This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
Here, we determine which articles are to befeatured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy theFA criteria.All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see thereview FAQ.
Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it atPeer review and adding the review to theFAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, arestrongly advised toseek 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 notsignificant 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 orGood article nominations at the same time.
The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose,Gog the Mild,David Fuchs andFrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to bepromoted 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 andarchived 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 resolvecritical 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 andNot 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-nominateany 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 listedhere. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on theFAC talk page, or use the{{@FAC}}notification template elsewhere.
Abot 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 theFA criteria and thatpeer 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 tothe 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), andedit 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 willtransclude 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 thewhole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; seethe 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 * '''Oppose''',followed by your reason(s). Each opposition must providea specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the opposition, 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 oppose are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their opposition has been addressed. To withdraw the opposition, 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 opposing, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutralfourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (donot 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 createsaccessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTMLdescription 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. Pertalk 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 might be one of the most bizarre video game concepts. In 1992 on the Super Nintendo, there was a game released about a superhero who has, and I'm not kidding, diabetes. And he has to save the also diabetic mayor of the city from going into shock so you have to fight sugary food aliens to help give the mayor his insulin. And since its release it was garnered a reputation as one of the worst video games ever made. And now I am nominating the article about it for FAC as I believe it meets the criteria. Feedback is always welcomed.GamerPro6402:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perry Rodgers should be discussed in development; also, is there any info that can be cited on Rodgers' involvement?
Same with Kelly Kofoed and the composers
The programmers are also not mentioned; suggest removing them unless some significance can be shown.
Recommend adding platformer genre to "2D side-scroller"
Lead
Recommend changing the semicolon to a comma
Gameplay
"Captain Novolin is a 2D side-scroller. The plot of Captain Novolin has the titular hero setting out to save Pineville's diabetic Mayor Gooden from aliens and their leader Blubberman, as the mayor only has enough insulin for 48 hours" I feel these sentences ought to be tweaked to flow from the first to the second sentence a little better
"Captain Novolin can die if his blood glucose level goes too high or low" Is this a guaranteed thing (i.e., there's a point where the blood glucose goes too high or low where death immediately occurs)? If so, should be "will die"
Development
Suggest renaming to "Development and release"
Reception
Might be worth clarifying that "Super Prozac Brothers" isn't real; it might seem outlandish, but in an article about such an outlandish game, it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that such a thing exists
This section is my biggest concern with the article; firstly, the two sources used in the review box are not actually cited for anything more than the scores, which is frowned upon. My below notes will be to help address the issues.
[1][2] These two sources discuss, in order, branding in video games and the worst Nintendo games, with Captain Novolin being touched on in both.
[3][4] These are the review box reviews so you can cite the info
[5] Retro Gamer source that discusses "strange games"
Hey! This game looks... interesting. Here are some initial comments after looking at the prose. This'll also be my first time navigating the FA process so apologies if I make errors or can't be extremely thorough.TheBrickGraphic (talk)03:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell it isn't mentioned elsewhere apart from the lead that Novolin has diabetes, let alone type 1 diabetes specifically. Is there a source that outwardly confirms this, and if so can the detail be mentioned in Gameplay somewhere?
All images need alt text.
Minor, but I'd add more detail to the caption for the screenshot in gameplay, i.e., what the image depicts.
Perhaps swap "aliens" with "alien invaders" in Gameplay's first and second paragraphs respectively; I think this would read better.
As with what Cukie Gherkin said, "Captain Novolin can die if his blood glucose level goes too high or low." should be reworded. Unless there's a way for Novolin to survive having too high or too low blood glucose, you can replace "can die" with just "dies". As a suggestion, I'd also swap "blood glucose level goes too high or low" with "blood glucose level exceeds or depletes below a certain amount."
Do the points you get from both keeping blood glucose at a healthy level and answering questions mean anything significant? Or are they simply optional statistics?
"In addition, the game has a feature whereby a diabetic player can specify the frequency of their real-life insulin injections. What does inputting the frequency actually do in-game? Does it affect the bonus questions asked?
I'd suggest merging the Evaluations section into Reception, and thus segmenting the content into two sections. Something like "Initial release" for the latter and "Retrospective reception" for the former would be nice to establish more cohesive flow, since Evaluations discusses the game's critical response at the time of debut.
Matthew Williamson for GameSetWatch was negative towards the Captain Novolin sprite, saying that it took up one-third of the screen. I'd clarify in the prose itself that he criticized the size of the sprite.
I first heard of this company about 10 years ago when I was visiting a lighthouse museum and took some photos of the nameplates on a beacon light. When I got home, I looked up the manufacturer and was surprised to find our article talking about a company which made electric toy trains. It turns out it was the same company that made toy trains and searchlights for lighthouses, not to mention laundry machines and gasoline motors and a few other things. The most amazing thing to me is the book they published in 1906 teaching young boys how to build their own toy train layouts, complete with instructions on how to build an electric battery with some bits of lead, some glass jars swiped from mother's kitchen, and sulphuric acid. Not to mention how to tap into the house wiring to keep the battery charged. Ah, the good old days before we got namby-pamby consumer safety laws.RoySmith(talk)00:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Carlisle_%26_Finch_logo.png: source link is dead
I've added a link to a copy in archive.org.
File:Array_of_three_Carlisle_%26_Finch_19-inch_searchlights.png: why is this believed to be a NASA work?
It was done at the NASA Langley VSTOL Research Wind Tunnel, but no, I can't find a direct statement that a NASA employee pushed the shutter button. I'll remove the image for now.
This article is about the first of four powerful hurricanes to hit the Bahamas from 2015–2019. Despite causing extensive damage and flooding in the southern Bahamas, all of Joaquin's fatalities curiously occurred at sea rather than on land: 33 froma cargo ship that sailed straight into the eyewall, and one from a capsized boat off Haiti. This passed a GA review byHurricanehink a while ago, and after more tidying up I believe it's ready for FAC. Cheers, ~ KN2731{talk ·contribs}00:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't see a way to fit it into the prose as is – doesn't help that the minimum pressure doesn't coincide with the maximum winds. I don't want to overload the lead (which is already on the long side) with meteorological data, hence just the mention of the peak winds. --KN 17:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
"and at 00:00 UTC on September 28 the NHC assessed the system to have become a tropical depression"→"and by 00:00 UTC on September 28 the NHC assessed the system to have become a tropical depression"
TCR specifies "at" that exact time which is why I went with the same. Using "by" carries a stronger connotation that it could have reached that intensity slightly before midnight UTC. --KN 17:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
"Forecasters at the NHC noted considerable uncertainty in the future of Joaquin, with forecast models depicting a wide range of possibilities.[14]" I recommend finding an image to support this claim.
There's figure 9 in the TCR (ref 2), but that only shows the cycle-to-cycle track variability (and not the disparities in the intensity forecast). I added "for both track and intensity" to clarify where the uncertainty was in. --KN 17:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
The TCR (ref 2) doesn't state what the baseline was – presumably somewhere around 28.6°C for the period 1948–2015 based off Figure 4 on p. 28, but I wouldn't put a precise value in the article without one being explicitly stated. --KN 17:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
"The NHC assessed that Joaquin became a high-end Category 4 hurricane with winds of 155 mph (250 km/h) by 12:00 UTC" I recommend adding pressure.
Since I already reviewed it as a GA, I'm going to focus on the images.
Check the licensing for the track map, it looks messy on the image page
@Hurricanehink: I'm not sure whatUser:NoraTG29 (formerly YourGeneric) did when creating the map, but it seems to be a consequence ofcommons:Template:WPTC track map already containing a PD-self license. Trying to remove all the additional license headers tripscommons:Special:AbuseFilter/313, but leaving one seems to work which is what I've gone with. There's now two different public domain licenses there which is... not ideal, but I'm not sure which one should be kept (or if they're even equivalent). At any rate I don't think I can remove either license without doing something unconventional like subst'ing the WPTC track map template. ~ KN2731{talk ·contribs}23:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The external video of "U.S. Coast Guard aerial footage of flooding in the Bahamas on October 3," should probably be at the end of the article, not linked in the middle of the impact section. It feels more like an external link.
{{External media}} is meant for the main body where it acts as a replacement for media that is otherwise unavailable on Commons. I placed it within the body next to the Bahamas impacts where I felt it'd be most relevant, but I can move the video down to #External links if it's more in line withWP:EL. --KN 23:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Two of the images (the infobox one and the one showing the SS Faro's position) link to NRL Monterey, and the loop was from a storm floater or other satellite imagery from when the hurricane was active, so the links don't technically link to the images/loops, but that's because they were uploaded from when the storm was active. Also, I should note that NRL Monterey used to have an archive of all previous satellite images. Unless I'm mistaken, that archive no longer exists. However, as all US-based satellite images are public domain (published by NOAA), they all follow the image use policy.
"It was also the strongest Atlantic hurricane of non-tropical origin recorded in the satellite era." This is repeated almost verbatim in the Meteorological history section. Consider varying the wording in one instance.
I decided to elaborate a bit on what "non-tropical" means in the meteorological history. --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Meteorological history
"reaching Portugal on October 12. Joaquin's remnant then slowly moved southward along the coast of Portugal" — "Portugal" twice in quick succession. Easy prose fix.
Removed second mention of Portugal --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Preparations
"Residents on Mayaguana were advised to evacuate." — by whom? Adding who issued the advisory would strengthen this.
NEMA did – moved this behind the next sentence which introduces NEMA. --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Impacts — Bahamas
"Nearly 7,000 people there were directly affected by Joaquin." — "directly affected" is quite broad. Displaced? Property damaged? A brief clarification would help the reader.
Elaborated a little. Hopefully this is better? --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
"The effects of Joaquin were considered comparable to the destruction wrought by Hurricane Andrew in 1992" — who made this comparison? Attributing it (e.g. "Officials compared..." or "Local media compared...") would be stronger.
Looks like it was just that one newspaper, which I've mentioned by name. --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Impacts — El Faro
"One body, presumed to be from El Faro, was spotted late on October 4 but failed to be recovered." —"failed to be recovered" reads slightly awkwardly. Perhaps"but could not be recovered" or"but was not recovered"?
I felt the alternative wordings didn't convey that an attempt was made to recover the body but was unsuccessful, but going back to reread the source it looks like the GPS locator they dropped on the body didn't work – so not sure how much of an attempt that constitutes at all. Switched to "could not". --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Impacts — Remainder of the West Indies
"Rain from the storm somewhat alleviated conditions from a record drought in Granma, Guantánamo, and Santiago de Cuba provinces, though many reservoirs remained below 30% capacity in the latter." —"the latter" is ambiguous here. Does it refer to Santiago de Cuba specifically or all three provinces?
Just Santiago de Cuba. --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Impacts — United States
"a non-tropical low over the Southeast tapped into the hurricane's moisture" —"tapped into" is slightly informal. Perhaps"drew moisture from"?
Reworded and combined with the next sentence. --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Aftermath
"Economists at the IDB postulated that the effects of Joaquin caused the Bahamian monthly gross domestic product to decrease by 2.8%." —"postulated" feels unusual for an economic estimate."estimated" might fit better.
"estimated" is used in the next sentence, so I was going for some variety. Switched to "assessed" instead. --KN 18:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
General
Sourcing is excellent — good mix of NHC reports, academic journals, and news sources. Archive URLs are in place throughout.
Images are well chosen with proper alt text.
Well-structured article overall. Just minor prose tweaks as noted above.
This article is about Lamarr Wilson, an unboxing YouTuber who passed away in late 2025 due to suicide; I believe this article meets all fa criteria. I’m also thankful for any comments on this article!TheArchitectOfYe (talk)17:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm just looking at the prose, I've noticed that the article uses some sources in the yellow according toWP:RSP: these include Newseek, Techcrunch, Times Now, The Daily Dot, and Mashable, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are others I haven't seen just from my quick skim. One of the FA criteria says that the sources not only have to be reliable but alsohigh quality (this essay can help you understand). You're likely going to have to overhaul some of the sourcing when the source reviewer objects.toby(t)(c)(rw)(omo)20:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
thanks again and also i removed/replace all the sources and also i checked etika article to compare, and they used Daily Dot eight different times for way for big claims such as his suicide tweet, the keemstar interview and his arrest. my point is if FA reviewers accepted it for controversial claims its definitely reliable enough here for something common like Wilson giving commentary on YouTube subscriptions. and also Gematsu is reliable perhere. also its an non-controversial fact and also reliable for this context internet culture and tech newsTheArchitectOfYe (talk)21:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first interaction with the FA process, so apologies if I get something wrong but I have at least two thoughts so I figured there’s no harm in adding them.1brianm7 (talk)09:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It’s ok no need for apologies but updated the lede and also TikTok and instagram wasn’t notable except the fact that he moved to short form content including him socials and that his social media platform put him up to 3.5 million users so I think that it’s not needed.TheArchitectOfYe (talk)02:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You could consider adding TikTok and Instagram to the infobox, if RSes consider his following on them notable.
In the lede, I’m not sure I’m a fan of adding together the different platform numbers; one million followers on one platform is worth something different on other platforms. I’d recommend something along the lines of “over two million subscribers on YouTuber and over one million followers on Instagram and TikTok”
This article is about a public park in Nashville, Tennessee, adjacent to theTennessee State Capitol that was created to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the statehood of Tennessee in 1996. While the park faced challenges in its early years, it has since been recognized as a unique and valuable outdoor museum that showcases the state's history, land, people, and musical heritage. My goal is to promote this article to appear as today's featured article on June 1, which will be the park's 30th anniversary and the 230th anniversary of Tennessee's admission to the Union.Bneu2013 (talk)10:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not going to fully review this (and its my first time properly reviewing an FAC), I think, for the first paragraph outside the lead, some links should be changed. For instance, I don't thinkon-street parking should be linked as its pretty much self-explanatory.
This article is about a classic and hearty dish, familiar in Britain, France, the US and many other countries under various names and with various main ingredients. This is a co-nomination by three editors who have worked on the article:User:Macrakis,User:SchroCat and me. It was recently promoted to GA by another of Wikipedia's food buffs,User:Chiswick Chap, and we think it is now ready for consideration for FA. We look forward to your comments.Tim riley talk 08:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC);SchroCat (talk)08:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Very excited to see this here. I would like to give this a full review at some point while it is here, although travel may delay those plans. For now, I note that the only source I see cited inline that relates Saunders / Sanders with cottage pie is Hughes 2017, which describes Saunders / Sanders as "a precursor of cottage pie". This needs the most attention in the lead, where it says Shepherd's pie/cottage pie was "formerly also called Sanders or Saunders."Rollinginhisgrave (talk |edits)09:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These are primary sources and can't be used to cite interpretations. The only secondary source we apparently have that has analysed how Saunders or Sanders relates to Cottage pie identifies it as a distinct, earlier dish—at a minimum these multiple perspectives should be described, although we really shouldn't be overruling analysis performed in secondary sources with our own analysis or even putting our own on even footing.Rollinginhisgrave (talk |edits)18:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are others which describe it as the prototype or forerunner. They're all more or less saying the same thing, but it's broadly in line with the article, that it's more or less the same dish. -SchroCat (talk)19:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what you mean by the first sentence. I think fudging it a bit to say they are more or less the same thing is on the upper bounds of acceptability, but saying it was "formerly also called Sanders or Saunders" when sources describe Sanders/Saunders as distinct goes beyond what verifiability permits. If you still disagree, we can leave it for anyone else to weigh in if inclined.Rollinginhisgrave (talk |edits)22:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some inconsistency with hachis Parmentier, which is italicised in the main text, but not in the heading for the hachis section or the table.
Happy to italicise in the section heading, but in the table I think it would look a bit odd to have ten or so entries in italics. What do others think about this?Tim riley talk18:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pióg an aoire doesn't appear to be an "other pie", so why no take it out of the table and add it as a name variation in the lead?
Can't do that as it then would not be mentioned in the main text, perWP:LEAD
I don't have access toOED, does it have an etymology for Sanders or Saunders? Chambers doesn't.
Just a minor drive-by regarding the OED query above. It says saunders is a variant of sanders, for which it gives:
1827 To dress the same [sc. cold beef], called Sanders. New Syst. Cookery 51Citation details for New Syst. Cookery
1864Saunders. Put a layer of mashed potatoes [etc.].Englishwoman in India 128Citation details for Englishwoman in India
?1894 Sanders, this name is given to a preparation of minced beef or other meat. T. F. Garrett et al., Encycl. Pract. Cookery Division VI. 377/2Citation details for T. F. Garrett, Encycl. Pract. Cookery
This has not been a straightforward article to try to get to FAC. The fighting near Goodrich's Landing had three phases - the capture of two companies of a black regiment in an isolated position on an Indian mound several miles from the main position at Goodrich's Landing one June 29, a second phase later that day (probably) that involved the destruction of a number of government-leased plantations and a running fight between cavalry forces which was ended by the appearance of two naval vessels, and a skirmish the following day between the retreating Confederate raiders and some Union troops dispatched to the area to clean up the mess. Most coverage focuses on the first stage; there are both overtones and undertones of possible atrocities here; many of the details involving this battle are unclear. I may have had an ancestor who was in Tappan's brigade at this time.Hog FarmTalk18:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I chose to review this article because, according to theFAC and GAN statistics, the nominator has higher than a 5.0 review-to-nomination ratio. Thank you for reviewing articles at FAC! Non-expert prose review:
I've adjusted one capitalization matter - "Federal" in the context is a proper noun. It's frequently used in the same sense as Union, and even was during the war.Hog FarmTalk01:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"returned hundreds of former slaves to slavery, and affected around two dozen of the leased plantations." What is meant by "and affected around two dozen of the leased plantations"? Is this supposed to read "which affected"?
While the lead and infographic mention that fighting took place on June 29, it is not mentioned in the body (and therefore could be considered uncited). Perhaps add the date in the first paragraph of "Fight at the mound".
The rest of the lead is cited in the article. I also checked the infobox and it was all cited in the article.
Optional: consider putting the sources into two columns to reduce white space.
Split into several columns - this shows up as three columns on my laptop screen but may view differently on screens of other devices.Hog FarmTalk01:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You could name “Walker’s Greyhounds” in the prose; for instance, in the sentenceThe Confederates, in support of the defenders of Vicksburg, used Major General John G. Walker's Texas division for offensive operations against Grant's positions along the Mississippi in Louisiana.
while Parsons's men moved on after destroying the structures at the mound.
Were all the structures at the mound destroyed or is it unknown?
What I have to work with from the source is "Colonel Parsons had no desire to remain at the mound any longer than necessary. After firing the buildings and turning the prisoners over to the infantry, Parsons's cavalrymen resumed their raid".Hog FarmTalk02:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I like to do this section last, once I've had a chance to read over the entire article. So I may have additional comments here later on.
Shouldn't the official name of the "10th Louisiana Colored Infantry Regiment" be spelled out in the bluelink? Was this the official name of the unit at the time of the engagement?
I was leaning that way myself, but had initially had some reservations since this article is isn't just about cotton plantations. But I don't see any problem with this link.Bneu2013 (talk)20:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest changing bluelink to "Battle of Richmond, Louisiana", since there were multiple Battles of Richmond in the Civil War.
I guess that will work then. I had some reservations because of the significance of the Confederate capitol (and since this is one of the first things people largely unfamiliar with the American Civil War know about), but with the template in this section, this should aid in the context.Bneu2013 (talk)20:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Combine sentences "Holmes selected Colonel William H. Parsons for the task.[16] Holmes ordered the formation of a provisional brigade of cavalry for the campaign."
Suggest adding "wide" after 30-foot (9 m) or 40-foot (12 m); I'm pretty sure there weren't many forts 30 or 40 feet tall in the Civil War, but most people might not know that.
I'm guessing Parsons's cavalry specific targeted properties that were under US government lease. Also, I'm not sure you need to add this to the article, but what exactly was the situation with this? Were these properties that were owned by the US government before the war broke out? If so, were they seized by the Confederate government, but returned to Union control before this point?
Suggest moving link to "cavalry" to first non-proper name use in the article.
Suggest rewording "At the bayou, the cavalry encountered the Confederate force." To "Upon arrival, the cavalry encountered the Confederate force." Since the word "bayou" appears at the end of the preceding sentence.
Aftermath
Is it known how much longer Parsons's troops remained in the area, and where they went next?
I notice the infobox refers to the battle as inconclusive. I feel like this should be discussed here. Is this something that is pretty much unanimous among the scholars who have studied this engagement. Also, was this engagement considered such at the time? I know in a lot of inconclusive battles, both sides often initially claim victory.
Drive-by commentIs it not common practice to include troop size and losses (sometimes even materiel) in the infobox? Just to give the reader a quick glance at the scale of the battle? Right now it seems to be buried in the final subheading.Mattximus (talk)16:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: - this is not included because of the general lack of clarity for losses (especially among the Union forces) and the lack of good strength estimates. When stuff is this unclear, I think it's generally better to avoid putting it in the infobox which gives a sense of false precision or confidence in a number.Hog FarmTalk03:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a record-breaking Category 5 American hurricane that was the Katrina before Katrina. Hurricane Camille had devastating effects from the US Gulf Coast to Virginia, and it led to a variety of changes in how the US government handles natural disasters. I worked on the article with a few other users over the last year, so I am open to co-nominators for the FAC. I hope you all enjoy reading the article. ♫Hurricanehink (talk)00:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to co-nominate this one. I did a lot of the editing as well. Camille was a very significant hurricane, one of the strongest to ever hit the United States, and featured a one-two punch of a powerful landfall at the coast and devastating flooding inland. I am proud of the work we have done to improve the article.MCRPY22 (talk)02:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding alt text to all the images perMOS:ALT.
Hurricane Camille's precursor wasfrom a tropical wave - from reading, wasn't the tropical wave the precursor? This would make "from" unneeded.
hundreds of structures required new roofs, estimated ataround 90% of the buildings - "around" is redundant to "estimated".
Camille said in a circa 2014 interview. -MOS:CIRCA, "circa 2014" can be replaced with{{circa|2014}} and it can be rephrased toCamille said in an interview{{circa|2014}}.
The depression quickly intensified into a tropical storm and was namedCamille by theNational Hurricane Center (NHC), becoming the thirdnamed storm of the season. - here, "named storm" is wikilinked toTropical cyclone naming, but there is also "named" where it could be linked earlier.
In the center of Camille, the hurricane's eye contracted - "In the center of Camille" could be removed, since the eye would be in the center and "hurricane" already refers to Camille.
recorded in a trash barrel nearMassies Mill. - might be a me problem, but trash barrel wasn't immediately clear to me - maybe rephrasing to trash can or linking toWaste container would help? This is also in the lead.
I left it as "barrel" in the lead, because I don't think it's vital to link to waste container, but for the main part of the article, I linked as suggested, and went into more detail about how the barrel measured the rainfall (it was emptied before the rains started). ♫Hurricanehink (talk)19:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[35] - add DOI if there is one and/or ISSN, the ISSN is in the document but for consistency with the other citations it might be better not to add one.
nice work on the article! I have some prose suggestions for the lede and meteorological history sections. disclaimer that I have no specialized meteorology knowledge, so I will be commenting from that POV.
"Throughout the United States, Camille killed at least 301 people. This included 55 indirect fatalities, mostly from cardiovascular failure." I would condense slightly to"Camille killed at least 301 people throughout the United States, including 55 indirect fatalities, primarily due to cardiovascular failure."Zzz plant (talk)14:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that the sentence was like that at one point, but it was changed because it made it unclear as to whether the 301 overall fatalities were mostly heart failure or the 55 indirect fatalities. For someone who understands direct and indirect fatalities it's a lot more obvious, but not for a more casual reader.MCRPY22 (talk)23:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
although since it also killed people in Cuba, would it be worth just providing the total number of fatalities overall? since you later go into the region-specific numbers a bit anywaysZzz plant (talk)14:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't include Cuba in the overall fatalities only because I wanted to highlight Camille's effects in the US, where it was a much more significant hurricane than Cuba, especially since the next part mentions Camille being the costliest. ♫Hurricanehink (talk)18:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
maybe this is where my generalist disclaimer really comes into play, but my gut instinct is that it sounds strange to describe a hurricane as expensive. costliest, maybe?Zzz plant (talk)14:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The highest rainfall total was 27 in (690 mm), recorded in a barrel near Massies Mill..." do you need to specify barrel? I briefly thought barrel was some type of geological featureZzz plant (talk)14:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The name Camille was retired after its usage." this sounds a bit odd to me, would suggest something like"The name Camille was retired following the 1969 hurricane season."Zzz plant (talk)14:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time in the met history to mention the name Camille, so it serves as an introduction to the storm entity being named Camille, as well astropical cyclone naming in general. Subsequent usages refer to the storm as Camille as a mononym. Does that make sense? ♫Hurricanehink (talk)18:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They're the group that investigates hurricanes every season. They're linked upon the first usage, but do you suggest explaining further what their role is? Perhaps as a note? I can do that if you think it's needed. ♫Hurricanehink (talk)18:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Zzz plant: - thanks for the review, especially as someone who doesn't have the most meteorology knowledge. The goal is to make the article accessible and understandable, so if there's anything else that needs clarification or changes, please let us know. ♫Hurricanehink (talk)18:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"After briefly weakening, the hurricane intensified as it approached the northern gulf coastline, reaching maximum sustained winds of 175 mph (280 km/h) and a minimum pressure of 900 mbar (26.58 inHg) as it moved ashore near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi." When?
"Observations from the Hurricane Hunters indicated that Camille weakened slightly, dropping to Category 4 status late on August 17." I don't think weakening from a 175mph c5 to a c4 (at least 20mph) is slight.
"Camille subsequently re-intensified as it neared the coast." When?
I'm not sure what you mean here. It's not an exact time it re-intensified, it was after the Hurricane Hunters flight. Originally, Camille was thought to have stayed a Category 5, but the reanalysis shows the peak at landfall. The "re-intensified" was a process. ♫Hurricanehink (talk)23:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Within 14 hours of moving ashore, Camille weakened to tropical storm status, as the track shifted to the north." This forces a reader to go back 4 sentences.
For what? The time reference is how long after Camille it moved ashore it had weakened to tropical storm status. I felt this was the best way for sentence flow to demonstrate the information, as the NHC technically discontinued advisories while Camille was still a hurricane. But I didn't feel it was a good way to start the paragraph by focusing on what the NHC did, compared to what the storm did (and how fast it had weakened relative to its landfall). Does that make sense or would you like me to change it still? 23:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)♫Hurricanehink (talk)
"The hurricane warning was extended westward, first to Biloxi, and later to Grand Isle, Louisiana, giving residents about 15 hours of notice before landfall." This forces readers to go back to MH.
"The Foundations of Decay" is the first (and only) song released byMy Chemical Romance since their reunion. It's a six-minute epic that, while not the band's best work in my honest opinion, is still really damn good. I don't have much to say about the song itself beyond that for here though; it's definitely not something that would be everyone's cup of tea, and it's alsovery different from the typical music that ends up at FAC. This is also my first attempt at FAC in over a year.
For a brief overview of my journey with this article: I started editing it in late 2024 and got it to GA in December of that year. It was followed by a pre-FAC peer review in January 2025. I then slowly copy-edited it over the course of a year, not nominating it immediately to make sure it was as good as it could be. Now, I'm very confident that the article is complete content wise, and I think it is high quality enough to where it could earn the star. My Chem has been one of the main subject areas I've edited in for a while now, and "Foundations" was the first article in it that I worked on. If promoted, this would be the first FA on a My Chemical Romance-related subject. I am willing to do whatever it takes to get this promoted, and am open to all feedback. I am also open to doing review exchanges, if requested.λNegativeMP100:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What does "anthemic force" mean? I'm a bit confused by the quote here.
NPR needs italics.
"while Enis characterized it as their heaviest release" Could this be re-worded? "Heaviest" is a bit unclear in terms of meaning.
"In 2025, Moore ranked "The Foundations of Decay" as My Chemical Romance's fifteenth-best song, writing that the "wait for new music was well worth it" Is this bit really needed? Ranking fifteenth on a top fifteen listicle doesn't seem like a particularly important ranking to note. (Especially compared to the "overall song of the year" rankings.)
Overall this is put together very well and very well-written; I only have a few nitpicks. Once the above are addressed I am happy to support. If you still need a source review later down the line ping me and I'll be happy to provide one when I have some more time. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)00:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the above in one message:
I'm not entirely sure how "anthemic force" can be rephrased. Maybe "as akin to an anthem"? But even then, not sure if that's a big improvement. I guess anthemic could be wiki-linked toAnthem if that helps? Dunno what to do here.
Is NPR italicized? The article for it isn't.
I think "heavy" is common music terminology and I'm not sure how it could be made clearer
I see a reason for removal considering the year-end rankings, but it is still a source considering it one of My Chem's best songs. Also every other MCR song article includes listicles when possible (although that's generally due to being how most songs are retrospectively viewed)
-My bad on NPR, was not aware it was usually not italicized.
-I would appreciate some definition of the term if possible, since as someone not really into music, I am largely unfamiliar with the term; alternatively, is it possible to hyperlink it?
I added wikilinks for both 1 and 3. AFAIA, "heavy" in music generally refers toHeavy metal music or one of its associated terms or sub-genres, so I think this is an appropriate link. I think keeping the ranking is for the better, but if another editor thinks it should go, I can cut it. Thanks for your review!λNegativeMP104:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@NegativeMP1 After fixing a bit of punctuation, I'm pleased tosupport promotion. The prose is clear and comprehensible, and the article is an engaging read that covers the topic in appropriate detail. Thank you for being open to exchanging feedback, and best of luck on this nomination!Crestfalling (talk/contribs)23:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"with elements from genres such as doom metal and arena rock" - generally, "such as" is used to illustrate a general pattern or trend, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Consider either mentioning what those other genres have in common, or else rephrasing.
Replaced "such as" with "like" if that helps any? Otherwise I don't know how
The part of the sentence starting from "its correlating events" reads a bit awkwardly, since it breaks up the clause's parallelism. Maybe it could be rephrased to "...history, legacy, and the events which played a role in its creation, including the September 11 attacks."
I reworded this further, but I think it's an improvement anyways.
"It also explores" - If this is referring to the lyrics, then it should be "they also explore"
'It' is referring to the song.
Is there a better verb choice than "highlighted"? That's a fairly neutral verb, whereas I'd expect something like "praised" if it's summarizing positive reviews.
Replaced it with praised.
"Some publications..." - If there are any publications well known in the music world, then perhaps listing one would be useful to avoid sounding vague. Also, since publications is a countable noun, I think "several" is preferable to "some".
Replaced it with Several. If there's any publication of the three that listed it that would be worth mentioning in the lead, it's NME, but I don't think there should be specification, to keep it in summary style.
This is a small nitpick, but the close succession of "Global 200" and "Warner Records" makes it difficult to tell they're in separate sentences. The second sentence could be rephrased to start with "On May 17..." or something like that.
Fair enough, done.
Should "chart" be capitalized? Unsure of the convention here, but the wikilink seems to treat it like a proper name.
No, charts is generally not capitalized.
"reunion tour" is a bit of anMOS:EASTEREGG link, consider either capitalizing it (as the linked article does), or linking "2022-2023 reunion tour". The latter would also clarify that it wasn't included in the 2019 concert in their reunion tour.
"more" -> "additional", since it's referring to an increase from something already specified, rather than comparatively.
Done
Suggest putting a comma instead of colon after "past studio albums", since it only lists two items.
Done.
"Gerald Way" -> "Way" for first sentence of second paragraph, since there's no need to disambiguate between the two Ways yet.
Fair enough, done.
"band itself" - could the "itself" be dropped?
"Itself" in this sentence helps clarify that the band entity itself is credited for songwriting rather than just the band members.
"depicts" -> "depict" (subject-verb agreement)
Done.
"mounds of flies swarming around" -> "mounds of swarming flies", or otherwise clarify what they're swarming around.
Done.
"It was used" -> "The song was used" (I do see your point regarding the essay linked above, but in this case the term clarifies that it's not referring to the previous video).
I can see that; done
capitalize "reunion tour" for consistency
Done.
"the first show of the tour marked the song's first live performance" -> "the tour's opening show marked its live debut", or something like that to make it flow easier.
I recall a comment somewhere (to either this article in the past or another MCR article) that said this wording made it seem like the song debuted itself live or something. I don't know how much of a valid concern that is or is not, but I do think the way it is now istechnically more correct..
"The New York Times described" -> "The New York Times characterized", perhaps? To avoid repeating the same verb in quick succession
Good idea, done.
"It opens up" -> "The song opens up", topic sentence of a new paragraph should generally avoid pronouns
Done.
"guitar breakdowns slower-paced moments" - there should be an "and" in-between
Don't know how that was absent, done.
"Shutler believed" -> "suggested" or "opined" or some similar verb, since "believed" is a bit vague in meaning and carries connotations of uncertainty/subjectivity.
Sure, done, although at the end of the day they're both terms that exhibit subjectivity.
"guitar breakdown to be similar to" -> "guitar breakdown as similar to"
Done.
"Maria Sherman of NPR compared it" -> "compared the song" (or track), to clarify it's not referring back to The Black Parade
Done.
"Sherman comparing their opening guitar" -> compared in what way? If he found it similar, then it should probably be stated, as "compared" by itself can mean finding two things similar or dissimilar
I think resolved?.
The sentence about Gerald Way wrestling his legacy should be rephrased entirely for syntax, since currently it mixes passive and active voice. I'd suggest "Shutler described the song's opening as... and viewed some of the lyrics...."
Also resolved I believe?
add comma after "September 11 attacks", remove comma after "that day"
Done.
remove comma after "optimistic and hopeful"
Done.
"described ending" -> "described the ending"
Done.
The sentences about Catholic themes/misogyny should probably be attributed to a reviewer, since it's somewhat subjective and almost all the other analysis of the song is given in-text attribution.
"praised the composition" -> "praised the song's composition"
Done.
"throughout its runtime, highlighting its latter half." -> "throughout its runtime and highlighting its latter half", avoid having two clauses beginning with gerund verbs
Done.
"it to be the band reinventing themselves" -> "it to be a reinvention for the band"
Done.
drop comma before "with "fire, urgency, and plenty of joy"
Done.
"describing it as "impeccable"" -> "calling it "impeccable" - avoid overusing "described"
Done.
"Enis described it" -> "Enis characterized it" - ditto. Any verb ("deemed", "considered", etc.) works, really, but engaging prose should generally avoid overuse of the same one.
Done.
"Peters writing that it" -> "Peters writing that they"
"their past works' reverence" -> "reverence for their past works"
Done.
For the quote "never bogged down with legacy", it should include ellipses to indicate that text was removed from the original source perMOS:PMC
Did I do this right?
"that was unlike" -> "unlike"
Done.
Consider adding a topic sentence for the third paragraph. It's not a big deal, but it'd just be a bit more consistent with the other paragraphs in the section.
Originally, I had something on the lines of "Some journalists deemed it a significant moment in the band's history", but I cut it because I felt it was a) a bit off, and b) kind-of a given since obviously a come-back song is going to be deemed significant. If you or anyone else has ideas here, I am open to it.
"said it was" -> "called it"
Done.
"their review" - author is a "her"link. Alternatively, it can be "a review".
Done.
"fifteenth best" -> "fifteenth-best"
Done.
"twenty-second and twenty-third best" -> "twenty-second- and twenty-third-best"
Is the extra dash after "twenty-second" correct? Latter part done.
"described it as a comeback" -> "called it a comeback", etc. per above
Done.
"expectations of older..." -> "expectations of both older..."
"and 1,900 digital sales" -> "and sold 1,900 digital copies" - "receiving" a sale sounds a bit awkward, so better to use a separate verb
Done.
"few hours of release" -> "few hours of its release"
Done.
"readers poll" -> "readers' poll"
Done.
Consider adding a paragraph break before the listings of its various chart positions.
Sure, done.
2, 7, and 1 would be changed to written numbers perMOS:NUMERAL, which would require changing all of the chart numbers per the need to have consistency with "comparable values". That being said, I find it slightly silly that the MOS doesn't have an exception for ranking positions, so if you would like toWP:IAR, that's fine.
The Apple Music source indicates that the four individual members are credited as songwriters rather than the band as a whole. Am I overlooking anything?
I'm not fully sure what to do here considering that Tidal and Spotify credit the band itself for songwriting. Since we're using the Apple Music source here, I'll update it to the individual members, but it's an interesting discrepancy.
It would helpful to specify that "Fake Your Death" is a single in the lead, as "release" alone appears too vague, i.e., "first release since the single "Fake Your Death" (2014)"
Done.
"with elements from genres like doom metal and arena rock" - Is there a particular reason these two genres were chosen for the lead? I see that each of the "elements" genres has a single source, making them all equal. We should list them all or perhaps rephrase to "with elements from various rock and heavy metal subgenres", because that's what they have in common
I like the idea of the latter ("with elements from [...]"). I'll go with that.
"Its lyrics focus on the band's history, legacy, and the September 11 attacks, which resulted in the band's creation" - I think "Its lyrics focus on the band's history and legacy, as well as the September 11 attacks, which resulted in the band's creation" would be more grammatically correct
Done.
"Billboard Global 200" has aMOS:SOB issue. I suggest using a single link and italicizingBillboard with a pipe, likeBillboard Global 200
Fixed.
The "Eden Project" should also be mentioned in the article prose not just in the lead. Also, they debuted the song live on May 16 (the first night at the Eden Project), not May 17, so this needs to be corrected in the lead and further explained in the prose
Not sure how I missed the Eden Project not being named in prose; done, and also fixed the date.
Not sure if the "basement punk" wikilink is useful when the target article does not mention anything about it
The fact that basement punk isn't discussed at that article is very interesting, but
"Shutler opined that the composition combined" - A bit confused why the Shutler source is added after the Sherman sentence and not here...
Moved.
"Billboard described the ending" - I believe including the author's name (Dailey) would be beneficial here, as other journalists' names are also mentioned in the Lyrics subsection
Done.
"Hero's journey" appears in quotation marks with a capital "H" in the sample but not in the prose. I recommend maintaining consistency
Fixed.
Ali Shutler's first name is mentioned twice in the article, while, for example, Hannah Dailey's first name appears only once. I also recommend maintaining consistency here. They should generally be referred to by surname only after the first mention
Fixed.
It would be useful to wikilink theLos Angeles Times in the prose
Done.
The chart positions seem like comparable values to me, so they should be all spelled out or all in figures perMOS:NUMNOTES
Adjusted to all be figures
"top 40 single" - "top-40 single"
Done.
The New Zealand Hot Singles chart is essentially a heatseekers chart and not New Zealand's national chart as the article suggests
Did not know that until now; does specifying that it was the New Zealand Hot Singles Chart help any?
Yes, looks much clearer to me.
"Credits adapted from the digital liner notes" is not a complete sentence and does not need a period
Fixed.
I recommend adding the missing archive URLs to avoid link rot
Running the Internet Archive bot on the article to catch any sources that may have been missing them. I don't remember how to add archive links to the chart sources
Some refs are missing the authors (12, 39) and the date (18, 19)
In 2022, ananime adaptation of a Japaneselight novel series, which had been lesser-known in the West at the time, became briefly infamous for killing off a decoy protagonist in the first episode then proceeding to follow the adventures of two girls and their desire to love and/or murder each other. Past the attention-grabbing premise, the show garnered positive reviews from critics for its mature themes, character writing, and LGBTQ+ representation in acertain genre sometimes criticized for a lack of it. After several months of on-and-off work, including a brief foray into learning basic Japanese, I'm pleased to present it here as my first FAC nomination.
