrespectful – Soft recommendation to say something along the lines of "indeterminate of gender" for clarity's sake.
@PharyngealImplosive7 @ThaesOfereode, regarding "Older speakers of Nizaa also pronounce /ɛː/ as the sequence [aɾ]." The older speakers do not have any /ɛː/, right? As in, they have no [ɛː] and therefore there's no reason to analyse them as having a phoneme /ɛː/. Rather, it's the younger speakers who have shifted /aɾ/ into [ɛː]. But then, it's easier to just analyse the new sequence as a phoneme /ɛː/, and maybe /aɾ/ just doesn't occur for younger speakers. My suggestion is: it may be that older and younger speakers have different phonemic systems (phonologies), and it must be if there isn't a merger or split.
But all of that is unimportant, because we cannot analyse the phonology ourselves. We have to stick to what the sources report, and is that really /aɾ/ and /ɛː/ or /aɾ/ and [ɛː] or [aɾ] and /ɛː/? We must follow their analysis. Aspets (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aspets and ThaesOfereode:: Endresen (1991) uses slashes for both ɛː and aɾ:
First, there is a generation difference in the use of /ɛɛ/. In nouns, the younger generation, e.g., Hamadicko Daniel, uses /ɛɛ/ where the older generation in most cases uses the VC sequence /ar/, (cf. /bɛɛ/ vs. /bar/ ('cloud'). These are clear indications that a change */ar/ > /εε/ has taken place in Nizaa. The fact that there is generation difference today, combined with loanwords like /jέέtu/ ('file') < Fulfulde /jarto/ indicate that it has taken place fairly recently, and probably after Pre-Nizaa A. In an even more recent influx of loanwords, even the younger generation has /ar/, (cf. /martô/ 'hammer' < French marteau).
@PharyngealImplosive7 It doesn't say if the older generation has /ɛː/. My interpretation of that passage is that young people have both /aɾ/ and /ɛː/. If /aɾ/ was [ɛː] they wouldn't be able to pronounce /marto/. I think this is better understood as a sound change than underlying/surface realizations. Aspets (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
—I'm looking forward to your comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Done
.png)
.png)
Trout on my end; apologies for the mixup. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carcharodontosaurus_saharicus_skeletal.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_(14782093375).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
