This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.
Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.
The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
actionable objections have not been resolved;
consensus for promotion has not been reached;
insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
a nomination is unprepared.
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.
Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.
An editor is normally allowed to be the sole nominator of one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. An editor may ask the approval of the coordinators to add a second sole nomination after the first has gained significant support. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.
Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}}notification template elsewhere.
A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.
Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.
To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements.
If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
This 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]
This article is about a nineteenth-century railway engineer who became the head engineer of the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway. He worked on major projects including London Victoria, London Bridge, and Crystal Palace railway stations. He also worked in civil engineering outside of the railway industry; for example, he worked on the National Gallery building and the Crystal Palace Aquarium. He was one of the longest-serving members of the Institution of Civil Engineers and received two of their accolades for his work. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions)19:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Robert_Jacomb-Hood_cleaned.png needs tagging for the original work
Is it not? I thought you just need {{extracted from}}? The original work is now tagged with {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1898}} for George Bridges Black. You can probably tell my knowledge of commons and image work is dire.
File:George_Percy_Jacomb-Hood_(1857-1929)_-_Portrait_of_an_Elderly_Gentleman_-_1977-5823_-_National_Railway_Museum.jpg: when and where was this first published?
Well according to artuk it was painted c. 1895. It was then "obtained as a result of a direct claim of redundant material from the nationalised railway, 1977" suggesting it had slowly made its way through railway companies (probably LB&SCR --> SR --> BR) and therefore I doubt an official publication date and place exists.
The definition of 'publication' in the US (which is the currently dubious tag) is "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". If it has been painted then just passed around before it ended up in the NRM surely it is unpublished? It certainly isn't distributed in the sense that it is in a book, collection, or displayed in a museum. It seems it just sits in an archive room unfortunately. I personally don't know a lot about this (as you could probably tell) but I don't want this FAC to get failed based on a copyright tag on a painting of the guy. Who/where can I ask people who deal with this stuff? JacobTheRox(talk | contributions)18:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the National Portrait Gallery, it "is not signed or dated, and it is not referred to or reproduced in his autobiography, With Brush and Pencil (1925)". It also says "Evidence from trade labels on the back of stretcher and frame point to a possible framing date between 1898 and 1911"; I have added that to the relevant commons page. It was framed in London—where the artist was based—if you want me to add that as well.
As above, this has a tag for pre-1930 publication, and it doesn't sound like that is known to be the case?
(see reply above as the portrait is unpublished by definition. The guy just painted himself for fun it seems.)
File:LB%26SCR_B1_192_(Jacomb-Hood).jpg: when and where was this first published? Also per the UK tag the image description should include details of the research undertaken to try to identify the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently quite inconsistent in how citations of the same type are presented. For example, footnotes 22 and 40 are both books, but one includes a location and the other doesn't. Similarly, 7 and 14 are both online dictionaries, but look very different. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 29 July 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]
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
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]
(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]
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]
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.
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.
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.
More comments to be added once I have read through the body and compared it to the lead...
Plot
Comments to be added...
Cast
Comments perhaps to be added...
Production
"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.
"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.
"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 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]
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]
"the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment were part of set of federal actions that brought about the end of slavery" – missing an article before "set" by the look of it.
No other points. I find this article impressive, readable, balanced, judiciously illustrated and widely sourced: there are more than forty citations to Aiello 2016 but these are balanced by plenty of references to other sources. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I am happy to support its promotion to FA. – Tim riley talk14:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Historical marker for Booker T. Washington in Piedmont Park.jpg - When was this installed? These markers are managed by the Georgia Historical Society, a non-profit organization; consequently, any text on markers would have a copyright. Unless this was installed before the requirement to have a copyright notice was lifted, there is no way the text is free.
File:William Monroe Trotter B.jpg - Two things. One, PD-70 and related templates are for known authors; two, PD-1930 is for works with a known publication. I think {{PD-US-unpublished}} would work best here.
Starting with the lede, I see that you have some double spaces and some curly apostrophes, as if you worked on this in Word. Per MOS:CURLY, straight apostrophes should be used.
Thanks for correcting those ... I'm not sure how they got into the article. I may have copied some text from a source? Not sure. Noleander (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the Thirteenth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment were part of a set of federal actions that brought about the end of slavery. - Perhaps "In addition to the Thirteenth Amendment, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were part of a set of federal actions that brought about the end of slavery." to avoid repeating "Amendment" a third time?
when white business leaders from Georgia invited Washington to assist in delivering a presentation to a U.S. Congressional committee, seeking support for hosting the event in Georgia. - Any way to avoid mentioning Georgia twice in this sentence?
Given the emphasis on claims that Washington was appeasing whites, I think his praise of white patrons in the speech (currently a hidden comment) is worth mentioning.
Although the number of lynchings gradually declined after a peak in 1892, over fifty blacks were lynched in most years until 1922, and lynchings continued into the 1940s. - Fifty blacks per annum, you mean? I think this could be clarified a little (also, horrifying)
Done. I changed it to "Although the number of lynchings gradually declined after a peak in 1892, over fifty blacks were lynched per year until 1922 (except 1907, 1914, and 1917 had fewer than fifty);..." but I'm still not confident that is the best wording. I'll keep thinking about it. Noleander (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Although the Niagra Movement dissolved after two years, it served as the NAACP's forerunner, formed in 1909 by Du Bois and others." - Two things. One, the NAACP should be given in full and linked, as it hasn't been mentioned yet. Second, I'd recommend phrasing it "Although the Niagra Movement dissolved after two years, it served as the forerun to the NAACP, formed in 1909 by Du Bois and others."
Another blow to the Tuskegee Machine was the election of President Woodrow Wilson in 1912. Wilson was the first Democratic party president since the Atlanta Compromise speech; during his term in office, he would increase racial segregation in the federal workforce. - This paragraph is quite short. Worth merging?
In progress: I'm struggling to find a good place to merge: Pres WIlson fact(s) are critical, and I'm afraid they would get buried if merged with unrelated sentences. Still searching .... Noleander (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion could work, too. Another sentence or two on Wilson and race would help frame and contextualize his policy vis a vis the Compromise. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Changed to "... campaigns to end legally-sanctioned segregation and achieve equal rights gained momentum, finally achieving success during the..." Noleander (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
such as Frederick Douglass or Du Bois – - Douglass was already linked above.
@Crisco 1492 - Thanks for the outstanding & detailed suggestions. I have resolved all of the issues you mentioned above. One item that perhaps is not perfect yet is the wording of the sentence: "Although the number of lynchings gradually declined after a peak in 1892,..." I made some improvements to that sentence, but maybe it can be better? I'm still trying to think of another way to say it. Noleander (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Save for a typo (noted above) and a few stylistic tweaks (which I shan’t trouble you with), the article is fine as it stands and meets FAC standards. Support from me. MSincccc (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ha !! A thank-you has been sent. When I started in WP, there was no "Thank" button, only barnstars. So, I don't think of the Thank button immediately. Thanks for the reminder. Noleander (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Georg Karo, a German archaeologist with a long career spanning most of the twentieth century. Karo is known in the field as the publisher of the finds from Heinrich Schliemann's excavations at Mycenae, as well as for his own excavations, particularly at Tiryns. Aristocratic, urbane and by all accounts a ladies' man, he was prominent in the political world of Greek archaeology, personal friends with at least two royal families, and a master political operator who made loyal friends, in particular, with Alan Wace and Carl Blegen. Long-suffering FAC hands may remember Karo from Wace's article, in which he played a cameo role, or his appearance in Spyridon Marinatos -- Marinatos was both his student and, as you'll see, almost a very big problem for him.
Karo also had very complicated politics, which made this something of a tricky article to write. His mother was Jewish (as was his paternal grandfather) and he spent most of his childhood in Florence, but he was an unashamed German nationalist before and after the First World War, and almost certainly involved in some dodgy dealings on behalf of the German state during it (though the precise extent and nature of his "extra-curricular activities" is a matter of some debate). He seems to have welcomed the Nazi rise to power, boasted of his connections within the regime, and to have tried to work with them, only to be cast out for his ancestry and forced to flee to the United States. Once there, he was accused of being a German spy -- the evidence for which was rather flimsy, but included some very odd behaviour involving a suspicious set of postcards. Whether Karo actually was a Nazi true believer, or simply a man who tried and failed to play them to protect himself, his colleagues and German academia, was beyond my ability to discern, and as far as I can tell the jury is still out.
In light of recent Talk discussions, I am conducting a bit of an experiment in trying to include spot checks in my reviews (with a view to reporting back on the difference it makes from a reviewer's perspective) -- I would be very grateful if someone would be willing to spot-check this nomination so that I can do likewise from a reviewee's. UndercoverClassicistT·C10:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
remainder his childhood → remainder of his childhood
“funded by his family wealth”
→ Consider "funded by his family's wealth" for natural phrasing.
I've made a start here. Thank you for bringing another archaeologist's biography to FAC and I hope that my comments will be of help. MSincccc (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve mentioned Karo was critical of Hitler’s invasion of Poland (1939) after his 1941 meeting with Hitler.
A minor suggestion.
Well, yes, because the source is Bert Hodge Hill, who was his close friend and probably trying to deflect the accusation that Karo was a German spy at the time. Best couched in the "Political views" section and hedged as we have it. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood my suggestion—I was asking why it’s "Greek Ministry for Education" rather than "Greek Ministry of Education". MSincccc (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
During Karo's year at Cincinnati, his former student Spyridon Marinatos undertook a lecture tour of the US...
Marinatos has already been described as his "former student" earlier in the same section.
He has, but it was a few subsections and about 1400 words ago, by my count. I think reminding the reader is wise, especially the reader who may have travelled via the contents panel. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of espionage
Harry A. Hill's father-in-law→Hill's father-in-law
I think this is better: she's always been Helene Wenck, so introducing her as Helene Karo here would be odd, and using the first name alone odder still. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I found the prose engaging and comprehensive, and I hope you’ll forgive me for not having more to offer (I’m not an expert). At this juncture, I'm at support. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually know that the University of Halle(-Wittenberg) had a name. You could simplify to University of Halle, which I believe is the common name (at least I use it in my FA Johann Reinhold Forster and in my near-GA about Karo's colleague Emil Utitz).
That's reassuring -- I did originally have it as Halle, but changed it to the "proper" name in the pre-FAC polish. I'll go back to Halle (which makes a few sentences flow a bit better), and see if we get any objections. UndercoverClassicistT·C10:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Early life: "Evangelical Protestant Christians" evangelicalism was rare in Germany at the time, and converted Jews were typically mainstream Protestants ("evangelisch", not "evangelikal"). That is also what the German Wikipedia says. Could you quote from the source how the denomination is described please?
Strange -- I can't see anything Evangelical in the sources I've actually cited, but one uncited source uses "evangelisch" -- I suspect I'd remembered and mistranslated that. Now simply Protestant. UndercoverClassicistT·C10:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"second millennium BCE: Karo received his doctorate" why the colon?
"Most of Karo's early work, however, focused on Etruscan culture" did he publish anything about the Etruscans? At this point it isn't quite clear whether he is still on his grand tour or already a scholar.
I haven't listed all of his journal articles, but we have Karo 1908 in the sources. I'm not sure from an OR point of view about making that explicit in the text. UndercoverClassicistT·C10:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Early career and first period in Athens: dewiki agrees that "Athenische Mitteilungen" is the common name, but the correct name (and perhaps the one to translate? not sure!) is "Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung" ('Notices of the German Archaeological Institute, Athenian Section').
"the DAI's Athens branch" in the context of this article, isn't that the same as the DAI? (Update: later, there is the Berlin DAI and the Athens DAI, although the abbreviation DAI has been introduced as meaning the Athens branch specificallly).
Yes -- this one was tricky in the writing process. The problem is that the Athens institution is only ever abbreviated DAI (I've never seen DAIA), and the MoS tells us not to invent acronyms that aren't already used in print. I've kept "DAI" unqualified for the Athens institution, since that's the one that gets the most screentime, and added "Berlin" for that one and then "Athens" back to the Greek branch if there's any prospect of ambiguity. UndercoverClassicistT·C10:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Karo was widely suspected of being in Turkey to spy" does "widely" mean that both Greeks and Turks suspected this?
Marchand specifies the Turks; I can only get Stein on Google Books preview at the moment, and can't pull up the relevant page, but that seems to have general suspicion that he was spying. I'm not sure why the Greeks would have particularly cared, to be honest -- it was very much Turkish territory and citizens he was (allegedly) spying on. UndercoverClassicistT·C10:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The art historian Wilhelm von Bode proposed to Karo that he steal the fifth-century BCE Sarcophagus of Sidon and take it back to the Berlin museums" the readers might like to know that Bode was not just some random art historian, but the curator of the Berlin museums (and possibly Wiegand's superior, but I don't know the details)
"United Friedrichs University in the German city of Halle" again, University of Halle is sufficient.
"Archäologischen Anzeiger" grammar isn't quite right (why accusative case?). Better to use nominative case "Archäologischer Anzeiger". (I would also consider the ultra-pedantic genitive case version "Archäologischen Anzeigers", correct but it is archaic in the context of writing in English and looks weird).
Exile in the United States: it is a bit weird how long he supported the Nazis despite their lack of support for him... do we know more on how he felt about this?
This is the million-dollar question with Karo! Lindenlauf asks it, and ultimately concludes that we can't really know. Here comes some OR:
Karo almost certainly didn't consider himself Jewish, and part of me thinks that he assumed the Nazis wouldn't either -- Marinatos's biography talks about the "discovery" in 1936 that he was of Jewish ancestry, though it's clear from the history in the early 1930s that he and people around him were already planning for that. The least charitable interpretatation is that, like many German conservatives, he considered them fellow travellers -- after all, he shared many of their ideas about German national greatness, the "stab in the back" myth, the desirability of grand archaeological work into "Dorians" -- and gladly got rid of the "real" Jews, with whom he didn't feel any kinship. The more charitable interpretation is that he saw the Nazis as potentially useful, particularly around their apparent enthusiasm for (aspects of) antiquity, and felt that he could manipulate and charm them to his own and the DAI's advantage.
The most charitable take is that he saw himself as a kind of Schindler figure -- there, you have to look at his treatment of Wulf Schäfer, and conclude that his letters about enthusiastically purging Jews were all a smokescreen -- but honestly it's hard to make that one stick, especially as he must have known that practically all of his British and American archaeologist friends were working in Allied intelligence, and could certainly have leveraged his position to hinder or frustrate the German state in more tangible ways than he did. Personally, I tend to read him as someone who honestly thought he could work with the Nazis, and would have felt rather betrayed by people that he would have expected to warm to and admire him, but I've tried hard in the article to express what has been written without passing judgement on more than we can. UndercoverClassicistT·C10:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused because the Jewishness is emphasised by the grandfather who is a rabbi, so I was expecting (even though the family converted to Protestantism) some cultural affinity. Karo certainly was considered to be Jewish already in the 1920s by certain antisemites (see p. 1381, someone complaining that his hero Stefan George was talking to Jews like Karo. More on George below). You may be right that Karo falls into a category similar to many Jewish veterans of WWI who did not believe until too late that the Nazis would really come after them. —Kusma (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- the more I think on it, the less sense it makes, and at least those around him clearly thought that Karo would be in the firing line from the very beginning of Nazi rule. Could Karo really have been naive enough to disagree? As far as I can tell, he never displayed or acknowledged his connection to Judaism, and indeed his comments in his letters show that he was perfectly happy to use antisemitic language and tropes to a Nazi audience. But then he also seems to have had an arrogant streak and to have been used to things and people falling into place for him, so perhaps he thought he was clever/valuable/German enough to be the exception? It would be wonderful if only we could know. UndercoverClassicistT·C21:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like he thought he'd be German enough through his German nationalism and was really expecting to be exempted from the Nuremberg Laws through his connections. The Reichsbürger application seems to have been stuck in limbo for years? —Kusma (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Matz says "So verhaftet in der Vorstellungswelt der Vorkriegsjahre war G. Karo, daß es ihm nicht möglich war, die Tatsächlichkeit und Furchtbarkeit dessen, das dann folgte, zu sehen und zu glauben, und daß erst viel zu spät ihm die Augen darüber aufgingen." essentially saying Karo was naive about the Nazis. —Kusma (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting comment from Matz, especially given Matz's alignment with Nazi ideologies and success under the regime. Not sure about including it in the article, partly because it's from an obituary -- it's a bit woolly and difficult to know exactly where to put it, and anyway it does slightly read like the sort of obligatory nil nisi bonum remark that you would almost have to make in the circumstances. On the Reichsbürger application, Lindenlauf mentions that it was still in play in 1938 and that Karo then considered it likely to be approved, but did you find anything about where it eventually ended up? UndercoverClassicistT·C10:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the comment by Matz needs to go into the article, I just mentioned it here as part of our discussion on how to interpret Karo's relationship with the Nazis.
Top of p. 305 she says it was not approved (as you cite). The whole story had been going on for a while; p. 292 says that both Göring and Hitler reportedly supported a Reich citizenship for Karo back in 1936; from p. 290 it seems to me he applied in spring of 1936. That he considered it "likely to be approved" in 1938 (on p. 304) seems to be based on whatever Göring and Hitler said in 1936. According to footnote 271 on p. 305, there were still attempts to gain Reich citizenship for Karo in May 1939. I don't know whether it was actually rejected or just ignored, as individual applications for Reich citizenships apparently had been promised in 1935 but it reads as if nobody ever actually implemented them properly (but don't cite me on this). It sounds to me like he was given a string of empty promises and did not notice it until it was almost too late.
Yes, I think that's a reasonable interpretation (although how far Karo was actually given these promises versus just assumed that all would be well is perhaps debateable). UndercoverClassicistT·C12:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You omit the story on p. 308 of Karo narrowly being unable to leave Germany, where he reports that a Gestapo officer wanted to arrest him on the train, but for some reason did not do it and Karo was relieved when he noticed the train had made it to Italy. It is possible of course that Karo made some embellishments here, so it is probably fine to leave out. —Kusma (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, I heard about Lise Meitner's very similar story recently (she was Jewish and travelling without a passport, but the border guards seem to have ignored her after checking her companion's documentation), so there's certainly a level of credibility to it. Not sure I have any strong views either way. UndercoverClassicistT·C12:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: c. I don't believe this. This was post-hyperinflation; a mark should have been worth more. The citation is broken / missing.
Hm -- the source doesn't give much nuance, but equally is very simple in its analysis -- 1 2024 Euro = 4.5 1924 RM. I've fixed the citation, so have a look and see what you think. Isn't this (just) peri/post Stresemann's currency reforms? UndercoverClassicistT·C10:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the source says 1 1924 RM = 5.0 2024 Euros ("The purchasing power of one ... from the year ... would have equated to €... on average in 2024." so 100,000 RM is 500,000 Euros. —Kusma (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First read through done. Another interesting life well told. I guess I am in a good position to do spot checks, as one of the main sources is in German, but to do it properly I would need access to most of Lindenblatt 2015. —Kusma (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mean that, sorry. (I have some "Lindenblatts" in my distant family, must have mixed that up). And yes, if you could email me that, I would like to read it a bit more and see how comprehensive your coverage is. (I will also do some proper "spot checks" on the weekend).
I did find one spot where I think you may have overlooked something that seems important to me: Karo met Eberhard Gothein in Bonn, later tutored his son Percy Gothein [de]p. 1387, later a member of the George-Kreis, and thus came in contact with Stefan George, one of the most famous German poets of the era. I can't possibly do George justice here, but he was aligned with the Conservative Revolution, had Claus von Stauffenberg who later attempted to kill Hitler in the 20 July plot among his followers, and disliked the Nazis even more than he disliked the Weimar Republic. George is mentioned a bit by the Ehling article you cite and I would suspect that Lindenlauf also mentions the Gotheins and George. (Here is a bit more from Ehling about Karo and George: [1], it mentions discussions with George about Ancient Greece).
I think you are overplaying George's opposition to the Nazis (which is there, but more complicated). I would link Percy, as he is an interesting character worth writing about (and maybe also mention his notable mother, Marie-Luise Gothein; Ehling says he got in contact with the Gothein family). George seems to have been annoyed that Percy Gothein displayed his homosexuality too overtly in contrast to his own at least outwardly more platonic ideals of male love. Gothein later died in a concentration camp; his arrest was most likely due to his homosexuality. —Kusma (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1b: to be completely precise, the source says her family was from Vienna, which does not exclude that she might have been born somewhere else. The NDB article says she was "aus Wien", which still stops short of saying she was born there.
2: For the NDB, there is also a text (non-scan) version [2]; the {{cite NDB}} template can link both, although it is sometimes a bit clumsy to handle. No need for action here unless you want to. The title of Matz is properly "Georg Karo †". Content is fine.
65: "his former colleague Kurt Bittel arranged for Karo to be accommodated at the DAI to give a lecture on the finds from the site." don't see the lecture; the source says that Karo kept Bittel in the loop about new insights.
69b: the support for the allegations against Meyer includes content on p. 302. You omit the story of Meyer claiming that Karo deliberately took the bag with his Schliemann manuscript for Wenck, which is a reasonable choice.
80: are you sure about the page numbers for Davis? The ones at [3] work better with what little I can see on the scan at academia. Content looks ok
No -- I had the pages that Davis quotes on the Academia page, but he's managed to cut them off on his scan! Have transposed them to the ones on Aegeus: I think I've got them all. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
101: fine
102: It is never called "Bundes Anzeiger", that is just typography. "Bundesanzeiger" is correct.
114: Burgeon p. 31 is a bit vague about when the excavations started (they are called the 1936-37 excavations in the abstract), so I guess this is ok. Can you quote from Dyson what they say about Karo in this context, as Burgeon does not mention him?
Georg Karo, though of Jewish parentage, early lent his support to the regime and enthusiastically greeted the prospects of renewed excavations at Olympia.
but feel free to ignore that if it doesn't fit into your bibliography style. It is probably possible to add the editors to the template and make it still work (the documentation isn't great). —Kusma (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with doing spot checks is that when checking an article against the sources a certain amount of knowledge is needed to say whether or not a statement in the article is substantiated in the source. Of the few cited sources here that I can lay hands on I cannot judge whether citation 85 is accurately reflected in our text: there is certainly no mention of "Ionian" features on the cited page. Ref 45 is clearly substantiated in the source, Ref 26 checks out completely as far as Ridgway is concerned, but those are all I can confirm while in temporary exile in the north of England. Once back home, close to the British Library, I could check many more, but that's my lot for now until such time – not yet known – when I'm back in the Metrop. I'll peruse the text shortly and do a general FAC review. – Tim riley talk15:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tim -- on Dorians, this is a good point. The term "Dorian" was (then) defined in contradistinction to "Ionian" -- the relevant citations for that are the ones in the EFN. UndercoverClassicistT·C16:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)\[reply]
General comments
"However": there are nine howevers in the text, and one rather begins to notice them:
"However, he was also accused of collaborating with the Nazi regime"
"Most of Karo's early work, however, focused on Etruscan culture"
"they did however pack several trunks of archaeological finds
"however, Theodor Wiegand, director of the museums' antiquities department, heard about the"
"However, his publications in his early years in Halle were dominated by political tracts, arguing"
"however, the money was eventually exhausted"
"However, Karo's friends Blegen and Hill continued to associate with him"
"However, the Karo family's wealth declined considerably over their time in the US."
"however, he also favoured and supported the Jewish-born Wulf Schäfer"
I think the prose would be crisper if some of them were expunged, particularly the last six, and mightn't the third be more concise if redrawn as "but they packed ..."?
I've done a bit of a purge here, but slightly dissented so far -- down to 5. I've tried to keep the ones where there's a clear contrast, so 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9. Very happy to keep discussing these and to take suggestions on individual cases. UndercoverClassicistT·C10:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I merely suggest and do not press any point. If you are happy with the current however count, then so am I.
Otherwise:
"He taught briefly at Bonn between 1902 and 1905" – as you give us the dates do we need "briefly"?
"having lost his job due to illness" – in AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded in formal prose. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer. Likewise for "due to a bout of pneumonia", later.
"In the same year, Karo began classical philology and archaeology" – your meaning is clear enough but the phrasing strikes me as odd – perhaps "began studying", "began a course in" or some such?
"either as an attempt to conceal valuable goods or a ritual deposition of them" – I think that grammatically you should switch "either as" to "as either"
"a purportedly Minoan artefact that Karo believed to be a forgery" – two points here: first "forgery" seems to me more suited to handwriting, wills, cheques etc than to three-dimensional objects, where "fake" would perhaps be more usual (though I'm perfectly prepared to be told "forgery" for such cases is common currency in archaeological circles). Secondly, the reader (this one at any rate) immediately wonders if Karo's suspicions were correct: a "correctly" or "incorrectly" in the text or else a footnote saying yea or nay would be nice if the answer to the question is known.
"Forgery" is standard in the field, though "fake" wouldn't be wrong. On the ring, the jury is still very much out (not helped by the fact that it mysteriously disappeared in 1930 and didn't turn up again until 2001). Certainly, there were a lot of fake Mycenaean rings going around, and it was definitely a reasonable suspicion on stylistic grounds. I think I feel another article coming on... UndercoverClassicistT·C10:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with all that. (I look forward to the putative new article, too.)
"In September 1932, Karo was mooted as a potential candidate" – I'd be careful with "moot": AmE speakers think it means precisely the opposite of what it means in English.
"Karo moved to Munich, where he lived with his step-sister" and later "to care for his elderly step-sister" – the OED and Chambers both make "stepsister" a single unhyphenated word.
Happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. Splendidly readable, evidently well and widely sourced, balanced coverage not dodging the subject's less admirable episodes, judiciously illustrated. I'm blest if I know what use a scan of the subject's signature is in the info-box, but it does no harm, I suppose. Next, God help me, I have promised to look in at the FAC for hedonism which, as one tone-deaf to philosophy, I find a daunting prospect. I'm much happier with your archaeological rogues. More, please. Tim riley talk13:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article, like all of your archaeological biographies, is full of stuff I did not know, some of it insalubrious, but all of it interesting. As always, I am astonished and impressed by the amount of material you have sifted through and the way you have assembled the pieces into a coherent narrative. I have a few comments about content, including one gap that I hope will be filled, one ambiguity that must be clarified, and one misrepresentation of Karo's work that I hope will be corrected. But none of this affects my admiration for the article as a whole.
(1) I'll start with the gap. Nothing is said here about Karo's own collection of antiquities, which was acquired in 1936 by the Berlin Antikensammlung. It wasn't an especially large or valuable collection -- an inventory drawn up at the time lists 264 individual objects, mostly pottery, figurines, small bronzes, and the like -- with one significant exception. During the period between the wars Karo came into possession of a group of Protoattic and Protocorinthian pottery fragments from Aegina, which passed to the Antikensammlung with the rest of his collection in 1936 and was published in the first Berlin fascicule of CVA in 1938. This is one of the largest collections of Protoattic pottery anywhere, and it's hard to overstate its importance for students of Attic vase painting in the 7th century, and especially of the so-called "Black and White Style", which seems to have been chiefly the work Aeginetan artists: see, e.g., the discussion of the collection in S. Morris, The Black and White Style: Athens and Aigina in the Orientalizing Period (New Haven 1984), pp. xii and 5–8. The most famous piece (famous among students of Archaic vase painting, at any rate) is a large stand with a procession of men and a dipinto naming Menelas (i.e., Menelaus), which has been attributed to the Polyphemus Painter, the artist responsible for the (admittedly more famous) Polyphemus amphora from Eleusis. Unfortunately, this stand was one of the pieces that went missing during the Second World War and the partition of Berlin, but in spite of the fact that it is now known only from drawings and photographs, it still appears regularly in discussions of Protoattic pottery. It was first published by Karo himself, "Menelaos auf einer frühattischen Vase", in Hallisches Winckelmannsprogramm 26 (1938), pp. 10–14 (add to list of publications?); see also R. Eilmann and K. Gebauer, CVA Berlin Antiquarium 1 (Munich 1938), pp. 24–25, pls. 31–33; Morris, The Black and White Style (as above), pp. 41–43; G. Ferrari, "Menelās", JHS 107 (1987), pp. 180–182 JSTOR630082. In a shorter and more summary article, this might not make the cut, but in an article as long and comprehensive as this one, with so much incidental detail, it ought to be important enough to merit a mention. Although the Antikensammlung's typescript inventory of the collection, with "Sammlung Karo" on the title page, is available online, it's surprisingly difficult to find a secondary source that explicitly names Karo as the donor. Morris mentions Karo's publication of the Menelas stand but does not identify him as the source of the Berlin material, and in the CVA volume, p. 5, Eilmann and Gebauer simply say that it was acquired from a "private collection". After some searching, however, I found this: U. Kästner, "Vom Einzelstück zum Fundkomplex: Eduard Gerhards und Robert Zahns Erwerbungen für das Berliner Museum", in S. Schmidt and M. Steinhardt, eds., Sammeln und Erforschen: Griechische Vasen in neuzeitlichen Sammlungen (Munich 2014), pp. 103–113, at p. 108 ("Als erster Band Berlins erschien 1938 die Publikation der frühattischen Ägina-Vasen aus der Sammlung Karo"). That should be enough to make the connection for you without prompting charges of OR and SYNTH.
I've added a little comment here in 1936. I struggled to find a nice clear statement like This is one of the largest collections of Protoattic pottery anywhere, and it's hard to overstate its importance for students of Attic vase painting in the 7th century in the sources, but we now have the fact that he had such a collection, and that it was lost. It would be nice to have more details on exactly how that last part happened: it would seem reasonable to suggest that there was some murkiness going on in the background! UndercoverClassicistT·C09:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems fine to me; a mention is all I was looking for. On the importance of the collection, Rodney Young's review of the CVA volume (JSTOR499003) concludes "In the group of vases from Aegina the Berlin Museum possesses perhaps the most interesting and important collection of Proto-Attic pottery", and there are similar remarks in the the reviews by Amyx (JSTOR4340751 and Cook (JSTOR626939). I don't think this needs to be mentioned in the article, but views like these are what lie behind my comment above about the value of the material. Choliamb (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(2) In the section "Early career and first period in Athens": Karo maintained close relations with the directors of these institutes, particularly Maurice Holleaux of the French School. Not sure what kind of time span is implied by "maintained" in this sentence, but the close relations did not survive the outbreak of the First World War. For the bitter rift in 1914 between Karo and Holleaux (who compared German actions to those of Genghis Khan), see K. Fittschen, "L'École française d'Athènes et l'Institut archéologique allemand", BCH 120 (1996), pp. 487-496, at 487-488. The bitterness continued after the war, when Germany was initially excluded from the French-dominated Union Académique Internationale and therefore did not participate in international scholarly projects like the Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, founded in 1919 by Edmond Pottier, the Teutonophobic director of the Louvre. See M. Bentz, "Zur Geschichte des CVA", in M. Bentz, ed., Vasenforschung und Corpus vasorum antiquorum: Standortbestimmung und Perspektiven (CVA Beiheft 1. Munich 2002), pp. 9–15 (PDF here), who quotes some caustic comments by Karo on p. 10.
I think the sectioning is the key here -- that section is fairly clearly Early Period in Athens, and followed by the one on the First World War. We handle the (temporary) breaking of his friendship with Wace there, and I've now added something about Holleaux down there as well, with the additional note from Fittschen that he doesn't seem to have repaired that particular friendship. I've also added an "Until the First World War" to the initial comment about the friendships in the preceding section. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(3) In the section "First World War": The art historian Wilhelm von Bode ... proposed to Karo that he steal the fifth-century BCE Sarcophagus of Sidon and take it back to the Berlin museums as recompense for the Ottoman Empire's unpaid war debts. Which sarcophagus of Sidon did Bode propose that Karo steal? The royal tomb complex at Sidon, excavated in 1887, produced 17 or 18 sarcophagi of various sorts, four of which, now in the archaeological museum in Istanbul, carry elaborate Greek sculptural decoration. They were immediately given modern nicknames, by which they continue to be known in archaeological and art historical scholarship: the Satrap Sarcophagus, the Lycian Sarcophagus, the Mourning Women Sarcophagus, and the Alexander Sarcophagus. The source cited here is Marchand, and although she does not specify, she must be referring to one of these four. It's not clear to me that she knows which one, or even that she is aware that there is more than one candidate. Marchand's field is modern European intellectual history; she is not an archaeologist or an ancient art historian, and she knows relatively little about ancient material culture per se. She is a reliable source for the actions of 19th- and early 20th-century archaeologists, and for the political and intellectual contexts of those actions, but not necessarily for the sites and objects that they studied, and any statements she makes about antiquities should be treated gingerly and confirmed where possible. In this case, if the 5th-century date that she provides is correct, it rules out the Mourning Women and Alexander sarcophagi, since they have always been dated to the 4th century on style (and the sarcophagus with the depiction of Alexander must, of course, be later than Alexander). But the relative and absolute chronology of the two earlier sarcophagi, the Satrap and Lycian, has been much debated, and dates in the second half of the 5th century have been suggested for both. The wikilink here points to the WP article on the Lycian sarcophagus (although the link has been piped to remove the word Lycian, an unfortunate decision, since it changes a helpfully specific reference in the text to an unhelpfully ambiguous one). But do we know for certain that the Lycian sarcophagus was the one that Bode had his eyes on? Marchand does not say, but she cites Karo's autobiography, pp. 96–98, and he presumably knew which sarcophagus he was talking about, even if Marchand doesn't. I don't have access to the autobiography; if you have seen it, does he specify the Lycian sarcophagus, and is that why the WP article links to it, rather than to one of the others? If so, then there's an easy fix: unpipe the link so that the text reads "the fifth-century Lycian sarcophagus of Sidon" -- or, perhaps better, write "the so-called Lycian sarcophagus from Sidon", because (a) the 5th-century date is not certain, and some scholars date this sarcophagus to the first quarter of the 4th century, and (b) it is not actually ethnically or geographically Lycian: it is the work of Greek artists imitating the distinctive form of a traditional Lycian tomb. If the sarcophagus in question is one of the others, then of course other changes will be needed, including a change in the wikilink to point to the correct article.
Hm -- not sure what to do with this one. I can't immediately get hold of Karo's autobiography (may try RX), so at least in the short term we're going to need a fudge. For now I've removed the link and called it "a fifth-century sarcophagus from Sidon". UndercoverClassicistT·C13:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This also seems fine. If you're able to track it down later, you can add it, but that's just to scratch an itch; it's certainly not necessary information for the article. The story is the same no matter which sarcophagus it was. I'm happy with the rewording and the removal of the link, and it can stay that way forever as far as I'm concerned. Choliamb (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Incidentally, I'm confused by the listings of Marchand's work in the bibliography. Her book Down from Olympus was published in 1996, not 2003 (the 2003 paperback printing is identical with the first cloth printing, not a new edition), and the chapter "Kultur and the World War" in Histories of Archaeology is not a separate work, it's a reprint of an excerpt from Down from Olympus. Since the content is identical, I'm struggling to understand why the excerpt is listed here at all, and why, in the passage about the "Sarcophagus of Sidon", the excerpt is cited rather than the book from which the excerpt was taken. Listing them both as two separate entries seems to me to encourage readers to assume that they are two different pieces of scholarship when they are in fact the same one. Cui bono? Anything sourced to Histories of Archaeology can easily be sourced to Down from Olympus instead.)
(4) Finally, in the section "Exile in the US": In this work, Karo attempted to chart a movement in Greek statuary, beginning in the seventh century BCE, towards what he defined as a "Dorian" artistic style culminating in the fifth-century works of Polykleitos – a line of argument popular in European scholarship of the early twentieth century, which sought to discriminate between so-called "occidental", "Dorian" characteristics and putatively "oriental", "Ionian" features, and to argue that the "Dorians" were more strongly associated with the Indo-European culture believed to be the root of northern European races. This seems to me a misleading characterization of Greek Personality in Archaic Sculpture. If you haven't read the book, the reviews by Cook (in JHS) and Bieber (in AJP) may give a better appreciation of its aims, scope, and character than the single sentence quoted by Donohue. It has nothing to say about Polykleitos, who is mentioned only once in passing (as an adjective), in the sentence quoted by Donohue, where he stands as a convenient abbreviation for the improved understanding of human anatomy in later Archaic and Classical Greek art, as opposed to the flatness and emphasis on surface in the early Archaic period. For context, here are the sentences in Karo's book immediately preceding the one quoted by Donohue: "As for the body, a radical change sets in, shortly before 650 B.C. As if these humble artists had suddenly been struck by the unsatisfactory proportions of their figurines, a new canon is introduced, based on an unmistakable feeling for the 'architecture' of the human body." He considers this greater understanding of musculature and anatomy a "Dorian" feature, because it seems to him to arise on the Greek mainland and is exemplified in its fully developed form by Peloponnesian sculptors like Polykleitos, but he does not (at least not in this passage) suggest that the "Dorian" style is more essentially Greek than the "Ionian". Like most historians of Greek art, he sees Archaic sculpture partly as a movement toward greater naturalism, and this teleological tendency is what Donohue focuses on, and objects to, because she is writing about the 7th-century "Daedalic" statue of Nikandre in Athens, and she wants to get away from the common characterization of the flat, "plank-like" forms of "Daedalic" sculpture as failed attempts at realism. But the comment of Karo's that Donohue singles out is an obiter dictum, not a programmatic statement, and the book is more interested in identifying and defining regional styles in both the Ionian and Dorian parts of the Greek world than in translating the regional styles into a chronological narrative that ends in Dorian victory. If there is an overarching thesis in the book, it is not the displacement of Ionian elements in Greek sculpture by superior, more essentially "Greek" Dorian elements, but rather the successful merging and integration of the two (equally Greek) styles in Athenian art of the late Archaic and Classical periods (cf. his description of the Kritios boy, quoted in the next paragraph). This is a not an old-fashioned or racist idea; it is a well-established and widely accepted scholarly consensus about the peculiar nature of Athenian sculpture and Athenian architecture, which does in fact combine recognizably "Ionian" and "Dorian" features (or if you prefer, "east Greek" and "mainland Greek" features) to a degree not seen elsewhere on the Greek mainland. I'm not trying to defend Karo, who seems to have been an unsavory character in many respects. Because of your admirable work on the Dorian invasion article, you may be inclined to view any use of the term "Dorian" in the writings of 20th-century Germans through a political and racial lens, and understandably so. Heck, Karo probably shared some of those views. But I don't believe that this is an accurate description of the actual content of this particular book.
I've trimmed this right down to just mentioning that he wrote the book -- Bieber calls it a masterpiece, which is quite nice, but otherwise reading your points above I'm not convinced that there's a particularly groundbreaking, distinctive or biographically revealing thesis to pull out. Unless I've missed something? UndercoverClassicistT·C16:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't missed anything. Whatever its value in 1948, it has been almost entirely superseded, and three-quarters of a century later it hardly looks like a masterpiece. I think trimming the whole Dorian/Ionian passage was the right choice. Choliamb (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reasons, the image of the Apollo in the Louvre seems to me a poor choice as an illustration. If it is kept, the caption should be changed, because the statue in the Louvre is not actually the "Apollo of Mantua" (which, not surprisingly, is in the Palazzo Ducale in Mantua); it is instead a copy of the same type, which art historians call the "Mantua Apollo" type. For the distinction between the two, see LIMC II, s.v. Apollo/Apollon, p. 374, nos. 39 (Mantua) and 39a (Louvre). The English description on the Commons file page for the photo gets this right. But captions aside, I don't see how it is an appropriate illustration for an article on Karo. One of the advantages of his book, which it shares with other books on Archaic Greek sculpture, is that the discussion is necessarily limited to actual Archaic Greek sculptures by actual Archaic Greek sculptors, and so avoids becoming entangled in the extended chains of conjecture and fantasy that characterize modern scholarly attempts to understand the works of Classical Greek sculptors on the basis of literary sources and supposed Roman "copies". I assume that this statue was chosen on the mistaken assumption that Polykleitos was somehow relevant to Karo's book, and because the statue is thought to embody some Polykleitan features, but using a photo of a Roman statue that was not made by Polykleitos as an illustration for a book about Archaic Greek sculpture that does not discuss Polykleitos is no service to readers. If an image of sculpture is desired here, better to choose one of the works that Karo actually discusses in his book: the Kritios Boy, for example, which he describes at the end of his final chapter on Attic sculpture (p. 281) as "a true Athenian, embodying both Ionian grace and Dorian agility. There is no statue which more perfectly embodies Attic personality at the most decisive moment of Greek history." Whatever one may think of this description (personally, I think it's crap), it is at least relevant to the book and to its author, in a way that the statue in the Louvre is not. Alternatively, you can forget about the book and substitute a different kind of image. Because the Commons didn't have one, I have just uploaded the drawing of the Menelas stand from Karo's publication of it; I'm not saying this is the best choice, but it's a possible choice, and a better one, I think, than the existing image. I gather from the comments above that you originally had an image of Edward Capps here, and that Apollo is a late arrival, so presumably you will not be too sorry to see him go.
I've swapped in the Menelas drawing; Kritios is a possible but the main appeal would be to include that description as a caption, and, as you say, it's a pretty woolly and clichéd take (if perhaps emblematic of a certain generation of scholarship). UndercoverClassicistT·C16:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all very tiny rents in the fabric of yet another excellent article, from which I learned a lot, as always. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I came back to reread this after dinner and was appalled at what a gargantuan wall of text it is. I really will make an effort to be more concise next time, I promise. Choliamb (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very much a taste of my own medicine on the length front! All very wise and, as ever, I appreciate how you have shown the way forward on the more difficult points rather than entirely chucking them into my court. I'll chew on this gradually, drop in comments above as needed and send you a ping here when I think it's all done. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to add. Thanks for indulging my long rants about stuff that nobody else cares about. (I would call my comments Nestorian but I suspect the more apt comparison is Grampa Simpson.) Strong support, of course. Choliamb (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for your detailed feedback on my PR so I was happy to read over this. A very interesting bit of writing. I have some minor comments and observations, with the bulk of them discretionary. Frankly, I feel I'd be able to support as is, but at the very least I can prove I read the thing.
In the lead: The work was considered Karo's greatest contribution to scholarship. If this is the current scholarly consensus, would it be stronger as present tense?
In First World War: This proved prescient, as the site would be severely damaged during the Greco-Turkish War, which began the following year. I think "was" is stronger than would be here. It's the only time in the article that we launch into the future, but given that we are in the present, we could place it all in the past. It doesn't violate the spirit of WP:INTOTHEWOULDS; this is discretionary.
In Exile in the United States: Shortly after Karo's arrival in Athens, Wenck was denied access to an archive of Schliemann's papers by the researcher and was subsequently forced to withdraw from a contract to write a biography of Schliemann. This is entirely your discretion, but arrival here (compared to framing it as his return) makes me think it is referring to his 1930 trip. I doubt this is true – they are separated by several paragraphs and readers do not typically read start-to-finish – but I wanted to highlight
Did Karo's publication on Grave Circle A provide any methodological contributions? Or was his primary achievement – not to downplay it – "simply" (scare quotes for my own word) setting up future scholarship to explore "Mycenaean material culture"?
The "Exile in the United States" section is very long (6 paragraphs), but Karo doesn't actually move to the United States until very far in (paragraph 5). It might be worth splitting this section up a little, or maybe changing the heading somewhat? The current heading doesn't feel like a true summary. With a heading like "Exile in the United States", I would have the circumstances for that to be established at the end of the previous subheading, with his move occurring shortly into the Exile section
Overall, there is axcellent tension here between his activities, writings and boasts. A complicated man. Thank you for an interesting read! — ImaginesTigers12:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 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]
"Don’t let a suitcase filled with cheese be your big fork and spoon"
Over 2 decades ago, we were blessed with another episode of the beloved sitcom Everybody Loves Raymond, but this time, things were a little differently received. "Baggage" is a fan-favorite episode of Raymond, and remains a critical success as well. Topping many charts of the series' best episodes (including being featured in Rolling Stone's list of the 100 best TV episodes ever), this is one of it's most iconic installments, ever. Whilst a relatively short article, it goes comprehensively into the episode, offering analysis and even a fair amount of background into its production; and, it wouldn’t be the shortest episode article to be featured if promoted (it beats out Abyssinia, Henry and Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy) by a bit). Also to note is the article's use of newspaper reviews and such from the time, and even some academic analysis from books (not sure if that would help, but I felt it should be noted!). Only issue I can possibly see is that some of the prose can come off a bit awkward, but I’ve tried my hardest to fix it and have gotten feedback from a few friends on how the article comes off to people who haven’t seen the episode. The article uses books for quite a bit of information, so if anyone needs any screenshots of said pages used, I’d be glad to provide it
Oppose. I'm not sure there is enough material for an article here, much less a FA, particularly when Everybody Loves Raymond season 7 is extremely undeveloped. Most of the "analysis" comes from two Christian publishers, one of which (Tate Publishing & Enterprises) is a vanity press. I would strongly suggest moving some of the relevant information like a few sentences of critical reception to the season article and working on bringing that article to FA instead :) Heartfox (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how a separate season article not being good is any reason an episode article can’t be promoted. There is a good amount of information here to warrant its own article, I don’t think it should be merged into the season 7 article. Also, like I said, this would be far from the shortest featured episode article, let alone the shortest featured article.
I’m leaning oppose at the moment. My issue is that I have no idea who these people are and parts of the lead contain new information that isn’t supported by the body. I’ve never seen this show, so the opening part od the article (the plot section) drops the names Raymond and Debra on me without context. (Who are they and what is their relationship?) the lead says that he is the “Newsday sportswriter Ray Barone”, but that’s not cited and isn’t mentioned anywhere Lee in the article. It’s all a bit too in-universe for those who come to the subject cold. And the uncited information isn’t good sign. - SchroCat (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the third studio album by Alice in Chains, one of the driving forces of grunge music in the 1990s and one of the more metallic of them. This was the last album to feature their original lead vocalist, Layne Staley, which brought them to fame. I have been working on translating content and expanding this bad boy from the Russian and, to a lesser extent, Polish Wikipedia articles for months now - which themselves are remarkably well-sourced. I believe I have finally reached the conclusion of my hard work for enwiki's version, and plan at this time to do the same for every one of the Chains' studio albums and even more.