I'd like to thank Xexerss for assisting with MOS fixes,Z1720 andOlliefant for useful comments at peer review,Tintor2 for helpful feedback on the prose, and AlphaBetaGamma and Z. Patterson for checking translations of Japanese-language sources. I also appreciateAoba47's willingness to give feedback after I dropped by their talk page unsolicited, as well asMasem'sFAC mentorship, where they indicated that this article was perhaps ready for FAC. Pings are just in case of interest in the topic, and I sincerely appreciate the help of everyone listed regardless.Crestfalling (talk/contribs)06:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FAs can be very hard to make so don't worry if it fails. I only made two FAs in my entire time in Wikipedia but I was lucky I was aided by other editors. I think besides prose comments, there are source review and image reviews.Tintor2 (talk)14:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice! I understand the process is quite rigorous and hope to handle it accordingly. On the topic of a source review, I'd like to briefly note for any prospective reviewers that I'm gone through all the article's sources and can explain the rationale for them beingWP:HQRS, as well as provide Japanese-language quotes to support prose as needed.Crestfalling (talk/contribs)16:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could you make the comment less judgmental? For example, remove the clearly un-neutral attack on an entire genre? At the very least, you could add "often accused/criticized for" as an attribution (Even if we ignore complaints about the questionable quality of many isekai, there are plenty of queer elements orentire works in this genre, the executioner is not unique in this). Also, the mention of obscurity is Western-centric, since in Japan itself, the original LN was widely known as the first yuri, whose first volume won a famous award.Solaire the knight (talk)01:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I use the word "known" in its sense of "generally recognized", as was mentioned in many of the sources used in the reception section, but I've changed it to be more clear. Regarding its obscurity, it had sold only 300,000 copies in Japan prior to the anime adaptation, which is unusually low for an work adapted by a well-known studio and that had also won a major award. Based on my research, even the impact of the anime adaptation in Japan was fairly limited, with minimal reviews from major outlets. Indeed, the anime never got a second season, the manga adaptation was axed halfway through the story, and the light novels sold only 100,000 additional copies in two years. I appreciate the attention though, because I do understand that a lot of articles here suffer from a Western-centric bias in regards to gauging popularity. I've made some wording changes, and I hope that addresses any concerns.Crestfalling (talk/contribs)01:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this work was never mainstream in the broad sense of hits like "I'm in Love with a Villainess" or genre hits in general, but it is known at least for its positive critical reception. So personally, I would add "little known in the West" because before the anime's announcement and premiere, this title was mostly known only among Western yuri or LN fandom. But at the very least, thanks for the attribution; I appreciate it.Solaire the knight (talk)02:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've changed the wording to make it more clear that the lack of critical attention specifically was mostly in the West. Feel free to give any other feedback on the nomination summary or the article itself. Thanks,Crestfalling (talk/contribs)03:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The images are relevant to the text and placed in appropriate locations. Both have captions and alt-texts. Both are non-free images with sufficiently low resolutions and valid fair-use rationales. Why does the rationale of the second image say "software or website" several times? As I understand it, the screenshot is from the anime, not from a software or website.Phlsph7 (talk)11:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for doing the image review! That seems to be boilerplate text from the File Upload Wizard, and I've fixed the rationale to specify that it's from an anime. Let me know if there are any other concerns.Crestfalling (talk/contribs)18:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how useful a prose or layout review would be here considering I don't know the standards of anime/manga articles on Wikipedia at all, so I'm going to do a spotcheck to the best of my ability. 2 5ths of the articles sources will be checked (so 40 out of the 90). Since I don't speak Japanese, I'm gonna have to use translation for a lot of these, and I will note it when I do. I'll try to get it started within the next few days.λNegativeMP102:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am still working on the spotcheck (sidetracked by a few other things, sorry), but in the meantime I want to ask about the reliability of the following sources:
The Geekiary
Biggest in Japan
Anime UK News
Okazu (seems like a blog)
Honey's Anime
Manga Book Shelf
Asian Movie Pulse
I have full intent to finish this spot check and post it, but before that happens, the reliability of these sources in the first place must be questioned, along with if they are high-quality sources for FA in the first place.λNegativeMP102:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the inquiry, appreciate the opportunity to explain why these sources are reliable.
The Geekiary is deemed areliable source by WikiProject Horror. Perthis comment, it's been used in various academic works, and has enough industry relevance to have interviewed major movie stars such asOrlando Bloom. In addition, it has a an "About" page which lists over 20 major media outlets (including BBC, Fortune, Polyon, Kotaku, etc.) which cited it, meaning it passesWP:USEBYOTHERS, as well as a brief note regarding its staff's qualifications.
Biggest in Japan is written by Richard Eisenbeis, an industry expert in anime and manga who has written for over 10 years forKotaku andAnime News Network withthousands of articles acrossboth platforms. Considering that his career has been spent reviewing anime and manga, I think it passes the "expert in a certain field" criteria inWP:RS/SPS.
Okazu is run by Erica Friedman, an academic with over 20 years of experience analyzingyuri manga, including apublished book cataloguing the last century of development in the genre that was the first ever English-language book to substantially address the topic. She's also written for other sources considered reliable, including Anime News Network, Animerica, Anime Feminist, and the Mary Sue. A full list of qualifications can be found inthis link. I'll also note that Okazu islisted as a reliable source by Wikiproject Anime and Manga.
Honey's AnimePrevious discussion at WP:A&M noted that they have editorial control and writers with significant experience in the industry; in addition, its editor-in-chief was a judge as the2021 Crunchyroll Anime Awards, widely considered the main English-language accolades for anime. They've been cited by other websites, includingKotaku,Siliconera,Vice, andAnime News Network perthis comment. In addition, the writer being cited, Brett Orr, has previous experience reviewing anime and manga, having written for other sources considered reliable by WP:A&M, such as Anime Corner.
Manga Bookshelf islisted as a reliable source by WP:A&M. Sean Gaffney wrote some of the first articles in the magazineOtaku USA, one of the first anime and manga-adjacent magazines to have widespread circulation outside of Japan, and the only remaining bimonthly one. He has over 19 years of experience in the field and thousands of reviews.
Asian Movie Pulse is run and organized by Panos Kotzathanasis, a professional film critic whosequalifications include writing for multiple film media outlets as well as being a member ofFIPRESCI andNETPAC. Theinterview column of the site includes almost daily interviews with those working in Asian cinema; from a quick Google of the people mentioned there, a decent few seem to have made notable films. It also hasseven sponsorships, which I think is fairly strong evidence that it's a professional source when it comes to the industry. Finally, it has partnerships with over a dozen Asian film festivals, includingSingapore International Film Festival.
In sum, I think there's a strong argument to be made for the reliability and quality of virtually all of these sources, either through the organization's professional qualifications or by being written by industry experts. That being said, Anime UK News is probably the least convincing, so if you're of the opinion that it should be taken out, I'm open to that.Crestfalling (talk/contribs)03:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding; I couldn't initially find these listed at the Anime and manga RS page or elsewhere so that's why I asked. Thanks for clearing this up. I'll try to finish the spotcheck tomorrow or the day after.λNegativeMP104:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thanks. Apologies for this being a bit late (I put it near the top but it might've gotten buried in replies), but if any specific Japanese-language quotes are needed (since it can be annoying to have to search through translated text for paraphrased information), just let me know.Crestfalling (talk/contribs)01:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck
Spotchecked specific uses (not all) of the following sources:
1:
a: Y
b: Y
My only comment regarding this is that this source lists genres beyond just Adventure and Yuri (e.g. Fantasy and Drama). I don't know how important this is
2:
a: Y
b: Y
3:
a: Y
c: Y
e: Y
4:
a: Y
b: Y
c: Y
5:
a-g (not listing them individually since they're all for the voice cast): Y
6:
a: Y
b: Y
c: Y
9:
a: Y
b: Y
c: Y
12:
a: I cannot find what exact part of this source backs up "although he had no prior experience with darker subject matter, he included such themes anyway to facilitate character development verbatim.
c: "I don't write dark turns in order to put characters into deliberately tragic positions. I develop the story with many different elements, believing that my characters can overcome whatever trials that face them. is the quote, and "Although Sato wanted to write a dark story, he sought to avoid placing characters in "tragic positions" solely because of this. Instead, he characterized them through how they overcame conflict" is the prose its attached to. I don't think these fully line up? But maybe I'm misinterpreting or missing something.
h: Y
k: Y
31: Y
32: Y (translation used)
40: Y
43: Y
45: Y
46: Y
47: Y
48: Y
51: Y
53: Y
54: Y
60: ? (translation used)
I did use translation so maybe something was lost, but I don't see the sales figures in this source.
61: Y (translation used)
62: Y
66: Y
a: Y
70:
a: Y
71: Y
74:
a: Y
b: Y
d: Y
75: Y
76:
a: Y
b: Y
c: Y
77: Y
79: Y
80: Y
Are the other polls the show appeared on in this source not noteworthy of inclusion?
@NegativeMP1 Thank you, and no worries, I really appreciate the thoroughness. Just going through the points in order:
Ref 1:MOS:A&M specifies that no more than three genres should be listed, so that's why the rest weren't included.
Ref 12a: The second part of the sentence should be cited to reference 10 (which is in the following sentence). I have just fixed that. The relevant part of reference 10 that supports "he included such themes anyway to facilitate character development" is the text 「殺伐とした容赦のない話を書きたい」という思いから本作を構想したと佐藤真登さんは語る...「殺伐とした世界にふさわしい主人公として〈処刑人〉としました。また、これはメノウを追い詰める設定でもあります。彼女は任務に忠実で、使命を完璧にこなす反面、自分のしていることをちょっと辛いとも思っている。強いけれど脆いんです。でも、脆いということは変わる余地があるということでもあるのです」 which translates to "Mato Sato explains that the work was conceived from his wish 'to write a savage, merciless story.' ... 'I made her an executioner as a protagonist fit for a brutal world. At the same time, this setting is meant to corner Menou. She is faithful to her duties and carries out her mission perfectly, but on the other hand, she also finds what she does somewhat painful. She’s strong, but fragile. And that fragility also means there is room for change.'”
Ref 12c: I think that the part about characterization isn't worded very well. I rephrased it to "Instead, he developed the narrative with conflict he believed they could overcome", which I think is better?
Ref 60: At the top of the article, it says GA文庫刊『処刑少女の生きる道（バージンロード）』がシリーズ累計30万部を突破した, i.e. "The GA Bunko seriesThe Executioner and Her Way of Life has sold over 300,000 copies."
Ref 80: For the Adventure category of the awards, there were 10 nominees and the series placed 10th, so that didn't seem very notable. As for the Action category, placing out of the top 10 doesn't seem too significant.Crestfalling (talk/contribs)00:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I can nominate this article on an expansive and vitriolic internet argument which has spanned across websites, nations, and years. The "shipcourse" debate (whether people should makeshipping fanfiction that contains disturbing themes, especially sexual violence) has gained a lot of academic attention. I hope you all enjoy it, and I await your feedback!Generalissima (talk) (it/she)07:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-shippers often characterize antis as attempting. Is that sentence missing a word? I cannot understand it.
Oops! Forgot to finish that sentence. Fixed.-G
Consistency in section names: The "Viewpoints" seciton has two subsections: "Pro-shippers" and "Antis". I gather that "Anti" is shorthand for "Anti-shippers", which is fine for the body text. But for the section titles, consider using "Anti-shippers" (rather than "Antis") so readers (when they glance at the table of contents or sec titles) can grasp that the two subsections are parallels of each other.
Made this more consistent.-G
Cite p vs pp: p. 71–73. P/PP error
Fixed.-G
Cite consistency: A tool says that the "Location" field in the cite templates is used inconsistently. For books, probably best to use "location" for all or none.
Removed these.-G
Improve wording?The lack of censorship emerging from spaces such as AO3 ... The use of "emerging" is confusing. Could it be stated more directly:The lack of censorship in spaces such as AO3 ... orThe lack of effective censorship in spaces such as AO3 ... orThe lack of effective moderation in spaces such as AO3 ...?
Reworded.-G
WordingSignificant age gaps in fictional relationships are a commontarget of the discourse. Does the word "target" pick a side? Is "subject" a better word?
Reworded.-G
Box quote:"Stories ... containing depictions of violence ... exist on theplatform alongside child-friendly stories about the characters baking cupcakes cheerfully."MOS:BOXQUOTE says to use box quotes with care, because they are so visually prominent, they may mislead readers, due to the lack of context (that body text can supply). That quote is not too objectionable; but it has a confusing phrase"...exist on theplatform alongside.." (emphasis added). What platform? Tumber? AO3? another? I suppose you could identify the platform by adding a parenthetical note inside the quote. Or perhaps that is an indication that the quote is not really suitable for a quote box.
Fair. I had two different quote boxesas of this revision, but went back and forth on whether they conveyed the tenor of the discourse correctly, which is I what I thought it'd be useful for. I just removed the box.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)16:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Duration of discourse? Lead saysBeginning in the mid-2010s ... but never mentions an end date. Some phrases in the article are present tense (e.g.Both antis and pro-shippers frequently describe themselves...) indicating to alert readers that the discourse is still on-going in 2025/2026. In any case, the Lead should tell readers when the Discourse ended, or if it is ongoing. Something as simple as a brief"The discourse was still on-going as of 2025." near the end of the Lead? I think the MOS discourages writing"... Still ongoing at the present time" since "present" could become factually incorrect in the future.
MoS discourages the use of terms like ongoing at all. Reworded to say "continuing into the 2020s" -G
Title of article is "Shipping discourse". To bestow FA status, I think the reviewers will need to know that that particular phrase is the best title. Is that phrase used by commentators/analysts/academics? I looked in the Sources section, and I do not see the word "Discourse" in any of the source titles. Can you provide some sources here (in this FA review page) that justify that particular article title? Or, if there are no sources that use that phrase, did the title originate in a discussion here in WP to determine the best title? If so, can you provide a link to the WP discussion?
Continuing with the phrase "Shipping discourse": if that phrase is formally used by analysts/commenators, then the article should mention the origin of the phrase ... perhaps a single sentence mentioning when it was first used by a major analyst. On the other hand, if the phrase is not specifically used by major analysts (i.e. the WP community chose that wording) then the article probably does not need to discuss it.
IsShipping discourse a sub-article ofShipping (fandom)? perWP:SUMMARYSTYLE? I'm not suggesting that they be merged .. although others might. But it is odd that theShipping (fandom) article does not have a major section titled "Shipping Discourse". Any insights into why that is so?
I'm not really sure if it's a sub-article or not, but academic discussion of shipping is so broad and common that this really just forms one very minor part of the broader phenomenon, so to much focus in the main article would beWP:UNDUE.This is the main discussion on the name that has yet transpired. Most authors don't name it. Urbańczyk uses it in passing, and Fazekas quotes a post which calls it "shipping discourse" (I can confirm that thisis the dominant term for it on social media, but not on anything citeable). Two masters theses I was unable to cite also use the term. There are no actual sources of any quality that describewhy its called "discourse" in particular; I can only speak anecdotally that it is a particularly widely-used word on that corner of the internet.
From other sources:
"anti-fandom discourse" (as in, fandom-discourse by antis) by Romano 2023
TWC Editor 2022 has one panelist mention offhand that it gets referred to as "The Discourse" in fannish spaces
Possible alternate titles could be "Anti-ship/pro-ship discourse" or even just "Anti-shippers and pro-shippers", but I think these would fail CONCISE.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)13:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the title of the article. I have a gut feeling that there is a better title lurking out there somewhere. The current title does not specify what the "discourse" is about. Is the discourse about plagiarism? style? grammar? What, specifically, is the subset of shipping that this article is focusing on? The Lead says "taboo and abusive" content ... can that be worked into the title? Maybe something like:Ethics of shipping fanfiction orMorality of shipping fanfiction orAbusive content in shipping fanfiction orIncest and abuse in shipping fanfiction? Is there a title along those lines that is consistent with the sources?
That's all I have for now. Leaning support (on prose & MOS, I have not checked images or sources). The remaining issue I see is the article title (see comment immediately above for details).Noleander (talk)14:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we really should be looking for a better article title. The current title really is opaque. None of the suggestions above really excite me, but certainly "fandom" should be in there somewhere.RoySmith(talk)15:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even, I agree that the current title is opaque. I have a few additional suggestions to add to Noleander’s:
Maybe"Shipping" controversies in fandom? I don't know if the quotes are MOS-compliant, but at least that would make it clear we're not talking aboutFreight transport. I love how language evolves and re-invents itself, and slang neologisms are a big part of that. The problem with this particular one is that it's deceptive. Perhaps intentionally so, as a marker of who's in and who's not. I remember years ago reading an essay where somebody dissected what at the time was a bit of current slang, "the rents will pay for the za". MaybeWilliam Safire? What made that different was not just that it was incomprehensible to outsiders, but that it wasobviously incomprehensible, so at least you knew what you didn't know. Shippingappears to make sense, so you try to build a logical parsing around your misunderstanding and get led astray, which is much worse.RoySmith(talk)17:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few requirements for a better title: (a) add a word like ethics/controversy/morality to pinpoint thekind of discourse; (b) qualify the noun shipping with modifier "fanfiction" or "fandom" to avoid the confusion about the unqualified word "shipping"; and (c) noWP:SCAREQUOTEs. Applying those requirements yields titles like:
The problem is it's not an article about abuse and taboos in fandom shipping, its a description to thedebate over such topics. Titles like "Fanfiction shipping discourse" or "Anti/pro-ship debate in fandom" would be appropriate and accord to MOS.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)01:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the new title "Shipping discourse in fandom" ... but I'm still not getting it. Doesnt "shipping"always happen within the context of fandom? It is as if the new title is emphasizing that there is a broad "Fandom" world, and this article is about the "shipping" part of it.
My perception is that the title is weak because it is not identifyingwhat the discourse is about. The essence of this article is taboo content of fictional materials written by fans. The common threads of these works are:unethical, sexual abuse, taboo, immoral, incest, child abuse, etc. Shouldn't the title contain one or more of those words?
If I am the only reviewer that thinks the nature of the controversy should be included in the title ... I can let it go. But I'd like to see other reviewers confirm that I'm crazy :-)Noleander (talk)18:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment, I honestly think something that includes anti/proshopping in the title is the best option. Ultimately that's what the article is about. Something like the aforementioned "anti/pro-ship debate" would best describe the article.Skyshiftertalk20:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the article is not about "is shipping good or bad?", is it? Don't all sources agree that there is lots of fun, harmless shipping that is unobjectionable? Isn't the article focused on the morally grey aspects (involving minors, sex, incest, etc) that some consider unethical? In other words, the article is not "pros/cons of shipping" but rather about "pros/cons of unethical material in shipping", no?Noleander (talk)20:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that would work okay, if no one has any other ideas? Another possibility, to highlight that its about a specific controversy, could be "Shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction". Its important to note that WP:CONTROVERSY is only caution to represent sides in a controversy neutrally, and WP:CRITICISM cautions against having an article or section for having catch-all "controversies of (X)" that are just laundry lists of everything bad someone or something has done, not a specific, notable controversy.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)07:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I like article, and I'm ready to 'support' for FA; but the title is really bothering me. If the title were either of the two most recently proposed ones:Ethics of fanfiction shipping orShipping ethics controversy in fanfiction, that would resolve my qualms. RegardingWP:CONTROVERSY andWP:CRITICISM, I believe this particular article may be an exception that proves the rule (because shipping is apparently characterized by a single, notable controversy (granted on a fairly broad range of ethical issues)) so I think the word "controversy" in the title is justifiable.Noleander (talk)19:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking though, titles are not part of theFA criteria (asNaming Conventions are not part of the MoS and the title does not fall under the article's prose). I think finding suitable titles for articles is important, but it should not be used as the line to support or not support a FAC; I think the most proper place for this would be on the talk page after the candidacy is archived or promoted.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)02:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with that on two points. One, it is the reviewers' prerogative to decide what is important and what is not. But, beyond that, article titles are indeed part of the MOS. It's virtually the first thing discussed inWP:MOS. Quoting fromMOS:ATA title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic If a title is soobtuse obscure as to leave readers not having a clue what the article is about, that's a problem. And a MOS violation.RoySmith(talk)02:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the current title is a recognizable and descriptive name. I don't wish to die on this hill, though, so I will change it to " Shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction" so we can hopefully focus on the article itself.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)02:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason I included the term "fandom" was becauseRoySmith felt that it was vague if you didn't know what "shipping" meant. Unless there is another significant shipping discourse in fandom, I don't think we need to tack on more words on to it. But if we could get a consensus to drop the "in fandom", I guess we could add a prefix - I just really don't want the title to become unweildly longGeneralissima (talk) (it/she)23:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, I find both "shipping" and "discourse" to be mysterious and while I think the current title is better than the original, it's still not great. I'm certainly open to better alternatives.RoySmith(talk)00:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not a full review, just a couple of random comments:
The title had me totally confused, trying to figure out what "shipping" means. I finally found "derived from the word relationship" in the first sentence ofShipping (fandom) which explained it perfectly. Could you do the same here, please.
I initially had a similar concern, but decided the article handles it properly. The 1st sentence of the Lead has a link toshipping; and the 2nd sentence defines the term as "fan romance ... etc". First sentence is ... around the ethical implications of portraying taboo and abusive content withinshipping fanfiction. So, in the end I decided to not comment on it in my review above. Not to say your suggestion is invalid ... I'm merely giving the nominator my perspective on the issue.Noleander (talk)18:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Basically what Noleander said; it's defined in the second sentence, and I think it's more important to use the first sentence to give an explanation to summarize what the article specifically is about.-G
I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that a clearer explanation be provided. Strictly speaking, you do define it ("the depiction of a romantic or sexual relationship between fictional characters") but until you catch onto the fact that "shipping" as a word is derived from "relationship", it makes no sense. Until I found that explanation atShipping (fandom), I had no clue what any of the lead was talking about.RoySmith(talk)11:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally venture into the esoterica of image licening, but I noticedFile:Wikipe-tan and Adult Commons-tan Yuri.png says "Derivative work of File:Wikipe-tan full length.png", which I don't understand at all. I'm used to "Derivative work of" meaning "crop from", which this clearly isn't.
That is the results of a Common deletion discussion; it's a derivative in the sense that it uses the CC-BY-SA character design first used by Kasuga in that image.-G
“which sees as amount of regulation on works as a slippery slope”
→ “which seesany amount of regulation on works as a slippery slope”
Fixed.-G
Bottom line
Generalissima That's all from me. I do not know whether this was a fully appropriate topic for me at my age, but I have given you a full prose review. I look forward to your response.MSincccc (talk)09:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MSincccc I appreciate the review very much and have made the changes responded. I hope that my treatment of it was clinical enough so that it was not particularly upsetting.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)08:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
serves me for dragging my feet... most of my suggestions have already been made by others!
in the "Emergence" section, the last 2 paragraphs are quite short and a bit PROSELINE-y. is there a way to either merge or expand them? particularly the bit about the tumblr porn ban and migration to twitter - that seems important enough to try to write more about if possible.
There's disappointingly little sourcing that connects the Tumblr porn ban to shipping discourse. I can't expand it without it turning coatrack-y. Looking at it, I wonder if describing the Xiao Zhan incident is needed for the article; it might work best as just a See Also. If that is done, the final paragraph would work better as a sort of end cap to the section.-G
i'd merge the first two paragraphs in the "Pro-shippers" subsection
Good idea, done.-G
is there anything more in the sources about DNIs? from my firsthand experience that's a pretty prominent part of shipping discourse culture
I threw in a little more context from Stanfill, but thats the only other mention of DNIs ive seen that connects it to the discourse.-G
i'd abbreviate Organization for Transformative Works to OTW after the first mention
looks great! shame about the tumblr porn ban/twitter migration and DNIs... such core memories for young me. seeing as others have covered the sourcing and prose etc, i have no objections....sawyer *any/all *talk16:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% with Roy's comments about the need for this article to very clearly define what it's about in the first sentence and the first para. Both are rather unclear and - to be frank - lacklustre at present. This is an obscure issue, and the article's title doesn't do it any favours, so the first para needs to do a lot of lifting here.
More broadly, the lead is really unclear and hard to follow. It seems to have been written for an academic-type audience who is already familiar with this issue rather than a general audience. Some examples:
"The lack of censorship in spaces such as AO3 allowed for the portrayal" - this seems to be a reference to this material being published rather than portrayed
"Within fandom, the discourse is divided between "anti-ship" and "pro-ship" camps" - aside from being a statement of the obvious, this implies that everyone in 'fandom' has a position on the issue, which I doubt
"Fanfiction depicting underage characters in sexual contexts is often characterized as child pornography by such antis." - there are a range of other obvious issues with such material.
"Many countries ban such material under obscenity laws, although this faces frequent legal opposition." - this implies that such opposition is widespread, when in the English speaking countries such legal challenges would seem to be very rare.
"Pro-shippers oppose antis on a variety of stances" - clunky
"the rejection of notions of fictional abuse affecting reality." - over-complex
"Both anti- and pro-shippers draw from primarily LGBT fan communities, espouse progressive beliefs, and share similar demographics" - this seems to undermine the earlier implications that this is a debate across "fandom" and causes me to be even more confused about the definition of what the article covers. Is 'shipping' literature primarily aimed at/produced by LGBTQI people, or are these the main demographic who want to debate the issue? The first sentence needs to communicate this.
I think it would be nigh-impossible to define shipping, describe what the conflict is, and also include information about the participants' demographics all within the first sentence. It would also be very disjointed to immediately jump into that - the most important thing for understanding the discourse is what the argument is actually about, not who's having it. I did however reword the lede to be easier to read.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)01:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was being a bit over-ambitious, but this should at least be in the first para as part of defining the scope of this issue (e.g. so readers can understand the scope of this debate upfont). The edits have considerably improved the lead; I'd suggest similar edits across the article to convert the language to much plainer English.Nick-D (talk)09:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Academic opposition to anti-shipping " - I suspect that this can be more clearly worded. The repeated use of 'anti-ship' and 'pro-ship' and variants thereof in the lead is a barrier to producing text that lay people can readily understand.
From skimming the article, much of the other text seems to have similar problems; the article reads like an academic article rather than an encyclopaedia article.Nick-D (talk)10:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The images are relevant to the text and placed in appropriate locations. The have captions and alt-texts. The lead image gets the message across. However, it is not a particularly prominent depiction, which was also mentioned as an issue atWikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan and Commons-tan. If there was a similar image that is the focus of a prominent discussion, that would be a better alternative. Are there any candidates that we could use?
Thank you very much for the review. There is no single image that was the topic of prominent discussion, and the characters subject to discussion more broadly are all copyrighted. Using old public-domain characters feels a bit inauthentic and silly (such as the image atShipping (fandom)) so I commissioned the image as a way to have a "genericized" and minimally upsetting example of what the controversy is about.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)01:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One non-image comment: I don't know much about the topic, but it strikes me as a candidate where a definition-like first sentence would fit well. Has this been considered? Maybe something along the lines "Shipping discourse encompasses discussions of romantic or sexual relationship between fictional characters." You are probably a better judge than me whether this or a similar characterization would be accurate. The following sentences could then specify the time period, context, and focus on taboos to provide the additional details.Phlsph7 (talk)13:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Phlsph7 The problem there is that "Shipping discourse" is not a universal or particularly widely-used term in academic sources on the topic, its just a descriptive shorthand (and the other proposed titles are just longer descriptive titles). Having it use the term "shipping discourse" like that would make it seem like this was the standard, general term for this. We generally avoid including naming something if we have to use a purely descriptive name (for instance,Sudanese civil war (2023–present) doesn't use the term "Sudanese civil war" in the lede)Generalissima (talk) (it/she)01:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
#22 — You could consider using "§" instead of "section" here, especially since "page(s)" is abbreviated "p(p)." But not a big deal.
Good idea.-G
#41 — This is the only non-short link. Is there a reason for this? Not all the cites have to be short (e.g., #16, #34, #48, #62, and #65 don't have page cites, so could have the full cites here), so it's surprising to see the inconsistency here. Also, you could add an archived URL—particularly important for terms of service, which are wont to change.
No real reason not to switch it over - done. -G
#64 — I would format this as{{sfn|Aburime|2022|p=136|ps= (citing {{harvnb|Mason|2020}}).}}. I realize how it's currently worked follows the workaroundhere, but (a) it's not needed (because the reason for the workaround—multiple sfn templates with the same author/year/page—isn't present here), and (b) the end result of the suggested formatting displays better.
Fair enough - done.-G
Bibliography
Alexander 2008 — Suggest "name-list-style = yes" parameter. Is it "MacMillan", or "Macmillan"? Publisher location missing. ISBN can be hyphenated.
I prefer to use unhyphenated ISBNs; I made this consistent. I also have come to never use publisher location; it's often quite antiquated nowadays. MOS-wise, it's okay as long as its consistent. You're right its Macmillan though. I'm fine with the default name-list-style. -G
That is not an MoS guideline and so would fall out of scope of the FA criteria. I can change it if you really insist, but all my previous FAs have not used hyphenated ISBNs, and looking at last months' promotion log, a couple other examples likeSursock bronze also used unhyphenated ISBNs.-G
Would you ever unhyphenate a telephone number, a Social Security number, a (nine-digit) postal code, or a credit-card number? Doing so (at least according to ChatGPT, which helped with those examples) creates "an unreadable digit soup" that "feels almost hostile to the eye". In each of those cases, as with ISBNs, the hyphens help break up the number so it is easier to read, especially when one is trying to both read it and type it in somewhere; for those who know how to read ISBNs, too, the different blocks providemeaningful information. And, more simply, that's the way they're printed in the books. All that is to say, there's a benefit to including hyphens, and no benefit to removing them; the fact that it's a marginal issue and they're not required isn't a reason to decline to make an article ever so slightly better. --Usernameunique (talk)08:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i unhyphenate all of those things frequently. this is not in the FA criteria and therefore not a matter to insist on at FAC....sawyer *any/all *talk11:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Boyd 2020 —What makes this a reliable source? Can an archived link be added? You provide a retrieval date for Fazekas 2022, but not this one—I generally don't think retrieval dates are needed for printed matter (which I would take a published thesis to be), but it should at least be consistent.
Removed the retrieval date for Fazekas. As for PhD thesis reliability; I am definitely lean on the side of PhD theses being reliable, at least to a much higher degree than say, an online news article a la Romano 2023. PhD theses (by reputable universities, which all of these are) are subject to a great deal of scholarly scrutiny before acceptance; realistically, this is on the level of an academic peer-review, and certainly more than an online article. They often contain a great load of extra details and context that would never make it into an academic article or book. In hard sciences they are definitely more of a primary source, but in social sciences they are much more secondary—and oftentimes, they are the only quality academic sources that relay specific information, since most notably they do not have to necessarily be something that would be profitable for an academic company to publish books about. One of my previous FAs,Zhang Jingsheng, is a good example of where they can serve a good niche in that respect. -G
I was hoping less for a response about why PhD thesis aregenerally reliable, and more for a response about why these threeparticular thesis are reliable. Google, for instance, lists only 2, 22, and 1 cites for Boyd, Derecho, and Fazekas, respectively. With that said, I recognize that WP:THESIS differentiates between master's and PhD theses in terms of how to evaluate citation counts, and the latter two authors are now in seemingly credible positions in academia (Derecho;Fazekas;Boyd appears to not currently be in academia). The article also doesn't overly rely on the theses, and many (not all) of the sentences supported by cites to the theses are also supported by cites to other sources. All that is to say that, in this particular context, I think it's okay. --Usernameunique (talk)08:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fiesler, Morrison, & Bruckman 2016 — Suggest "name-list-style = yes" parameter. The page range of the chapter should be given here rather than the specific page you're citing, which is already in "Citations".Association for Computing Machinery should be linked. Is it the publisher? The location is missing.
Oops, don't know why the page range is broken. Linked the publisher.-G
That's what its credited as; spelled it out fully. I assume the editor position is shared between several individuals or anonymous for some reason or another.-G
Fair enough. I see now that they, too, suggest citing with "TWC Editor" as the author. I think either way (including it as the author, or leaving it anonymous) is thus fine. --Usernameunique (talk)08:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Valens 2020 — Is this a reliable source? Publisher location missing. ISBN not hyphenated.
Valens is a fairly reputable feminist writer on sex issues that gets cited a fair bit both on-wiki (seeMira Bellwether) and in scholarly discussions of queer sexuality.Tumblr Porn has 6 citations on Google Scholar, and was reviewed in a Duke academic journal.
van Monsjou & Mar 2019 — Suggest "name-list-style = yes" parameter.
Wang, Levy, Nguyen, Lerner, & Marsh 2024 — Suggest "name-list-style = yes" parameter. The proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference has an ISBN; does this one not?
This is already nicely formatted, so the above tend to be nits. The one thing that did stick out is the three PhD thesis. I cite them now and them myself, but have rarely seen so many in a single article, so would be interested in hearing your reasoning. --Usernameunique (talk)06:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Katipō, New Zealand's only medically significant native spider. It is also one of the few invertebrates in New Zealand to have absolute legal protection due to the species being in decline. The article has had a recent overhaul and has been through peer review withTraumnovelle who made plenty of helpful suggestions. I believe it is now ready to recieve critique for featured article status. All advice and suggestions to improve the article would be greatly appreciated.AxonsArachnida (talk)07:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
File:Katipō, Birdlings Flat 7591, New Zealand imported from iNaturalist photo 373793836.jpg - CC BY 4.0
File:Black katipō (cropped).jpg - CC BY 4.0, an iNaturalist and gbif tag would work here.
File:Katipō, Birdlings Flat, New Zealand imported from iNaturalist photo 235879963 (cropped).jpg - CC BY 4.0
File:Range of black and red forms of Latrodectus katipo.png - CC BY-SA 3.0
File:Katipō, Foxton Beach, New Zealand imported from iNaturalist photo 70319915.jpg - CC BY 4.0, missing alt-text for accessibility.
File:Rangaiika katipo.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0, missing alt-text for accessibility
File:Steatoda capensis.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0, source link is gone, please replace with an archived version or remove the image from the article entirely. + missing alt-text for accessibility
Hi, this is my first time reviewing for FAC., so I'll be sticking to just verifying source integrity. Please feel free to give feedback throughout and after my review.Crestfalling (talk/contribs)04:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notes (I'll add to this as I finish the review over the next few days):
Sutton et al. seems to describe a silky sheen/appearance rather than texture.
Fixed.
Quote needed for Forster book
Page 174: "...juveniles and males are quite different in size and colour from the females. Amongst young spiderlings, males and females look alike and cannot be distinguished until about the fourth instar. Up to this point they are whitish with diagonal black markings on the side of the abdomen and perhaps a trace of red down the back."Page 174: "Only the female katipo is capable of biting humans and then only when it is adult..."
Patrick 2002 in the "Predators" section should cite page 19, not page 17, if I'm not mistaken
You're right. Fixed.
As far as I can tell, for the text "Much of the katipō habitat is also occupied by the exotic spider Steatoda capensis [...]" Patrick 2002 says that they can co-exist, but doesn't explicitly mention that the two species' habitats extensively overlap, other than noting they were found together during the survey. The "Figure 6" referenced in the text mentions one specific location. It's very possible that I'm missing something, but otherwise I'd recommend rephrasing a bit. @AxonsArachnida
Instead of rephrasing, I've added an extra reference page from the same source that clarifies on this a bit. "He found that there was a high degree of overlap in both food and space use, that S. capensis had a higher reproductive output, and that it replaces L. katipo following population crashes (natural or otherwise) of the latter.".
Current status: 32/32 checked citations verified, 0 failed verifications
@AxonsArachnidaPass for source spot-check. Additionally, the sources used are excellent, with the majority of the references from peer-reviewed journals or governmental sources, so source quality meets requirements as well. Good luck with the rest of the nomination!Crestfalling (talk/contribs)04:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This table checks 28 passages from throughout the article (34.6% of 81 total passages).These passages contain 32 inline citations (34.4% of 93 in the article). Generated with theVeracity user script.Crestfalling (talk/contribs)04:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can email you the PDF for "Studies in preventive hygiene from the Otago Medical School: the katipo spider" if you'd like. It's a pain to get access to.AxonsArachnida (talk)01:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would be appreciated, thanks. Feel free to just email via my userpage. Also, I noticed that the source table below doesn't render properly unless the nomination page is viewed directly (rather than through the FAC page), so just a heads up there.Crestfalling (talk/contribs)00:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reference #
Letter
Source
Archive
Status
Notes
The katipō was reported as early as 1855 as the 'kātĕpo, but was not formally described in taxonomic literature until 1870 when Llewellyn Powell described it as Latrodectus katipo.[2][3] However, Swedish arachnologist Tamerlan Thorell later placed it in Latrodectus scelio, a previous name for Latrodectus hasseltii (redback spider).
The katipō is a member of the genus Latrodectus. This genus has a worldwide distribution with notable members such as Latrodectus mactans (black widow spider), Latrodectus geometricus (brown widow spider) and Latrodectus hasseltii (redback spider), the latter of which the katipō is most closely related to.
The red katipō, found in the South Island and the lower North Island, has a large black globular abdomen with a silky texture and a distinctive white-bordered orange or red stripe on its upper surface that runs from the beginning of the abdomen back to the spinnerets. The underside of the abdomen is black and has a red patch or partial red hourglass-shaped marking.
The katipō is most similar to its sister species Latrodectus hasselti. It can be distinguished from this species by the short setae (hair-like spines) of the abdomen, whereas on the abdomen of L. hasselti it is a mix of long and short setae. There are also minor difference in the shape of the female and male genitalia structures.
As juveniles, the female and male are identical until their fourth instar, a developmental stage that occurs between moults. Before this, they are coloured whitish and have black markings running vertically down the abdomen. The abdomen also frequently has traces of red.
Forster, Ray R; Forster, Lyn M (1999). Spiders of New Zealand And Their Worldwide Kin. Dunedin: Uni…
verified
In the North Island it is found throughout the West Coast from North Cape to Wellington. On the east coast of the North Island it occurs irregularly, however, it is abundant on Great Barrier Island. In the South Island it is found in coastal regions south to Dunedin on the east coast and south to Greymouth on the west coast.
The katipō is restricted to coastal sand dunes near the seashore. It generally resides on the landward side of dunes closest to the coast where it is most sheltered from storms and sand movement. It can sometimes be associated with dunes several kilometers from the sea when these dunes extend inland for long distances.
This behaviour can be exploited by placing plywood lids in katipō habitat, which the spider hides under and can thereby have its populations easily sampled.
Katipō inhabiting dune grasses constructs its web in open spaces between the grass tufts, while katipō inhabiting areas of shrubbery do so on the underside of a plant overhanging open sand. It has been found that these patches of open sand are necessary for katipō to build its web as plants that envelop sand dunes in dense cover, such as exotic plants like kikuyu or buffalo grass, create an environment unsuitable for web construction.
The eggs hatch after 20–25 days and contain to develop within the eggsac where they remain until the second instar, at which stage they feed on the wall of the eggsac. After four to six weeks of incubation, during January and February, the juveniles chew their way out of the eggsac.
The proportion of females, males and juveniles in a population varies somewhat depending on site. As adults, the female is generally more abundant than the male, probably because the male lives on average 77 days whereas thr female can live for two years.
Whether the prey is suspended, and how high, depends on how heavy the prey is. Earwigs caught in the web aren't suspended at all whereas slaters, which are much lighter, can be suspended at varying heights.
A number of factors have contributed to its decline; the major ones appear to be habitat loss and the declining quality of the remaining habitat. Human interference with their natural habitat has been occurring for over a century following European settlement. Coastal dune modification resulting from agriculture, forestry, or urban development, along with recreational activities like the use of beach buggies, off-road vehicles, beach horse riding and driftwood collection have destroyed or changed areas where the katipō lives.
Much of the katipō habitat is also occupied by the exotic spider Steatoda capensis (commonly known as "false katipō" in New Zealand) with both species being found sharing the same dune systems or even co-existing under the same piece of driftwood, suggesting that the two species can co-exist in similar habitats.
In 2010 the katipō was one of a dozen species of previously unprotected invertebrate given full protection under the 1953 Wildlife Act, noted as "iconic, vulnerable to harm, and in serious decline". Under the Act, killing an absolutely-protected species such as a katipō is punishable by a fine or even imprisonment.