You will notice I have gone immediately to FAC for this album. Normally, I'd send something like this to GA first, and I probably will for future albums, but my goal here is to get this promoted and on the front page before its 30th anniversary, and the GA backlog is unreliable to meet that goal. GA would be easy here, and I'll probably do that first for the rest of the band's albums. As you can see, though, time leaves me no choice if I want to reach my goal. If this FAC turns out to be a mistake, I am choosing to make a brave one and attempt to remedy any concerns brought forth on the fly, though I hope there are few. I know, I said this last time, but really all I was able to tangibly chalk it up to was excessive detail in background, which I've fixed, plus a few minor writing mistakes. I'd rather just fix up what I can in here if possible, I feel like I'm so close. If it's not, then it's not, but I'd like feedback to work off of instead of just being told "no, it's not an FA". mftp danoops00:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:MikeInez_crop_lrg.jpg: has this been vandalized? The permissions and description on the image page are nonsense
File:Staley05_(cropped).jpg: the uploader has had a number of uploads deleted as copyvio - is it known that this one is in fact their work? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is embarrassing. This is what I get for being accustomed to making articles which sparsely have appropriate images - I miss stuff like this. Unfortunately, no, Inez' shot was uploaded like that...though it would appear this is the oldest extant instance of the image remaining on the internet. The good news for him is that we have good replacements to choose from on Commons so we don't have to worry about that problem. Staley's a bit more complicated; he's been dead for quite a while so that doesn't leave us much to work with. This specific file used here is extracted from an image which was approved via the Volunteer Response Team. I'll workshop a sample and have one ready soon. mftp danoops14:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I have to oppose per WP:FACR 1c " it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". While the critical reception section incorporates a variety of publications, there is only engagement with two newspapers, and most major newspapers which reviewed the album such as Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Toronto Star, Baltimore Sun, Montreal Gazette etc. aren't engaged with. I would encourage more use of WP:TWL databases to enhance the article. Best, Heartfox (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, these are places I didn't think to look. How long does it take to be approved for access to the collection you've linked? If I gain access and add these, is there any chance I could persuade you to change your mind? mftp danoops03:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[4] shows that it is 5 "median days from application to decision" for Newspapers.com. I would also check out ProQuest which I think you get automatic access. To be honest I haven't looked at any other section so I can't really say I would support based on the changes here alone. Heartfox (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, I'll give these a look. By actioning the feedback given, I'm hoping to at least give you a reason to consider rescinding the oppose, if nothing else. mftp danoops04:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm at 5 days waiting on this. Working on it today would have been a great opportunity, but I am still waiting on that. mftp danoops02:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a church cantata by J. S. Bach for Reformation Day, first performed on 31 October 1725. It would be great to have the article in best shape for the anniversary, ideally good enough for TFA that day. The last cantatas to become FA were Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, in 2021, and Easter Oratorio earlier this year. Bach composed two major cantatas for the occasion, the famous one being Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80, featuring the famous hymn, with a rather unclear history of versions and performances, and this one with music Bach would reuse in later masses. A unique feature is that Bach used festive horns and drums not only in the opening, but also in the two chorales, achieving a unity of sound quite different from earlier cantatas. The article received a GA review by Jaguar in 2015. - Let's improve it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Suggest adding alt text
File:Title_page_of_autograph_of_cantata_BWV_79_by_J._S._Bach.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:First_page_of_autograph_of_cantata_BWV_79_by_J._S._Bach.jpg
Also, not an image comment, but the big table looks to be an accessibility problem - a single sort can't be used for multiple values. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I'll do it today. I have more free time than I initially thought.
The one reference in the lede is redundant as the translation is mentioned in the body and backed up by the same ref.
removed --GA
Introduce what Thomaskantor is in the lede. Most readers won't be familiar with this term and considering that most readers only read the lede it's important to know what it is.
hesitating - the proper explanation has to be long (its not simply what the name would suggest: the curch musician at the Thomaskirche), and the lead should be short, - there is a link, and there's the description in the background section --GA
introducing him by the good title of his book --GA
"Schlosskirche, Wittenberg, main door" could be more descriptive.
what do you expect? "a neo-Gothic door replacing the burnt wooden one that was allegedly where the ninetyfive theses were first published, an event which is considered as the beginning of the Reformation"? --GA
Maybe I wasn't really that clear, but here's a suggestion: Schlosskirche, Wittenberg, where John Eliot Gardiner performed cantatas in 2000
But he performed them there only because the Reformation is supposed to have started there (and those who don't know Thomaskantor and Rilling will not know Gardiner). What do you think of "Main door of the Schlosskirche, Wittenberg, where the Reformation is supposed to have begun"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more lang templates but am not sure if that is what you meant. I think I fixed the other points, thank you for a diligent look! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bach structured the cantata in six movements.→Bach structured the cantata into six movements.
I believe you --GA
augmentend→augmented
A typo.
good catch --GA
Manuscripts
The manuscripts of both the score and the parts of Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild.
This sentence needs to be grammatically completed.
yes, my bad --GA
in form of → in the form of
done --GA
it contains also sketches → it also contains sketches
done --GA
Bottom line
To be honest, it was my first time reading on the topic, yet the manner in which the details have been presented made the prose engaging. I hope you found my suggestions useful. MSincccc (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Gott, der Herr, ist Sonn und Schild BWV 79; BC A 184". Should note that this source is in German.
There's one German para on an English page, which may be a website error. --GA
Spot checks:
fn 1, 4a, 5a - okay
fn 17: Why is this missing? Looking at this, I see Karl Ristenpart and Fritz Lehmann but Günther Ramin is missing? Is there is a reason for this?
The website changed, - when the article was written 10 years ago, all recordings were on one page. I'll check after sleep. --GA
fn 5: My copy of The Cantatas of J. S. Bach is the 2005 edition, but the pages still match and the text verifies.
Also:
"marked green under the header Instr." But "Instr" is not header.
fixed, - sorry, that happened when I tried to please Nikkimaria who wanted columns unsortable, and where I found a model for it, the header was different. --GA
Finally: I looked at the Straube, and found it a live broadcast. I looked at the others, and found the selection made in 2014 mostly by Thoughtfortheday. One aspect for the selection was to take those who made series of cantatas. We could add Ramin, if you like, - Thomanerchor is of course welcome ;) - Perhaps we don't need two Ristenpart? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made the easy corrections wanted above, but would like to first take care of two bios, one on the main page, before looking into the cantata recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence should emphasize the cantata, rather than Bach. This would be consistent with our other cantata articles (Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, for example)
Changed. The reason was to not frighten a reader by a lot of German but first present the familiar name of the composer, also active voice instead of passive. --GA
Also, that first sentence is a bit of a run-on.
reworded in the process, please check --GA
Thomanerchor - Is this also worth having in a lang template?
gave it one --GA
The section "Reformation Day" doesn't provide enough context for a general reader. What is the Reformation, and why is it important? The use of Lutheran hymns makes less sense when Martin Luther isn't even mentioned.
I'll think about it, but not today --GA
thoughts: we could say a bit more about BWV 80 and it's timing, which would bring Luther's famous hymn into play. We can't explain fully what the Reformation is, as we couldn't fully explain in a Christmas cantata what Christmas is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraphs of #Readings and text is awfully short. Is it possible to merge these paragraphs with a segue?
well, the librettist is a new topic - in BWV 1, the readings are part of Background, - it would make even more sense here where the librettist ignored them. --GA
Exactly why I proposed a segue. "These recommended readings were not used by the librettist, whose identity is unknown. Rather, the poet began ..."
but not in the rousing way of movement 3. - Rousing is a qualitative statement, and should not be in Wikipedia's voice. Furthermore, the only mention of "rousing" above is commented out; the contrast should be cited
I shortened that sentence (that I never liked, nor the source where it came from) and placed it in context --GA
The Bach Gesellschaft edition of the cantata, the first complete edition of Bach's works, published the first critical edition of the cantata in 1870, edited by Wilhelm Rust. - This is garbled; I'm not sure what it's saying.
I tried again, looking at BWV 1 again. I said what the first edition is, - unsure if the redirect for critical edition, "textual criticism", also applies to music editing. --GA
The manuscripts section is quite brief, and more two-sentence paragraphs.
Some are longer, when the sad loss of the sources has to be reported, or compare BWV 80, where the distribution of the original sheets into continents was the DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to support, as most pressing issues have been addressed. I still feel like a bit of orientation on Luther and reformation would be necessary for readers without a passing familiarity with the history of schisms in the church. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"He would use most of the music" --> "He used most of the music" per WP:WOULDCHUCK
"and it is doubtful if Bach performed" --> "and it is doubtful whether Bach performed"
"he performed the cantatas for Reformation Day meaningfully at the Schlosskirche" - 'meaningfully' seems more editorial than encyclopedic here. Also somewhat redundant with the following "symbol..." bit
Thank you for reading and finding. I fixed the first two, and used different wording for the third. Perhaps you'd know a better wording for the clever plan. Please keep the cantata watchlisted because - per Chris further up - I'm going to expand the background section a bit, today or tomorrow, Bach's anniversary of death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Kent Haruf, an American author who died in 2014. After a years-long struggle to get published, he was consistently critically praised but didn't achieve commercial success until he was well over 50 (with Plainsong in 1999). I've been working on the article for several months and believe it meets the FA criteria. It underwent a GA review from AirshipJungleman29 earlier this month and was listed. Thank you; I hope you enjoy reading it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reference formatting is a bit inconsistent. Title capitalization is very inconsistent, and some include ISSNs, some wikilink the publication, but just as many don't. Per the MOS all citations of the same type should be formatted the same way. Access dates are just as inconsistent, some sources have them some do not. There are also a few log in only links to EBSCO which I doubt the usefulness of. Haven't looked over the content but that largely looks very good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted various things to address this comment. ISSNs have been included where available, and title capitalization generally follows the source. The publications are (hopefully) now wikilinked once each in the References section, on first appearance. I've added access dates to all online sources and noted EBSCO as the host where relevant. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Arconning, @Volcanoguy, @Vacant0, just FYI, I added another image to the article (this one) in case you want to take another look or it has an impact on your review. As I was casting about for another Salida image per Vacant's suggestion, it occurred to me that it would be good to have an image of Yuma, which was the inspiration for Haruf's fictional town of Holt. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ganesha811 The article proved to be an engaging read and I hope you will not mind me having made a few minor revisions rather than suggesting them here. Support. MSincccc (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"he spent years teaching English at the high school and college level" What high school and college?
Comment: The high school was in Madison, Wisconsin, though I don't think any source mentions which individual school. He taught college-level English at Nebraska Wesleyan and at Southern Illinois University. These details are mentioned in the body - do you think they should be added to the lead? —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think "B.A." should be spelled out (Bachelor of Arts degree) since not everyone is going to know what "B.A." stands for. Same for MFA (Master of Fine Arts degree).
"and also received a master's degree from the Iowa Writers' Workshop" – you could specify that this is a program at the University of Ohio. I got confused at first until I clicked on the link and read more about the program.
Added - I assume you mean the University of Iowa!
"Haruf struggled to succeed as a writer" initially or throughout his entire career?
Modified - initially. I did have that word in there at one point, but removed it, I'm not sure why. I've now restored it.
The latter two references in the lede are redundant as the content is already mentioned in the body. The pronouncation one can be kept.
Not done: Per MOS:LEADCITE, direct quotations always require a citation.
"Haruf and Koon separated in the late 1980s" – the infobox mentions that their marriage ended in 1992. This is not mentioned in any parts of the body.
Comment: Good point. I cannot recall where exactly the 1992 date came from. Let me see if I can track it down in the sources - this may take a little longer than your other comments.
Comment: After a little digging, I remembered - there was this alumni newsletter from Nebraska Wesleyan which Ginger Koon participated in and she wrote that she "was married to Alan Kent Haruf for 25 years". Hence, doing some WP:CALC, 1967+25= 1992. Do you think this source is suitable for a featured article? I'm of two minds. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will also work on this point later in the day - there are a few options on Commons and there may be even better ones elsewhere on Flickr or something.
The lede mentions that Eventide and Benediction are sequels, but this is not mentioned in the body.
Modified. Eventide is a fairly direct sequel to Plainsong, and Benediction is sometimes treated as one too, but it is much less clearly connected than the other two, as critics have noted. I changed the wording to make this clearer and align the lead and body.
Do we know who published Our Souls At Night?
Added in the body - it was Knopf, as given in the "Works" section - added this to the prose earlier.
Added, and I'll take this opportunity to comment how odd it is that the NYTimes regularly publishes two separate reviews for books in different sections which may be dramatically different in their assessment (though not in this case).
I hope that you'll find a better image of Salida. Nevertheless, I don't really have any other complaints regarding the prose, so I'll support. P.S. I have an open FAC at the moment, Terraria, so if you're interested, you can review it. Vacant0(talk • contribs)14:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The St Valentine's Day Massacre is still a source of contradiction, confusion and debate, even some 96 years after the event and even after a confession by one of the individuals involved in it. That said, it's a fascinating story, pulling in some of the big names of 1920s organised crime and events that have appeared in countless gangster films ever since. This has been through an extensive rewrite recently and both Wehwalt andSsilvers were of huge assistance in giving it a pre-PR polish and Americanisation; it's also had a fruitful PR with excellent suggestions from Pbritti, Tim riley, Noleander and HAL333. Any further constructive comments are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger assertion available for lead? Police and historians have speculated that the murders were an attempt to kill the head of the North Side Gang,... and much of the speculation has focused on whether he was behind the murders. Do the sources support a stronger wording for the first "speculation"? Such as The consensus of contemporary investigators and modern historians is that it was an attempt to kill.... In contrast to the second "speculation" usage (the force behine the attempt was Capone) which is perhaps less concrete, hence "speculation" is apt. Just asking.
I think that would be WP:OR if we were to say what the consensus is. It's one of those situations where even though there is this indication of guilt, people are still putting forward (or supporting) different possible versions. - SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Images: Very informative & engaging ... great for readers. I checked three random images for copyright issues, and all appeared to have solid "free to use" licensing info in the Details page. But I'm not claiming I did a full image review.
Wording improvmement: ... FBI investigated and gathered affidavits from several people who had seen Capone at events he had attended since January. maybe ... FBI collected affidavits from several people who saw Capone attending events in public. I guess I'm trying to say that the word "public" should be included.
Grammar: I see a lot of "had"s that jump out at me clunky. Examples:
.. doctor that said he had been suffering... could be: ... doctor that said he was suffering...
"doctor that said he was suffering from bronchopneumonia since January" doesn't work grammatically.
their weapons had not been used could be: their weapons were not used
whom had previously been acquitted could be: whom were previously acquitted
who had been identified as a possible could be: who was identified as a possible
both had been destroyed. could be: both were destroyed.
and an acetylene torch had been used in could be: and an acetylene torch was used in
I seem to recall reading in Strunk & White that "had" should generally be avoided (in sentences like the above) unless there is a compelling reason. I think it is called passive tense or something? I'm not a grammar expert. I'm seeing about 30 sentences in the article where it looks like "had" could be replaced with "was/were" ... and would make the sentences read nicer.
"Had been" is the past perfect (or pluperfect) form and it's a strong form where used in the right places - where it's used to indicate an action or state that was completed before another action. I think we've mostly got it right here, although I've been through and removed some to smooth it out a little. - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Depth, breadth, and coverage: Yes, meets FA standards. It has broad coverage, and appropriate depth ... Lots of juicy details, yet the article never gets boring or bogged down. Coverage looks complete: during Peer Review I mentioned a couple of items that could be added (e.g. in Legacy: mentioning how the two gangs fared after the killings) and those are now incorporated in the article.
Prose is outstanding: engaging and precise. I'm having difficulty finding any issues or improvements.
... who suffered glass splinters in her eye. "Splinters" seems odd for glass, normally that is for wood. Would "shards" or "fragments" or "pieces" conform to what the sources say?
I think "splinter" is common and normal enough (just by way of example, our article on splinter lists it as an example, and a search for "glass splinter" shows the term being applied to several glass articles. - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moran's gun then misfired or was empty as he was about to kill Torrio, and the North Siders fled, ... Can wording be improved to minimize ambiguity? As is, some readers may parse as Moran's gun then misfired ( or was empty as he was about to kill Torrio) vs Moran's gun then misfired ( or was empty) as he was about to kill Torrio. I'm guessing the latter is intended. Maybe put parenthesis around (or was empty) ?
(Unsolicited ultra-pedantry) In technical terms, there's a distinction between a misfire -- where the gun works fine, but the ammunition fails to ignite -- and a stoppage, where the gun itself fails to get the firing pin to the back of the cartridge, sometimes because the magazine is empty. "Misfire" covers both in common usage, but we could say "failed to fire -- it may have been empty -- before...", which would solve the concern raised above and the ultra-pedantry here. UndercoverClassicistT·C22:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments to start things off. The writing in the article is generally rather good. I'll raise one or two points on the narrative later. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The images look very good; I've noticed that they all appear to be shown on the right side of the screen. Possibly one or two might look better on the left side.
The MoS suggests alignment to the right is preferred by default (although it's certainly allowable). Which ones do you think should be moved? - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your footnote on the related films seems to be the only place where the cinema surrounding the event is discussed. It might be nice to see a sentence or two, possibly about the film "Scarface" especially, in the main body as well. Its considered a top film in the genre.
I think the information about how well-informed or influential the film is, is probably best left to the film article. I've found it cleaner to leave the lists as they are without trying to use my OR to put more weight on one film over others. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm recalling a film titled 'The Untouchables' with Sean Connery and others; was there anything about Valentine's in that film? Its somewhat mentioned here: [5].
General comment about what appears to be a preference for ending several sections in the article with short one or two sentence paragraphs; is this stylistic, or done for some other reason. Most of the other paragraphs, other than the ones at the end of some of the sections appear to be generally fully developed.
No stylistic reason, certainly. I stick to a paragraph for each point, so there are sometimes shorter paragraphs. As there is less about some of the minor points, these tend to be the paragraphs at the end of a section - that's about the only reason I can think of! - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still finding the writing in the article throughout its sections to be of good quality. My interest is shifting more to the chronology you have chosen for this article and its outline. Your preference has been to present Bugs, then Capone, and then the massacre. That's about as simple a chronology as possible, though you later present details of the planning of the event later in the article as to motivations, intentions, planning, decision for extreme bloodiness, etc. With 20-20 hindsight at this point in time, shouldn't the article take more advantage of all the investigation that took place after the event; for example, if look-outs were hired to reside across the street from the victims' site, then why not include that ahead of the description of the shooting itself in something like a "Planning" section? It seems the chronology of events and the motivations are much better known today than they were in the contemporaneous newspaper accounts from the day of the shooting, etc, suggesting that the narrative in the Wikipedia article could benefit more from that knowledge.
Because there is nothing known about the actual planning. It's still not really known who the perpetrators were, but only some (strong) indications, so the planning is even less certain. Sure we could have a Planning section, but it would have to largely be in the passive voice ("lookouts were arranged"), as we don't actually know who planned what. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to go poorly for Capone after the event ends anyway; does he really benfit from the massacre if he was indeed to be identified as the principal culprit who ordered the shooting. Why was he involved in the extreme measures if he knew he was likely to be arrested on separate charges after the event anyway?
My previous comment about the film "Scarface" was really to single it out as what is generally thought to be one of the three top crime films of the first generation of Talkies; the other two were 'Public Enemy' and 'Little Caesar'. This is optional and your choice about inclusion in the main body of the article, though the film 'Scarface' is recognized as being in top form.
I'll have a think about that, but as soon as one gets mentioned, people start adding their favourite film alongside it, so I've always found it easier to just acknowledge a connection without further comment, unless there is something particularly notable about it. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm editing on a 20 inch screen, and some of the images seem like they might be close to nearly causing image bunching. These include the Bugs portrait which might look better on the left, and the "murder scene" which also might look better on the left. This is for you to decide as you feel best for the article.
I've moved the murder scene across, but I'm okay with Moran where it is (I'm also on a 20" screen). I don't think we can make every screen size happy, particularly given that 65% of readers now use a mobile to access WP. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Wikipedia article for Al Capone, the summary of this event goes a little differently in the biography article as opposed to this article. Is the summary in the Capone article defective, or do you feel there's a better approach taken in this article about the shooting.
I haven't even looked at the Capone article, so I can't comment on whatever flaws it may contain. All I know is that this article is based on a wide range of high-quality sources. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article elsewise looks fairly comprehensive and nearly ready to move forward. I'll check in after you have a chance to see the comments left above. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns – none of them very great – were addressed at the peer review. Rereading now for FAC I find no new points to raise. Happy to support: the article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk12:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about Al Capone and his surroundings. This topic might need a somewhat more specialized source reviewer. Laurence Bergreen is flagged on their biography as being a potentially unreliable source, and for most of the books here I can only judge the publisher. At least, the formatting seems consistent - save for The Mob Museum which is sometimes in italics and sometimes not, what makes it a reliable source? - and most books have some academic citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk • contribs) 10:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jo-Jo. The italics on the Mob Museum now sorted. I'm fairly sure it's a reliable organisation, particularly for the level of information we're using it for here - one of the two uses is just the fact that it owns the bricks from the wall, for example. For Bergreen, it's not quite as clear cut as our article puts it (I would argue that the criticism is from a self-admitted piece of "village journalism", much of which misses the point); it's also not about the book we are using here, which is published by Simon & Schuster, a reliable publisher. I've run some additional searches, and the work we're using hasn't received any negative criticism that would make it unreliable. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One drive-by comment: in the Inflation calculation section, the two McCuskers go to different PDFs but have the same page range given. Do you even use these (as they are labelled as pre-1800, even if they have content covering later years) or do you just rely on the Federal Reserve Bank one? —Kusma (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The accusations have been disputed by some historians who have suggested that "Three fingered Jack" White and Tony Accardo were involved. - Ambiguous. "Were also involved" or "were involved in lieu of one/all of the named parties"?
Yes...! As the lists of participants are all 'best guess' from the historians, there are a few names suggested, so we can only hope to suggest the most commonly mentioned, rather than all the permutations of possibilities. In other words, ambiguity was what I was after here! - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
living in two floors of the Hawthorne Hotel - I think "on" is more common in AmE
Thursday, February 14 - Is "Thursday" necessary here?
At 10:30–10:35 am - At or between?
from where he had been shot, despite having been shot multiple times - shot... shot
You're very careful to mention Illinois for the various cities and towns. Why not have the states for Los Angeles and St. Louis?
Yes, St. Louis should mention the state, though maybe Los Angeles is known so well that one doesn't need to clarify? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
of the three Sicilian hitmen, Anselmi, Scalise, and Giunta - perhaps just "of the three Sicilian hitmen."?
I think we need to identify which were specifically Sicilian, as I'm not sure it's too clear (and doesn't need to be) further up. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving Atlantic City, Capone and his bodyguard, Frank Rio, - Rio is already linked above. Aside from the link, I don't think his name means much here.
Inconsistent in usage of Tommy guns vs. Thompson (machine) guns.
William White (gangster) - Is it "Three fingered", "Three Fingered" (with caps), or "Three Fingers" (as per our article on him)?
I've gone with Three Fingered: all three forms appear in sources, but it looks like "Three Fingered" may lead the field - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur J. Bilek concludes that Tony Accardo, a member of the Chicago Outfit, was one of the gunmen in a team assembled by Jack McGurn and that the other gunmen were Burke, Winkler, Goetz, and Carey. - A one-sentence paragraph is too short. Is there any supporting argument or something that can beef this up?
I've added an extra line about it being the start of Accardo's rise to top, but the piece is devoid of background evidence. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
were purchased by a Canadian businessman. - Any names?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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..
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?
the main battery barbettes: main-battery (compound modifier)
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?
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.
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?
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.
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".
for close in defense: close-in defense.
These guns fired an 40-kilogram (88 lb) projectile: a 40-kilogram.
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.
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"?
Hildebrand and Steinmetz -- hyphenate ISBN.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The question of rounding figures isn't set in any guideline, as far as I know, so very happy to discuss here.
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
18b has everything except the transfer to the Cruiser Division, which I guess is in Hildebrand et al?
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.
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.
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:
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.
This article is about Yusof Ishak, head of state of Singapore from 1959 to 1970. He had an early career in journalism, and was a founding member of newspaper Utusan Melayu. After leaving the newspaper, he was recommended by Lee Kuan Yew to become the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in 1959, and would serve in this role until it was succeeded by the president of Singapore in 1965, to which he served till his death in office in 1970. An influential but quieter figure in Singapore's history, he's probably most known for being on the money. This will be my first FA nomination, and I hope to take this as a learning experience no matter the outcome. Thanks, – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 12:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns about the sourcing in this article. Articles based mainly on news coverage are always susceptible to weight and npov problems, but in this case a lot of the article is cited to The Straits Times, which RSN found in 2021 to have additional considerations about its reliability in regard to Singaporean politics. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸00:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel some pragmatism is needed here. The Straits Times is Singapore's newspaper of record and often the only detailed or contemporaneous source available for national figures like Yusuf Ishak. While RSN flagged some concerns in 2021 about its political coverage, that does not make it inherently unreliable for historical facts or biographical details, especially when no specific inaccuracies are identified. In this case, avoiding The Straits Times would mean omitting core material about a major public figure, which seems unnecessary given the nature of the subject. Aleain (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your points, Aleain. If I may offer a different viewpoint of The Straits Times' use, this article uses mostly pre-1980s Straits Times, which was before it was acquired by SPH in 1984 according to its article. The president of Singapore is also largely a ceremonial role and only the head of state, and during this period the head of state didn't have many presidential powers, which were introduced later in 1991, so I don't consider the president to be controversial in Singapore's politics as compared to the PAP/WP. While yes, The Straits Times' use in this article may still provide issues (which I hope we can solve later), it can certainly be considered a more independent newspaper as compared to its present form, so I hope you rethink its use. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The Straits Times of the pre-1980s era was quite different from what it is today. It had a long tradition of relatively independent journalism, particularly during the colonial and early post-independence periods. At one time it was even seen as being too pro-British and often took editorial positions that were cautious or hostile towards emerging nationalist movements, including of the People's Action Party (PAP). Before the newspaper industry was restructured by the government, its editorial stance was not closely aligned with the state and it operated under different journalistic norms that allowed for a wider range of perspectives. This important historical context is often missing from assessments like the RSN, which tend to evaluate media reliability through a present-day lens without accounting for how a publication's role can shift over time. Given this, it is reasonable to treat historical reporting from The Straits Times, especially from the pre-SPH era, as even more reliable compared to its present form. Aleain (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. The ST needs updating regarding its reliability, especially before it was acquired. Regarding this FAC, it should be fine to use such sources. Per Actuall's point, the President of Singapore didn't have much power when it was first formed in the 1970s compared to the Prime Minister of Singapore, so it wouldn't be that contentious of a topic. I would apply great considerations when using ST for contentious political topics. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 06:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify which text is being sandwiched? I don't see any issues with any of the images, but that might just be my browser skin. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 07:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Yusof_Ishak_in_NCC_(cropped).jpg: when and where was this first published and what is its status in the US? Ditto File:Lee_Kuan_Yew_at_Laycock_and_Ong,_1952_(cropped).png, File:William_Goode_29-07-1953_(1)_better_crop.jpg, File:ST24November1970.jpg
Have uploaded a better version of File:Yusof_Ishak_in_NCC_(cropped).jpg with more reliable source, see here. I'm going to be honest, and admit that I don't understand US copyright laws that much, but I have added Template:PD-US-expired to most. Please check if it is correct. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 07:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be able to use that particular tag, you need to be able to show the image was published before 1930. Can you do that for all of these? If no, I'd suggest having a look at this chart to see how publication date aligns with recommended tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this chart. I have gone in and removed the relevant images and added a few new ones. For your convenience, the images I have added are File:Yusof Ishak 1920s.jpg and File:Mr. Lee Kuan Yew Mayoral reception 1965 (3to4).jpg, kindly check them. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 01:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When and where was File:Yusof_Ishak_1920s.jpg first published? Ditto File:Yusof_Ishak_in_NCC,_1920s_(cropped).png ? Also, for the latter, if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For File:Yusof_Ishak_1920s.jpg, it was taken while he was a student at Raffles Institution and could have been published in a RI yearbook, not that I could find any from the 1920s. File:Yusof_Ishak_in_NCC,_1920s_(cropped).png was also taken while he was in RI, so maybe a RI yearbook as well? Also, for Template:PD-SG-photo, it just focuses on if it has been 70 years since the photograph has been taken. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Singapore states "The following works are in the public domain upon the expiry of 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the authors of the works died [...] Published and unpublished artistic works other than photographs." Please let me know if I'm wrong, as I'm not good for copyright, and sorry for bothering you with all these copyright questions. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 05:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Questions are no problem, but nor is the Singapore status - the issue is the US. The current tagging relies on a pre-1930 publication, and it doesn't sound like we know for sure that that happened. What is the earliest publication that is known for these? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find much on File:Yusof_Ishak_1920s.jpg, and its entry at the National Archives of Singapore doesn't provide much either. This is a larger image from which it was taken, and it is stated to be a photograph with friends, so I would likely assume that this was a personal photograph and thus not published elsewhere; the Yusof Ishak collection was donated by his wife to NAS in 2008. Follow-up: I emailed NAS and they told me that they were also unsure of when it was first published, or whether it had been published at all. For File:Yusof_Ishak_in_NCC,_1920s_(cropped).png, I took it from this book published in 2000 by the National Library Board. The image is on this page. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Yusof_Ishak_and_his_family,_1933.jpg: when and where was this first published and why is it believed to be a UK government work?
File:Sportsman_magazine_-_010930.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US? Ditto File:GAMBAR2_LAWATAN_KETUA_NEGARA_SINGAPURA.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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.
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.
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?
the flow of events went against the Montfortists in the face of Charles huge military superiority: Charles's.
extreme difficulty in assembling ships: we had this one before, I think -- did he not have the right screwdriver?
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.
The historian Michael Jones describes the castle as a key ducal stronghold: presumably, he means this before it was, well, the only ducal stronghold.
Their leader, Hugh Despenser was: comma needed here.
The reinforcements Charles received in July allowed him to put his galleys back to use.: I don't quite understand this oen -- 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?
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]
The French galleys were supplemented by galleys hired from Genoa and Monaco.: French fleet was, to avoid repetition?
Morley applied a heavy-handed policy of threats and confiscations which bore fruit: MOS:IDIOM, perhaps.
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.
The English fleet took just three days to reach western Brittany -- editorialising? Was that unusually quick?
to execute hit and run tactics: hyphens here.
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.
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?
Most style guides would capitalise During in a title (the usual rule of thumb is prepositions of five letters or more).
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.
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.
...made for the nearest rivers, where the galleys' shallow draught might allow them to find at least temporary safety.
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]
It's been six years since I've successfully nominated an article for FA and I'm pretty nervous. So nervous I've had this peer reviewed twice to make sure the articles meet FA standards. But here I am, pretty sure I can get this article to meet FA standards. This was collaboration with Franlm14, Jaespinoza. I look forward to addressing any issues brought up! Erick (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment:
This is a well-researched and clearly written article. The Background and recording and Critical reception sections are particularly strong — they provide good context and reflect a variety of perspectives. A few suggestions for improvement:
The Commercial performance section could benefit from more prose flow and comparative analysis; right now, it's mostly chart and certification listings without much narrative.
It would be good to see more critical viewpoints or retrospective commentary. Are there any more recent takes or analyses on the album's legacy or influence within Latin pop?
Some minor copyedits for conciseness and flow could help bring it closer to FA style — especially in the opening paragraphs, where a few sentences are a bit list-like.
Overall, this is a solid candidate with just a few refinements needed. Looking forward to supporting this nomination once those areas are polished! --Christian (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrishm21 Thanks for the review. I couldn't really find any contemporary reviews or retrospective reviews of the album. I did include it being the 2nd bestselling album in Spain. I'm stumped on the third part though. Any suggestions? Erick (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply @Magiciandude! Totally understand the difficulty finding reviews — especially for Latin pop albums where English-language coverage is limited. Regarding that third point I mentioned (about more recent or retrospective viewpoints), one idea could be to look beyond traditional reviews and check for:
Retrospective essays or think pieces in Spanish-language media (like El País, Rolling Stone España, Los 40, La Vanguardia, Rockdelux, etc.) — even anniversary listicles or mentions in “best of” retrospectives can help.
Mentions in interviews with other artists, critics, or musicologists, especially if the album’s influence on Latin pop or Sanz’s trajectory is noted.
Books or academic articles on Spanish or Latin pop music might also analyze the album's impact — Google Books or JSTOR can be useful for that.
@Chrishm21 Thank you again! I added a legacy section with the few sources that I could find both online and offline. Where was I actually stomped is where you mentioned the opening paragraphs. That was the one I was actually stuck on. From the sound of things though, it sounds like I'm almost there! Fingers crossed! Erick (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would generally say "best-selling" instead of "bestselling"
In the composition section, there are multiple quotes that are not attributed to any specific writer or to the artist himself. I would try to paraphrase them or attribute them to the author (although in most instances, I'd prefer the first option)
Adding to the last comment, I always like to include quotes only when there is no other way of paraphrasing them; In the following sentence, the "Latin touch", for example, can be easily paraphrased: "Quisiera Ser" is a song with an "intimate air that calls for shared celebration" and has a "Latin touch"
magazine titles should be italicized in the prose (El Diario La Prensa)
Release and promotion -> launched on 11 June 2001 in Spain and Portugal[29] and features -> I would add a comma after "Portugal" since generally, refs should always come after a punctutation
Commercial performance -> album in the country after Más.[72][73]El Alma al Aire -> Missing space before "El Alma"
Track listing -> I would add a ref to the CD liner notes after "All tracks are written by Alejandro Sanz, except where noted."
The following credits are from AllMusic and from the liner notes of El Alma al Aire:[26][90] -> I would rewrite this to: "Credits adapted from AllMusic and the liner notes of El Alma al Aire.[26][90]" (with a full stop instead of an ":")
No need to link "PROMUSICAE" in the Year-end charts tables since it already is linked in the Weekly charts tables
Sales and certifications -> I am surprised some of the sales don't have "*", "^" or else next to them (especially United States)
The sales and certifications table needs a header like the other ones
Did two edits on the "Release history" table myself
Is there a reason why "Warner Music Latina" is also "WEA Latina" in the release table?
I would include the US release of the album through WEA Latina in the "Release" section of the article
In this version of the article, refs 30, 52 and 53 show issues. Alejandro Sanz needs to be included in "author", not "others"
I would link the publications all the time in the references, such as the unlinked "Billboard" in ref. 3. This applies to others such as "El Mundo" or "El Siglo de Torreón".
This is a well-written and well-researched article, well done! I enjoyed learning more about this album and will happily supported after these points are fixed. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cartoon network freak Thank you very much for the in-depth! WEA Latina was renamed to Warner Music Latina a year after the album was released. For the certifications and sales, the symbols are not needed if pure sales are cited. My biggest weakness has always been paraphrasing. Could you have a look to see if I did them right? And thank you for the edits you did on the page! Erick (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Magiciandude: Thank you for having addressed my comments and for having provided more context on the name change on the label. I went ahead and made a couple of fixes on the paraphrasing in the "Composition" section, but please check if they are still factually correct. Other than that, I am happy to support. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 23:36, 15 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.
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]
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.
Newspapers.com links should be clippings so everyone can see, not direct links to the full page
The Age ref cites page 5 but the article is on page 15 of the Entertainment Guide department
some RPM links are broken
what makes drownedmadonna.com a high-quality source?
what makes digitaljournal.com a high-quality source?
what makes orcasound.com a high-quality source?
what makes smoothradio.com a high-quality source? like why is some random radio station's summary relevant and trustworthy?
what makes maistocadas.br.com a high-quality source?
is selectmagazinescans a copyvio?
dont link to imgur copyvios just cite it as a physical copy
AllMusic is not reliable for release dates
ensure all 'La Isla Bonita' has single quotes in ref article titles
ensure all-caps article titles are converted to the sentence case format used
"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
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.
you should add the doi to Vinuela. the live url is available and free, so idk why the archive is used
I noticed that my suggestion to incorporate doi:10.1017/CBO9781316663837.016 in archive4 was not done - can you address this?
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
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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
A small, critically endangered fish from the Brazilian rainforest. The article is related to the cherry-throated tanager, a critically endangered bird from the same locality that already is a FA. I believe that the article is as comprehensive as it could be, and I am looking forward to comments. Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Operculum and opercles link to the same article. Furthermore, only the second mention is glossed, while it should probably be the first?
Changed the second to "operculum" to stick with the same term. Moved the gloss to first mention. I kept the duplink because this term is very important in the Description section, especially now that the gloss is gone.
Caetés forest is duplinked, but I guess that's intentional.
Yes, I think it helps the reader to provide the link again.
I know you doin't have much to work with, but the caption of the infobox image seems pretty redundant, is there anything more informative that could be added?
I changed to "two adult individuals"; unfortunately the image does not come with any specifics.
Personally I'd give conversions for measurements, but you argued at another review why it isn't required.
Yeah, MOS:CVT says But in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so. – So it seems to be optional, but it looks like the standard is to not use them in science-related articles. I see that these templates clutter the article quite a bit. However, if anybody else suggests that it is better to add them, I will do.
I guess we don't have any more good photos of it?
I added two more of my own photos. I can't claim they are good though, but at least there is a juvenile to be seen.
Seems there is some inconsistency in whether author names are abbreviated or not in the citations. In citation 4 they are, but in most others not.
See this discussion here: [7] There have been strong arguments against abbreviating authors for consistency's sake, so I think we shouldn't do it.
"The generic name Trichogenes is composed of the Greek words thrix (meaning 'hair', referring to its family, the Trichomycteridae) and genes (meaning 'birth', referring to the genus Helogenes due to the superficial resemblance to it).[4][5] The specific name claviger is Latin for 'club-bearing' and refers to the distinctive club-shaped protrusion" Why are the meanings of the generic name in parenthesis when the one for the species is not?
fixed.
"but the two species did probably not separate recently" while it's clear to me you mean in an evolutionary context, this may not be clear to all.
I linked "separate" to speciation, hope that makes it clear.
Link morphological?
Done.
There is some unfortunate image sandwiching with the images under description. Perhaps the photo could be left aligned at the top of the section, and the illustration could be right aligned nearer the bottom?
Note that I optimised the article according to the default layout (i.e., standard width, not wide width). This is what 99% of readers are going to stick with, and no image sandwiching here regardless the font size. There is image sandwiching in "wide" view, but I do not really understand why sandwiching would even be an issue in wide view; the very narrow column of text that you could get in standard view does not occur there? Also, if I switch the images as you suggested, we will get sandwichting between the first image and the taxonbox, so that does not really solve the issue? Finally, I like to have the diagram placed at the top of the section, because the reader needs to see it in order to easily follow the text (very relevant for mobile users). Hope that makes sense. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below, I use the old view. Hmmm, maybe I need to double check the articles I work on, or just get with the times... FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vertically high images could maybe be given the upright parameter.
Added, although those only cause problems in "wide" view (I'm not sure how many people are still using wide view; it makes a text so much more difficult to read when the line is that long).
To me, the Taxonomy section starts a bit confusingly about other species, while I would maybe expect the subject to be presented first, and then this other info given later for context?
Good point. I rearranged it. However, this way we got the boring/technical stuff as the first paragraph of the article, which is not ideal; I therefore simplified it a bit to make it more engaging to read (removed the holotype/paratype stuff). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I like when articles go into nitty gritty about type specimens, and especially in a short article like this, it seems a shame to leave out. Especially since we do have the information, unlike many species named in the infancy of taxonomy where we barely know what they're based on. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps barbels could need a bit of in-text explanation? This "There are three pairs of barbels – the down-facing maxillary and rictal barbels and the upward-facing nasal barbels." doesn't really tell unfamiliar readers that they're these thread-like sensory organs
Ok, added.
What distinguishes this species from T. beagle? All I can clearly see it "The spots are more numerous in T. longipinnis, while they are small and do not form a line in T. beagle."
Yes, the color pattern and the vertebral count are both mentioned. I now added another feature, the absence of the barbular bone. I didn't include it previously because I found it too technical, but here we go. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since no genetic work seems to have been done, is it possible these species represent subspecies or individual variation etc., and has this ever been discussed?
Unlikely; the differences are too substantial. Genetic work has been done, but only published in a Master's thesis which we cannot include here just yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"known from only from the" Double from.
fixed.
"The fish are nektonic" Explain?
Removed; I think that fish that are not nektonic are rare in any case, so there is no need to throw this term.
Link arthropods.
Done.
"process is sexual signalling" anything to link?
Linked.
"A 2020 survey revealed negative attitudes towards the remaining forests in the local populace" can't help but wonder what the negative attitudes were?
I elaborated on this.
Link deforestation in article body too?
Done
The intro could perhaps be two paragraphs, given the length of the article?
Added.
Somehow mention what distinguishes it from its closest relatives in the intro?
"but the two species did probably not separate recently" --> "but the two species probably did not separate recently"
fixed.
The first two sentences in the 'Description' section use semicolons, which is a bit repeptitive.
fixed.
"a claw-like process is present in front of each of them" --> "a claw-like process is present in front of each"
fixed.
"Forno Grande farm, which was owned by a larger corporation." - is this farm itself a corporation?
I believe that "farm" (Fazenda) refers to the land. The source does not go into detail; I am not sure if the corporation owes just this farm, or if they have more assets (I believe the latter is the case, but the source does not say). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Click the "history" tab of the relevant page, then click "fix dead links" (fifth link over). Be sure to click the checkmark on "add archives". Then click the blue "analyze" button. Hope this helps! Firsfron of Ronchester00:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can wikilink some of these journals.
Done.
Some of the full dates for these are available like ref 17, however only the year is present.
I prefer to provide years only for papers, as I think that the full dates are meaningless; they depend on how fast the journal publishes something, and preprints (and online-first versions) are often available much earlier (the years refer to the in-print version, not the online first versions). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For ref 15 there is an awful lot of authors present, I would add display_author to 4 or something to condense it to et al.
Done.
For ref 6 the website is the short URL, I would suggest making that the actual name of the website.
Removed; there recently was a discussion on the FAC talk page and people thought that ISSNs are quite useless since they only identify the journal, not the paper. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The body is deeper than broad; - What is broad?
changed to deeper than it is wide, I hope that's clearer?
results in convex upper and lower margins when viewed from the side, which differ from the more parallel upper and lower margins of T. longipinnis. - For WP:TECHNICAL, I would add in parentheses what these words actually mean.
You mean "convex"? I thought this was a common dictionary word that the reader can be assumed to know; I don't think its a word that we usually explain. I linked it to the Wiktionary, do you think that's enough? I am weary of providing an in-text explanation here as this would make that particular sentence quite difficult to read.
The lower margin of the anal fin is straight or convex. - Switch "is" for "can be".
Done.
...and the fins are yellowish, and the underside of the body is whitish. - Remove the comma.
A haunting three-faced Celtic stone head dated to the 1st century AD. The first and highly rewarding nom drew extensive feedback from especially UndercoverClassicist, Hog Farm and Gog the Mild, to whom I am eternally grateful. The first nom got bogged down on ref formatting and I withdrew, hastily and to my regret. Since then have systematically addressed any ref formatting concerns, but more importantly have trimmed down overall, per UC, shaky claims re contemporary Roman's views on Iron-age Irish Celts.
All that said, its a really spooky and seemingly eternal sculpture and hope the article is interesting to read. Ceoil (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not overly keen on "Its age was realised in 1937 by the historian Thomas J. Barron and Adolf Mahr, then director of the National Museum of Ireland, where it remains today." which seems to be trying to cover too much in one sweep. I think it's the last four words which are the problem
You're a little inconsistent with whether to use a serial comma or not - it woud be best to iron out that wrinkle
The caption "The Tandragee Idol,c." needs a space after the comma
It's good to see this back at FAC. I was reminded of this page by the topic of a Royal Archaeological Institute talk (though Corleck wasn't mentioned). Unfortunately it wasn't recorded.
I hope to have time to review the page properly but in the meantime I spotted a couple of things. There are two sources by Anne Ross published in 1967 and listed in the "Sources" section. Only one is cited - based on the page number, probably the book - so either one could be removed to a "Further reading" section, or they need to be differentiated with 1967a and 1967b and a reference added to the Antiquity article. There's also a stray quotation mark in: The archaeologist and scholar Anne Ross points out that the Corleck Head's style corresponds closely to other Iron Age representations of the head from the late La Tène period".Richard Nevell (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard, thanks for this and the talk page query. There was an edition issue re Ross, which have largely but not fully resolved. Will fully respond tomorrow night. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good article which does an impressive amount of work with the source material. I hope the comments below are useful. To be honest, I anticipate that the answer to my more speculative questions about whether the sources have more info will be dead ends.
The wording in Kelly 2002 (the small portion I can see in the Google Books snippet) says the passage tomb was "dismantled" between 1832 and 1900. Describing it as "under excavation to make way for farming land" makes it sound a bit more investigative than Kelly suggests.
We do know that the grave was excavated for its stone, and by whom and why – but its from (multiple) anecdote rather than historical record. Ross also says a lot on this. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of the passage grave, does it have any relation to the Corleck Head beyond the proximity to the assumed find spot? Is there any suggestion that the passage grave was reused as a ritual site at the time the Corleck Head was created/in use?
No. Obviously the passage grave was Neolithic, and the article makes clear that the actual find spot is unknown, and placing it at Corlcek is guess work. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the Corleck and Corraghy Heads were discovered together, is it worth including a note explaining why the Corraghy heads have a different name (presumably due to their rediscovery in Corraghy township in 1969)?
Ok, found a source and added to the notes..."So named because the human head was discovered in 1969 by Barron embedded in the wall of a farmyard barn in the nearby townland of Corraghy". Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully its clear now that both the Corleck and Corraghy heads were found deposited near Corleck Hill, but are though to origionate from a worship site on Corleck Hill. Note, Cavan is very hilly, being dominated by rolling drumlins. Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of Rynne 1972 p. 79 is that the problem with dating goes a bit deeper than an inability to radiocarbon date. Another issue is that many were not discovered in their original contexts, where if they were found with datable material (eg: organic material) that could provide a date of deposition.
It might be worth adding that wooden heads survive for comparison (Gleeson 2022). Gleeson doesn't go as far as saying these are easier to date, so there may not be much that can be done without straying into original research.
The wooden heads are extremely rare for obvious reasons, but is a good point but perhaps off topic for this article on a specific stone sculpture. Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unusual for academia.edu to stop hosting, and dont see it at a different url. Have removed the link, but do have the section on pdf if needed. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For Gleeson 2022 I think we should prefer the persistent link over academia.edu in case the latter stops working for any reason, but that would mean changing the page numbers as the PDF on academia has different pagination.
I don't have access to Kelly 1984 or Aldhouse-Green 2015 so can't check myself, but do they comment on the significance of churches being built on sites where stone idols have been found? The Rynne 1972 source got me thinking that the reuse of material culture and sites may have been an intentional act to deactivate (for want of a better word) these locations.
I can email you Kelly 1984 and Aldhouse-Green 2015 if you want. They make for great reading if you are interested. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough then I reckon. I'd be interested in a copy if possible - there's no more always more room on my reading list. I'll drop you an email. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
David Clarke's 1998 PhD thesis has some interesting information, including on a theory by John Billingsley that the stone heads may have been Aunt Sallys, and the subsequent dismissal of the theory as implausible because travelling shows would prefer a wooden version for portability. I don't think it's worth including as Billingsley's idea hasn't been published in a reliable source so is fringe at best, but I found it interesting at least. And it seemed a shame not to mention it here at least as I've been rummaging around the sources!
Noted and very interesting indeed in the context of Emily Bryce "remembered childhood visits to the farm and throwing stones at the head, having no idea of its age". Frankly hadn't heard of Aunt Sally's before. Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have re-giged the article slightly by merging the existing "dating" and "function" sections to better accommodate your questions re general issues with dating stone idols vs wooden heads, the continuation of sites of worship across centuries and cultures, and the danger of mistaking modern folk art objects...aunt Sallys etc for the ancient. Dating and function are intrinsic, is why have made these changes. Bear with me pls :) Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Irish stone idol discovered in Drumeague in County Cavan" – this is rather more definite than the main text: "While the exact find spot is unknown, it was probably on Corleck Hill in the townland of Drumeague".
when you say "Archaeologists agree ...", "Archaeologists assume ...", that implies unanimity among archaeologists, but in your text you mention the dissenting view of Ian Armit on the dating. It might be safer to write "Most archaeologists ..."
Otherwise, merely minor drafting points:
"Its age and significance was realised in 1937" – two nouns but a singular verb
and is "significance" the right word? This is Plain Words on "significant": This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'
"which acquired it that year, and were it remains today" – you mean "where", I think, rather than "were".
"Corleck is one of six areas in Ulster" – this is the first mention of Ulster and a link might be helpful.
"they lack facial hair or ears. One has heavy eyebrows" – aren't eyebrows facial hair? The OED defines "eyebrow" as "The (usually arched) line of short fine hair along the upper edge of each of a person's eye sockets".
"Conn, the Dagda and Ogma, whom archaeologists assume were venerated" – "whom" should be "who", as Conn, the Dagda and Ogma are the subject of the clause (see current edition of Fowler (2015), p. 886).
That's all from me. I note the problems with the formatting of references at the previous FAC, but from a quick once-over they look all right to me now. An unusual and interesting article. Tim riley talk08:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim, most of these sorted; will update when complete. Re the referencing format, its something I was not used to coming mostly from art history, but does seem better for archaeology and have since adopted for these type of articles. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. An unusual and striking topic, clearly and evidently comprehensively narrated, beautifully illustrated. Meets the FA criteria as far as I can see. Tim riley talk08:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All images have captions. I suggest adding alt-texts. The images are relevant and placed in appropriate locations. What do you think about moving the image of the "Dreenan" figure to the section "Dating" to avoid MOS:SANDWICH? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Phlsph7, have moved images to avoid text squash. Will look and update re alt-texts, but maybe only for the non Corleck pics, as to be fair the Corleck pics are all pretty similar (as our text emphasies) and it would be very repetitive to describe over and over. Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having alt-texts is preferable but I think they are not strictly speaking required. Should the moved images be switched since the the "Dating" section mentions the "Dreenan" figure and the "Function" section mentions the Tandragee Idol? Or is there another logic that I'm missing? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. One last nitpick concerning date consistency: the article text says "Tandragee Idol ... dated c. 1000 – c. 400 BC," while the caption says "The Tandragee Idol, c. 1000 – c. 500 BC". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phlsph7, have given the The Tandragee Idol its usual dating to c. 1000 BC. Alt text added to its and the Boa Island figures images. I appreciate the spots re inconsistencies very much, and hence the delay in responding - if this does make it to main page want to have the group of articles around it clear and internally consistent. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Its dating to the Iron Age is based on its iconography" with the triad of its/is/its is a bit awkward and the repetitive construction of dating to/based on. I might suggest swapping for "Its Iron Age-dating is based on similar iconography to that of contemporary northern European Celtic artefacts" or something similar.
"A majority of archaeologists" --> "Most archaeologists"
"due to its obvious paganism" --> "due to its paganism" - If the paganism is obvious, do we need to explicitly describe it as "obvious"? And if it's not obvious, well then it's not obvious and I would remove it as well.
Two of the captions use full stops despite not being full sentences. The other captions appropriately do not use full stops. Note no period for "The Tandragee Idol, c. 1000 BC. St Patrick's Cathedral, Armagh" but a period for "The Boa Island figures, with the Janus figure at back, c. 400–800 AD."
"historian and folkloristThomas J. Barron" - placing 'folklorist' first would avoid a sea-of-blue issue.
Comma is inconsistently use: "In 1972," versus "In 1962" and so on.
"simplicity... indicates a degree of sophistication" - what is meant by this? It seems contradictory. Wouldn't more complex stonework be more sophisticated?
"Many of the surviving prehistoric representational Irish sculptures" --> "Many surviving prehistoric representational Irish sculptures"
I recently saved this article at its good article reassessment, taking the article down from 14.5k to 11k. Medxvo gave some of this article a nice revamp, while Z1720 took this article down even lower, to 9k words, both for which I am very grateful; much thanks to SNUGGUMS for giving some suggestions to the article too. This article underwent a fruitful peer review by Vacant0 and Pokelego999 also for which I am very grateful. Also grateful for ImaginesTigers, who indicated their willingness to potentially comment on this FAC.
Following analysation of high-quality biography FAs such as Cher, Taylor Swift, and Vince Gill, I believe this article is similar in quality to most, if not all of those articles. If successful this will be my eleventh featured article, and my third FA on a person. 750h+07:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm offering to look at and do the source review, which I'm also placing next to the image review done by another editor in this FAC. As a first step to this article with over 600 citations in the current version, I'm noticing that there appear to be at least 14 dead-links in the current article which will need to be addressed before a more thorough semi random quality check of the full citation list can be performed. For example: {{cite news|last=Farber|first=Jim|title=Beyoncé Shows 'Fierce' and Softer Sides in Tour Kickoff at the Garden|url=http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-06-22/entertainment/17925311_1_fierce-character-tour|newspaper=[[New York Daily News]]|date=June 21, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110311022417/http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-06-22/entertainment/17925311_1_fierce-character-tour|archive-date=March 11, 2011|url-status=dead}}. All of these 14 or more dead url notices need to repaired first for the source review to continue. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: From what i know, links can stay as long as they have an archived source next to it right? i did use archive bot and it did fix two poorly formatted MTV sources, but other than those two i don't think there's a single "dead" link in the article that isn't is supported by an archived source through the Wayback Machine or GhostArchive next to it. 750h+04:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the policy you are stating and any article going to FAC is generally assumed to have no dead urls, which means I'll likely need to recuse myself from doing this source review. I've given you dead url above using nowiki, however, it still looks like you are keeping it in the article, along with over a dozen other dead urls. Here is another example which is still in the Beyonce article as a dead url which you did not take out of the article or replace: {{cite news|last=Totilo|first=Stephen|url=http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1607344/beyonce-promotes-nintendo-game-admits-weakness-super-mario.jhtml|title=Beyoncé Promotes Nintendo Game, Admits Weakness for 'Super Mario'|publisher=MTV News|date=March 19, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110624084152/http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1607344/beyonce-promotes-nintendo-game-admits-weakness-super-mario.jhtml|archive-date=June 24, 2011|url-status=dead}}. To my understanding, all dead urls in a FAC nomination should either be replaced or removed. The article currently prints out as still having over a dozen dead urls in it which were not removed after I sent you the notification yesterday. Note to another editor who will need to take over this source review since I'm now recused, that the dead url's are scattered throughout the article and that there are over a dozen of them at this time as being unresolved. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause i’m just a bit confused here as all “dead links” have archive-urls next to them; even the ones you pointed out, which from what I know is allowed (I’ve seen several nominations pass with this format). However, since you have recused, we’ll see what another reviewer says. 750h+15:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator comment: ErnestKrause, there's no FAC requirement that an "FAC is generally assumed to have no dead urls" so long as they're verifiable through working archived URLs (which seems to be the case here). I remember you brought this up in one of my own FACs a while ago so I thought I'd clarify this. FrB.TG (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EpicGenius has gone ahead with the source review below and is keeping the article with the links as they are. My comment above was more from the past experience of seeing other editors often using and adding cite tags to flag inactive urls. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already read through some parts of the article during the PR review and it seems like some issues were addressed by now, so I'll most likely won't find too many errors.
"He reduced the group's lineup to four members" – do we know why?
no unfortunately
"as a result of her pregnancy" – maybe change it to second pregnancy?
done
"which sparked criticism due to the United Arab Emirates' laws criminalizing homosexuality" – did she respond to the criticism?
no nor did her representatives; though if she did, it would probably be for the concert's main page
Also a minor issue that I've also spotted: "Beyoncé also has had deals with American Express,[469] Nintendo DS" Nintendo DS is not a company it's a handheld console. Maybe you should change it to the developer of the console, Nintendo? It's up to you. Vacant0(talk • contribs)11:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have anything to add... I know it's a short review but considering that other editors already reviewed the article before me + the article was copyedited by several editors, I was not able to find too many errors, which is not surprising. Nevertheless, it's a support from me. FYI, I have an open FAC at the moment - Terraria - a review would be appreciated. Vacant0(talk • contribs)12:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc: all done with quickness; as for the concern with "(“Singer” and “female artist” are overlapping; one is redundant.)", i've changed "artist" to "individual" to prevent overlapping. 750h+13:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+ (hope I'm not being rude by butting in) I would agree with MSincccc that "electronic music" is the more natural phrase here. It's much more commonplace to use the phrase "hip hop" as a standalone word than it is to use just the phrase "electronic" to refer to the music genre. On pages for prominent electronic artists like Aphex Twin, Daft Punk and Kraftwerk, the phrase "electronic" is basically never used as a standalone noun in the body text. ALittleClass (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Public image
Critics have frequently described Beyoncé as a symbol of sex appeal symbol of sex appeal→sex symbol
"music journalist" could be linked to the article Music journalism.
In 2007, Beyoncé became→In 2007, she became
Beyoncé has been nicknamed "Queen Bey" by media publications.→Beyoncé has been nicknamed "Queen Bey" by the media.
Do we really need these two details in particular:
...the "Hottest Female Singer of All Time" by Complex in 2012.
VH1 listed her at number one on its 2013 list of the "100 Sexiest Artists".
Wealth
between June 2007 to June 2008
→ between June 2007 "and" June 2008
She was listed as the Forbes third highest-paid musician of the 2010s, earning $685 million. The definite article "the" should be dropped from this sentence.
Consider trimming year-by-year earnings detail—retain major highlights only (e.g. 2014’s $115 million, or her 2010s decade ranking), and remove repetitive annual mentions.
Condense Celebrity 100 placements—keep only the most notable (e.g. number one in 2014), and remove lower placements like fourth in 2008 or 2009.
For Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s earnings, consider noting just one significant joint ranking (e.g. 2012) and their billionaire milestone, rather than listing each year’s figures.
Legacy
Combine Rolling Stone, AP, and NPR mentions with Billboard's 2024 title for a tighter opening.
@MSincccc: much thanks for the review and thanks for noticing the grammar mistakes, highly appreciated! i've addressed those comments, but just a few things:
for your point in which you said "Do we really need these two details in particular", these both notable and known publications placing her atop their women's sex appeal list, i could probably include several publications but there's only four; this somewhat furthers on the earlier sentence "Beyoncé has been described by critics as having sex appeal."
on your suggestion to condense the forbes celebrity 100 placements, while i understand the need for conciseness i'd argue that being ranked fourth is still EXTREMELY high. it means that forbes considered her the fourth most powerful celebrity in those years, which very significant and worth noting.
as for your concern where you say "Combine Rolling Stone, AP, and NPR mentions with Billboard's 2024 title for a tighter opening.", i see them as having different purposes: AP, Rolling Stone and NPR rank her as one of the most influential artists in history, while Billboard lists her as the greatest star of the 21st century; these are both quite different categories.
the article surprisingly isn't overcategoried and all of the categories belong; artists of this level of impact generally have a significant number of categories due to the scope of their work (eg Cher, Taylor Swift, Michael Jackson, John Lennon, Lady Gaga, etc)
You could use "she" rather than using "Beyoncé" repeatedly in the first paragraph.
She set the record for the most Grammy awards won by a female artist in one night in 2010 with six awards.
awards→Awards
Politics
She held a fundraiser for President Obama's 2012 presidential campaign... Obama is already described as "President" in the previous sentence.
"Beyoncé, former Destiny's Child bandmate Kelly Rowland, and her mother Tina Knowles"
→"Beyoncé, her mother Tina Knowles, and former Destiny's Child bandmate Kelly Rowland"
(Avoids ambiguity)
Fashion lines
"parterned" → "partnered"
(typo)
"for back-to-school selling"
→ "for the back-to-school season."
(Minor suggestion)
Following allegations that Topshop owner Philip Green had sexually harassed, bullied, and racially abused employees, Beyoncé bought out his stake in the company.
It implies Green personally held the stake, whereas in reality, his company held the 50% share in Ivy Park.
That's all from me for now. The prose is engaging and comprehensive, though a few trims would be beneficial. As it stands, you’re more knowledgeable—I’m not an expert on the topic. MSincccc (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"philanthropist / producer / director" are included in the infobox although they do not appear in the lead, they should be removed per template instructions
"forming management company Parkwood Entertainment" - "the" is probably missing before "management"
"Americana epic Cowboy Carter" has an MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue. I would replace "epic" with "record" (also epic as a narrative genre does not appear in the article prose)
"Beyoncé met LaTavia Roberson" - I suggest "Beyoncé met singer LaTavia Roberson" for clarity
"separated apartments" - "separated" or "separate"?
"achieved multi-platinum status" - "achieved multi-platinum status in the United States" is more explicitly stated in the source, or you could add this source which additionally confirms that it achieved multi-platinum status in several countries, not just the U.S.
For consistency with other releases, I would include the release month for Destiny's Child (February 1998) and The Writing's on the Wall (July 1999), not just the year
"MTV made-for-television film" - an MTV wikilink would be helpful
"it debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, selling 663,000 copies in its first week" - would be helpful to indicate that this is a U.S. chart, i.e., "on the U.S. Billboard 200"
I would remove the Foxxy Cleopatra wikilink since it redirects to the film page
"Destiny's Child embarked on a global concert tour" - The year would be relevant here, i.e., "In 2005, Destiny's Child embarked..."
"released their first compilation album, #1's, in October" - in October of which year?
"debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 chart, selling 541,000 copies in its first week, making it her second consecutive..." - I suggest "debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 chart with 541,000 copies sold in its first week, marking her second consecutive..."
"fifth number one on U.S. Billboard Hot 100" - Not sure if we need to introduce the Hot 100 as a U.S. chart for a second time
"Rotten Tomatoes' consensus calling this" - why "this" not "it"?
"breaking a record she previously tied in 2004 for the most Grammy awards won in a single night by a female artist with six" - please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think this means that she won six awards in 2004 not five, which is wrong?
"..."Best Thing I Never Had", "Love on Top"—reached" - "and" is missing before "Love On Top"
"called On the Run Tour" - "called the On the Run Tour"
The Formation World Tour part seems out of place, because the tour chronologically began after the album's release not after the release of "Formation"
"Song for the Year for "Formation" - typo, "Song of the Year"
While I respect Ernest's source review, I will have to disagree that dead links already accompanied by an |archive-url= parameter need to be fixed. I do not recommend that any action be taken on this.
Some sources (e.g. Billboard, Wall Street Journal) have ISSNs and some (e.g. NY Times) do not. These should be formatted consistently so that they either all have ISSNs, or none do.
Some sources have |url-access=subscription parameters, while others that are paywalled do not. These should be formatted consistently, too.
For some sources like Forbes, the |work= parameter is sometimes linked, and sometimes it's not (see, for example, refs 481, 483, 485 of this version). There are three options here: link the "work" parameter for all citation from a specific publication; link this parameter only in the first citation from that publication; or don't link this parameter at all.
Ref 429 is the only reference that uses a location parameter. I suggest removing it for consistency.
For ref 448, the |work= parameter should be Rolling Stone, not rollingstone.com.
Ref 582 uses a |url-status= parameter but has no archive url.
What makes the following sources reliable:
Any of the Rolling Stone sources (I know that WP:ROLLINGSTONE says that this is reliable for culture, but not for society. Can we confirm that all of these are related to culture?)
Ref 297: MacNeill, Kyle (February 23, 2023). "Inside the Secret Shady World of Corporate Concerts". Vice.
Ref 311: Hunt, El (March 28, 2024). "Why we shouldn't be surprised that Beyoncé is going country". London Evening Standard.
Ref 317: Bell, Crystal (December 23, 2024). "Beyoncé's Christmas Halftime Show on Netflix: Everything You Need to Know". Mashable.
Ref 385-4: Getahun, Hannah (April 1, 2024). "'Act III' Will Be Beyoncé's Next Album: Here Are the 4 Genres the Beyhive Thinks It Could Be". Business Insider.
Ref 435: Donn, Emily (March 18, 2017). "How La La Land Helped Live-Action Beauty and the Beast Remake". Screen Rant.
Ref 450: George, Kat (March 18, 2016). "What I Learned About Style From Destiny's Child's "Bootylicious"". Vice. Retrieved June 8, 2025.
Ref 451: Alao, Lola Christina (May 3, 2024). "Beyoncé Added to New Edition of French Dictionary". London Evening Standard.
Ref 521: Fletcher, Harry (March 20, 2018). "10 Feminist Icons in Music". London Evening Standard.
Ref 651: Friel, Mikhaila (August 28, 2021). "Beyoncé Is Facing Backlash for Promoting a 'Blood Diamond' Necklace in a Tiffany Campaign That Celebrates Her Being the First Black Woman to Wear It". Business Insider.
Spot checks can be demanding work so I'd say give EG some time as he might have time for them right now. @EG, I'm happy to split the workload a bit. I'll do 15 at random – means you can drop down to 15 and go +10 in total. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
Initial source review (only 18 of the first 400 sources for now) as of this revision.
Ref 1 (Curto, Justin (April 30, 2021). "Yes, 'Harmonies by the Hive' Is Beyoncé". Vulture.) - Checks out
Ref 19 (Smolenyak, Megan (January 12, 2012). "A Peek into Blue Ivy Carter's Past". HuffPost.) - While this does check out, the source doesn't seem reliable. It appears to have been self-published by a "contributor"; the website says that "Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site".
Ref 20 (Quinn, Gwendolyn (September 10, 2017). "Beyoncé teams up with Houston pastor to help Harvey survivors". NBC News) - Verifies St. John's United Methodist Church
Ref 21 (Sewing, Joy (September 28, 2023). "Sewing: Beyoncé's homecoming is symbol of pride for Third Ward community". Houston Chronicle) - Verifies St. Mary of the Purification Catholic Church
Ref 63 (Ramirez, Erika (June 22, 2013). "Beyonce, 'Dangerously in Love': Classic Track-By-Track Review". Billboard,) - Checks out
Ref 85 (Sullivan, Caroline (September 1, 2006). "CD: Beyoncé, B'Day". The Guardian.) - It verifies the fact that the album was scheduled for release on September 4. However, do we have a source published after that date, which verifies September 4 as the release date? Ref 86 didn't verify it.
Ref 131 (Battersby, Matilda. "Beyoncé Documentary Describing 'Pain and Trauma' of Miscarriage Airs on BBC". The Independent.) - Checks out
Ref 147 ("Chart History: Billboard Hot 100". Billboard.) - Verifies that these songs reached the top 100
Ref 148 (Molanphy, Chris (August 13, 2022). "How Beyoncé Finally Got Her First No. 1 in 14 Years". Slate.) - Verifies "Love on Top"
Ref 149 (Stone, Rolling (April 1, 2024). "The 70 Greatest Beyoncé Songs". Rolling Stone.) - Verified "Best Thing I Never Had", but I'm pretty sure the author's name is not "Stone, Rolling".
Ref 133 also has the same pseudo-author.
Ref 158 (Goldberg, Lesley (August 29, 2011). "MTV's Video Music Awards Scores Largest Audience Ever". The Hollywood Reporter. ) - Checks out
Ref 205 ("Beyonce Releases New Album 'Lemonade' on Tidal". Billboard. April 24, 2016) - Checks out
Ref 245 (Barlow, Eve (April 15, 2018). "Beyoncé at Coachella review – greatest star of her generation writes herself into history". The Guardian.) - Along with refs 244 and 246, checks out.
However, for ref 244 (James, Emily St. (April 23, 2018). "The Unstoppable Beyoncé".), I think St. James is the last name; St. is probably not part of the first or middle name.
Ref 291 (Snapes, Laura (January 22, 2023). "Beyoncé Makes Controversial Live Return at Exclusive Dubai Concert". The Guardian.) - Checks out
Ref 303 (Aniftos, Rania (March 12, 2024). "Beyoncé Announces Cowboy Carter Album: Here's When It Arrives".) - Verifies March 12 announcement
Ref 304 (McClay, Caché (March 28, 2025). "Beyoncé Released Cowboy Carter Album One year ago: A look back". USA Today. ) - Verifies March 29 release
Ref 372 (Marks, Craig (February 24, 2010). "Producer Rob Fusari Dishes on Lady Gaga, Beyoncé". Billboard.) - I see the quote "What sells records is people believing that the artist is everything". This is a little different from the article, which says that Fusari said people "want to believe the artist is everything".
Sounds good. I'll wait to see if ImaginesTigers is interested in doing part of the source review, but if not, then consider this a pass. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I sign comments if there's a chance you may need to reply. This means you can respond using "reply" and ignore the heinous code
2 – Pass
10 – Can't see this supporting that she owned a salon/hair salon. Quick check of the other reference calls her a former hairstylist and salon owner. I can't see either support that her surname was Beyoncé – is that in one of the next 3 bundled refs? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
16 – What makes this source reliable? I find stuff like this As a result, Beyoncé is thought to be 1/32 Irish a bit anti-scientific / tabloidy (and not supported by the sourcing it is replicating, Creole Magazine—which says creole is that it is a race [...] it is a description of cultural heritage.Why not include this source? Which is framing it way better. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
26 – Doesn't support "reach high-pitched notes" from what I can tell; dance teacher just says she can sing in the source (and the 30 seconds of the clip I watched) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
34 – Passes, but it also mentions that Kelly Rowland is her cousin here and that she was added in 1992 – why include one member of DC but not the other? CTRL+F of article suggests Rowland was added in 2000 (I don't know the group's history but a little confused)Su
Rowland isn't actually her cousin, but i have added that she was later added to the lineup
42 – Supports adopting the name in 1997 but not Book of Isaiah
90 – Pass but I wonder if this should be mentioned from it Beyonce is now the first female artist to hit No. 1 with her first five albums? I would understand if you thought this early accomplishment was superceded by later accomplishments (in an article that skews very very positive already) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources for her being one of the greatest articles of all time are throwing harv errors - suppressing |ref=none to these will suppress the error. Same for "defining artist of the 2000s" and her albums being the greatest in history etc — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source I checked was The Beyoncé Effect. There's a lot of commentary on Beyonce and her influence on feminism in here that isn't utilised. Essays on public/media policing of her body (for which there is another in the biblio essay, utilised once) [521]. This source only appears a handful of times. It supports her nickname, that she makes hip-hop music, and that she has sex appeal. Why isn't this source used more? I see a comment, for example, that Critics credit her with significantly influencing political conversations and movements, such as fourth-wave feminism but there's quite a few essays in here that are critiquing her feminism. I've only read a few pieces about Beyonce but I know bell hooks has critiqued her at length, for example (quick google turned up this article by hooks in TG, but I know she's produced actual essays too)
All in all the article is very positive towards her as a figure and I don't see the negative commentary that I would expect to exist given her fame/influence. There's quite a lot of scholarly discussion of Beyonce and feminism but just not really seeing a lot of coverage for it here, and every that is here is really positive. For a statement like this She has also significantly influenced socio-political matters, using her platform to advocate for women's empowerment, Black culture, and social justice I think I'd really want to see some academic coverage. What do you think? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers: thanks for these comments! so i've increased the use of the several scholarly sources, including The Beyoncé Effect source. As bell hooks did have a pretty notable critique, I have also included her in the article (i don't think we need to include much on her, and if anything i think a lot of that can go into her cultural impact article). somewhat similar for your comment on the article being "very positive towards her as a figure". the article really isn't that "positive" on her; most of the 'legacy' section is simply stating how she's been influential as a figure, and i don't really know what "negative" impact she's had on the industry. i'm not sure what kind of negative commentary would be appropriate to include in this context without it becoming WP:TMI, which again feels more relevant to the cultural impact page. However, I have added the critique of bell hooks; what do you think of the current state of the article? 750h+16:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ref fixes. After finishing those, I don't feel the need to do more. While there were minor nitpicks, I I was able to identify any issues quickly, and you quickly corrected them with better sourcing. The substance of the changes didn't change the substance of the article, so I'm happy to pass from a sourcing perspective.
From a comprehensiveness perspective, I see your points but I don't agree. I think we should be including all reliably published viewpoints where possible and I don't think we currently do so. I don't think it is TMI to provide a proper overview. Let's compare the high-level overview provided by The Beyoncé Effect alongside our article's treatment. Please note this is almost a single paragraph in the source but I am splitting up each viewpoint:
Beyoncé Knowles-Carter has generated popular narratives of feminism writ large. These narratives, however, have not always been embraced by fellow feminists.
Some consider her too aligned with accepted patriarchal and white supremacist standards of beauty and femininity.
Some see her as too commercial and part of a neoliberal corporate structure that undermines feminist agendas.
Still others view her women’s empowerment memes as too simplistic to advance political perspectives that can meaningfully impact the lives of women disadvantaged by the same economic, racial, and sexual systems that have rewarded the pop star with class-based, color, and able-bodied heterosexual privileges.
It is certainly a major topic by scholars. We can compare some of the above with the article's paragraph on Beyonce and feminism:
In a 2013 interview with Vogue, Beyoncé stated that she considered herself "a modern-day feminist". Her self-identification incited debate about whether her feminism is aligned with older, more established feminist ideals; Annie Lennox referred to her use of the word feminist as "feminist lite". Beyoncé publicly aligned with feminism by sampling Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's 2013 TEDx speech "We should all be feminists" in "Flawless", released later that year. She performed at the 2014 MTV Video Music Awards before a giant "Feminist" backdrop. Concerned about Beyonce's visual representation and her impact on young women, scholar bell hooks stated: "I see a part of Beyoncé that is in fact, anti-feminist, that is a terrorist [...] especially in terms of the impact on young girls".
What I see here is: she considers herself a feminist; Annie Lennox thinks she's a diet feminist (no example); Beyoncé sampled something that included the word feminist; Beyoncé danced in front of a feminist sign; bell hooks doesn't think she is part anti-feminist.
I think hooks' commentary reflects the 3rd of my bullet points above (Some see her as too commercial and part of a neoliberal corporate structure that undermines feminist agendas) but we're representing that rather salaciously (the part that calls her a terrorist to young girls).
My apologies; I know it sucks to get this kind of feedback. I hope you can understand where I am coming from. I would prefer we had a paragraph on feminism, briefly mention how Beyonce has associated herself with it (sourced to scholars, not newspapers), and providing an overview of the green bullets above. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers: much thanks for the response, also no need to apologise, the feedback is relaly helpful to the article! I've added a paragraph to the "Legacy" section that goes into more detail on the whole matter and does give more critique on her way/impact of feminism and race. It might stick out a bit in the section but what do you think? 750h+13:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I'll gently push back on the characterisation of scholarship – one of them the most famous AA academic – as "critique on her race"!)
If I'd seen this at peer review, I'd have advocated for some larger changes. Picking on the Triers collection, for example, there's 13 dedicated essays in there that we use no material from (only the intro). It looks like an incredible but underutilised resource for her impact on popular culture and later biographical elements. Truly high-quality RS account for somewhere under 50% of the material, which I think poses longevity concerns, but there are processes for that.
All this said, I'm no music scholar. I can't tell you what music/hip-hop/pop music academics should be cited here beyond what you've already included. I've checked almost every author for anything completely inappropriate. What I've found that your content is judiciously supported by generally well-chosen journalistic sources with strong authorial credentials for the important stuff, with a tendency towards lower quality sources at an earlier stage of Beyoncé's fame. I can't oppose on this basis. Taylor Swift suffers from these issues to a far greater extent, and it was promoted in 2016, with essentially no critical feedback at the 2021 PR.
I won't be the sole editor bearing this torch for a nom that's gathered significant positive traction. The material I thought should be included is in there now, so I'll support once these two final issues are fixed:
Marking my spot. I'm 99% sure this is gonna be a support on my part already, but I did want to give this another once-over just in case I missed anything in light of some of the newer edits. Will be out for a few days but will get on this as soon as I'm back. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! Been a busy past few days, and I've been hitting up a few old articles in my spare time that I've planned to do for a bit. Still plan on getting this done soon, expect this in hopefully a few days. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+ actually I lied, I had some spare time tonight, so I decided to take a leaf through. Overall, I had no major issues with the prose, and in fact it actually looks even better than I first reviewed it. Per my last review and this one, I'm Supporting this for FAC. Fantastic work! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason the following high-quality academic sources aren't utilised (at least to my eye, forgive me if I missed them in the gargantuan references section):
@AirshipJungleman29: thanks for the sources and recommendations! My responses below:
The article already uses the first source (Iddon and Marshall)
The article already made use of the Black Camera source, though I have incorporated it significantly more
From what I read, the Tinsley source is very similar to the above source, though I've tried to make sure I've used it where possible
'Popular Music and Society, Volume 42, Issue 1 (2019): Special Issue on Beyoncé' has nothing for inclusion, they could possibly go into the subarticles (albums, cultural impact article) but nothing here.
I incorporated Cashmore's source where relevant; since it's not a biography and focuses on a specific area, I can't use it extensively.
I use the Arenovsky source sparingly due to me having limited access. it was published before 2009 (which is fully covered in the article), so it would only cover a small portion of the article anyway. 750h+06:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for this source @Heartfox:! i have used it a bit in the article, however on a read of it, it only goes into detail on some of her early life, a bit of her work with Destiny's Child, and a 1-2 of her songs from her self-titled album and Lemonade. A lot of the chapter is dedicated to people with some or no relation to Beyonce. 750h+09:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: another high quality source! unfortunately on a scan of the article goes more into how some of beyonce's songs and her public image have been politically significant. like the other source, the source includes a lot of comparison to others with some or no relation to the singer. 750h+08:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am working through Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and came upon Beyoncé because it is in that Category. I was able to correct a Harv error but right now there are 40 Harv warnings scattered throughout the cites, all happening for the superlatives describing the subject: 14 for Ref #7, 4 for Ref #386, 8 for Ref #494, 6 for Ref #500, 8 for Ref #502. These cite warnings should be corrected, all of them are in the single numbered but multi-referenced cites. Also, the 14 cites for Ref #7, 8 for Ref #494, 8 for Ref #502 seem to be veering into WP:OVERCITE territory... - Shearonink (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: Beyonce is no longer in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. As noted by a previous reviewer, i've added the 'ref=none' parameter to all the multi-cite notes to prevent these errors. I’ve reduced the references in ref 7 from 14 to 8, which i believe to be acceptable since they are in a footnote and won’t appear cluttered; also given past controversies surrounding "greatest entertainers" and "most influential artists" being included i think having mutiple citatons is best. 750h+02:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: Over a three-decade career characterized by continuous musical reinvention, she has redefined the standards of artistry and performance in popular music. Beyoncé is often deemed one of the greatest entertainers and most influential artists of all time. I think the second sentence basically reiterates what the first sentence already states...
Early life:
while Tina is Louisiana Creole with African, French, Irish, Breton, Norman and Native American ancestry I think a link to Norman is also helpful, since you link Breton...
outperforming older competitors aged fifteen and sixteen do you mean "winning" or "championing"?
Retrospectively, she said that the women at the salon helped her understand beauty, healing, and the importance of service. a beautiful reflection, but I'm not sure if this is worthy of inclusion, unless these realizations shaped Beyonce's career or image later on (if this is the case, it should be made explicit imo)
Early career/Destiny's Child
entered the group in Star Search I get what this means, but I'm unsure if "enter [sb] into [sth]" is a popular phrasing.. perhaps "brought the group in Star Search" is preferable?
In 1995, Mathew Knowles left his job to manage the group, which halved the Knowles family's income, leading to them moving into separate apartments. does them here refer to Mathew+Tina or their kids as well?
the entire family, so yes, including the kids
After being briefly signed by Elektra Records and later dropped, tensions led to a six-month separation of Beyoncé's parents. dangling modifier here...
(Optional) I personally refrain from using phrasings like "self-titled", "eponymous", "title track" etc thanks to the essay WP:ELEVAR. It's an essay and not a guideline so this is just some food for thoughts and not something I strongly advise you to implement..
I think how successful a song/album/film is should always be quantified, e.g. The Writing's on the Wall became one of the best-selling R&B albums of all time. do we know how many copies has the album sold?
Dangerously in Love and B'Day
The album was released on June 24, 2003, following the solo releases of her Destiny's Child bandmates. not sure if the italicized part is notable...
The album earned Beyoncé a then record-tying five awards at the 46th Annual Grammy Awards I would just say that she won five awards that night and not mention the "record-tying" bit..
each saw moderate chart success. ditto here: I would clarify if these singles reached the top 20/30? etc.
Beyoncé's first acting role in 2006 was in the comedy film The Pink Panther. I think it's worth mentioning that a song she recorded for this film, "Check on It", was a #1 hit
This article is about Rosa Parks, the civil rights activist. Her famous refusal to move probably needs no introduction, but she was also a committed activist throughout her life, not just as part of the civil rights movement, but as part of the broader Black freedom struggle as well. This is my first FA nomination, which I've been encouraged to undertake by @Noleander. They were the reviewer on my GA nom back in April. I have tried my best to prepare the article for FA, including via peer review and assistance from the GoCE. There have been some issues with the infobox image, which I think have been resolved, but I welcome any assistance with the image verification/selection process, which I have struggled with. In general, I welcome any comments and feedback on the article and hope we can get it to FA. Thank y'all for your time! Spookyaki (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did the GA and contributed to the PR, so may as well finish the trifecta
Ambigous After Parks was found guilty of violating state law, it was extended indefinitely,... the word "it" is ambiguous (could mean "state law"); Consider replacing with "the boycott"
Copyright of statue? Regarding image File:Rosa Parks statue NSHC.jpg ... that is a photo of a statue. I see the photo is free-use since it is by a govmt employee; but is there any issue related to the statue itself? Does the artist have a copyright that may be an issue? I don't know ... I'm just posing the question.
Image captions: end in period? The No. 2857 bus on which Parks was riding before her arrest (a GM "old-look" transit bus, serial number 1132) is now a museum exhibit at the Henry Ford Museum The policy WP:CAPFRAG says that captions that are full sentences should end in periods (but if the caption is a sentence fragement (which most captions are) no period is required). Also A plaque entitled "The Bus Stop" at Dexter Avenue and Montgomery Street—where Parks boarded the bus—pays tribute to her and the success of the Montgomery bus boycott
Added periods.
Clarify who is the owner When her rent became delinquent and her impending eviction was publicized in 2004, executives of the ownership company announced they had forgiven the back rent ... The "ownership company" may confuse some readers. Maybe replace with "landlord" or "landlords"; also consider linking to article Landlord
Replaced with "her landlord".
... enlisted the support of local Black clergy, including the pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Martin Luther King Jr. Reading fast, I read that as two different pastors. Consder ... enlisted the support Martin Luther King Jr (at that time the pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church). Or maybe it is just me.
Rephrased a bit: WPC members distributed the leaflets throughout the Black community, and Nixon enlisted the support of several members of the local Black clergy, including Martin Luther King Jr, who was the pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. Does that help?
Consider moving the photo of the bus File:Rosa_parks_bus.jpg up higher, into the bus ride section(s). I know the photo is of the museum display, but it is still the bus.
Clarify In her account, she verbally resists Mr. Charlie's advances and denounces his racism. It is not clear if she "denounces his racism" means she denounced his racism during the assault; or if she did not (but did denounce the racism within her account written years later).
Changed wording to In her account, she claims that she verbally resisted Mr. Charlie's advances and denounced his racism.Spookyaki (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation tool: I ran the tool and it reported one warning: https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/rosa-parks ... I checked the report, and that warning is a false positive: the textual overlaps are quotations of primary sources, or some common phrases or proper names.
Image captions redux: For big captions that are - strictly speaking - sentence fragments, consider converting them to a full sentences. E.g. Parks being fingerprinted on February 22, 1956 after being arrested again alongside 73 others following a grand jury's indictment of hundreds of Black organizers for orchestrating the Montgomery bus boycott consider a full sentence such as Parks was fingerprinted on February 22, 1956 after being arrested again alongside 73 others following a grand jury's indictment of hundreds of Black organizers for orchestrating the Montgomery bus boycott. IMHO, that makes it easier for readers to scan/parse larger captions.
Image captions: Citations? Not a big deal for me, but some reviewers say that if a caption states a fact (regardless if the caption is a fragment or full sentence) the caption should have a citation. Just FYI ... not a show-stopper for me.
Better wording? Prior to Parks's refusal to move, numerous Black Montgomerians had engaged in similar acts of resistance against segregated public transportation. After her arrest in 1955, local activists decided to use it as a test case against segregation, leading the Women's Political Council (WPC) to organize a one-day bus boycott on the day of her trial. Something tells me this can be clearer & give a better sense of the time spans. Perhaps something like Starting in 1944, Black activists began to refuse to move from their seats, leading to numerous arrests. Local leaders were searching for a person who would be a good legal test case against segregation when Parks was arrested in 1955. She was deemed [or determined] to be a good candidate, so the Women's Political Council (WPC) organized a one-day bus boycott on the day of her trial. Or something like that.
I incorporated some of these suggestions. However, I think it's important to note that we don't actually know if resistance to segregated public transit began in 1944. Parks herself participated in one such act of resistance (albeit a much smaller one than in 1955) in 1943. My guess is that there were probably many earlier cases that we just haven't heard about. I also don't think it's correct to call all of these people activists. A lot of these people were presumably just living their lives. As a result, I think" Prior to Parks's refusal to move, several..." (or numerous) and "Black Montgomerians" are actually most precise. Spookyaki (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like some word are missing ?? Nixon and King both gave speeches, while Abernathy read the demands of the organizers to the crowd, asking them to stand if they supported a continued boycott: # Courteous treatment on the buses; First-come, first-served seating with whites in front and blacks in back; Hiring of black drivers for the black bus routes.[91] I'm not sure what is happening here. Is this a formatting problem? What is the pound sign (#) doing? Is this a ballot of some items that were voted on? Suggest eliminating the bulleted text and replace with prose. Or maybe put into a blockquote template.
Wanted to see if I could fit all of the gallery images in the body of the article, per policy. I ultimately was, though I had to remove one of the images to get them all to fit. Let me know if I need to make any more adjustments. Spookyaki (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rosa_Parks_(13270402093)_(cropped).jpg: is a more specific tag available?
Eugh. It seems like it is copyrighted (at least to my untrained eye). My impression from this page is that it was published in 1982 by the Schlesinger Library, which say that it may "not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means". This will be an absolute nightmare to replace, but I'll see what I can do. Spookyaki (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rosa_Parks_Signature.svg: source link is dead.Ditto File:Rosa_Parks_being_fingerprinted_by_Deputy_Sheriff_D.H._Lackey_after_being_arrested_on_February_22,_1956,_during_the_Montgomery_bus_boycott.jpg, File:Rosa_Parks_medal.gif, File:President_Bill_Clinton_presents_Rosa_Parks_with_the_Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom_in_the_Oval_Office.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rosa_Parks_Signature.svg—If the link here is dead, how much does that matter given the PD justification? Would it be best practice to upload an alternative with a working link? Spookyaki (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rosa_Parks_being_fingerprinted_by_Deputy_Sheriff_D.H._Lackey_after_being_arrested_on_February_22,_1956,_during_the_Montgomery_bus_boycott.jpg—Updated source. Spookyaki (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. On the signature, I'd suggest adding a link for verification, even if it's not the exact one the uploader used. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also commented on this at PR, so I'll just leave this note. But I'll keep an eye on this and if it looks like it's needed more attention, I'll be happy to come back and do a full review.
My library has a copy of The rebellious life of Mrs. Rosa Parks, which you use to support the bit about the bus driver getting off the bus to call his supervisor. It turns out, it's a different edition than you used and it tells the story differently! The copy that's in IA says "Blake left the bus to call the supervisor from the pay phone on the corner. I was under orders to call them first", then goes into a bit of detail about the phone conversation and says he then placed another call to the police. The edition I have just says "Blake got off the bus to call the police". It's weird that they would recount the story differently.
I'm surprised this has drawn so little attention, so I'm in for a deeper dive.
She investigated and organized campaigns around cases of racial and sexual violence ... should be rephrased to make it clear that she investigated cases, not investigated campaigns.
MOS:RACECAPS says it's OK to capitalize Black while leaving white in lower case, which is what this article does. Still, it seems odd to me, so noting it here while also acknowledging it is MOS-compliant.
So I do have a specific reason for this. In the United States, the word "black" can refer to distinct but interrelated concepts. One is "black" as race—that is, the socially constructed confluence of physical traits and social signifiers that constitute blackness. One corollary to this term, in the United States, would be "white" (lowercase). However, "Black" can also refer to an ethnic group—a people with a shared history and culture partially defined by the experience of being uprooted and forced into slavery. They are members of an "imagined community" of other Black people. Corollaries to this usage of the word would include "French," "Japanese," or "Nigerian". These different meanings are, crucially, connected. The term "Black", referring to the ethnic group is perhaps distinct from "black", referring to the race, but is also partially defined by the racial imaginary of "blackness". As such, I think in the American context, it makes sense to treat "Black" as both a racial and ethnic identifier, and therefore to capitalize it. Meanwhile, there is no reason to capitalize "white", but you would capitalize "American", "Irish", "Italian", etc. I should note that I am not Black, and that maybe this is a misguided assessment, but this is why I generally use this schema in the American context. Spookyaki (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little odd that in "Pine Level, Alabama" you only link the town but in "Abbeville, Alabama" you link both the town and the state.
Montgomery's Black residents conducted boycotts against segregated streetcars I don't think a "streetcar" is the same thing as a "bus".
That is true. I think the difficulty is that Theoharis calls them buses. From what I can tell, the streetcars were replaced by buses in 1936.[1] For now, I think I'll just replace "bus" with "streetcar", since that's logically what they were and since that's the term that Meier/Rudwick were, but if you'd like, I can also add an explanatory footnote explaining that Theoharis calls them buses. Spookyaki (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the first ten rows ... the last ten rows this is a little confusing given the adjacent illustration of a bus with only 12 rows.
Hmmm... True. I imagine that it was probably different for different-sized buses. I think I'll just replace with "front" and "back" rows to avoid confusion. Spookyaki (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abernathy read the demands of the organizers to the crowd, asking them to stand if they supported a continued boycott" I had to read this a couple of times to figure out how to parse it correctly. I'd put the list of demands immediately after "read the demands of the organizers to the crowd", and move "asking them to stand ..." after the list.
One more item to add, and this is a vague one. Ganesha811 mentioned below the issue of non-American readers needing additional context. This is indeed a concern. As an American, I grew up learning about Parks in school, so most of the events described in this article were already familiar to me. I've been to the Henry Ford Museum and visited the bus exhibit. This certainly influenced how receptive I was to the story. I hope this gets reviewed by some editors who are not from the US and not familiar with Parks already. They will give us a better take on how well the context and background is presented. RoySmith(talk)12:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should have time to review this over the upcoming week. I'll take a first pass at it tomorrow! It's a big project for a first nomination! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For non-Americans, I think a sentence in the third paragraph explaining the basic fact of racial segregation (black passengers had to sit at the back of the bus) would be appropriate.
Throughout the article, she is sometimes referred to as 'Rosa' and sometimes as 'Parks'. From what I can see she is generally called 'Rosa' when the sentence also mentions her husband. Wouldn't it be simpler to just call her Parks throughout and refer to her husband, when mentioned, as 'Raymond'? It also may make more sense to call her 'McCauley' before her marriage, as that was her name then.
I see now that MOS:SAMESURNAME says that "when referring to the person who is the subject of the article", you should "use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing". This is... A bit vague to me (what constitutes a list of family members?), but it does seem to justify changing some instances of Rosa to Parks. I've done so in cases where it's clear who "Parks" would be referring to. When referring to them as a couple, I've opted to use "Rosa and Raymond", though I suppose I could use "the Parkses".
There doesn't seem to be any guidance on using maiden names, but I did a cursory check through some other Featured Articles on women with distinct maiden and married names who are better known by their married names (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green/Current Featured Content). 19 use the person's married name (or the relevant variation) throughout the article.[a] 14 use the person's maiden name until they're married.[b] Interestingly, 13 use the person's forename until they're married.[c] A handful of articles also use alternative naming schemes. Overall, this indicates a slight preference for using the married name throughout the article, but nothing definitive. In any case, I don't see any reason to change it. Spookyaki (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there's no clear guideline, I think it's fine the way you've adjusted it. It is funny that two of the FAs you put in the second category are ones I nominated - using maiden names until marriage is my preference, so that's skewing the numbers here a little! Anyway, no need to change.
Alabama and other southern states this paragraph has little to do with her Early life, except for the last sentence. I can see why it's there, but maybe it (and some other similar sentences found later in the article) should be moved to its own subsection, called 'Context of segregation' or something like that - definitely do come up with something better than that if you can.
I don't really think that's necessary. Why would the sociopolitical context in which she was born not impact her early life? Spookyaki (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it did, but I'm saying it's not clear to me, the reader, why it's dropped in the middle of these paragraphs. You could move it earlier, to the start of the section, or later, and integrate it with the material on how bus segregation functioned in Montgomery.
Hmmm.... Okay, I think I probably put it there because that's around when Parks would first be experiencing conscious thoughts (she's basically two at the end of the previous paragraph). Admittedly, that's a pretty esoteric organization scheme. However, I'm not really sure where it would be better-placed. I don't think it fits very well at the beginning of the section, mostly because of the last sentence. I would say that Parks's memories of childhood probably don't extend to when she was two. However, I would say that I am strongly opposed to it going later. The sociopolitical context of Parks's childhood is important for understanding her early life. Maybe I could add an introductory sentence to the paragraph better tying it to Parks's life? For example, "Growing up in Alabama, Parks faced a society characterized by racial segregation and violence". Spookyaki (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is her tonsillectomy important in some way? Seems like fairly trivial detail.
Most biographical sources mention it, but I guess it's not a particularly important detail in the grand scheme of her life. I can remove it if you think it's necessary. Spookyaki (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did she graduate from high school? When did she and Raymond move to Montgomery/buy a house?