It has been proposed that restoration of sand dune habitat, including the replacing of marram grass (Ammophila arenaria) with native dune plants, would provide more suitable habitat for the katipō to conserve their populations.
Treatment is based on the severity of the bite, with only oral analgesics being needed in less severe cases or parenteral analgesics being used in more severe cases.
In Māori tradition, katipō bite victims would be treated by bathing them in hot water or covering the bite wound in red ochre, which supposedly reduced swelling and pain. Alternatively they would also cover the victim in smoke.
Perhaps you already consulted it, but the relatedredback spider is already an FA, so you could look at how it is written for possible inspiration.
Yeah I had a little look through that.
Link the term subspecies.
Done.
"However, Swedish arachnologist Tamerlan Thorell" you don't give nationality for other people mentioned.
I've added nationality for the other authors.
"when Llewellyn Powell described" you give occupation for everyone but the describer.
I found their profession (doctor) and added it.
"is from Māori for "night stinger"" from is unnecessary.
Fixed.
"to the Australian Latrodectus hasseltii (redback spiders)" no reason for randomly changing to plural in the parenthesis.
Fixed.
"that they were thought to be a subspecies." which was thought a subspecies of which?
Clarified.
"Further research has shown that the katipō are distinct from the redback" no reason for change to plural.
Fixed.
"having slight structural differences and striking differences in habitat preference" and genetic differences, surely?
Yep. Reworded.
"Eventually, it was conceded that L. katipo and L. atritus were separate from L. hasseltii" again, random switch to plural.
Reworded.
"The species was recently revised again in 2008." the term "recent" is meaningless in an article that might still stand centuries from now. You could argue that 2008 is already far from "recent".
Removed "recent"
"In this revision, L. atritus were" random plural.
Fixed. Seems like I struggle to get that consistent. In my head I always use a mix of both when thinking about species stuff, perhaps that's why.
While it might seem like it goes without saying, the etymology section should state explicitly if the scientific name Latrodectus katipo is derived from the Maori name.
Added.
The "Black katipō (cropped).jpg" image under Description could be left aligned so it doesn't clash with the cladogram above, and so that the subject faces the text, which is encouraged.
Done.
A large part of the latter sections of the article are empty of illustrations, is there nothing more useful on Commons, iNaturalist or Flickr?
I added another image to the "life history" section. For the "behaviour" section, the best I can find isthis image, but it is a bit rough looking. For the "toxicology" section I tried to find an image of Latrodectus antivenom, but have been unable to find images with suitable copyrights.
"The red katipō, found in the South Island and the lower North Island" could specify it's the female, as you do in the intro.
That whole subsection focuses on describing the female, so I don't see the need to repeatedly state that we're talking about the female.
"For the black katipō, found in the upper North Island" if the two types are divided by geography, I assume this would have affected them once being considered subspecies, which should be mentioned under taxonomy.
Added a line that clarifies upon this.
Link north and south islands at first mention instead of far down as now.
Done.
"There are also minor difference" differences.
Fixed.
Are there theories as to why they have these regional differences in colour?
None that I know of. Forster mentions that they are correlated with temperature, but doesn't actually speculate whether that's what causes the colour differences. I would assume that whatever pigment is needed for the red stripe needs warmer temperatures to develop.
While this seems to be UK/NZ English, you write for example kilometer instead of kilometre. Should be consistent throughout.
"This behaviour can be exploited by" exploited by who? I assume researchers would be the only ones with an interest in this? Could be stated.
I added "researchers and conservationists".
"Katipō inhabiting dune grasses constructs its web" as you do elsehwhere, reads better as definite "the Katipō".
Fixed.
"necessary for katipō to build its web" likewise. Check for this throughout.
Added throughout text where reasonable.
"Katipō inhabiting dune grasses constructs its web in open spaces between the grass tufts, while katipō inhabiting areas of shrubbery do so" why the sudden change form singular to plural?
Fixed.
"tweaking theF web" the F was added in your last edits, seems a mistake.
Fixed.
"whereas thr female" the.
Fixed.
"some sites that were surveyed had only the adult female detected" overly wordy, could just be "only adult females were found in some surveyed sites" or such.
I went with your wording
Link pheromones.
Linked.
"one at a time one at a time" that's two at a time!
I have no idea how I managed to do that. Fixed.
"and contain to develop within the eggsac" continue?
Fixed.
"aren't suspended" contractions are discouraged, always check throughout for this.
Couldn't find any other examples of this.
"the tarsi of the hind legs" explain tarsi.
Added.
"and then administering a last long bite which ultimately kills the insect" so are they killed by venom or the bite itself? You don't mention venom at all in the context of prey capture.
It's not stated anywhere if its the venom or force of the bite itself. Presumably it's the venom as it is generally the case, but I've left it alone.
"are interwoven and are waterproof." the last "are" is unnecessary.
Removed.
"It has also been proposed that house mice, which are not native to New Zealand, may also prey upon the katipō." the last "may also" is redundant, as the first "proposed" already makes clear it's just a suggestion.
Reworded.
perhaps it would make sense to rename the "Behaviour" section into "Behavioue and ecology", and then make the oddly isolated "Predators" section a subsection of that.
That works for me. Done.
"replacing of marram grass (Ammophila arenaria)" link at first mention instead of here.
Done.
"much of the katipō habitat is also occupied by the exotic spider" you could state where it's from and when it was introduced for context.
Added.
"The katipō has venom that is medically significant in humans." The meaning of this could be explained. "Medically significant" may be specific medical terminology, but it is very vague to lay readers.
Added an explanation.
"The symptoms of katipō bites are considered to be extremely similar tothat of L. hasselti." some odd plural/singular changes.
Fixed.
"Due to how few katipō bites are described, the general description for L. hasselti bite symptoms is given." I'm not sure why this is necessary, could just say "the following symptoms are recorded for bites" or similar, no need for a disclaimer,
Added.
"spread proximally from the site." explain proximal.
Changed this.
Anything on scientifically confirmed deaths or not? If not, state explicitly.
I've added "No deaths due to the bite have been recorded in scientific settings"
"It's one of" contraction.
Someone beat me to it.
"potentially, hypertension, seizure, or coma." I'm not seeing coma mentioned in the article body. The intro should not have unique info.
Removed from lead. Not sure where that originates from.
"Bites are rare, an antivenom is available, and very few deaths have been reported." apart from legends, the article body mentions no reported deaths? Should be consolidated so it isn't misleading.
Removed the bit about no reported deaths. Just the Māori legends and early european settler reports. Presumably many of them are true, but lets leave it until there are more robust reports.
"These two forms were previously thought to be separate species" wasn't it subspecies?
Depends on when you ask. Originally subspecies, then species. I've clarified on this in the taxonomic section.
"and red diamond-shaped marking" I'm not seeing the term "diamond-shaped" outside the intro.
Changed to "hourglass"
"The spiderlings" should use same terminology in article body.
Prose: overall, the prose quality is professional and meets FA standards.
Manual of style: overall, the text meets MOS requirements, with a few exceptions noted below.
Image: Quality, appearance of images is overall good; with a few exceptions noted below.
Capitalization of source titles. Since summer 2025, all source titles within an article should use a consistent capitalization style. SeeWP:CITESTYLE. This article uses two:
Sentence case: "The behaviour and web structure of the katipo
Title case: "The Stereotyped Behavior of Sexual Cannibalism in Latrodectus hasselt
This article should pick one style or the other and use it for all source titles (and ignore whatever style the source uses for itself).
Made it more consistent.
Typo? ... plucking and tweakingtheF web along with ...
Fixed.
Caption clarity:Female katipō with egg sac, and male, in a penguin box on Rangaiika Beach. Readers will want "penguin box" defined or wiki-linked to an explanation.
I just removed "penguin".
Typo: ... female's reproductive tract one at a time one at a time...
Fixed.
Alt text for images: the alt text exists and is okay, but consider improving the alt text in two pics: (a) the infobox pic; and (b) juvenile. Both of those simply say "a spider [location]". Better would be to describe the appearance a little bit (red stripe on back; mottled/variegated colors) to differentiate from other pics/species.
I fleshed these out a bit more.
Link needed:... colonisation of their natural habitat byexotic spiders ... The word "exotic" is used several places in the article and readers will need to know the scientific meaning of that word.
Added.
Unexplained apostrophe?The katipō was reported as early as 1855 as the 'kātĕpo, but was not formally ... [boldface emphasis added]. The word 'kātĕpo is confusing: is that initial apostrophe part of some foreign language? Maori? Or is it supposed to be part of a pair of apostrophes, and the 2nd one is missing? If Maori, should the word 'kātĕpo be italicized there? I see italics for Maori words elsewhere in the article e.g.... derived from the wordskakati (to sting) andpō (the night). If not Maori, the apostrophe should be explained to the readers somehow (a footnote?) to minimize confusion.
"Color should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information, or for distinguishing elements such as links, templates, or table rows. Always provide an alternative method—such as an accessible symbol and/or text (for example,✔Approved), a colored table with an icon and text (for example, see table on the right), or clearly writtenfootnote labels."
The map is using three colors (black/blue/red). For depicting three kind of distribution, the image should use either (a) line patterns (dot/dash/solid); or (b) gradients of a single color (Black / grey / white ). If a pattern is used, then any colors are acceptable (so the current red/black/blue could be retained). For details, see:WP:Coloring cartographic maps andColorBrewer#Brewer_palettes. Sometimes updating colors in an old map can be difficult, but it looks like you updated this map last month, so that should not be a problem. BTW, I'd guess that 99% of maps in Wikipedia do not conform toMOS:COLOR ... but forWP:FA, maps should be exemplary.
I decided to do a bit of both. It's now a grey and black colour scheme (grey=red katipo, black=black katipo, with the area they overlap being dashed grey and black). I've updated the wikicommons file, but the page hasn't registered the change yet? Hopefully its gone through by the time you're looking at this again.
Color-coded line in cladogram diagram: The article has a cladogram, with a vertical bar on right side designating two groups. The cladogram is drawn via templatestemplate:clade andtemplate:cladogram. The colors of the vertical group-line are:
Cite checker is showing a warning about a cite: "year=2003-07-21 " should be "date=... " not fatal, but ..
Fixed.
Medical information: The "Treatment" section re spider bites has In Māori tradition, katipō bite victims would be treated by bathing them in hot water or covering the bite wound in red ochre, which supposedly reduced swelling and pain. Alternatively they would also cover the victim in smoke. That info is in thesame paragraph as modern medical guidance. That is not consistent with the requirements ofWP:MEDRS which applies to all articles:
" This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia articles, including those on alternative medicine. "
If someone were to get bitten and consult WP for medical advice,WP:MEDRS isvery strict about medical guidance that WP articles can provide. Folk-remedies or out-dated notions should be placed in another section, or - at a minimum - another paragraph that has a a clear statement about the fact that the guidance is folk/oudated.
I've shifted it to paragraph 2 of the toxicology section where it talks about Māori legend.
Grammar/wording:Due to their close relatedness, the katipō ... "relatedness" reads awkwardly. Maybe "Because they are closely related, the ..."
Fixed.
Colors look great in new map & cladogram: much better for visually impaired readers.
WordingEventually, it was conceded that .. considerEventually, it was concluded that ..
Fixed.
Ambiguity in wording:The katipō is most similar to its sister species Latrodectus hasselti.It can be distinguished fromthis species by the short setae.... [bold emphasis added] In 2nd sentence, the words "it" and "this" are ambiguous: readers will not know species (from 1st sentence) they mean (that is, there are two ways a reader may pair those words with the species). Yes, readers can perhaps figure it out from clues found later in 2nd or 3rd sentence, readers should not have to work hard to parse a sentence.
Fixed.
If publisher of journal is known, consider adding a "publisher=" field to the citation template of journal sources. This will display wikilinks to readers. Examples:
Although showing the publisher is not required for FA status, the WP community needs to be cognizant of AI encyclopedias such as Grokipedia. Emphasizing the quality of sources is important to the future of WP. The publisher of a journal is critical to help readers know if the journal is reliable or not (peer reviewed, etc).
Added publishers where known.
Wording:The male's hunting behaviour is similar to the female's, although may not be asvigorous due to its smaller size. [emphasis added] Not clear what "vigorous" means in this context: Aggressive? Frequent? Dangerous? Powerful? Rapid? Does the source suggest a more precise term that may be helpful to readers?
The exact quote from the book is "Because the growth period of the male is much shorter and his ultimate size so much smaller, his feeding activities are not as vigorous. However, his hunting behaviour is very similar." I think "powerful" is a more accurate word?
'The katipō has venom that is medically significant in humans, although bites are uncommon due to the rarity of the species' and 'The incidence of bites is low as it is a shy, non-aggressive spider. Their narrow range, diminishing population, and human awareness of where they live means humans rarely encounter katipō. The katipō will only bite defensively. However, if the female is with an egg sac it will remain close by it and be more aggressive.'
These two sentences are repetitive, I would say the latter is the one to keep as it contains more information.
I reworded the first one to be less repetitive.
For the second reference you could include the URL[8] this is from the publisher.
Added (including archived link).
Bites from the katipō produce a syndrome known as latrodectism.
This is quite close to the source.
Ive reworded it to "Envenomation from bites of the katipō cause effects known as latrodectism"
The name "Typhoid Mary" is casually bandied about, often in a joking manner, aimed at that friend or family member who passes on a cold or some other ailment. But there was a real person behind the name, a good cook, whose refusal to believe she was carrying the typhoid virus led to her being incarcerated for over a quarter of a century. This article has been through a complete rewrite recently and any vestiges of my British writing have been expunged bySsilvers andWehwalt;Tim riley was also most helpful at the PR. Huge thanks to all three. Any further constructive comments are most welcome. -SchroCat (talk)13:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
May I list a couple of nitpicks regarding the bacteriology?
Here "infected up to fifty-seven people with typhoid fever". This is not really correct. One can't really be infected with the disease, one is infected by the bacteria, which cause the disease.
Here "an asymptomatic carrier of the Salmonella typhi bacteria" since bacteria is the plural of bacterium, we need to omit the definite article.
I have read the article again this morning and I am pleased to add mysupport. Some readers might quibble about the incubation period given in the footnote, because it is so variable as to be of little use to epidemiologists. The World Health Organization says, "the incubation period ranges from 7-14 days on average, but can range from3 days to two months, (my emphasis). But I am not suggesting any changes should be made to the article.Graham Beards (talk)12:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That note was added in response to one of my comments. My goal there (which the current note satisfies) was to explain to the average reader that a guest becoming symptomatic 10 days after contact does indeed support the theory Mallon (or at least somebody at the house) was the source of contagion. If the specifics of the times are not correct, I'm all for updating them to more accurate values, but I also think it makes sense to use the values that were believed to be correct by the scientific community of the time (not necessarily what we know today) because those historical numbers explain the conclusions reached by the epidemiologists of the day who were working on the case. I suppose the note could give both sets of numbers, but I'm hesitant to turn a short footnote into a full-fledged exposition on the history of epidemiology :-)RoySmith(talk)13:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I might linkpublic health in para 4 of the lead, but otherwise this is a really elegant summary, well done
Sorry to do this, but I've nominated the bacteria image for deletion as a CV - it's obviously a digital photo taken of an existing image, presumably from a textbook based on the user's other CV uploads
I've found the original of this, which was on the CDC's website (seehere), so I've uploaded the highest resolution version they have and added the correct licence. Given the other one if going through the removal process and could be seen as being tainted by a serial copyvio uploader, this has been done as a new, 'clean' file. -SchroCat (talk)09:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, much better.
Up to Early career and nothing to remark on so far
Is the Leavitt quote necessary? I think you could paraphrase and condense that
"whether a cook would be the source" -> I would swap to "could", since the question is whether or not could have happened, which fits more with "could" as the past tense of "can"
"There had been no cases of the disease in Tuxedo Park" ever? or at that time?
"recommended Mallon's arrest to obtain samples of her stool from which tests could be made" -> feels a little awkward, I might revise to "recommended that Mallon be arrested to facilitate sampling of her stool for testing" or similar
"Once the door was opened she wasted no time." this part of the Baker quote isn't doing much, I think we can probably trim it, since the rest of the quote establishes that she was fighty and vulgar
"the organ where the typhoid bacillus is held in the body" - given the footnote that says removal didn't cure typhoid, I'm curious if this is a correct/current medical truth, or something that's since been shown to be untrue
It is largely true (based on my very inexpert reading of some medical research papers). While the gallbladder is the primary and classic reservoir in a S. Typhi infection, it is found—albeit less commonly—in the intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts and the urinary tract (according tothis, at least). I'm sureGraham Beards will be able to correct any errors I've made! PMC: do you think this should be added to the article anywhere? I'm open to suggestions of where to pop it in. Cheers -SchroCat (talk)11:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The gallbladder is the primary, long term reservoir for the bacterium, which can survive high concentrations of bile that kill other bacteria. It isn't however theonly site it which it can be found.Graham Beards (talk)11:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could probably solve it by saying "the primary organ" (or "primary site") or something similar, in the main text, to indicate that it's not the only one, and then maybe expand slightly in the footnote for the curious
Do we know why theAmerican would have paid for her lawyer?
It's only Leavitt's speculation (although it seems to fit all the known facts) that they were the source of funds. Given it's not grounded in solid facts, I'm not sure we should add more hypothesis as to the reason (although with newspapers, one presumes for the inside story and increased circulation) -SchroCat (talk)06:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Mallon came to public notice because of the case and the exposure she received in the New York American, which covered the case." kinda feels like the first mention of the case is redundant given the second
There are some black and white historical PD images ofRiverside Hospital on the Library of Congress website. Although the color image is very pretty, it would probably be better to have one of the hospital in its original state
Very few gripes for the latter half of the article.
Suggest linkingMiddle-class values (admittedly that article sucks), and possibly expand a bit on what those values were (presumably stuff like respectability). If you aren't already familiar with the concept of middle-class values, the article doesn't tell you much about what she was failing to do.
Looks like that part of the book is adapted from an earlier article by Leavitt, included inU.S. History as Women's History. I haven't taken a deep read, but on a skim, I found some interesting discussion of a) Mallon's treatment as compared to another asymptomatic woman, Jennie Barmore, and b) the image that was constructed of Mallon as masculine, unwomanly, etc. On a tangent, there's also some mention of officials having concerns as to whether or not they would legally be allowed to keep her in quarantine on the basis just of lab tests, which isn't mentioned in the present article. Worth mining for details, I think.
I did wonder if there was any more to be found anywhere about Mary's perspective on things. It's mentioned briefly that she didn't believe she was infected, but was there ever anything more?
That was her point of view until her dying day, as far as I can see. None of the sources refer to her giving interviews or leaving a biography or similar in which she outlined any change in her thoughts on the matter. -SchroCat (talk)15:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, are there any modern analysts who agree with her confinement? We have a lot of perspectives that are more sympathetic to her, I'm curious if anyone remains a hardliner.
I think the thing is with the modern writers is that the outline both sides of the argument and say it's a moral question about the individual v the herd, without trying to answer that question. That's my OR summary of the situation as there isn't really a meta-summary that outlines how the historiography has changed in that respect. -SchroCat (talk)15:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly looks good. Still waiting on the gallbladder as primary site update, hospital image swap, and I found a source that might be useful for some of the middle-class values/Mary's image stuff. ♠PMC♠(talk)05:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Soper—with his colleague B. Raymond Hoobler—then visited Mallon at her rooming house on Third Avenue that she shared with Briehof.[1] The source doesn't mention Hoobler, or a rooming house on Third Avenue.
she emigrated to the United States aboard the Ethiopia I guess this is OK, but perhaps better to clarify "the steamship Ethiopia".
Mallon worked as a cook for several families, four of whom contracted typhoid fever four people or four families contracted the disease? It sounds like the latter, but I'm not sure what it means for a family to contract a disease.
a guest became ill with typhoid ten days after he arrived to stay with the family how does ten days compare with the typical incubation time of typhoid?
came to the conclusion that the footman was the person those of us who watchedDownton Abbey know what a footman is, but you should explain it for the rest of the readership.
According to Leavitt, this dish "would have been an excellent medium for typhoid infection".[5][15] Leavitt is a biographer/historian. How does that qualify her to say what would make an excellent growth medium? I assume she's really reporting what somebody else (qualified to make such a statement) said?
She was referring to Soper's report, which I've now added, but the information was also covered by the other source that was there - (Adler & Mara 2016). -SchroCat (talk)12:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Leavitt believes that William Randolph Hearst's newspaper, the New York American ... That links toNew York Journal-American which says it started publication in 1937. I'm guessing you want to link directly to the "New York American" section.
Her duties included general cleaning, washing bottles, recording results clarify that "Her" refers to Mallon, not Plavaska.
On December 4, 1932, she suffered a major one. She was transferred to a ward at the hospital and remained there paralyzed and bedridden was she bedridden for all 6 years before she died?
Between 1938 and the advent of HIV/AIDS need a year for HIV/AIDS.
The phrase Typhoid Mary is now a colloquial term for anyone who spreads disease Is that you saying that, or is it in Foss 2020?
Neither. It's sourced to two things (the OED and Wawrzynczak), although I could have added another five or six sources if needed. -SchroCat (talk)12:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanksRoySmith, I think I've covered all these, but please let me know if any of them need tweaking or reworking, or if you have any other comments. Thanks also for the map - that was very good of you. Cheers -SchroCat (talk)12:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the text, you use "Salmonella Typhi" but in the image caption you use "Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi". That may be more technically correct, but for the purposes of this article, I'd just use the shorter name everywhere for uniformity.RoySmith(talk)13:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for poking my nose in, but I would like to see the full taxonomic name used at least once in the article, and the image caption is probably a good place.Graham Beards (talk)14:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that while you know the rules for these names, most of our readers won't, leading them to wonder if the "Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi" mentioned in one place and the "Salmonella Typhi" mentioned in another are actually the same thing. The time spent sorting that out will just be a distraction from the main story, which is about the epidemiology and the societal norms of the early 20th century. The specific pathogen involved is really a bit player. Does knowing a longer name for it enhance the reader's understanding of the main subject, or does it just cater to a professional microbiologist's (perfectly understandable) desire to be scientifically rigorous?RoySmith(talk)15:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is encyclopaedic to include it at least once. I don't agree that "The specific pathogen involved is really a bit player." That these usually highly pathogenic bacteria can also be carried asymptomatically, albeit rarely, is a central theme of the article.Graham Beards (talk)15:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The bacteria is referred to three times in the article: once in the lead (short version), once as an image caption and once in the Death section (both long versions). Would it be easier is I just changed the shortened version in the lead to the longer version, meaning we have accuracy and uniformity? -SchroCat (talk)15:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be moving in the wrong direction: making the article less accessible to the typical non-expert reader. But, we've invested enough debate on this relatively minor issue, so I'll just leave it to your best judgement.RoySmith(talk)15:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's no big deal and I will be happy to go along with the nominator's call. A suggestion: perhaps put "full name "Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi" as a parenthesis in the figure legend after Salmonella Typhi, (and note that the italics are important.Graham Beards (talk)16:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue it'd qualify as PD-text. That said, the provenance seems a bit odd; are you confident both that this is genuine and that it is unpublished?Nikkimaria (talk)00:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure it's genuine, but I'll hunt around to see if it's unpublished. I don't recall seeing it in any of the sources, but I don't pay that much attention of photographs in sources, so I'll go back over them all first as well as running other searches. Thanks -SchroCat (talk)05:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through the sources and none have this in there, including Leavitt, the main source, which also has a lot of images from a wide range of sources. I've also done some reverse image searches. A few copies come up, but all are shown with upload datesafter the Commons version. -SchroCat (talk)12:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I had very little to say at the peer review and have still less to say here,viz:
You say in the lead that MM was was "an Irish-born American", but though the first part of that statement is substantiated in the main text, her status as a US national is not.
Well spotted. I've gone back over a few of the main sources and none of them refer to her picking up US nationality at any point (I suspect it was a far more flexible and unimportant point back in those pre-ICE days). I've tweaked to "Irish-born", rather than just "Irish" to hint at the questionable or flexible nature of the status. -SchroCat (talk)10:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the legend to the map "resided" seems a bit refained instead of "lived"
The lower case in doctor Alexandra Plavska looks rather odd.
"the Plavska's home" should be "the Plavskas' home".
It wouldn't occur to me to blue-link "servant", "infection" or "symptoms", but I don't boggle at your doing so.
In the sources you are inconsistent about italicising (or not) the term "et al".
That's my lot. Nothing to frighten the horses. The article strikes me as comprehensive, balanced, well and widely sourced – from mainly modern sources – excellently written, and surprisingly well illustrated. And also rather sad to read, as is appropriate. Happy to support. –Tim riley talk09:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like none of the sources I see here are unreliable or inconsistently formatted. I wonder though if there were contemporary government reports or the like.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)10:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Roy, I've done most of those already, but there were some new bits, although there wasn't anything of use. Surprisingly searches of NYC Municipal Archives (https://nycrecords.access.preservica.com/) show nothing for either Mary Mallon or Typhoid Mary. MCNY has only two references, one in passing, one you've linked to. The NY History Soc again has very little. None of them come close to anything that isn't in published sources - not even little factoids or stories to give a little extra colour to the piece. Cheers -SchroCat (talk)10:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers the second Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire, which took place during the reign ofTrajan. Unlike the first and third revolts, which were centered inJudaea, this conflict was largely carried out by Jewish diaspora communities in Egypt, Cyprus and Libya.
This is my second FA nomination; my first,First Jewish–Roman War, passed recently, on New Year's Eve. This present article reached GA status in October 2024 following a review by@Jens Lallensack:, who encouraged me to take it to FAC. Shortly thereafter,@UndercoverClassicist: gave me helpful suggestions to improve the article before a FAC run, all of which I have since addressed. I look forward to the review process and hope this nomination will be successful.Mariamnei (talk)12:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Don't use fixed px size
Suggest adding alt text
File:Francesco_Hayez_018.jpg needs a US tag for the artwork
@Nikkimaria All done now! I removed the px size from the lead image, added a PD-US tag for the Hayez painting, added alt text to all images, and fixed the reflinks (one source was missing from the bibliography, and another had 2008 in the sfn instead of 2006, as the bibliography uses correctly). Thanks.Mariamnei (talk)09:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, could you clarify how I can tell whether I should add the original work tag myself, or if this is something that needs to be handled differently? I'm happy to fix it (or find another image if necessary), I just want to make sure I'm doing it correctly.
I'm also not sure why the Hayez painting is mentioned here, perhaps there's been a mix-up with another article (the First Jewish–Roman War or the Siege of Jerusalem, both use the painting)? The other image I added to this article is from Alexandria, Egypt. Thank you!Mariamnei (talk)13:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added two tags. This is a plaster copy of an artwork from the 2nd century, hope that clears things up. Please let me know if I got that wrong or if there's anything else.Mariamnei (talk)10:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Its a fairly nicely written article in general with interesting attention to details. Some comments to get things started:
(1) Marcius Turbo, is linked in the lede, however, the first mention of his name in the main body is not linked; add the link and full name on first instance in main body.
(2) Marcius Turbo, was designated by Trajan, however, I'm not sure I'm reading enough about the Roman Empire as a whole during the Diaspora Revolt. Rome was under one of its finest and most competent Emperors, and it might be nice to see a little more about how important/unimportant the Revolt actually was upon the Empire as a whole. The section about "Impact on Trajan's Parthian campaign" is nice but very short.
(3) Again Trajan, is there any depiction in whole or in part onTrajan's column of the Revolt? It would be nice to gauge the significance of this event when surrounded by all the other historical realities which the Empire was facing at the time of the Revolt; was it relatively minor as perceived at the time, or was it a major issue for Trajan and Turbo.
It's quite difficult to say much about what Trajan and Turbo themselves thought beyond speculation. I haven't found any sources that mention their views on the matter, unlike for some other episodes at Rome's height. Josephus, for example, does comment on what Vespasian and Titus thought at various stages of their suppression of the Jewish revolt of 66–73. Trajan's Column was erected in 113 CE, two years before the Diaspora Revolt erupted, so it was already too late for the revolt to feature there. That said, I do mention a theory proposed byMartin Goodman (historian) in the section discussing the connection between the Diaspora Revolt and theBar Kokhba revolt of 132–136 CE. Goodman suggests that Hadrian, who succeeded Trajan, was affected by the consequences of the Diaspora Revolt and by the need to rebuild areas in Cyrenaica destroyed by the rebelling Jews. He argues that this experience may have led Hadrian to conclude that Jewish rebelliousness had to be resolved decisively; hence what Goodman terms a "final solution":According to Goodman, Hadrian—an activist emperor who preferred to impose reforms rather than merely react to crises—was acutely aware of the disastrous consequences of the Diaspora Revolt, as indicated by his post-revolt construction projects in Cyrenaica. Goodman argues that Hadrian's decision to refound Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina was intended as a "final solution for Jewish rebelliousness": by permanently transforming the Jewish holy city into a Roman colonia modeled on the imperial capital, Hadrian aimed to prevent future Jewish uprisings. Even here, however, this remains pretty much mostly interpretive: the sources themselves do not explicitly state Hadrian's motivation in establishing Aelia Capitolina on Jerusalem's ruin; Goodman seems to search a way to explain what remains unclear - what exactly led Hadrian to establish a pagan colony on the ruins of Judaism's holiest city.Mariamnei (talk)16:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(4) Although Trajan in mentioned in Gibbon, there appears to be no mention of the Revolt. Is this a weakness in Gibbon's historical sources, or some other issue which keeps Gibbon from addressing the Revolt.
From what I've seen, there is not much about Trajan's reign in Gibbon's work. He seems to have summed up his term as emperor in just three paragraphs. Beyond that he is mentioned often, but very briefly, at least in the first volume of the series, together with other emperors such as the Antonines, or in relation to his architectural achievements. After all, Gibbon's work is namedThe History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and in Trajan's time the decline and fall of the empire was yet to become a reality (quite the opposite, as you mention above, the empire was at its peak), so perhaps this is not why the work does not describe this period in detail.Mariamnei (talk)15:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did eventually find a passing reference to the Diaspora Revolt in the work, though not in the section dealing with Trajan's reign, but in chapter XVI, in a more general discussion of Jewish uprisings against Rome:From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but of human kind. (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/g/gibbon/decline/cache/decline.pdf, p. 516).Mariamnei (talk)16:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(5) The term 'Trajanic revolt' which you mention in your lede does not appear in the Wikipedia article forTrajan; if it is a minor term, then does it belong in the lede. Other than your footnote 'b', there does not appear with a single reference to it in the main body.
I was thinking about dropping it altogether. I added it after coming across it for the first time, but it doesn't seem to be used by other sources. What do you think?Mariamnei (talk)15:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One thought would be to drop it in the lede, and move the footnote you use in the lede for it to your footnote 'b' as perhaps somewhat relevant there for readers of details.ErnestKrause (talk)23:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(6) 'Influence on Jewish thought' is a section towards the end of your article; it seems to have to somewhat long blockquotes which I'm not sure needs to be that long. Also, Trajan and the Christian martyrs is a theme often taken up in the literature, but its not mentioned in this article. Is the assertion that Christians were or were not parts of the Jewish diaspora at that time. Your comment on Eusebius appears to state: 'Eusebius adopts a more neutral tone.[16] Nonetheless, his portrayal of the revolt is framed within his broader theological argument that Jewish suffering was a consequence of their rejection of Christ, a theme common in early Christian references to the Jewish–Roman wars.' I'm not sure what this means; is the article implying that there were no Jewish-heritage Christians in the Jewish diaspora?
On the block quotes: I'm a bit hesitant to trim them. Since these are short stories, cutting them down risks losing details that are important for understanding the legend. That said, if they feel too heavy for the main flow of the article, we could consider formatting them as quote boxes instead. That would let readers choose whether to engage with the full text without interrupting the prose, similar to how it's handledhere. What do you think?
On Christians and the diaspora: I'm not aware of any ancient or modern sources that mention the participation of Christian Jews in the Diaspora Revolt. By the early 2nd century CE, most Christians appear to have been of non-Jewish background, so even if a Christian community existed in Egypt at the time, that does not necessarily imply that they were Jews, and that they would have seen the revolt as something relevant to it. The possibility that Jewish Christians were involved is possible but would probably be largely speculative. (By contrast, by the way, we do haveexplicit testimony for the later Bar Kokhba revolt: both Justin Martyr and Eusebius state that Christian Jews were tortured/killed by Simeon Bar Kokhba for refusing to participate in the uprising. Perhaps from this we can deduce that they wouldn't have participated in the Diaspora Revolt either).
When Eusebius and the other Church Fathers explain Jewish suffering as a consequence of the killing of Christ, it makes clear that in their eyes, "Jews" and "Christians" were distinct categories (though it does not preclude the continued existence of individuals or groups with overlapping Jewish and Christian identities, which probably persisted as a small minority). By the way, a similar theology already appears more than a century earlier in the writings ofJustin Martyr, who lived in the mid-2th century CE, not long after the events in question (I don't mention him in the article because he addresses the First Jewish Revolt and the Bar Kokhba revolt rather than the Diaspora Revolt). InDialogue with Trypho he presents Jewish circumcision not merely as obsolete but as a sign of divine punishment, arguing that it was instituted so that Jews would "suffer that which you now justly suffer". For him, the Jewish defeat in the Jewish–Roman wars brought the covenant between God and the Jewish people to an end. So again we can see the strong differentiation.Mariamnei (talk)12:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your extended comments on 3 and 4 above are fairly good; will any of that get into the article? Maybe expand slightly on your short 'Trajan's Impact' section?ErnestKrause (talk)23:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know about the passages from Gibbon; I’m not sure they add anything beyond providing further examples of a view that treats Dio's descriptions of extreme violence by the rebels as historically correct, in contrast to more recent scholarship, which tends to see these accounts as exaggerated. As for the impact on the Roman Empire, I'll see if I can add anything beyond what's already there, perhaps drawing on scholarly biographies of Trajan and his era.Mariamnei (talk)13:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(1') Your comments on Hadrian above are quite good and reflect your comments about him elsewhere in the Aftermath section of the article. The dating you present for rise of Hadrian and death of Trajan should come sooner in the Aftermath section (c.117AD) since there is quite a bit being said about Hadrian rather than Trajan. It might be nice to see Hadrian mentioned in the lede concerning all of this useful discussion in the Aftermath section.
(2') The main article which draws my attention on Wikipedia here isChristianity in the 1st century which covers quite a bit about comparative ethnic and religious origins. Paul and Barnabas are Jewish and speaking primarily to Jewish audiences; later Paul does take up the issue of Gentile circumcision with mixed effects. Is Eusebius the best source here, since his time frame seems much closer to Constantine and the conversion of the Empire than to the Diaspora Revolt. Possibly you could see if the relevant topics as discussed in the 1t century article I just linked is on point or not; I mean it actually comes to about a decade away from the Revolt itself and is chronologically quite close.
(4') You are correct to point out the relevance of Bar Kokhba as being almost at the same time period and sharing much of the same historical perspective. I'm not sure that Justin Martyr is definitive here on this issue, as the Ante-Nicene Fathers before Constantinople disagreed on multiple issues. Did any contemporary voice among the Ante-Nicene Fathers speak with authority about the Judaic roots of Christianity.
Interesting comments from your viewpoint in your other responses; the Hadrian material in the Aftermath section might be given more prominence in that section as shedding added light on this Revolt and its consequences.ErnestKrause (talk)17:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(1') I've added a mention of Hadrian to the lead and brought his rise forward in the discussion of the aftermath.
(2–4') Following on your comments, I spent some time doing some additional research on how the Diaspora Revolt may have affected Christianity, and came across a few relevant sources. You're welcome to review that edit in the article, which now includes a new section on the possible impact of the revolt on Christians in Egypt:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diaspora_Revolt&diff=1337272242&oldid=1336732601. To summarize: There is no strong evidence for an established Christian presence in Egypt at the time of the Diaspora Revolt. It is, however, plausible that a Jewish Christian community existed in Alexandria, having received the Gospel from followers of Jesus in Judaea, and that this community was severely affected by the revolt. As for the outcome, I see two somewhat different opinions. One (Mélèze Modrzejewski) argues that the revolt marked an abrupt end to Jewish Christianity in Egypt, which was subsequently replaced by a pagan Christianity. Another (Pearson) suggests that, despite the catastrophe suffered by Jewish Christians, later Egyptian Christianity was nonetheless deeply influenced by the Jewish community largely eliminated in the revolt, through the adoption of texts (such as theSeptuagint and the works ofPhilo of Alexandria), ascetic practices (possibly influenced by the JewishTherapeutae), and communal structures. Eventually, the mixture of Hellenistic and Jewish thought with indigenous Egyptian culture led to the emergence of what we know asCoptic Christianity.Mariamnei (talk)14:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The new section you just added is useful and well-written. I'm going to repeat some of the above and add a little since the article appears to be moving in a good direction.
(A) 'Trajanic revolt' in the lede is not used in the article appreciably. If you want to keep it in the lede using your primary source as Eshel, then you might need to elaborate on Eshel's preference for this term. This would justify its presence in the lede which you appear to like.
(B) The Hadrian material is rather well thought out; the impression being instilled is that the Revolt was of more impact to Hadrian than to Trajan, which is likely to be the case.
(C) I'm going to add that in the Wikipedia article forChurch fathers that there is quite a bit there about the Alexandrian fathers of the church which included, by the fourth century prominent names such asClement of Alexandria (150-215AD),Origen,Athanasius, andCyril of Alexandria. I'm not sure how you are answering the question of where each of them came from if your belief is that either Gentile Christianity or Jewish Christianity had disappeared in Egypt. Where did those church fathers come from if not from remnants of early Christian or Jewish-Christian communities surviving in Egypt?
(D) Asking Wikipedia editors to accept a ten-sentence blockquote towards the end of the article is likely to cause stumbling blocks for you with other editors. I'm just not sure that those big block quotes are doing as much as you may be thinking that they seem to be accomplishing from your viewpoint. Ten sentences of block quotes do not even appear in the WikipediaTalmud article or similar pages. Other than the Steinsaltz blockquote in theTalmud article (also very long), this type of quoting is not the standard usually used on Wikipedia.
(A) I've just removed the term 'Trajanic revolt' from the article. I am pretty convinced by now that a single, passing mention by Eshel doesn't seem strong enough to justify presenting it as an alternative name in the lede. If the term appears again in the literature in a more developed or sustained way, I'd be very happy to revisit this, but at the moment I really can't see a strong reason to keep it.
(B) Agreed. I also feel that the article now gives Hadrian the correct weight.
(C) I don't think there's a contradiction with the Alexandrian Church Fathers. I'll explain: what the article now argues is that the Christian community in Egypt, at that time predominantly Jewish in background and character, was severely affected, and likely largely destroyed, during the Roman suppression of the Diaspora revolt, much like the wider Jewish population. When Christianity becomes more visible in Egypt later in the 2nd century, several decades after the revolt, it appears to be composed primarily of people of non-Jewish background. (Modrzejewski suggests a sharp break, while Pearson allows for the adoption of Alexandrian Jewish traditions and practices by the new Christian movement, but both seem to agree that this later movement was not of Jewish origin). That seems to align well with what we know about the Alexandrian Church Fathers you mention.Clement of Alexandria, the earliest among them, was not a native member of an existing Christian community in Egypt but a convert of pagan background who seems to have arrived in Alexandria from elsewhere (according to another Church Father,Epiphanius of Salamis, he was born in Athens; even if traditions placing his birth in Alexandria are correct, he could still have been of native Greek or indigenous Egyptian background). Origen belongs to the following generation, and his father also appears to have been Greek and of pagan origin (though by this time there could be a larger community of Christians in Egypt of a background similar to Clement's). Athanasius and Cyril are much later, from the 3rd to 5th centuries, centuries after the revolt, so not really relevant to this discussion.