The former is already answered in the article: "In 1933, Rosa completed her high school education with encouragement from Raymond". As for the latter, I can't find a precise date, but per Brinkley, it was soon after they married, so added a sentence indicating that. Spookyaki (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So she graduated from the lab school? Or the Montgomery Industrial School? It's not clear where she graduated from in the text.
Ooooooh I see, thank you for highlighting lol. Not sure. Here's what three sources have to say:
To help pull themselves out of these dire straits, Raymond Parks encouraged his young wife to go back to school for her high school diploma, which she earned in 1933. "At that time only a small percentage of black people in Montgomery were high school graduates," Rosa Parks related. "In 1940, seven years after I got my diploma, only seven out of every hundred had as much as a high school diploma." (Brinkley 2000, pp. 41-42)
While Raymond fought for the Scottsboro Boys and tried to protect Rosa from any repercussions due to his activities, he also encouraged her to return to school to complete her high school education. In 1933, at the age of 20, Rosa Parks earned her high school diploma. (Hanson 2011, p. 25)
Their marriage was a strong partnership grounded in mutual respect, and after they wed, Raymond encouraged Rosa to go on and finish her high school education. Rosa earned her diploma in 1933 at the age of twenty. This accomplishment put Rosa in the minority in terms of education of African Americans. (Mace 2021, p. 42)
If you can find a source that mentions this, I think it'd be good to have. It's a baseline biographical detail, not 100% necessary, but I think worth spending some time trying to find. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, can't find anything. From what I can tell, this claim is usually attributed to Parks's 1992 memoir, where she says the following:
My husband was very supportive of my desire to finish school, and I went back to school after we were married. I received my high school diploma in 1933 when I was twenty years old. At that time only a small percentage of black people in Montgomery were high school graduates. In 1940, seven years after I got my diploma, only seven out of every hundred had as much as a high school education.
Recy Taylor Was that judgment by the Defender contemporary or retrospective?
Not clear from the source:
With support from local people, she helped organize what the Chicago Defender called the "strongest campaign for equal justice to be seen in a decade."
first time in her adult life - this seems to slightly contradict what was said earlier about Maxwell AFB. Do any sources comment on this?
I don't really think it's contradictory. Maxwell was integrated, yes, and that seems to have had an impact on Rosa. However, that's not the same as the sort of harmony she seemed so struck by at Highlander. Here's the full paragraph that sentence is derived from, it it helps:
The respite she found at Highlander was evident in her descriptions from a 1956 interview in which she described its “relaxing atmosphere” that was "more than a vacation but an education in itself." She found “for the first time in my adult life that this could be a unified society, that there was such a thing as people of all races and backgrounds meeting and having workshops and living together in peace and harmony." The atmosphere proved a salve for some of the psychic exhaustion she had been feeling and began to transform what Parks imagined was possible, a society not riven with racism. "I had heard there was such a place, but I hadn’t been there."
It seems evident to me that she found both experiences illuminating, probably in different ways, regarding the possibilities of an integrated society. Spookyaki (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be good to expand on this slightly in the text, just a phrase or parenthetical.
Okay, I think I slightly mischaracterized the quote. Technically, she didn't say that it was the first time she had witnessed people of all races and backgrounds interacting harmoniously, she said that it was the first time in her adult life that she could envision a "unified society", then described the integrated nature of Highlander. I made some adjustments to hopefully make things more clear: Parks enjoyed her time at Highlander, where Black and white people worked, cooked, and lived together as equals. She later recalled it as one of the rare moments in her life when she felt no racial hostility and the first time in her adult life that she could envision a "unified society", describing how "people of all races and backgrounds" interacted harmoniously. Does that seem sufficient? Spookyaki (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the NAACP want to start with / focus on bus segregation particularly? A sentence or two on that would be helpful, given the pervasiveness of segregation in all areas of life.
What do you think is missing? The "Montgomery buses: law and prevailing customs" section describes the conditions on Montgomery buses and how it impacted Black people's daily lives. The "Refusal to move" sections covers several noted instances of defiance against bus segregation, including two that the NAACP and WPC rallied around before Parks. I think it's pretty clear why the NAACP and WPC, two Black civic organizations, would want to address it. Spookyaki (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article does a good job talking about bus segregation, but there were many forms of segregation - education, housing, social, etc. Why start with transportation? If the sources don't cover this, that's ok, but it would be good to add if possible.
I mean, they didn't? Parks herself was working with the NAACP on sexual violence cases and voting rights throughout the 1930s and 1940s. They were working on addressing multiple aspects of racism in the Jim Crow South, and Rosa Parks presented them with an opportunity to address transportation in particular. Spookyaki (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, fair enough I guess. If possible, could you adjust the wording slightly to make this a little clearer? If you don't think a change makes sense that's ok too, it's just a question that occurred to me, the reader, as I got through that section. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I tried to expand on it a little: Many Black riders rallied around the idea of a boycott in the aftermath of Colvin's arrest. Black activists, including members of the WPC and NAACP, considered both Colvin and Smith as test cases for a community bus boycott. The WPC was particularly focused on bus integration, partly because it was an issue that significantly affected Black women. However, both the WPC and NAACP ultimately determined that Colvin and Smith were were not suitable candidates for such a test case. Is that sufficient, do you think? Spookyaki (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Theoharis quote on what Parks "might" have said is a bit too long. It seems very hypothetical - shorten and integrate into text. The quote block makes it too prominent.
Shortened to According to Theoharis, while Parks was celebrated as a heroine by the crowd at that moment, she was excluded from the movement's later strategic discussions.Spookyaki (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any sources mention her reaction to her second arrest when the boycott was declared illegal? She was bailed out, one presumes?
Yes, and thank you for pointing this out. Digging deeper into this revealed a number of inconsistencies regarding the actual number of people indicted/arrested, and I had to add a footnote. Here's what I settled on: In February, a state grand jury declared the boycott illegal, indicting a number of the boycott's leaders, including Parks, many of whom were arrested.[d] Amidst protests at the courthouse, the arrestees were released on bond. Ultimately, only King was tried after the indictment. The boycott continued.Spookyaki (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given her poor health at the time, is it accurate to say she "boycotted" the 2003 NAACP Image Awards? Had she attended previous iterations of the event? I know "boycott" is the word the source uses, but it doesn't mention any particular statement or communication from her. Did other sources cover this as well?
My understanding is that a TV series about her was actually up for an award, but she refused to go. She had attended at least one previous award ceremony in 1997 (six years earlier),[2] so I guess it's not totally implausible that she might have tried to attend otherwise. Spookyaki (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Thanks for your hard work on this. With those final changes I am happy to support, with the note that, as RoySmith says, it would be great to also hear from a non-American about how smoothly the article reads and provides needed context. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^A contemporary news story from the New York Daily News puts the number indicted at 113 and the number arrested at 73. However, according to Hanson, 89 were indicted and 75 were arrested. According to Mace, the city was prepared to arrest 115, but 89 were ultimately indicted, and 75 were arrested.
Just a note that this nom still requires a source review for reliability plus (given this in the nominator's first time at FAC) a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing or plagiarism. I've made the requests at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since my previous submission – 2021 World Figure Skating Championships – has neared approval, I am submitting another. The 2025 U.S. Figure Skating Championships took place this past January, and less than a week later, 28 skaters died when their airplane crashed into a helicopter and plunged into the Potomac River. I was in attendance at this competition. Waking up to find out that a bunch of junior skaters whom I remember seeing in the arena had drowned in a plane crash was one of the worst days of my life. That being said, the competition results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, the background and history have been extensively re-written to incorporate changes made to 2021 World Figure Skating Championships, the sources are properly formatted and archived (where possible), and relevant photographs are used. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and I look forward to any constructive input. Bgsu98(Talk)20:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph of Qualification is unreferenced The entirety of the Qualification section is covered by source no. 2, but I copied the source to cover both paragraphs.
I already looked at that source and could not find the mention of "the Pacific Coast Sectional Finals, Eastern Sectional Finals, Midwestern Sectional Finals, U.S. Ice Dance Finals, or U.S. Pairs Finals in November". Could you point me to where it says this? Hawkeye7(discuss)22:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hawkeye7: Thank you for taking the time to do the source review! I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Please let me know if you have any other feedback or suggestions.
Bgsu98(Talk)21:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. I am sorry, but unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. For whatever it may be worth, I shall post below my boilerplate on attracting reviewers.
Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process.
Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue.
The logo in the infobox seems to be missing alt text.
Per MOS:DATERANGE I think the date in the infobox is considered "simple" since it takes place in the same month and year and shouldn't have spaces on either side of the dash
Bit of a technical thing, but I think {{Main}} would work better than {{See also}} for the link in the section about the flight
I'd also maybe suggest appending "and aftermath" to the end of that section header since it goes on to talk about the tribute event
Per MOS:BQ, quotes longer than fourty words should use {{blockquote}} instead of {{quotebox}} (also noting the template instructions on the latter "this use is only rarely appropriate in articles")
Think that's all I have, I see source and image reviews have already been done, so covering some of the other accessibility areas, all the tables have captions and captions seem to be compliant.
User:TheDoctorWho: Thank you for your feedback. I have implemented your suggestions. Let me know if I formatted that quote properly. I'm not used to using either of those templates. Thank you! Bgsu98(Talk)19:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reign of Æthelred the Unready (978-1013 and 1014-1016) was a disaster which ended in the conquest of England by the Danish Viking Cnut. This article is about Ulfcytel, who was the one military leader on the English side to receive universal praise in English and Scandinavian sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not ideal to have a quote in the lead: the Danes said that "they never met worse fighting in England than Ulfcytel dealt to them. In general, most of the article should be in encyclopedia's voice; and quotes should be used sparingly - for super interesting tidbits. This statement "they never met worse fighting ..." is rather mundane and could be written in encyclopedia's voice.
More precise message to reader: Ulfcytel is regarded as the most effective English military leader during the disastrous reign of Æthelred the Unready (1078–1013 and 1014–1016). The word "disastrous" made me smile, but tells me very little. Consider Ulfcytel is regarded as the most effective English military leader during the reign of Æthelred the Unready (1078–1013 and 1014–1016), which was marked by <some specifics about the bad events>.
Wording ...he was married to a daughter of King Æthelred, and historians disagree... My ears expect "but" instead of the "and". But that might just be a regional preference.
I think that "According to one source" signals that it is not widely reported, and "but" would jar with me as implying a contrast with wide acceptance. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Separate sentences? By 1004 he was the dominant figure in East Anglia, and he held this status until his death in 1016,[13] but his origin and background are unknown. Those two ideas seem rather unrelated; consider splitting into two sentences.
I have a probably unreasonable prejudice against short staccato sentences. How about starting the paragraph with "Ulfcytel's origin and background are unknown, and he is first recorded as a signatory to charters (grants of land and privileges) in 1002."? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear ... which could explain his anomalous status. I'm not sure which part of his life the word "anomalous" is referring to, when used here. In the preceding couple of paragraphs, there are a few odd/uncertain things about him. Consider re-wording to replace "anomalous" with specific words identifying the odd aspect.
I'm having a hard time parsing this ..., but he attested charters as a minister, the Latin for thegn, the third rank. I'm guessing that " the Latin for thegn" is a parenthetical comment explaining the word "minister"? If that is correct, readers would be happier to see ..., but he attested charters as a minister (the Latin word for thegn) – the third rank or something like that.
Explain important term: ... first recorded as a signatory to royal charters in .. the word "charter" is used several times, but the word is not defined ... which would be nice for readers unfamiliar with Britain. The first use of the word "charter" should have a blue link. And - in addition - a few words should be added so readers are not required to click the link. e.g. first recorded as a signatory to royal charters (documents promulgating laws or granting land) in .. I'm not sure if Charter and Royal charter require two separate links in this article?
Anglo-Saxon charters is a better link, although there is no fully satisfactory one. Historians of the period distinguish between "diplomas" which are royal grants of land and privileges, and charters, a broader term which also covers other documents such as wills. The documents that Ulfcytel attested are closer to diplomas, but also cover the grant he made himself, so obviously not a royal grant. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wording: The etymology of Ulfcytel's name is Scandinavian Might be better as The origin of Ulfcytel's name ... or The root of Ulfcytel's name .... I think the word etymology means "the study of the origin" or "the analysis of the origin", which is slightly different than "the origin".
Etymology also has the meaning I have used it for. Meaning 1 in OED is "The facts relating to the origin of a particular word or the historical development of its form and meaning; the origin of a particular word." Dudley Miles (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add link The Danes gained a pyrrhic victory... Some readers will be happy to see a link to pyrrhic victory.
Wording could be clearer: Payment of tribute to the Vikings was common and severely criticised in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; its portrayal of Ulfcytel's decision as sensible is an exception It may be clearer as Payment of tribute to the Vikings was generally criticised whenever discussed in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; so the portrayal of Ulfcytel's decision as sensible is a notable exception. or something like that.
Plain statement vs qualified? Ulfcytel is described as having been wounded while leading ... ... why is that not written as Ulfcytel was wounded while leading ...? The article has plenty of plain declarations, such as Ulfcytel ordered the ships to be destroyed ... so why the tentative wording "Ulfcytel is described ..." used here? I is okay to use qualifying words like "described" "may have" "possible" "hypothesized" ... but usually those are used only when the source is questionable or there is a scholarly disagreement. Is that the case for Ulfcytel is described as having been wounded while leading ...?
ISBN-13 - Came into existence in 2007, and hence should not be in the citation for an edition of a book from before 2007. The article has a few sources that are an issue. Examples:
(2003). Æthelred the Unready: The Ill-Counselled King. London, UK: Hambledon and London. ISBN 978-1-85285-382-2.
Whitelock, Dorothy, ed. (1979). English Historical Documents, Volume 1, c. 500–1042 (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-14366-0.
Stenton, Frank (1971) [1943]. Anglo-Saxon England (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280139-5.
Mynors, R. A. B.; Thomson, R. M.; Winterbottom, M., eds. (1998). William of Malmesbury: Gesta Regum Anglorum, The History of the English Kings (in Latin and English). Vol. I. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-820678-1.
For those sources, you should identify the year of the specific edition you read when preparing the article, then either (a) if it the edition/reprint is post-2007, then change the cite to use the post-2007 year; or (b) if the edition is before 2007, change the cite to use the ISBN-10.
When I started submitting articles to FAC ten years ago a reviewer said that I should be consistent on sticking to ISBN 10 or 13. Since then, I have always used ISBN 13, converting from 10 if that is what is shown in the book, and no one has queried it before. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Peculiar phrase: Ulfcytel has a high reputation in contemporary sources and among Anglo-Norman historians... The phrase "has a high reputation " doesn't sound right. Is that a term of art used by historians? If not, consider using more typical phrasing such as Ulfcytel is held in high regard by ... or Ulfcytel is highly regarded by both ... or Ulfcytel is esteemed by ... something like that.
Any of the four looks fine to my eye. Dr Johnson used "high reputation", more than 300 people in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography from Sir Henry Acland to Diana Wynyard are said to have one, and if you type it into the search engine of the Internet Archive you get thousands of hits – so it must, I think, be regarded as good idiomatic usage ("idiomatic" in the English sense, that is, rather than the American). I'll clock in at this review for a proper look shortly. Tim riley talk12:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not thrilled with the alts - ideally we'd want them to be saying something you can see from looking at the image that you don't already get from the caption. But not a massive deal. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...to carry out their duties... I would avoid the possessive pronoun, because it is ambiguous (especially, because "ealdormanries" are not persons, in contrast with (high-)reeves).
A link to "councillors"? (I assume they hold a specific office in East Anglia.)
I do not think there is an article to link to and there was not a specific office. It seems to have been a vague term which meant local high ranking men who advised him. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Lead) ...the Danes said that "they never met worse fighting in England than Ulfcytel dealt to them" This is not presented as a fact in the main text, but a report by a chronicle.
The source is the Chronicle, but historians treat is as a fact.
(Lead) Scandinavian sources... The use of plural is not verified in the main text.
"and although he lost the Danes" – you and I (and Gog the Mild) see eye to eye about being sparing with commas, but I really think we could do with one after "lost" here. He didn't lose the Danes.
That apart, nothing from me. There is the perpetual question of how to convey the value of ancient pounds (or other currencies) in modern terms, but I recognise that it may not be possible. If I'd been writing the article I think I'd have added a footnote about Æthelred the Unready's nickname, but I most certainly don't press the point. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria: balanced, well and widely sourced, an excellent read and as well illustrated as I imagine it is possible to be. (You could add a map to the Military career section, perhaps, showing the key places.)
I am not sure whether I have added currency conversion in the past, or where I would find one. Unfortunately, the Bank of England's converter only starts in 1209. I have added a note on unræd. I gave up on maps years ago when a request for one to the map section produced no response. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Tim. BTW it seems to me remarkable that I have only now found out from a comment by Nikkimaria how you are supposed to write alt descriptions. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:Ssilvers strongarmed me into it ages ago. Excellent anyway, as are the language templates for the benefit of visitors who use screen readers. (A hell of a slog with dozens of the things at my current PR but well worth it.) Tim riley talk19:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do the historians actually need “the historian“ before their names? What else would they be?
Reviewers complain if names are given without explanation, and it is true that editors sometimes cite journalists and other generalist writers. Personally, I doubt whether it is necessary to label people who are blue-linked to their own article. Gog is there a policy on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of a policy on this. I personally would not mention a person by name, especially if quoting their opinion on something, without giving a reader some idea of who they were and/or why - if an all - they should take their opinion seriously. I would, again personally, expect the same at FAC. We are, after all, an encyclopedia. A section with something like "Modern historians differ as to his status ..." would probably exempt all those following. Unless told otherwise I assume that any unintroduced name in an article is that of someone the writer met in a bar. Re blue links, the MoS has "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Having just read Dudley's fine article, I cannot see a single unnecessary use of "historian". I am more than happy to discuss individual cases with anyone who disagrees. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds definitively like Ealdgyth's bailiwick so I'll ping her. From what I can see, source formatting is consistent and the publishers and authors-I-can-read-about are reliable, although some are old. Kinda wonder what is up with the format of The Electronic Sawyer: Online Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Charters though. Is "The Chronicle of John of Worcester: The annals from 450 to 1066" a new volume or new edition? Is the article or Google Books wrong about what work 978-0-7185-1131-9 and 978-0-9532697-6-1 are about? 978-0-19-280139-5 says 2nd edition on GBooks. 978-1-85264-047-7 is the publisher Psychology Press or Seaby? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Electronic Sawyer. This is the format I always use. Do you see a problem with it?
John of Worcester. This is vol 2 and there is only one edition. It is shown as correct on isbn search.
978-0-7185-1131-9. The early charters of northern England and the north Midlands. This is correct on isbn search except that the book says published by Leicester University Press and distributed in US by Humanities Press and isbn search says distributed by Humanities Press.
978-0-9532697-6-1. Atlas of Attestations. Correct according to isbn search - which omits the publisher.
978-0-19-280139-5. Anglo-Saxon England. The 3rd edition was published in 1971 but the isbn is for a re-issue in 2014, which I probably had at one stage and threw away when it fell apart. My current copy is shown as published 1971 and last reprinted 1986, and I have not updated the isbn. Should I show the isbn for the original publication or my copy?
978-1-85264-047-7. This is an odd one. It is shown in isbn search as "A Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain: England, Scotland and Wales c.500 - c.1050 (Seaby Biographical Dictionaries)", with the publisher as Routledge and date 1997. The book says publisher Seaby 1991 and no mention of Routledge or Psychology Press.
While we may not think about it, the ants underneath us can be especially brutal in their day-to-day lives. From kidnapping the young of a colony to raise as their own and use for work, to overthrowing a host queen and taking over the colony, these little guys can be frightening. After the GA review, this underwent a peer review, and I believe this now meets the FA criteria.
Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk)01:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already reviewed this at PR, so I'll just add something interesting I noticed. Aculeata says A large part of the clade is parasitic, and going one more step up the tree, Hymenoptera also says Many of the species are parasitic. Ant, however, makes no such statement. It would be interesting to explore why parasitism is (apparently) so common in Aculeata and Hymenoptera but not generally in Formicidae. RoySmith(talk)01:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: That's actually very interesting, from a skim of what I can access right now, it looks like the more primitive the taxa the more common parasitism is, and I suppose that may have something to do with it. I'll take a deeper look soon and see if I can find more reliable stuff on that that can be included in the article. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk)01:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the GA reviewer, I helped Sophisticatedevening mainly with prose and ease of understanding. My main points ('concerns' is not the correct word) mainly regards clerity and comprehension. GGOTCC02:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a prose review. I am not a bug person, so I hope my perspective reflects the knowledge of the average reader.
"which causes some to remain undetected inside a colony for the majority of their lifespans" – this is a little awkward. It implies that most parasitic ants do not go undetected their whole life, which I would think is much more notable than the fact that some do.
Rephrased
The summary of social parasitic syndrome in the lead is unsatisfying. For one, it doesn't make clear whether this is a species-wide thing (not clear from reading the main section either) or a change specific to individual ants. I would also suggest condensing "a series of changes to their anatomy during their evolution towards exploitative behaviors" to something like "changes to their anatomy adapted for parasitism", which would be shorter and more to-the-point.
Added the genera it was observed in in the main+lead
"queens, workers and drones" is missing a serial comma; my personal preference aside, you seem to use one elsewhere (", and M. wettereri."), so the article should be internally consistent.
Is this "separate pseudo-caste of mutated worker ants that exhibit queen-like phenotypes", which has ovaries, able to lay eggs? My rudimentary ant knowledge tells me that most ants are incapable of laying eggs.
Removed for consistency
"contain a supergene" – not sure if this is genetically correct. I believe most/all ants have this supergene, but that it is mutated in these ants. Adding the word "mutated" should fix this.
Done
"Rather than become" – I believe "Rather than becoming" is more grammatical here.
"The parasite uses its mandible to attach itself to a host ant" – does the host ant not care that it is being grabbed like this? Is it harmed or killed in the process? Does it fight back?
Clarified, it does (try) to fight back
"can make the parasite indistinguishable from host workers" – is it necessary to specify "to other ants" here? I assume a human with a microscope could still distinguish them, since we usually don't rely on ant pheromones. But perhaps this is too nitpicky and not worth specifying.
I believe "tongue–like" should be using a hyphen instead of an en dash.
Done
"glossae" currently links to tongue – is this intended? Are the structures actually related (homologous)? If not, I would remove the link.
Removed
The helpful parenthetical simplifications are conspicuously absent from the "Phylogeny" section. Though not required, terms that could use one if you are so inclined are "dulotic", "inquiline", "formicoid", and maybe "monophyletic".
Added
"Temporary social parasitism...marked by the parasites losing the ability to form their own colonies" – this doesn't sound temporary to me. I would tack on something like "instead relying on taking over existing colonies of other species" to the end of this sentence to clarify what makes this "temporary".
Fixed
The sentence "Some ants also utilize slave raids to transport host eggs back to their own colony to raise as their own." is missing a citation. I suppose it's a summary of the following-subsection, though, so I'm not sure one is needed.
Repeated citation
"transport their offspring back" – The article on slave-making ants specifies "larvae and pupae", could you do the same here? "offspring" could theoretically include adult workers, but the other article says enslaving adults is rare and this article doesn't mention it at all (might be worth adding). Later it says "offspring in various stages of growth", which is a little vague.
Done
"send out scouts to search for taxonomically similar species nearby in order to infiltrate the colony with minimal conflict from host workers" – I believe the part after "in order to" refers solely to "taxonomically similar", but doesn't refer to the behavior or the scouts, who I don't think infiltrate the colony while scouting. Later in this paragraph we also have "and are often closely related taxonomically to their hosts"; not sure if this repetition is needed. I suggest removing the first mention of taxonomical similarity.
Done
"This process usually takes around 1 year for..." – a little awkward. I suggest replacing "This process" with "It" and writing "1" as the word "one" (MOS:NUMERAL).
Fixed
"These ants target..." – This sentence contains many "they" and "their" and "them", which could be ambiguous. Suggest replacing these vague terms with specific nouns.
Fixed
"hydrocarbon profile of their hosts" – I'd use the specific term from earlier, "cuticular hydrocarbon profile".
Replaced
"alkaloid-derived venom" – The sources calls them alkaloids outright. Remove "-derived".
Done
"used to pacify the host colony" sounds like a euphemism. What do they do? Is this venom deadly or merely uncomfortable? Do they harm or kill any workers?
Changed to "sedates"
You casually drop "consume the host's food and offspring" without elaborating; I don't think any of the other ants we've encountered thus far eat offspring. Is this notable enough that it should be discussed further?
I personally don't see anything worth elaborating on too much further, most of the other types do the same this was just the first occurence
"The inquiline parasite's brood are almost always capable of reproduction" – what does this mean? Does this mean that all of the offspring are able to reproduce, or that they can survive on fewer resources than the host offspring and thus more likely to reproduce? Or something else?
Clarified
You can re-link Emery's rule in the Inquiline ants section; since this is one top-level section header away from the first link, it's a valid WP:DUPLINK.
Done
"The following of Emery's rule" --> "Following Emery's rule", simpler.
Done
"altered metabolism and significantly shrunken bodies" – another missing serial comma. Again, it's okay if you don't want to use them, but please be consistent.
Removed for consistency
"The supergene is inherited in a single generation"...what does this mean?
Removed
"with the exception of wings" – please specify, for the non-ant people, that what is meant here is that the queens have wings and the workers do not. Maybe adding the word "having" before "wings" would work?
Done
"the ants are then considered obligate parasites as they are no longer able to independently survive without exploiting a host colony" --> "the ants are no longer able to independently survive without exploiting a host colony, making them obligate parasites". Clearer causality, more concise.
Done
"virgin potential queens" – are these two adjectives not redundant?
Removed "virgin"
"The resources and care that are usually diverted towards a host colony's own brood are used for the parasite's offspring" – I think "diverted towards" is poor word choice here. Perhaps replace with "devoted to". You can replace "used for" later on with "diverted towards" if you like.
Replaced with "devoted"
"less healthy and fit" – do these not mean the same thing? Or does "fit" only mean in the evolutionary sense? Wait, even if it does, the workers can't reproduce...
Removed fit
"dufour", as a person's name, should be capitalized: Dufour. I don't know whether the "'s" is necessary, but the article is titled Dufour's gland.
Done
"This toxin can induce infighting among the host colony" – How?! This is crazy!
I know right!?!
"in an attempt for" is a little awkward. "Attempt" is usually followed by "to", but that doesn't fit here. Would suggest replacing the whole phrase with "allowing".
Done
"infected host colony" – I think this is the first time "infected" has been used in this article to mean "being parasitized". I'd reword to avoid it.
Reworded
"some parasites residing inside" – inside what? ("the host colony")
Clarified
"violent physical means" --> "violence"
Done
"helped map out" – any reason this doesn't just say "have mapped out"? I would also follow "pairs" with a colon instead of a period.
@Sophisticatedevening Thank you for the speedy response. Everything looks good, except that I think you may have missed the question about laying eggs by misplacing your reply to the serial comma comment. (I am also sad that you have decided against serial commas in general.)
On "used to sedate the host colony" – I've checked the source and they say "use alkaloids produced in their venom glands to subdue their hosts and gain access to their resources", which doesn't really answer my question, but that means you can't be expected to answer it either. I'm going to backtrack here and say that "pacify" was a better term, since "sedate" has a specific medical meaning that may not apply here. Sorry.
Very interesting nom. I'll give some thoughts on sources and prose.
Inconsistent language field – values differ per template (eg., "English" vs "en" vs "en-us") or differ in whether they use the field (eg.,Fischer Friedman et al 2020 uses it but Helanterä 2021 doesn't). I'd recommend standardising those. Everything else looks good
Fixed to just "en"
Content looks really good
I think it'd be worth including some of the material from Methods in the lead? It's a really interesting part of the article and IMO is a bit underrepresented right now
Included a bit more, describing from the slaver ants section
If I do have critical feedback, it's on the "Social parasitic syndrome" section
I had to re-read this sentence several times: Social parasitic syndrome is a series of changes that can occur in parasitic ant species during their evolution towards exploitative behaviors. It makes it sound like this happens at the same rate as evolution (eg., hundreds of thousands/millions of years), which might be true, but feels odd.
Switched to "transformation", more of a generational thing.
To explain from my laymen's perspective: If the species is already exploitative (ie., its definition includes "parasitic ant species"), how are they moving towards exploitative behaviours?
So this is from the perspective of trying to explain how they got to where they are if that makes sense, so like they are parasitic now and this is how they became so. A little unsure how to clarify that in the text.
I'm just not understanding this section very well, especially as it is standalone. Would this possibly be better situated under "Species and chacteristics", given that it applies to lots of them?
Moved it up to that section
No feedback, but holy god on Earth: Parasitic queens do not productively contribute any resources or support to the host colony, and sometimes remove the wings of virgin potential queens
I'm a little confused since our image page says CC BY 3.0, whereas the source page says CC-BY-NC-ND, which would not be compatible with wiki commons. However, the image has a tag stating explicitly that the license was reviewed and confirmed, so maybe the source website changed the license in the meantime. Do you know something about this?
In these two sentences the expression "outside of" is not grammatically correct, it should be just "outside" because it is a preposition.
"The venom can be detected by other ants outside of the host colony, so host ants often allow the parasites to reside inside of the nest in order to deter nearby hostile ant colonies despite their negative effects."
"These ants have not been identified outside of the US state of Texas, and are the least common type of parasitic ant."
Also, "in order to" is redundant. It should be just "to". There are six occurrences of this.
Not many refs so I'll just play this by ear. I've provided thoughts below and a space for you to reply.
Article: Of the more than 12,000 species of ants, around 230 are considered parasites.
Source: There are only about 230 known parasitic species of ants among the 12,500 or so described ant species.
Verified and no ST issues.
Article: Typical ant colonies have at least three castes: queens, workers and drones (males).
Content is distributed across source. It verifies that there are 3 castes. Minor quibble that the source says these are typical, whereas the source says In some colonies, there may also be a fourth caste.
Comment: What makes Arrow Exterminators Inc a reliable source? Can we get a source of higher quality?
Article: The pheromones of parasitic ants are also altered to reflect those of the host species, usually through a process known as rubbing.
Yg I don't think the source verifies "usually", is a minor nitpick here. Can you help me out with this one? Is there another way this happens that I'm missing?
Nom reply: Removed "usually", unable to find another one.
Article: Slaver ants are a type of parasite that enter a host colony and transport their larvae and pupae back to their own colony to raise them as their own
I don't think the source verifies larvae, only pupae.
Article: [Parasitism] occurred around the same time the ants developed obligate colony founding, and was followed by the development of dulotic social parasitism.
I'm having a hard time verifying this. All the relevant passages seem to be about Formica more specifically. Could you provide some quotes for me here? Since page numbers are used for other citations, could we use the page numbers of the downloadable PDF that numbers them 1–10?
Nom reply: Doesn't look like it specifically says it applies outside of Formica (which is a parasitic ant), and it feels weird to adjust the text to just Formica so I've just removed that bit altogether.
Article: Dulotic parasitism (parasitism slaver ants utilize) involves ants raiding nearby host colonies to capture the host brood and have them contribute to the parasitic colony once they hatch
Non-source comment – does the paranthesis here make sense? Isn't it like writing "Prose writing (the style of writing prose writers use)"?
Verified and no ST issues
Article: Entomologists disagree on the exact origins of specific parasites, but do observe that many parasitic ants are closely related to the species they parasitize, following Emery's rule.
Source says The evolutionary origins of social parasitism have been debated since Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (24). Entomologists have long noticed that ant social parasites and their hosts are close relatives (15, 16, 25–29), an observation subsequently referred to as “Emery’s rule” (30).
Verified with no ST issues – I don't think it's perfect. I don't think Darwin is generally considered an entomologist, but I can accept that the subsequent debate likely refers to entomologists.
Article: Arms races between social parasites and their hosts: geographic patterns of manipulation and resistance.
Verified with no ST issues.
Article: Parasitism in ants likely first arose 16 million years ago in the form of temporary social parasites.
Source says According to the new Formica ant timeline, temporary social parasites share a common ant ancestor that lived roughly 16 million years ago.
Our article feels much more declarative about the origin of ant parasitism in the source does here, whichs seems to be talking only about their ant ancestor from that period. The next source used seems to contradict this. As I understand it, Formica is the predatory group, and Iberoformica are their victims. Not understanding how the above can be true and this: Formica and Iberoformica split from their sister genus Polyergus around 33 Ma ago (95% highest posterior density [HPD]: 27 to 39 Ma) and Formica diverged from a common ancestor with its sister lineage Iberoformica subrufa ∼30 Ma ago (95% HPD: 24 to 35 Ma). Open to discussing.
Nom reply: I've adjusted the text to say "around" which is less definitive; the source for that is the more recent of the two so I'm more inclined to take this one, and the one after you were referring to was also removed (see above).
@ImaginesTigers "I don't think the source verifies larvae" – This is my fault. I mentioned it in my comments, as larvae are mentioned on the article on Slave-making ants. I have checked the source from that article, which seems to verify the information, and added it here (Ruano, now ref 23). Should be fixed now. Toadspike[Talk]10:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I originally had another set all formatted out but it was clear pretty quickly I'd caught any oddities in the first sweep. Gog, I'm happy to sign off from a sourcing POV. — ImaginesTigers14:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks ImaginesTigers, that's great. In passing, it helps if reviewers - per the FAC instructions - avoid using graphics, like ticks. They have a seriously detrimental effect on the system that holds the main FAC page together, and have even been known to lock it solid. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
@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]
Tell es-Sakan is an archaeological site consisting of two settlements effectively built one on top of the other some four centuries apart. It was the administrative centre of ancient Egyptian settlement in the southern Levant, and later a major Canaanite city. As Tell es-Sakan site is in the Gaza Strip, there is plenty to write about the modern context with conflict interrupting investigations and causing the partial destruction of the site. Since excavations ended in 2000, various factors have led to parts of the site being lost, along with evidence of life in the region 5,000 years ago.
The fact that excavations were limited to two years means that the broad brush history of the site can be presented, but the source material isn't overwhelming. Publications by the archaeologists who led the project form the bulk of the sourcing as they summarise the work, what they found, and provide regional context. I'm more familiar with medieval archaeology, so stepping into the Bronze Age was a bit different for me. Hopefully it worked in the article's favour as I've aimed to explain jargon and provide context. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a spot check later, but here's some initial notes:
Consistent formatting of SFNs, good to see; but Cite #22 is missing a page number, and cite #38 has a p. when it should have a pp.
Inconsistent linking; Al-Monitor is, but AP News and Al Jazeera are not. San Francisco Community Music Center is linked, but UNESCO and Institut du Monde Arabe aren't, etc. I'd play it safe and link all publishers and news outlets.
Location is inconsistent. It's on a couple cites, but not most. I'd remove it personally, but just keep it consistent either way.
Some journals are given ISSNs, but some aren't; keep it consistent either way.
Some journals are given retrieved dates (but this isn't typically called for), and some websites are missing archive links
One link has a S2CID, while none of the others do; I'd remove this.
You list the book series (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis) for de Miroschedji 2012, but several other books are in similar monograph and Festschrift series; I'd remove that.
"UCL Press" should be UCL Press (also, link the other publishers or delink this)
Some foreign-language works are missing language tags
All foreign-language works are missing title translations; these aren't strictly needed, but would be nice to have
Some ISBNs are 10 digit, some are 13. I'd keep them all in 13.
Inconsistent title case usage; this isn't as important with the French stuff since that uses different conventions, but in general you should have all article and book titles in the same case (as always, doesn't matter as long as it's consistent)
Sometimes the book title is linked, sometimes its the chapter, sometimes its neither. Keep that consistent as well.
Apologies for the nitpicking; this is a great article and I'm glad to see more archaeology stuff at FAC, especially from MENA. Ping me when this stuff is resolved and I'll spot check! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check (fair disclosure: I don't know French, so I used machine translation for the French sources, most notably de Miroschedji et al. I've generally had good results from machine translation of French academic sources, but it may not be perfect.)
de Miroschedji et al, 2001:
3: Checks out, but the later de Miroschedji & Sadeq 2005 gives a different figure (the total area covered by the ancient settlement can be tentatively estimated between 5 and 8 ha); is there a reason for the discrepancy?
11 checks out (though cites are out of order here)
I took a similar approach when reading the French sources, while watching out for specialist terms that might be harder for Google to translate. Regarding the area, I opted for the figure used in Paleoreint as it is the more detailed publication. Perhaps it would be preferable to mention the wider range as well? Richard Nevell (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tell es-Sakan (Arabic: تل السكن, lit. 'Hill of Ash') is a tell (a mound created by accumulation of remains) about 5 kilometres (3 mi) south of Gaza City in Palestine.: I will note that this sentence will make many readers angry, but that any change to it would do the same, and therefore that I don't want to touch it with a bargepole!
It was the site of two separate Early Bronze Age urban settlements. It was initially an administrative centre of the Egyptian colonies in southwestern Palestine, inhabited from about 3300 BCE to 3000 BCE:
Firstly, a style point: can we vary "it was ... it was"?
Then, more importantly -- I think we need to build up more slowly here. I didn't know, for example, that Egypt had colonies in southwestern Palestine in the EBA. Setting the scene here would help. Can we say that it was built as an administrative centre, or was it an existing (non-Egyptian) settlement taken over when the Egyptians turned up? Similarly -- did the Egyptians leave before the Canaanite settlement came up?
I've added a sentence that Ancient Egypt had colonies in the southwestern Palestine, and set it up as the context for Tell es-Sakan's foundation. Hopefully the new wording is clear that it was a new establishment, rather than the Egyptians taking over a pre-existing settlement (unless there's something lurking under an unexplored part of the site). When you say "did the Egyptians leave before the Canaanite settlement came up", are you referring to the region or the settlement? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The region, but I think the current framing does enough for the lead -- we now have the context, the foundation, the abandonment and the refoundation put clearly together. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tell es-Sakan was positioned along what was probably a palaeochannel of the Wadi Ghazzeh: a what of the what? Most people won't know what a Wadi is without help.
a watercourse that is dry most of the year but in the Bronze Age would have been navigable: so is it now dry for most of the year but would have been (almost) always navigable in the Bronze Age? UndercoverClassicistT·C14:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: The first half is correct and I've added a bit more to tie the recently added sentence about what a wadi is back to the topic. I think the latter half is correct, and that at least matches my understanding, but the key source on the historical geography (Morhange et al. 2005) isn't that specific. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At its discovery, Tell es-Sakan was the oldest known Egyptian fortified site, and the only known Egyptian fortified settlement beyond the Nile Valley.: I guess we're talking about the first iteration here -- do they go by different names (as Troy does: e.g. Troy II, Troy VI and Troy VIIa, which are different layers of the same site with quite different characteristics)?
Not exactly - it's 'the Egyptian phase' and 'the Canaanite phase' in the 2005 chapter, and 'Egyptian Sakan' and 'Canaanite Sakan' in the Paleoreint article. Stronger differentiation has been used at related sites, eg: 'En Besor III denotes the Egyptian settlement at 'En Besor, but that approach hasn't been used here. It might be clearer if I juggle the lead around. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've rearranged it a bit, but if I move that sentence earlier so that a stricter chronological order is followed, the point about Tel Erani feels like too much of a digression. That may not be a bad thing, but I thought it helpful to clarify the claim when it's first made. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The site covered around 8–9 hectares (20–22 acres), of which 1,400 square metres (15,000 sq ft): can we use consistent units here -- otherwise, people will need to look up how many sqm are in a hectare, and how many sq ft in an acre.
@UndercoverClassicist: What about In 2017, the Hamas government began bulldozing...? The important aspect is that they were the local authority, which is alluded to by saying they were the government. It obviously doesn't give the full picture, but I think that they have a military wing is too much detail for the lead when the sources don't indicate that it was the military doing the bulldozing. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found the Topography section both very short and quite opaque. It could do with a rewrite to be more accessible to lay readers. A few specifics:
In the Bronze Age Tell es-Sakan was closer to the Mediterranean coast than it is today: how close is it to the sea today?
Sources mention the sites position in relation to Gaza, but not the coast. Even the article about the coastal change doesn't say how far the telly is from the modern coastline. I could use a map service such as Google Maps or Open Street Maps to get a measurement, but I am unsure if that is robust enough. I don't think reading a map would count as original research in this case as I'm not interpreting the features but this is new territory for me. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maps can be contentious, but for me, a simple reading of distance is fine (similar rules to WP:PRIMARY) -- a more interpretative statement like "the area is very urbanised" would need a different source. UndercoverClassicistT·C16:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We say that it had a harbour on the Wadi Ghazzeh, but then call the latter a "stream". That suggests very small boats -- streams don't generally have estuaries.
I've clarified in the location section (formerly topography) that the watercourse was navigable as far as Tell es-Sakan in the Bronze Age. I've also dropped the term 'stream' as that was confusing things - it's more of a reflection of the current status. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be worth expanding this section under a slightly different title (e.g. "location"). This would allow you to fix the MOS:LEAD issue of basic info not being stated in the body ("Tell es-Sakan is a tell (a mound created by accumulation of remains) about 5 kilometres (3 mi) south of Gaza City in Palestine."; "Tell es-Sakan was positioned along what was probably a palaeochannel of the Wadi Ghazzeh"), and to clarify where it is in relation to other human features (settlements, ancient polities/cultural groups, etc).
I've overhauled the section, renaming it and adding more information. I've aimed to make the distinction between modern and historic geography clearer. More could be said about the current state of al-Zahra and its destruction during the war as that relates to the damage to the site mentioned later. I've not added it as that seems more suited to the later sections where the history is discussed, but I'm open to integrating it here if that would be useful. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tell es-Sakan's final abandonment in the late 3rd millennium: it's generally advised to use BCE in most contexts, even though it isn't really ambiguous here. WP:ENDURE, I suppose?
the Hamas government began bulldozing part of the site but halted following opposition from various groups, including the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities: the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities is part of the government, so can we give any more details here about who was doing/ordered the bulldozing?
One such dune concealed the site of Tell es-Sakan so that its full extent is uncertain, but it covers an estimated 8–9 hectares (20–22 acres): suggest disambiguating: "One such dune concealed Tell es-Sakan so that the site's full extent is uncertain" -- is it the dune's full extent or the site's that's uncertain?
The area was a frontier between ancient Egypt and Canaan, with both inhabiting Tell es-Sakan in different stages of the city's history.: do states inhabit places -- "Britain inhabits London"? Suggest "both Egyptians and Canaanites", or "with both controlling...".
The excavated area referred to as 'sounding A' in the published literature covered an area of 525 square metres (5,650 sq ft): the usual form in archaeological literature, as far as I know, is to capitalise feature names that are about the size of a building or more -- this one seems to be, so "Sounding A". This isn't Wikipedia MoS, though, so I'm certainly not insisting on it here.
In 2013, the wall of a fortification was excavated at Tel Erani (an Egyptian settlement) and thought to be of a similar age to the fortifications at Tell es-Sakan: I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance here -- is the wall made in a similar style, and therefore helps to demonstrate that Tell es-Sakan is indeed Egyptian? I'm sure there are plenty of fortifications in China that are of a similar age to these ones, but we wouldn't mention them here. Is it worth clarifying that Tel Erani is not in Egypt -- that might help establish the connection?
@UndercoverClassicist: This is perhaps straying into the realm of original research, but the sources about Tell es-Sakan emphasised that when it was discovered it was (1) oldest Egyptian fortification and (2) the only known Egyptian fortification outside of the Nile valley. The prevailing view of Tel Erani from the late 1980s seems to have been that the settlement had interactions with ancient Egypt but the fortification was not Egyptian, and in any case dated to the Early Bronze Age III (see Ciałowicz et al 2015, 15). Work at Tel Erani since 2013 has indicated the fortification is earlier, perhaps around Early Bronze Age I so a comparable date to Tell es-Sakan. The description of the site as an Egyptian trading post (eg) led me to believe that it could be characterised as an Egyptian settlement. I haven't found similar claims to those made for Tell es-Sakan but it seemed to me to be presenting a partial picture. If that's crossed over into WP:OR I'm happy to remove it. And if it's acceptable, I'll adjust the wording. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Apologies for the half explanation, I should have left that until my headache cleared. In its previous position, the text was a bit of a non sequitur. I've moved it so that's it's immediately after the statement about Tell es-Sakan being the oldest Egyptian fortification and the only one beyond the Nile valley. And the text now clarifies that Tel Erani is in modern Israel which makes the relevance clearer, as it's a culturally ancient Egyptian site beyond the Nile valley. The idea of mentioning Tel Erani is to contextualise the claim that Tell es-Sakan is the oldest Egyptian fortification and the only one beyond the Nile valley. If it doesn't work where it is now, it's worth excising. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The accidental exposure of the Early Bronze Age site: we should actually say, in the body, how this happened -- it becomes obvious soon enough that it was during construction work, but the reader has to piece that together.
The finds associated with the first city were mostly (90%–95%) Egyptian in style: my hat off to the excavators for being able to style-categorise 95% of their finds -- including the animal bones and the tiny bits of coarse pottery? Either these people are very clever or we're missing a caveat here.
The 2005 source just says the assemblage, while the Paleorient articles specifies that this figure is for the pottery so I've made that clear. Interestingly, it seems even the stone objects (eg: pestles and millstones) were imported from Egypt which hadn't occurred to me before as something worth mentioning but I may do so. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sherds of pottery bearing serekhs were also recovered: MOS:NOFORCELINK: what's a serekh and why should we be interested in it?
An observation: I can understand why, but the sectioning is currently a bit awkward -- we have a section for "Discovery and investigation", but end up discussing a lot of that in the "History" section. It may be difficult to avoid, but I would suggest, as far as possible, limiting the "History" section to statements about what it was like in the Bronze Age, and the 'Discovery" section to comments about what modern archaeologists did there. Of course, there's going to be difficulties when (for example) archaeologists only discovered part of something, or disagree as to what it is, but I think some improvements can be made here.