(D) Thanks, that's a fair point. I agree that the block quotes are probably longer than Wikipedia norms. I'll look for a way to shorten the quotations and paraphrase the rest, so the narrative of the legend remains clear without taking up too much space.Mariamnei (talk)09:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well that looks quite good. The article is well-written and well-researched; the cite section mostly uses established reliable sources which also look well-researched. Image review is under progress and I'm running out of positive things to say; then it should be aSupport from me for the prose. Nice going.ErnestKrause (talk)16:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's great to hear! Hopefully there'll be more to come, I am also hoping to nominate the last major Jewish revolt, theBar Kokhba revolt, sometime after this one (once I get it up to GA status first).Mariamnei (talk)15:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good deal ofWP:duplinks by the middle of the article, they can be highlighted with this script:[10]
Okay, thanks! I'll see what I can do. I haven't used scripts before. I tried adding it to my commonJS page, but it's throwing an error for me.Mariamnei (talk)15:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That said, there are also a lot of terms that should be linked at first mention in the article body after the intro, some listed below, but perhaps a good idea to give it a thorough look yourself.
"during the "Jewish uprising,"" why quotation marks here and not elsewhere? Also, the comma should come after the quotes.
It's a matter of voice. I am not using the term as narrative here, but reproducing how the Roman inscriptions discussed in this sentence refer to the war.Mariamnei (talk)15:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Large passages of the article go without illustrations, might there be more to add?
Unfortunately, I haven't found much. An image of ruins from Alexandria might work, though I've been a bit on the fence since I couldn't find anything directly tied to the revolt. Another option would be a relief fromTrajan's Column in Rome, dated to 113 (just two years before the revolt) which could at least show Roman soldiers as they would have appeared at the time. The same column also has a relief depicting one of the Roman generals involved in suppressing the Diaspora Revolt,Lusius Quietus, though the entire thing depicts not the Diaspora Revolt butTrajan's Dacian Wars. What do you think?Mariamnei (talk)15:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes to both, I think articles are much more interesting to read when accompanied by anything that sets a visual tone. Not that images should just be decorative, but I think your examples there are relevant to establish context.FunkMonk (talk)15:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The Jewish uprisings erupted almost simultaneously across several eastern provinces of the Roman Empire" do we know how this was coordinated back then? I assume it would take pretty long for word to spread with the means at hand?
Unfortunately, that remains very unclear. I've made sure that would be mentioned in the article (under the "Uprisings" chapter):there is no definitive evidence of coordinated action among the diaspora communities in revolt.. We do know that Jewish communities across the Roman and Parthian worlds were in contact during this period, using letters, which in theory could have allowed for coordination around agreed future dates. Rabbinic sources also describe signaling methods, such as chains of bonfires used to announce the New Moon from theMount of Olives near Jerusalem and all the way to central Iraq (as recorded in theMishnah, redacted c. 200 CE), which suggests other possible channels of communication. That said, we don't have any direct evidence for what exact type of mechanisms were used in this uprising.Mariamnei (talk)15:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat puzzled by there being a quite long "The "Kitos War" in Judaea" section here, while there is also aKitos War article. The section here almost indicates that it's uncertain that war even took place, while the other article seems more certain. So if there is another whole article, shouldn't the section about it here be a much shorter summary? Or is there something I'm overlooking about how their scopes overlap?
Actually, most scholarship from the past two to three decades treats the Kitos War in Judaea as part of its discussion of the Diaspora Revolt and raises questions about both its scale and its character (and sometimes over its existence). Archaeological evidence securely attributable to the revolt within the borders of Roman Judaea is extremely sparse, especially when compared with the First and Bar Kokhba revolts, which has led some scholars to suggest that, if unrest did occur there in parallel with the diaspora uprisings, it was limited in scope and quickly suppressed, leaving little trace in the archaeological record. I think that the current scope taken in this article to present the current state of knowledge on the events in Judaea is appropriate and in line with the major sources I have read on the revolt, so I wouldn't trim it.
By the way, the Kitos War article, by the way, does seem to contain some outdated interpretations of primary sources, along with a few other issues. It might be worth considering a redirect to the relevant section of this article, though there are reasonable arguments on both sides.Mariamnei (talk)14:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would it perhaps make sense to merge that article into this one, if it's basically a hypothetical subset of the same conflict? As is, it seems the spin-off article is aWP:content fork that risks accumulating inaccurate information. And the section here is already sizeable, and could perhaps function better as our main coverage of that subject.FunkMonk (talk)06:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. I noticed Hebrew Wikipedia also has two separate articles, one for the Diaspora Revolt and another for the Kitos War, and thought there might be a good reason for it, but after looking more closely at the Kitos War entry there, it's actually comparable in length (or even shorter) than the section on the Kitos War present in this article. Given how the event is treated in the literature as part of the Diaspora Revolt, it would make sense to merge it here.Mariamnei (talk)10:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, perhaps a merge suggestion should be added to that article once this FAC is over, and perhaps any relevant info found there but not here could already now be transferred here for completeness.FunkMonk (talk)10:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"With Hadrian's accession to the thronefollowing Trajan's death in 117 CE" as Trajan's death is described in the preceding paragraphs, I wonder if the bolded part is necessary to repeat.
Do we have any estimates of Jewish population numbers at the time? Must have been sizeable considering the impact of these events?
I'll see if I can find something. Scholars often caution against using estimates for this period, as they are highly speculative, but I may be able to find something. I'll let you know what I discover.Mariamnei (talk)16:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Archaeologist Hanan Eshel also points to a rise in nationalistic sentiment" among who, Romans or Jews?
"him to redirect his military focus from a campaign against the Barbarians toward the suppression of the Jews" I assume Parthians are meant here? You mention them later, but a bit unclear now.
Yep, these are the Parthians, but the Talmudic source actually uses "Barbarians," so I chose to stick with the original wording. To make it clear that this is a direct quote, I've added quotation marks around the source.Mariamnei (talk)16:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"a non-Jewish movement (so-called "pagan Christianity")" sounds intriguing, anything to link?
I don't think there's much to link! it's actually simpler than it sounds. It just refers to Christian communities in the that grew mainly among converts from polytheistic backgrounds (as most Christians were by the 2nd century), rather than Jewish Christians, since the first Christians were of Jewish background.Mariamnei (talk)16:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"argues that the festival involved a ritual re-dramatization of the victory, portraying the Jews as Typhonians (followers of Set-Typhon) and their defeat as the triumph of Horus-Pharaoh" that seems extremely specific, is it based on anything or just speculation? Could be stated either way.
The original papyrus simply states that Oxyrhynchus held an annual festival commemorating the defeat, but it does not describe the ritual content or use any mythological language. So that is a reconstruction Frankfurter makes, drawing on other ancient Egyptian sources (including an anti-Jewish prophecy equating Jews with cosmic disorder) and Greco-Roman polemics that identified Jews as worshippers of Seth. Egyptians are known to have re-enacted mythic battles such as Horus vs. Seth. Changed the text to make this clear.Mariamnei (talk)16:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"final years of Trajan's reign." Could state he was emperor for clarity.
"including mass killings" doesn't seem to be explicitly stated outside the intro?
The body actually covers this, by mentioning the annihilation of communities, description of Turbo's suppression as a campaign of extermination against the population in the affected areas, and Clarysse’s use of "genocide" to describe the suppression, so I believe the use of 'mass killings' is consistent with these points.Mariamnei (talk)16:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"this time that the lesser-known and poorly understood Kitos War unfolded" this assumes it happened, but you also caution that it might not have, so perhaps the wording should be less certain?
Fixed. Changed toIt was during this period that the lesser-known and poorly understood Kitos War may have occurred in Judaea, apparently involving unrest among the Jewish population in the province.Mariamnei (talk)16:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Kitos War – a minor revolt in Judaea at the time of the Diaspora revolt" as above.
"dedicated to Jupiter" only seems to be stated in the intro, which should not have unique info.
Added to body too. Sentence now says:Around 130, Hadrian visited Judaea and decided to rebuild Jerusalem as a Roman colony dedicated to Jupiter, naming it Aelia Capitolina.Mariamnei (talk)16:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to imply that Jews were almost eradicated from Egypt, but since a sizeable Jewish community later existed there, perhaps add a brief mention about returned Jewish presence in Egypt after these events?
Do you mean in the body or the lead? I guess the lead, since it already appears in the body. Added this at the lead's end:Jewish communities reestablished themselves in Egypt, Cyprus, and Cyrenaica during the 3rd–4th centuries CE, though they never reached their former prominence.Mariamnei (talk)16:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Depiction of the destruction of the Second Temple" perhaps give date of the painting for context.
Since late June or early July of last year, there has been a marked increase in the amount written on this website aboutJapanese horse racing, forreasons that are a mystery to all. As someone who's also fallen headfirst into the horse racing world recently, I'd like to present for consideration an article on theJapan Cup, the premier international invitational horse race in Japan. While still fairly young compared to many other big horses races ("only" 45 runs) there's still a rich history here that has been well covered by news reports and other sources, which I hope leads to an entertaining read. The article itself mostly focuses on the race's history and some of the knock-on effects that it's had on the world at large, as well as the challenges theJapan Racing Association has faced in keeping the race attractive to international racers.
The article went through GA review via regular FAC contributerGommeh in November, and since this is my first FA attempt,SchroCat kindly helped me get the article into shape through the mentor scheme.Z1720 has also previously left some helpful pointers that I've tried to take into account as well, as did the friendly members of the Horseracing Wikiportal. As such, I hope this is an enjoyable read and I look forward to your comments!RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk)22:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
File:Japan_Cup.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Tokyo-Racecourse_aerial_2019.jpg
File:Finish_of_the_1981_Japan_Cup.png: the tag in use here is for cases where the TV program itself, rather than an event shown on TV, is the subject of interest
File:Katsuragi_Ace.jpg: could you clarify where that licensing is coming from? I don't see it at the source, but I don't speak Japanese so might be missing it.Nikkimaria (talk)05:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the speedy image review@Nikkimaria:! I believe I've addressed your comments below.
Every caption bar the 1981 finish has had the periods removed.
I've ended up replacing the logo picture with a slightly more modern version with a still-active official source (20 years to the day of the original upload, funnily enough). I'm just waiting for the resizer bot to do its magic.
For the aerial, it looks like the website migrated a few years back. I've updated the image description.
1981 license: Thanks - afraid the free-use templates are all very new to me. If this tag isn't correct, I think the next best that fits isNon-free historic image, which I've changed it to. Happy to adjust if needed.
Changes mostly fine, but for 1981, the historic images tag is intended for cases where the image itself is the subject of commentary (egTank Man). If there is no other specific tag better suited to this case,{{non-free fair use}} would be better.
Similar to races such as the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe, Melbourne Cup and the Breeders' Cup I would add another "the" beforeMelbourne Cup to make it not visually run into the previous link, perWP:SEAOFBLUE.
the Japan Cup is an international invitational event that's obvious from the context, so no need to say it.
extended to top-performing horses ... those who have won or placed highly in other major Group 1 races those two things may be not strictly the same thing, but for the purposes of the lead, I'd leave out everything from "particularly" to the end of the sentence.
The race is one of the world's richest, reaching a total prize purse of over one billion yen in 2023, with winners of the event frequently breaking national or international prize money records. Again, I think for the lead, I'd leave out the bit about breaking records. Different people have different views of how much detail should be in the lead. My personal opinion is I like shorter leads, i.e.summarize the most important points perMOS:LEAD. Some reviewers will want to see more detail, so I expect you'll get varying opinions on this.
one of the most attended races of the year hosted by the JRA, regularly reaching 100,000 people in attendance rephrase to avoid repeating the word "attend". Also, since it's held anually, saying "of the year" is redundant.
the JRA offers a large bonus to any horse that wins all three per my desire to have short leads, this seems unnecessary. It's fine to say it's part of the triple crown, but the fact that the triple crown offers a bonus is not one of "the most important points" in an article about the Japan Cup.
Despite a relatively short history compared to other horse races On the same theme, no need to say "compared to other horse races". It's a horse race, what else could the history possibly be compared to?
the race was dominated by foreign horses, with 14 of the first 25 races' winners coming from abroad I'm not sure that slightly more than half can be considered domination.
only one horse from outside of Japan has won the race I suspect this is going to be a theme for the rest of my review, but you can cut "the race". Everything in this article is talking about the race. That "the race" is the direct object of "won" is obvious from the context. Especially in the lead where you're trying to condense as much as possible.
The Japan Cup is held at the Tokyo Racecourse, situated in ... drop "in" says the same thing as "situated in" in fewer words.
At 2,400 metres long Drop the "long". It's obvious from the context that you're talking about the length.
This configuration means ... drop "configuration"
offering racers ample room to manoeuvre Drop "racers". To whom else could this room possibly be offered to?
as well as avoid being boxed in You've already told us about the room to maneuver. How does that differ from not being boxed in?
Speaking of boxed in, I added an{{anchor}} and linked directly to the anchor. You should do similarly for homestretch, closers, and any other glossary words you link to.
There are several undulations across the track, varying in size and length over the race's duration trim "over the race's duration"
The homestretch is one of the longest in Japanese racing at 525 m (1,722 ft), which often leads to dramatic late finishes to somebody like me who knows next to nothing about horse racing, it's mystery why a long homestretch should lead to dramatic finishes. And what is a "late finish"?
requiring the horses to conserve their stamina in the race two issues here. First, I assume the horses are just doing what the jockeys tell them to do, so something like "requiring the jockeys to conserve the horse's stamina" would make more sense. Also, drop "in the race" for reasons discussed earlier.
Despite the race starting in the homestretch ... notably more likely to win the race. that's a monster sentence which should be broken up.
The elephant in the room here is the excessively long and complicated section headings.MOS:HEADINGS saysSection headings should generally follow the guidance for article titles above which in turn saysA title should be ... concise I'd certainly leave the year ranges out of the section heads, i.e. instead of "Origins and early years (1981–1988)", just "Origins and early years", or maybe even just "Early years". The first sentence of each of these L3 and L4 subsections could give the exact year range they're going to be talking about. I'd certainly do some major editing on "The rise of Japanese dominance and the origins of the Autumn Triple Crown" and "The beginning of the international win drought and homegrown legends"
From the race's conception, the motive behind the Japan Cup's creation ... The first part "races conception" says you're talking about the beginning. Then "the Japan Cup's creation" again says you're talking about the beginning. No need to tell the reader twice, especially since the L3 (Origins and early years) and L4 (The inaugural running) headings already tell the reader you're talking about the beginning.
the majority of races only allowing Japanese horses to compete, leaving Japan's horses isolated from the outside world I get what you're saying, but why couldn't the Japanese horses travel to races outside Japan?
As such, the Japan Cup offered a unique opportunity Not really unique, since only "the majority of races" in Japan excluded foreign horses.
The idea of "creating strong horses that can compete on the world stage" had been proposed by the JRA since at least the 1970s,[12] although efforts early in that decade to hold an international events collapsed because of disagreements between the JRA and other countries over the specific horses invited.[13] overly long sentence.
with invites being sent to trainers in Japan "invites" seems like slang to me. Perhaps "invitations"?
as part of a wider side I'm used to "side" meaning "team" in sports like soccer or rugby. It's not clear how that applies to horses. I see you use it again later:The disparity in the two sides' performance.
In the Japan Cup's second year the original entry restrictions were eased this is the first mention of any restrictions.
The French-trained Le Glorieux, trained by Robert Collet eliminate the word repetition, perhaps with "Le Glorieux, trained in France by Robert Collet".
Related to the previous, I also see we have an article aboutRobert Collet, so link to that.Alain Lequeux as well. In general, you should take every person (or likely notable thing) mentioned in the article and see if we have something about them that you can link to. Sometimes when I do this, I discover that something ismentioned in a lot of places but not linked to, in which case, I'd suggest either taking the time to create a stub, or at least just a redlink for now. Some people will object to redlinks in FAs. I'm not one of those people. PS, also search other language wikis, i.e. for these two gentlemen, had I not found their articles on enwiki, I would have tried frwiki. There's a dedicated template (whose exact name escapes me at the moment) for creating cross-language links for these.
(Taking a break for now, I'll pick up again next time with A decade of global competition (1989–1997))
Horlicks' win marked the beginning of a decade of several countries vying for supremacy in the Japan Cup, with no single nation remaining on top for long I'd drop the "with no single nation ..." part; that pretty much just repeats what was said earlier.
became the first Australian-trained winner, prevailing in a close finish I could go either way on this one, but you could drop "prevailing", as it basically says the same thing as "winner".
United States achieved its fourth victory in the Japan Cup through Golden Pheasant I think "with Golden Pheasant".
For the next three years, Japanese-trained horses triumphed in the event, although in each event an overseas horse placed second The first time you use "event", it means "The Japan Cup in general", the second time it means "A specific running of the Japan Cup". That's awkward.
The 1993 race also saw the only instance in the Japan Cup's history Just say "the Cup's history". Same comment for numerous other places in the article.
In 1996 the Irish horse Singspiel narrowly defeated his rivals by a nose "narrowly won by a nose"
defeating his compatriots Meisho Doto by a neck and Fantastic Light a nose behind in third. I'm not sure what you mean by "compatriots". But more than that, there's a weird mix of singular/plural here. Maybe "his compatriots Meisho Doto and Fantastic Light by, respectively, a neck and a nose behind in third"?
T. M. Opera O went on to win the year's Arima Kinen race; having already won the year's autumn Tennō Shō race as well you could drop both instances of "race". I would expect the name of the race to stand on its own, i.e. Kentucky Derby, not Kentucky Derby race.
an accomplishment popularly dubbed as completing the "Autumn Triple Crown." Just "... dubbed the Autumn Triple Crown".
closely defeated T. M. Opera O by a neck no need to say "closely"; that's implied by "a neck".
The race was held on the right-handed outer loop course, switching the race's direction and reducing its distance to 2,200 m is there some reason the new venue required those changes?
The 2004 edition saw Zenno Rob Roy, ridden by Olivier Peslier, led home another Japanese sweep "led home" is an odd construction.
the first mare worldwide to earn over $10 million in prize money everywhere else you talk about Yen. Why switch to Dollars here?
finishing two lengths ahead of the Japanese racehorse Authority drop "racehouse" as obvious from the context.
In spite of only recently switching from dirt tracks to racing on turf tracks just say "In spite of only recently switching from dirt to turf"
only making the switch to turf either "only making the switch" or "only switching to turf"
entered the race as the odds-on favourite "entered the race as the favourite"
quinox won convincingly ... as a commanding win for the horse. No need for both "convincingly" and "commanding win", they're the same thing. Also, no need for "the horse". The entire article is about horses, the reader can fill that in themselves.
The strength of Equinox's performance, combined with the overall depth of the field, led to two honours: Equinox was subsequently given ... no need for "Equinox was subsequently given", just state the two honors after the colon.
Running near the back of the racers for much of the race no need for "of the racers". Who else would he be near the back of?
Do Deuce surged forward in the race's final stretch drop "race's"; what other final stretch could there be?
Decline in international participation and performance
with a reported US$282,600 as above, why the switch here from Yen to Dollars?
OK, that's all I've got, at least for this pass. Despite the large volume of comments I've made, I think this is is pretty good shape. It reads well, telling a coherent story from start to finish, with each section logically building on what came before. It does need some tightening up, though. In addition to my specific comments, you should read through it all yourself looking for places where a word or phrase duplicates something said earlier or is obvious from the context. These can all be dropped. Make every word pull its weight and if it's not, it's off the team.RoySmith(talk)20:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you greatly for the detailed review Roy! I'm glad you enjoyed the read overall.Now you've pointed it out I can see what you mean about the redundancy; I suspect part of this is me getting too close to the trees to consider the forest when I was working on this...
Hi @RoySmith, quick progress report! I've completed most of the changes you've suggested and am currently working on further tightening and hunting for suitable wikilinks. Unsurprisingly, most of the Japanese personnel have writeups over on ja.wiki, so the results table is certainly looking a bit more blue now. Hoping to be ready for the next round of review on Tuesday/Wednesday.
I think most of your comments don't need a blow-by-blow response, though I had a few responses for your questions:
Why couldn't the Japanese horses travel to races outside Japan?Good question - the short answer is that a select few actually did from 1950-1980, but they nearly all did terribly and it put off most trainers from trying. I've added a short note to the opening history paragraph on this (which let me add another ref I'd been wondering how to fit in for a while, which is always nice).
Why 2200m in 2002?Mundanely, Nakayama just doesn't have a 2400m config on their course. I've added a note for this as well.
Horlick's dressing mirror?Sorry, this might be a regional dialect - 'dressing mirror' isn't a horse term. The team genuinely just used a big mirror (like the sort you might have in your bedroom or near your wardrobe) they got from an antiques store, doused it in horse sweat, and put it in Horlicks' stable. An unusual trick, but it let Horlicks think she had a fellow New Zealand pal with her while she was getting used to Japan. I've changed this tofull-length mirror and rephrased this sentence.
Why the switch to dollars for Vodka and Mairzy Doates?For both cases, it's because dollars were the values used in the source, so I thought sticking to this followedMOS:CURRENCY. Mairzy Dotes' one could be removed since it's more an aside than anything, but I think Vodka's shouldn't be changed since it was specifically the ten million barrier she broke that made news. I've added a yen equivalent to add a bit more continuity.
Hi again @RoySmith, I think this is finally ready for another go-through. I've tried to tighten everything up a bit as well as add more wikilinks where possible. There are a few more red links, for horses/trainers etc that I think theoretically reach notability and could have an article/stubs made of them - happy to have a look at creating those as a side project as I've ended up doing forAwad. I haven't linkedevery horse at the moment; there's some there that I don't think there's ever going to be enough to passWP:GNG from my initial look in (for example, a horse "Mons" I mentioned at one point, has barely ever been reported on bar passing mentions and I couldn't find any noticeable results or stud progeny for him). Likewise the owners column; a good chunk of the remaining non-wikilinks had very little info available on them outside of "this person owned a horse once".
Hopefully the headers are a little better now too, but open to changing them more if necessary - wasn't surprised you called those out as they've been a struggle of mine to get right this entire project!RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk)01:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For now, just acking that I've seen this, but I won't be able to get back to it immediately. I've got a couple of other projects I need to make some progress on first (including, hint, hint, gettingCarlisle & Finch out as a new FAC). Then I'll take a look at this again. Maybe tomorrow, maybe a couple of days.RoySmith(talk)02:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at this in the coming days. With a topic such as this, I will be paying particular attention to neutrality, with Wikipedia's amoral vantage in mind and the idea ofWP:OPPONENT. Looking forward to working with you.Rollinginhisgrave (talk |edits)02:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'll do a full review (probably not, since this isn't a topic area I usually frequent), but I did take a quick look at the sources vis-a-vis whatWP:RSN says and found some potential problems:
WP:PEOPLEMAG,WP:THEGUARDIAN,WP:RSPVULTURE,WP:ROLLINGSTONE all got "generally reliable" but with various caveats. Given that this is atWP:FAC and is aWP:BLP which touches on multiple contentious topics (religion, sexual abuse of children), I think we need to be looking for the strongest sources, i.e. those that don't require us to carefully evaluate if the caveats apply.
I can't find anything about Spin, but looking at what I can find quickly, I'm not getting lots ofWP:HQRS vibes.
I took out theFar Out source. The Salon piece might be useful- it was written byJake Tapper in 2002. It's not citing anything independently. I'll attribute it if I use it for any expansion. The Democracy Now cite supports a sentence right now. I'll swap it was another source if one is available. The others I'm open to discussing if anyone has an issue with them.Thriley (talk)02:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I'll be honest here, regarding Democracy Now, "I'll swap it [with?] another source if one is available" is not the response I was hoping for. I was thinking more along the lines of "I'll delete the statement if a better source isn't available". In addition to religion and sexual abuse of children mentioned above, that particular source adds in LGBTQ, so it's really the trifecta of sensitive topics. Now that I look at it again, the headline also mentions Palestinians, so actually thesuperfecta. Even if this wasn't at FAC, this requires rock-solid sources. The default position should not be "It's OK because I can't find anything better". The default position should be "I'll only include it if I can find a really good source".
With that said, I dove into what the source actually says, which isAMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Jamie Manson into this conversation, president of Catholics for Choice. Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston said that her actions on SNL, you know, ripping up the pope’s picture, were a “gesture of hate” and “neo-anti-Catholicism.” Law would later resign for covering up abuse in the Catholic Church. This is presented in the article as a direct quote of what the Cardinal said, when it's really a second-hand statement, i.e. Goodman (who is conducting an interview) saying what the Cardinal said. The original statement appears to come from: Franklin, James L. "Catholic Leaders Seek an Apology from NBC: [City Edition]." Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext), 09 Oct., 1992, pp. 84. ProQuest,https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/catholic-leaders-seek-apology-nbc/docview/294726969/se-2, which quotes the Cardinal as saying ""There is a virulent neo-anti-Catholicism which is alive and flourishing", but not directly calling O'Connor's act "neo-anti-Catholicism". In fact, the Globe article explicitly says "Though he did not name her". This is not good enough.RoySmith(talk)15:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood. I meant that I will just remove the sentence and the source that cited it if I can't find a more reliable source for it. Thank you for checking for a source.Thriley (talk)17:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to do some spot-checking of sources.
On 3 October 1992, O'Connor appeared on SNL to promote her new album, Am I Not Your Girl?. She performed two songs, the first of which was her new single "Success Has Made a Failure of Our Home". This inspired two influential alternative rock radio figures in the studio to tell Glass, her record company executive, that they would be adding it to their playlists.[1] The source does not say that the reason for the booking was to promote the album. That's a reasonable assumption, but it's not what the source actually says. The source also does not say thatSuccess Has Made a Failure of Our Home" was the first song performed. I'm sure there's some other source that says that, but this source doesn't. The source also doesn't say anything about being in a studio. These are all minor points, but three minor points in one sentence doesn't give me warm and fuzzy feelings.
For the second song, O'Connor performed an a cappella version of Bob Marley's 1976 song "War", wearing a necklace with the Rastafari star and a scarf with the Rastafari and Ethiopian colours.[5] The source does not say the song was performed a cappella.
The original lyrics are the text of a speech given by Haile Selassie in 1968; O'Connor replaced Selassie's references to the then-current political situation in Angola, Mozambique and South Africa with lyrics related to child abuse.[6] The source says "uses the words of a speech made by Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie" I interpret that to mean usessome of the words, i.e. selected quotes. "lyrics are the text of a speech" makes it sound like the entire song is exactly the full speech. That may be true (I have no idea if it is) but that's not what the source says.
Throughout the performance, she stared intently into the camera.[8] The source says "she stared down a “Saturday Night Live” camera". That's not the same as "Throughout the performance".
As she sang the final line, "we have confidence in the victory of good over evil", O'Connor held a photograph of Pope John Paul II directly in front of the camera, ripped it up, said "fight the real enemy", and threw the pieces of the photograph onto the floor.[9]. The source says "she pulled out the photo of the pope, tore it into pieces and tossed it on the floor". Nothing about holding it directly in front of the camera.
I'm sorry, I need to be a hardOppose based on source-to-text veracity. None of these are hugely significant problems; I suspect all of the facts stated are indeed true, but the sources cited do not support them. I looked at six citations (five of them in five consecutive sentences, so it's not like I was cherry-picking which to examine) and found problems in every one. This needs a careful citation-by-citation examination to verify that each one does indeed support the facts claimed, and doing that is outside of the scope ofWP:FAC.RoySmith(talk)17:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is unfortunate. I should have picked through the article deeply before nominating. Happy to go through it and renominate it again if you think the problems are so extensive that a FA review is not possible.Thriley (talk)17:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that would be for the best. It's entirely possible that I just happened onto an unlucky streak of five in a row and the rest is in better shape, but it is what it is. I feel particularly bad about this because my own first FAC was a disaster on the source verification front. It eventually got sorted out but to be honest, I think my source reviewer bent over backwards to help salvage a nomination which legitimately should have been kicked back for rework outside of FAC. I'd also suggest listing this atWP:PR once you've given it a going-over. Any additional problems can be resolved there in an environment which is much less intense than the FAC maelstorm.
On the positive side, I think the writing here is generally pretty good. It tells the story in a (to use theWP:FACR term) engaging style. That's a good thing. Fixing sourcing problems is relatively straight-forward compared to fixing a boring stilted writing style.RoySmith(talk)18:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It looked like a fairly straightforward nomination, which is what I was hoping for with my first nomination. I'm hoping this nomination continues even if it is slowed by the sourcing issues. Maybe a quick close and then renomination? Not familiar with the process here.Thriley (talk)23:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately how you proceed is up to you, but regarding "a quick close and then renomination" the process there would be to declare that you want to withdraw the nomination (see{{@FAC}} for how to draw attention to this) and one of the coordinators will close the nomination. I believe there will be a two-week delay imposed before you can renominate it. My personal experience with things like this is that the next thing you should do is to just walk away from this for a while to decompress. FAC is a stressful environment and taking a short break to get your head clear really does help. Then work on fixing the problems and list it atWP:PR. You'll also want to link it into{{FAC peer review sidebar}} which will draw the attention of experienced FAC reviewers who will be able to give you a more useful review. Once you think it's in good shape, you can relist it here. The second time around is exactly the same process as the first time, except that it'll be .../archive2 instead of .../archive1.
You might also want to jump in and start reviewing other FACs, especially on topics similar to your own. That'll do two things. One, it'll get you some practical experience seeing what other reviewers expect. Two, when it comes time to relist your own article, if you've reviewed somebody else's article they'll be more likely to want to take the time to review yours (either here or at PR).RoySmith(talk)03:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"on the American television program Saturday Night Live" — I’m not really sure about this, but maybe "on the American television variety show Saturday Night Live" would help readers better understand why a segment like this would air on such a show
"throwing the pieces of the photo to the floor." — Consider "throwing the torn photo to the floor." as the word "pieces" is already used directly before this
I’m not an expert on this, but I’m not sure if the citations are needed for the lede
"It attracted criticism from the Catholic Church, and also brought criticism from the Anti-Defamation League" — Chage one of those uses of "criticism"
"For example, in 2020, Time named O'Connor the most influential woman of 1992 for her protest." — This feels unnecessary, ending it with the previous sentence makes more sense than giving undue weight to one opinion
"who she said was disrespectful to women" — consider "who she felt was disrespectful to women"
"She had been criticized for refusing" — add a "previously" before "criticized"
Lot of uses of "criticized", "criticizing", etc, try to change a few
"Taoiseach (prime minister)" — I don’t think the (prime minister) in parenthesis part is necessary, the linked article for Taoiseach already specifies it’s a type of prime minister
MOS:NOFORCELINK says "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."Gog the Mild (talk)18:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystal Drawers: Thank you for your helpful eye. Would you be interested in continuing your review of the article?RoySmith has found issues with its sourcing which will make this nomination take a while if it continues at all.Thriley (talk)23:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Thriley: That should be it from me. Comments on Background are right above this comment, and below you will find my thoughts on the rest of the article. I think the article still needs a little bit of work before it is FA quality, and so I will end my review here by neither opposing nor supporting, and rather just leaving you with my prose comments that I hope help you get the article to better shape. I’m sorry for this, I know that is probably disappointing, and I especially apologize for how long it took me to finish this up. But, I think you have a good basis for a FA here, a Peer Review might just help you get a better grasp on what makes a FA tick, though. If you ever nominate it at PR, ping me there and I’ll try to gather more thoughts, because I’d really love to see this be a FA one day :)Crystal Drawers🍌(wanna talk?)02:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Performance
"On 3 October 1992, O'Connor appeared on SNL to promote her new album, Am I Not Your Girl?. She performed two songs, the first of which was her new single "Success Has Made a Failure of Our Home"." — "New" is used twice in close proximity to eachother, please change one use -Done
"to tell Glass, her record company executive, that" — Isn’t Glass already introduced as such in the Background section? I think removing the ", her record company executive," part would be fine -Done
Why is Rastafari wikilinked twice? -Fixed
"The original lyrics are the text of a speech given by Haile Selassie in 1968" — I don’t understand what this is trying to say -Fixed
"directly in front of the camera, ripped it up, said "fight the real enemy", and threw the pieces of the photograph onto the floor" — Consider "directly in front of the camera, ripped it up, and said "fight the real enemy" before throwing the pieces of the photograph onto the floor" -Fixed
"whose lead singer, Bob Geldof, had shredded a photo of John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John on the British television program Top of the Pops." — Was this also in protest of something relating to Newton-John and Travolta? If so, it might be worth mentioning
A lot of direct quotes in the final paragraph, could you put some (if not most) in your own words?
Reactions
"NBC received more than 500 calls on Sunday[13] and 400 more on Monday" — Consider "NBC received more than 500 calls on Sunday, followed by 400 more on Monday" -Done
"nor did they invite O'Connor to perform on the show for the rest of her life." — Not a fan of the use of "rest of her life", change to "nor did they ever invite O'Connor to perform on the show again." -Done
"(with pointy noses)"" — This doesn’t add anything, I’d remove it -Done
Is there a reason "Holy" is in parentheses? I think the name is actually "Holy Roman Empire" so I’m not sure if putting quotes around it is correct -The quotes are used in O'Connor's own writing which this is taken from. I'd like to leave it in to further detail her state of mind at the time.
"saying "I look like I had a run-in with a lawn mower and that I was about as sexy as a venetian blind"." — I’m not sure this is needed -I'd like this to stay. It's Madonna, arguably the most famous woman living at the time after Queen Elizabeth.
Is there a reason it’s sometimes called "SNL" and other times "Saturday Night Live?" Make sure to stick with one throughout the article (unless you pick SNL, in which case you should use Saturday Night Live in it’s first mention only before sticking with SNL the rest of the article) -What is best practice? I know we tend to abbreviate, but I find SNL so ugly.Thriley (talk)01:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
"career, and reputation" — I think "public reputation" might be better wording
Lots of direct quoting here that could easily be put in your own words, I think minus some minor words that might require quoting this whole section doesn’t require much direct quoting
"O'Connor repeatedly said that she did not regret her act" — Replacing "said" with "asserted" might be better
"following a personal crisis stemming from the success of her 1990 single "Nothing Compares 2 U"" — Is there any info on what this personal crisis is? I’d advise against just dropping it there and not elaborating on what the crisis actually was (unless it isn’t public, I don’t know)
"The New York Times journalist Amanda Hess wrote in 2021 that "few cultural castaways have been more vindicated by the passage of time", and that the backlash was also "about the kinds of provocations we accept from women in music".[8] After O'Connor died in 2023, Glass wrote that she had been unfairly treated and had never recovered professionally from having been "totally cancelled"." — Both of these start with "[name] wrote that", could you change one?
"In 2020, Time named O'Connor the most influential woman of 1992 in its list of the 20th century's most influential women." — Wording here is kind of janky
"Reruns of the episode replaced the performance with the dress rehearsal, and previous documentaries such as "Saturday Night Live Backstage" would edit out her ripping the photo apart, though an exemption was granted in 2010 when Sinead O'Connor appeared on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show." — No source?
This article is about Destiny's Child, one of the most well known popular music acts and influential girl groups. They helped bring girl groups back to the fore front of pop music at a time when boy bands were dominating and shaped the sound ofcontemporary R&B within the late '90s and early '00s, especially with their songs "Bills, Bills, Bills", "Say My Name",Independent Women", "Bootylicious", and "Survivor". If successful this will be my fifteenth FA. Enjoy the read!750h+14:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The album's second single, "With Me" failed toreproduce the success of "No, No, No"" odd word choice imo.. maybe "replicate"?
"attempted split from Mathew,"to split?
photo caption; "Michelle Williams joined the group as a replacement for Luckett and Roberson." but prose suggested that both Williams and Franklin were replacements, not Williams alone
"The Writing's on the Wall is often deemed Destiny's Child's breakthrough album, spurring their career and introducing them to a wider audience.[14][28]" I suggest moving this claim into the sales and chart success paragraph instead
This is an article I had been thinking about since I began working on improving theManhattan Project articles a decade ago. It fills a gap in detailing an important but often neglected aspect of the project, namely how it acquired the vital minerals, particularly uranium, and how it processed them to enable the creation of nuclear weapons. That story is not without drama in its own right, as it moves from Canada's Arctic region to the Congo in Africa.Hawkeye7(discuss)00:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lieutenant Colonel G. W. Beeler in April 1946 It might be good to state when his term ended (presumably when the Manhattan Project became the (AEC)
At the end of the war, Groves replaced reservists with Regular Army officers, largely drawn from the top of their West Point classes. George Wood Beeler Jr. graduated from West Point second in the class of 1933. He served on the staff of the Services of Supply and then the Communications Zone in the European Theater of Operations from February 1943 to January 1944, and then with its Advance Section (ADSEC) until August 1944. He was assistant general manager of the 2nd Military Railway Service until May 1945. He returned to the United States as a logistics planner with the War Department General Staff. He was seconded to the MED in May 1946 and served with it and then the Atomic Energy Commission until February 1947. He served with the Army staff from 1947 to 1949, and then with the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until 1951. He transferred to the Field Artillery and assumed command of the III Corps Artillery atFort Lewis, Washington. He died following an operation atLetterman Army General Hospital on 27 July 1951 and was buried in Arlington National Cemetery. He left behind a wife, Janetnée Stocke (m. 1936), a daughter, Jane, and a son, George W. Beeler III.Hawkeye7(discuss)06:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very familiar with what the Manhattan Project's purpose was after the war - was it just to produce more nuclear weapons? A sentence or two of context in Organization might be helpful.
Sorry to say this, but at 11,000 words the article feels a bit oversized. I am confident that focusing on a specific aspect of the Manhattan Project would work just as well in under 9,000—perhaps around 8,000—words, without losing any of its substance.Borsoka (talk)02:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to begin by acknowledging the considerable effort and research that have gone into this article. However, articlesare generally expected to be between about 150 and 6,000 words, with exceptions subject to increasingly stricter limits at 8,000, 9,000, and ultimately 15,000 words. In practice, many editors treat the 9,000–15,000 range—what should be an exceptional exception—as the normal standard, writing essays rather than encyclopaedic articles. If this tendency continues to be encouraged through the promotion of such long texts to FA status, Wikipedia risks moving away from its role as an encyclopaedia and towards becoming a platform for essays. This does not match what readers expect, namely clear and concise summaries of specific topics. Some topics do require greater length. An article on Human history may reasonably exceed 15,000 words; WWII likely needs more than 12,000 words; and an 8,000–9,000 word article on the Manhattan Project as a whole would be acceptable. An article of around 11,000 words on a specific aspect of that project, however, is clearly too long. For these reasons, Ioppose its promotion at this time.Borsoka (talk)05:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
File:Gilbert Labine examining uranium ore at the Eldorado Mine located at Great Bear Lake, Northwest Territories.jpg- PD-URAApresent, but US public domain rationale is missing.
File:Port Radium in 1936.jpg andFile:Radium Queen at the Fort Fitzgerald docks, July 1, 1937.jpg- Same as the previous image.
I consulted Nikkimaria, who noted the following regarding PD-URAA:
PD-URAA, which several of that article's images use, includes this statement: "there must be a statement on this page explaining why the work is in the public domain in the U.S. (for the first case) or why it was PD on the URAA date in its source country (second case). Additionally, there must be verifiable information about previous publications of the work." These are not clearly present in all cases.MSincccc (talk)04:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PD-URAA is the US rationale ie PD in the country of origin before the URAA date and PD-Canada is the Canadian PD rationale i.e. a photograph that was created prior to 1 January 1949.Hawkeye7(discuss)05:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Great article, Hawkeye. Really fascinating article on a topic I have no real interest in, but it kept me going to the end. It's long, but I think that isn't an issue on a topic like this - there's so much to get into and there isn't really any part that should be split off. Looking atWP:SIZERULE, this article can, I think, be justified by "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material".