I'm still pondering how to go about this, mostly as it may make referencing the 'Soundings' tricky as I don't want to introduce a term most readers won't be familiar with before it's explained. On the other hand the 'Soundings' aren't mentioned very often so it might be a matter of removing the references. In any case, I'll get to this. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good approach to me. I've had a go at shifting the text around. The history section still talks a lot about the interpretation, but I think that's where it fits best. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That last one is a fairly big job, so I'll stop here to give you a chance to have a look at this batch. I'm enjoying the article greatly: it's clearly explained and obviously knows its stuff. UndercoverClassicistT·C07:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Location map Palestine Gaza Strip.png - CC BY-SA 2.5
File:Palestine location map wide.png - CC BY-SA 3.0
File:The frontier of Egypt in the Early Bronze Age - preliminary soundings at Tell es-Sakan (Gaza Strip), fig 19.6.png - CC BY 4.0
File:Figurine de grenouille - Trésors sauvés de Gaza.jpg - CC BY 4.0
File:Manche de poignard à décor géométrique incisé - Trésors sauvés de Gaza.jpg - CC BY 4.0
File:Inti, siege scene.jpg - PD
File:The frontier of Egypt in the Early Bronze Age - preliminary soundings at Tell es-Sakan (Gaza Strip), fig 19.3.png - CC BY 4.0
File:New investigations in Gaza's heritage landscapes - the Gaza Maritime Archaeology Project (GAZAMAP), figure 6.png - CC BY 4.0
File:YouTube 2024.svg - PD
File:The Location of the Canaanite hill 3500 BC 4.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
Images are appropriate, related and good quality; they enhance the article
The alt text is very good and detailed. There were some minor mistakes like spelling and sentence fragments but I fixed it. Image review pass and support
The two images under create some WP:image sandwiching due to the infobox interfering. Perhaps the first image in the section can be left aligned at the top of the section, and the lower image right aligned?
I had a vague recollection that aligning left under subsection headings was discouraged but I'll be damned if I can find that anywhere. I've swapped the image alignments so that the trench photo is on the left and the frog is on the right. Does that solve the sandwiching for you? On a related note, does the amount of sandwiching change when different maps are toggled in the infobox? When all maps are displayed, the new arrangement ends up with text sandwiched between the infobox and first image. (This may get solved if I remove one of the maps from the infobox.) Richard Nevell (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that some articles have multiple maps that can be toggled between in the infobox. I thought this would be a useful feature as the map of the whole of Palestine is very zoomed out and the map of the Gaza Strip might help. It's bugged me for a little while that the map of the Gaza Strip was largely illegible and if you click on it to get a better look the pin disappears. Thinking about it some more, I don't think it's helpful so I've removed the map showing the Strip. That means I can the caption for the other map as I couldn't find anything in the infobox documentation about having two captions for the toggle-able maps.
"Archaeologists visited Tell es-Sakan in September 2017 during a pause in demolition." Could need some context when viewed in isolation, perhaps "during a pause in demolition by Gazan authorities".
In general it seems a lot of terms need to be linked at first mention. On a related note, everything linked in the intro should also be linked in the article body.
Link Wadi Ghazzeh.
Link fossilised?
'Fossilised' is the term used by the source (well "dunes fossilisées"), but I think lithified might be more suitable so I've swapped the term and added a link. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Link Bronze Age.
"frontier between ancient Egypt and Canaan" link these places.
"of the portable material culture was produced locally, emulating Egyptian styles of material culture" I wonder if the last "material culture" goes without saying, seems repetitive.
I remember thinking about this at the time, and wanted to be clear what aspect of Egyptian culture was being emulated but looking at it again it does seem unnecessary. Now trimmed. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"was a nearby ancient Egyptian settlement" elsewhere you just say Egyptian.
@FunkMonk: Do you mean that when Tel Erani is mentioned in the lead it is just described as Egyptian (which I've now changed)? Or that the article is not consistent between ancient Egyptian and Egyptian? The latter is certainly true. My thinking is that it needs to be clarified that this period relates to ancient Egypt, but after the first occasion 'ancient' can be dropped to make the text a little less clunky. If it should be consistent, I'd probably go in the direction of dropping 'ancient', and would welcome your opinion on what works. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my issue is that you're inconsistent in whether you drop "ancient" or not, it seems kind of random, as it does return some times after first mention in the article body, but other times not. FunkMonk (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mention and link Palestine somewhere in the location section instead of way down where it is now?
"De Miroscheji and Sadeq who described Tell es-Sakan as having "both a strong local particularism and close ties with the sites of inner Canaan"." I don't think "who" is needed.
"Animal bones found at Tell es-Sakan show that the consumption of pigs ceased during the Canaanite settlement, in contrast to the Egyptian settlement" any speculation as to why? Religious reasons?
That's a very good question. As it's likely to be a question readers have since that point of difference has been highlighted I've added the following quote from the source: The reasons for this shift are uncertain but it may reflect a change in cultural dietary preferences following the break in Egyptian occupation. Alternatively, it could be related to broader economic trends. I decided to quote directly rather than paraphrase as I thought the explanation would require a level of detail that would bring it close to the source.There is a common line of thinking that a site without pig bones is indicative of a Canaan presence, but that seems to framed around the Iron Age rather than the Bronze Age, and more recently is if not disputed then the situation is more nuanced. So I'll leave out that extra bit as perhaps a bit off tangent. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Link tell (archaeology) in the article body as well, could explain what it is in parenthesis again in the article body (the intro should not have unique info).
Link added. Tell was previously explained in the 'Discovery and investigation' but that seemed far too late on, so the 'Location section' now notes that A tell is a mound created by layers upon layers of human occupation on a site over an extended period. It's not identical to the lead, but had the same intention, but I need to revise the wording as pointed out by UC above. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"was the first archaeological site discovered in Gaza to that dates from the end" what is the "to" for?
"A fortification of a potentially similar age was found at the ancient Egyptian settlement of Tel Erani in 2013." You only give the year in the intro.
When Tel Erani is first mentioned in the body the year is mentioned at the start of the sentence: In 2013, the wall of a fortification was excavated at Tel Erani. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the Hamas government began bulldozing part of the site" probably important to note even in the intro that this was for building projects, as some might assume ISIL-like iconoclasm.
I've added that context while adjusting the rest of the sentence to address a point by UC about the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities being part of the Hamas government. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By coincidence went down a wiki rabbit hole reading about Tells about a month ago. And now this. The article is fascinating and espically clear and well written and understandable. Am making light changes as I read through, so this is a placeholder for now. I see professional archaeologists debating above, so will restrict my comments to prose only, unless something glaring or obtuse pops up. Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems overly dependent on de Miroschedji et al. 2001, which is cited 19 times out of a total of 78 inline citations. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's by far the most detailed report on the excavations. The 2005 chapter by de Miroschedji and Sadeq contains some similar material but doesn't go into the same depth. Though Tell es-Sakan is mentioned in some other sources, they are typically summarising what de Miroschedji et al found rather than adding new interpretation. So certainly dependant, though I hope with justification. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks...has the report received many reviews/commentray? But anyway, was very much facinated as I read through, hope no edits were annoying or changed meaning. The article is very clearly written and accessible to laymen, and from time on google scholar and JSTOR spotted no gaps and it seems comprehensive. Support. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copy edits and of course support, Ceoil, all appreciated. It's great to hear that it's clear and accessible as I had that in mind throughout. The report hasn't received commentary as such, from what I've observed the findings have been accepted and integrated into discussions of the region. This is in contrast to sites with a very long excavation history such as ancient Jericho where interpretations are discussed at length. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A U.S. Navy ship named after a Hindu deity, Varuna was a civilian merchant vessel purchased during the construction process who was then modified into a warship. During the Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip, Varuna participated in Farragut's famed run past the Confederate defenses to New Orleans, and was rammed and sunk by the combined actions of the Louisianan gunboat Governor Moore and a second vessel whose identity is not certain. Hog FarmTalk00:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After the introduction of the image above, I don't believe there is functionally room for any additional images; there's now the infobox image of Varuna, the image of Varuna being rammed, the Currier & Ives print of the naval battle, and the map of movements during the battle (which was added as the result of a request for a map during the MILHIST A-Class review). Hog FarmTalk18:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be lacking a lot of basic details of her construction. Was the hull wood, iron, or steel? All you tell us about the engine is that it was steam. How many horsepower? Simple or compound expansion? Who manufactured the engine, the boilers, the propeller? How many blades? What fuel did it burn? How many crew/officers? Top speed? Draft?
Crew size is already mentioned in the article. The sources provide a measurement in depth of hold rather than draft, as would be standard for a merchant ship of the time, which is what Varuna was intended to be. I have not found any details about the engines in reliable sources; the US Navy simply didn't keep that sort of records for the early war "churn-and-burn" type ships that it acquired. My impression based on the sinking accounts is that it had a wooden hull; I will look for confirmation of that. I'll take a look to see if I can find anything specific for fuel, although ships of the time would often burn anything flammable that could be chucked into the furnaces (such as the pork mentioned in the article). Hog FarmTalk17:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where that source mentions anything about the draft of Varuna? Rather the reference to draft appears to be another ship, in 1864, in North Carolina? In addition, that source contains enough errors in its brief description of Vaurna in the battle that it should be utterly ignored - "Varuna is credited with sinking three Confederate ships" is not a claim found in any of the high-quality print work on the battle, and "During this close-quartered fight she was surrounded by Confederate vessels, and her bow-mounted parrot rifle was canted awkwardly downward so she could actually fire through her own bow at one of her antagonists. " is also clearly wrong - it was the Governor Moore which fired through its own bow, not Varuna. Hog FarmTalk17:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Varuna as either a sloop or a corvette the link to sloop is to the wrong article; that's a modern type of sailboat. Screw sloop is the right article (which you do link to later on, but link on first use).
https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/john-greene indicates the Varuna was rammed by the Morgan, not the Governor Moore. Are there additional sources to corroborate which of these is correct?
This is clearly in error and can be ignored. The high-quality print sources are unanimous in stating that Governor Moore was the ship that did the primary ramming of Varuna. Silverstone lists two Confederate ships named Morgan - the CSS Morgan, which spent its entire CS career in Mobile Bay in Alabama, and then a captured US revenue cutter, of which the grand total of information that is still known appears to be that it was outfitted with 3 guns by the Confederates and that it was on the lower Mississippi in November 1861. Chatelain does not mention either Morgan in his index; the only reference to either Morgan in Hearn in a passing mention to the revenue cutter in a context discussing material long before the battle, and I've seen no evidence that there is any record of either Morgan being present at the battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip. Additionally, neither Hearn nor Bielski's Emerging Civil War book about the fall of New Orleans list a Morgan among the Confederate ships. Hog FarmTalk16:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting. Apparently the mis-attribution to the Morgan comes from a Medal of Honor citation awarded to one of the Varuna crew:
It looks like most of the Medal of Honor citations for Varuna's crew were written on the assumption that the Confederate ship was the Morgan. As this is clearly incorrect, I see no reason to mention this in the article and perpetuate a 19th-century error. Hog FarmTalk23:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a guess as to what was going on here, although it's not provable - the Governor Moore was known as the Charles Morgan as a civilian vessel. (Silverstone, p. 229) There is probably either some confusion with the naming here or it's possible the North was referring to the vessel by a civilian name intentionally. Hog FarmTalk23:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Silverstone's appendix refers to it as the Charles H. Mallory yard, which I've gone with for now. I suspect the two are different names for the same thing. Hog FarmTalk17:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to https://liboatingworld.com/the-dauntless-veruna/ (likely not a WP:RS, but at least a place to start researching) says the purchase price was $127,460. It also talks about pre-battle modifications ("lightening them by stripping them of their upper rigging..."). That should be tracked down to a RS and included if it turns out to be verifiable.
I found the primary source where the $127,460 figure is coming from and have added this. The better sources mainly focus on the pre-battle aspect of Farragut having chains draped around the hulls of the ships, of which I've added a mention. Hog FarmTalk17:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth a short explanation that "rifle" is a technical term referring to anything with a rifled barrel. Most modern readers with no technical knowledge of guns will assume you're talking about hand-held gun.
I'll figure out where my book about Civil War cannon is later this afternoon and try to throw together a footnote for this. Hog FarmTalk18:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Along the way, I found a few more sources that look interesting and mention the Varuna, but may not have anything new to say beyond what you've found already:
The first of these is extremely interesting but from a quick skim the identified magnetic anomalies were likely those of CSS Defiance and CSS Louisiana. The second only mentions Varuna once in the two pages it devotes to the Federal operations to capture New Orleans, of which a part of that coverage is devoted to the Battle of the Head of Passes. The third mentions Varuna only in a list of Civil War shipwrecks in the area. While it associates Varuna with site # 16 PL 93 there is no other reference to 16 PL 93 in that document, and a quick google search for "16 pl 93" + "varuna" only brings up that Louisiana DNR document. Hog FarmTalk21:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is well written, and I can't hold it against you that the records from that era are fragmentary and/or faulty, so I'll toss my hat into the support camp. RoySmith(talk)12:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done what I can here - for the map and the ramming image, it's not entirely clear when in the 1880s it was published. They're from an article in a magazine series. Hog FarmTalk19:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why no caption for the map? Perhaps it may seem obvious what it is, but it also seems so stylised and unusual that I think some context would be helpful.
"The Union ship could be identified by the color of light she showed on her masthead, as Confederate vessels carried a different color of light." Which colors were these?
"The gunboat CSS Jackson briefly fired into the melee" Which side was it on?
I've added on a gloss to the first mention of CSS that those are Confederate ships - I think with that stated the prefixes should be enough to identify sides. Hog FarmTalk02:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Another gunboat then arrived and rammed Varuna." While you go into the issue in the footnote, perhaps add "of uncertain identity" to the article body, as I was left wondering why it wasn't named until I reached the footnotes...
Well - I'm not sure how appropriate that would be. Nobody really says that it's uncertain who rammed Varuna the final time - some sources just outright state Breckinridge and some outright state Stonewall Jackson. So calling it uncertain in wikivoice is a slight OR issue. Hog FarmTalk02:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Always good to see another ship at FAC! I reviewed this article at MILHIST earlier this year, but have these additional comments:
"was tasked with blockading..." and then "was tasked with the capture..." - I know some object to the "tasked with" construction, though it doesn't bother me. But we do probably want to vary the wording.
"When the American Civil War broke out in April 1861, the Union adopted the Anaconda Plan. This involved blockading the Confederate coastline and taking control of the Mississippi River." - do we want to spell out that the point of the plan was to cut off Confederate trade with neutral countries (and thereby deprive it of arms and other war-related materiel)?
"The Union found itself needing a number of new ships" - I think it would be better for the readers if we could give them some scale of the acquisitions needed. We say the Navy had 42 operational ships - is that a lot? Not quite enough? Or woefully inadequate?
That works, though I wonder if it might be better as a note? I'm not sure it needs to be in the main text. Up to you though. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we care that 8" is technically 20.3 cm? I know some people get nitpicky about rounding conversions
I'm one of those people. Getting the number of significant digits right was drilled into me in college physics class, where if you reported an answer with more digits than the inputs justified, you got it marked wrong. That being said, this isn't a physics test. For some things, there are conversions which are used conventionally. For example, there's a WW-II era 3-inch gun which is usually referred to as 76.2mm. Following the standard significant figures rule would have us round that off to 80mm, which I think everybody would agree is just plain wrong. So I think the answer is we should do whatever the literature of the day did. If the contemporary references said 20.3cm, that's what we should say. If they're mute on the metric conversions, then I'd say for the purposes of this article, either 20 cm or 20.3 cm would be good enough. RoySmith(talk)16:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mortar Flotilla redirects to Union blockade but is not mentioned there - can we get a short explanation of what the unit was added here?
Yeah, I can add something to the West Gulf Blockading Squadron section. It will probably be Saturday before I can get to that though. Hog FarmTalk01:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does "The Capture of New Orleans 1862" have a comma? Is "War on the Waters: The Union & Confederate Navies, 1861–1865" the correct title? Sources seem OK otherwise, don't have access to most though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a comma to The Capture of New Orleans per the Library of Congress Cataloging-In-Publication data from the copyright page of the book. Jo-Jo Eumerus - Is there something different that you are expecting to see for the title of the McPherson work? I've changed the ampersand to the spelled-out word per the title page and copyright information (the front cover uses the ampersand). Browning is available on Project MUSE through the Wikipedia Library; I own print copies of all of the other secondary source books and can provide quotes/scans if you want to do any source checking. Hog FarmTalk23:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - Gatoclass is at work on polishing this article up a bit (I'm embarassed by what I missed regarding the engines etc.) This is the version as of your comment:
[35] supports "Boggs wrote in his official report dated 29 April that four members of the ship's crew were killed and nine wounded, and that four of the Marines aboard were also wounded;" - this is online and can be found here. The first page mentions 4 killed and 9 wounded, with the Marines losses being in the second-to-last paragraph of the report on the second page (the one beginning with "The marines, although new recruits ...")
[20] is one of two citations for "The lead Union ship was the Unadilla-class gunboat USS Cayuga, which moved towards Fort St. Philip and engaged the Confederate ironclads CSS Louisiana and CSS Manassas. Varuna fired into the duel, damaging both the Union and Confederate vessels, and the screw sloop USS Oneida came to the aid of Cayuga as well." but this citation is only present to support the class of ships for Cayuga and Oneida. It's a little bit awkward - Oneida is listed on p. 39 as part of the Iroquois class, which is part of the larger heading for screw sloops which begins on p. 35. Cayuga is on a list of Unadilla-class gunboats on p. 49. It will be simple to send over a scan for p. 49 and Cayuga, but how do you want me to handle the Oneida bit where p. 35 is the start of the heading section which Oneida is included within on p. 39. Hog FarmTalk23:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - yes, that is a fairly accurate way to describe it. There have been a few sources added in Gatoclass's additional work to this article, although we're still working out one awkward footnote. Hog FarmTalk00:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article still needs a little work IMO, so this is just a heads-up that I intend to make a few changes and additions before endorsing it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have pretty much finished my edits to the article now. Please let me know if you have an issue with any of the edits I have made, and we'll take it from there. Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm fairly embarassed to have taken something to FAC that ended up requiring that much work. Work has gotten busy for me but I will hopefully have time to take a look tomorrow evening. Hog FarmTalk02:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatoclass: - I'm not a huge fan of the Charles/Cornelius Bushnell footnote and would rather not have to have that sort of speculative footnote if we can find a source to avoid it. Do you think this source (another link because the one used in the article isn't working for me today) identifying the ship as being purchased from Mallory and "C. S. Bushnell" could be satisfactory if thrown in as a second citation with the newspaper ref (which contains the details about the half ownership which my proposed source doesn't have) to buttress to Bushnell identity? Then we could dispense with the awkward footnote, if you think that's a sufficient way to handle it. Hog FarmTalk00:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with adding new sources is that they also often have errors that then require new footnotes :)
Anyhow, I'm not going to make a big deal of it, so I have added a couple of additional cites instead.
Assuming you have no further objections to the content I added, there is one more issue with the article that I'm a tad concerned about. That is that there is no mention of the claim by Boggs - that he may well have believed - that he sank six Confederate vessels in the battle. The claim seems to have been widely promoted through the media of the day, and may have aided Boggs' career (Boker's poem credits him with five sinkings and one withdrawal). Any comments? Gatoclass (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatoclass: - From a quick look through several of the sources focuses on the naval battle, I've been able to add this so far. Dufour's The Night the War Was Lost does not appear to mention this claim unless it's buried in a footnote somewhere, or does Chatelain's work (which has a larger scope but does go into detail on the battle) or Bielski recent introductory-level overview of the topic. I can keep looking if you feel that more needs added. Apologies for the delays in responding to your concerns - there's been a lot of turnover at my work since I nominated this which has led to me being much busier IRL than I anticipated a month ago. Hog FarmTalk02:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Varuna fired into the duel, damaging both the Union and Confederate vessels, and the screw sloop USS Oneida came to the aid of Cayuga as well ... Encountering three Confederate gunboats, Varuna fired at them and continued upriver.[30] In the chaos, projectiles from Varuna caused friendly fire casualties on Cayuga.
So, Varuna accidentally fired on Cayuga twice - once during the "duel" between Cayuga and the ironclads, and then again further upriver when firing on the gunboats? Or is this an accidental conflation of the same incident? Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatoclass: - This is the result of some jumbling caused by trying to reconcile the incompatible narratives of Browning, Winters, and Hearn. I've rewritten this whole paragraph to cut down on the level of detail since there is not agreement between sources. So sticking with the essentials of Varuna is running threw this at high speed, fires on various Confederate vessels, then shoots into the melee of various ships which are no longer named, (one source says Cayuga vs the ironclads [Winters], another has Cayuga vs Governor Moore after Cayuga fought the ironclads [Browning], and another has Oneida vs. Govenor Moore [Hearn]) which caused casualties/damage on Cayuga. Hog FarmTalk02:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Farragut would have both a fleet of warships and the Mortar Flotilla.
The intention was to distinguish between vessels intended for ship vs ship combat and the mortar vessels, which were intended to be basically floating gun platforms. Porter's mortar boats were also a separate organization from the other ships; I've rephrased a bit. Hog FarmTalk02:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I'm done hassling you now :)
I don't think I can add a support !vote at this stage, given that I've added a fair degree of content myself. But I certainly have no reason to oppose. So it looks like this one is ready for promotion - congrats! Gatoclass (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"According to the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS)..." The use of this acronym in the article is probably unnecessary since it is used only three times.
@Volcanoguy: - If you feel strongly about this, I can remove the abbreviation, although I will note that the use of this acronym is very very common and the source is possibly as recognizable or more by this abbreviation than by the full written-out name. Hog FarmTalk00:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The abbreviation is very widely used, and spelling out the full name in three different places would only add clutter to the narrative IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Governor Sheng this looks like your first FAC, so welcome!
Ančić was born in Lipa near Tomislavgrad I would leave out the "near Tomislavgrad". I suspect most readers won't be familiar with Tomislavgrad, so it doesn't add anything. Knowing that it's in Ottoman Bosnia and Herzegovina gives people enough context.
He was educated in the friaries of the Franciscan Province of Bosnia just say "... friaries of Bosnia". You should link to Franciscan Province of Bosnia, but the short name is enough here.
appointed Ančić a procurator explain briefly here what a procurator is. I'm guessing Procurator (Catholic canon law), so link to that, but also give a short description in line, i.e. "(financial administrator)".
In 1656, Ančić asked di Gaieta to return to his homeland I had to read this a couple of times to first figure out who di Gaieta was (explained in the previous section) and second to figure out that it was Ancic, not di Gaieta, who would be doing the returning. So this needs some rephrasing.
There, he served as a preacher ... so, presumably he did indeed return, but that should be made more explicit: something like "permission was granted, and he served there as ...".
he was sent by the provincial to Rome as with procurator, explain in-line what a provincial is, and I assume there's some article which could be linked to for further details.
The perpetual treasure of the indulgences of the seraphic order of our holy father Francis Use {{Lang}} or something similar here.
elected the guardian of the Rama friary explain what a guardian is.
good standing with the Muslim beyslikewise for bey.
Vrata nebeska i Xivot viçchni (the Gates of Heaven and Eternal Life){{lang}} again.
He died in the Friary of St. Francis of Alto in Ancona don't hide this in Literary work. There should probably be a short section at the end for his death.
I did a little searching for additional sources and found two which look like they might be useful, assuming you can 1) locate a copy and 2) understand the language.
Светозар Марковић., Марковић, Светозар, 1846-1875, author, Институт за српскохрватски језик (Belgrade, Serbia), Svetozar Marković., Svetozar Marković, and Institut za srpskohrvatski jezik (Belgrade, Serbia). 1958. Језик Ивана Анчића (Босанског Писца XVII Века). Beograd: Научно дело. (https://search.worldcat.org/title/7743697)
Znanstveni skup “Fra Ivan Ančić Dumljanin, 1624-1685” Tomislavgrad, Bosnia and Herzegovina) (2010 :, and Ivan Ančić. 2011. Zbornik O Ivanu AnčIćU : Zbornik Radova Sa Znanstvenoga Skupa “Fra Ivan AnčIć Dumljanin, 1624.-1685.” : Tomislavgrad, 13.-15. Svibnja 2010. Edited by Pavao Knezović and Marinko Šišak. Zagreb: Hrvatski studiji Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. (https://search.worldcat.org/title/801946879)
Thank you @RoySmith for your help. Can you explain me more what you ment by "There should probably be a short section at the end for his death.". His death is one sentence, is it good to have a special section here? Or did I misunderstood you? --Governor Sheng (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL. It would be better if there was enough material for a "Later life and death" type of section, but if there's not, I think something like Louis Abramson#Death is still better than burying it in an unrelated section. Other reviewers may have other ideas. RoySmith(talk)10:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I managed to obtain the books you've mentioned. I did had "Fra Ivan Ančić Dumljanin, 1624-1685" earlier in my hands. Both of these are of no biographical value. They exclusively discuss his works, with a very thorough analysis of it. Although the information there is very valuable, I can hardly use it in this article, because it would become an article about Ančić's works, not his life. There are, however, few information which could be added to the article (regarding his influence and few other things) and the books can serve as an additional reference to already existing information in the article. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you asked me if I'd be interested in a biography of an obscure religious figure from the 17th century, I'd have said no, but you managed to tell a story about him which kept my interest to the end. So I'll call this a support on the quality of the prose. I'll leave it to others who are more familiar with the topic to opine on the "comprehensive" and "well-researched" aspects, which I am not competent to judge. RoySmith(talk)14:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure whether it is appropriate to apply nationalities for a 17th century figure. Maybe it would be more suitable to state in which country the person was active or in which language did they write in? What do you think?
Overall, a solid but short article. I'd recommend following RoySmith's advice and find a way to obtain those two sources. I was also able to find a few more, which could also be of use: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. To reply to RoySmith's suggestion, I do not think that the one sentence about Ančić's death should warrant its own section. You could maybe split in a separate paragraph. Vacant0(talk • contribs)15:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0, I have managed to fix some of the issues raised few days ago, with few of them remaining. So, regarding the issue of the infobox genre, I hope I have resolved it with the last sentence of the first paragraph in the "Literary work" section: "All his works are from the field of pastoral theology, which, since the Council of Trent, promoted high demands of godly, exemplary and moral life, both from the clergy and the faithful."
I was referring to Thesaurus perpetuus indulgentiarum seraphici ordinis sancti patris nostri Francisci, the English translation is in sentence case. Nevertheless, this won't stop me from supporting this nomination. Vacant0(talk • contribs)18:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Erik Campbell is an important figure from the supernatural horror film Final Destination Bloodliness, and can be considered its breakout character; he's not the protagonist, though he is Stefani's eldest cousin. 14 years after the fifth installment, Bloodlines gained rave reviews from critics and has made almost 6 times its budget back. Heavily featured in promotional material for the film, both Erik and his scene at the tattoo shop turn out to be red herrings, subverting most audience members' expectations about him.
Although the critics have described Erik as kind of a dick at times, and his actor is aware Erik looks like one too, he's a sweetheart deep down. Uniquely among characters in the franchise, Erik is not actually hunted by Death, despite what promos and characters assume. Despite this, he chooses to put himself in harm's way for his family, which ends badly for him due to an MRI machine sucking him inside and folding him like a pretzel. All of these things were noted by critics, who particularly praised Richard Harmon's portrayal of Erik.
Excluding the movie's audio commentary (which I doubt would provide a substantial amount of information not already here), I've gone through almost every single source that became available once Bloodlines hit cinemas, and believe I've covered all of the major bases. While possible more information may come out in the next few months, I do think the article is as complete as it can be. Hopefully, the article does reach FA status, and some of the other FD articles can follow suit.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially uncertain about the "is introduced as" phrasing in this part (Erik is introduced as a tattoo artist and a descendant of his grandmother), but I believe that you use this to reference how Erik is revealed to not really be related to Iris. However, I do not think that this is entirely clear. The second paragraph brings up this "reveal about Erik's parentage", but the lead does not outright bring up this plot point, which I can see being confusing. I would try to clarify this in the lead.
True. I have clarified that he isn't Howard's biological son and how this information was revealed. Hopefully the paragraph isn't too large.
That is a fair concern. In my sandbox (here), I have done a revision of this part of the lead to try and make more concise. I have removed some unnecessary details like the name of the high-rise restaurant tower and his younger sister's name. I had removed this bit (forcing the Campbells to figure out a way to save themselves) as I think that is fairly obvious and does not need to be said. I did explicitly clarity that Death was killing people in the order of lineage as I think that would need to be directly stated. You do not have to use any of this of course, but it is just an idea on how to cut this down a bit. Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made changes based on your sandbox. I also made a few small changes of my own. The first is to clarify that Howard has three children, with Erik being the oldest, which connects to the part about Death targeting the family based in lineage, and then state that Julia died "seemingly" out of the intended order; which is what leads to them finding out about his mother's affair. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I agree with your changes. I think that they are definite improvements to my suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the following sentence could be made more concise while avoiding the repetition of the word "characters": (In developing the characters of Bloodlines, Lipovsky stated that they wished to avoid creating one-dimensional characters and wanted to feature characters with layers to them.) Here is a potential idea, but feel free to think of your own wording and ideas: (While developing Bloodlines, Lipovsky wished to avoid creating one-dimensional characters, instead wanting to feature ones with layers to them.)
Done.
Maybe I am just being a bit dense here, but I was uncertain about this part, (the order of the characters' deaths). Was there a specific order in which the characters get killed? It was not brought up previously so additional context would be helpful.
The characters in Bloodlines are all killed by lineage. Iris goes first, then Howard and his children, then Darlene and her children (including the protagonist Stefani). However, the interview with Backstage Magazine that talks about wanting to subvert audience expectations doesn't clarify a lot of things. They do say that they considered having an affair be part of a reveal, alongside the twins thing. Whether Erik was meant to have a twin brother/sister or not, and whether the twin idea was even going to be used with Erik isn't clarified. Just that from the beginning, they wanted to subvert audience expectations regarding the order of death.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For this part, (Erik's death was also analyzed for its scientific accuracy by experts.), I would add a qualifier to clarify what type of experts are being referenced. I am guessing "medical experts", but a descriptor would be helpful.
@Aoba47: OK, so having checked the article from The Today Show, the writer spoke to only two "experts"; one who specializes in neuroradiology, while the other one is a physicist and is a manager at the Berkeley Brain Imaging Center. I've changed the part in the lede to say "scientific experts" cause I honestly have no idea what to call them instead.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. Thank you for clarifying this for me. I think that "scientific experts" is the better way of handling this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but I wonder for this part, (but is saved by his leather jacket), if "protected" would be a better word than "saved". I think that "protected" would better imply that he was insulated somehow from the flames because of the jacket, while I think "saved" makes it rather unclear how the jacket helped him in this context.
Done.
For this part, (Brenda reveals that Erik is not Howard's biological son, but a neighbor named Jerry Fenbury), I think that it would help to explicitly say that Erik is still Brenda's son and that she was having an affair with Jerry to avoid any potential confusion.
Clarified that circumstances of the affair.
I am uncertain about this part, (they learn JB is William Bludworth). I am sure that this reveal means something, but as someone who has never seen a Final Destination movie, I do not really understand the significance of this part. As a contrast, I think that the Kimberly Corman reference makes sense even to a reader like myself.
Hmm... Well, Bludworth had previously appeared in the 1st, 2nd, and 5th movies, providing cryptic advice to survivors. I've tried to make a few changes to clarify that he has often come into contact with groups that were trying to escape Death, besides the Campbells.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. That is the vibe that I got. I think that pointing out that he has talked with past survivors given the necessary context to better understand his role in this movie and the franchise as a whole. Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the audition or fan links are necessary. I would recommend linking sleep apnea and IMAX later on though. I would also expand the link for this part, (a penile piercing) to go to the genital piercing article as that would be more helpful.
Done.
I believe the "be a part of" quote could be paraphrased without losing anything.
Changed it slightly. Hope it's appropriate.
I would use a different word than "realize" for this part, (This made him realize that Erik's love for his family is his "driving force".), as the previous sentence used "realized" in a similar context. This kind of repetition is best avoided.
Reworded it.
The following sentence feels a tad repetitious: (According to him, Erik is the character that underwent the most changes from the script to the finished movie due to the actors being allowed to improvise.) The previous sentence had already established this improvisation so it does not seem necessary to say it again here. Maybe change it something like the following (According to him, this led to Erik undergoing the most changes from the script to the finished movie.)
Done. My greatest weakness. Repeating myself cause I often think "But what if they've forgotten I already mentioned that before". Lol
I would shorten the following sentence: (Stein described Harmon as an "incredible improviser", with Lipovsky also recognizing that Harmon is well-known for his improvisational skills.) The paragraph already uses a different quote to praise Harmon's improvisational so this one feels like a bit too much and reads like overkill, at least to me. Something like (Stein and Lipovsky recognized that Harmon is well-known for his improvisational skills.) would be more concise. The "incredible improviser" could just be left in the image caption.
Done.
For the paragraph on the MRI machine death, I wonder if either Stein or Lipovsky acknowledged that there was already a fear of MRI machines prior to this film? If so, it might add to how they were concerned about using it, as this fear is pretty well-known.
I checked the Today Show article for that. They don't say specifically that people are afraid of MRI machines. Thye do bring up things like "what can we ruin for people?" and (as mentioned in the article) debating whether it was ethical to include such a scene, as it could impact viewers' perception of such machines (like the tanning beds from FD3).--PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. That is what I took from the article, so the current version of this should be good. I was just curious as I know just remember that MRI machines can cause a lot of fear and discomfort. Granted, most of it comes from the claustrophobia of being in an MRI machine, and this movie goes in a very different direction than that so maybe that is the reason that this is not really brought up. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be mindful of the amount of quotes in the "Reception" section. I know that I am guilty of this, but it is good to avoid overusing them. I think that some of them could be paraphrased or removed, such as "emotional undertone", "charming", and "some very funny moments". I do like the magnetic" quote as that is clearly a pun on the character's death. I would just avoid having nearly every sentence in a paragraph use a quote.
Yeah. Part of me knew this could be a problem. I've made a few changes here and there. Every paragraph still have quotations in it, but the maximum is 2, and they're usually a bit far away from one another.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing this. Just to be clear, I think that it is okay for every paragraph to have a quotation, especially for a reception section, but it is best to avoid having them in almost every sentence. That was my primary concern. This section looks good to me now. Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that this is required for a FAC, but I always find it helpful to alphabetize the categories. I think that it makes them easier to navigate.
Done.
I hope that this review is helpful and will draw more attention to this FAC. My comments are focused on the prose. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again to see if there is anything else. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Aoba47:. Thank you for your comments. :D I really appreciate you taking the time to review the article, and your comments were definitely helpful in improving the article. I've gone through everything. I also came across another source from ComicBook.com (by a separate writer from the one already included here) that's an interview with the film's directors. The writer again describes Erik as a fan favorite, scene stealer, and also as a breakout character. I've included these comments in the "Reception" section.
The article's writer also asked the directors if Erik was always fated to die. Their response is that this was always the case, and that it was about subverting audience expectations. People think Erik is next, only for him to turn up alive and think that he's safe, only to then realize that he can still die; which he does. I thought about adding this information to the article in the "Creation and casting" section, but it doesn't really provide any new/significant info that isn't already here; in my opinion. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I am just glad that I am able to help. I will read through the article again later today and tomorrow to make sure that I have not missed anything. The part on audience expectation makes sense. I feel like with this type of movie in particular, it is all about keeping the audience on their toes and to maintain suspense and tension whenever possible. I agree that this is part is not really necessary, as the article already establishes this. I do not imagine that I will find anything major in my rereads, but please ping me if I have never come back to this by Friday. I hope that you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the article a few more times and I have not noticed anything major. I am uncertain about the oxygen tanks and wheelchairs links near the end of the article (as both items are unlinked earlier), but that should not hold up my review. Wonderful work with the article. I support it for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems with starting with the "Reception" section first and then moving into the "Development" section. >_< Unlinked wheerlchair and moved the link for oxygen tank up to the first mention. Thank you for the support and your help here! :D PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I was able to help. I can relate to that as I have either worked on articles out of order or moved sections around. These things are pretty common lol. It was a fun read, and I am glad to see more fictional characters being brought through the FAC space. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will review this article soon. This will be my first FAC review, so please feel free to push back on any comments I give that overstep. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 05:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Erik is introduced as a descendant of his grandmother Iris Campbell through his father Howard, and the oldest of his three children." -> This doesn't flow too well in my opinion, and I would suggest changing the "and" to "being".
Changed the sentence. I hope it reads better now.
"While attempting to help his brother Bobby cancel out Death's list" -> I'm not too familiar with the FD franchise, but my assumption is that they are working to remove Bobby from the list, not cancel the list out? Would the wording "While attempting to help his brother Bobby get cancelled from Death's list" work better? You can correct me on this if not.
Yeah, the Final Destination franchise can be a bit complicated regarding how Death's rules work. Basically, if someone on Death's list manages to achieve the New Life method (experience clinical death and get resuscitated) they manage to not only remove themselves from Death's list, but also cancel out the entire list for everyone else and allow them to start over with a clean slate. So basically, had Erik managed to kill Bobby and bring him back, the entire list of the Sky View survivors (meaning Bludworth and the Campbell-Reyes family) would have been safe and able to live normal lives.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"accident occurring at the Sky View high-rise restaurant tower killing everyone present." -> Add comma: "accident occurring at the Sky View high-rise restaurant tower, killing everyone present."
Done.
"Iris prevents the disaster and saves everyone" -> "Iris prevented the disaster and saved everyone"
Done.
" As these people were meant to die, Death began coming" -> "As those people were meant to die, Death begins coming"
Done.
Does Lori Evans Taylor go by "Evans Taylor" or "Taylor"?
To be completely honest, I'm not 100% sure. But considering that Evans is a surname, I'm going to assume it's the former. The sources I've found don't really talk about her much in a professional way; it's usually coworkers that simply call her Lori.
"be a live streamer—instead of a tattoo artist—and he would" -> Why aren't there spacings here in-between the endashes? Other uses of these endashes include spacings.
Oops. Good catch.
"Harmon believed that Erik's love for his family is prominently displayed when he tells Stefani to stop confronting his family about Death's plan as he recognizes how it is upsetting his mother Brenda, and later on when he decides to go to the hospital and help Bobby cheat Death, arguing that despite the reveal over Erik's parentage, Bobby is "still his little brother and [Erik] won't let him die"." -> This sentence is a bit lengthy, could it be split up into the two separate incidents?
On the second mention of Jerry Fenbury, could he just be referred to as Jerry?
Done.
"Erik's tattoos and piercing" -> Just wanted to ask if this is correct, as I assume that a character like Erik would have "piercings".
You are correct. Again, good catch.
"The scene at the tattoo studio" -> Should be standardised as it is previously mentioned as the "tattoo parlor".
Standardized it to tattoo parlor across the article.
"the crew struggling with figuring out how" -> "the crew struggled with figuring out how"
Done.
"Stein and Lipovski had originally considered" -> Lipovsky's surname is misspelt.
Good catch. I actually did the CNTRL+F4 thing and found out I had misspelt his name a second time.
"a torso duplicate of Harmon was created that was folded in reverse and had" -> Avoid repetition of "was": "a torso duplicate of Harmon was created that folded in reverse and had"
Made a few changes.
"Erik received a positive response from fans and critics." -> This might be WP:SYNTH and should be removed, unless you can provide a source which directly states this.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a source saying something like this thus far. I could be wrong, but I don't think it necessarily counts as synthesis, as the sentence is summarizing what the paragraph is stating. To give a point of comparison, in an earlier FAC I worked on (The Suicide of Rachel Foster), in the "Reception" section I simply summarized what each paragraph said in the first sentence, and that was fine.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"John Squires of Bloody Disgusting, IndieWire's Alison Foreman, and ComicBook.com writer Charlie Ridgely" -> Could these three names be standardised in mention?
Just these three examples or all instances in the "Reception" section. I've often seen before that repeating "X person of Y publication said Z thing" is discouraged on Wikipedia, so I wanted to mix it up and go back-and-forth with different ways of writing the names/publications.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"also viewed Erik and Bobby' love" -> "also viewed Erik and Bobby's love"
Done.
Per MOS:DOCTOR, not really sure if "doctor" needs to be included in "Doctor Ben Inglis" and "Doctor Max Wintermark", as their roles are described well enough in the article. MOS:DOCTOR states "although this is usually better described in wording".
Hey @Actuall7:. Thank you for taking the time to review this article. :D I've made changes based on your comments. In a few instances, the changes I made weren't exactly the same as what you suggested, so let me know if they're acceptable.
I've also clarified the bit about Death's list, and why I've written things a certain way in the "Reception" section. Again, let me know if extra clarifications or changes are necessary. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PanagiotisZois: Have taken a second look at the article and didn't find any glaring issues, so I'm happy to say that I'm satisfied with its current state and will support. I fixed the few issues I saw directly, and I hope the rest of your FAC goes well! – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 02:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and the support! :) I realized that I hadn't actually responded to your comment about the lengthy sentence, so I split it in two. PanagiotisZois (talk) 08:54, 20 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) 14:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one lucky enough to review this for GA and I am very glad it is up for FA! I have gone through the article and cannot really find much to say other than
1.) I think the infobox imagine is a bit too dark so perhaps a different one showing the character in daylight may be better
2.) I find the image in the reception section a bit too big
3.) "Foreman also described Erik as a tragic figure, given that he tries to help his family but ends up dying for hs actions" - I would replace "given" and remove the comma to make it more formal and grammatical
Other than that, I see no issues and I think it should be passed regardless of whether my (very minor) comments are addressed or not. Great work on the article! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support. :) I changed the "Reception" image with a slightly older one which is also a bit smaller, though not by much. I also removed the word "given" and the comma from the sentence.
As for the infobox image, it's difficult to find an actually good image that is also bright enough. Unfortunately, next to zero still from the movie exist of Erik. Hopefully, the one currently used is appropriate, as it is bright enough, and also displays (some of) Erik's tattoos. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going to have to oppose on this one. I'm not particularly sold on Erik Campbell being independently notable, to be honest (the vast majority of secondary sources here are about the death scene alone, not the character itself) but I also don't think it meets featured article criteria.
Disagree with the image review above on File:Erik Campbell.jpg. At present, there's no real argument in the fair use rationale beyond illustration, nothing in the prose significantly discusses the character's look, and it can be replaced by a free image of the actor, so it fails WP:NFCC crits. 1, 5, and 10.
I can definitely improve the fair use rationale, but I disagree with the idea that this image shouldn't be included here, or that it can simply be replaced with an image of Richard Harmon. Every character article, even if it's a character from a live-action film or TV show uses images of the characters, and not the actors; specifically featured character articles. Besides, how Richard Harmon looks in real-life and how Erik looks are very different.
The tone feels a tad promotional throughout, down to specific word choices, e.g. "John Squires of Bloody Disgusting, IndieWire's Alison Foreman, and ComicBook.com writer Charlie Ridgely have all acknowledged Erik as being a fan favorite" (using "acknowledged" implies that Erik is a fan favorite is incontrovertible fact rather than them describing the character as one) or choosing to call his performance "lauded"
I can agree with this. Are there any other examples, cause I'd have to problem changing them to be as encyclopedic as possible and non-biased.
There's in my opinion an overuse of quotes when things could be described more soberly, more succinctly, and more clearly without them.
Again, I can change this.
650 words (nearly the length of the plot summary for the entire film) for a character biography contained solely within a single film seems excessive. It also doesn't really set up the character as a whole, which leads to stuff like the fact that he has a lot of tattoos being covered awkwardly later in the production section.
I don't see why this is a problem. Firstly, the length of the movie's plot summary is irrelevant. Secondly, there are other features article characters with far longer biography sections. Seeing as Erik has appeared in just one movie is precisely why we have the "luxury" of including so many details. I can cut down on some things, but I don't believe it's substantially long that it requires trimming down.
The prose generally doesn't feel like it's up to a concise, engaging standard. Statements that don't feel they need attribution are awkwardly prefaced repetitiously, there's unnecessary passive voice, and
As with some of the above points regarding the writing (such as the quotations or "promotional" language) I can make changes based on suggestions.
I'm not sure some sources, even if they pass as reliable sources, are high-quality enough for use in a featured article (Collider and Coming Soon, specifically.)
I can definitely remove the Coming soon source. However, as for the Collider sources, they're used for the behind-the-scenes stuff, rather than reception, so I'm not sure why they are a problem. Admittedly, there is a Collider video interview with the movie's directors, so if necessary, I can simply add the link in the videography section and cite that instead
But for the other sources, particularly the ones used in the reception area, all of the periodicals used also appear in other featured articles that got recently promoted. If they're good enough to be used there (like the Ethan Winters article) I don't see why they can't also be used here.
Decided to address each comment individually. I agree with some of them and am willing to make changes, but mildly or strongly disagree with some of the others.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the 2003 song "Dragostea din tei" by Moldovan band O-Zone, which by now might be the most prolific moment of Romanian language and music in international pop culture. It has been a project close to my heart ever since I began working on it, and I was happy to see it pass to GA status. I am happy for feedback on how to improve it even further to hopefully get it to FA status. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will be doing a more technical review than a prose review (although I will do my best on that part too)
If the genres sourced in the body of the article, I don't think it's necessary to source in the infobox.
Same goes for most of the infobox such as when it was recorded. I noticed it's mentioned and cited in the body of the article.
I would remove the "ca." part on the released section on the infobox and just leave it as "June 2003" or just "2003" since the exactly release is unknown.
I don't speak Romanian, but I used a translation on ref 71. It verifies that it sold over 12 million copies, but not that it's among the bestselling singles of all-time. I know it's listed on Wikipedia's best-selling singles article, but we can't use Wikipedia itself as a source. Could you please provide a source that says it's among the best-selling singles of all-time? It doesn't have to be from a list and you can keep it on the "See also" section.
Overall, this article is in pretty great shape and I'll be more than happy to support this once the issues above are resolved other than prose (because prose reviewing isn't my strongest suit and I do apologize for that). Erick (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Magiciandude: Thank you very much for having taken the time to comment. I have removed the links in the infobox. They were there to begin with because in particular the genres were the subject to some edit wars in the past (not anymore though). I have also removed the "ca." and the mention of the song being one of the best-selling; instead, I moved the latter to the "See also" section. Let me know if you have other comments and whether you support the nomination. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support, or any general comments at all. Unless it attracts considerable movement 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) 20:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thank you for your comment! I am new to the FAC world and I did not anticipate this lack of input. I have written to several users with potential FA experience, and I am awaiting their input. I'd be thankful if we could give it a week before we think of archiving it. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alo! Salut! I did the GA review a few months back. At first glance, the article seems to have become better since then. I will try to look through it properly but it could take a couple of days, I hope I will be on time. —Kusma (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image captions could be slightly more descriptive of the images themselves. In particular, readers should be told that Haducii is pictured in 2025 so they know she is 20 years older than back in the day. I would suggest to remove the Las Ketchup image, it is low quality and doesn't add much to the article (all of the information is in the caption here).
Added time specifications to the pictures
Writing and authorship dispute: was 60 million leu a lot of money?
Judging by this online tool, it was equivalent to around 1000 EUR today. Do you have any idea how I could incorporate this in the article?
Hmm, {{Inflation}} doesn't seem to have Romania. Just using the XE conversion doesn't sit right with me due to the currency reform. A comparison to typical wages at the time could make a good footnote. —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added the average gross salary of 2004 along with a source from Statista.