There are a few typos to sort:
There are a couple of non-US spellings in there (reorganised, criss-crossed—non-hyphenated in AmEng, I think—signalled, volatilisation and aluminium x several)
"might actually be coming": not sure what the "actually" does here
Corrected these typos except for "aluminium".MOS:IUPAC andMOS:CONSISTENT: "the international standard spellings aluminium, sulfur, caesium (and derivative terms) should be used regardless of the variety of English otherwise employed in the article."Hawkeye7(discuss)17:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a Canadian baseball player who was at one point one of the best women's players in the world. She tragically died in her 30s in a ski accident a couple years ago; afterwards there have been many tributes to her.Bloom6132 brought this to GA status in 2022, I added some additional sources in 2025 andMike Christie gave some great comments in the PR. I look forward to your comments, and thank you for reviewing.Z1720 (talk)23:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You mention (and cite) in the lead that she batted right-handed, but this is not in the body. It would fit naturally at the first mention of softball in the body, I think.
The sentence is, "She missed only one game during the first hockey season in 2006–07 to receive the Canadian women's baseball player of the year award." There are several games in the hockey season, in which she played in every single one of the games except for one, which she missed because she travelled to Canada to accept the "Canadian women's baseball player of the year award". Is there something you would want reworded?Z1720 (talk)15:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. I was misreading it; it's fine. Though the way you rephrased it here seems slightly clearer to me, with "because she travelled to ...". But struck as there's nothing wrong with the current wording.Mike Christie (talk -contribs -library)02:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"she was second on the team in points scored with four games remaining": an odd statistic. Presumably you say it this way because that's all the source will permit you to say? If so I'd drop this.
Source just says a bachelor of science without additional information. The source (her masters thesis) states that it was a Masters of Science in "THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Forestry)". I'm not sure if something else needs to be added, and if so how to phrase it.Z1720 (talk)15:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
She completed postgraduate studies at the University of British Columbia under the supervision of Suzanne Simard, obtaining a Master of Science in 2013[7] and a Doctor of Philosophy in forestry in 2020.
For this sentence: "Asay died in a skiing accident in 2022; Baseball Canada retired her jersey number in her honour at a memorial game." - consider editing to something like the following for readability / flow: "After Asay died in a skiing accident in 2022, Baseball Canada retired her jersey number in her honour at a memorial game."
First sentence under Brown University - is the comma necessary after 2010? I'd also remove the semicolon and just have a new sentence for "She was a right-handed thrower and batter" for improved readability / flow.
Did she play only two years on the hockey team? If so, you could edit the first sentence to "Asay also played two years on the ... "
I'm unsure: while the source only lists two years, an undergrad degree is four and I couldn't find a mention of her going to a different university. I've decided to keep it ambiguous for now, and if other sources give more information I'll add it in.Z1720 (talk)01:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Playing career > Professional baseball career
Would be great to see this section expanded a bit with her performance stats, how the teams did during the seasons, etc.
After some creative search terms, I found a couple more sources on her early hockey training, professional hockey career, and stats. These have been added to the article. I don't think there's more information to add, but I'll keep looking if I think of some new terms to search for.Z1720 (talk)01:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Playing career > Ice hockey
This information seems more relevant for the ice hockey paragraph under Brown University. Move / integrate?
I added some additional professional hockey career info. Her post-Brown hockey career happened concurrently with her baseball career: I think it would be inappropriate to move the hockey career there. I am open to other suggestions on how to organise this information.Z1720 (talk)01:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As UBC is the university where she completed postgraduate studies, this section still felt out of place for me after talking about her national team and professional baseball career. I did adifferent organization - see what you think or feel free to revert.Hmlarson (talk)03:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
File:Amanda Asay 9283.jpg - released by wikipedian under cc-by-sa-4.0 license; exif etc. looks reasonable and no reason to suspect anything untoward about the uploader not holding the license.
This in the only "true" image in the article; licensing is appropriate as noted above but could use alt text. I guess the Canadian flag icon and bronze/silver medal symbols in the infobox could be considered images but there would be no issues with those.Hog FarmTalk03:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Alt text added. Commons doesn't have other images of her, and images from news sources are not publicly licensed as far as I know, so I don't think they should be used in the article when there is already a CC-4.0 licenced image.Z1720 (talk)04:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The url link works for me. Is it a paywall problem, a connection timeout, or something else? I archived the link with IA Bot.
I standardised all mentions to "Prince George Citizen" per Wikipedia's article on the source.
I don't seeJaclyn Hawkins used as a source. What is this referring to?
For her death day: the source was published January 10, 2022. The source says, "Asay...died Friday after an accident at Whitewater Ski Resort near Nelson." The "Friday" referred in this article would be Friday, January 7, 2022.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I removed "Women's Hockey Life" as the other, more high-quality sources verified the information. I added an archive link for the myprincegergenow url, so hopefully the information can be verified with that link.Z1720 (talk)16:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Asay began playing baseball when she was five and played for Prince George East in Little League Baseball, playing in the boys league..." a lot of "play-" in one sentence, would try to find a way to get rid of one of themZzz plant (talk)13:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The research would be her thesis. I think it is too much detail to specifically name the thesis and it is not mentioned in any of the sources.Z1720 (talk)16:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would also mark [10] as dead so that it directs to the archive link, she is obviously not listed as a student anymore on the live urlZzz plant (talk)13:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
generally, the professional baseball subsection doesn't seem the most intuitively organized to me- it's very brief (although that can't be helped if the sources don't have more to say) and doesn't follow a rough chronological order like the rest of the articleZzz plant (talk)13:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The professional career happened concurrent with the Canada national baseball team. I split it out to prevent the section from getting too big. I'm open to other suggestions on how to organise this and not have too many paragraphs.Z1720 (talk)16:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for the responses - much appreciated. I'm new to FAC (this was my first time commenting on one) so I'd like to get a bit more experience with the process before formally supporting.Zzz plant (talk)12:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One of my great intellectual weaknesses is that I love the works ofHilaire Belloc, a cantankerous and shamelessly partisan curmudgeon, oft-criticized for his lack of fact checking, oft-lauded for his incisive attacks onWhig history, but maybe best known forhis (possibly negative) influence on G. K. Chesterton. This book contrasts withhis main body of work in that it is an absolute delight and filled to the gills with joy. Describing his 1901 pilgrimage on foot from the town of Toul to the Vatican, newer reprints of this book have subtitled it "A Portrait of Western Europe Before the World Wars" and for good reason. The tale also contains poetry, "enchanted cigarettes", praise of windows, horse slapping, verbal abuse, arguments with an imagined reader, divine intervention, imprisonment, and a perilous fight against a midsummer blizzard. This book was my "trench companion" during some difficult years of my life and I am pleased to make this my second FAC. My deepest thanks toChiswick Chap andUndercoverClassicist for their wonderful suggestions and reviews.ThaesOfereode (talk)22:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:The_Path_to_Rome_(title_page).png needs a US tag, and the current tag appears incorrect - Belloc did not die until 1953, well under 100 years ago
File:ETH-BIB-Griesgletscher,_Nufenenstock,_Basodino,_Maggiatal_v._N._W.-Inlandflüge-LBS_MH01-005489_(cropped).tif needs a US tag. Ditto File:ETH-BIB-Villa_Bedretto,_Ronco,_Nufenenpass,_Griespass_v._O.-Inlandflüge-LBS_MH01-006141_(cropped).tif, File:Hilaire_Belloc_Low.jpg.Nikkimaria (talk)05:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the 1942 Canadian filmHere Will I Nest based on a play written byHilda Mary Hooke. It is a rather obscure film that is mostly lost, but it holds a momentous status in Canadian cinema as it was the first dramatic feature-length film shot in colour. The film was never given a theatrical release and was only shown in private showings, including one attended by PremierMitchell Hepburn. Melburn Turner would later direct Canada's first feature-length colour film in French. A fire destroyed the film, but it was partially recovered without audio; a restoration used lip readers to dub the footage.Jon698 (talk)07:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the English George Brown. He is considered one of the finest all-round cricketers to have played the game - whilst the modern day definition of an all-rounder refers to an ability to bat and bowl in equally good measure, Brown was not only able to do both of those things, but also keep-wicket. He had an extensive career in English domestic cricket with Hampshire between 1909 and 1933, ending his career as their third-highest run-scorer. He played Test cricket for England against Australia and South Africa in the 1920s, with his performances against Australia in 1921 drawing praise in what was a rather dismal series for England. His journey from obscurity playing for a mental hospital cricket team in Oxfordshire, to the heavy heights of playing Test cricket for England in the 1920s has proven interesting to research and write about; especially given his status as a professional meant he was less prominently documented than his amatuer peers. I hope this is an enjoyable read and welcome feedback.AA (talk)22:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Brown continued to play county cricket with Hampshire until 1933, after which injury forced him to retire and he then spent two seasons on the first-class umpires list.
You could split the sentence into two at "two seasons"; I leave it to you.
Playing style and statistics could be kept as an independent section rather than as a subsection underCareer; I leave it to you.
Comment. I've opted to keep it in the "Cricket career" section, as I feel it is integral to that overall section and opinions of him being the greatest all-rounder of the time.AA (talk)20:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How about movingUmpiring to theLater life and death section as it came after his retirement from playing?
Comment. I've gone with a separate section and renamed it "Umpiring career". I thought about merging it in with "Later life and death", but there are several more personal life things that overlap around the same time as his umpiring career, and also pre-date it, that could muddy that section and affect the overall flow. Hope that's okay :)AA (talk)20:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Where all mentions of a year followed by "season" I have linked. For the 1913 one, I have reworded the sentence to accomodate that.AA (talk)19:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've removed the fixed px size. And my apologies for overlooking the infobox picture. I have found where it came from. It was published in The Boys' Realm in 1922. I've amended the file information to reflect this and added US-pd. Hope this is alright!AA (talk)07:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be a direct credit to the actual author of the photograph given inThe Boys' Realm, so it would appear the author is unknown.AA (talk)08:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being a bit tardy here; I had meant to get to this earlier.
who played in seven Test matches between 1921 and 1923 and had an extensive domestic career in English county cricket with Hampshire between 1908 and 1933. – Would the second "between ... and" work better as "from ... to", perhaps? It sounds a little more natural to me than "had a career between ...".
Despite not being Hampshire's regular wicket-keeper, Hmm. The OED seems to give the word as "wicketkeeper", as do the Cambridge Dictionary and Merriam-Webster. I wouldtend to lean in the direction of those dictionaries.
Comment. Although interchangeable, I wonder if the article on here, that is title "Wicket-keeper" needs to be renamed. Might raise this on the cricket project talk page.AA (talk)20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He performed well against the Australian fast bowlers Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald and was described as "one of the few English heroes of the ill-starred 1921 Tests". – As I think this probably qualifies as an opinion, I'd consider specifying who said or wrote this (perWP:Manual of Style#Attribution:The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion).
An aggressive left-handed batsman, for Hampshire he scored 22,962 runs from 539 appearances. His runs aggregate for Hampshire is only bettered by Roy Marshall and Phil Mead. – If we connected these two with a semicolon, I think we'd be able to get away with omitting "for Hampshire" the second time. If you think this might lead to ambiguity, you could instead write "for the county" or "for the team" the second time.
Done. Gone with your second option, as I can see this perhaps being ambiguious for other reviewers, from previous experience!AA (talk)20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I didn't notice when suggesting this that we use "for the county" in the next sentence (He took 602 wickets for the county with his). Sorry about that: maybe switch the second "for the county" to "for Hampshire"? –Michael Aurel (talk)01:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He took 602 wickets for the county with his right-arm medium pace bowling, that was delivered with sharp, late outswing. – "which was" sounds better here to me.
In the early years of his career, his bowling was said to have bordered on being genuinely fast. – Unless there's a reason to highlight the time difference between him doing the bowling and people describing it, I think we can write "his bowling was said to border on".
He was a renowned fielder, and by 1920 he was considered "the finest fielder in the world". – Similarly to above, I think this qualifies as an opinion, so I'd suggest adding attribution.
In his entire first-class career he took 567 catches and made 79 stumpings. – Hmm. Above we stated that he took 568 catches and made 78 stumpings; is there a reason the numbers are different? I'm also not sure we need to state this information again.
Done. You're right, the information doesn't need to be repeated in the lead. Also, looks like an error by me! Apologies!AA (talk)20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Remarking on his all-round capabilities, the cricket historian John Arlott would later write that he was "the most complete all-round cricketer the game has ever known". – I would probably omit "Remarking on his all-round capabilities", as this is already made clear by the quote itself.
Feel free to push back here, but we include three quotes in the lead, each of which calls him "the best" at an aspect of the game. This might be alittle too much. I would probably preference the opinion of a historian over that of a teammate, for example.
Done. Yeah, on reflection, the comment by Kennedy doesn't hold as much weight to be in the lead. I have retained it later in the article, to allude to the high esteem his "part-time" wicketkeeping was held in by his contemporaries.AA (talk)22:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After his playing career, Brown settled in Winchester. There he became a publican and later a parking attendant. – These two sentences are quite short. I'd suggest combining them.
In his latter years he was afflicted by several illnesses. He died in hospital in Winchester on 3 December 1964, aged 77. – As above, I would consider combining these two short sentences.
Done. Merged. Though, I'm trying to word it, and each time I look at this it sounds "off":"In his latter years he was afflicted by several illnesses, with Brown dying in hospital in Winchester on 3 December 1964, aged 77."AA (talk)20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MaybeIn his latter years he was afflicted by several illnesses, and he died in hospital in Winchester on 3 December 1964, aged 77? Another option would be to combine them with a semicolon:In his latter years he was afflicted by several illnesses; he died in hospital in Winchester on 3 December 1964, aged 77. –Michael Aurel (talk)01:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was while playing against Oxford University that he was observed by C. B. Fry, – I think this could be slightly shortened to "While playing against Oxford University, he was observed by C. B. Fry,"
He was then offered a cricket trial at Hampshire in 1906, – We did mention "cricket" above, so if we want to link to it, we should probably do so there. Also, by "Hampshire", do you mean the place or the team? If it's the latter (which is what the link suggests), would "with" work better, perhaps?
walking the 60 miles (97 km) from Oxford to Southampton hauling his possessions in a tin trunk. – Not sure this quite works: I'd add a "while" in front of "hauling".
With his medium pace bowling, he took 39 wickets at a bowling average of 25.03. – The second "bowling" can probably be omitted, as I think it's implied that this is his bowling average (rather than a different sort of average).
In just his second County Championship match, he claimed his maiden five wicket haul with figures 5 for 47 against Somerset; – I think "five-wicket" should be hyphenated here. Also, I'd add an "of" after "figures".
he took five wickets or more in an innings twice more during the season. – A bit picky, but perhaps do something like "he took five or more wickets in two further innings during the season", to avoid the repetition of "more"?
Not a big deal, but we do use "first-class" a fair bit in this section, especially as part of the phrase "first-class appearances". I'd consider cutting it in a few places.
Comment. I've retained the mention of making his maiden first-class century (as I'm sure at club level he likely made plenty before playing for Hampshire) and on the West Indies tour, as the tour would have been made up of several "minor" matches.AA (talk)20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the same number of first-class appearances in 1910, Brown scored – I'd probably just go for "In 23 appearances", as some readers won't recall the number of appearances we mentioned in the previous paragraph (there are quite a few numbers in that paragraph).
In the 1911 English season, he had his most successful season as a bowler, – I'd consider shortening this to something like "The 1911 English season was his most successful as a bowler" (this might require altering the position of the semicolon after this).
Done. I have reworded this section to read:"The1911 English season was his most successful season as a bowler, taking 88 wickets at an average of 25.89. He claimed five or more wickets in an innings on five occasions andten-wickets in a match once; he ended the season as Hampshire's leading wicket-taker in theCounty Championship, 20 ahead of Newman's 67 wickets."
Nice, that's better. Two just minor points: I would omit the second "season" in the first sentence, and I think "ten wickets" probably shouldn't have a hyphen. –Michael Aurel (talk)01:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. We have three sentences on his bowling in 1911, and include three different "x wickets in a match/an innings" statistics. I'd probably remove the sentence about the six-wicket hauls, as we mention he took five or more wickets on five occasions, which I think most readers will assume probably included at least one or two innings where he took 6 wickets. Let me know what you think.
Done. I did consider making note of his season best figures being 6 for 24 against Somerset, but in reflection, it doesn't really add much in the grand scheme, so have removed it.AA (talk)20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He ended the season as Hampshire's leading wicket-taker in the County Championship, 20 ahead of Newman's 67 wickets. – Unless I'm missing something, we state above that he took 88, but 20 + 67 = 87.
Done. Sorry, I should have been clearer. He took 88 wickets that season, but played for the MCC earlier in the season, with his bowling being used sparingly, resulting in him taking one wicket. The remainder were in the County Championship. Worth a footnote?AA (talk)20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Footnote added:"Brown played two matches for the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) at the beginning of the 1911 season, taking one wicket. The remainder of his wickets came for Hampshire in the County Championship."AA (talk)17:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Brown was less prolific in 1912, scoring 630 runs at an average of 20.32 from 29 appearances, – This is probably an annoying one: we use the phrase "at an average of x" quite a lot in this section, and "at an average of x from y appearances" is fairly common here too. If possible, I'd swap some of these out for similar phrases like "averaging x" and "over y matches".
Comment. How does this read?"Brown was less prolific in 1912, averaging 20.32 from 29 appearances, whilst averaging 31.82 for his 47."AA (talk)20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He did, however, play an important part in Hampshire's defeat of the touring Australians, taking four key wickets in the match. – I think "in the match" can be omitted here (as I don't think it would've been possible for him to take them outside the match).
Done. Haha! A very valid point. Though I did once come across an English one-day scorecard that had the same player playing in two different matches at opposite ends of the country on the same day... CricketArchive conceded he could not have teleported and corrected it!AA (talk)20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
for the second time and taking his career best bowling figures. – This should be hyphenated, I think. I'd also swap out "taking his" for "achieving", because we use "taking" quite a bit.
With the bat, he scored with 1,263 runs at an average of 25.26. – Spare "with". The "With the bat" also feels fairly similar to the first part of the previous sentence. Not sure what's best here: you could merge this information into that sentence, or it might even be appropriate to omit this information altogether, as we've imparted quite a few numbers to the reader at this point.
Done. Agreed. The reader is already informed he passed a thousand runs for the second time, so an exact number isn't really required.AA (talk)21:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That reads much better. Just one small point: inHe passed a thousand runs for the second time, whilst against Essex at Leyton, would "and" work a little better than "whilst"? I wouldn't say there's really a contrast between the two statements. –Michael Aurel (talk)01:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He achieved his career-best bowling figures (8 for 55) against Gloucestershire at Cheltenham, – Hmm. Because we stated this in an earlier sentence, I'd see if the repetition can be removed: I think it works better here, where it's placed in context. I also think that some could interpret "taking his career-best bowling figures" in that earlier sentence to mean he took more wickets in that year than any other in his career.
Nice, that's all much better. The sentence starting withHe passed a thousand runs and ending ina Hampshire record for that wicket is quite long, though: I'd split that up, and then everything here's good to go, I think. –Michael Aurel (talk)01:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. Just one small follow-up: I don't thinkafter Hampshire had been asked to follow-on 317 runs behind Essex's first innings total works after the semicolon, as it isn't a full sentence. Maybe connect it with a comma to the preceding or following sentence? –Michael Aurel (talk)12:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With the ball, he took 54 wickets at an average of 27.85, but did not achieve any five wicket hauls. – Hyphenate.
Done. And removed "with the ball", a habit I have noticed I have fallen into. How else would he take wickets? Not with the bat, a boomerang, or any other object!AA (talk)21:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With the MCC President Francis Lacey confirming the cessation of cricket during the war, first-class cricket in England was suspended until 1919. – This reads a little more naturally to me if it starts with "The MCC President Francis Lacey confirmed ...", as otherwise it might sound as though it was decided in 1914 that 1919 was the year they would return to playing cricket.
Done. Now reads:"The MCC President Francis Lacey confirmed the cessation of cricket during the war, with first-class cricket in England remaining suspended until 1919."
Unlike many of his peers, Brown did not immediately sign up for service in the war. – I think this could probably be shortened a little: maybe "did not immediately enlist"?
In February 1915, he was made superintendent of a recreation hall built for troops near Southampton Docks – Hmm. Was the hall located near Southampton Docks or was it created for use by troops who lived near Southampton Docks?
Done. Ah yes, I can see that is ambiguous. Reworded to:"In February 1915, he was made superintendent of a recreation hall built nearSouthampton Docks which had been furnished by Hampshire County Cricket Club and was to be used by troops."
He would be conscripted in 1917, though he did not see action. He was discharged in August 1918, on account of rheumatism. – As these sentences are fairly short, I suggest combining them.
a Hampshire team that had been greatly weakened by the deaths of several pre-war players in the conflict. – I think "pre-war" isn't needed here (as I don't think there was any chance of these dead players continuing their playing careers after the war!). I also think we could get away with omitting "in the conflict", as that's implied.
Done. Have omitted both; I think it is fairly self-explanatory that the several who died were killed as a result of the war.AA (talk)22:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Upon the resumption of first-class cricket in 1919, Brown was selected to represent ... in July, – As we've stated earlier that first-class cricket resumed in 1919, I'd omit that here. Would just "In July 1919, ..." work?
represent the Players for the first time in the Gentlemen versus Players match at The Oval – PerMOS:NOFORCELINK, I'd give a very brief explanation of what this match was, and who made up the two sides.
Done. I have explained who played for who, and why (with a reference). As for the matches themselves, they were "exhibition" matches, loosely tied with selection to the Test team - i.e., someone performed well in this match, theycould earn a call to play in a Test, though this was never officially their purpose, and at times the teams were quite weak, particularly the amateurs.AA (talk)
whilst later in the season he was chosen to play for the South against the Australian Imperial Forces. – Hmm. These two weren't happening at the same time, and I don't think there's a contrast between the statements, so I'm not sure "whilst" is the right word here. The best solution might be to split these sentences, after the explanation about the Gentlemen v Players match is added.
Done and comment Sentence split, I'll insert a brief explanation of what the context of the match was and who made up the teams in terms of "status".AA (talk)22:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Across the 1919 season, Brown made 19 first-class appearances. In these, he scored – I think these could be combined: "appearances, scoring ..." (this might require tweaking the later part of the sentence).
he kept wicket in place of Sydney Maartensz, who was himself deputising for Walter Livsey who was still on active military service. – If possible, I'd avoid the double "who was": maybe omit the first and add a comma after "Livsey"?
Done. Though for some reason, the sentence annoys me. What do you think?"In the latter half of the season, he kept wicket in place ofSydney Maartensz who had been deputising forWalter Livsey, who was still on active military service."
Yes, it's a tricky one. MaybeIn the latter half of the season, he kept wicket in place of Sydney Maartensz, himself deputising for Walter Livsey, who was still on active military service? –Michael Aurel (talk)02:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Despite his bowling being used sparingly in the season (he bowled just 387 balls and took 5 wickets), – I'd go for something like "Despite the sparing use of his bowling". Alternatively, we could just start with "Though he bowled only 387 balls ...".
Done. Now reads:"Despite the sparing use of his bowling in 1919 (he bowled just 387 balls), he was adjudged in August to be the best all-rounder in England." Keep the bracket?AA (talk)22:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The first, an unbeaten 232, contributed to an innings victory against the – Hmm. By "innings victory", do we mean they won without needing to bat a second time? If so, I might spell this out a bit more, for readers without a cricketing background.
Comment. Would this best be explained in a footnote? Trying to figure out how that can be included there without affecting the flow?AA (talk)22:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Footnote added:" A victory by an innings refers to the team bowling last winning the game, having only batted one innings compared to its opponent's two, thereby winning by an innings and a number of runs."AA (talk)21:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
against the reigning County Champions Yorkshire; – This reads a little more naturally to me with a comma before "Yorkshire".
the second, a score of 230, came against Essex in August in a drawn match – Earlier we said that both double-centuries were made in June. I'd make this consistent.
He would end the season as Hampshire's leading run scorer in the County Championship. – I'd write "ended the season". It might also be worth using his name again, as we've referred to other people in the previous sentence.
Brown ended the season with 26 wickets at an average of 30.96 in the County Championship. – As we ended the previous sentence with "in the County Championship", I'd omit that phrase here.
During the season, Brown made his second appearance in – As I think we're already temporally situated in this season, I'm not sure "During this season" is needed. If we know the month, noting that instead might be good.
Just one minor follow-up point: if possible, see if the "Brown ended the season" phrase inWith Kennedy and Newman leading Hampshire's bowling attack, Brown ended the season with 26 wickets at an average of 30.96 can be switched up, as we use the same wording in the previous sentence. –Michael Aurel (talk)02:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Now reads:"With Kennedy and Newman leading Hampshire's bowling attack in 1920, Brown only took 26 wickets at an average of 30.96." Though I am wondering if "1920" is needed.AA (talk)21:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Brown made his second appearance in Gentlemen versus Players match – "a Gentlemen versus Players match"
Gentlemen versus Players match at Lord's – I think this technically reads that saying this was the second such match he'd played at Lord's, whereas above we wrote that the previous match was held at The Oval. Something like "match, which was held at Lord's" might work.
Midway through the season, Accrington of the Lancashire League attempted to sign Brown as their professional for the 1921 season, – Is there a word missing before "for", perhaps?
Comment. It is meant to read like that, as Lancashire League sides were permitted from 1900 to field only one professional player - not much need to specify any specific player role(s) as a result.AA (talk)22:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is down to the end of the "Post-war resumption" section. Everything here is in pretty good order, especially considering this didn't go through a GA review. Looking forward to your responses. –Michael Aurel (talk)08:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to do such a thorough review of the first 3 sections, please find by responses above, with some queries.AA (talk)22:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Brown made a half century (57 runs) from the middle order in – Hmm, should "half-century" be hyphenated? Also, I think I might have missed this above (so I'd check for it elsewhere, if you do think it should be changed).
In the Fourth Test at Old Trafford, he made 31 runs opening the batting in England's only innings of a rain affected match, – I'd hyphenate "rain-affected" here.
while in the drawn Fifth Test he made scores of 32 and 84 opening the batting, – As I'm not sure there's a genuine contrast here, I'd consider using "and" in place of "while".
in the drawn Fifth Test he made scores of 32 and 84 opening the batting, sharing in a partnership of 158 runs for the first wicket with Jack Russell in England's second innings – Some slight trimming might be possible here: would something like "in the drawn Fifth Test he opened the batting and scored 32 and 84, the latter as part of a first-wicket partnership of 158 runs with Jack Russell" work? I think the "second innings" part is implied this way.
Done. Nice reworded, this is much more succinct and straight to the point. It is also implied by the "second innings", so a fantastic rewording!AA (talk)20:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
with Arlott remarking how he had played well against the fast bowlers Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald, – As this seems to be the first place we mention him in the body, I'd use his full name, link him, and include the short introduction ("cricket historian").
Done. Now properly introduced.
the fast bowlers Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald, whom his contemporaries struggled against – A nitpick: "against whom his contemporaries struggled" sounds slightly more natural to me.
Brown made 28 appearances in 1922, scored 988 runs at an average of 21.18, whilst taking 17 wickets at an average of 34.94 – Nothing wrong with this sentence itself, but it reads quite similarly to the previous one: if possible, I'd try to switch up the wording a little.
Done. Now reads:"Brown scored 988 runs at an average of 21.18 from 28 appearances in 1922,[8] whilst taking 17 wickets at an average of 34.94.AA (talk)21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He played in the team that opposed Warwickshire at Edgbaston in the County Championship in June, that resulted in an unlikely victory for Hampshire. – Hmm. The words "opposed" and "that" read a little awkwardly here to me: would something like "In the County Championship in June, he played in an unlikely victory against Warwickshire ..." work? I think the mention of his team can probably be elided (as it's been mentioned above).
Done. I've had a go at rewording his a little:"He played in an unlikely victory by 155 runs against Warwickshire at Edgbaston in the County Championship in June. Hampshire were all out (I've linked "all out" toEnd of an innings) for 15 runs in their first innings, with Brown one of eight batsmen to be dismissed without scoring]], and were forced to follow on 228 runs behind. I felt inserting "Hampshire" made it read more naturally than before, and added "all out" to repeat the use of "dismissed" twice in short succession. How does that read?AA (talk)21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hampshire were forced to follow-on 228 runs behind – I'd delink "follow-on", as it was mentioned above. Also, I wonder if "follow on" should have the hyphen when it's used as a verb? (This might apply above as well.)
Brown's innings was crucial to Hampshire's eventual victory by 155 runs. – Hmm, this feels a tad redundant to me, as we said earlier that he was the top scorer, and we've mentioned that they won the match. The "155 runs" could probably be worked into an earlier sentence, if you wanted.
Done. Rejigged the "155 runs" and omitted the remainder.AA (talk)
Livsey broke a finger in the tour match against North Eastern Districts and so Brown kept-wicket. – Shouldn't be hyphenated, I don't think.
Brown's batting declined over the following three seasons, with him failing to pass a thousand runs in a season from 1923 to 1925 and his batting average not surpassing 23. – I think this can be compacted a little: something like "Brown's batting declined from 1923 to 1925, each season scoring less than a thousand runs and averaging less than 23", maybe?
Done. Now reads:Brown's batting declined from 1923 to 1925, scoring less than a thousand runs in each season and averaging under 23. Have used "under" to avoid a double use of "less".AA (talk)21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He had his most successful season in the 1926 season, – Maybe "The 1926 season was his most successful"?
surpassing 2,000 runs ... His 2,040 runs from 31 matches ... Despite passing 2,000 runs, – I'd see if this can be condensed a little.
Done. Starting from "The 1926 season..." now reads:"The 1926 season was his most successful, scoring 2,040 runs from 31 matches at an average of exactly 40, with six centuries. Despite surpassing 2,000 runs for the only time in his career, he was not Hampshire's leading run-scorer in the County Championship; that accolade belonged to Mead (2,274 runs).". How's that?AA (talk)21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
His five centuries by July earned him a recall to the England Test team for the Fifth Test – I'd omit "to the England Test team" here, as I think that's implied.
of the 1926 Ashes series, however he injured his thumb making his sixth century of the season against Leicestershire immediately before the Test, – Not sure "however" quite works here: maybe go for a semicolon ("series; however, he injured")?
Playing in sixteen first-class matches on the Indian leg of tour, he scored 591 runs at an average of 26.86, and in Ceylon he played in two first-class matches, scoring 79 runs. – Could this perhaps be shortened to something like "He played in sixteen first-class matches on the Indian leg of tour, scoring 591 runs at an average of 26.86, and two first-class matches in Ceylon, scoring 79 runs"?
He scored four centuries and made his third career double century, – A bit of a nitpick, but maybe "scored four centuries, including his third career double century"?
Brown tore a ligament in the match; this kept him out of the Hampshire team for three weeks and limited his appearances to 18. – As the first part is fairly short here, I think this might work better without the semicolon ("match, keeping him out ...").
he had returned home ill from a winter coaching engagement in South Africa and was subsequently invalided out for the entire season. In 32 appearances in 1930, Brown scored – Hmm. Let me know if I'm missing something here, but how did he play 32 matches if he was invalided out for the whole season?
Oops, I've just realised we meant thatLivsey returned home ill. Maybe write "afterthe latter had returned home ill", in case others read it the same way? –Michael Aurel (talk)12:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Haha, no worries. I went with:"Brown deputised for Livsey as wicket-keeper at the beginning of the 1930 season, afterLivsey had returned home ill from a winter coaching engagement in South Africa and was invalided out for the entire season."AA (talk)21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
as wicket-keeping, he took 48 catches and made 16 stumpings. – "wicket-keeper"
He scored 1,032 runs at an average of exactly 24, and took 37 catches and made 13 stumpings keeping-wicket. – To me, this would read slightly better as a list ("24, took 37 catches, and ..."). I also think "keeping-wicket" could be omitted here.
In the 1933 season, Brown made 26 appearances, scoring 1,075 runs at an average of exactly 25. – Nothing wrong with this on its own, but the wording is similar to the previous sentence, so I'd see if it can be varied up a bit.
Done. Gone with:"Brown made 26 appearances in the 1933 season, scoring 1,075 runs at an average of exactly 25." How's that?AA (talk)21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, thanks. One more thought: to avoid the "scoring x at an average of y" phrasing, could we perhaps switchscoring 1,075 runs at an average of exactly 25 toscoring 1,075 runs and averaging exactly 25? –Michael Aurel (talk)01:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
His season was interrupted in June by a fractured skull that caused him to miss some matches. – As "season was interrupted" and "miss some matches" feel similar in nature, maybe go for something like "In June, he fractured his skull, causing ..."? Also, do we know the number of matches he missed?
Done and comment. Went with that wording. In terms of matches missed, he was out between 21 June and 12 July, during which time Hampshire played three matches. Would it be presumptive orWP:OR to assume he would have played in all three? He almost certainly would have, but would it be supposition?AA (talk)21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the source specifies that three matches took place in that time, Ithink we're in the clear to say that he "missed" them. If the source gives those dates, and these matches were occurring at very regular intervals (such as once a week, which the dates you've given would seem to suggest), then I think it's also fine. If not, I think there are ways around this (including opting for something "miss several matches", which is a little more precise). Let me know what you think. –Michael Aurel (talk)01:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He was injured in an accident prior to the start of the season, with him not sufficiently recovering to play during the summer. – "and did not sufficiently recover" sounds a tad more natural to me.
He subsequently retired in September, alongside Kennedy. – I think "subsequently" can probably be omitted here. Also, you could connect this to the previous sentence with a semicolon, as it's quite short.
he was granted a testimonial in 1934 that raised £292, which was presented to Brown in December by Sir Russell Bencraft. – I think "Brown" could probably be replaced with "him".
The cricket writer Bill Frindall later described Brown as – By "later", I think we mean that these comments were made after Brown's death? As this isn't entirely explicit, perhaps replace it with "in 1989" or omit it?
He was adept at both hooking and driving the ball, in addition to his own shot – I didn't know what "hooking" was, admittedly. Maybe go for a link towikt:hook shot orBatting (cricket)#Pull and hook? There's perhaps an argument that a similar link should be added to "driving", though that one might be more self-explanatory.
in addition to his own shot – the whip – that was a forward shot played to any ball that was fast and short. – "which" sounds a little better in place of the first "that", to me. Alternatively, I think "the whip – a forward shot ..." would work.
Done. Now reads:"In addition to his own shot – the whip – a forward shot played to any ball that was fast and short."AA (talk)13:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, E. W. Swanton theorised that Brown's approach was more a reflection of his mood on the day, as opposed to the state of the match, an opinion matched by Arlott. – "matched" basically makes sense here, though "shared" sounds a little more natural to me (and we also use "match" a few words earlier).
His physical strength also enabled him to bowl long spells. – Nothing amiss with the wording here, but "spell" might be a little cricket-ese. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a perfect linking option here: I don't think we can link to the specific "spell" entry atGlossary of cricket terms (only the section), and it's difficult to find the relevant definition atwikt:spell. Alternatively, you could give a brief explanation of the term in brackets or, if it doesn't change the meaning too much, rephrase this to something like "bowl for long periods of time".
Brown's bowling bordered on being genuinely fast, with him utilising sharp, late outswing. – I'd linkoutswinger. And sorry to slap you with the style guides, but I'd just write "used" (see, for example, Gowers on "utilised").
Done. Linked and reworded:"In his younger years, Brown's bowling bordered on being genuinely fast, and used sharp, late outswing."AA (talk)13:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He would score a thousand runs or more in a season on eleven occasions. – "scored", maybe?
For Hampshire he made 539 appearances, scoring 22,962 runs; he has the third-highest number of runs for Hampshire in first-class cricket, behind Roy Marshall and Mead. – As we use "for Hampshire" a few times across this and the next sentence, maybe swap the second out for "the county"?
He made 37 centuries, all for Hampshire, alongside 96 half-centuries for the county. – Maybe "He made 37 centuries and 96 half-centuries for Hampshire"?
He shared in a three-figure partnership for every Hampshire wicket, except the sixth. – I don't think there's much chance of "every Hampshire wicket" being read as "every wicket in Hampshire", but the phrase does read slightly oddly to me, and it might be ideal to avoid another use of "Hampshire". If we appended this to the previous sentence, I think we'd be able to write something like "and shared in a three-figure partnership for each wicket, except the sixth".
He took 626 wickets at an average of 29.81 in his career, while for Hampshire he took 602 wickets, – As I'm not sure there's a genuine contrast here, maybe write "602 of which were for Hampshire"?
drawing comparisons to Percy Chapman. – I think this could sound as though Thomson was the one making these comparisons. Something like "with E. W. Swanton comparing him to Percy Chapman" could work. It might also be worth noting Chapman's fielding ability, so it's a little clearer why this comparison is significant.
Done. This now reads:"Thomson described how his fielding was aided by having "carpet-bag hands" and that he could "stop a cannon-ball anywhere else in the field", with Swanton comparing him to Percy Chapman, who R. C. Robertson-Glasgow considered one of the greatest fielders of all time." How does that read?AA (talk)13:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In his entire first-class career he took 567 catches and made 79 stumpings, – As "stumpings" was mentioned above, I'd recommend transferring the link there (the first mention seems to behe took 48 catches and made 16 stumpings).
He spent two seasons on the list, standing in 45 first-class matches. – As we mentioned it as the first-class list in the previous sentence, I think we'd be able to omit "first-class" here.
an experimental law was introduced in which the batsman could be dismissed leg before wicket (lbw) even if the ball pitched outside the line of off stump. – I fear this might be a little technical for non-cricket fans. Maybe add a link toStump (cricket)#Part of the wicket? Another option would be to point the reader toLeg before wicket#Definition, which contains a good explanation of the concept.
Also, is "the" opening match correct here? If not, maybe write "In one of the first matches of the ..." or something similar?
Comment. Strictly speaking, yes, as it was one of the first round of matches in the County Championship. However, the wording you have used is much simplier and concise.AA (talk)13:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was not the first time that Brown had encountered legal troubles. – Hmm. I initially read this as saying that Brown himself was the one who had been in trouble. More broadly, this story seems a tad out of place to me, as chronologically it fits into the section above. You could try working it into that earlier section, but I understand it might seem out of place there too, given the title is "Cricket career". Another option would be to remove this altogether, if that seems appropriate (that his son-in-law was convicted for assaulting him doesn't feel as though it's super crucial information about Brown himself).
In 1931 the estranged husband of his daughter and several of his family members – This only applies if we keep this part: I'd clarify whether we're referring to Brown's family members or the family members of the husband.
Brown had a son, also called George, who served as a police officer during the Second World War – Maybe "Brown had a son, George"?
In his latter years, he overcame several illnesses that Arlott remarked "only his mighty constitution could have survived". – "which" works a little better here, to my ears.
Comment. This is linked above under "Early life and cricket career", however it is [[County Ground, Southampton|Southampton]]. Would you still like me to link it a second time?AA (talk)13:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the presence of cricketing peers and family; family members present included his wife, Mabel, and his daughter. – I think this could be condensed a little: something along the lines of "the presence of cricketing peers and family members, including his wife, Mabel, and daughter" would work.
Everything here seems nicely done to me: the writing is clear and accessible, and the coverage looks comprehensive. I don't see any issues with the sources, which include print books, and seem to be reliable and appropriate to the topic. The above suggestions consist mostly of minor prose recommendations, and I see nothing substantial standing in the way of a support. –Michael Aurel (talk)04:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A thoroughly enjoyable trip, despite the -12°C temperature! Thank you for taking the time to do such an in-depth review. It's been very helpful and given me some pointers I've copied over toDimitri Mascarenhas, who I hope will be an FA at some point in the coming months. Cheers again,AA (talk)23:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the unlikely winner of the1986 World Snooker Championship, who was known for his carefree attacking play and his fancy shoes. After a largely unsuccessful year as champion, he reached the final again in1987 but lost. He did win further, lesser, titles as a professional and retired in 2005. A survivor of seven heart attacks, he is still playing on the seniors snooker circuit. Rodney Baggins has kindly addressed the issues found at the first nomination. Thanks in advance for improvement suggestions. Regards,BennyOnTheLoose (talk)13:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on thelede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards thewikicup once this review is over.
"Johnson started off as a 150–1 outsider at the 1986 World Championship." - I think there needs to be some sort of gloss as to what this means. Is this gambling odds?
" As an amateur, he became the British under-19 champion in 1971, defeating Tony Knowles in the final." - the article body does not state that he defeated Knowles in the 1971 competition (and the article atBritish Junior Snooker Championship claimed he defeated one George Crimes, sourced to an offline 1970s newspaper article)
"which was the most significant win of Johnson's professional career up to that point" - should this be attributed?
As this derives from a newspaper article, I've removed it. This win isn't mentioned in Morrison (1987), Morrison (1988) or Williams & Gadsby, Paul (2005).BennyOnTheLoose (talk)12:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"which was Johnson's first televised match as a professional," - this is stated in a section which is referring to 1983, but earlier in the article is "Johnson achieved little success in his early professional career and gained a reputation for not performing well in televised matches." which I would assume to be referring to things before 1983 given that amount of discussion and career events between these two statements. Especially since he seems to have had world ranking points by 1983 which I wouldn't think would go with "achieved little success"?
This article is about a fictional alien species from the British science-fiction television seriesDoctor Who. The Ice Warriors are a reptilian race who hail from the planet Mars, and serve as recurring characters within the series.
Round two! I previously nominated this atWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ice Warrior/archive1. Though that was not passed, it has undergone some extensive work courtesy of reviews from other editors on the prior FAC, as well as thanks to a visit to the GOCE and additional copyedits fromUser:Olliefant. As it stands I believe I have addressed all of the major concerns from the prior FAC nomination and made sure it has thoroughly been gone over. Hopefully it will go better this time. Any and all comments are appreciated! Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)02:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Don't use fixed px size
File:DWE_Ice_Warrior_(20814233031).jpg: could you elaborate on why this is believed to meet UK freedom of panorama rules? It does not appear to be permanent. Ditto /File:Cardiff_Bay_-_Dalek_-_geograph.org.uk_-_5253753.jpg, File:Cyberman_based_on_The_Moonbase.jpg, File:DWE_S07_Ice_Warrior.jpg, File:DWE_S10_Ice_Warrior.jpg
For the Ice Lord image: Yes, the channel that's from is an affiliated and official channel associated with the series, so it should be authorized (So long as it is properly tagged, of course). For the other images, Doctor Who Experience has previously been discussed (Such as atWikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_34#Derivative work question andCommons:Deletion_requests/File:The_Silence_(11030194386).jpg) and has been kept and used historically in articles in the past, so that hopefully should be fine, but if it is not, that would likely warrant a further, project-wide discussion given how widely images from there are used. The Cyberman image, I've discovered, actually is not from DWE as I thought it was, so I've replaced it with an image from there for the time being and nominated the OG for deletion (Since it instead hails from a very short-lived event). I've removed the fixed px size on the lead. Let me know if anything further needs to be done. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)18:58, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing a strong consensus that this interpretation is correct in those links. What did you have in mind in terms of project-wide discussion?Nikkimaria (talk)05:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I can start a discussion atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who about the topic, which is likely to get the active Who editors' attention. A potential discussion atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Television could also do for wider, non Doctor Who editor consensus as well, though I'm admittedly unsure of which WikiProject to center the discussion at, so I would appreciate your suggestion on that. Hopefully discussion will help finally settle this given it's been an ongoing discussion to an extent.
For the purposes of this FAC, I can temporarily remove the DWE images and replace the lead image with a fair use one while the discussion is ongoing? Granted I'm admittedly unsure of what to do for a situation like this, since it's a bit of a unique case I haven't run into before. I appreciate any advice in that regard. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)06:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine in terms of images. In terms of discussion, though, I'm not sure that's the best choice - what we really need is input regarding copyright status.WP:MCQ might be a better bet.Nikkimaria (talk)23:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I can start an MCQ discussion. Should relevant Projects be notified as well?
@Nikkimaria I have started an MCQ discussion. For the time being I've added a fair use image for the Ice Warriors, substituting the old Ice Lord one. This hails from the show's official website and is used for promotional purposes. I've subbed in a few other free images as well that should be non-controversial temporarily as well. All have ALT text added for the time being. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)04:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to this article, the images currently present are appropriately licensed/justified, so the current status is fine as far as this nomination goes. Beyond this nomination, you could try pinging MCQ contributors or posting pointers to the MCQ post atWT:IUP or other relevant pages.Nikkimaria (talk)23:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Prose review: I made copy-edits to the article while I was reading.
I think the first and second paragraphs, and the third and fourth paragraphs in "In spin-off media", need to be merged as one-sentence paragraphs make the format a little wonky.
"For the 1974 season," in the UK, aren't these called "series"?
In general, the "Reception" section follows the "X said Y" pattern that makes this section quite long and uninteresting. I suggest readingWP:RECEPTION on ideas of how to avoid this sentence format.
"highlighted the use of the Ice Warriors inThe Curse of Peladon as the episode's "ace"." What does being an episode's "ace" mean? This should be reworded in the article.
-I have elected to merge the first three paras into one, as they are summarizing overall species appearances. The fourth para I left separate since it discusses a particular Ice Warrior character. This should pare down the para splits while keeping each section focused, but let me know if you disagree with this formatting.
-The seasons that aired in the show's original run are officially referred to as seasons, whereas those from the show's 2005 revival are officially referred to as series.
-I've reworded the "ace" line, let me know if it needs further tweaking.
I need a little time to workshop the reception and review your provided essay. I'll let you know when that's done (Hopefully in one or two days' time) Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)05:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 addressed your reception concerns to the best of my ability. I've tried shuffling them around and rewording them to make them flow better, and made sure the topic sentences were more direct and focused. I'm not sure if this has addressed your concerns, so I would appreciate a re-read to see.
I've also elected to shift the fourth paragraph and shuffle its constituent parts throughout the article, which should help with making the reception feel less disjointed and boost the coverage in other areas. Let me know if this is good or not. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)05:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I now think the first paragraph of the "Spin off media" is quite large. I suggest splitting this up into two paragraphs.
I still think the reception suffers from X says Y. Consider the last paragraph, where every sentence except the first follows this format. The section already seems like it is grouped into themes of appearances (first, second, etc.). The next step is to combine what two or more reviewers said about them. For example, if three reviews said that the IW were the best part ofThe Curse of Peladon, the article could say "Several reviewers stated that the Ice Warriors were the best aspect ofThe Curse of Peladon" and then cite all three reviews. The average reader doesn't care about the individual thoughts of a reviewer they have never heard of before: they want to know what reviewer's reception of the chracters were, and they want to be able to read the information quickly.Z1720 (talk)04:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
-I have split off the bit of analysis on these spin-off appearances to its own paragraph; I am not sure if that resolves the problem of size or not, so let me know on that.
-The season v series debacle was something I mentioned in my earlier response. For Doctor Who, seasons are used to refer to Classic era stuff (Things that aired in the show's original 1963-1989 run), while series are used to refer to revival era stuff (Things that aired from 2005 onwards). Take, for example,Doctor Who season 5, a 1960s season, vsDoctor Who series 5, a 2010s season; the naming helps to differentiate the two and avoid confusion. While traditionally series are used for British programs, seasons have historically been used for specifically Classic stuff, both in and outside of Wikipedia.
-I've tried trimming and condensing commentary per your advice, though I've elected to keep some comments that are very noteworthy about the wider topic of the paragraph intact. This should hopefully help make it less "X says Y" than before, as it's gone down from 6 or so in the final paragraph to only 2 usages, for example, with the rest of the sources summarized with overarching commentary. I've tried doing trims on all three paragraphs per your suggestion, let me know if this is good and if anything more needs to be done. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)00:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As part of a review exchange. Will be doing a spotcheck within the next couple of days; I will be checking 2 5ths of the article citations or as many as possible (if lower than the 2 5ths count due to print sourcing).λNegativeMP100:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ran into a problem: The print sourcing here is a lot more abundant than expected. I could not check 2 5ths. I have checked what I can, but if this is deemed unsatisfactory, I may have to request page excerpts or another review may be required. Anyways, 21 sources were checked, which I guess is close enough:
Spotcheck
1: Y
2: Y (I cannot check the full page due to the paywall, but what little bit I can see before the page fully loads suggests to me that this is fine (at the very least, we know the source discusses regeneration)).
4: Y
5: Y (Verifies everything but the wrists thing from what I can tell, but will assume good faith that 6 verifies that part)
7: Y
a: Y
b: Y
c: Y
8: Y
a: Y
12: Y
15: Y
a: Y
b: Y
34: Maybe Y? Will, again, have to assume good faith here, but highlighting proves that this specific sequence of pages at least discusses the Ice Warriors.
@NegativeMP1 I have a physical copy of 34 if you need page numbers and quotes for it. I can also get any quotes from certain other print sources, such as the Complete History, if need be. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)04:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I was able to check a sizeable amount of the sources. I'm still comfortable labeling this a pass. I appreciate the offer though.λNegativeMP104:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2025 U.S. Figure Skating Championships is well on its way to Featured Article. The team skating event from the 2022 Winter Olympics is Beijing is one of the most notorious skating competitions in recent history. The concept is simple: ten of the most prolific nations in figure skating enter their best skaters in competition, skaters earn points based on how they rank in terms of results, and after two rounds, medals are awarded. Except that last part didn't happen. Just before the medal ceremony was scheduled to take place, the IOC announced that it was postponed indefinitely because the Russian women's skater had tested positive for a banned substance. Now, Russia was already on thin ice – no pun intended – for, *checks notes*, a history of systemic doping. Two years of litigation followed before the gold and silver medals were finally awarded at the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris. Anyway, there is a lot to this article: an explanation of required skating elements, an explanation of how skating events are judged, two rounds of skating with four events each, plus the rigamarole that followed. The competition results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, the background and history have been extensively re-written, the sources are properly formatted and archived where possible, and relevant photographs are used. I look forward to any and all constructive feedback and am willing to answer any questions. Thank you so much!Bgsu98(Talk)20:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bgsu98, I can't see where coordinator permission to open a second nomination has been granted. Could you provide the diff ASAP, thanks. I would advice potential reviewers to hang fire for a little while this is resolved.Gog the Mild (talk)20:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I see. But that doesn't constitute coordinator permission. I had noticed The Dude's support but remained unconvinced that the nom had garnered enough support overall. However, it is marginal, so, sure, go ahead with this one. N'owt wrong with eagerness, but it can be overdone.
And none taken. Well, only momentarily. I can see where you were coming from. I am always concerned about "thin end of the wedge-ism", which probably makes me a bit twitchy. You have hit a nice rhythm of nominating good quality articles over the past six months and it is good to see another. The best of luck with it.Gog the Mild (talk)21:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Source review: I'm just checking to see if the URLs work, not checking to see if your sources support your claims, mostly because I know you're pretty good at that.
I suggest that you go through your sources and mark the access levels for all the subscription-required sources, like theWashington Post orNYT.Done.
Ref7: Ah you're using the color schedule! Such a valuable tool, but I hate using it because it's so hard to read. But anyway, because it's hard to find stuff, I suggest that you cite the page numbers, even though the document is just three pages. Of course, that means that you have to move the source into your Works cited section and perhaps use the sfn template for each ref.The team event is only on p. 2, so I added the page number to the citation; no need for any extra work, though.
Ref65: Ref doesn't match description.It's matching up for me?
Oh I see what happened, after going to the archived version. The page has several small articles and there's an anchor taking you there. Never mind. ;)
The prose looks good, up to the high quality we're all used to with these competition articles. My only issue is in the Results (final round)/Pairs section, 2nd paragraph: "...finished in fifth place after Knierim flubbed a triple jump as a single..." The word "flubbed" is too informal and peacocky. Picky, I know, but please re-word.Done.
Off the point, but why not bring it up here, anyway. After reading and reviewing this article, and after watching the first three disciplines compete during the team event today, I'm wondering if "Team Event—Figure skating" should be created. What do you think, pal? If you agree, I'm willing to take it on, at least before the 2030 Olympics. Thanks for your good and hard work; keep it up, please.Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk)05:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another FAC for a Taylor Swift song... I ran out of things to say lol ("Karma is the guy from the Chiefs"?). Looking forward to any and all comments regarding this candidature,Ippantekina (talk)10:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The lead only discusses the positive reception for the song, but the "Critical reception" section has a paragraph about more negative reviews, so this should be included as well.
The second paragraph of the "Background and release" section is quite repetitive, particularly with the amount of times that "released" is used. This is most apparent with the first three sentences. I would try to avoid this as it does make the prose less engaging as a result.
Is it really necessary to include when the Ice Spice remix was announced? I am just not entirely sure if anything would be lost by just including the remix's release date instead, as there does not seem to be anything particularly notable about the announcement date.
I have not kept up with Taylor Swift's personal life, so apologies in advance if this is obvious. I have a question about this wording: "alleged romantic linking with the English singer-songwriterMatty Healy". Is this relationship still just alleged? When I see people talk about it online, it seems like something that was confirmed, but I know that online discussions can fast and loose with facts.
I would link Hail Mary in the quote, "last-minute Hail Mary", to theHail Mary pass article, as I could see some readers not being familiar with this type of jargon or slang.
I have a question about the inclusion of the following phrase: As listed in theliner notes ofMidnights. There is nothing inherently wrong with it, as it can be beneficial to clarify where this credits are coming from in the prose. I was just curious about it as I do not believe this was done in previous Taylor Swift song articles (unless I am mistaken, and if so apologies in advance). What is the reason for including this phrasing?
I did so to justify why Jahaan Sweet is listed, as the previous paragraph (and theRS interview) does not mention his name. Does this make sense to you?Ippantekina (talk)15:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies in advance, as this is more nitpick-y than anything, but does the song establish a gender for the narrator? The song uses feminine pronouns for the narrator, which is understandable as a female singer is performing it, but I was curious about the choice for this.
There is some slight repetition in this part, featuring additional writing credits from Ice Spice andRiotUSA, features Ice Spice, with featuring/features. I would revise one of these instances to avoid this.
The quote, "sleekest, most flexible production tendencies", seems incomplete to me. I would instead say: Antonoff's "sleekest, most flexible production tendencies". The current phrasing just does not seem correct, at least to me.
TheRolling Stone source mentions how fans thought that "Karma" was something like to a "long-rumored lost album". Is there any further information on this or is this just fan speculation?
That makes sense. I had a feeling that was the case, but it caught my eye, so I just wanted to double-check about it. I completely agree that a Wikipedia article is not the place for random rumors and speculation.Aoba47 (talk)23:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is another more nitpick-y note, but I am rather uncertain about "however" in this context: However,Billboard andUSA Today named the remix one of the best songs of 2023. It is inthe manual of style for words to watch, so maybe a different transition would be better?
I read the MOS and such words ("However") should cautiously be used because it can create a relationship where it doesn't exist. In this case, I think its use is justified as it establishes a rightful relationship between the underwhelming reviews and the year-end best-of lists.Ippantekina (talk)15:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave it out. I think that it would only be worth noting if multiple critics had brought up this point, and since that is not the case, I believe that the current wording should be good. Thank you for looking into this!Aoba47 (talk)23:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely sure what this quote means, "covered the one area inside the mainstream that she was no longer really able to touch". Could you clarify this for me?
That makes sense. While Ice Spice is still around, she does not seem as mainstream, at least in comparison to this Taylor Swift collaboration. This and her Nicki Minaj collaborations ("Princess Diana" and "Barbie World" seem to have been her big moments (and that all happened roughly around the same time period. Thank you for the clarification.Aoba47 (talk)23:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would be mindful ofcitation overkill, specifically with the last sentence of the "Commercial performance" section, which uses five citations in a row.
Are there any examples of theEaster eggs in the music video? I am just curious because I have not heard this song or seen its music video, so this seem rather vague on its own. Maybe, this could be further unpacked in an endnote, if you feel like it would be too cumbersome to discuss directly in the prose?
I always find it helpful to alphabetize the categories. I just find that it makes navigating them easier, but this is not a requirement by any means. It is just something that I wanted to bring up as a suggestion.
I hope that these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with the FAC!Aoba47 (talk)20:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I have left some replies above, but I am just agreeing with the changes and the edits that you have made to the article. The only outstanding thing left would be to add the Wikitionary link for Hail Mary, but that is a minor point, and it will not hold my review in any way, shape, or form. Isupport this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope that you are having a wonderful weekend so far!Aoba47 (talk)23:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... a library in Pyongyang, North Korea. I believe the article should be featured due to the library's cultural and educational significance within the country. As always, I'm open to feedback! -OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』14:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be focusing on sources (2c and 1c ofWP:FA?) for this review. It's a bit late here, but a cursory inspection of the bibliography reveals that only one of the sources, Song p. 19, is cited with an SFN/HARVCITE template, whereas every other book/journal article is cited using a {{cite [media]}} template; either convert them all to SFNs/HARVCITE, or convert Song p. 19 to be cited like the other sources. Other than that, I am concerned with the use ofLonely Planet; how does this meet the bar for "high-quality reliable sources"? I also note thatDaily NK is cited, so to anyone interested in spotchecking, do be aware perWP:DAILYNK. More comments to come tomorrow.Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!)15:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also,WP:DAILYNK has this to say:However, due to a paucity of readily accessible information on North Korea, as well as a perception that Daily NK is not more unreliable than other sources on the topic, it can be used as a source, albeit with great caution. -OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』15:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Coonan 2006 has an archived link, but the rest of the news sources don't. You should add archived links for all sources, since you have two sources that can only be accessed via archived links.Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!)13:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: "The Grand People's Study House (Korean: 인민대학습당) is the central library" "central library" to me means that a library isthe national library of a country. This doesn't seem to be the case with this library?Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!)13:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
History: "Construction on the Grand People's Study House began in April 1982" so was it demolished? What was the motivation behind the reconstruction? Were there any issues with the previous library?
I reworded that last part. In terms of motivation, all I could find was this from Portal, p. 97: "According to the official guide to the Study House, President Kim Il Sung had mapped out a plan from long years ago for beautifying the central part of the capital by building a significant edifice there." I hope this makes more sense, @Icepinner :D -OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』15:20, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
History: "allowing numerous Eastern European-style buildings to be built in Pyongyang" did the Soviet Union really gatekeep Eastern European architecture from other countries? Also, "the Soviet Union provided assistance to North Korea" seems to imply that the Soviet Union helped to build the Grand People's Study House, but the following text doesn't suggest that? If it did provide some assistance towards the library, then what kind of assistance?Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!)13:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Operation: "The institutional organization of North Korea is hierarchical, with the president of the Grand People's Study House at its apex" this is really equivocal, I think; it implies that the library is at the top for the North Korea's library board and that the president is at the top of this library's hierarchy, but this isn't the national library, so the former doesn't seem to be the case?Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!)13:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Significance: "Although not the national library of North Korea, the Grand People's Study House acts as a "quasi-national library" alongside the official National Central Library." who said that?Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!)13:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To date, I commented on three FA reviews:one of them failed (sorry) and two other comments weren't ideal to my eyes. That's said I'll try to add some miscellaneous comments. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr)16:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ref titled "네이버 뉴스 라이브러리" can be translated to english. Look for other similar cases
It's worth to reach out to korean wikiproject for help with finding sources. I still feel that there should be more coverage for us to discover
check whether we credit the authors in each source
link as many publishers/websites/journals as you can
prepare to defend inclusion of each picture and inclusion of a gallery :)
Consider adding architectural style and coordinates to the infobox
Do we know the name of architect and some people who worked on the library? If you find manage to find architect, they can be added into infobox
It is located in the centre of the capital, situated on Kim Il Sung Square by the banks of the Taedong River, and it is near the Juche Tower, further establishing a connection between the people and the Juche ideology. ----> It is located in the centre of the capital, situated on Kim Il Sung Square by the banks of the Taedong River and opposite of the Juche Tower. Both landmarks establish a connection between North Korean people and the Juche ideology.
Not an obligation, just keep in mind that FA people seem to discourage starting a sentence with a subordinate clause because it is rarely elegant. Like this one:Serving as a manifestation of leader Kim Il Sung's "spirit and wisdom",[9] the Study House was one of the few buildings in Pyongyang[10][11] that was constructed in a neo-traditional Korean style, having been built to resemble a chosŏnjip[12] at the insistence of Kim Jong Il.
I am supporting FA promotion based on prose assessment, quality of sources, and broadness. As it's author's only second nomination, it would be nice to have fresh eyes to perform a spotcheck. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr)12:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I've seen the file on Commons. It has a CC tag reflecting the copyright of the photograph. What I'm missing is a tag for the work that is being photographed.Nikkimaria (talk)00:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"...and oppositeof the Juche Tower." --> The "of" is not needed.
Ideally, there should be no citations in the lead, since everything in the lead should be repeated elsewhere in the article. So what is currently source no. 2 should theoretically fit elsewhere.
"Staff members are then required to return the item right away." This is unclear, since the previous sentence refers to patrons not returning materials on time. Who is being required to return books on time?
History
"In 1973, the library was again renamedto the Central Library, and renamedto the Grand People's Study House in 1982" --> Those "to"s are not needed.
"Constructionof the Grand People's Study House"
"students studying abroad were ordered to return to North Korea for the first time in 5 years to resume ideological education." --> That 5 should be spelled out "five".
Features
The photo caption does not need a period.
"having been built to resemble a chosŏnjip at the insistence..." --> Readers should not have to navigate to another page to understand the meaning of a sentence. Recommend something along the lines of "having been built to resemble a chosŏnjip – a traditional Korean house – at the insistence..."
"In each room and in every atrium..." --> Condense that down to "In each room and atrium..."
"The library is also decorated with chandeliers and paintings of Mount Paektu, which statues of Kim Il Sung are positioned in front of." --> Recommend slightly rephrasing "The library is also decorated with chandeliers and paintings of Mount Paektu, before which statues of Kim Il Sung are positioned."
Collection
"In North Korea, a library's size is determined by the number of books it is expected to store;[19][20] in this case, the Grand People's Study House can house up to 30 million books,[16][7][21]which include around 10,800 documents written by Kim Il Sung, including his "on-the-spot guidance",[22] but the actual collection size is unknown." This compound sentence was awkwardly written; recommend rephrasing as I have done.
"Kim Jong Il had been a regular donorto the Study House"
"and around 250 books related to agriculture,including new mushroom cultivation techniques and techniques preventing swine diseases" --> Is that last part really necessary?
"Alongside books, the chairmen..." --> That should be "chairman", yes? Also, is it capitalized? As in, is that his official title?
Operation
"Additionally, each librarian is classified into one of 6 grades based on their performance on a library certification exam." --> That 6 should be "six".
Courses and topics
"The library is the national centre of Juche studies..." --> As in an earlier example, readers should not have to navigate elsewhere to understand the meaning of a sentence. Recommend adding a brief explanation of "Juche studies", as that is not a term most readers will be familiar with.
Significance and reception
"over 10 million peoplehave visited the Grand People's Study House annually" --> The progressive tense is not called for.
"and the library is a popular area for dates within the country" --> "Destination" is a better word choice than "area" in this context.
"In his two-part account of North Korean libraries, information and library scientist Marc Kosciejew[39] uses the conceptual framework of "library-as-place"" --> Citations need to go after punctuation marks or at the end sentences. As such, what is currently source no. 39 needs to be moved, probably after "library-as-place",
My first suggestion underCollection still stands. If you don't like my wording, feel free to try something else, but this –"of which it contains around 10,800 documents that Kim Il Sung wrote, which includes "on-the-spot guidance", but its actual collection size is unknown" – doesn't work at all in English.Bgsu98(Talk) 02:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Never mind; it looks like you took care of it.Bgsu98(Talk)02:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
originally known as the Pyongyang city library I'm not sure, but I think Pyongyang City Library should be capitalized as a proper noun.
After being destroyed during the Korean War, Kim Il Sung requested that the library be rebuilt Two point here. First, this makes it sound like Kim was destroyed, rephrase so it's clear it was the building that was destroyed. Second, tell the reader who this Kim guy is, i.e. "North Korean president Kim Il Sung ..."
and renamed the Grand People's Study House in 1982 make it "renamed once more as ..." or something like that.
Kim Il Sung advocated for North Korean-style architecture, which involved reviving elements of traditional Korean architecture, a practise that the North Korean government deemed essential for socialist architecture 3x repetition of the word "architecture" is awkward. Actually 4x with the next sentence.
Construction of the Grand People's Study House spanned 21 months we already know what building we're talking about from the previuos sentence, no need to repeat "Grand People's Study House". And again in the next phrase "the Study House's official guide states", just "the official guide states" is clear what it's talking about.
from universities in other provinces of the country just say "other provinces", the "of the country" is extraneous.
which also houses such buildings as the Supreme People's Assembly and the Korean Art Gallery "such building as" is just fluff.
In January 2023, a smaller replica of the library was located in the municipal city of Sinuiju I think "built" instead of "located".
The library towers 10 storeys "stories" is the more common spelling, but maybe this is a regional English thing?
In North Korea, a library's size is determined by the number of books it is expected to store is this not true for libraries everywhere?
but the actual collection size is unknown I'm sure the librarians know it. How about "not publicly known" or something like that?
the employer is then required "The borrower's employer ..."
The organisation of the Grand People's Study House is hierarchical, with the president at its apex This starts out sounding like you're talking about the organization of thebuilding, then surprises us when it turns out to be talking about the organization of thestaff.
Is "Grand People's Study House" the building or the entity which occupies it? You use the term interchangeably.
This article is about the bloodless 1979 Salvadoran coup d'état, an important point in El Salvador's history that marks the end of the country's48-year-long military dictatorship and the start of its12-year-long civil war (debatable). I promoted this article to GA way back in 2020, and to be honest, it sucked. Last year, I completely rewrote the article to make it more informative with better sources. While I didn't take it to GAR, it passed an A-class review by WP:Military History, so it presumably still meets all the GA criteria.PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑21:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"held peaceful demonstrations to combat the military dictatorship". Peaceful demonstrations being used tocombat anything jars a little. Synonym time?
Changed to "oppose"
"after winning fraudulent presidential elections during the 1970s." If they were fraudulent, is it accurate to say that the PCN "won" them? Similarly in the main article with "The PCN won the next three presidential elections in 1967, 1972, and 1977".
Technically speaking, they did in fact win the election according to the official results. There is no data to the contrary showing the real results. So, while they did lose (certainly the 1972 election), that information is unknowable to my knowledge, and officially, they did win at the end of the day. 🤷♂️
Would you have problems with 'after claiming victory in fraudulent presidential elections during the 1970s'?
"Political violence increased during Romero's presidency". It would be helpful to state when this commenced.
Specified between 1977 and 1979
"Romero surrendered when he was allowed to leave the country." Maybe 'Romero surrendered when it was agreed that he would be allowed to leave the country' or similar?
Reworded along the lines of your suggestion
"engaged in hit-and-run attacks against government buildings, committed kidnappings for ransom, and other terrorist attacks." Is it possible to avoid using "attacks" twice here?
"General Carlos Humberto Romero ... won the 1977 presidential election with 67.3 percent of the vote". Really?
Like I said earlier, he did officially win.
"as social cohesion continued to collapse". You haven't yet mentioned it starting to collapse.
Rephrased
"wanted to prevent a leftist revolution from occurring in El Salvador". "occurring"? Maybe 'taking power?
Changed
"since they also believed Romero had to be removed from power." Can I suggest that it was probably their leaders or commanders who so believed?
Added
"as factors in allowing such a revolution in El Salvador." Perhaps 'as factors which might allow such a ...' or ' ... which would allow ...'?
Changed
"In 1979, Viron P. Vaky and William G. Bowdler ... visited El Salvador on two occasions". Are the actual dates, or at least month, known?
McClintock only specifies in the months prior, so i rewrote it to that. I also found a note in McClintock where an Australian journalists claimed that Vaky and Bowdler in fact did not ask Romero to resign. McClintock thought it was notable/important so I also included this information in a note.
"It attempted to implement agrarian reforms in 1980". What is "It" referring to?
In case it may be of some help I will post my boilerplate on how to find reviewers below:
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.
"Since 1931, a military dictatorship had ruled El Salvador; since 1961..." → "Since 1931, a a military dictatorship had ruled El Salvador, and since 1961..."
Changed
"committed terrorist actions" – could you clarify what they actually did? what actions did they stage against the government? maybe you could name some?
added 2 examples
I haven't read other reviews, so I'm not sure if this was mentioned by someone else, but the article relies on a PhD thesis, which is generally not considered aWP:HQRS. I usually accept these sources at levels below FA (even though I've seen others complain even about their reliability on lower levels), but I'm not sure whether it'd be appropriate to include the reference at FA level. Is Ching a subject-matter expert? Was his thesis peer reviewed? I'm open to hearing feedback from other reviewers.
PerFurman Universtiy, Ching "is a specialist on El Salvador and has authored or co-authored numerous books and articles on Salvadoran history". I also used another source from Ching for this article: Lindo Fuentes, Héctor;Ching, Erik K. & Lara Martínez, Rafael A. (2007). "Remembering a Massacre in El Salvador..."
"The militant groups and mass organizations increased their membership..." → "Membership in militant groups and mass organizations increased..."
Changed
" as many supported reform," of what?
Specified social reform
"violated the human rights of "the conglomerate"" what is this supposed to mean?
I assume this is supposed to mean "the people" so I specified that in quotations
"According to political scientist Michael Krennerich, El Salvador has held free and fair elections since 1982." the source is from 2005. maybe look for a recent one that goes over the rule of the current president?
Amnesty International isWP:duplinked in close succession.
Fixed
"far-right death squads operated in El Salvador that targeted members of these groups." while perhaps implied, could it be stated if these were in support of the government, or were working towards their own gains?
It was 50/50 on how aligned with the government the death squads were. Some were led by government officials, others were led by random dudes, so but I put "government-aligned".
Could the Militant and death squad activities section state the death-toll during this period?
I can't find a death toll for this period.
"In June 1977, the UGB declared all Jesuits had to leave El Salvador within 30 days or face "immediate and systematic execution"." why? You also mention persecution of clergy later, but could we get some context as to why?
Added background of why death squads also targeted the clergy
"Around May 1979, the United States government began to consider that Romero's removal from power was necessary to prevent the entire government from collapsing." but what was their role prior to this? The US of course have a history of supporting right wing South American regimes, but there is no mention of that until this point. Could be helpful for background context.
Added a little bit of background without going into too much detail to paint a picture that the US supported El Salvador's government to prevent a communist revolution, and that the US believed that if Romero stayed in place, a revolution would succeed so the US sought to preempt that with a coup.
You mention various coups and revolutions under background, but it can be a bit hard to follow without stating their alignments. Where they all alternating right and left wing, or was it more complicated?
Conservative should be linked at first mention, now it's only linked further down.
Fixed
Link oligarchy.
Done
Modern countries, like the US, are not necessary to link, and linking them is discouraged in the manual of style.
Removed
Link junta.
Done
The United States could be abbreviated as US after first mention if you want to save space. I can see you already do that some places.
Put in more abbreviations
Link human rights at first instead of last mention.
Fixed
"and later a third junta were later established" are two "later" necessary here?
Rephrased
"Romero left El Salvador to Guatemala via helicopter" wouldn't it make sense to mention under legacy what happened to him later? From his Wikipedia article, it seems he returned.
Added a brief statement of his return and death. Of the research I've done into Romero, I haven't found an exact date/year he returned to El Salvador.
Likewise, I think it would be of interest under Legacy to show what the state of democracy was in the country post-civil war (and today?).
I added how post-1982 elections were considered free and fair and that the FMLN was part of a 3-decade-long 2-party system with ARENA. I don't wanna go too much into post-2019 politics since it feels out of the scope of this article.
The article covers US support for the government, but was there foreign, for example Soviet, support for the Leftist opposition?
To my knowledge from rewritingSalvadoran Civil War in my sandbox, the USSR, Cuba, and Nicaragua (+ other minor players) started sending aid to leftist groups only after the civil war started. I added a brief mention of this in the legacy section that the FMLN was supported by those 3.
Is "Bernal Ramírez, Luis Guillermo & Quijano de Batres, Ana Elia, eds. (2009). Historia 2 El Salvador [History 2 El Salvador] (PDF). Historia El Salvador (in Spanish). San Salvador, El Salvador: Ministry of Education. ISBN 9789992363683. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 January 2022. Retrieved 27 August 2025." a reliable source? Sometimes government ministry-authored books are good sources and sometimes they are propaganda; I don't know about El Salvador. I presume thatSocial Text has cleaned up its act a bit since theSokal affair? I am not sure thatFile:Colonels Jaime Abdul Gutiérrez and Adolfo Arnoldo Majano in 1979.png adds enough to the understanding of the article's topic to pass muster underWP:NFCC#8.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)12:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bernal/Quijano 2009 is reliable since its information can be cross checked with other sources. B/Q is a good summary for stuff where lots of detail isn't needed. Beverley has a Wikipedia page and I don't see any critiques of his work just from reading that, so I assume his Social Text source is fine, and it's only used once.PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑00:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The dictatorship was led by the National Conciliation Party (PCN)since 1961." Also recommend linking the first two sentences of this second paragraph together; perhaps something like: "A military dictatorship had ruled El Salvador since 1931; since 1961, it was led by the National Conciliation Party (PCN)."
Reworded
Background
I don't believe wikilinking El Salvidor is really necessary here, especially since most of this first paragraph is blue.
"Rivera was elected president of El Salvador unopposed in the 1962 presidential election.[14]" You could consider shortening "1962 presidential election" to "1962" while maintaining the wikilink.
Removed link
Presidency of Carlos Humberto Romero
"...the minister of defense and public security from 1972 to 1977" --> I believe that Minister of Defense and Public Security is a proper noun.
capitalized
"Claramount led a protest against the result at the Liberty Plaza in San Salvador(El Salvador's capital)" --> Unnecessary.
Removed
"In June 1977, the UGB declaredthat all Jesuits had to leave El Salvador within 30 days or face "immediate and systematic execution".
Added
Planning
"Plots to overthrow Romero began to form from March 1979..." "from" is awkward here; perhaps "around"?
Changed
"According to Michael McClintock, a staff member of the Amnesty International Research Division, "most of El Salvador knew a coup was brewing" by late September 1979." --> A minor nitpick, but wouldn't Most be capitalized here as the beginning of a quote?
This is the writing style I'm used to since you're just continuing the sentence, and you wouldn't capitalize "most" here
Romero's overthrow
"and that night, the international press reported a coup was in the process of occurring." --> The progressive tense reads awkwardly. Recommend rephrasing slightly something like "a coup was in progress".
Changed
United States interest in regime change
I'm thinking there is probably an appropriate wikilink for U.S. ambassador to El Salvador.
Linked
United States House of Representatives --> I would shorten to U.S. House of Representatives.
I'd prefer to keep it to overdo US
"and warnedthat El Salvador was the country in the region most likely to collapse."
fixed
Aftermath
"That same day,the members of the ERP and LP-28" --> I would remove the "the" unless every single member called for an uprising.
removed
"That same day, the members of the ERP and LP-28 called for an uprising in the city of Mejicanos and caused disorder in the streets." --> Actually, this whole sentence reads kind of awkwardly. Maybe "an uprise in the city of Mejicanos and disorder in the streets"?
Changed
You can use the template {{langx|es|Proclama de la Fuerza Armanda}}.
This article is about the standout character from last years surprise hit horror filmFinal Destination Bloodlines. At a hiatus that lasted 14 years, the franchise made a strong comeback, with a 7th movie already in the works. Critics paid a lot of attention to Erik for a variety of reasons, including his role, acting, and death scene involving an MRI machine. Having looked at pretty much every source available, I believe the article meets the standards for FA. Hopefully it passes and other articles relating to the franchise can also be upgraded.--PanagiotisZois (talk)12:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All comments are now up, the article looks good, and most of my problems are only nitpicks, just let me know when you’re finished with them so I can support. If you ever want to review another FAC, any comments left at mine forForget-Me-Now would be greatly appreciated, but, of course, no obligationCrystal Drawers🍌(wanna talk?)16:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. :D I think I've gone through everything. In some instances, I made word changes based on your comments, but not necessarily in the exact same place you wanted. Hopefully, it all looks good now. If I have time, I'll get into "Forget-Me-Now". I've known aboutArrested Development for years, since Netflix first brought it back in 2013, but haven never gotten around to seeing it.PanagiotisZois (talk)17:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Erik Campbell is a character in the supernatural horror film Final Destination Bloodlines (2025)" — I'm not sure on this, but shouldn’t it be "character from the"?
"Lori Evans Taylor, and Jon Watts and portrayed by Richard Harmon" — Maybe include a comma before that last "and"
"being borne out of his mother's affair with another man." — Isn’t it "born"?
"his brother Bobby cancel out Death's list" — I’m not sure that "cancel out" is professional, suggest changing it to “nullify", or another similar word of your liking
"by a wheelchair that crushes and impales him." — "by" is already used just a few words earlier; to avoid repetition, could this use be changed?
"wanting to feature ones with layers to them instead" — I think "instead wanting to feature ones with layers to them" rolls off the tongue better.
"with the delay being due to the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike" — change to "with a delay due to the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike"
"by improvising his lines and actions or making suggestions to the production crew" — Putting "either" after "by" would make the sentence sound smoother imo
"being crushed by a garbage truck's compactor" — I'm pretty sure it's "garbage truck compactor" (without the 's)
"Death skipped Erik and pursued Julia" — Change to "Death skipped Erik and instead pursued Julia"
"Having had marital problems at one point, she had an affair with a neighbor named Jerry Fenbury, and Howard chose to raise Erik as his own" — Since this is directly connected to the short sentence right before it, you could probably just add a semi-colon between this and that one.
"Because Erik is not a descendant of Iris, he was not targeted by Death." — I don’t feel strongly about this, so if you choose to oppose this suggestion then that’s fine, but I don’t think this sentence is necessary. The previous sentence tells the reader that he is not a descendant, and I think, with context clues, it’s fairly obvious to decipher, and it comes off a bit redundant. But, like I said, I won’t hold you to this and I’m fine if it’s kept in
Development
"The horror franchise Final Destination began in 2000 and each film follows a" — Change to "The horror franchise Final Destination began in 2000, with each film following a"
"kill them in accidents" — Is accidents correct here? I thought death was purposefully killing them? If it’s only the humans who think it’s an accident, maybe change to "perceived accidents"
"producer Craig Perry stated" — The previous sentence used the word stated already, could you change this use?
"found out about Final Destination Bloodlines being in production through" — This is oddly worded, consider "found out about Final Destination Bloodlines' production through"
I’m not sure that lifelong is professional language, I’d either put quotations around it if it’s used in the source, or change it to longtime
How come some sentences call it "Final Destination Bloodlines" and others just use "Bloodlines"?
I don’t think misunderstood needs to be in quotes
Two sentences in the final paragraph of Characterization start with "Harmon", change one
"Busick also" is used twice, I’d also advise to change one of these to avoid repetition
"his "hubris" is what led to him being targeted by Death, despite not being a descendant of Iris" — The final part feels unnecessary
"Despite the difficulty of the stunts involved" — I don’t think you have to include involved, as the sentence has a better flow without it
"early on during production of Bloodlines" — Change to "early on during Bloodlines' production"
"featuring such as scene in Bloodlines" — Since Bloodlines is already used in the previous sentence, remove it for "the film", or any other variant to your liking
"When Erik is inside the machine, to film his spine getting bent backwards" — A bit long, consider "To film Erik's spine getting bent backwards in the machine,"
Reception
"Erik received a positive response from fans and critics" — Suggest adding "both" before “fans and critics"
"with Ridgely also describing him" — Could you swap "also" with "additionally"? Since the next sentence uses "also" as well, I think changing this use would help avoid repetition
" both highlighted Harmon as one of the best actors in the film" — Since Harmon’s name is used right in the sentence before, replace this usage with "him"
"Erik's eventual death scene involving an MRI machine was praised" — "Praised" is used a lot in this section, could you change this use to "commended"?