""Dragostea din tei" is the first Romanian-language song to achieve international commercial success." I am not sure I believe that; are we sure there was no 1890s Romanian singer who was popular in Austria-Hungary? It is probably true with some hedging, but perhaps a better source exists? —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this perspective. I searched the internet and sadly couldn't find a better source to back this up. However, looking closer at the original source, I found that they describe DDT not as the first song, but as the first pop song ("musica leggera") to attain this international success. I adjusted the article accordingly. I think this is more valid, but please let me know what you think. While doing research, I found this other interesting view that I also included: "Reflecting on its sustained chart presence, Andrei Vulpescu of Curentul characterized the track’s global impact—spanning over nine months—as an unparalleled milestone in the history of Romanian music"
I think MOS:... tells us to use ..., not [...] within quotes except in special circumstances.
Fixed.
The list of recordings seems to have been cleared of some of the WP:OR that was present earlier. Looks great.
Thank you for noticing It was really tedious research work in different languages, but I was happy to find refs for almost every derivative version. Some I didn't find anything for were removed from the table.
Good work and good responses so far. Another thing: In the Legacy section, "ushering Moldova into the European cultural landscape in an unprecedented manner, following decades of alignment with the Soviet Union" is a bit weird: Moldova was part of the Soviet Union, not just aligned with it. —Kusma (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: The translated quote from the article is "Moldova was previously a central part of the Soviet cultural circle". Rewrote this to: "...unprecedented manner, following its period as part of the Soviet Union". Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great overall, think I can support based on my thorough reading at the GAN and the improvements since then. —Kusma (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overall impression
This article is impressively comprehensive—covering everything from musical style and lyrics to global charts, Virality, covers, and cultural impact. The prose reads smoothly, and references are reliable and well-placed.
Scope: Excellent balance between factual (release, charts, certifications) and contextual (viral memes, cultural significance).
Virality section: Strong coverage of the "Numa Numa" meme, supported by credible sources like Billboard, CNET, BBC, and The Believer.
Academic grounding: Good inclusion of scholarly perspectives from Marina Cap-Bun and meme analysis—adds depth.
Multimedia integration: Well-integrated images with alt-text and proper captioning across the article
Minor areas for polishChart tables & certifications
Consider adding standardized symbols (like 🇫🇷 for France) in the certification tables for consistency.
Could you elaborate more on this? I don't see adding flags next to the countries listen in the certification table as a common practice. Or do you mean the table in "Comprehensive list of notable derivative recordings"?
Ensure each chart/certification entry uses the correct template parameters.
Is there a specific example that shows a wrong use of parameters in the article?
A sentence connecting “Numa Numa” to emergent online content could be helpful.
Balance of tone
The WatchMojo mention (“annoyingly catchy”) adds flavour, but you might choose to keep reactions more neutral (or reframe as “widely considered iconic for its earworm quality”).
If retained, ensure it’s clearly attributed and balanced with mainstream praise.
I don't use WatchMojo throughout the article. Which bit are you referring to?
Internal links & Wikidata
Link keywords such as Eurodance, singles chart, and meme to relevant Wikipedia entries.
"Eurodance" isn't linked in the Composition section since it's already linked in "Background".
Perhaps link the Believer article or meme studies to internal topics like Internet meme.
Next steps
Add a brief line in Virality connecting meme culture and internet spread using a scholarly PDF cited above.
Tweak the certification charts for formatting consistency.
Decide whether to keep or reframe commentary like “annoyingly catchy” to maintain encyclopedic voice.
Closing note
This article is well-positioned to cross the finish line — just needs a few stylistic polish points. Thanks for the great work!--Christian (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction to a previous comment: I mistakenly referred to WatchMojo being cited, but it's not present in this article. Apologies for the mix-up. Christian (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The nominator has responded thoroughly and addressed all substantive points, including scholarly depth, meme contextualization, prose polish, and citation formatting. Regarding the chart/template, it happened to me as well with a comment on the "La Isla Bonita" nomination. The article is now comprehensive, well-researched, neutrally written, and stable. Christian (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Queen Melisende, famed for her piety and patronage, was the first woman to rule the crusader kingdom. Though her tumultous private life saw her accused of incestuous adultery by her husband and bombarded by her son, the Church exalted her. Her legacy has long been shaped by the admiring pen of William of Tyre. This article draws on the leading historians of the crusades, who have looked both closely at William's account and beyond it—to foreign chroniclers and documentary evidence—to uncover a more layered figure. I am grateful to Adam Bishop, who was one of the earliest contributors to this and other crusade articles, and particularly to Borsoka, whose relentless GA review made this nomination possible. Surtsicna (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Fulko_jeune.jpg: this is tagged as a 2D work of art, but typically seals/coins are considered 3D. Also this needs an author date of death.
Similarly File:Egerton_ms_1139!1_fse005r.jpg appears to be 3D rather than 2D
The original work would be out of copyright due to age, but the author date for the photo presents a problem - 1948 is less than 100 years ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"although Hugh was defeated and exiled, Melisende grew powerful and terrorized the king and his supporters until he agreed to accord a share of the government to her." This seems illogical. although Hugh was defeated, Melisende grew powerful? How did she terrorise him in exile and why was his agreement required?
I think you are confusing Hugh with Fulk. "The king" is Fulk (mentioned earlier as being crowned with Melisende and reigning with her). Hugh is introduced as Count Hugh. I hope this edit makes it clearer. Surtsicna (talk)
"Melisende steadfastly refused to cede any authority". "steadfastly" is an odd word here. I would delete.
"Her reign saw two catastrophic Christian losses to the Muslims: the fall of Edessa in 1144 and the failed attempt, which she likely opposed, to take Damascus in 1148 during the Second Crusade." "Her reign saw" seems to imply that she bore some responsibility or that they weakened her power. I think you need to clarify or delete.
The Assessment section cites a historian saying that the extent to which she is responsible is "arguable". Surtsicna (talk)
Saying that it is arguable whether she was responsible for two events which were apparently outside her control, without giving any reason, is unencyclopedic. The comment should be explained or deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not whether she was responsible but to what extent. These events were not or should not have been outside her control. She was the queen. The matter is explained in the relevant sections. I hope we can revisit this sentence after you've gone through the second half of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the rest of the article and sources available to me, I am even more sceptical. Melisende responded immediately to the appeal from Edessa by sending troops but they were too late (Asbridge, p. 194). Mayer is, so far as I can find, the only historian to mention her as having a role in the attack on Damascus, and he does not blame her. Other historians do not mention any local leaders (Runciman, Asbridge) or mention Baldwin but not Melisende. I think that "Her reign saw two catastrophic Christian losses to the Muslims: the fall of Edessa in 1144 and the failed attempt, which she likely opposed, to take Damascus in 1148 during the Second Crusade" should be deleted from the lead as wrongly implying failure on her part. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Franks. I think this is a wrong link. You treat the word as a synonym for Latin Christians, which is correct in the Crusader context (if I understand correctly) as Franks was the Moslem word for the Christian invaders, but it is not the meaning of the term you link to.
That's a good catch. The link led to a section of that article that explained the use of the word in the Crusader context. That section appears to have been moved. Surtsicna (talk)
"Folda thus believes that Melisende was born in Edessa". It does not necessarily follow. I would delete "thus".
Deleted (though I'd say Folda's belief does follow). Surtsicna (talk)
"The crusader states were in a near-constant state of war, and their defense fell to men." Maybe "The crusader states were in a near-constant state of war with the Moslems." You do not need to say that the defence fell to men.
The source does not say with the Muslims. They were at war amongst each other as well. The defence being men's job is mentioned because the point of the sentence is to provide context for the novelty of female succession; but now I think that the sentence might not be needed at all. Hmm. Surtsicna (talk)
"Mayer initially thought that Melisende had been declared heir before the embassy was sent to France, but eventually concluded that her official recognition was a condition imposed by Fulk before he would agree to a marriage contract and come to Jerusalem." Mayer's change of mind is excessive detail.
"Mayer suggests that Walter may have been incited to make this accusation." Incited by who? Probably someone advised him but so what?
Specified from another source. Fulk incited him. It is an important detail, but perhaps not important enough for Melisende's biography. Hmm. Surtsicna (talk)
"at the viscount, Rohard the Elder". The link is WP:EASTEREGG. I suggest spelling ou in full "Viscount of Jerusalem" for clarity.
"Mayer suggests that for this reason, Fulk stayed in Antioch in 1135." In the lead you say he was exiled, meaning sent away, here that he chose to go.
I think you've misread the lead. It says that Hugh was exiled, not Fulk. Surtsicna (talk)
No change needed, but it seems to me dubious that Iovieta was ever seen as a threat. Is there any contemporary evidence that her being born in the purple was raised as an issue, or is it just speculation by modern historians based on claims for Henry I?
It is a speculation based on the 12th-century Genoese claim that Raymond of Tripoli argued that he had the best right to the throne of Jerusalem because his mother, unlike Melisende, had been purple-born. Historians disagree on whether Raymond ever actually made this claim (he must have known that his mother was, in fact, not purple-born), but it gave rise to the idea that porphyrogeniture was considered in the succession to Baldwin II. Surtsicna (talk)
Didn't the Young King, Fulk's great-grandson, differentiate himself from his father during his revolt by pointing out that he was the son of a king where Henry II was only the son of a count? Srnec (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to keep to the usual Wikipedia practice of having the family tree at the end of the article and hidden by default.
That practice, as far as I remember, was an attempt to minimize the damage done by an uncontrolled proliferation of ahnentafeln that named wholly irrelevant people. This chart illustrates crucial relationships discussed in the article. In my opinion, content worth having should not be hidden–and if it should be hidden, it is not worth having. Surtsicna (talk)
"Melisende's first action, as had been her husband's or of any contemporary ruler, was to appoint supporters to the kingdom's offices." This is clumsy.
You are right. Come to think of it, appointing a cabinet is the first thing a modern head of government does today too, so there is no need to explain it. Surtsicna (talk)
"Jerusalem saw a surge of architectural activity during Melisende's reign, which Folda attributes to her forceful personality" This does not follow. You need to say that it was due to her support and then comment on her forceful personality.
"Folda argues that the project saw copious support from Queen Melisende and her cooperation with the patriarch." I would normally only expect to see "x argues" if a statement is controversial. Is there any reason to doubt Folda?
Not really. It's a reasonable conclusion given that she was the queen and is otherwise well-recorded as a patron of the church and architecture. We just do not have material evidence of her involvement in the work on Holy Sepulchre, and I was told during the GA process to attribute such extrapolations. Surtsicna (talk)
"informed Unur that they intended to reinstall Altuntash" Why reinstall? You have not said that he was removed.
Well, this has raised more eyebrows than just yours. Obviously I cannot avoid citing cite primary sources. Explained. Surtsicna (talk)
"Barber suggests that Melisende did not send Baldwin because she thought that the gravity of the situation required experienced adults." I think it would be worth pointing out that Baldwin was 14 years old.
"The capture of Damascus would have served Jerusalem better than capturing distant Edessa." Other historians disagree. Mayer says "Given the fact that the alliance with Damascus was essential for the peaceful development of Jerusalem, the plan to besiege it has baffled historians as much as the execution of the siege." Mayer suggests that Baldwin aimed to give control of Damascus to an ally, which would have given him a decisive advantage in his contest with his mother, and that the siege was defeated by treasonable manouvres by the Jerusalem nobles including allies of Melisende ("The Latin east 1098-1205", in The New Cambridge Medieval History IV, 2004, p. 654) Runciman describes it as "utter folly" (p. 281).
I knew about disagreements, but that suggestion by Mayer is very interesting. Of course, there are other theories too, and this article is probably not the place to explore them all. How about we only say that reasons behind the decision are unclear, or rather move straight to Melisende's presumed attitude? Alternatively, we could present this theory by Mayer, as it pertains to the subject of this article much more than others. Surtsicna (talk)
"Mayer considered the possibility that Melisende first supported the expedition only to then engineer its failure". You imply above that she was not party to the decision. The ref is dated 1972. As stated in this review above, by 2004 Mayer's vew was different.
I am reading the 2004 article, but I do not see the discrepancy. He does not say in 2014 that she was party to the decision, or at least I do not see it. Surtsicna (talk)
Having looked further at sources on the attack on Jerusalem, I am doubtful about some of your comments:
"A decision to attack Damascus had already been reached in April by Baldwin, Conrad, and Fulcher in a much smaller meeting, which Melisende apparently did not attend.". This is not credible. They could have decided to advocate Damascus, not take the decision for King Louis et al. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but the information comes from Otto of Freising's account and the historians cited here consider it quite credible. Barber says that the sheer size of the later council "lends credibility" to the account, while Mayer says that Otto's account of the decision-making is "precise and reliable". I do not think I can say that Conrad, Baldwin, and Fulcher decided to advocate when the major sources say that they decided to attack. Surtsicna (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Jason T. Roche, "The Second Crusade, 1145–49: Damascus, Lisbon and the Wendish Campaigns", History Compass, 2015 [15] supports you on this point. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The capture of Damascus would have served Jerusalem better than capturing distant Edessa." This is just one view. Runciman condemns it, as I mention above. Asbridge justifies it on the ground that by that time Damascus was an enemy, but he says that Edessa had already been abandoned as a target because it was so devestated that it was not worth conquering, and the decision was between Aleppo and Damascus. I would delete the comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the comments about Melisende's role in the attack on Damascus are attributed to Mayer, and so far as I can find no other historian even mentions her. (It is unlikely that King Louis would have listened to a strong-willed woman, particularly as he had just quarrelled with his headstrong wife.) You should make clear that he is an outlier in his comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly do not know how I could pull off calling Meyer an outlier when Meyer is the author of by far the most comprehensive study of Melisende's life to date. Surtsicna (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mayer's comments are presented as speculations and he does not appear to have any evidence that she had any role in the decision to attack Damascus. I think it is relevant that all other historians I can find ignore Mayer's speculations and do not even mention her in their accounts. You mention Mayer's suggestion that she opposed it partly because it was unwise, but Asbridge and Roche say that historians now defend the decision. I would say that other historians do not mention her in their accounts of the attack (with refs), as otherwise an unbalanced view is given of the historical consensus, but would that be OR or SYNTH? What do you think Gog? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should go with the consensus of HQ RSs. So unless Dudley is at fault in his analysis of the sources, then it seems to me that it is wrong to mention Mayer's speculation; at the very most it should be heavily qualified as a one-expert outlier. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nicholas Morton, The Crusader States and their Neighbours: A Military History, 1099–1187, would be a good source here. I'm thinking, however, that Melisende may have had as much of a role in the Second Crusade as Elizabeth II did in the Falklands War. Srnec (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The leading families of the kingdom were also present, headed by the co-rulers of Jerusalem, King Baldwin III and Queen Melisende. The king was only eighteen years old and, while technically above the age of majority (he had also led his first military campaign the previous year), his mother was still very much the senior partner in the royal house. Melisende’s presence was rarely noted in accounts of the Second Crusade, but she had been co-ruler of the kingdom, with King Fulk, after the end of the civil war of 1134 and queen regnant since his death in 1143. The queen was, of course, unlikely to take part in warfare, but her strong political ambitions and years of experience must have ensured that she exerted some influence over the proceedings.
He further mentions R. C. Smails:
In the 1120s Melisende’s father, King Baldwin II, had mounted a series of raids on Damascus but he realised that the city was too strong for the forces of the Latin East and summoned help from the West – a call that culminated in the failed crusade of 1129. Smail observed that Melisende may have endorsed a new campaign for Damascus because she had witnessed these events. The objection to this line of approach, raised by Mayer, is that from 1140, the Damascenes were allies of the kingdom of Jerusalem; it was therefore a grave error for the crusaders to confront a friendly Muslim force.
Smail's paper is cited as "R. C. Smail, ‘The Crusaders and the Conquest of Damascus’, unpublished paper read at Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem 1984 (later published in Hebrew)", so it is basically inaccessible. Phillips also mentions the theory that the siege might have been sabotaged to keep Melisende in power but, surprisingly, attributes it to another historian:
Conversely, Hoch has argued that nobles favourable to Melisende caused the campaign to fail, not wanting her youthful son to augment his strength at the expense of the queen.
I think it needs foregrounding that Melisende's presence was rarely noted in accounts of the Second Crusade. It needs to be clear that almost everything historians say is speculation, even when they use words like "must". The line in Morton that caught my attention was: when compared to his energetic predecessors, Fulk and Melisende's desultory enthusiasm for expansionist warfare becomes conspicuous. Srnec (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"crown him on Easter without crowning her". "on Easter" sounds odd. Usually it would be "on Easter Sunday" (as you say below).
"Barber observes that William's opinion was not universally shared and that two of the greatest disasters suffered by the Franks in the Levant took place during Melisende's reign, namely the fall of Edessa in 1144 and the failure to conquer Damascus in 1148, though he concedes that "the extent of her personal culpability for either of these events is arguable". "Mayer criticizes Melisende for not voluntarily abdicating in favor of Baldwin III, declaring that "her thirst for power was greater than her wisdom".[134] He insists that "in spite of all the praise William of Tyre heaps on Melisende's abilities", her son was better suited to rule." These comments read to me as mysogenistic. As the article makes clear, Melisende was not to blame for the fall of Edessa and Baldwin was more to blame for the Jerusalem fiasco. No historian would blame a man for not standing down because someone else was more fitted to rule. You have to go by the sources, but you could also quote Runciman "Melisende was a capable woman who in happier times might have ruled with success". (p. 233) And after her final defeat by Baldwin "He took no strong action against her; for legal opinion seems to have held that right, if not expediency, was on her side." (p. 335).
I was convinced that a historian would make that same argument, that no one would blame a man for not standing down in favor of a more capable candidate. I could not find that, but what I found and included in the article is even better, I think: Hamilton's counter-argument that Melisende should not have stepped down because she was "the recognized co-ruler who governed well and enjoyed broad support". Do you not think that this offsets Mayer? These comments by Mayer and Barber are the only pieces of criticism, with Barber's being only half-hearted as well. I am afraid that, if we drop them, the article will become a straight hagiography. Surtsicna (talk)
My impression is that the article is over-critical rather than hagiography. E.g. "Barber contrasts this poor record" and Mayer's ""her thirst for power was greater than her wisdom". I would not delete them but amend the first to "Barber contrasts what he sees as this poor record". I would also add Runciman's comments quoted above from pp. 233 and 335. A comment by Asbridge on Baldwin may also be worth quoting "in the beginning the queen's wisdom and experience had been a welcome source of security and continuity. But as Baldwin grew into adulthood, his mother's presence at his side began to feel more stifling than reassuring." (p. 246) Dudley Miles (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest deleting the reference to her responsibility being arguable in the lead.
That's not in the lead. Do you mean removing it from the section? Surtsicna (talk)
"A television drama adaptation has been announced for Simon Sebag Montefiore's Jerusalem: The Biography". This should be deleted. It is out of date and we do not know what, if anything, the drama said about Melisende.
As far as I know, it has not been developed yet, just announced–admittedly, 8 years ago. Do you think that it has been axed? Surtsicna (talk)
I do struggle to understand how it is not encyclopedic when it is discussed by an academic historian in a peer-reviewed article focusing on Melisende. On the other hand, I do not really care for it enough to be sad to see it go. Surtsicna (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More might be said about the prayer book. Thomas Asbridge describes it as "One of the rarest and most beautiful treasures to survive from the crusading era" (The Crusades, 2nd ed, 2012, p. 174)
I had considered that, but it did not seem right to devote more than a paragraph to an item that is not definitely tied to Melisende and about which we have a standalone article. Surtsicna (talk)
Invited by Surtsicna. I do not often participate in these things. I will make small edits myself as I review. Please vet them.
I find in line references to scholars somewhat distracting and not always necessary. Melisende's parents probably married in 1100 with a footnote seems sufficient.
I was warned against presenting such scholarly POVs without attribution by Borsoka during the GA review. I find that Borsoka may be right in thinking that a wording such as Melisende's parents probably married in 1100 implies that this is a fact. Surtsicna (talk)
What is the fact in the sentence in question? It does not matter-of-factly assert that her parents married in 1100. It says "probably".
Going back to Morphia's article, it is apparent that the marriage could have taken place either in 1100 or 1101, so the statement is not so controversial as to require explicit attribution. Removed. Surtsicna (talk)
Some historians, including Steven Runciman Only Runciman is cited. Does he refer to others?
Runciman is only cited as an example at hand; the sentence is otherwise referenced to Mayer, who says: "Contrary to what has been said in historical literature..." Surtsicna (talk)
I find this method of citation less than clear. Why namedrop Runciman and not Mayer? Why not just drop the name and put the Runciman citation at the end along with the Mayer one?
I am not sure what you mean. Mayer is mentioned. If I drop Runciman's name, then Mayer is namedropped but Runciman is not. Is this any better? Another option is this. Surtsicna (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to look at this again. Left to your judgement.
Joscelin died soon after Baldwin II, and Alice took the opportunity to again seize power in Antioch. Fulk invaded at the invitation of the Antiochene barons and installed a new government in the principality. Doesn't say anything about Melisende and doesn't tell us what this new gov't was.
This is necessary because later on we are told that Melisende did not share in Fulk's regency of Antioch, but did influence Fulk to allow Alice another bid for power. Surtsicna (talk)
Fulk's replacement of the kingdom's established nobility with newcomers from Anjou Shouldn't this just say the he favoured Angevins over the established nobility? What does "replacement" mean here?
Hamilton and Mayer both discount the gossip. Mayer argues that... Hamilton is not cited after this. Rather there are two footnotes to Mayer 1972 that I think should be combined.
Hamilton is cited. First goes Mayer in the immediately following sentence, then Hamilton. The Mayer footnotes are difficult to combine because they refer to two non-consecutive pages. Surtsicna (talk)
"pp. 102, 107" is what I'd do. This is the second instance where I was confused as to what was being cited to what by what seemed like an excess footnote.
The family tree starts with a seeming blank space. I'd add Guy I of Montlhéry. Perhaps is should be moved up to 'Background' or 'Heir'?
I do not see any blank space in the wikitext. Do you mean the generation where Guy is supposed to be? The problem is that Guy is not named in Runciman's tree. Runciman misidentifies the Montlhéry sisters' parents, naming them Bouchard of Montlhéry, count of Corbeil, and Adelaide of Crécy. This is noted in a hidden message in the wikitext. I would much rather leave that generation out than mix and match sources to produce a factually correct tree because that is dangerously close to (if not outright) synthesis. As for the placement, a section titled "Family affairs" seemed intuitive; and by the time the reader reaches that section, her husband and sons are already introduced in the text. I am not strongly opposed to having it in "Background", though. Surtsicna (talk)
I just meant that there is a line coming from nowhere. It seems odd to start a family tree with sisters without naming their parent(s). Any source which expressly corrects Runciman would be good.
In my attempt to find another genealogy chart naming Guy and Hodierna, I found Hamilton (2000) too naming Burchard in his chart; yet Mayer and Riley-Smith (who provide no charts) repeatedly discuss Guy and Hodierna's role as progenitors of the Latin East's Montlhéry clan. At this point I have to give up. I have tried to make this line-out-of-nowhere less conspicuous by making it dashed, but of course we could also just remove the line. Surtsicna (talk)
Great! Thanks. Are we certain that Runciman is wrong, though? That Hamilton, who is a major source in this article, also names Burchard gives me pause for thought. Surtsicna (talk)
Mistakes by Runciman tend to get repeated. Alan Murray and John La Monte agree with Riley-Smith and Mayer. In fact, I found another tree in La Monte JSTOR2856610. I missed it on my prior search because he uses "Hodierne", not "Hodierna". Srnec (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the following sentences: (1) According to Barber, maintaining hostilities with Fulk was not in Melisende's interest after she was restored to power. (2) He became Melisende's favorite child. I am disposed to doubt the latter claim if not backed up by a reference to a primary source that asserts it directly. In other words, this strikes me as the sort of opinion that should be attributed if it is a historian's. The former, however, reads just fine to me without the inline attribution. I can easily tell it is a historian's assessment of Melisende's interests. What else could it be? Given that, the citation at the end is enough.
Removed the attribution. That Amalric was Melisende's favorite becomes very clear from later developments... but I do not mind adding an attribution either. Surtsicna (talk)
interpreted by Folda as part of Fulk's energetic attempts to ingratiate himself with Melisende Seems to restate as Folda's opinion what is already stated in the preceding sentence as fact.
Folda argues that the psalter points to the recipient's That Melisende was the recipient has not been explicitly stated at this point.
Right. Fixed that too. We must not state it as a matter of fact, though. Surtsicna (talk)
Barber finds it difficult to tell how much Melisende was motivated by affection in her relationships with her sisters, particularly noting that "there is no way of knowing" whether Ioveta wished to live a monastic life or if Melisende induced her to negate the political threat which Ioveta may have represented as the sister born during their father's kingship. This, as I'm sure you know, is a general issue given the nature of medieval sources.
I know it, but I am not sure where an average reader would. What do you propose? Not naming Barber? Surtsicna (talk)
Eliminate the first part and just jump to "no way of knowing".
I think that the first part made for a more engaging read, but it is certainly not essential. Removed. Surtsicna (talk)
The only narrative description I would name the source.
Melisende consistently supported the Syriac Church Assuming we mean the Jacobites, i.e. Syrian Orthodox? Since two Syriac churches are mentioned in 'Background', we should be specific here.
a synod of the Latin Church in Jerusalem in 1140 If the synod is notable enough, I'd give it a red link.
It seems to have been one in a series of synods and I find it difficult to discern it from the others. Surtsicna (talk)
In 1138 the king and queen started associating their elder son, Baldwin, in their acts Was he recognized as king yet? I assumed not, but the subsequent statement continued with Melisende and her son, Baldwin III threw me off. He is crowned in the following sentence.
Baldwin III's path to kingship was protracted and complex. He was granted a share in the government by his grandfather Baldwin II in 1131 ("Succession"), but was not associated in his parents' rule until 1138 ("Ecclesiastical relations"), was only crowned king in 1143 ("Accession and consolidation"), became legally competent to rule in 1145 ("Holy war"), and finally became the effective ruler in 1152 ("Civil war"). Surtsicna (talk)
No. He just had a vague share in the government under his grandfather's will. No historian dates his reign from 1131. If this is confusing, the article can survive without that "joint reign initiated in 1131 continued" sentence. Surtsicna (talk)
I think we have to remove "joint reign ... continued" if he wasn't king from 1131. And because we say "sole ruler" several times.
Baldwin at the very least replaced Fulk in the joint reign. But it's nuances that we do not need. Removed. Surtsicna (talk)
Melisende became his guardian She was his mother and already queen, so what exactly does this mean?
Neither being his mother nor having effective power meant that she was bound to be his guardian (cf. Baldwin IV and Baldwin V, where the mother, the ruler, and the guardian were all different people). Guardianship is distinct from regency. Do you think the text might benefit from a link to Legal guardian? Surtsicna (talk)
I think it would benefit from clarification, but I'm not sure 'legal guardian' is the right link. If she became his guardian in 1143, who was his guradian before? Srnec (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine Fulk as a sort of pater familias. What Melisende's guardianship meant in practice is that she made decisions in both her name and Baldwin's, hence "All power was in Melisende's hands". Surtsicna (talk)
Was Fulk was his guardian by virtue of being his father or the king? Why wouldn't Melisende be his guardian by virtue of being mother and queen? If there is a technical aspect to this guardianship, I think we need to spell it out.
It's probably common knowledge that prior to the modern era, women generally did not have as much rights as men in marriage, family, and society. Mayer does not spell it out, and we can simply say "was his guardian" if you think "became his guardian" might raise questions. Surtsicna (talk)
Melisende's first action was to appoint supporters to the kingdom's offices. I feel like 'first' needs qualification here, but adding 'as sole ruler' feels wrong in light of the preceding paragraph. I think the heading 'Sole rule' may need tweaking.
I think the distinction between ruling and reigning is useful here; Baldwin and Melisende co-reigned, but only she ruled ("All power was in Melisende's hands"). Surtsicna (talk)
I just meant that 'first' is relative. But to what exactly?
By choosing Manasses rather than empowering one of her subjects, Melisende ensured the preservation of royal authority. This sentence feels awkward. Wasn't it just an exercise of royal authority?
It was also a preservation of it. Giving command of the military to a vassal empowers the vassal at the expense of the monarch. I hope this tweak clarifies it. Surtsicna (talk)
But then doesn't giving command of the military to anybody empower them at the expense of the monarch? I'm not disputing the truth of it (I get it), but I don't think it is obvious to the readership why a vassal is more dangerous to royal authority than an outsider.
I see now what the issue is. I had thought that describing Manasses as a cousin would suffice, but fortunately Mayer explicitly says why Manasses was a good choice. Surtsicna (talk)
dependent on her for income, I presume. Maybe needs stating explicitly.
Better safe than sorry. I went with "patronage", though, as that is what the source says. Surtsicna (talk)
Melisende controlled Seems to imply that she did not have full control of the kingdom. Is that what is intended?
Barber attributes the monk's hostility to the "endemic misogyny of the monastic world" Seems like a very high-level explanation for a single nameless individual's action.
I do not know how to address that. The explanation is already attributed to a relevant scholar and is not in wikivoice. Surtsicna (talk)
In filling the offices with trusted men Melisende had her eye on the chancery too. I would merge this sentence with the next.
The conflict over the see of Tyre This is where I stopped, but do we get to hear how it ends?
We do indeed. The denouement awaits you in a subsequent section. Stay tuned! Surtsicna (talk)
That's sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. For the record, I do not intend to use strikethroughs or checkmarks or anything like that to indicate an issue is resolved. If I don't respond to your response, you can assume I am satisfied. I am not sure what is normal at FAC. Srnec (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finishing...
The queen and the constable faced their first crisis What is first relative to?
but it was Melisende who made the decisions This reads a bit like special pleading for the subject of the article. I would omit. Just "They appealed to the king. Melisende called a council."
I tried that, but the "the Edessenes appealed to the king" sentence looked pointless at best, misleading at worst. If you think it looks pandering to Melisende, I believe it would be better to delete the entire sentence than just that one part. Surtsicna (talk)
to request a new crusade Not the best place for the link to Second Crusade, since a requested crusade may never materialize. This whole sentence ("contacted .. about sending .. to break ... and to request") is a little underwhelming.
You're right. I have struggled with this link. I hope this looks better. Surtsicna (talk)
reinstall Altuntash When did he cease to be governor? If he "attempted to break away" before contacting the Franks, we need to make that clearer.
He ceased to be governor when he struck for independence. I have clarified that "governor" means Unur's governor. Surtsicna (talk)
But surely he struck for independence within an existing territorial base? What was it if he was no longer governor at the time? I had assumed he had rebelled, been formally removed and the Franks were demanding his reinstallation.
I think I see now what the issue is. Altuntash was in control of the towns when he went to talk with the Franks, but (as the article about Altuntash notes) Unur laid a siege and prevented Altuntash from returning. Runciman does not make this explicit; the primary source (Ibn al-Qalanisi) does. I wonder if it would suffice to say that Altuntash governed the towns at the time of his appeal to the Franks. Alternatively we can say "intervene" instead of "reinstall Altuntash". I would prefer not to cite the primary source if at all possible. Surtsicna (talk)
"an application of the principle divide et impera" Too mundane to need quoting (or Latin).
I have removed that sentence. I think the preceding sentence conveys what needs to be conveyed. Surtsicna (talk)
King Louis VII of France, Queen Eleanor, and King Conrad III of Germany travelled to the Levant with their relatives, vassals, and troops, accompanied by papal legates. I would omit Eleanor and relatives.
Eleanor is a recent inclusion. I introduced her here because she is mentioned in the later "Legacy" section (which I suspect you did not see as I wrote exactly while you were finishing your review!). Surtsicna (talk)
Mayer surmises, while admitting that it cannot be known for certain, that Melisende must have been opposed to the decision to attack Damascus because it had so far been a valuable ally against Nur al-Din and because the conquest of such a great city would have earned Baldwin enough prestige to challenge her supremacy. . . Mayer considered the possibility that Melisende first supported the expedition only to then engineer its failure in a bid to destroy Baldwin's military and political reputation, noting that it would have been a politically reckless game. Too much speculating.
How much expert speculation would you entertain here? Axe all of it? Surtsicna (talk)
My main concern is that the same expert is entertaining the thought that (a) Melisende opposed attacking Damascus and that (b) Melisende supported attacking Damascus. This is fine, of course, but to me it shows that Mayer is in "thinking out loud" mode. It reduces to "We don't know Melisende's attitude to the attack on Damascus".
That is true. We do not know. Mayer does not claim to know. He does conclude that scenario A is much likelier: "All things considered, her political interests could not favor her support of the expedition, unless one would accuse her of such recklessness in politics as to make her first support the campaign, and then engineer its failure with the help of her partisans in the camp before Damascus, in order finally to cause the collapse of Baldwin's military and political reputation. The price would have been too high, the outcome too uncertain." I hoped that the article made his final position clear. Interestingly enough, various primary sources accuse a whole array of people, but none accuse Melisende; in fact, in Michael the Syrian's account, the traitor is Baldwin! It's a fun case of medieval whodunit. Surtsicna (talk)
I had not realized that that article existed. I am not sure whether it can be anything more than a copy of the content of the articles about Melisende and Baldwin. I shall give it a thought. Surtsicna (talk)
I tend to think that conflicts are best covered in their own articles since they don't 'belong' to one side.
The boxed quotation from William of Tyre seems out of place and a little off-topic. You earlier wrote that Archbishop William of Tyre ... does not explicitly describe Melisende's appearance but there seem to be allusions to it here.
Here I had a major dilemma. Murray is right: William does not describe Melisende. He does describe Baldwin, and it is from this description of Baldwin that we get a glimpse of Melisende's appearance: she was thin and ruddy and possibly also comely. The only author who, in a published work, discusses this peculiarity is a non-academic one; and the only discussion of it by academic historians is in BBC's "In Our Time", which is in the "External links"! I thought a physical description essential to complete the biography, and I finally decided to cite William of Tyre directly rather than either a book by a non-academic historian or a radio show featuring academic historians. The question was where and how to present this description. It is not, strictly speaking, a description of Melisende but of Baldwin, so it has to go somewhere where Baldwin is prominent; and I could not work it in anywhere in the running text. I decided to put it in a box quote as a sort of framed portrait. Come to think of it now, it might work better in the "Rupture" section, which is where Baldwin first comes into the forefront. Please let me know if you have other ideas. Surtsicna (talk)
Ah! I see. A 'wikihack'. What exactly does Pangonis say? I would not be too averse to citing her if she is basically reporting what William says.
Pangonis is actually quite explicit and detailed, and her conclusions are reasonable. "Despite the evident admiration William of Tyre felt for Melisende, this esteem did not go so far as to compel him to write a physical description of the queen for posterity. He never felt it necessary to furnish his audience with detailed descriptions of women, although he frequently did so with men. In spite of this, in his description of Melisende’s eldest child Baldwin III, William unwittingly gives us a glimpse of this mysterious and formidable queen. He writes of Baldwin III: ‘His features were comely and refined, his complexion florid, a proof of innate strength. In this respect he resembled his mother.’ He goes on to write that Baldwin’s build was on the heavier side, ‘not spare, like his mother’. From this, we can clearly discern that Melisende was a thin woman, with attractive features, who emanated strength of character. She had European colouring, a pink-tinted skin tone, suggesting that she took after her Frankish father in colouring rather than her Armenian mother. Given that on top of this, both of her sons were fair-haired with flashing eyes, perhaps we can assume with relative safety that the same was true of Melisende." And yet, Pangonis admits in the preface and in the bibliography that her work is not academic. The thought of mixing it in with this article's otherwise scholarly bibliography sets off my OCD — and I fear that it could also hurt the article's credibility. Surtsicna (talk)
Mayer considers it clear If it's clear from the primary sources, why do we need inline attribution?
Baldwin began to move in early 1152. I think we need to be more explicit.
How? It is an introductory sentence. Unless we remove it and jump straight into the explicit... Surtsicna (talk)
What exactly does 'move' mean? (I had to go look up the sentence in the article to figure it out because the sentence is completely opaque in isolation here.) "In early 1152 Baldwin demanded" would be fine, but you could just add "against his mother" to the current sentence.
Right. It does follow the preceding section so closely that in isolation it looks opaque. I went with the latter idea to make it clear that the demand was a part of the scheme. Surtsicna (talk)
Wherever there are more than one refs for a sentence, if they are to the same source, they should be combined.
Melisende moved from the unfortified town of Nablus Is this where she normally resided?
No source says it is, and the common phrasing "retired to Nablus" implies that it is not. On the other hand, medieval rulers were rarely tied to one place. Nablus, like Acre and Tyre, was part of the royal domain. She might have been touring her land. Surtsicna (talk)
the citadel in the Tower of David What exactly is meant? I would have described the Tower of David as the citadel of Jerusalem.
"one of the most energetic among mediaeval queens" I think it would be useful to compare her to contemporary queens regnant and regents. I believe the studies for this exist.
One would think that "Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe" (with a whole chapter dedicated to Melisende), "Gendering the Crusades", or "Women, Crusading and the Holy Land in Historical Narrative" would make a comparison between Melisende, Matilda, and Urraca, and possibly also Constance, Tamar, and Petronilla; sadly, they are completely useless. I can, however, use the already cited work by Murray to compare her with the other queens of Jerusalem. See if you like this. Surtsicna (talk)
Those are the sources I was thinking of, but what about this or this?
Yes, that's the stuff I expected to find in the sources mentioned above! Unfortunately, I am not sure that they meet WP:PHD. For the PhD thesis, we would have to establish that it has "been cited in the literature, supervised by recognized specialists in the field, or reviewed by independent parties"; and for the master thesis, that it has "had significant scholarly influence". I found this, which seems promising. I'll see if I can squeeze something decent out of it. Surtsicna (talk)
Now some general comments.
I find the repeated references to Mayer (and other modern historians) annoying. Of course, if you are discussing a controversy in scholarship you need to name names, but that is not normally what is going on here. Not sure if there is a way to meet in the middle. I wonder what other reviewers think.
I agree with Funk Monk that it would be helfpul if captions identified the sources of the medieval images.
It certainly seems that the sources used are sufficient for a comprehensive treatment of the subject. But in relation to (1), more opinions might reduce the weight of reading the same 2–3 names over and over.
Thank you, Srnec. I hope this was not too much of a chore. The chief complaint during the GA review was that I was not naming historians frequently enough. I suppose nominators often find themselves balancing between such opposing preferences. I have now removed as many such references as I could, or rather all that I did not consider essential. If you think there are more that could go, let me know which. For the image captions suggestion, please see the response to Funk Monk. Surtsicna (talk)
Gaudette, Helen A. (2010). "The Spending Power of a Crusader Queen: Melisende of Jerusalem". In Earenfight, Theresa (ed.). Women and Wealth in Late Medieval Europe. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 135–148. doi:10.1057/9780230106017_8.
Gaudette wrote a thesis on Melisende that I cannot access. It is cited favourably by Folda 2012, although the short paper does not add much to what the article already has. Srnec (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marking my spot, will wait until the above reviews conclude so I don't thread the same ground. That said, a few preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Link terms at first mention in image captions too, like William of Tyre, Baldwin II, The Holy Sepulchre, place names, etc.
It does make them look nicer. Done! Surtsicna (talk)
No caption for the infobox image?
I find that it disrupts the aesthetics of the infobox without providing significant value. This is entirely subjective, of course. Let me know what you think about it. Surtsicna (talk)
Could be nice to note which images are contemporary or not in their captions, with dates for example.
I think I have done you one better: a whole section about the depictions of Melisende, including a substantial paragraph about the medieval depictions. Essentially, none are contemporary and none can be precisely dated. Repeating "13th-century depiction" in every caption looked more tiresome than helpful, so I addressed the matter in prose instead. Of course, each image also contains this information on the file page. Surtsicna (talk)
"was the count of Edessa.[2] The historian Jaroslav Folda believes that Melisende was born in Edessa" you link Edessa at second instead of first mention here.
The first instance refers to the state (already linked above), the second to the city (mentioned for the first time). Surtsicna (talk)
"the king of Jerusalem, Baldwin I, died. Baldwin II was elected to succeed him" Any relation between the two?
Hotly disputed. That is a can of worms best left closed in this article, I think! Surtsicna (talk)
I wonder if Melkite should be linked somewhere in the background section.
I am fairly certain that I had it included at some point. Not sure where it went. I (or someone else) might have decided that the readers were being introduced to a lot of denominational terminology as is. Surtsicna (talk)
"Fulk was considerably older than Melisende and already an experienced ruler" How old were they when they were married?
Unfortunately, that cannot be precisely determined. As we have seen in the "Background" section, Melisende may have been anywhere between 16 and 24; Fulk was in his late thirties at least or more likely in his early forties. I have tried to hint at his age by mentioning that he had grown children and that his son had married before Fulk's marriage to Melisende. Surtsicna (talk)
Link Turkish?
I think it was linked at one point and then de-linked on the grounds of of WP:SEAOFBLUE. I do not mind restoring the link if you find it useful. Surtsicna (talk)
"he was killed by the Assassins" they probably need more introduction for unfamiliar readers. "Ismaili order of Assassins" or similar.
That should work. I did think "killed by the Assassins" looked cool, though :) Surtsicna (talk)
"Emperor Manuel I Komnenos" could mention he was the Byzantine emperor.
I think it would be worth mentioning who succeeded Baldwin, considering he died so shortly after.
It is mentioned two sentences later. Surtsicna (talk)
Any interesting pictures that could be added to the Art and memorialization section, which is conspicuously empty, considering the subject?
Conspicuously indeed! I hope to find some modern portraits. If I fail, I shall add some of those discussed by Folda, even if depicting the same scenes already depicted and in the same style. Surtsicna (talk)
As this is emphasized in the article body, I wonder if it would make sense to mention her East/West parentage in the intro.
"terrorized the king" that seems pretty strong compared to thew wording in the article body.
Poor guy feared for his life and fled the country! Surtsicna (talk)
Support - looking forward to what kind of image you add to the last section. The article has a very nicely constructed narrative, and I could see it inspire more interest in the subject. FunkMonk (talk)
This has now been open for more than five weeks and has a fair amount of commentary but just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Dan Burros, an American neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon who killed himself when, in 1965, it was revealed by the The New York Times that he was Jewish.
While that inherent contradiction is itself fascinating, and of course resulted in the typical "how did he end up like this" type of coverage, I think this article's most interesting aspect is the look it provides into the world of the 1960s racist right wing. A world of constant petty squabbles, dozens of similarly named racist groups that all hate each other, backstabbing, and periodicals all firing shots at each other. Burros was actually quite the important figure in this milieu. It was interesting to improve. And before it is asked, no source really has a satisfactory explanation as to why he ended up like this. All the most comprehensive sources admit it remains a mystery, and his parents never agreed to talk. Some things remain unknown, but I think personally you can sort of see an outline of it if you look at what's there.
I have never taken anything to FA before, but I do lurk around these parts so I believe I have a rough idea of what is required... this article received a GA review from PMC (for which I am very grateful) and a few notes about grammar at peer review from Sophisticatedevening (for which I am also thankful). Would have left the peer review open longer, but those parts are rather dead nowadays. After looking at this article from everywhichway, I can't see any problems with it and I believe it aligns with all FA criteria. It is a comprehensive usage of all sources on Burros.
A great article. I have no personal criticisms, and I’m not sure if I would even be allowed to present them, as I work extensively in the ANP topic area and was consulted on a few minor details on this article, which is otherwise entirely the work of PARAKANYAA; and a great work it is. Not sure if I’m allowed to support, so I’ll just voice it, I assume. 🔮🛷 starmanatee 🛷🔮 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any and all comments, including formal supports and opposes, are welcome from any and all editors. We do encourage reviewers to be transparent about where they are coming from, which you have been - so all is good. Specialist reviews or those from editors close to the pre-FAC process can be very informative. The coordinators will weigh your comments along with all others when closing. Although note from the instructions that "It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PARAKANYAA has truly done an amazing job writing about Dan Burros. Certain minor points notwithstanding, I was very much impressed during my initial read of this article, and remain so now. (Read: this is me supporting.) — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤)05:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
uhm... I'll leave some comments tomorrow, though I won't have enough time to finish everything tomorrow, so expect me to finish this review next week. Vacant0(talk • contribs)20:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lede looks surprisingly good to me. I did not find any errors.
"this was, to his friends' knowledge, the first antisemitic thing he had said" – in the public?
not in public, but that they had heard from him at all. so i don't think clarifying public would be true to the source
"the first antisemitic thing he had said" – wikilink antisemitic
linked
Early life looks good. IMO, this section could benefit of a picture of his high school.
added
American Nazi Party is first mentioned in the Military career section, therefore it should be wikilinked.
I just removed the mention of who he said it to, because it doesn't really change anything and is confusing because we haven't established that yet
"(according to Rockwell)" readers do not know at this point of the article who Rockwell is
removed that because the clarification here is unnecessary and this is already attributed
"He later claimed he left the army in disgust after Little Rock." should go after "Afterwards, he initially claimed that the army let him out after three years, and that he had decided to go due to personal factors."
from a newspaper search, I do not think so. From looking at their addresses they appear to be on other ends of Manhatten.
"July 10, 1958" has missing comma at the end
fixed
"printing dispute" – do we know more about this?
added more information
"Burros began expressing an interest in neo-Nazism in December 1958" – but the article already notes that Burros was obsessed with Nazism? Maybe you could note that he started being interested in neo-Nazi activisim?
specified activism, though my thought was being interested in nazism and neo-nazism are two related but distinct things
"He was briefly a member of the British National Party in early 1960" – you should consider explaining how he was able to obtain membership, considering that this is a party in the United Kingdom and he was an American citizen.
The source doesn't explain this, though it does say he got his membership card. To my recollection the British National Party allowed international members to receive membership cards.
""Trooper's Oath"." – more about this?
I'm not really sure how to explain this, it's just a thing the members said when they joined. Sources don't give much detail on it other than repeating what it says.
Describe what multilith is
added explanation
I see that ANP is used as an abbreviation for the American Nazi Party, so you should specify in the first mention of American Nazi Party that ANP is the abbreviation e.g. American Nazi Party (ANP). Same goes for Anti-Defamation League and Congress of Racial Equality.
added abbreviations
"In 1960, American Nazi Party security officer Roger Foss conducted background checks on all ANP members" – do we know the month? you could also use the abbreviation here instead of the full name
abbreviated, source does not specify month.