"Joe George of Den of Geek similarly described Erik's death — alongside Bobby's — as the sixth best death scene in the franchise.[43] George also viewed Erik and Bobby's love for each other as making their deaths "poignant"." — The source only needs to be used once, at the end of the second sentence
"Relating to this, Oller praised Harmon's chemistry with Joyner" — Bit of a short sentence, could you expand on why he enjoyed the chemistry?
"some incidents even leading to patients getting injured." — I think "some incidents have even lead to patients getting injured." rolls off the tongue better, but this is more subjective to my own preferences than anything
File:Zach Lipovsky on Collider Video.jpg - CC BY 3.0
File:Adam Stein on Collider Video.jpg - CC BY 3.0
File:Richard Harmon Wondercon 2016.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0, alt-text is grammatically incorrect: "Richard Harmon wearing glassed"
Oops. Fixed that.
All images are relevant to the article, all images have alt-text for accessibility though I do have a comment regarding that.
Wondering why Richard Harmon isn't wikilinked consistently in the captions.
Thanks for the image review. :) I don't link Richard Harmon in the infobox image because the actor is linked right below in the "Portrayed by" area, so I thought it would be kind of repetitive to link him twice. Of course, if it's deemed necessary, I have no problem linking him there as well.--PanagiotisZois (talk)16:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no problems whatsoever. However, I would like to note that the image in the infoboxisn’t that much interesting? I wondering if there is a better one. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔)02:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaving this up as a placeholder. I have participated inthe first FAC, and I would be more than happy to help here. I will wait until all of the above comments from Crystal Drawers has been addressed. Please ping me when that happens, and I will be more than happy to go through the article at that time (or at least when I find a moment).Aoba47 (talk)02:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you@Aoba47:. :) Your comment actually got me worried I'd forgotten to respond to all of Crystal Drawers' comments, lol. I have addressed them all and gotten a support.PanagiotisZois (talk)14:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your ping and for your message. Apologies for missing that. I was looking at the bottom of Crystal Drawers' comments, so I did not see that discussion at the top. Apologies again for overlooking that. I will post comments sometime over this upcoming weekend.Aoba47 (talk)14:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In response to a comment from the previous FAC, I believe that a fictional character article would need an image of said character. While I get the need to keep non-free media usage to a minimal, the reader should be able to see the character as they appear in their story (with full costume, hair, make-up, lighting, etc.), and an image of an actor would not be an adequate replacement for that. I do wonder if a fuller body shot of this character would be more beneficial to provide readers with a better sense of his appearance (maybe something like withthis image)? The current headshot may be fine. I could just be overthinking it. I thought that I might as well ask.
Apologies again, as I am likely overthinking things, but I have a question about the following part from the plot summary: siblings died in the order that they were born. I wonder if "siblings are killed" would be a stronger and more active choice, because Death is actively hunting them down and killing them?
This is super nitpick-y, but for this part from the plot summary, some cleaning fluid spills on the floor and causes a fire, I do not think that "some" is needed here, as it is more of a filler word. I do have an additional comment about this part. It is established that Erik was not targeted by Death, until he intervened to try and save Bobby, so does that mean the fire in the tattoo parlor was just an accident? Is this addressed in the movie?
Erik's accident isn't directly addressed per se, but yeah, he was not being targeted by Death here. In an interview withPolygon, the directors discussed this scene and simply said that "Erik in unlucky"; or something like that.--PanagiotisZois (talk)09:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that for this part, the sixth instalment in the franchise, the more standard American spelling would be installment. I have a similar comment for this part, previous instalments had impacted, as I think that it should be installments, rather than instalments.
Revised for entire article.
I am uncertain about "landed" in this context, that he had landed the role. I understand what you mean, but it may be too informal for Wikipedia, so a different word choice may be preferable here.
Changed.
Another more nitpick-y comment, but there are two sentences in a row that use "improvised" ("the directors asked Harmon to improvise his character's reaction" and "Harmon improvised various reactions"), so I believe changing the latter instance would help to avoid any potential repetition.
Changed.
The "Filming" subsection discusses the filming process behind Erik's nose piercing being caught in a chain, but this is not brought up in the "Role" section. Should this be briefly addressed there as well (to avoid any potential confusion)?
I am uncertain about the following part, Ben Inglis, physicist and manager at theUniversity of California Berkeley Brain Imaging Center, and Max Wintermark, Chair of the Department of Neuroradiology at theUniversity of Texas'MD Anderson Cancer Center, spoke withThe Today Show writer Sarah Jacoby. It is a lot of names thrown at the reader. I would remove the reference toThe Today Show writer Sarah Jacoby entirely, as it is not really needed and it would be better to keep the focus on the two medical experts. On a somewhat related note, I do not believe that chair is capitalized in this context, but I would recommend double-checking this.
I hope that these comments are helpful. Let me know if you have any questions about anything. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. A majority of my comments above are minor and more nitpicks than anything else. I hope that you have a wonderful weekend!Aoba47 (talk)20:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey@Aoba47:. I believe I've gone through everything. I tried uploading the image you suggested, but for some reason, I can't do it. I tried converting the image from webp to jpg, but nothing. I can simply upload a new file(name) and replace the current one.
Regarding the areas about the order of siblings' deaths and Erik's nose ring in the "Filming" section, I hope the current versions are better. Concerning the latter, I believe there was a reference to his nose ring in the "Role" section, but that got removed (alongside a few other things) for being too detailed and to shorten the entire thing.PanagiotisZois (talk)11:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. The change for the infobox image may not be necessary. I was just trying to think of a way to potentially respond to a point raised in the previous FAC and to think of a way in which the image could have a stronger justification. I think that the current infobox image is solid, especially because there is a nice contrast with the Richard Harmon image later in the article. I will go through the article again on Sunday. I doubt that I will find anything further, but I want to make sure that I do my due diligence as a reviewer.Aoba47 (talk)02:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. I have read through the article a few more times. Everything looks good to me. Isupport this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC, and I hope that you have a great week!Aoba47 (talk)23:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the sources are reliable (from major sources) and consistently formatted, although I didn't do any spotchecks. I seemed to remember that IndieWire occasionally hostschurnalism but maybe I am confusing it with another sauce?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)10:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't recall seeing anything like that being discussed regarding IndieWire. From what I've seen at the noticeboard, it is viewed as whole reliable, rather than marginally or occasionally.PanagiotisZois (talk)17:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, [supernatural horror film] [Final Destination Bloodlines] is aMOS:SOB violation
In the lead and under "Reception", "scene stealer" should be in quotes
Done.
Under "Role", [garbage truck] [compactor] is aMOS:SOB violation
Done.
Under "Role" I think it should be clarified if Bobby lives or dies
Under "Characterization", delink "phone" as overlinking (this also fixes an MOS:SOB error)
Done.
Under "Filming", I think the images of Lipovsky and Stien could easily be one image, they are both cropped from the same source images. Is there a reason for them to be seperate?
That was how I found the images. I checked the original one, and the two are standing next to each other, so I just cropped it and uploaded that version instead.
Under "Filming", "For the scene where Erik discovers that Howard is not his biological father and that his biological father is a man called Jerry Fenbury" this flows weirdly with the double use of "biological father"
Hey@Olliefant:. Thank you for the review. I've addressed most of your comments. Regarding the lede, I'm not sure why the first sentence would be a SOB violation, as "supernatural horror film" is a single link that directs to the page with the exact same title. Should I change it to "character fromFinal Destination Bloodlines (2025), the sixth installment in the supernatural horror film franchiseFinal Destination"?
As for the "Role" section, I think I remember there be some extra detail about Erik's death and Bobby dying right after, but I was recommended to remove that is they pertain to things that occur after his death, so they're not entirely relevant. And to be honest, I don't think that Bobby dying or not has much to do with Erik's article or role in the movie.--PanagiotisZois (talk)14:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! For my first FA nomination I bring the world's most cosmopolitan snail.Physella acuta is capable of outcompeting many native snails outside its native North American range, granting it a great deal of research. It is also a critter most aquarists in the northern hemisphere inevitably meet. I'm extremely grateful touser:FunkMonk for his FAC mentorship, which brought this article to a whole new level. Looking forward to your inputs to makeP. acuta truly FA!Barbalalaika 🐌17:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks to my layman's eye impressively thorough and authoritative, but I think I'd better leave others who are better informed than I in this area to comment. Looking through the text I see it is mostly written in BrE (millimetres, fertilise, colour, fibres, favour, behaviours, colonised) but a couple of American spellings have crept in: defense and mollusk. –Tim riley talk13:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback! I speak primarily BE, but some spellings do creep in since I'm not a native speaker. Those have been corrected.Barbalalaika 🐌06:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a strict requirement, but for the ease of reviewers being able to verify the sources, I'd highly recommend using a shortened footnote system such asSFNs for multi-page sources. Also, I'd shorten the lead; for an article this size, it should only be about one or two paragraphs. Very good article for a first try at FAC; I'll do a more in-depth review later.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)14:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I thought a time would come when I had to delve into SFN. This one will take a while, but I'll implement it.
During the GA review one comment was how information onP. acuta's ecology was missing, then the lead got longer. Now I admit I'm not sure how to shorten it. I was thinking reproduction and parasitism could be removed as they are not the "most important points" (MOS:INTRO), then I could merge paragraphs 2 and 3. But this information is precisely what was added after GA. Would you mind giving me some advice? :)Barbalalaika 🐌06:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto on Dillon et al. 2002 (You need to move "Jr." to after R. T. for this to link properly)
Ditto on Ebbs 2018
Ditto on Albrecht et al 2025 (you've misordered the authors on the sfn so it doesn't link; it should be Albrecht, Clewing, Seebens, Chibwana)
Ditto on Karmakar and Paul 2022
Thorp and Covich's Freshwater Invertebrates doesn't list any authors and doesn't seem to be cited to
Van Bocxlaer et al 2025 doesn't seem to be cited either
There seems to be no consistent order to the list of references from what I can tell. I would put them in alphabetical order by primary author's last name.
Extremely minor but I would put the templatestemplate:Refbegin andTemplate:Refend before and after the references list to make them look a little nicer
You left a ref tag in text on the first paragraph of Distribution.
@Generalissima another courtesy ping - I've shortened the lead to the best of my abilities, but I'd appreciate it if you controlled the change in content (here's the latest version with the original lead). When you have time, of course! The core of most topics is still there, but I did remove the discussion onP. acuta as prey and its escape strategies.
Ah, I have unexpectedly had a lot of traveling to do the past work. The source fixes look good to me (though thanks to Gog for spotting a couple additional ones). Since you wikilink the IUCN, you should wikilinkTropical Fish Hobbyist andPractical Fishing. Cite 91, remove the "TFH Magazine" from the title and change the website name from www.tfhmagazine.com toTropical Fish Hobbyist.
Also, nitpicky, but there's a couple times where you spell out a date in a cite (ie, "21 January 2026") , whereas you abbreviate it ("2026-01-12") in others. I'd suggest sticking to one.
Also, you're inconsistent on including access dates- personally, I would only use these for actual websites, and remove them from academic journals, where they're generally not as helpful.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)02:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot on my plate at work myself, don't worry about it. I appreciate all nitpicky comments, too :) Both the lead and the references are my weak points and I'm learning a lot with you.
- I believe I identified all date inconsistencies and formatted them all as "2026-01-26".
- Removed the access date from everything that's not websites, including PDFs.
with a pointed apex – I think it's fine (though not necessary) to introduce this term in the body, but in the lead, which should be as accessible as possible, I really would just change to "tip".
Despite its cosmopolitan distribution, prevalence of parasitic infections within invasive P. acuta populations is often low – Why "despite"? Further down you say it's lowbecause it is an invasive species.
Removed. The reasoning here had been "one could think that parasitism is a concern due to the species' global presence, but...". On second thought, that was original research.Barbalalaika 🐌16:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
but one 2024 study detected Echinostoma (which causes echinostomiasis) in an individual from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. – In the lead, this really lacks context. You do not say why you single out this particular parasite, when in the body you have multiple. Also, should explain what this is.
Put some more emphasis on it being a human pathogen, with a little more explanation. Tried to be concise. Let me know if it doesn't suffice, although I may eventually remove the information to shorten the lead.Barbalalaika 🐌18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
and refers to the pointed shell – Although this seems likely, it is probably not covered by the source, which is a general dictionary. Did you come to this conclusion yourself?
until molecular and reproductive studies revealed them to be synonyms of P. acuta. – When was this?
I moved "until the beginning of the 21st century" to the end of the sentence --> "until molecular and reproductive studies revealed them to be synonyms of P. acuta in the beginning of the 21st century". Does this satisfy your question? The phrasing really was clunky before, with the specified time too far away from that snippet.Barbalalaika 🐌16:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As of 2025, MolluscaBase, the mollusk-oriented branch of WoRMS (World Register of Marine Species) – Mybe simplify this, e.g. just "WoRMS (World Register of Marine Species)" is enough?
Albrecht and colleagues (2025), do they really say they that they place this species in Physella? The cladogram shows Physella as polyphyletic.
Oh no, that was my mistake. I don't know how I didn't see it before (I do know: end-of-the-year chaos).Physella is now resolved as it should be, andStenophysa was also wrong and is now fixed. Additionally, I described the cladogram as "simplified" because it's an adaptation from the original one in the paper (figure 2).Barbalalaika 🐌18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout the article, all genus names should be in italics
Finger-like lobes extend from the mantle on both sides of the body – Source 14 says 7 to 11 on the right and 4 to 6 on the left. I found this asymmetry quite interesting, something to add?
male reproductive organs (c) including the penis (d). p = penis – You mention penis twice, but you also could write (c-d) to avoid this. However, what is the structure shown by (c) if not the penis?
I rephrased it like so, is this clearer?"Physella acuta's body (b) and male reproductive organs (c) with the penis shown separately (d). pg = preputial gland, pp = prepuce, ps = penis sheath". I removed "p = penis" since it really didn't add extra information that (d) didn't already show. (c) is the male reproductive system which consists of several parts, three of which I described explicitly in the caption since they were mentioned in the text. The penis is usually inside the prepuce (pp), which is why it's shown separately.Barbalalaika 🐌18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
160 - 180; 10 - 30%; etc: These should be dashes, and should be without spaces: 160–180, 10–30%, etc.
the invasive carnivorous snail Anentome helena – "Invasive" always refers to an area but you do not indicate one; the species in not invasive where it is native.
Thank you for pointing that out. I decided to remove "invasive" because 1. it wasn't relevant to the statement and 2. upon reading further on the species, its status as "invasive" isn't well-established yet. Not a discussion for the present article.Barbalalaika 🐌20:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the turtle parasites Krefftascaris spp. – I suggest to reformulate to avoid technical notation, e.g. "species within the genus Krefftascaris" or similar.
Wethington, A. R. (2004) Family Physidae. A supplement to the workbook accompanying the FMCS Freshwater Identification Workshop, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Unpaginated, tab. 1. – Do we have any identifier (ISBN, DOI, url, etc.), or even a publisher, to allow readers to locate this?
Source 67 is a blog, what makes it a high-quality reliable source?
On this point and the one below, I'll see what information I can find in aquarist magazines. Source 67 specifically is one of the largest invertebrate retailers in Germany. I can't find mention of a similar category underWP:RS but I'm taking that it qualifies as a personal blog?Barbalalaika 🐌15:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jens, thank you so much for the thorough review! Great observations. I have started implementing the most straightforward suggestions and will work on the remaining points gradually.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the species presents a high diversity of shell shapes which led to numerous false species descriptions before the onset of molecular phylogenetic studies at the onset of the 21st century. – I wonder why you decided to mention the authority (USGS) here but not for other information in the same section? Is this sentence controversial? I also wonder about your choice of "numerous"; this would mean there are numerous synonyms but only six are listed in the "Synonyms" list, not a lot for a species described in 1805. Is the list incomplete, or would "several" be a better choice of words? --Jens Lallensack (talk)19:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't call it controversial. It was a stylistic choice which I now understand has no real place in Wikipedia - learning as I go. I removed the "according to..." part.
And thank you for bringing up the synonyms - the list in the taxobox is incomplete. These synonyms were already listed in the article when I started working on it. I had written a version of the list with all synonyms, which you can see inthis old version of my sandbox. I decided not to use it because it was so long, and figured the original editor had a reason to select only some synonyms. Renaming the list to something like "popular synonyms" isn't possible I believe, since the parameters are fixed. Can I ask for a suggestion? Is it all right if I list all synonyms?Barbalalaika 🐌17:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ton of synonyms! How does it look if you only list species (without the variations)? They could be covered in a dedicated "Taxonomy of Physella acuta" article if someone wants to write that in the future). I think your current solution works, as the cited source seems to make the same selection – assuming that selection is actually well-founded and not just a random list of names that by chance have been entered into that database while the other synonyms have not? If that might be a problem, just removing the "Synonyms" list might be an option as well. Anyways, happy tosupport now. --Jens Lallensack (talk)07:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the variations is a good idea, unfortunately it still left me with over 50 synonyms... so I'd personally leave the list as is. I wouldn't remove it because those are a very important aspect ofP. acuta's taxonomy and some are still actively used.
To what source are you referring to? The source for the synonyms (Molluscabase) shows the entire list, I may be missing the selection you mentioned.
Will review soon as a non-expert for the subject matter. To start with:
Is Collado & Aguayo 2023 what your citation to Collado & Aguayo 2024 should be pointing to? You also cite a Smith 2020 but it's unclear what source this is in the list of references, or if it's even one of those listed.Hog FarmTalk18:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Yes, I wrote the wrong publication year. Thank you for pointing it out. Smith (2020) came from the SFN template and must have been forgotten amidst all the coding. I deleted it. All fixed.Barbalalaika 🐌20:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1817 Thomas Say independently described the same species in Pennsylvania, naming it Physa heterostropha" - it is supported by a ref later in the paragraph, but I think it's a best practice to have it clear what all is being supported by what. I think this sentence should be followed by references to both Say's description (what is currently cited) and the Ebbs Loker & Brant article, as Say would clearly have not known that he was independently describingacuta.
" the structure of its subfamily Physinae remains unclear as of 2025." - the fact that this remains unclear can't be supported with a 2021 source; if nothing from 2025 explicitly states this it's okay to indicate the date of the most recent study explicitly covering this point
""Shell Encyclopedia – conchological megadatabase iconographic overview on mollusks | ConchologyPHYSIDAE, Physella acuta | Conchology". www.conchology.be. Retrieved 2025-09-11." - I would expect a better source here. Not seeing that it specifically notes that the shells are thin? Would also expect to see a general review article of species than just picking the larget recorded value in a commercial shell directory
The reference for the thinness probably got lost amidst the edits. In any case, thank you for nudging me in the direction of a better source. Reference was changed (mentions a thin shell, length, and width).Barbalalaika 🐌18:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"It forms a high spiral of four to five whorls (complete revolutions)" - this is part of a section which has two sources. The Conchological Society actually indicates 5-6 whorls. Does the other piece support the 4-5 whorls?
"Morningstar, D. (2021). "Acute bladder snail (Physella acuta) – species profile". USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database. Retrieved 2024-11-05." - citation information appears to be incorrect; the source lists it's author as C. R. Morningstar and W. M. Daniel, not D. Morningstar.
"The most cited hypothesis, proposed by Anderson (2003), " - where does the cited source indicate that this is the most cited hypothesis? I may be missing it in the source
"P. acuta has been reported in lakes, reservoirs, ponds, streams, ditches, as well as artificial sites such as sewage drains and irrigation systems" - isn't a reservoir an artificial site?
Do any of the source indicate how long these things usually live?
Pending -- Will search for it. I'll also double-check the information on sexual maturity. I can't find almost anything explicit in academic texts but a timespan of months seems like a lot for this invasive snail.Barbalalaika 🐌07:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: We now have the lifespan for these majestic creatures. Had to remove the snippet aboutP. acuta laying eggs for "up to a year" - it didn't match other reports for its lifespan and every source that mentioned that pointed to a study which, to the best of my knowledge after reading it four times, doesn't mention that at all. Let me know if you feel it needs improvement!
"The species has only once been directly linked to a human illness, in 2024 when Moreira and colleagues recorded Echinostoma" - this definitely needs as "as of" date, as this is clearly something that is subject to future change
I would expect to see the alternate names listed in the lead cited somewhere, especially given theBrazilian aardvark incident
I've sourced the commonly known names under Taxonomy and nomenclature. I picked only some illustrative sources to avoidWP:OVERCITE. I've also added one more common name. Let me know if it's too much or if maybe the information is better presented in another section.Barbalalaika 🐌20:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"However, a balanced population in the aquarium". What is "a balanced population" and would 'a limited population' be better?
A balanced population may fluctuate but it doesn't grow out of control nor dies out. I changed it to "a controlled population", what do you think?Barbalalaika 🐌17:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"until molecular and reproductive studies revealed them to be synonyms of P. acuta in the beginning of the 21st century." Suggest 'until molecular and reproductive studies at the beginning of the 21st century revealed them to be synonyms of P. acuta.' is both a little clearer and flows a little better.
"molecular phylogenetic". Could we have a brief in line explanation? PerMOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence."
I switched the wikilink for a short definition of the kind of studies we're talking about. I thought it flowed better than wikilink + explanation.Barbalalaika 🐌17:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"They place P. acuta in Physella". "they" implies plural, but is - I assume - referring to "the [ie singular] taxonomic classification".
I was referring to the authors of the currently accepted classification. Changed "they" to "the authors", thanks for pointing out the unclarityBarbalalaika 🐌17:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"the structure of its subfamily Physinae". I don't see Physinae on the cladogram; should I?
"the structure of its subfamily Physinae remains unclear as of 2025, leading to mixed acceptance of P. acuta's classification as Physella." Why? You haven't mentioned any connection between Physinae and Physella. You haven't said anything about Physinae at all. So how is a reader to understand why the acceptance was mixed.
"Debates include the taxonomic relationships between Physinae members as well as the definition and number of physinine genera and species, all of which also affect the identity of P. acuta." Why? Or possibly I mean 'How?'
This snippet has haunted me for ages. I restructured the paragraph (shuffled some snippets) because I felt it improved comprehension. The sentence you mentioned now comes up earlier as "Debates include the taxonomic relationships between Physinae members as well as the definition and number of physinine genera and species,which in turn affect how individual taxa, includingP. acuta, are defined and assigned. Consequently (...)" - please take a look and let me know if it needs a more thorough explanation. I feel I'm blinded by my biology background here.Barbalalaika 🐌17:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"which enables it to take oxygen from the water or from the air." Do we need the two definite articles?
I felt the need for them since it's an aquatic snail and some readers could exclude the possibility of it breathing air. And, on the other hand, "pulmonary" could lead other readers to consider only air.Barbalalaika 🐌20:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"which cannot properly attach to their shells." I am unsure what you are getting at here. Is it that the rapid, clockwise rotations serves to prevent these predators from attaching to P. acuta's shell?
"and a vagina connected to the spermathecal duct (which receives sperm) opening to the outside." Just checking that it is the spermathecal duct which opens to the outside?
I've read through the reference again and can't find any mention of a female organ opening to the outside (although Ivividly remember reading it). I removed the statement since it can't be supported anymore.Barbalalaika 🐌20:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Draparnaud's description happened during a time when USA and France had trade relations, with intense traffic between the ports of Mississippi and Bordeaux. After the Napoleonic wars, the American cotton trade switched to Britain". This is not really the case. Eg for the period 1793 (the start of significant US cotton exports - due to the invention of the cotton gin) to 1806 Britain imported more US cotton than France every year. So the hypothesis that P. acuta was present in France but not Britain in 1805 because France was importing more American cotton fails. And from 1815 French cotton imports increased hugely - admittedly not as much as Britain's. Suggest deleting "intense" and the sentence beginning "After the Napoleonic wars ..." (Any reason to believe it was introduced to Britain from the US and not France?
Oh,for this one I'll need some time. What I wrote is really all that the literature gave me, but I'll read through everything more carefully to see what I misunderstood or missed. Pending until I have a free evening.Barbalalaika 🐌17:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely possible that you have accurately summarised what the literature says of course, even biologists can sometimes be a bit shakey on their economic history.Gog the Mild (talk)17:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Adults lay 50–100 eggs per week for up to a year after reaching sexual maturity ... Individuals reach sexual maturity after 17 – 18 months." Consider putting the second of these sentences before the first.
You mean the sentence on sexual maturity before the sentence on egg laying? I had chosen the current structure because the previous snippet mentions fertilisation and mating, and I thought mating -> egg laying -> egg description -> sexual maturity flowed well.Barbalalaika 🐌19:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your call. I was thinking "Individuals reach sexual maturity after 17 – 18 months. Adults lay 50–100 eggs per week for up to a year after reaching sexual maturity". flowed a little better, but whichever you prefer.
I found a source describing the sexual development of the snail in a little more detail (and also correctly - months didn't make sense before) and now your suggestion makes more sense, so I applied it :)Barbalalaika 🐌20:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"as well as burying into the sediment". Maybe '... burrowing into ...'?
"as it reduces predation risk from slow-moving snail predators in newly colonised regions." This reads as if the behaviouronly reduces predation in "newly colonised regions". Suggest deleting "in newly colonised regions".
"Reported infections include the turtle parasites within the genus Krefftascaris and the family Spirorchiidae". That first use of "the" means you are referring toall such turtle parasites. If that is not what you mean, delete the definite article.
"The species was directly linked to a human illness once in 2024". Once in 2024, among other such occasions in other years; or only once ever and that was in 2024?
Only once and that was in 2024 (there's also a report from 2025 in Portugal, but that was published in MDPI, so I ignored it). I removed "once" (now "(...) directly linked to a human illness in 2024").Barbalalaika 🐌
"a controlled population of P. acuta in the aquarium". "the" → 'an'.
Re the cotton trade, I understand why we want some idea of how P. acuta got to France, as that is where it was first recorded. But why are we singling out Britain - from all the other countries in the world - as the only other country where we give a hypothesis as to how P. acuta got there? Would the sourcing support something like 'The most cited hypothesis, proposed by Anderson (2003), links it back to eastern U.S. populations via the 18th century cotton trade. This view is based on the fact that Draparnaud's description happened during a time when USA and France had trade relations, with intense traffic between the ports of Mississippi and Bordeaux. Subsequently P. acuta's spread within Europe was likely facilitated by man-made canals[45][46] and waterbirds.[47] This hypothesis is based on circumstantial evidence and earlier as well as natural introductions have also been proposed.[44]
I thought so too, User:Jens Lallensack|Jens]] is very on the ball. Yeah, Orwell is one of those writers whom I am more impressed by the more I read or reread him. And a couple of bits stolen from Richard Morgan, who I like to think would have got on with Orwell. Don't forget to ping me once you have addressed my comebacks above.Gog the Mild (talk)22:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the synonymy list in the taxobox, you could try making it collapsible. It's not a huge deal, it just saves a bit of space. Also the author
Done. I also added the title "selected synonyms" since, as mentioned to Jens in his review above, the actual list ofP. acuta synonyms is gigantic (seethis old version of my sandbox). I think it's too disruptive if users uncollapse it. Is this acceptable?
Since this is such a big pest species, there must be some information on how to control populations of them? If so it would be great to include information on that.
Very good thought. And done... ish. I'll revisit the snippet in the next days. I put it under "Distribution". A discussion of population control under "Predation", even if it's mostly biological control, didn't make sense to me. I could create a section "Human relevance" and put aquarium trade, population control, and ecotoxicology (pending) there. But I can't really see it making sense. So Distribution it is. Open for all critics!Barbalalaika 🐌21:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also seeing that it's been used as a model in a bunch of various ecotoxicology papers. it might be worth including a couple of those.
This article is about one of the most popular songs of 2024 by Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars. It was highly praised by critics received several awards, inducing two nominations at the Grammy Awards and one award at the same certainty. Furthermore, the song was later included in Gaga's studio album Mayhem as the closing track. Mars was one of the directors of the music video alongside Daniel Ramos. The video was also praised by critics and received various awards nominations. It was also submitted to the GOCE before nomination.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk)20:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Great song, I'll definitely take on a review here (especially with Bruno's new album possibly around the corner). Just an FYI that this is my first FA review ever, but I feel that I have enough experience with song articles in specific to do this one justice.Leafy46 (talk)18:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on article
Lead
"Mars presented the track in progress to Gaga, and they finished it on the same day. Its final direction emerged once she became involved, taking shape from an early sketch made with D'Mile and Fauntleroy." — These sentences feel weird, probably because it loops back on itself. I'd restructure it so it's all in chronological order: " "Die with a Smile" began as an early stretch Mars created with D'Mile and Fauntleroy. Its final direction emerged after Mars presented the track to Gaga three year later, and they finished it on the same day."
I'd move the "The song received critical acclaim..." sentence to the end of the second paragraph. This follows the article's structure, and gives context to the critical points about the instrumentation and lyrical weight
"Most viral track of 2024" linking toSpotify Wrapped feels like anWP:EGG, since I'd expect something like that to link to a list. Instead, I'd just write Spotify Wrapped out on its own, if the link is necessary to begin with.
"It earned multiple diamond and platinum certifications in Brazil, France, Canada, Australia, and Portugal." — This needs a qualifier like "including", given that the song also received multiple platinum certifications in many other countries not listed.
"An accompanying music video, directed by Mars and Daniel Ramos, was released simultaneously with the song, featuring Gaga playing piano and Mars playing guitar and singing together in a studio inspired by 1970s television." — Very much a run-on sentence, should be split either into two sentences or with a semicolon.
For the sentence about how both artists performed the song in solo settings, I would expect at least one Bruno Mars concert (e.g.Bruno Mars Live) to be listed, instead of having two Lady Gaga tours.
Background and development
Before I even begin a review of this section, I must ask if it's really necessary to stretch this section amongst three sections: "Background and development", "Conception", and "Writing and recording". After all, the three sections all are telling the same story from different perspectives (the first from a more broad one, the second primarily from Mars' perspective, and the third primarily from Gaga's perspective), and it feels like there is a lot of fat which can be trimmed here by merging the three together into one coherent, uninterrupted timeline of events.
Mars never commented this is Gaga's and the producers and writers perspectives, they have stories that don't match very well. I'm all down to trim the fat! I have addressed the lead
When I say Mars' perspective here, I mean that it focuses on his side of the story when the song originally came to fruition, and doesn't focus as much on Gaga's involvement. The issue imo is that this "Conception" section chronologically starts *before* the "Background and development" section (disregarding the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show), but ends *after* the "Writing and recording" section, since the part where Gaga worked on the track and recorded the vocals occurs before the final line in the "Conception" section. In other words, it would be more concise and followable if all these perspectives could be consolidated down into one larger section, with discrepancies between accounts perhaps being accounted for through notes or the sorts.Leafy46 (talk)20:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That had to due with the various perspectives, because some interviews are recent, while some have a couple of months, which led to that kind or organization. Nevertheless, I'm down to cut some of the fat, however, as you read you will see that every different person involved in the song said something different at some point.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk)18:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do see that there are some differing details, but one of thefeatured article criteria specifically says that articles should have an "appropriate structure", which is to say "a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings". I feel like having three separate sections discussing the background and writing of this song does violate that for being overwhelming. If I wanted to know, for instance, how the two artists met up for this song, where would I go? That is the sort of thing I might expect under "development" — and indeed there is mention of that fact there — but there is further detail about how they met up in both the "conception" and "writing and recording" section.
I guess what I'm saying is that having conflicting narratives is not an excuse for creating a hard-to-navigate structure like this, especially when notes can be used to explain discrepancies. In addition, many of the details between the three sections ARE actually consistent (as evidenced by the repeated mentions to how Gaga received an invitation from Mars and went to his recording studio). To make a suggestion, I could see these three sections collapsed into two: one "Background" section which talks about everything before Gaga's involvement, and one "Writing and recording" section which covers everything after that point.Leafy46 (talk)18:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You actually make huge points here. Yes according to the rules, maybe it is too much and it gets repetitive at some points.
I completely agree with you. Two sections might be enough, even if we think its too much in the end we can end up with one. Feel free to give pointers, more than happy to do itMarioSoulTruthFan (talk)21:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Two sections one called "Background and development" and other "Writing and recording" please do let me know if this is more suitable and chronologically makes more sense.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk)18:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely better as just two sections, but it hasn't really solved the issue of things being out of chronological order. The mention of the song's promotion (which should really be in the 'Release' section, as a side note) and the Rumor Mill article occur before the mention about how Mars originally sketched the track.Leafy46 (talk)21:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've reordered the content chronologically and moved the rumors and official confirmation to 'Production and release'. You cancheck the diff here. I'm not sure if this is exactly what you wanted, so please revert if it doesn't fit.CHr0m4tiko0 (talk)00:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this all looks great! I'm gonna remove the line about the Victoria's Secret show, given that it seems pretty tangential (that the two just happened to perform at the same event, without any indication that the two even met). Other than that, I'll give the article one more pass with fresh eyes tomorrow.Leafy46 (talk)00:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they interacted during the finale of the show andbackstage. I’m looking for a reliable source to confirm this direct interaction so we can justify keeping the mention.CHr0m4tiko0 (talk)00:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's ultimately your call as co-nominators. The whole point of this process is to open discussion about whether the article is in top condition, and if you believe that including this mention of their first meeting is important enough to keep in the article, then this isn't something so severe that I'd oppose this article over.Leafy46 (talk)01:07, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence here to be honest. In one way yes first time they met in "public eyes". How is that relevant for the song? If by then they decided to collaborate but because of busy schedules it was impossible to create a song...but that wasn't the case. We are talking about almost a decade later and Bruno even toss the song away because he couldn't "crack the code". It could have ended up in the Harley Quinn soundtrack. I can see that Leafy46 quite neutral...maybe we let Sricsi make a comment as well. Then we will see, that's why I like to work with other people...different POV's.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk)01:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Production and release
I noticed the link which sources the German CD single's release is broken, and should be replaced with the archive link. It would also be a good idea to check the other URLs in this section for that same issue.
"Additionally, Andrew Watt revealed in an interview with Rolling Stone that the song had always been intended forMayhem." — This contradicts the fact that the song was written well in advance ofMayhem, and was shelved by Mars as an "unfinished demo". There's gotta be a better way to put this such that the contradiction doesn't exist; if not, the attribution to Watt should be enough, if suboptimal.
What's the argument for usingBustle here, especially since it is featured so prominently in this section?WP:RSP calls its reliability "unclear" and says that it should be determined case-by-case.
I think some of the use of Bustle is reckless with wikivoice and failsMOS:QUOTEPOV, but its most prominent place in text is used to verify attributed opinions. RSP is concerned with factual reporting, which is not relevant here.Rollinginhisgrave (talk |edits)13:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I think I hit on one of the offending uses of this below with the "romantic and devastating" line, but I'll use this as a learning opportunity and take those guidelines into consideration as I continue on with this review. Thanks!Leafy46 (talk)17:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bustle source is not problematic here, its generally not a bad source when it comes to "pop music". The only reason it was used there was establishing a comparison between the lyrics of that song and another by Gaga's and I quote the article "The song portrays two lovers who want to experience their last moments with each other, not dissimilar to Gaga’s soaring 2011 hit “The Edge of Glory.”". So no MOS:QUOTEPOV at all, soRollinginhisgrave please be careful before your start point fingers at quotes and someone's else work. Now if you have a way to improve, we (co-nominators) I guess I can speak for the three of us when I say this, will be more than happy to help further improveMarioSoulTruthFan (talk)18:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MSTF, I see this is your first time at FAC, welcome, and sorry if my comment read as overly harsh. All my comments here are caveated with the page's introductory text: "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".
I never mention that, that's not the quote. Sure but I have done plenty of FL and more GA's than one can count. Yes that's why I'm here to address what's not and improve the quality of the article, even if it fails a first time. I will go for a second, a third, how many times needed. I didn't quote that sentence, I was quoting when you were questioning the Bustle source and its usage. Its just taken from the text there henceforth its on quotes, because its not paraphrased or used synonymsMarioSoulTruthFan (talk)21:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Luisa Calle should be attributed toBillboard Español, not justBillboard
Using "added" here also looks like OR, since it implies that Calle called the song a "soaring ballad" with all those genres attached when the source suggests otherwise.
"Ed Power ofThe Irish Times described it as a "Bond-theme-style duet" that "harks back to Gaga's underrated collaborations with Tony Bennett"" — Massiveoverquoting, this could easily be paraphrased to something like "Ed Powers ofThe Irish Times likened "Die with a Smile" to James Bond movie themes and the collaborations between Gaga and Tony Bennett"
I took a look at the source, andVariety never wrote that the song has a quote-unquote "soaring chorus". This should be fixed.
"...felt it is comparable..." — Awkwardly worded. Perhaps "found it similar...",matched its style...", or something in that vein
Shoegaze should be linked with respects to theClash review
I would move theNYT comparison to Jason Mraz one sentence back, so that the two comparisons to Mars's other songs are next to each other
TheNYT should also be linked here and de-linked later on in the article, for consistency
Remove the duplicated mention of "Variety's Jem Aswad"
Removed the first mention ofVariety, as theNME reference already covers that point; the second mention has been retained for the musical description.--CHr0m4tiko0 (talk)19:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Remove "Lyrically, the song is both "romantic and devastating"." It doesn't add anything except an unnecessary quote; I'd just get straight to the point by saying "Lyrically, it is presented as an intense love declaration..."
The lyrical section here feels very slanted towards interviews with Gaga and the press surroundingMayhem. Did Mars ever talk about the lyrics or the song's meaning?
No. Mars did not publicly comment on the song's lyrics or meaning. The available commentary comes from Gaga and producer Watt, who discussed the track in interviews conducted as part of the promotion ofMayhem, the album to which the song belongs.--CHr0m4tiko0 (talk)19:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct! Maybe it changes during the promotion of Mars's very upcoming album. However, only if it completes if he is going to say the same, I will add a quick mention that the artists shared a similar POV and sourceMarioSoulTruthFan (talk)21:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This section will need a good re-vamp to take care of the large amount ofWP:OQ, given that every sentence in the primary section uses some form of direct quote. I'll list a few examples of possible paraphrases below, but you should take a comb through this section to cut down on direct quotations if they do are being used in lieu of plain text. Also seeWP:RECEPTION.
"Brittany Spanos ofRolling Stone noted that "the new track puts the duo's soaring vocals on full display"." → "Brittany Spanos ofRolling Stone praised Gaga's and Mars's vocal performance on the track"
"Robin Murray ofClash gave the song eight out of ten stars, calling it "a homage to those lush 70s duets" that "also feels profoundly modern", and noting both artists "shine" with an "undoubted chemistry" that gives the track its own character." → "In an eight out of ten stars review, Robin Murray ofClash highlighted the "undoubted chemistry" between Gaga and Mars, and found the track to be a modern yet faithful rendition of duets from the 1970s."
"The Independent's Adam White described it as "a tender, gentle love song that serves both Gaga and Mars very well"." → "The Independent's Adam White deemed that the sound of "Die with a Smile" stylistically suited both Gaga and Mars, despite finding that its quality did not measure up to its commercial success." (This one is especially important, given that the source doesn't frame the song in a purely positive light, and thus it shouldn't be reflected as such in the article)
"Paul Grein ofBillboard called "Die with a Smile" a "match made in Grammy heaven" and an "instant smash", while the publication's Stephen Daw noted how "Gaga's powerful, soulful voice blends excellently with Bruno Mars' energetic belt"." → "Stephen Daw ofBillboard felt that Gaga's and Mars's voices worked well together, while the publication's Paul Grein considered the track an "instant smash" and a strong contender for that year's awards season."
"Mikael Wood, writing for the Los Angeles Times, placed the track at number 17 and commented, "Think Bruno ever wakes up and tries not to write a hit?" " — The list was co-authored by both Wood and August Brown, even if the write-up for this track was done by the former. This should be reflected in the prose here.