"neo-Nazi James H. Madole" – do we have to specify that he was a neo-Nazi when in the sentence before it is mentioned that the party he led was neo-Nazi?
fixed
That's it from me. The article seems to be well written, I was not able to find too many issues besides the ones I already mentioned. Vacant0(talk • contribs)
Very excited to see this at FAC! I'll have another look over it to see if there's anything FAC-level-y that I missed, although I was quite fussy at the GA review already :) ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"When he entered high school, his IQ was tested at 134, and at 135 in 1952." - since we don't know what year he entered high school, the inclusion of the second year doesn't really tell us much. I might trim this to "Testing showed his IQ was in the 130s" or something similar
did that
"While initially pleased with the army, after some time it started to disappoint him." - suggest swapping to something like "His initial satisfaction with the army soon turned to disappointment" for increased flow
did that
"often drew antisemitic drawings that featured detailed art of Jews dying." could be simplified to "often drew detailed art of Jews dying", since I think the reader will reasonably infer he was being antisemetic
simplified
"impressed by his fervent Nazism and artistic and mechanical skills; he was seen as too fanatical" - was is Rockwell who saw him as too fanatical?
yes, clarified
" convicted several times for language" - in what way?
clarified
" including bumper stickers, antisemitic soap wrappers, largely sold through" - you need an and here
added
I might split para 2 under American Nazi Party at "When John Patler joined..." since everything from there concerns Patler & Burros as buddies
I moved it down a few paragraphs so it was closer to the rest of the Patler material, if I split it there entirely it would be too short I think
"an $100" should be "a", no?
My understanding is that we use an when the next word leads with a vowel sound, and when I look at that sentence I pronounce it it as "to an a hundred dollar fine." When I read $100 in this context I do not say "one-hundred" I say "a hundred". This may be a regional thing? I am not sure. If this is actually incorrect I can change it.
"A" works no matter how you read it. If you read it as "one hundred", "one" technically starts with a vowel but it's a consonant sound, so "a" rather than "an". And if you read it as "a hundred", the "a" there is the article referring to the fine, so you don't need the additional "an".
changed it
"The American National Party dissolved..." suggest splitting the para here, since the rest is about the fallout of their dispute
split
rm "later" from Patler's murder, unnecessary since we know 1967 is later than 1963
done
"he hated Rockwell, he had many of the same views" Madole or Yockey?
clarified
"Burros grew to dislike..." "Burros disliked..." bit repetitive
rephrased
"after he saw it, Burros became preoccupied with the film" - you can trim to "Burros became preoccupied with it" since it's clear that started after watching it
trimmed
Tweaked a sentence in the KKK section
lgtm
"His new position..." might split the para here as everything afterward is about his parents and the revelation of his background to authorities
I feel this is a little bit short but I agree on splitting it, done
"Burros did not agree to a formal interview but agreed to have a conversation." - could trim to "Burros agreed to an informal conversation rather than a formal interview"
did that
I noticed in the paragraph about Rockwell's eulogy, we go from the eulogy to Rockwell's private feelings then back to quoting the eulogy. Suggest rearranging, even if it means splitting the paragraph at Rockwell's private feelings
I moved the private feelings to the first part, feels more logical
Para 1: "Burros was at one point the third highest-ranking member of the American Nazi Party," How about "Burros was once the third highest-ranking member of the American Nazi Party"?
changed
Para 2: "Burros was enrolled in Hebrew school in Richmond Hill, where his bar mitzvah was held" - I would spell out the name of Richmond Hill as "Richmond Hill, Queens" or "Richmond Hill, New York"; otherwise it's implied that Richmond Hill is in the Bronx, which it isn't.
changed
Para 2: "in 1960. In 1961" - Is there a way to reword this to avoid juxtaposing these two years in different sentences?
tried to change it to avoid this
Para 2: "Soon after they had a falling out" - "Falling-out" is typically hyphenated in this context (since they are not literally falling out of something).
changed
Para 3: "In 1965, Burros was recruited into the Ku Klux Klan by Roy Frankhouser, and quickly became the King Kleagle and the Grand Dragon of the New York chapter of the Ku Klux Klan's United Klans of America." - I suggest either removing the comma after "Frankhouser" or changing it to "and [he/Burros] quickly became the King Kleagle...". The essay WP:CINS explains the reasoning for this.
removed comma
Early life:
Para 1: "Both of his grandfathers spoke Yiddish." - This kind of seems out of place. IMO, it may not be too relevant, especially since it isn't all that uncommon for the grandchildren not to speak the grandparent's language (for example, my grandparents speak only Chinese, and I have cousins who speak no Chinese at all). Did Burros himself speak Yiddish?
I thought it was relevant because it spoke to the specifics of his Jewish background, but I see your point and am not very attached to this detail, so removed.
Para 2: "After the death of his paternal grandparents" - Was this shortly after they moved?
It was some years later. There was originally a whole thing here about his relationship with his grandparents but I found it superfluous. Tried to rephrase this
Para 2: "He had high grades in junior high school, but became rebellious and often sought out fights" - Same concern as above regarding CINS; I would recommend removing the comma or adding "he" before "became rebellious".
removed comma
Para 3: "He later told his friends college was for Jews." - I get what you mean, but some people might be tripped up by the juxtaposition of "friends college", so I would say: "He later told his friends that college was for Jews." or if it's a direct quote, "He later told his friends 'college was for Jews'."
Not a direct quote, but I see the issue, so I added a 'that'.
Thanks for the quick responses. I will not be able to get to the full review until the weekend, but I had a few more comments.Military career:
Para 1: "In August he was discharged from the Guard to join the United States Army for six years.[3][4][19] He joined the Army August 18, 1955" - Is there a way to combine these? You could say he was discharged from the Guard that August and joined the US Army on August 18, serving for six years.
did something like that
Para 1: "He initially served in the 364th Infantry Regiment, then the 187th Airborne Infantry Regiment and finally the 327th Infantry Regiment, at, successively, Fort Dix, Fort Bragg, and Fort Campbell.[20] He was one of the soldiers who forcibly integrated Little Rock Central High School in September 1957.[21][22] He wrote in a letter at the time this was "the first time [he] really [felt] like a soldier"..." - There are three consecutive sentences that begin with "He" (four, if you include "He joined the Army August 18, 1955".) Is there a way to rephrase these so that the beginnings of these sentences feel less monotonous?
tried to make it less monotonous
Para 2: "This was the third such attempt in several months" - To me, it's strange to mention the entire suicide attempt, then mention only afterward that he tried doing it twice before (as if the other two attempts were an afterthought). I would suggest mentioning his two prior attempts earlier in this paragraph.
To my recollection the reason I wrote it like this is that no source mentions that there were multiple attempts except the the actual discharge report, which is partially reproduced in Rosenthal & Gelb. You'd think they would mention this detail, but they do not. I'll just remove it.
Para 2: "He was deemed emotionally immature,[3][21] but not insane or legitimately suicidal.[28] He later claimed that he had undergone psychological treatment while serving for "sadistic tendencies and Nazi leanings", after he strangled an eagle.[27][29] He was discharged under honorable conditions on March 14, 1958.[30][24] His discharge was ascribed to "reasons of unsuitability, character, and behavior disorder"." - There are three consecutive sentences beginning with "He", followed by one beginning with "His". Similarly to the above, I would reword this a bit.
Crap - sorry! This slipped off my radar completely. I'll get on this tomorrow morning - promise! Thanks for the nudge - SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting
There's no benefit (or need) in linking publisher names, but if you are going to do it, you should be consistent
Every publisher that has an article is linked. The only one that doesn't (Eisenberg's publisher) Macgibbon & Kee is not notable and does not have an article.
There is a copy of Atkins here, which is far more beneficial to link to than our article
There is a copy of Bean here, which should be linked to
Eisenberg could do with an oclc, if no SBN is available. Ditto for Rosenthal
Added oclc to those 2
There is also a copy of Eisenberg here, so linking would be far more beneficial than linking the publisher
There are several other titles that are available on the Internet Archive: these should be linked to including the ones where we have an article on the book)
Books on the Internet Archive are questionable in terms of copyright status (see the numerous lawsuits, that they are losing [16]); hence it has always seemed dubious to me. Further, you need an account to view them, which limits the utility to a very very small set of readers. You can also not simultaneously link a book to its article if we have one, (seven do, and I will probably write articles on the rest of the notable ones) in addition to an external link. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a legitimate organisation and an account is free to open and hold. You're doing readers something of a disservice by not linking to the works in question. Linking to an article in place of a book title is always something I find rather annoying when I'm reading an article - I, like I think most people, am after the actual text, not the background to it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The web archiving has a better case for legitimacy but they have repeatedly lost lawsuits in the U.S. (where I reside) over their lending program [17][18][19] which have ruled the way it functions to be a copyright violation. I'm not going to go around removing it but I prefer not to add links to their lending program in most cases when 1) it has been ruled a copyright violation in the US 2) requires log-in to a private, non-Wikimedia affiliated website to view. All WP:COPYLINK says on the matter is that their web archiving has been seen as fine (though even that is legally unsettled), with no comment on their book lending. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell the issue in these lawsuits (or lawsuit; it's really just Hachette v. Internet Archive that's relevant here the way I see it) is about a specific 2020 IA lending program and not the IA books in general. While WP:PAYWALL is about using the restricted work as a source and not about linking, there are plenty of paywalled or subscription-only sources that are commonly linked so I wouldn't know about excluding IA in general.
Otherwise, is it correct that so much of the article relies on One More Victim? What makes The Believer: Confronting Jewish Self-Hatred a reliable source? Nothing else jumps out to me, although I didn't do much spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the books we link to from IA are accessible through "controlled digital lending", which is what they lost in court over, that their specific model of scanning and lending full book copies of in-copyright books was not fair use. They lost a lawsuit to specific companies so only removed their books but the ruling did say that their version of CDL was a copyright violation. The only books in the IA program that don't use controlled digital lending are ones that are out of copyright, which are not an issue to link, but all books used as sources here are still in copyright. They only removed the books from the specific companies that sued them, but that doesn't make it not a copyright violation for the others, and "the copyright owner probably won't sue us" is not an accepted defense for that onwiki. And I'm not saying prohibit it, because it is very grey, I just don't think it is a good idea to add more links to it than strictly necessary.
As for the book, it universally relied upon and referred to by all sources about Burros; most academic sources will just say, for more information on him refer to One More Victim. The only thing negative I have ever heard said about it is that it doesn't provide a real answer for why he ended up the way he did, but I don't think that's a reliability issue. It was written by two respected journalists, was published by a respected publisher, and has seen wide WP:USEBYOTHERS, so I think it is firmly a reliable source. Given that it is the only full length book about him, it is going to be cited a bit more, but I tried to compensate for this by limiting instances where I was citing them for things wholly unmentioned in that source, e.g. there's a lot of things not included because they're only mentioned in that one book and don't connect to anything else, just as a matter of due weight. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Range and reliability to follow
Searches show no additional high quality resources that should be included
The sources used are all of suitable reliability with no issued located
I am going to withdraw from this review and let someone else undertake it. Good luck with the remainder of your nomination. - SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already had this at GAN, so only a couple of comments here.
Like other Middle Pleistocene European specimens, the skull thickness of the parietal bone at the asterion (where it connects with the occipital and temporal bones) is normally midway what is usually seen between Neanderthals and Peking Man (H. erectus pekinensis). – Multiple little grammar issues. "Like in" or "Similar to". "midway between that of". Also, if I remember correctly, H. erectus pekinensis is not a widely accepted subspecies so I recommend not to mention it.
Generally, the anatomy section is very long. Apply summary style a bit more? For example: Cranium 4, though, falls on the upper end of the Peking Man variation of thickness in the angular torus (a raised bar of bone at the junction of the parietal and temporal bones) at 17 mm (0.67 in). – this information strikes me as quite excessive.
The stratigraphy section is quite technical. I recommend to explain the most important terms (such as breccia).
I'm not sure how to gloss breccia without bringing up more geological words like cement and matrix. I put a gloss next to speleothem but I feel like there's parentheses overload happening now. What other words should be glossed? Dunkleosteus77(talk)04:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not convinced about the stratigraphy section. It looks like bombarding the section with glosses is not enough, you might have to give it a bit more space to keep it readable, and with more context.
It is composed of over 80% phyllosilicates, of which more than 60% is paramagnetic illite, permitting paleomagnetic dating to the Brunhes Chron; indicating that LU-6 is younger than 780,000 years. – first, the ";" should be a "," I think. More importantly, the sentence simply lacks the necessary context so that a reader of the target audience can understand it. You might have to make two or three sentences out of it; explain it a bit slower. Or, alternatively, simplify.
As for explaining "breccia", maybe just reword "the fossils are mixed with limestone blocks, speleothem, and [whatever fine-grained sediment the matrix is], forming a bone breccia". Here, you might not even need "forming a bone breccia".
Thank you for adding some glosses, but some of these do not help, as you introduce new terms that are even more complicated than the ones you want to explain. I don't think you need to explain "mud".
alongside limestone blocks, speleothem (mineral deposit) fragments (probably reworked from LU-2 and 4) – "mineral deposit" does not help either. Limestone blocks are also a sort of mineral deposit, no?
"When first published in 1993, these 29 individuals represented about 80% of the Middle Pleistocene human fossil record, and they preserve every bone in the human body." - The construction of this sentence—mainly the tacked on clause "and they preserve..." is awkward. I might merge that fact with the following sentence "The unprecedented completeness of the remains..."
" Like in Neanderthals, the brow ridges are inflated, but the back of the skull is not as robust, and the skull has a "house-like" profile instead of the rounded "bomb-like" profile." is bordering on being a run-on. I suggest something like "Like in Neanderthals, the brow ridges are inflated, but the skull is not as robust in its rear and has a "house-like" profile instead of the rounded "bomb-like" profile."
I suggest rephrasing it as something like "The teeth are essentially Neanderthal-like, with shovel-shaped incisors and taurodontism but differ in tooth cusp morphology"
The following sentence has the same "This, but that" structure. Rephrase to improve flow.
Well yeah, I start the paragraph off with they have Neanderthal traits but non-Neanderthal traits too, so to make it easier to understand I kept that pattern Dunkleosteus77(talk)04:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"large-bodied" - relative to what? Were they larger than neanderthals? For hominids at large?
"who would identify several sites here strewn" --> "who identified several sites here strewn" per WP:WOULDCHUCK. Also suffering from this same issue later on:
"A similarly rich Middle Pleistocene human fossil assemblage would not be found until 2013" --> "A similarly rich Middle Pleistocene human fossil assemblage was not found until 2013"
Fossil names are placed within quotation marks except for 'Swanscombe, Petralona, and Steinheim'. I would be consitent either way. Check for this issue throughout the article.
"Neanderthals, and unlike in H. erectus" - comma not needed. Part of my comma griping at large is due to these commas not being used in the same context elsewhere in the article, e.g. "Like in Neanderthals but unlike in many Middle Pleistocene specimens"
"the temporal lobe is narrow, which is associated with visual and olfactory memory" - is the narrowness or the lobe itself associated with visual and olfactory memory? Clarify.
"sloping down" - Could this be shortened to simply "sloping"? All slopes slope down/up depending on the direction viewed, right?
sloping up is very different than sloping down, and in anatomy the "front" of a bone is always a defined landmark so all the description is directional Dunkleosteus77(talk)04:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"regions of the temporal bone which are functionally relevant" --> "regions of the temporal bone that are functionally relevant"
"Unlike in Neanderthals where they are common, tubercules on the incisors, canines, and molars (the cusp of Carabelli) are an infrequent trait" is an awkward sentence. Rephrase.
"generally Neanderthal-like" - "Neanderthal-like" does not mean identical to Neanderthals, right? If so, no qualification is needed. For instance, you later say "savannah-like" instead of "essentially savannah-like" in a later context.
"The skeletal weight of the Sima de los Huesos hominins may have been roughly 36% greater than that of the average modern human." - I might remove 'average' as it's self-evident, as you noted when you chose not to write it as "The average skeletal weight of the Sima de los Huesos hominins"
Why not restructure "Like in modern humans and Turkana Boy (as well as the australopithecine Paranthropus robustus)" as "Like in modern humans, the Turkana Boy, and the australopithecine Paranthropus robustus" for concision and flow? There is also a local excess of parentheticals.
As I progress throught the anatomical sections, I have to agree with Jens Lallensack that it would benefit from some more streamlined summarization to avoid WP:UNDUE weight. ~ HAL33321:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"similarly the medial malleolus (the ankle bone that connects to the tibia) is hypertrophied (enlarged)." - does this also indicate squatting? Clarify.
I got the gist, but I think it could be clear. I might switch it to something like "Habitual squatting is evidenced by hypertrophy of the medial malleolus (the ankle bone that connects to the tibia) and wearing near the ankle on about a quarter of the tibiae." ~ HAL33315:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Hibernation can be induced in modern humans with injection of 5′-AMP (a secondary messenger), which in hibernating animals is normally produced by brown adipose tissue." seems like a tangent. Maybe move it to the note.
It's already explained? A catastrophic mortality profile is "The overrepresentation of young adults in their prime ... instead of children and elderly" and attritional is the opposite Dunkleosteus77(talk)04:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Like in Neanderthals and modern humans, the third turn is short, but is more strongly curved" - second comma not needed and makes the sentence choppy.
Happy to support. It's a great article, and I'm sure you'll adjust per my replies, which are admittedly minor anyway. Cheers, ~ HAL33315:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a general comment, provide translations of Spanish terms such as "Galería de las Estatuas" and "Sima del Elefante"
I've only put translations where the source directly gives one. I mean I can try giving my own translations but I'm worried I might be missing some nuances. Like I'd translate Cueva Ciega to Blind Cave but it could also mean Blocked Cave Dunkleosteus77(talk)01:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Drive-by comment): But "pure mud" should not contain any silt, just mud, no? Do we really need this additional detail? Wouldn't just "mud" be enough? I think it is a good idea to simplify where it is possible. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(that takes me to the end of Research history)
Like in Neanderthals and most modern humans (and similar wording elsewhere), I think "As in" would work better.
OK, I've read through the whole thing. I can't quite place the problem, but I find the prose a bit difficult to get through. Some of it may just be the highly technical and detailed nature of the material. I have no formal training in anthropology or anatomy, but I do consider myself to be scientifically literate. I can't help wondering if some of this is a slog for me, it's probably going to be unapproachable to much of our target audience (i.e. WP:Make technical articles understandable). On the other hand, I find some of this to be fascinating; things like looking at the structure of the ear bones, extrapolating the likely hearing frequency range from that, and the implications on the use of spoken language. But in the end, I don't find the writing engaging enough to support. I'm certainly not going to oppose, so I'll just leave my few comments and abstain from any formal recommendation either way. RoySmith(talk)13:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No section in particular. But, let's start at the beginning. The first paragraph of the lead is:
The Sima de los Huesos hominins are a 430,000 year old population of "pre-Neanderthals" from the archeological site of Atapuerca, Spain.
They are in the "Neanderthal clade" but fall outside of Homo neanderthalensis.
When first published in 1993, these 29 individuals represented about 80% of the human fossil record of the Middle Pleistocene.
They preserve every bone in the human body, and the unprecedented completeness of the remains sheds light on Neanderthal evolution, the classification of contemporary fossils, and the range of variation that could exist in a single Middle Pleistocene population.
Exhumation of the Sima de los Huesos hominins began in the 1980s, under the direction of Emiliano Aguirre and later Juan Luis Arsuaga, Eudald Carbonell, and José María Bermúdez de Castro.
It's a bunch of disjoint declarative sentences with no real flow (i.e. "choppy"). Other than the first sentence, I could shuffle them into any random order with no substantial change. It also uses a lot of technical terms (clade, pleistocene, Homo neanderthalensis, exhumation, hominins) which will be stumbling blocks for a non-technical reader.
The overall style is something I see a lot in scientific writing: the use of fancy words when plain ones would do. You write the brow ridges are inflated. What's wrong with "they had big ridges above the eyes"? Instead of the skull is not as robust, how about "The skull is not as strong"? Strong and robust are essentially synonyms, but strong is going to be more familiar to most people. The OED puts "strong" in (what it calls) frequency band 7 which "includes the main semantic words which form the substance of ordinary, everyday speech and writing". Robust falls into band 5, i.e. "words which would be seen as distinctively erudite". Our goal here should be to explain stuff to our readers, not to impress them with our advanced vocabulary.
You've got They may have been overall large-bodied like other archaic humans, with dimensions of about 170 cm (5 ft 7 in) and 90 kg (200 lb) for both males and females. This could be simplified to "They may have been large like other archaic humans; 170 cm (5 ft 7 in) and 90 kg (200 lb) for both males and females" which says the same thing in fewer words.
They may have been efficient hunters — possibly outcompeting local cave hyenas — pursuing deer, rhinoceros, horse, bison, and (more sporadically) cave lion in an open woodland environment Could be just "They may have hunted well, possibly better than local cave hyenas" for the lead. You can go into greater detail in the main body about what kind of prey and the environment.
(Drive-by comment) If "robust" has to be replaced (I am surprised to learn that native speakers cannot be expected to know this word), then I would suggest "strongly built" as replacement. Just "strong" could mean "muscular", which is not necessarily what is meant here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Jens noted, I think "robust" is perfectly sufficient, as "strong" is a bit more opaque (as I think I complained somewhere above). Regarding the flow of the first lead paragraph, the second sentence could be integrated with the first to improve flow, but all following sentences follow a logical progression and any random rearrangement is immediately a downgrade. And the article is already quite accessible: there is nothing wrong with sentences like "they had big ridges above the eyes" except that they belong on Simple English Wikipedia and not here. ~ HAL33320:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like I said, "I can't quite place the problem", and perhaps in my attempt above to be more explicit, I picked some marginal examples. But, WP:FACR requires that the prose is engaging and of a professional standard. I have no doubt that this is of a "professional standard" in terms of the mechanical aspects of grammar, etc, but I don't find it "engaging". RoySmith(talk)14:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of some future prodding coordinator, I've said what I wanted to say here. I think there is room for improvement in the readability of the prose, but I'm not going to go so far as to formally oppose. RoySmith(talk)12:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "title" fields of all source, ideally, should use a uniform capitalization scheme. This is optional for FA. FA does not have a fixed convention; many articles use either Title case or only capitalize the first letter. In other words, after you copy the title of a source into a cite/source "title" field, you sometimes need to redo the capitalization.
Source Gray, John Edward (1869) is missing a publisher.
Citation tool reports an issue with source Round, M. C. (1968). ... it says that 1968 is too early for an ISBN. So, the book may have been reprinted & later reprint (after 1968) got the ISBN. You should determine which edition/reprint you read, then update the cite to show that specific year, and if it is the orig 1968, then you should remove the ISBN field.
I read it off the link I put in the source, which seems to be the original so I remove the ISBN (which I had gotten from a Google Books page for the same book). Olmagon (talk·contribs) 23:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source Thomas, Oldfield; Schwann, Harold (1904). "On Mammals appears to be missing "access-date" field. For allsome sources that have a URL field, you mustshould supply an "access-date" field that states the day you read/retrieved the source from that URL. That field is required so that the Wikipedia citation bot can find and provide archives of the original source website. There may be several sources that need access-date added.
This is not entirely true. For urls that link to old publications (like Biodiversity Heritage Library), an access-date is not required, as these texts do not change. See template:cite book and search for "Not required for linked documents that do not change." Esculenta (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to double-check the "free use" status of File:Drawing of striped weasel, by J. Kingdom Wellcome L0024958.jpg ... I'm not an expert in image stuff, but if that is a photo of a drawing, the "Details" data of the image requires two distinct copyright-free proofs: (a) the original drawing; and (b) the photo of the drawing.
Scrolling to the bottom of the webpage that the image comes shows the text "Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence" so I think it is fine. ReconRabbit also seems to have found something supporting it being okay further down below. Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: Often associated with termite mounds, the African striped weasel is most commonly seen in savanna and veld grasslands, but has been recorded in a wide range of habitats ... That is an important sentence; it is a bit long. The initial phrase "Often associated with termite mounds" makes it harder for readers to grasp the whole sentence. Suggest removing that phrase from the start and moving somewhere else: maybe a new sentence following this one?
Images: Alt text: all images include alt text, which is good, but I think the alt text guidelines WP:ALT say that the alt text should not begin with "A drawing of.." or "An illustration of ..." .. omit those words. Simply say "A weasel eating some leaves" or whatever. If the alt text ends up being a duplicate of the caption, you can omit the alt text entirely.
Section on Temperament, Territoriality, etc? I'm looking at some other weasel-family articles, and some have a section "Temperament" or "Territoriality" within "Behavior" top section. In this African Str. article: it looks like similar material is in the top "intro" paragraphs under the "Behavior and ecology" section. Consider making a subsection to hold those intro paragraphs, and give the subsection a useful name: that may help readers find material in the article.
Ian Rose - The article looks okay, but I'll withhold further comment until I see the nominator's replies to suggestions made by reviewer RoySmith below. RoySmith's suggestions were made on 16 July, and it looks like the nominator is busy in real life, so we may have to wait a bit to see what the responses are. Noleander (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Olmagon: One final comment on the article: the InfoBox has a photo and the caption of the photo is:
I'm wondering if the caption could be improved to be more relevant to the weasels ... I would expect the caption to be more factual & informative. Any of these would be more encyclopedic & informative:
A juvenile
A female adult
A male juvenile in captivity
A captive male
A female juvenile in a breeding program of a zoo
[no caption at all .. the animal in the photo is already identified above the photo]
Naming the zoo is distracting: it makes me wonder what is special about the zoo: do they have a world-renowned breeding program for striped weasels? If the photo were in the body of the article, maybe it would not be such a big deal; but it is at the top-right of the article .. one of the first things every reader will see. Noleander (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added the location based on what is done in the infoboxes of the other mustelid FAs I checked for comparison (giant otter and sea otter), someone else once removed the caption but then @Funkmonk said to add it back in a lower section so I did. If we want it more informative about the individual shown I suppose I could call it an adult but I'm not sure about its sex. Olmagon (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image captions in the InfoBox of giant otter and sea otter name the location of the animal in the wild: Morro Bay and Cuiabá River. That is informative and helpful.
I looked at a dozen animal articles that have captions that name the location, but they are all locations where the animal occurs naturally, in the wild.
Naming a Nebraska zoo – which is tens of thousands of miles from the wild habitat – is confusing & meaningless (unless the zoo has a special relationship to the species, such as breeding program, etc).
User:Nikkimaria removed the caption on 8 June 2025, maybe for the same reason I am discussing here. I realize that User:FunkMonk said to restore the caption, but perhaps they were not aware that the Nebraska zoo location was confusing & irrelevant.
To be clear, I'm not saying to remove the caption - I'm saying it should be replaced with a more informative, encyclopedic caption.
I think it's important to note the individual is captive, and not in the wild (the exact zoo is not as important), as this can affect various factors of the animals. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning captivity in the caption is informative. Not sure how it should be worded... "african striped weasel in captivity" or maybe "Poecilogale albinucha in captivity" to avoid repeating the English name?
The photograph is from user:Devonpike but they seem inactive, so they probably cannot give more information about the individual in the photograph.
Ideally we'd get another photograph where we know more about the animal, then we could say it's an "adult female" or whatever. Noleander (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Drawing of striped weasel, by J. Kingdom Wellcome L0024958.jpg A bit confusing, but Wellcome collection implies CC BY 4.0 license - is this correct, as Noleander states above? The drawing itself is undated and the source page provides little information.
CC BY SA 4.0 File:Termite mound Okavango Delta.jpg
CC BY 4.0 (via iNaturalist) File:Striped weasel camera trap.jpg: This image is okay. There are no good alternatives on iNat that I could find. Could be cropped.
File:African Striped Weasel area.png could be converted to SVG and currently has no transparency. If you want me to do this let me know. Otherwise, has the correct license (IUCN map, VRT ticket etc.) Couldn't help myself: Poecilogale albinucha range I recommend using this map, not only because I made it but because it includes South Sudan.
The height of the skull illustration is so large that it pushes the paws illustration into the next section in all but the narrowest displays. I don't know how much the drawing of the striped weasel adds.
Any lifespan estimate for individuals in the wild?
If one exists in published literature then I have not found it (would not be surprised if it doesn't, this is a secretive nocturnal animal that hasn't been the subject of a lot of focused research). Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Noleander above that prefixing the habitat description with Often associated with termite mounds confuses the intended meaning of the sentence.
I give a pass on the image review and will give my support for this nomination on the notes I have, given the lack of research on this critter's daily habits. -- Reconrabbit12:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They have not been editing in any appreciable amount since 6 days ago. I would give it a little time. Not guessing at any motivations but where I am it is finals week. -- Reconrabbit22:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read this maybe tomorrow or so, had three essays to write and a set of ethics paperwork to fill in recently. Only one essay is left now and it's halfway done and the deadline is more than a week away so I should have time in a bit. Olmagon (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was the GA reviewer of this article a few weeks ago, so I figured I'd take a stab at this. These are just some recommendations/comments; not necessarily issues that need to be adressed (ASW = short for African striped weasel).
I do generally do this for a species with known fossil remains but to my knowledge, no fossils of this species have been found (the only article I could find mentioning P. albinucha fossils refers to specimens that were later reclassified as Propoecilogale remains). Also the numbers in the Evolution subsection are estimates of when the African striped weasel lineage diverged from the striped polecat lineage, and do not necessarily reflect the age of the species itself (there could be prehistoric members of the lineage). Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should summarize the contents of the article, but almost nothing about its taxonomy or evolution is mentioned. It doesn't have to be much, but enough for the reader to have a basic rundown of the topic.
You should probably change this species/this weasel/these weasels to the species or the weasel. It reads better IMO and is more grammatically correct.
(lead, par. 1) where it occurs as far north as Kenya and stretches down south to South Africa. I would recommend changing the wording to something like and as far south as South Africa or something along those lines. To me, the wording is a little awkward here. The word stretches is a little ambiguous; you could determine was refering to its range, but because the word "range" is not explicitly stated, it makes it sound like it could be talking about someting else, like the weasel itself stretching or something. Again, you could probably determine what it's talking about but I think changing it would make it just a little bit clearer. The lead should be as clear as possible because it is the part that people usually read, so being clear is especially important here.
(lead, par. 2) Often associated with termite mounds. Again, its important to be as clear as possible here, and this could mean a few different things. Does it live near termite mounds? In them? Does it hunt termites? etc... This is brought up again later in the article in the Distribution and habitat section but is still not explained any further. It is explained in the Behavior and ecology section where it says that they are latrines, so you should mention this in at least the lead section. I would probably remove the mention in the Distribution and habitat section as it kind of unrelated to that topic.
(lead, par. 2) secretive nature feels a bit odd to read. I feel like this phrase would be more appropriate in literature; its a bit "weighted", for the lack of a better word, for a biology article. Maybe say something like "covert lifestyle" or just deleting it would be better wording.
(lead, par. 2 & whole article) There are no known major threats to the species, though it is commonly used in local traditional medicine. This sentence could probably be deleted; the previous sentence already talks about its conservation status so this may be a bit redundant. I remember you saying that no source explicitly says what it's used for in traditional medicine, but the mentioning of traditional medicine here is a little confusing because its not immediately obvious why it would be related to conservation, at least for me, so the lack of an explanation is a bit problematic. If no source says what it is used for though I don't really know how you would fix this. It would be important to mention in the article except for the fact that you can't explain it any further. Unless you could find more info about this you may want to remove mentions to alternative medicine, at least in the lead. I don't really have any good recommendations for what to do here.
(lead, par. 3) It commonly bites its prey in the back of the neck while rolling around or kicking the prey's back likely to attempt to dislocate the neck... The word "commonly" should probably be removed. This suggests that there is another method of hunting, but none is mentioned. Also, the way this is described in the Behavior and ecology section is better worded and much clearer than in the lead. You could just copy & paste it into the lead, and it would read much better IMO.
(tax. & evo., par. 1) "Generic name", and really just the word "generic", should link to genus.
(tax. & evo., par. 2) You should probably link Angola.
(tax. & evo., par. 2) In 1865, German naturalist Wilhelm Peters reported... considered a variety of this species. Could be combined into one sentence. It would flow better IMO. Something like In 1865, German naturalist Wilhelm Peters reported two Zorilla africana specimens from Golungo Alto, Angola. The latter specimen he studied he considered to be a new variety of the species, but Australian explorer... (rest of sentence as in article) would read more clearly.
(tax. & evo., par. 3) The following five subspecies were recognized in the third edition of Mammal Species of the World published in 2005: should have a comma between World and published.
(tax. & evo., par. 5) The most complete fossil specimen of Propoecilogale was... to the Laetoli specimen. It has therefore been proposed to... could be rewritten as The most complete fossil specimen of Propoecilogale was discovered in the Early Pliocene-aged deposits of Laetoli, Tanzania. A younger specimen is known from the Early Pleistocene-aged deposits of Cooper's Cave, South Africa, which shows a larger first molar tooth with a more reduced metaconid compared to the Laetoli specimen. It has therefore been proposed to... You could also add the actual ages of these specimens.
I think it's important to explicitly say "geologically younger" since just "younger" could sound like the Cooper's Cave specimen is of a juvenile or something like that. Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind a study came out very recently which found the Laetoli specimens to be an entirely different genus and species so I just rewrote that part entirely. Olmagon (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(description) The skull and paw images could be moved up so they aren't as in the way of the Distribution and habitat section.
(description) The striped polecat is mentioned a few times in the description section, mentioning it as a closely related species, but you should really mention that it is specifically the most closely related species, as shown in the evolution section. I think this would make the significance of their differences more apparent. Striped polecat should be linked at least once in this section.
Added mention of it being the closest living relative in brackets, also it seems to already be linked in that section (unless that's one of the edits you made). Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(description, par. 1) (along with the dwarf mongoose) could be removed.
(description, par. 1) with males larger than females → with males being larger than females.
(description, par. 1) KwaZulu-Natal did not exist in 1978, so a different region should probably be mentioned. Apparently the province was just known as "Natal" until 1994, with the Zulu bantustan being a semi-autonomous area within, so you could probably just use that.
(description, par. 3) As in other mustelids → Like other mustelids.
(description, par. 3) and each digit bears → with each digit bearing.
(description, par. 3) scent glands in the perineal region → perineal scent glands.
(dist. & hab.) They are found from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Kenya in the north, and as far south as southern South Africa → They are found as far north as the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Kenya and as far south as southern South Africa.
(dist. & hab.) Within this region & roadkill carcasses have been collected in agricultural land could be removed. The former is not necessary and the latter just doesn't flow well with the rest of the text.
(dist. & hab.) appears → also.
(dist. & hab.) the weasels may be overlooked across much of their range → their true extent may be larger/greater than previously thought.
(bhv. & eco., par. 1) Active mainly at night, the African striped weasel is a mostly nocturnal animal is redundant. You could remove Active mainly at night.
(bhv. & eco., par. 3) the vast majority of their diet consisting of rodents of their own size or smaller, and will travel into the burrows of rodents to hunt them is a bit redundant. You could write it as ...own size or smaller, and will travel into their burrows...
I feel like using "their" here leaves it a bit ambiguous whether it is talking about weasel burrows or rodent burrows, especially considering the section talks about weasel burrows earlier. Olmagon (talk·contribs) 00:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(bhv. & eco., par. 3) Prey is generally eaten whole while the weasel is in a crouched pose, though the feathers and legs of birds and the stomachs of mammals are sometimes left uneaten, and the weasel will not use its front limbs to stabilize its food. is a bit of a run-on sentence. The first and last parts should not even really be in the same sentence in the first place anyway.
(bhv. & eco., par. 4) The article says that A male kept in a cage for two weeks during the winter did not drink at all during this time, but later says that it did drink small amounts of water. You could write ...did not drink almost any water during this time, only occasionally drinking... to be consistent.
(bhv. & eco., par. 5) If the female is receptive, she may express it by moving around him is a little unclear. What exactly is it?
(bhv. & eco., par. 6) and the prominent black and white coloration of the species develops when the young reach 28 days of age → and their prominent black and white coloration develops at 28 old.
(bhv. & eco., par. 7) Vehicular collisions lead to some African striped weasel deaths, as evidenced by roadkill carcasses found in agricultural areas → Some can be victims of vehicular collisions, with roadkill carcasses being found in agricultural areas or something like that. Also, agricultural areas is a bit confusing. Are you just talking about a farm?
(bhv. & eco., par. 8) If this does not ward off the threat → If this fails.
(bhv. & eco., par. 8) ...perineal glands, and the stream can be... → ...perineal glands that can be...
(bhv. & eco., par. 8) Again, striped polecat should be linked.
(conservation) Least Conern → Least Conern species.
(conservation) ...assessments in 2008 and 2015. It was assessed as such because although it is not... feels a little awkward to read. You could do something like ...assessments in 2008 and 2015, citing that although it is not... and combine it into one sentence.
Again, many of these are just suggestions. You don't need to implement all, or really any, of these changes if you think they're unecessary, these are just some things I would do. Edit: I've made a few edits on the page for some of these smaller things; text in a strikethough is already done.
I'll give my support now. I've covered all of the C1 issues and it looks like the folks above adressed their concers with the other critera. Just giving a glance at your sources and they all look reliable and high-quality, so I think you're pretty much set, at least for me.
I'm surprised our image selection of live individuals is seemingly so poor. That said, since the article does cover roadkill, I'm surprised this[21] photo isn't used in that section.
Hmmm, can you point me to that? WP:Wikipedia is not censored. A way to make it less gruesome in thumbnail view could be to rotate it so that the carcass is horizontal and crop the bottom and top part of the road, then it won't take up so much space. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'd disagree, since it's directly relevant to the text, and we don't have many other images to use, but since two editors brought it up, oh well... FunkMonk (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Wild African striped weasel foraging at night" How do we know it's specifically foraging?
Why is the habitat photo so tiny? It's not an upright image, that parameter is used for vertically tall images. Likewise for the image under taxonomy. If you need space, it could maybe work to stagger the image layout more.
I actually did not know what the "upright" parameter did, I had copypasted the format for adding images from somewhere else and modified it to embed the image I wanted. I guess for those two images I took it from an upright image and just left it there. Removed it from them and added to the skull pic. Olmagon (talk·contribs) 14:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the upright parameter is made exactly for ridiculously tall images like that skull illustration.
Given the scarcity of images, this photo of tracks[22] could maybe be useful until we get something better.
I did consider using it but didn't since there isn't a section discussing its footprints and the part that discusses the paws already has a picture of the paws themselves (it's also the section with the most images already). Olmagon (talk·contribs) 14:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Welwitsch believed that the two forms were consistently different, and that even the locals refer to them by different names." Was this ever explicitly refuted?
Why no range for the nominate subspecies in that table?
I couldn't find any sources stating its range, authors write the known range of newly established subspecies but they don't seem to list it for the nominate one. Presumably it would be anywhere that the other subspecies haven't been found, but I'm also unsure if there would be overlap with the others (not to mention the validity of the subspecies is questionable so I get why there hasn't been a lot of literature on the range of each one). Olmagon (talk·contribs) 19:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be using different WP:Engvar throughout, some places have US color and catalog, while I see the UK spelling colour and behaviour elsewhere. Should be consistent, and given that this species is from at least one country that uses largely UK spelling, South Africa, I'd go with that, but not a big deal when its range exceeds that quite a bit. Either way, you should pick one variation and use it consistently.
You can search an article for words by pressing ctrl+f in Windows, there should be a way for Mac as well. In this case it is under Taxonomy and evolution, but check throughout for Engvar issues. FunkMonk (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Six males sampled in KwaZulu-Natal in 1978 weighed an average of 339 g (12 oz), and three sampled in the former Cape Province in 1981 had an average weight of 357 g (13 oz). In comparison, 251 g (9 oz) and 215 g (8 oz) were the average weights of females according to the same respective studies, with the former sampling six females and the latter sampling two." The level of detail here seems excessive and irrelevant for a description section. Why do we need places and years for this info? The paragraph could be summarised much further.
Like with the roadkill image debate this was something I did after comments from the previous FAC attempt. I originally gave a more summarised body length and then someone brought up that the study given as a source for that uses a small sample size and shouldn't be considered representative of the species, then suggested I list the years of the studies, sample sizes and locations. Olmagon (talk·contribs) 16:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, looks like overkill to me with the years at least (do we think their sizes would have changed since then?), but I won't press the issue, but if others do, could be considered. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"with the skulls of some females measured in 1951 reaching an average length" likewise, why do we need a year?
"with the skulls of some females measured in 1951 reaching an average length" why only females? Nothing on males, considering they're larger?
"Considering the increase in sightings from regions formerly believed to be unsuitable for them, the weasels may be more widespread than previously thought." this is a place where a year would actually be relevant to establish context.
Felt like a commonly-known word and I couldn't find a Wikipedia page about animal calls to link to, but I added a link to the animal communication page (though that covers non-vocal forms of communication too). Olmagon (talk·contribs) 16:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You list the IUCN Red List in the intro, but only the IUCN in the article body, could be consistent.
I recognize that other people have asked you to add things to the lead, but my personal feeling is that what you've got is too much so I'm going to give you what I suspect is conflicting advice here. I will freely admit that I have a penchant for shorter leads than most people, so read the following comments with that in mind. Stuff I'd trim:
native to sub-Saharan Africa, where its range stretches from as far north as Kenya down south to South Africa Just say "sub-Saharan Africa". The details of the northern and southern limits of its range can be saved for the main text.
This one I elaborated on after someone from the previous FAC attempt said "sub-Saharan Africa" is larger than the known range of the species and asked that I be more specific. Trimmed the rest of the stuff on this list though. Olmagon (talk·contribs) 16:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
genus Poecilogale, which was named in 1883 by Oldfield Thomas I'd just give the genus, but not bother saying who it was named after, or when.
with males generally growing larger than females drop "growing"
from the top of its head down the length of its back drop "the length of"
Genetic analysis has revealed that the closest living relative ... Drop "Genetic analysis has revealed that". For the lead, it's enough to note the closest species; the details of how that conclusion was arrived at can be covered later.
and a prehistoric animal named Propoecilogale bolti known from fossils may be the ancestor of the African striped weasel trim to "and may also be related to the extinct Propoecilogale bolti"
Occurring in a wide range of habitats ... you then go on to list the habitats; I think the reader can figure out that these constitute a wide range, so no need to say that. I'd gloss "fynbos".
excavates burrows which it inhabits when not hunting for prey No need to say "when not hunting for prey; it should be obvious that it's not hunting while in it burrow.
It generally flees from any perceived threats, but if this is not possible, it may try warding off its attacker drop "if this is not possible, it"
that feed almost entirely on rodents, and will enter their burrows to catch them this is actually kind of confusing. Above you said they inhabit their burrows when not hunting, but here you give an example of hunting inside the burrows, so it's not clear what's going on here. Perhaps the best thing is to just don't mention anything in the lead about burrows vis-a-vis where they hunt and just go over all that detail in the main text.
Even when hungry, it ignores other types of small animals and eggs provided to it as food no need to mention any of this in the lead.
instead obtaining most of the moisture it needs through its food for the lead, it's enough to say they don't drink much. Expand on the details in the main text.
females tend to give birth to two to three young per litter Is it really necessary to tell the reader that it's the females which give birth?
The newborn young all newborns are young, no need for the repetition. But, to be honest, I'd drop the entire sentence. For the lead, it's enough to talk about the breeding season and gestation time. The rest of the details are typical of most mammels, so no need to devote precious space in the lead to that; cover it in the main body.
All of the above was specific to the lead. Let's dive into the rest of the article...
There's a lot of words that might not be familiar to the average reader, so per WP:TECHNICAL you should give a short explanation the first time you use them: zorilla, mustelid, specific name, generic name, monotypic, valid/invalid, carnivoran, cusp (as in teeth), metaconid, metacone, paracone, plantar, carpal, fynbo, pinnae, weaned, intraspecific.
Explanations added to some but for others it seemed unnecessary. For example a monotypic species is one which includes no subspecies and that very sentence says there are no subspecies right after using the term, and it should be understandable that metaconid, metacone and paracone are names of tooth cusps based on how they are listed in examples of cusp features. Olmagon (talk·contribs) 21:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas' study was based on five African striped weasel specimens, four of which were kept in the British Museum and the remaining one was in the Paris Museum of Natural History.[3]
even the locals refer to them by different names the word "locals" seems a little informal, and perhaps even derogatory. Maybe "indigenous population"?
When I first learned taxonomy, there was a rigid hierarchy (species, genus, family ...). These days we've grown sup- and supra-versions of most of those, plus additional things like clades and tribes. It would help keep all these straight if the infobox contained every taxon that's mentioned in the article.
Ictonychinae is in the taxobox but from looking at other mustelid taxonomy templates it seems tribes are generally not included in them so Ictonychini remains absent. Olmagon (talk·contribs) 21:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
four of which were kept in the British Museum and the remaining one was in the Paris Museum of Natural History.[3] I'd make it "... British Museum, with the remaining one in ..."
What does it mean to be "the proportionally longest mammal"?
perhaps in order to dislocate the prey's neck is this you who is speculating about the purpose, or a source? If it's you, don't. If it's a source, attribute it.
While eating, the weasel does not use its front limbs to stabilize its food It seems odd to tell us what they don't do without some reason to expect that they do. So maybe this should be "Unlike other <whatevers>, the weasel does not use ..."
though they may have a second litter if the first is lost early, and raise the young with no aid from the males.[2] it's not clear here if it's only this second litter which is raised without help from the males.
I see that Noleander already commented on some things. In #17, what is "Oxford science publications"? #19 has an issue with the DOI, but the source provides the DOI (10.4435/BSPI.2025.05) itself and it still doesn't work so. Did some light spotchecking, but I wonder if introducing page numbers would make the sourcing easier to use. Didn't notice anything unreliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Science Publications is a series Oxford University Press publishes their textbooks and similar under. Can't find much about it myself but it does seem to be used by the publisher to describe a variety of topics. -- Reconrabbit19:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After narrowly missing out on promotion last month, I'm taking this back so that hopefully it can achieve FA status this time. Carl Zoll, the son of a stonecutter, was one of three brothers active in Green Bay, Wisconsin, sports, competing in wrestling and football. A heavyweight, he became one of the top wrestlers in the area and was undefeated in his first two years of competition, becoming the state champion. He contended for the World Light Heavyweight Championship in 1920 but was defeated, and after several losses in 1921, only competed periodically in subsequent years. Zoll was also active in football at the same time, being a member of the inaugural Green Bay Packers team in 1919. He appeared in exactly one NFL game for the Packers, a distinction that his two brothers also hold. He later worked for his family's stonecutting business until his death in 1974. Thanks are owed to Gonzo fan2007 and PCN02WPS, who both reviewed it twice (on the talk page and at the prior FA nom), as well as the five other editors who reviewed it at the last nom. Hopefully Zoll can become an FA this time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are all in public domain because of their age and/or lack of copyright notice. The links to the image sources are working. The images are relevant, placed in appropriate locations, and have captions and alt texts. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A decent amount of rewording has been done since your last comment at that FAC. You also never made it clear what exactly I was to do, only saying that the article somehow needed to be entirely rewritten by a football FA expert, despite all four of the most prominent football FA writers reviewing it, some even copyediting it, and each agreeing it was in FA-shape. As I said before, I'm happy to address any issue you point out. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant since the last FAC was archived. At least one reviewer said the prose needed a polish but no edits have been made. I'm sorry but I get the impression it has just been brought back to FAC hoping for better luck. Graham Beards (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer said the prose could use polish, but they also said their comment was "certainly not an oppose". I'm happy to address any issue you point out, but I don't see what I'm possibly supposed to do when I'm told by one lone "oppose" editor (compared to four who supported, and no other opposes) that the "whole thing needs to be entirely redone by a different football FA writer" when (i) each football FA writer reviewed and/or copyedited it and said it was good, and (ii) you haven't specified anything for me to do. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BeanieFan11, I certainly disagree with Graham Beards on their opinions on the article, but respect that they feel that way. I think their point lies more in two places: (1) WP:FIXLOOP, where they believe that the level of review is so significant that instead of providing 100 comments and days of back-and-forth, they would rather see another editor copyedit the article and improve the prose before reviewing it; (2) that since the last nomination closed, there haven't been any significant changes to the article and since David Fuchs archived the nomination as a failure, the expectation is that improvements need to be made to change that consensus. Now I of course am paraphrasing others, so they are definitely welcome to chime in to clarify. I obviously still disagree with the commentary and decision in the first nomination, but here we are. I would say that unless the two reviewers who were neutral on the first nom are willing to come back for another review and switch to support, it will be challenging to have this nom be successful with Graham Beards opposition (which was strongly relied upon for the archival of the first nom). « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is so poor and I'm incapable of writing acceptable prose, I'd like to see at least something illustrating that. At the moment, every addressable issue that anyone has raised anywhere has been addressed. I had nothing to indicate what I possibly could have done to 'fix' the vague 'issues' brought up by Graham Beards in the past FAC before a renom, and still have absolutely nothing indicating what sort of copyedit needs to be done now. Saying that the article needs someone other than me who writes football FAs to give it a complete rewrite when every editor meeting that description has done either that or given it a decent review and supported is pretty ridiculous if you ask me (especially with how vastly different the article is compared to when he first reviewed it).BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you BeanieFan11. I am sure there are actionable comments that could be made, but I view the prose as WP:FAC worthy at this point and any additional issues being relatively minor, stylistic choices. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 18:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say ""whole thing needs to be entirely redone by a different football FA writer"? I don't recall it, nor can I find the diff. Graham Beards (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs a copyedit by someone new to the article who can bring some objective distance to the prose. ... you [should] find an editor who is familiar with the sport...preferably one with and established FA track record, who is willing to help you rewrite the article to a FA standard. In its current state, it is not good enough – that seems to imply you think the article needs significant reworking and rewriting by someone else. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please supply the diff for this quote you attributed to me; "whole thing needs to be entirely redone by a different football FA writer"? If you can't, kindly apologise and retract the statement. Graham Beards (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Sorry, I have read the article again today and my view hasn't changed. Although certainly a GA, I don't think this candidate is of FA standard. Apart from issues with the rather stagnant prose, which I have mentioned before, there are sourcing problems: apart from a few exceptions, the whole article is sourced to press cuttings from a contemporary local newspaper. Graham Beards (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you even point out some of these issues with the prose? So far about five or six other experienced reviewers have looked and couldn't find anything wrong with it, and you haven't shown me anything either aside from saying it is bad prose. And is there a rule that local press clippings are unusable in FAs? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the first FAC "You should keep in mind that FAC is not meant to be WP:Peer review and reviewers are not expected to go through the article sentence by sentence." With regard to the press cuttings, I don't think they satisfy Criterion 1c, "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources." I will give you a couple of examples of below par prose. A new paragraph starts with "Zoll weighed 197 pounds (89 kg) by October 1918." This will leave the readers thinking "so what?". The word "defeated" occurs around fifteen times. And "His brother, Martin, sometimes competed in events featuring Zoll as well." Again, so what? This comes across as padding. Graham Beards (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The GB Press-Gazette is the highest-quality source for Green Bay sportspeople from the 1920s. An increase of nearly 20 pounds for a wrestler (a sport which is based on different weight classifications) is notable; that his brother was often one of the competitors at his events is relevant as well. The word "defeated" is common terminology in this sport, and it being used 15 times in a nearly 2000-word article does not strike me as overly excessive. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say the weight was not notable and the same for his brother? My point is the way it is written, i.e. the prose. I am happy to yield on "defeated", but some variety would be good. Please note, I don't want to be drawn into a WP:FIXLOOP. Graham Beards (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying that the items are worth mentioning, but the way they're mentioned is boring? "Zoll weighed 197 pounds (89 kg) by October 1918." This will leave the readers thinking "so what?" – how is one supposed to word that in a way that makes readers "not think 'so what'"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am retracting my opposition. Having looked for alternative sources and found little of use, I think we are stuck with the newspaper reports. I am still concerned about the prose but to be honest, I don't think I could improve on it. Graham Beards (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the foundational quality of the sourcing here. Referring to a specific passage in the article at the last FAC, SchroCat stated that it read like it came from a "bad local newspaper". While I'm not going to disparage the quality of the Press-Gazette, we have a situation here in which the sourcing is almost entirely from a few regional newspapers. And while Green Bay has grown quite a bit, as of 1910 it was the eight-largest city in Wisconsin and smaller than Sheboygan, according to PDF pages 5 and 6 of this census document. So we're quite possibly into semi-regional or large local territory here at best for the 1910s newspaper coverage. And this coverage falls into two groups: 1) "come see this local wrestling production so that they'll still do shows here" like a 21st-century newspaper advertising a demolition derby or a high school basketball tournament and 2) "local boy makes good" stuff. I just don't see the available sourcing here as a foundation for a proper FAC. The pool of articles where GA-level sourcing exists is just much larger than the pool where FA-level sourcing exists. For example - I had 5 GAs promoted in 2024. Of these, CSS General Earl Van Dorn is a FA, CSS General Polk could maybe be a FA with further work, and I do not believe that Battle of Bayou Fourche, Edward W. Gantt, or Battle of Clark's Mill could ever be a FA without more research and publication into these topics, which is very unlikely for at least the latter two. I will let the FAC coords determine if this is actionable or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog Farm (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not arguing your main points, but I did want to note that the Green Bay Press-Gazette holds a somewhat unique place in the history of the NFL, and the reporting thereof. It was one of the earliest newspapers to accumulate All-Pro lists (see here for an example of 1925 All-Pros). The Press-Gazette employed George Whitney Calhoun, co-founder of the Packers who "amassed one of the most complete collections of NFL game results during his career" and reported on the Packers for 30 years. Andrew B. Turnbull, the first president of the Packers, was also the owner of the Press-Gazette. You can also read a "self-history" of the paper here. I say this all for two reasons: (1) the Press-Gazette has been a trusted, reliable source, especially for Packers content, for 100 years and (2) smaller, regional papers of the time obviously did not operate as newspapers today do, so we do need to read between the lines a bit between "promotional" material and true reporting. All that said, in my view 60+ newspaper sources over a long period of time feels like enough, even taking into account the differences between today and 100 years ago. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good argument for the Press-Gazette's Packers coverage, which I'm not disputing. What I'm concerned with is it's regional wrestling coverage, which is most of this article's sourcing. Just because Zoll had a brief association with the Packers doesn't mean that the quality of its Packers coverage can be retroactively applied to earlier wrestling coverage of Zoll, or to coverage of wrestling with no direct connection to Zoll's brief Packers stint. I think the subject is clearly notable, but I'm concerned that this is an example of the difference of RS coverage for notability and GA versus the higher sourcing quality expectations for FAs. Hog FarmTalk15:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns! Unfortunately back then there was a proclivity to avoid placing the author's name in articles. It's likely that Calhoun wrote most of, if not all of, the Press-Gazette's sports coverage in the early 1920s. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heya! Gonna review this article, though just pre-facing that I've also got an active FAC nomination for Yeti (Doctor Who) up as well. It's not super long, so if you'd be willing to review that article as well, I'd greatly appreciate it, though I'm not forcing you by any means.
Onto the review itself, very few major issues. Prose reads pretty well. A couple nitpicks though:
- When it says tombstones, are these actual tombstones, or some other object? I'd hyperlink it if it is.
Appears to be actual tombstones, so linked.
-Is the quote really necessary? I feel the idea of Zoll's wrestling tendencies are easily conveyable through text.
I think it gives a good background and it was written by one of the most famous sportswriters ever, so I feel it has some relevance. Perhaps I should shorten it to only the part after "It is not recalled..."? Thoughts?
I'd just axe it. The quote doesn't really add much that can't be conveyed through text, and this is just objective information we don't really need a subjective read on. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about cutting it entirely is that we then have him begin by wrestling at carnivals, with no indication on how he did, to him immediately becoming one of the best wrestlers in the region. Given that we have some details on how his start in wrestling went, I think its worth noting. I tried trimming the quote a bit. Does that work, or do you still think it should be cut? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
-"and the Toronto Star Weekly highlighted his willingness to compete against any challenger and in any location." Not sure why this is needed since it doesn't really add much to understanding him in my opinion.
Cut.
-"He was the heaviest player for the Packers in their inaugural season, weighing 215 pounds (98 kg) despite standing at only 5 feet 9 inches (1.75 m)" As someone not in the football know, why is this a problem? 5'9 is a pretty respectable height, so it's not clear why that's a problem for playing the game.
5'9 is a bit small for a player at his position; also, the heaviest players are usually closer to, like, 6'4 than 5'9, but I changed it to "weighing 215 pounds while standing at 5 feet 9 inches".
Specify that this is a bit small for a player of his position, as otherwise the significance will not be inferred by non-football fans. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, the Packers did seem to have some guards with similar measurements at the time (here), so I guess it wasn't too unusual. I'll keep it at what I changed it to. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
-I have to concur with Hog Farm that I'm very concerned by the amount of local coverage. It doesn't really indicate much significance on a larger scale or in terms of long-lasting significance. This clearly passes GNG and is definitely a strong read for a GA, but I'm not sure if the sourcing is up to FA par. I'm not gonna oppose but I'll probably wait and see how your discussion with Hog Farm goes above before I make any final judgement calls.
I'm not sure what else there is to say about the newspapers. The Press-Gazette is arguably the best newspaper source for early Packers players and I'm not sure of any other Wisconsin papers of the time that gave better sports coverage... are there any parts of the article in particular where you think the source(s) are unreliable or inaccurate?
Not in particular, but an overreliance on one particular source, especially a local, seemingly specialty one, does not do much to indicate the subject had extreme influence outside of this. For GA standards it's more than fine but for FAC it leaves me a bit worried. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck with the FAC all the same! This reads very well and I couldn't find too many issues with the prose, so all in all I'd say this is a fantastic article no matter the outcome. I'm a big fan of your Packers articles and your dedication to the area, so thank you so much for all you do here. It's really genuinely so awesome. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for two months now and has yet to reach a consensus for promotion. Unless that changes in the next few days, I'm afraid this is liable to be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG:I withdraw this nomination, not because I don't think its FA quality – I have put in extensive work to the point that there is very little that can be "improved" – but because I have another planned FA nom I want to get promoted before the end of September and this nom is running too slowly. I assume there will be a two-week delay before I can make another nom?BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate my support from last time. The information we have on this individual is fairly thin, but what there is has been laid out in an easily readable manner. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could be used to a small extent: Right and left guard ... manned by the Zoll brothers, Carl and Martin ... Carl, who was 20 in the fall of 1919, was well known around town as a heavyweight wrestler. Professional wrestling was a legitimate sport at the time and was tremendously popular among immigrant communities in the Upper Midwest. Zoll's matches were chronicled in the Press-Gazette and drew large crowds to Turner Hall, a German society headquarters which for many years had the largest auditorium in the city. It later includes a quote from him on how fans would sometimes spill onto the field, that he later ran his family's stonecutting business after his career, and a story that the Packers once needed to travel by train and could only afford 24 tickets for 36 passengers and thus Zoll, lying on an upper berth, hid two of the extra travelers behind his burly frame when train conductors made their headcount. @Gonzo fan2007: Has another book by Cliff Christl that would probably have a few similar paragraphs, but I don't think there's any way to remove most of the newspaper citations aside from substantially trimming the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of a catch-22 situation here. Remove newspaper citations, the article becomes too short and lacking in modern coverage. Keep them in, and it doesn't meet people's expectations on sourcing. I don't view historic newspaper articles as a detriment. They have provided immense detail on topics that are plainly notable, yet lacking in broad coverage. I could definitely provide my book that does include some details on Zoll. If that and the other book that Graham Beards provided can replace a few newspaper sources and provide more "respectable" sourcing to get people over the support barrier, I am happy to provide it. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 18:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the million dollar question is if a few books were added, and a few newspaper clippings are removed, does that sway the needle for you Graham Beards and possibly Hog Farm, as well, to switch to support. Zoll is notable primarily due to his connection to the Packers, not necessarily his wrestling career, just fyi. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 20:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BeanieFan11, I'll drop some quotes from Christl's book later today on your talk page. I would recommend, per Graham, you incorporate what you can from both books, especially if they replace some newspaper sources. I have one other Packers book somewhere too I'll look into. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 20:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have we had a the formal source review yet. I can't see it. There is some inconsistency with the formatting of the citations. I noticed that some have dates in parentheses and other do not. This will be picked up. Sadly, I am not convinced that the two book sources that have been added will solve the problem with the quality of the citations. Graham Beards (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last nomination had a source review. Also, I can't fix the dates in parenthesis: Template:Cite news formats them differently depending on whether an author is listed or not. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Graham. An earlier source review could in theory negate the need for one in a subsequent nom, if it was satisfactory and the refs hadn't changed. In this case sourcing has come up as an issue, so I'd expect a new review here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a volcano in Peru, which despite its long inactivity is considered to be among Peru's most dangerous ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Misti has been cited as an example of a volcano where glaciers are retreating due to global warming," - if the consensus of the high-quality RS is that there are no glaciers on Misti, I think we can safely ignore the one reference to this as erroneous. I've seen my fair share of short one-off mentions of stuff in Civil War literature that is just plain wrong, from an author of an overarching work not specializing in the detailed topic matter and misinterpreting a source (or in some places, I almost suspect guessing)
"Ubinas is the most active volcano in Peru, having erupted 24 times since 1550" - reading through Ubinas#Eruptive history, it appears that this soure is outdated
"The quebradas (dry valleys) carry water during the wet season" - I think it would be a bit better to introduce the meaning of quebradas earlier in the paragraph where the term is first being used
I know this is probably due to inconsistent source, but having part of the article say "There is no clear indication of past glaciation, either, except possibly on the western flank." but then later "Traces of glacial erosion[126] like cirques,[128] evidence of hydromagmatic activity and mudflows imply that Misti was glaciated during the first last glacial maximum of the Central Andes 43,000 years
ago." So is there only marginal possible evidence of glaciation, or enough traces to state outright that there is an implication of past glaciation? I think there needs to be some sort of harmonization here
I agree that putting the material reflecting disagreements between sources to the same immediate area is a better way to present the discrepancies. Hog FarmTalk02:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Historical records begin in 1540 AD when the Spaniards arrived" - I'm not a huge fan of this phrasing, given that there is some sort of historical Inca record for the 1440/1470 eruption
"The first documented ascent was by Álvaro Meléndez, a priest from Chiguata,[314] in 1 May 1667." - I guess what qualifies as a documented ascent? Earlier in the article there are reference to various people climbing far enough up the volcano in 1600 to throw stuff into the crater
One where the person and date is clearly identified, I guess. Many of the mountains there have such ascents which found evidence of earlier ascents. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The iron cross on the summit was placed in 1784 and was still there a century later" - this seems like an odd statement, as there's greater detail about the history of the cross earlier in the article, including information that the 1784 cross had been replaced by the century later
It's a minor issue so it's not necessary. It's just odd to have the same expression one time with a comma and the other time without the comma. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The crater of El Misti (2005). In most other places, the article refers to volcano without the "El" and without italics.
This mosaic of two astronaut photographs taken from the ISS illustrates the proximity of Arequipa to Misti, just 17 km away (2009). Do we need the information about how the image was created? We could simplify to "Arequipa is only 17km away from Misti." or something similar. We could add "(shown on the left)" after "Arequipa" in case this is not clear to the reader but I'm not sure that it's necessary.
"appearing on the seal of the city for example." Not sure if "for example" is needed here. If it appears in other places, they can be mentioned as well.
"According to Italian geographer Cumin 1925" I think this should read "According to Italian geographer Gustavo Cumin" to avoid WP:PAREN and to explain who this person is.
Suggestion: "The station was one of several high-altitude stations built at the time, which aimed to investigate the atmosphere at such high altitudes;[30] additionally, the Observatory performed research on the response of the human body to high altitudes..." -> "The station was one of several high-altitude stations built at the time, which aimed to investigate the atmosphere at such high altitudes;[30] it also performed research on the response of the human body to high altitudes..." for flow.
"Misti was in its time the highest permanently inhabited location on Earth." When was this? Is this referring to the weather station or a town? Clarification would be helpful here.
"The volcanoes of Peru are part of the Andean Central Volcanic Zone (CVZ),[45] one of the four volcanic belts of the Andes; the others are the Northern Volcanic Zone, the Southern Volcanic Zone and the Austral Volcanic Zone." I don't think the names of the other volcanic belts are necessary here and are off-topic.
The "Regional" section feels a little off-topic: it is important to describe the regions that Misti is part of, but the section talks about how other volcanos are the most active. I'm confused on how the latter part of this section relates to Misti.
If this is to put Misti in context with the other volcanoes, then I would mention Misti more often and compare the other volcanoes with Misti directly. The article should answer the question, "Why is it important for the reader to know in the Misti article that "Ubinas is the most active volcano in Peru" or "The 1600 eruption of Huaynaputina claimed more than 1,000 casualties". While some of that is explained later in the article, some of the context can be explained here or the information from this section should be moved to where it is relevant when talking about Misti (like the emergency preparedness reports). Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider reversing the sentence, maybe with something like "Hazards at Misti not related to volcanic activity include flooding" as it introduces immediately that the section is about hazards not related to the volcanic activity. Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The hottest of these is[253] the Charcani V spring in the Rio Chili gorge;" ref 253 is in a weird place: what is it verifying where it can't be in a different place (like after the semi-colon)?
"and amounts to 89.1 millimetres per year (3.51 in/year),[43] a 1910 study found most precipitation to be in the form of snow or hail." suggest changing the comma to a semi-colon.
"Fernández, Alfonso; Mark, Bryan G. (March 2016)", "Sarmiento, F.O. (2016)" and "Reinhard, Johan (2005)" are listed as a source but does not seem to be used as an incline citation.
If it's not being used as an inline citation, I would rename this section to "Further reading". My preference is that there are no "Further reading" sections in featured articles (because all available, high-quality sources are used as inline citations) but that won't prevent me from supporting this. Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the lead talks about fumaroles. Given that the audience probably includes non-geologist (local residents), could this word be replaced by a plain English equivalent per WP:EXPLAINLEAD?
The same paragraph mentions bushland. The wikilink says it's something Australian, and the word isn't repeated in the rest of the article. I don't quite understand what it means here.
Misti is the house mountain of Arequipa,[15] who view themselves as the offspring of the mountain, it on the seal of the city. > the last clause seems to be missing something.
Professor Solon Irving Bailey from the Harvard College Observatory in 1893 installed[25] the world's highest[a] weather station on Misti -> The flow of this sentence is impeded by the two mid-sentence notes. Can you move the [a] to the end of the sentence? Or possibly both mid-sentence citations. Surprised you need 3 citations to fully cover this sentence.
As it takes a while before you say the observatory is no longer in use, can you add a 'then' to the previous sentence (like, 'then the world's highest weather station', or something more elegantly)
Similar possible overcitation and break of flow in "Another weather station, named "Mt. Blanc Station",[33] was installed at the base of the volcano[34][35] after 1888.[36]". Do we need the final three citations and can they all be at the end of the sentence.
The information on this weather station system is presented in a very piecemeal fashion in sources that are poorly formatted. We can move the citations at the end, but I prefer to do such changes only after everything else has been reviewed - in my experience, one often gets further questions that are tougher to answer after bundling. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the crater is a 120-metre-wide (390 ft) and 15-metre-high (49 ft) volcanic plug[59]/lava dome,[50] covered with cracks,[22] boulders and fumarolic sulfur deposits;[58] it is fumarolically active.[60] --> Again a lot of mid-sentence citations breaking flow. Here, I imagine it might be more difficult to just put them at the end. Two suggestions: avoid the slash (if my memory is correct, that's typically discouraged anyway somewhere hidden in the MOS), and replace the semi-colon with a full stop.
This is a recurring issue with flow of prose. Could you go over the article and see if it's possible to reduce mid-sentence citations and in particular, mid-clause citations.
Temperatures decrease with elevation;[262] in 1910 monthly mean temperatures at the summit ranged from −6 °C (21 °F) in January to −9.7 °C (14.5 °F) in May, June and August[263] but in 1968 temperatures at the summit rose above freezing for a few days per year.[63] --> Replace the semi-colon with a full stop, as the citation breaks the flow anyway, and the two sentences are not that connected. Why the 'but' in the second part of the sentence? There is no obvious contrast with the previous sentence.
During most of the year, dry westerly winds blow over the Western Cordillera except during summer months, when convection over the Amazon forces easterly flow that draws moisture to the Cordillera --> Can you omit 'During most of the year', given that 'except during summer months' conveys similar information?
; ages of 2,300 BP are probably too old --> Is this relevant? If we already know in 2011 that it's probably not correct, and the more recent (?) global volcanism programme has a small range for this eruption not covering 2,300 BP, I think we can omit it. The prose becomes less engaging with so many dates in there. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It feels slightly of to present a myth as fact like this "Previous ceremonies had failed to calm the volcano and only the emperor's direct intervention quelled its anger". I imagine most readers will get that this is a story, but for the small share that doesn't, can the text be adjusted to make this explicit?
Are modern units used in South America? If so, consider only converting the metric units to US units on first mention. This is mostly a scientific article, where you're not obligated to convert everything. This will help improve flow.
There is no clear evidence of eruptions after the arrival of the Spaniards,[102][183] while the Global Volcanism Program reports a last eruption in 1985 -> How can both be correct?
If you cannot figure out which source is correct, then the text should make clear there is disagreement. With an event so recent, surely we must be able to write something more definitive, such as "This and this happened, which the Global Volcanism Programme classed as an eruption. Are the two sources that say there haven't been eruptions for instance talking about pre-1950 history? Or only major eruptions? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of disagreement is whether reports of increased activity count as an "eruption" or merely as increased output of fumarolic gases. The GVP reports indicate nothing more than ash and gas emissions, so the disagreement seems to be about how to interpret them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should note m be in the text, with the last part (named after the volcano) omitted as overly detailed? That would get rid of one midclause note.
I think either the current form or wholesale removal. List of species discovered there might be too detailed for a note and definitively too detailed for an in-text mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of animals are guanacos and vicuñas? You can probabbly relate them to llamas in the text.
Do we need the months here? I'd say it's too much detail: "Questionable eruptions are recorded in 1542, 1599, August 1826, August 1830, 1831, September 1869, March 1870".
The lead is still too technical. MOS:INTRO says to avoid jargon in the lead wherever possible, and with 7 mystery words, of which three explained in hidden footnotes, we're not there yet. I don't think explaining in footnotes really helps as WP:EXPLAINLEAD says, as far as possible, that text should be understandable on sight, rather than after a click. Are there other bits of the article you can summarise that do not require such in-depth knowledge? What percentage of the readers are not geologist? I imagine more than half. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Handled the footnoted terms. I know nominators shouldn't say this, but I don't think you can ask me to identify jargon words. I know the jargon, I don't always know whether it's clear to other people. I am guessing you need "dormant volcano", "volcanic plug", "lava dome", "caldera", "ignimbrite"? Or just the latter four? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To write more engagingly, the better strategy is to rethink what's presented in the lead. For instance, instead of explaining what tephra is, you can write: "Numerous intense explosive eruptions took place during the last 50,000 years and covered the surrounding terrain with rocks fragments." Similarly, you can say "The narrow valleys on western and southern flanks are a particular threat, as mudflows and hot volcanic debris could be channelled into the urban area and into important infrastructure, like hydropower plants." Simply replacing jargon with explanations leads to quite wordy sentences, which is a problem for understandability in its own right. I image the basement sentence would have to go, as I don't think it's sufficiently interesting for a broad audience. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is 'work-in-progress' or a suggested compromise. If the latter, I'm still not quite happy with the "Miocene-Pliocene" sentence. I think it's best to remove everything after souteast, as 'consolidated volcanic fragments' is both technical and vague. Experts will have to guess what you mean there, whereas most readers will not really care about the Miocene etc. I imagine 30% of normal readers would know what the Miocene is roughly, but I might be overestimating. Can't you say instead developed X million years ago? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If geologists use words like Pliocene and Miocene, chances are it's because they don't have any more precise numbers. So that wouldn't work. I think these chronology words should be handled via a footnote; I don't think there is any other way that wouldn't be more accurate or less distracting. I genericalized the sentence after southeast. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's pick this up from where we left. My main three concerns were that the lead was not accessible (99% resovled, looks great now), that the flow was impeded by mid-sentence citations in too many places (not answered abvoe), and that there was too much detail in places (I believe others have given actioned feedback on this). I'm going to do a deep-dive in a few of the easier sections (which are close meeting my idea of engaging), while I wait for the response to the mid-sentence concern, which is more of an issue in for instance the geography section.
Hmm, I swear I already commented on the mid-sentence citations. I've rearranged citations in the past, then had to go back to double check a source, and ended up with 2x 3x etc the work because now the same statement was attached to multiple citations. That's too much extra work. Hence I prefer to do this at the end. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove the IPA mystery symbols from the lead. Misti is not difficult to pronounce, so IPA gives our readers that understand it little, while making the majority confused.
Geology. I've read this section twice and still don't really understand the story told. First of all a question for you, what level would this be covered at in school/uni? Is it something that you might see as a case study for geology Abi or A-levels? Or would it only be covered at university? Bachelor or Master? My background here is that I took one uni-level geology module, but in Spanish, so may not be familiar with the English wording. I'm not going into sentence level yet, as I'm too overwhelmed reading the section, and it might need a more strict summary style to ensure everything is relevant, and/or additional explanations to show the reader why some of the background is relevant. For instance, why do we need to know when all those different Arcs formed? At this point, I don't know which one is relevant to Misti. I can't find the 5-6 cm per year in the source given (I was trying to find if the obtrusive mid-clause citation could be omitted).
It's in the image 1. As a layperson who reads about geology, I don't know much about where such topics would be taught. The arc information is chronology context about volcanic activity in the area. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but who are you writing for? My guess is that of the overall readership of this article (tourists, residents, policy makers, geology students, geologist), the latter three might be interested in this section. So far, it's mostly written for the last group. What do you think? How did you make sure the text is engaging and complies with MOS:JARGON for the likely audiences of this particular section? Just a few examples: (1) What's a basement? (2) the composition section starts abruptly (Misti has erupted mainly andesite, while dacite and rhyolite are less common.). Composition of what? What kind of thing is andesite? (3) The first clause of the magma section doesn't convey a lot of information ("is a complicated process"), and you might want to start more to-the-point. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think that it's geologists and geology students. (1) It's the underlying rock but I can't find a good source for this (2) Well, it's a section about composition, of course it starts talking about composition. Spelled andesitic out a bit. (3) Shortened. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These technical sections (geomorphology, geology, eruption history) likely attract a much wider audience, as well as first-year geology students unfamiliar with the full range of jargon. I can imagine some city planners may want to get understandable content around the geology for a presentation. Most of your readers (90% non-geologist?) would be interested in the eruption section I would guess. While I can be convinced that the geology section could have a few unexplained bits of jargon, I don't think this can be justified in the other two technical sections. They are much too difficult. Having poor readability with long sentences with mid-sentence citations does not help the reader either. The more technical your content, the easier the language and formatting shuold be, so that people don't struggle twice. I believe these sections will need more work than is feasible during a FAC, and I have to regretfully oppose. There are easy ways to fix some of issues (like ditching US units, integrating or deleting unnecessary notes etc), but some of it really requires a large rethink of what you're presenting and what you're leaving out. Comprehensiveness is not a suicide pact, and when it conflicts with MOS:JARGON and precludes writing an engaging article, do use summary style. Also, for unavoidable jargon, you might consider it a normal part of paraphrasing to explain it, not something that always requires a citation if it's 100% obvious. Of course, it does need one if there might be disagreements. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About 8.6% of Peru's GDP depends on Arequipa and would be impacted by a future eruption of Misti --> The latter half of this sentence is not necessary I don't think. As in: more of the economy would probably be impacted, right? As the economy will be very interlinked.
For improved flow, avoid double parenthesis in units. {{convert}} has a display=semicolon so that you can put both in the same set of parentheses, or you can put the SI unit into the main text. Avoid putting parenthesis mid-clause, which also breaks flow. For instance, you could say Pyroclastic flows are hot mixtures of gas and rock 300–800 °C; 600–1,000 °F that can travel down slopes at 200–400 kilometres per hour (60–100 m/s), flowing over topographic obstacles and reaching far from the volcanic vent.
For flow, I'd change threaten to threatening: Such collapses could also dam the Rio Chili, generating mudflows[226] and threatening neighbourhoods such as Vallecito, Av. La Marina, and Club Internacional.
Later the monitoring was extended to other hot springs and to fumaroles in the crater; the latter both visually from Arequipa and in the crater --> Avoid 'the latter, as this always puts a cognitive burden on readers to either remember what they've just read, or force them to go back. . I can't thnk of a better way to do this than "Monitoring was later extended to other hot springs and to fumaroles in the crater; the fumaroles were observed both from Arequipa and directly within the crater.".
Beginning in 2008, geodesic measurement stations were installed on the northeastern and southern slopes of the volcano, and a new monitoring station for the volcano was inaugurated in 2012. -> how does the new one relate to the previous ones. Can we improve flow by saying "a further monitoring station was inaugurated in 2012"?
In May 2009 and April 2010, two exercise evacuations of several suburbs of Arequipa were carried out --> The source at the end of the sentence talks about the 2009 practice evacuation. No need to have the mid-sentence citation.
Water is the most important component of the fumarole gases, followed by carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and hydrogen. The gases contain hydrogen chloride and hydrogen sulfide and are highly acidic. --> Hydrogen sulfide is repeated
that may be due to --> possibly caused by new magma entering the volcano during the 20th century. The present tense feels a bit off here, as this happened in the past.
The hot spring sentence is tough, would the following work better: Hot springs occur at the foot of the volcano. To the north is the Humaluso (Umaluso) spring, while to the south and southwest lie Agua Salada, Bedoya (La Bedoya), Calle Cuzco, Charcani V, Chilina Norte, Chilina Sur, Jésus, Ojo de Milagro, Puente de Fierro, Sabandia, Tingo, Yumina, and Zemanat?
Is there a more up-to-date source on the temperature? The current one is almost certainly incorrect, given 50 years of global warming. Similar to precipitation.. Not sure how much drying there's been due to Amazonian deforestation, but definitely enough to not justify the high precision you give there.
If you're not married to giving that statistic, you could give an indication of the average max temperature with [23]. Also allows you to compute average precipitation with a modern source. Any source older than ~20 years is unreliable for current climate, especially if there's also urban heat island effects on top of global warming. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added the temperature information and recast some of the precipitation information. From what I know, precipitation there is influenced by a great many other things besides Amazon deforestation, such as ENSO changes and a possible change in North Atlantic teleconnections discussed by Segura, and varies a bit overmuch by year. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The snow rapidly melts during the dry season (1958 source). Still true? Or does it already melt during wet season due to global warming?
So, one problem with scientific research is that these kinds of purely observational statements seem to be out of fashion so it's hard to find contemporaneous sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I'm skeptical of using terms like 'the little ice age', given the imprecise definition of these kind of time periods. Semi-recent source, so maybe justified here.
At higher elevations .. Could you explain what type of vegetation this is?
There are two sentences about who the mummies are (boys of around 6, infants and children). Can you place that information next to each other, and link it for better flow?
Please combine the two citations in "The first documented ascent was by Álvaro Meléndez, a priest from Chiguata, on 1 May 1667". A page range of 2 is clearer, as a reader would then start looking at the end of the first page. Also improves flow.
The climbers reported --> Climbers have reported? Not clear why there's a 'the', which makes it sound like the climbers have been introduced already. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(just to assuage the inevitable coordinator query, I really just poked at a few sections here and there without doing a full review, so I'm not going to weigh in with either a formal support or oppose. RoySmith(talk)16:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]
I am concerned about the writing quality, vis-a-vis prose is engaging and of a professional standard. Much of the text is written in a choppy style, i.e. sequences of disjoint sentences which don't flow together. For example, from Human geography:
The old roads heading from Arequipa to Chivay and Juliaca run along the northern/western and southern/eastern foot of Misti, respectively.[20] Inca roads from the Arequipa area passed by the volcano.[21] There are numerous dams on the Rio Chili, including the Aguada Blanca Dam and reservoir north of the volcano,[22] El Fraile, and Hidroeléctrica Charcani I, II, III, IV, V and VI.[23] These dams have hydroelectric power plants which supply electricity to Arequipa. The river is also the principal water resource for the city. Roads leaving the city cross the river on bridges.[24]
This may all be true, and the text may be grammatically correct, but it's just not engaging to read because it doesn't tell a coherent story. With the exception of the two that talk about the dams, these sentences could be presented in any order with no change in meaning.
This is just one example; most of the rest of the article is written in the same style. My apologies if this sounds harsh, but I think the entire article could do with a copyedit to improve the overall flow of the text.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)
I did some editing on the "Name and settlement history" section, but I'll need some more time for the other sections. Getting pre-FAC copyedits is always a hit and miss sort of deal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One question about the "The western rim of the outer crater is about 150 metres (490 ft) higher than the southern." sentence is whether it should remain in that section or be moved to the crater description. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looking at that now, but what is Estimates of the mountain's volume range reach 150 cubic kilometres supposed to be? I'm guessing there's some word missing there? RoySmith(talk)20:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought is that pulling that sentence out of where it is now and putting it in the description of the crater would make sense. But while I'm here, I noticed that the first paragraph of General outline says The volcano is a young, symmetric cone, but in the next paragraph, you have It is notably asymmetric. This should be resolved somehow. If you're talking about two different sub-structures, this would be a good opportunity to tie the text together with something like, "Unlike the xxx, which is symmetric, the xxx is notably asymmetric ..." RoySmith(talk)21:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I thought that this was the usual case of sources disagreeing with each other but no, here it's the same source. I moved it into the footnote because the mountain is noted for symmetry not the opposite. Anyhow, I've mended this item. Also dealt with the Geology section but I may have missed something. In general, many topics can be covered with only one or two sentence and then I have to go to a related one (e.g Ubinas for frequency, then Huaynaputina and Sabancaya-Ubinas for impact). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about for Geology:
Although volcanic activity in southern Peru goes back to the Jurassic, the currently recognizable volcanic arcs in Peru are more recent: the Tacaza Arc formed 30–15 million years ago, the Lower Barroso 9–4 million, the Upper Barroso 3–1 million, and the Pleistocene-Holocene Frontal Arc during the past one million years.
Put that in. Took a stab at the first paragraph of the eruption history section, but I dunno whether the rest needs fixing. I'd keep the bullet list - this kind of information doesn't lend itself to a paragraph information - but the text might need changes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would do well to eliminate some of the detail. You could say that the city proper is 17 km from the mountain, with the metropolitan area (or outlying towns, if you prefer) within 11 km, but I don't see the need to list every town. I think you could also simplify At least 220,000 people live on the alluvial fans and in the ravines on the southern side of Misti, and are threatened by floods, mudflows and pyroclastic flows emanating from the volcano that can be channelled through the ravines. to just "20,000 people are directly threatened by floods, mudflows and pyroclastic flows on the mountain's southern slopes" RoySmith(talk)15:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I could make a more general comment, my personal opinion is that you (along with several other FA authors) tend to include more details in your writing than you should. WP:GACR says it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail which in WP:FACR gets turned into it neglects no major facts or details so I get the desire to be all-inclusive. There's plenty of room for individual interpretation of what constitutes a "major fact", but my suggestion would be to live a bit closer to the GA end of the spectrum. RoySmith(talk)12:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. In addition, this probably links in with my request to reduce mid-clause citations (let me know when you're ready for a second read). With fewer minor details included, it would be easier to get better flow and rely less on a surplus of citations. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that this isn't the first time I've had such feedback. However, given that "no major facts or details" is the FA requirement, we'll have to stick closer to that end than the GACR standard while at FAC I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe many of the details in the article now are minor details, rather than the major details the FA criteria call for. Including these minor details means that summary style isn't used and that prose often becomes less engaging. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd imagine that different people have different views on what counts as minor or major. I know I tend to the inclusive, as in my mind the comprehensiveness is Wikipedia's key strength over AIs and other websites. But YMMV. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beating my head against the first paragraph of Hydrology and glaciology. I'm not entirely happy with this, but I got as far as
Multiple quebradas (dry valleys) drain the mountain, only carrying water during the wet season in November–December and March–April: the Carabaya, Honda, Grande, Agua Salada, Huarangual, Chilca, San Lazaro and Pastores. Of these, only the San Laaro and Huarangual have alluvial fans. These all empty into either the perennial Rio Chili, which rounds the northern and western sides of the mountain, or the Rio Andamayo, which in turn joins the Rio Chili south of the city of Arequipa. The Rio Chili has cut the 20-kilometre-long (12 mi), 150–2,600-metre-deep (490–8,530 ft) Charcani Gorge.
I suggest adding a map and letting that do the heavy lifting of describing where all these features are. Obviously, this needs to be fixed up to include the appropriate citations and links, but I think the prose works reasonably well. RoySmith(talk)11:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They eventually join to the Rio Chili west and Rio Andamayo south of Misti;[72] the Andamayo joins the Chili south of Arequipa.[77] Could you double-check that? I don't see either of those sources mentioning Rio Andamayo. From the description of joining the Rio Chile south of Arequipa and looking at some maps, I'm guessing it's supposed to be what Google Maps calls Rio Socobaya and Open Street Map calls Rio Chacalaque. RoySmith(talk)00:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the sources don't mention in in the text - the Andamayo is namechecked in the images. Changed the sfn tag to make it clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did some extra copyediting in the hazards section; I wonder if anyone's sitting on an idea how to frame the timeline given in the management section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you need the |via=Google Books parameter: you don't say which other channels you've accessed books though, and it's not like the Google Books version is somehow different to the hardcopy version
There are mixes of sentence case and title case (title case seems to be dominant, but there's a fair proportion of sentence case in there), including Andrés, Nuria et al, Bailey, Birnie, Cabrera-Pérez et al, Cacya et al (x 3), etc. There needs to be consistent formatting throughout (including the external links)
Do they have a more precise date, or perhaps a page number or by-line? Possibly a URL to an online version? It's just unclear what they are the way they are presented. - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All sources used are high quality, with most of the article's heavy lifting being done with academic sources
Additional searches have shown no further high-quality sources that could or should have been used, although it should be noted that a. this was based on an online search for additional resources and b. I am not a subject specialist by any stretch of the imagination. - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Dune fields and volcanic ash deposits extend for 20 kilometres (12 mi) northeast of Misti; they are formed by wind-blown ash.[72][64][40]". The citations are out of order.
"...that Misti was glaciated during the first last glacial maximum of the Central Andes 43,000 years ago". "First last glacial maximum" is odd here.
"During the Cretaceous-Paleogene". En dash instead of hyphen.
"...and the Cretaceous-Paleogene La Caldera batholith". En dash instead of hyphen.
"...the older are part of the Huaylillas Formation and the younger of the Barroso Arc". It's not really clear which formations are part of the Huaylillas Formation and of the Barroso Arc.
"...the 4.89 ± 0.02 million years old La Joya ignimbrite or "sillar", the 1.65 ± 0.04 million years old Aeropuerto or Sencca ignimbrite,[71] and the 1.02 million years old Yura Tuff and Capillune Formation". The "million years old" bit should be changed to "million-year-old".
I'm reviewing with an eye towards prose since that seems to be the main point of contention. I do agree that some of it needs some work, but as less-than-a-dilletante I don't feel comfortable making the edits directly. I will highlight the sentence and how I think it could be fixed.
but does not persist; there are no glaciers. The semi-colon here makes me wonder if snow doesn't persist because there are no glaciers or if snow doesn't persist and thus there are no glaciers.
I'm less than a dilettante here but this – Off the western coast of Peru, the Nazca Plate subducts under South America at a rate of 5–6 centimetres per year (2.0–2.4 in/year) just reads a bit off. The reason being that Nazca Plate and subducts are both blue-linked so I skipped over them thinking it was the name of the thing, and ended up being lost because subducts is a technical verb I don't know.
In general, I'm always pushing for technical terms to be explained in-line per WP:MTAU but subducts seems like something I'd expect anybody reading about volcanoes to know. Still, If @ImaginesTigers says they don't know it, how about doing "Off the western coast of Peru, the Nazca Plate subducts (slides under) under the South American Plate ..." And since I'm here, regarding "at a rate of 5–6 centimetres per year (2.0–2.4 in/year).", I have no idea if that's a lot or not, so could it be clarified? Looking at Nazca plate#Plate motion, I'm guessing it's a lot, so maybe "exceptionally fast for this type of fault"?
Added that parenthetical. Viz the speed, that would need a wholly new source ... also folks might question if that is unnecessary detail. I take that it is a fast movement by plate standards. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although volcanic activity in southern Peru goes back to the Jurassic, the currently recognizable volcanic arcs in Peru are more recent: the Tacaza Arc formed 30–15 million years ago, the Lower Barroso 9–4 million, the Upper Barroso 3–1 million, and the Pleistocene-Holocene Frontal Arc during the past one million years. State how long the Jurassic is compared to the other periods given; break it into smaller sentence chunks (i.e., don't start with "although").
The Tacaza Arc is the source of the Huaylillas Formation and the Barroso Group of the Sencca Formation Not confident there's anything you can do about this... I suppose the rule here is "one-level down", right? It doesn't need to make complete sense to me; it needs to make sense to, say, an undergrad geologist. Without wiki-links for these terms (which there are none), does this make sense to an amateur geologist?
I'm going to leave the "Geology" section as I don't think I'm the intended audience. Volcanoes feel accessible as a topic, but I need to accept that large amounts of the work involved in understanding them is beyond me. While I could sit here and critique individual words, I don't think that's useful given that I trust the nominator to have a better understanding of what an amateur geologist could understand than me. I'm going to move onto to something more fun (eruption)
There's an odd word here and there that I don't understand (e.g., andesitic but overall the prose in this section is much more comprehensible.
It's pretty dense with information but yeah I'm following okay. On balance, I think this reads as professional and clear to me. The language is precise, especially given the sheer density of information that's packed into this section.
Got a laugh out of "Sandwich Inferior", "Sandwich Superior"
Misti is Peru's most dangerous volcano and one of the most dangerous in the world – I want to follow up on the comment left at the top by an IP. They ask what it means to be dangerous. I think they are asking that because the conventional use of the word "dangerous" is that I can expose myself to active harm from it at any point (e.g., if my bath tub was electrified, it would be dangerous). The difference here is that it's dangerous in the sense that it might pose substantial harm in the future, which is what the section outlines in detail. I don't object to the word dangerous and think it is fine as is, but I want to just briefly provide commentary on where that confusion might be coming from. It's a difference between "constant, current threat that is killing people now" and "volcano that might cause harm at any point.
Other threats are: Toxic gases can accumulate in closed spaces to dangerous concentrations, or interact with precipitation to form acid rain. Lava flows are highly destructive, but their slow speed does not constitute a major threat to life. We could drop the "other threats are" – it feels ungrammatical because it's introducing prose rather than a straight list
I don't think this is a list-in-prose because it provides threats and some consequent analysis (e.g., their slow speeds not being a major threat to life). I don't find bullet points pretty, personally, but they're usefull. Consider, for example, a local high-school student doing a presentation on this volcano for their class. I like it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Monitoring and hazard management" reads well
On "Scenarios" – is there no information given on the loss of human life? The scenarios make sense in themselves; it feels a bit like the human element is neglected a bit
As far as I know, predicting death tolls is a fool's errand, too many variables. The best thing we can do is to say how many people would be affected, but these sources don't give that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For mummies, it just sounds intuitive to package the human stuff together. For the other one, I think it delineates two separate but related topics and is useful for navigation. Your call for both — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's more likely to be the latter, I think substituting "stories" for "narrative" makes sense. My background is literature, and from my POV at least 'narrative' suggests a certain amount of curation (e.g., it implies it's de Mura) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no concerns about the article's comprehensiveness—it provides exhaustive detail. Sometimes, I did have the sense that so much detail was being packed in that it prevented information from being presented in simple terms. There is simply so much to say that we can't slow down and explain some of the basics.
This is where we run into the old "who's this for?" question. There are several sections where I am basically unqualified to give an "oe-level down" opinion. For those where I feel I can, I've either raised them here (or directly addressed through edits) most of them. When it comes to professional: yes. I think the prose is of professional calibre. But I don't think it's engaging.
To Jo-Jo: Do you think reducing some of the detail is feasible here? Can we pare back on detail in service of explaining, more clearly, the more dense or technical parts? I think those sections are my biggest problem, whereas I think the more accessible areas (as I noted above) are basically fine, or at least workable, with some tweaks sometimes as outlined above or per my direct edits to the page. Happy to discuss. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So here's the thing about the details: While how much detail is needed for a FA is a bit subjective, I don't think that removing details because part of the readership won't understand them is a good rationale. I think one can explain the technical parts, sure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think my analysis here just suffers from a bias—I work on material that is sometimes complicated, but can be straightforwardly made accessible while staying true to the source. I know the "I don't understand this" criticism is a source of immense frustration for technical-subject creators.
I think there's one instance where there's a change left (narrative/story). Nothing above is show-stopper. The only one where I think it's a bit misleading is "narrative" but "stories" sounds pretty juvenile so I get why you used it. Support — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Harv error: link from CITEREFSENAMHI2025 doesn't point to any citation. There are two of these. One is at the very bottom of the page. Graham Beards (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. That's the same error – Sfn being typo'd in made it impossible to call the reference, so consequently broke the in-line citation. — ImaginesTigers11:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the source verifies "usually", is a minor nitpick here. Can you help me out with this one? Is there another way this happens that I'm missing?
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Kampina,_the_Netherlands.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[21]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Striped_weasel_roadkill.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poecilogale_albinucha_albinucha_15099149.jpg){kind=link}