Uproxx should be italicized
The same overquoting principles, as well asMOS:QUOTEPOV, should be taken into account in the "Comments on the song's placement withinMayhem" section. For instance, "Stephen Ackroyd ofDork opined that due to its "dramatic, cinematic" nature, the song "fits perfectly as the album's curtain-closer"." could become "Stephen Ackroyd ofDork opined that the song's cinematic nature made it a strong conclusion to the record."
Uh... not really. The problem is that you're moving intoclose-paraphrasing territory, where instead of trying to summarize and convey the author's ideas, you're just resaying them with synonyms thrown in. This is especially clear in some of the changes you've made: the quote "blends Gaga's emotive pop melodies with Mars' old-school R&B influences" becomes "fuses Gaga's emotionally charged pop sensibility with Mars's retro R&B roots", which is not only CLOP, but actually creating new details not in the source (just because Mars was influenced by old-school R&B doesn't mean that those were his "roots", per se).
A reception section shouldn't just be a big block of different quotes, it should be a connected set highlighting the main similarities between critical opinions, using quotes sporadically to underline those points. For instance, I see lots of different critics saying that Gaga and Mars worked well together, so I might envision a line like "Critics praised Gaga's and Mars's vocal performances, with Robin Murray ofClash highlighting their "undoubted chemistry" and Stephen Daw ofBillboard writing that their different voices complemented each other well." The examples I gave above were steps towards this direction, however I didn't mean to imply that quotes can't be used at all (as you seem to have interpreted it), or that these changes could simply be copy-pasted in without a fundamental restructuring of the section. Again, I would highly suggest looking atWP:RECEPTION for advice here.Leafy46 (talk)01:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I got it? Re-read only the bustle source...not sure if I'm on the park-ball there. If not, then I will ask one of the other contributors to have a go thereMarioSoulTruthFan (talk)01:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It might be for the best to leave this to one of your co-nominators, yeah. The "emotionally-charged" part, which was originally in reference to just Gaga's vocal performance, has been changed in your re-write to refer to the song as a whole, which is completely outside of what the source says. I'm not sure who was the original author of this section, but whoever has the best grasp over all the sources included should ideally be the one to lead this section's revamping.Leafy46 (talk)02:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into it in the next few days. The goal is not to lose the nuances that make the critical opinions meaningful, but to paraphrase wherever possible so we can avoid overly long quotations.Sricsi (talk)07:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I perfectly agree with you there, my concern is/was that nearly every sentence uses a long quotation when at least some (if not most) could either be paraphrased, or consolidated into key points.Leafy46 (talk)20:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised the Comments on the song's placement withinMayhemsection by restructuring it around shared critical themes, consolidating similar viewpoints, and significantly reducing direct quotations in line with MOS:QUOTEPOV and WP:RECEPTION. Let me know if this addresses the concern more effectively.CHr0m4tiko0 (talk)23:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed theComments on the song's placement section and made some adjustments. I believe the goal was not to remove every quotation, but to paraphrase whenever possible while still preserving the nuances in what each critic actually said. In several places, the newer version changed the meaning of the original remarks—such as replacing "afterthought" with "epilogue", which does not convey the same point the critic was making.
The idea was to reduce overly long or unnecessary quotes, not eliminate all of them. Some brief quotations are still needed when the specific wording carries nuance that would otherwise be lost, which is consistent with WP:RECEPTION and FA-level writing.Sricsi (talk)08:55, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you got the right idea! And good job both of youCHr0m4tiko0 andSricsi. You are now both needed on the overall reception of the song. I'm working on the "backgrounds" section as of I'm writing this. If you can lend a hand and your expertise on the rest of the Critical Reception we can have everything done in no time. Thanks!MarioSoulTruthFan (talk)18:05, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've already implemented the requested changes to the section, reducing long quotations and consolidating the wording in line with WP:RECEPTION; there may still be room for minor tweaks, but the main issues raised have been addressed.CHr0m4tiko0 (talk)18:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The new section is indeed much better. There are a few nitpicks I could make, but this has resolved my concerns regarding the excessive use of quotations from earlier.Leafy46 (talk)21:30, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial performance
I reckon the "America" header should be changed to "Americas"? Just because the section speaks about both North and South America
What makesForbes usable here? It is used quite a few times, despite Hugh McIntyre being a "senior contributor" (making it a generally unreliable source, perWP:FORBESCON)
Ditto for the previously-usedForbes article by Chris Malone Méndez, who is listed in the byline as a "former contributor"
"...where Gaga and Mars became the first non-Filipino artists to reach number one on the Philippines Hot 100 since the chart's reintroduction in July 2024." — I feel like "artist" should be changed to "act" here, one because that is the language used by the source, and two because Mars is part Filipino and thus this sentence could come across as confusing.
Same EGG problem here, with Spotify Wrapped being linked to "most viral song of 2024" when the principle of least astonishment would instead suggest a list of the "most viral songs" of some kind.
"Its success, along with Rosé's "APT."..." — Change to "along with that of "APT."...", since it's already established earlier in the section that APT. was by Rosé and Mars.
Is there a better source that the Guinness Book of World Records that can be used to source the Spotify Global daily chart info? PerWP:GUINNESS, as a source with no consensus on if it constitutesdue weight
We were unable to find an alternative source for this specific Spotify Global daily chart record. Guinness was therefore retained, as it has been accepted for comparable data in other Good and Featured Articles (e.g.,The Life of a Showgirl).--CHr0m4tiko0 (talk)01:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Gaga appears in red tights with a hairstyle inspired by Dolly Parton..." — Maybe "reminiscent of" instead of "inspired by"? I know that the source says "inspired", but the wording implies that basing the hairstyle off of Parton was a deliberate choice made by the directors, when in reality it seems to just be the opinion of theTelegraph writer.
NeitherBillboard norVariety calls this video a quote-unquote "retro Nashville concept", so the quotes should be removed and the line replaced with something else
The year next toJoker: Folie à Deux isn't necessary here
"Fashion publications pointed out the 1970s Western influence in the wardrobe, noting Gaga's blue minidress designed by Ashley Eva Brock and styled by Chloe and Chenelle Delgadillo, with hair by Evanie Frausto and makeup by Alexandra French using Haus Labs products, while Mars appears in a coordinated blue suit and red shirt reminiscent of Dolly Parton and Porter Wagoner's duets." — Definitely a run-on sentence, I'd split this into two for the sake of clarity (especially with the amount of names being dropped)
"The A.V. Club's Drew Gillis found it largely unengaging, as it offers little visual material beyond the pair singing to each other..." —WP:WIKIVOICE. "The A.V. Club's Drew Gillis described the video as unengaging as he felt that it offered little visual material beyond the pair singing to each other..."
"Hilarious" to "Fairly hilarious", gotta keep it accurate to what the source is saying.
The source doesn't say that the performance at Mars's Vegas residency was the second live performance of this song with both Mars and Gaga, so either a source should be added or the article shouldn't say that.
"...during an intimate show at The Belasco in Los Angeles..." — I would remove "intimate", as that line links toLady Gaga in Harlequin Live: One Night Only and it could be seen as being promotional (and isn't in the source, to boot)
"California Dreamin'" was released in 1965 per its article, not 1963
Looks fine to me. I'd question if the BBC Radio 1 performance isdue weight because it's the only one which has only a primary source, but otherwise this section feels alright
With that, that's all the prose checked (at long last). Aside from these smaller changes in the last few sections, the two larger changes I'd like to see are a consolidation of the first three sections ('Background and development', 'Conception', and 'Writing and recording'), and a re-write of the 'Critical reception' section keeping in mind OQ and RECEPTION. After these changes are made, I'll give the article one more pass, and would be happy supporting the prose of this article (with no opinion as to its media use and its verifiability).Leafy46 (talk)21:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, I would recommend consolidating all the information up to Mars' phone call to Gaga under one section, and everything after that point in another. Whether you choose to follow that or come up with some other way to consolidate the sections is up to you or your co-nominators.Leafy46 (talk)23:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, it should all just be small nitpicks here and there. Let's see what there is left to do.
Is there a source somewhere for the "Written 2023–2024" in the infobox?
Mars start writing it in 2021, they went back to the song several times and it was finished in 2024 with Gaga and Watt contribution. James Fauntleroy and D'mile said so, Gaga finished the writing in 2024.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk)22:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"...as well as to Mars's Silk Sonic project, and is reminiscent of his Jason Mraz style." — Second half there is stating an opinion as a fact, the tone should be softened in line withWP:VOICE.
"Lyrically, it expresses a powerful longing to be with a loved one, highlighting the urgency and depth of their love in the face of uncertainty and potential endings." — The sentence changes perspective partway through, i.e. who is "their"?
I'm still not *totally* convinced about the Victoria's Secret show being mentioned here, but I'll let other future reviewers decide whether it belongs.
Having "several years later" and "three years earlier" in the same sentence is a bit of an odd construction. I'd honestly cut both for clarity, and instead have smth along the lines of "According to James Fauntleroy, Mars first sketched what would become "Die with a Smile in 2021..."
"The two artists interacted on social media before confirming the collaboration..." — Maybe a little more on what "interacted" specifically means here?
I'd link "CD single" and "7-inch vinyl" in the 'Release' section. Lmk if you consider it overlink.
Remove the second link toBustle
TheIndependent review should be moved down to the third paragraph, since it's more of a mixed review than a strictly positive one.
Note B (in the 'Comments on the song's placement' section) feels unnecessary to me. It almost feels like it's trying to defend the album, in that critical opinion says that the song clashes with the record's tone, but the note is adding "Of course, this is an album that Gaga calls intentionally eclectic in tone, so keep that in mind when judging the validity of the following reviews".
I understand the concern. I added that note mainly because this subsection is, in itself, somewhat unusual for articles about singles on Wikipedia, as it's not common to see a dedicated critical discussion about how a single functions within the context of its parent album. In that sense, my intention was not to defend the album or to counter the critics' views, but to provide additional context — which doesn't fit naturally into the main prose and is why it was included as a note — namely Gaga's own description ofMayhem as intentionally eclectic in tone. Without that context, the section can read as if the album were otherwise stylistically uniform, which isn't the case.--CHr0m4tiko0 (talk)21:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you already have context with the Gaga's quote? Because its basically the same thing. She explains the inclusion, critics argue and other critics defend. You can also change her quote to add whats on the noteMarioSoulTruthFan (talk)23:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the quote and the note were addressing the same thing. Gaga's quote is mainly thematic, explaining how the album ends emotionally, while the note referred more toMayhem's sonic and stylistic eclecticism, which is exactly what some reviewers are reacting to when they argue the song clashes with the album's tone or pacing.
That said, to avoid redundancy, I've moved that contextual information into the opening of the subsection so it complements the block quote rather than sitting as a separate note.CHr0m4tiko0 (talk)23:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So why is the quote there? Because she explains the sound "between contrasting sounds and moods before ultimately resolving in love". I think the quote would probably be more appropriate for the album. Sure its a huge contrast with the rest of the tracks. Let's see what our dedicated reviewer says about it,the Victoria Fashion and the commercial performance as well.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk)00:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new positioning of the note, moving it into the first paragraph. I also do question whether it makes the quote box necessary here; you've already paraphrased the important parts from this quote into the prose, so having the quote on its own feels a bit like overkill and possibly creates due weight issues perMOS:QUOTEBOX.Leafy46 (talk)18:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the 21,000 copies sold in the source for the first sentence of the 'Commercial performance' section. The exact chart of which the album "peaked at number one" in should also be mentioned.
There are several charts missing from the 'Commercial performance' section. Immediately, I see that Slovakia, South Korea, and Suriname are all missing, despite all of them being Top 40 (with Suriname even being No. 1). Please add these ones, and whichever other charts are not present.
These aside, I don't see anything else major which needs be addressed. I'm sure that if I missed something, it'll surely get caught by another future reviewer.Leafy46 (talk)21:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed along with CHr0m4tiko0 to most of your concerns, but three of them. One I explained and the other two we are still in litigation.
Regarding the charts, I have added a couple more, but this section is suppose to be a summary section and ofc the Hot 100 has a different weight then the Suriname charts. So no, I won't add all the charts in the table. As always please let us know something
If you're going to make the argument that this section should be a summary, then I must point out that many other FAs for songs with similar global chart success boil down a song's commercial performance to around three paragraphs total (e.g.Shake It Off,Love the Way You Lie,Bad Romance). In contrast, this article spends three paragraphs on this song's US chart success alone, suggesting a level of unnecessary detail (WP:FACR#4). In defense of this article, the longest commercial performance section I found was inDiamonds (Rihanna song), which spends two hefty paragraphs on the US chart success. However, perhaps this section needs some rebalancing.Leafy46 (talk)19:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After lots of dedication on the part of the co-nominators, I am happy to offer mysupport for this article's prose, with no prejudice about its sourcing or media use. As previously mentioned, this is my first FAC review, but I'm sure that anything I missed will be found by a future reviewer and promptly resolved. I wish the first-time nominators here luck on beatingthe 15%.Leafy46 (talk)19:13, 13 January 2026 (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)18:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Going on a bit of a limb here. But would you like to be a reviewer or can you give any ideas how to attract more reviews? I have done 209 GA reviews up to this point, so I believe I have contributed to Wikipedia a lot.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk)18:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Expect comments from me within the next week. Might post them section-by-section. Will also consider doing spot-checks on the sources.Lazman321 (talk)01:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"...through Interscope Records, and later included as the closing track..." to "...through Interscope Records and was included as the closing track..."Lazman321 (talk)19:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Mars initially considered pitching an early version of the song for the film Joker: Folie à Deux (2024), in which Lady Gaga stars, or for her project Harlequin (2024)—which first led him to consider her as a potential collaborator." - This sentence should be re-arranged chronicalogically to avoid the last clause from being jarring.Lazman321 (talk)19:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"...on her sixth solo studio album, Mayhem (2025), was invited..." to "...on her sixth solo studio album Mayhem (2025), was invited..."Lazman321 (talk)19:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed this with the previous reviewer who gave his first batch of comments. There were three sections regarding background and recording he suggested for us to trimmed it down to two sections, which we did. Now they are different. The first one is before they met to record it. So it speaks about Mars, D'mile and Fauntleroy how they created the track, etc. Mars shelving the song, bringing it back and then inviting gaga to the studio. The section below finds Gaga in the studio with Mars they further developing the song and recording it, how they interectac in the studio.
Consider moving it between the composition and the reception sections. No further comments here.
Composition and production
"...displaying the emotional style of a pop and soul sentimental ballad." to "...evokes the emotional style of a sentimental ballad."
"...sentimental ballad. Critics also noticed its country influences." to "...sentimental ballad, with Influences from country music."
The last part of the first paragraph feels like its rehashing the personnel section. Most of it can be cut.
The rest of the section is filled with "A said B" statements, relying on an excessive number of quotes. Please cut them down or summarize their key points.
"'Die with a Smile' received widespread critical acclaim..." - But the section lists negative assessments, so is it really widespread?
The section does include some negative assessments, but that doesn't necessarily contradict "widespread critical acclaim". Even songs that are broadly praised almost always receive a few mixed or negative reviews. What matters is the overall balance of reliable sources. If the majority of professional critics responded positively, then "widespread acclaim" is accurate — as long as the article still includes the negative viewpoints to give a complete and neutral representation of the reception. The goal isn't to imply unanimous praise, but to summarize the general consensus while acknowledging dissenting opinions. --Sricsi (talk)23:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Reviewers also focused on the song's melodic and emotional qualities." - The quotes following this introductory statement do not focus on the "melodic and emotional qualities"
No problem take your time, can't rush this kinda of reviews. Critical reception has been addressed. I cut some of the personnel section and I will leave the rest of the trim and the quotes toCHr0m4tiko0 andSricsi. Its their strong suit and I'm sure they want to contribute with their expertise's.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk)22:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial performance
This has got to be the longest commercial performance section I have ever seen, especially for a single. I don't really have any notes on it at the moment, but if there's anything you can cut, go ahead.
"Gaga revealed via Instagram alongside the song's announcement that its accompanying music video would be released simultaneously with the track at 9 p.m. PDT." - This sentence feels wordy and awkward. Please rewrite.
"...hairstyle eminiscent of Dolly Parton, whereas Mars wears a white cowboy hat." to "...hairstyle eminiscent of Dolly Parton, while Mars wears a white cowboy hat."
What is a "Nashville"? Do you mean Nashville-themed?
"...with the former publication adding "retro" as well." - This clause is not needed.
"while other outlets noted..." to "Other outlets noted that..."
"...and Cher and suggested it could reference the relationship..." to "...and Cher. Some suggested it could be referencing the relationship..."
And I think that will be all for now. The rest of the article is almost entirely lists, tables, or timelines, with not much to critique. If I have time I might do some spot-checks.Lazman321 (talk)21:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
File:James Taylor - Winterfest.jpg- The source link is dead.
The two images underCommercial performance are missing alt text.
File:Mayhem Ball - Die with a Smile (Las Vegas) cropped.jpg andFile:Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars - Die With a Smile (music video screenshot).png- Same as the previous one.
Then perhaps the other image should be replaced as well. I deliberately chose two black-and-white photos of the singers to keep the presentation consistent.Sricsi (talk)19:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revert if you disagree, but I replaced it with another image of Taylor. I think it makes more sense to use photos from the same year (2000) for both, rather than one from the '70s and the other from three decades later.Sricsi (talk)21:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Lady Gaga & Bruno Mars' 'Die With a Smile' Makes History as Year-End Hot 100 No. 1" throws an error message. Otherwise, this is so long that I can't guarantee I didn't overlook a source. Variety at times seems to have an OCLC and ISSN and other times it doesn't? IsDeezer a reliable source? Didn't notice any major formatting irregularity, but again - length.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)17:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Minor nitpick (and I have a few of them) but is there a way to add the song length to the body of the article so it can be sourced?
Does it need to? The length is on the Apple Music source, is on the album where was latter included. It adds no vital information and the article is as big as it is.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk)20:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen several featured song articles that don't include the song length in the article, but a few do,such as this one. Also, the music video's length is mentioned, even though it's only one second longer than the song, so if you're worried about the article's length, I suggest cutting the music video's length (doesn't add anything vital) so you can add the song's length in the "composition" section. But it's not a necessity. ♫Hurricanehink (talk)20:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it and not going to add any length to be honest. Thanks for the suggestions. I don't have much time today but I will do the best I can with the rest.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk)20:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
" It has been compared to Gaga's album Joanne (2016) and her single "Shallow" (2018) from the A Star Is Born soundtrack, as well as Mars's Silk Sonic project and his Jason Mraz style." - is there a source for all of this? Mraz is only mentioned in the lead (I did a quick search and find), and "Shallow" is only mentioned in the lead as well. Technically all material in the lead is supposed to be in the body of the article, and "Shallow" isn't mentioned anywhere.
"The duo performed the song together for the first time at a Mars concert in Los Angeles in August 2024, and a later performance in Las Vegas was released officially." - I feel like the second part could be its own sentence so you could expand on "officially"
I gotta ask, since Mars started working on the song in 2021, was it Covid-inspired, or is there any Covid connection? I did a brief Google search and couldn't find anything, so there might not be any connection here.
"The single was first released via digital download and streaming platforms on August 16, 2024, by Interscope Records." - considering the exact date and year was in the previous paragraph, is the year needed here?
""Die with a Smile" is a pop, pop-soul, and soft rock song,[44][45][46] evokes the emotional style of a sentimental ballad.[47][48][49] with Influences from country music." - just checking if you intended for all of that to be a single sentence, or if you wanted "With influences from country music" to be its own sentence and starting something new
"According to the sheet music published by BMG Rights Management on Musicnotes, "Die with a Smile" is composed in the key of A major with a slow tempo of 52 beats per minute." - I suggest also adding that the song is in 6/8time signature. The source you provided here already says this.
"The vocal range spans from G3 to E5." - because the song is in A major (with three sharps), the low note is actually G#, not G
"soaring ballad that blends pop, soul, country and rock" - you link country music here, but you should link it when you first mention country
Is there a reason you include "production" with "composition"? A lot of the information there repeats or expands on the info from "Writing and recording", and seems more of a natural fit in the latter section.
You start two consecutive sections with"Die with a Smile" - obviously that is the song title, but also seeing the same exact thing starting "Year-end lists" starts to feel a bit repetitive from a writing-style point of view. For example, I think the "Composition" section could start with:
Evoking the emotional style of a sentimental ballad, "Die with a Smile" is a pop, pop-soul, and soft rock song.
while Craig Jenkins emphasized its triumphant harmonies and weighty balladry shaped by countrypolitan and doomerist influences - I feel like "countrypolitan" and "doomerist" should be in quotes, since I'm not familiar with either term too much.
"Die With a Smile" not only was the longest-charting song with a female lead but also the longest-charting duet ever in the top 10 of the Billboard Hot 100. - is it worth adding what song this surpassed?
Make sure number terms like "3.054 billion" have a non-breaking space, so it reads like "3.054 billion".
The only thing else I noticed is the lack of any mention of the song in pop culture. I'm not sure if it's appeared in any movies or TV shows yet, but the song was used a ton on Tiktok, including for a lot of random videos with the song in the background. That might not be actionable if no sources discuss that aspect, but just wanted to bring that up.
It appeared a lot on Tik Tok because of Love Island where it was featured. Not really a lot of reliable sources discussing that I would add that alongside Live performances and other usages.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk)23:01, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for another excellent article! You seem to be genuinely tireless. Anyway,MOS:SEEALSO says:Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. Looking at the section, I’d say most of them would need annotations—except for the list article, which is self-explanatory.BorgQueen (talk)14:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely sure whether the article follows American English throughout. If that is the intention, you could consider adding “Use American English” to the mainspace for clarity.MSincccc (talk)09:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
“Deductive logic” currently redirects to deductive reasoning. These terms are not strictly interchangeable: deductive logic refers to the formal system or theory, whereas deductive reasoning refers to the process or act of reasoning.
I moved the link to only apply to the word "deductive" to avoid confusing readers. An alternative would be to change the link target toLogic#Formal_logic, but we already link to the article Logic later.Phlsph7 (talk)15:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You could move up the link to "logical reasoning"; I leave it to you.
There is already one link earlier in the section "Definition". We could remove the link here, but keeping it may also be fine since it is quite relevant to the paragraph.Phlsph7 (talk)15:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding several gaps in the article which I'll need to ask about to clarify:
HelloErnestKrause and thanks for probing this article. My impression is that some of your points are more concerned with certain difficulties associated with proofs in the field of mathematics than with rules of inference per se, see my responses below.Phlsph7 (talk)11:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The mathematical proofs which usequod erat demonstrandum appear to not be relevant to the article. It is often abbreviated as QED and might deserve some mention aside from just stating it is another proof method available.
Maybe you mean something different, but as I understand it, QED is not a type or tool of mathematical proofs but a historical Latin phrase used by some mathematicians to indicate where a proof ends. We could add a footnote to the paragraph on mathematics along the lines "Q.E.D. is a traditional abbreviation in mathematics placed at the end of proofs", but my impression is that it leans in the direction of trivia.Phlsph7 (talk)11:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The term is usually read as "which suffices for proof", and this is the question that can be put on this article, namely, what are the conditions by which a proof by logical inference is deemed 'sufficient'.ErnestKrause (talk)15:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(2) The list of proof methods which are dependent on rules of inference seems to be more extensive on the list covered in themathematical proof article on Wikipedia. Are you being overly selective in what you cover in this article.
The main topic of the article is rules of inference. Proofs are more complex entities (there is a paragraph on the relation between the two in the section "Definition") and proofs in mathematics are just one specific area. Our article covers applications to mathematics in the first paragraph of the section "In various fields". I added a short sentence to mention some proof types there.Phlsph7 (talk)11:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could the lede make more explicit that the other proof methods are equally valid; that proof by inference is by far not the main option or preferred option of all the available methods of proof?ErnestKrause (talk)15:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "proof by inference" and by "other proof methods" that are preferred. Do you know of a source that makes this claim? Proofs are made up of steps which are typically called "inferences".Phlsph7 (talk)09:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(3) The limits of rules of inference as reached in theGodel incompleteness theorem appear to not be covered at all. Godel is mentioned in the article sibling article links after this article, but it not covered otherwise at all in the article here.
Do you mean Gödel's first incompleteness theorem? As I understand it, it is less about rules of inference per se and more about limitations associated with certain axioms used in some mathematical systems. I think it says something along the lines: if you have a consistent formal system that encodes basic arithmetic then there are some statements in this system which you cannot prove or disprove. I could be wrong, but I don't think it tells us much about rules of inference likemodus ponens ormodus tollens. If you know of a source that explicitly makes this link, I would look into it.Phlsph7 (talk)11:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rules of inference are generally often when a hypothesis is put forward which might be proved or disproved. Then rules of inference are applied to either prove or disprove the hypothesis based on applying logical inference upon some set of axioms. Although this works for conventional hypothesis proof or disproof, the Godel theorem says that when a size of the hypothesis meets the constructed size of the proof method used in proving the Godel theorem then logical inference will fail to demonstrate truth or falsehood for Godel's construction. I'm fairly sure this is covered in all the basic sources on Godel's theorem such as 'Gödel's Theorem: A Very Short Introduction', A. W. Moore, which is fairly accessible.ErnestKrause (talk)15:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(4) The equivalence problem of Rules of inference proofs and proofs of probability theory was solved byKolmogorov as one ofHilbert's problems a century ago, but your article does not cover this. It seems at least to be touched upon in themathematical proof article on Wikipedia, but not here.
I'm referring to the account given about applications in probability within the Wikipedia article formathematical proofs.
I'm also certainly referring to the Sixth Problem which is summarized on the Wikipedia page for the list of Hilbert problems with the statement: "...partially resolved, depending on how the original statement is interpreted.[15] Items (a) and (b) were two specific problems given by Hilbert in a later explanation.[1] Kolmogorov's axiomatics (1933) is now accepted as standard for the foundations of probability theory. There is some success on the way from the "atomistic view to the laws of motion of continua",[16] but the transition from classical to quantum physics means that there would have to be two axiomatic formulations, with a clear link between them." You have no mention of the rules of inference as they relate to Probability theory, which is mentioned in both the mathematical proofs article and in discussions of Hilbert's Sixth as addressed in Kolmogorov's famous book on probability.ErnestKrause (talk)15:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have a paragraph on many-valued in the subsection "Other systems". I added a sentence on probability logics there.Phlsph7 (talk)09:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(5) The method ofproof by contradiction, reductio ad absurdum, appears to not be covered in the article. You do mention 'contraditions', but not 'reductio'. Is this the plan to keep it out of this article.
I added a footnote to the paragraph discussing the relation between rules of inference and proofs. It's also now mentioned in the paragraph on mathematics, see my response to (2).Phlsph7 (talk)11:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(1') There is the question of the basis of rules of inference as being dependent upon someaxiomatic basis from which deductions are derived. For example, you first start with the basicEuclidean axioms, and only then do you go on to the rules of inference place upon those axioms for deriving proofs. That does not seem to be covered in this article.
If you mean that rules of inference require premises to reach conclusions, I agree. This point is covered in the article. Premises may or may not take the form of axiom schemes. Axiom schemes are explained in the paragraph on Hilbert systems in the section "Formalisms".Phlsph7 (talk)11:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(2') Rules of inference are also connected with formal automata theory at a basic level in things like the 3-cnf problems andsatisfiability problems which doesn't receive notice in this article as I read through. Was this done for a reason or did I miss something.
Computer science is covered in the second paragraph of the section "In various fields". There are many applications of rules of inference in this area but we only have little space to cover this topic, so I think it's better to leave the more specific applications to child articles.Phlsph7 (talk)11:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(3') There appear to be implications of this topic forAI applications andLLM models. How closely related are AI applications to internal rules of inference upon which such application appear to depend upon. Similarly for LLM models, which seem to draw conclusion about the material they are discoursing upon.ErnestKrause (talk)16:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding AI, the more direct link is to expert systems since they use inference engines. This is discussed in the section "In various fields".Phlsph7 (talk)10:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(4') There is a good deal in the literature about mechanical theorem proving andautomated theorem proving which depends are great deal upon rules of inference being applied by computers; however, it doesn't appear to be covered in this article.ErnestKrause (talk)16:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Automated reasoning is mentioned in the lead and automated theorem proving is explained explicitly in the section "In various fields".Phlsph7 (talk)10:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(5') Relationship toScientific method andhypothesis testing as it related to rules of inference. It seems that the relationship is extensive in both of these. Procedurally, one collects data to prove a hypothesis and then uses rules of inference to prove one's case and scientific hypothesis as being true or false.ErnestKrause (talk)15:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence on the empirical sciences to the discussion of non-deductive reasoning. Generally speaking, rules of inference belong to deductive reasoning while the empirical sciences characteristically rely on non-deductive reasoning.Phlsph7 (talk)10:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that BorgQueen and MSinnc are on board as yet in the above discussion; it might be nice to see more comments on this nomination. I've added item 5' above as well, and it might be useful to wait to hear from another editor or two as to what they think of this article.ErnestKrause (talk)15:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MSincccc supports the nomination. I don't think that BorgQueen intends to write a full review. I hope there will be more reviewers soon.Phlsph7 (talk)10:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, this topic is not everyone's cup of tea. I reached out to some editors, so hopefully there will be more reviews soon.Phlsph7 (talk)10:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your two pings bring me here with 3-4 more comments;
A) There still appears to be some gaps in the article which ought not to be there, for example, no mention of Russell and Whitehead'sPrincipia Mathematica and the many times that its article discusses inference rules. It was a major book and adding it as a simple footnote or as a single sentence addition to this article seems like it would be inadequate.
As I mentioned earlier, I have the impression that various of your expansion suggestions overemphasize the importance of specific topics in mathematics. However, the concept of rules of inference belongs primarily to logic, not to mathematics. For example, the book "Principia Mathematica" relied on the concept of rules of inference to make important contributions to the foundations of mathematics, but I don't think it made important contributions to the concept of rules of inference. Just because A is important to B, it does not mean that B is important to A.
I have similar concerns regarding your suggestions about including detailed explanations of the Boolean satisfiability problem and the conjunctive normal form. It's quite possible that rules of inference are important for understanding these concepts, but rules of inference are central to any kind of deductive reasoning, so it seems arbitrary to include detailed explanations of these specific topics.
I had a look at the relevant chapters in Copi, Cohen & Flage 2016 and Hurley 2016: none of them support your expansion suggestions. For most part, they don't mention these topics at all. If they do, it is usually in very different contexts. This indicates that the suggestions would violateWP:PROPORTION. If you know of high-quality sources that explicitly support the importance of these topics to the concept of rules of inference at large, I can look into them. However, I don't want to engage in a substantial expansion without solid justification from the sources.Phlsph7 (talk)10:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
B) Regarding the theme of learning from computer science, then there should be more stated aboutBoolean satisfiability problem andConjunctive normal form both of which, I think, are more than just a single footnote issue, or a single sentence addition to the article. They are both highly dependent upon understanding rules of inference. 3-CNF remains a significant problem in computer science for solvingP=NP but we are learning almost nothing about it in the current article.
C) The comment below from BorgQueen that the lede is not very reader-friendly should be taken seriously. If the article is to go to FA then it needs to be accessible to general readers, and also understandable to general readers, which BorgQueen seems to say is not the case in your current lede. The lede to the article forPrincipia Mathematica, although not peer reviewed, seems to meet the criterion of being reader-friendly, and it might serve as a model for adapting/modifying the current lede here. You could then return to BorgQueen to see if the lede is more reader-friendly and maybe convince them.
@BorgQueen: Sorry for dragging you into the discussion again, but it seems ErnestKrause interpreted your explanation about not writing a full review as a criticism of the lead. I'm not sure if that is the intended meaning. However, I'm open to improvement suggestions if you are concerned about specific passages in the lead.Phlsph7 (talk)10:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause, BorgQueen explicitly said that she wouldn't write a review, so it's probably better to take her word for it than to try to find some hidden meaning in her expression. If you yourself have concrete concerns, I can look into them.Phlsph7 (talk)10:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 Sorry I was busy IRL. I do feel the entire article, not just the lede, is fairly opaque for lay readers, though that may be unavoidable given the nature of the subject. I don’t really have a strong opinion on it.BorgQueen (talk)14:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. The topic of the article is an abstract logical concept rather than a concrete landmark or an everyday object, so there is not much we can do about the topic itself. I can respond to more specific concerns about particular passages.Phlsph7 (talk)09:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
D) In the lede, the title of the article is 'Rule of inference' however your first sentence uses the plural form "rules of inference" to start of the article; which one is it, the singular or the plural, which should be clarified in the lede.
The plural formulation is mainly for linguistic reasons: the idea can be expressed more concisely in the first two sentences this way. The current version is: "Rules of inference are ways of deriving conclusions from premises. They are integral parts of formal logic, ..." If we wanted to turn it into singular, we would need a longer and more reptitive formulation along the lines: "A rule of inference isa way of deriving conclusions from premises.The concept of a rule of inference is an integral part of formal logic, ..."Phlsph7 (talk)10:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First time participating in a FAC review. I was invited byPhlsph7 since I also provided comments in the recentpeer-review. I am not an expert on the topic but relatively distant familiar, but I will provide comments as a non-expert curious reader. If I overstep in comments as I am not being fully familiar on how a FA article should be, please correct me; thank you in advance. One final comment, I believe that this topic is essential for WP to have as top quality (with or without FA status, ideally the former) due to its fundamental importance even if this is not everyone's cup of tea.
Comments
Now that I re-read the lead, I feel the third paragraph reads as a list of different definitions of logical systems. Why I understand that the different kinds of logical systems need to be mentioned as it is something that is explored in the main body, I feel that explaining all the definitions is not as inviting to a curious reader. Perhaps a rewrite is needed to provide a more engaging summary with perhaps emphasizing the value of these logical systems in everyday life/applications. A big picture summary is more appropriate in the lead than explaining the various logical systems. Perhaps this might require a merge with the last two sentence paragraph.
I gave it a try: I added an introductory sentence, simplified the explanations of propositional and first-order logic, and removed some technical terms. See if it's better this way. Explaining the applications of formal systems above the fact that they codify reasoning may not be feasible for a concise lead discussion.
His explanations of valid and invalid syllogisms were further refined perhaps a rewrite along the lines of "His explanations on the nature of validity in syllogisms". I find the phrase "valid and invalid" kind of awkward.
I removed the expression "and invalid". In principle, we could also remove the term "valid" in this context to further simplify.Phlsph7 (talk)11:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative methods include the use of truth tables, which applies to propositional logic, I think you want to say "apply"
For instance, the rule of replacement in alethic modal logic... I think you need to add a couple of commas to help the reader; before "asserting" and before "also".
It uses metavariables, which are placeholders that can be replaced by specific terms or formulas to generate an infinite number of true statements. The "which are" is not needed.
"See also" section: not all dashes appear to have the same length, it feels off. The three entries have a dash generated byannotated link template, while the entry "Inference objection" has an explicitem dash, but the two dashes do not match.
Two references: "Boricic 2016" & "Demey, Kooi & Sack 2023" produce Harv errors meaning that the sfn (or something similar template) fails to find the appropriate target reference. Probably the sources were not included. Please fix this.
Make sure that straight quotation marks are used throughout the text perMOS:STRAIGHT, for example:The Subject of Logic: “Syllogisms” needs fixing. From a quick look most of them as straight, but double check.A.Cython(talk)00:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support You have addressed my concerns. No matter how the votes fall (or whether mine even counts), you have done a great job in writing this challenging but essential topic in WP. Thank you!A.Cython(talk)23:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly four weeks in and just the single general support. I am afraid that 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)14:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. I have already reached out to some editors who plan to review the nomination. However, finding reviewers and doing reviews can take a while with this type of topic, so lenience regarding timeframe would be appreciated.Phlsph7 (talk)10:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, I have to question the Google Books page links - given that Google Books displays differently to different people, I think that either all page numbers should have such links, or none. Otherwise, I don't see anything else like unreliable sources, although I am not sure why some sources in the "Sources" section have page number ranges and others not.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)11:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea! Another editor was planning to write a review but they haven't been online in over a week so it's possible that RL interferred. In the meantime, I reached out to a few more editors.Phlsph7 (talk)11:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cycle-by comment
Before reading the rest of this please be sure you are sitting down and have a glass of water, or preferably Glenfidditch 12, at hand. Then note that in ref 29 the article defines "logic" by relying on Hintikka. Lord have mercy! Hintikka is singing a very lonely tune. To see that please take a look at the bok "What is a logical system" by Gabbay, Oxford 1994. The conclusion is that no one knows what logic is. Now you can drink your Glenfidditch. Mossakowski attempted a definition[12] but it is so complicated to be beyond reach of most people. By the way, if you guys manage to figure out what logic is as part of this discussion, please inform the editors ofLogica Universalis for they do not have a clue, and they admit it. Unlikeuniversal algebrauniversal logic never flew. Note that the G&B definition of instituition there assumes no definition for logic. Rightly so. But the good news is that the definition of inference does not need a definition of logic! I have not read the rext of the article and will take no position here and will make no further comments. But you probably got a hint about the level of research here. Good day.Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk)00:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. It seems that the sources you cited are primarily about the meaning of the countable term "a logic", which refers to a specific formal system, but not about the meaning of the uncountable term "logic", which is the term used the passage in our article and denotes a field of inquiry.Phlsph7 (talk)11:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Why should you go to jail for a crime someone else noticed?"
The above quote is from the classicArrested Development episode "Forget-Me-Now", one episode that isn't usually on fans' lists of their favorite installments in the series, but it really, really deserves that spot. After working on successfully bringing another episode of the series, "The One Where Michael Leaves", to FA status in November, I decided it was timeArrested had another FA, which is where this magnificent episode comes in. The article just passed it's GAN, and I modeled it after the aforementioned other FA, including a tightly-written summary of the plot, a comprehensive production section that goes into both how Bob Loblaw’s character came to be and, interestingly enough, how the episode was captioned, a shockingly long Themes and analysis section that I spent probably the most time slowly perfecting, a short but sweet Release section, and a decently-sized corner decided to it’s critical reception. The article is at its best possible quality, and I believe it is ready forthe final countdown!Crystal Drawers🍌(wanna talk?)04:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: Thank you so much for the review, I’ve tried my best to incorporate your comments, though there were some I didn’t understand/might not have done to your liking, and I left comments on them reflecting that. Thanks again,Crystal Drawers🍌(wanna talk?)17:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I’m a little confused by what you mean by this?
Lead
I reckon the characters should be linked even if they're linked in the infobox; while the infobox linking does come first on desktop, it doesn't come first on mobile.
Done
I'd mention Maeby by name (having not seen it in a while, I did not realize the girlfriend was Maeby)
Done
Infobox
Is there any sourcing re: cinematography/Greg Harrington?
Like for the otherArrested FA, I unfortunately wasn’t able to find a source for that information. If needed, I could remove it
Plot
"it hits the balloon bundle that George Sr. is using to float down to the ground, who falls and is swiftly caught by waiting police officers" did the medal hitting the balloon cause it to pop? How did it cause George to fall?
It hits the bundle, causing it to pop, and George Sr. falls; I added "and pops" to clarify this
"George Sr.'s crashing balloon fire catches on to the evidence that Michael had hidden in his nearby car, destroying it." I'm a little confused by this sentence and what it means
After the balloon pops, the pressure causes it to burst into flames, catching on to the evidence that Michael had previously asked Gob to destroy (as said in a previous paragraph). I tried to clarify this
Production
"who was created as a way to replace Barry Zuckerkorn, portrayed by Henry Winkler." Is there a reason why he left, or is it just that he had other things to do?
To my understanding, Winkler just kind of left the show and there’s not any information on why. In the season premiere, he is fired at the family's attorney, but I’m not sure if this is worth mentioning, since it doesn’t really relate to the real Winkler’s reason for leaving and is just the canonical reason for his departure; I could add this if needed
"Baio notes that this mirrored what happened behind the scenes of Happy Days, where he was brought on to replace Winkler." Is this Baio's interpretation, or an explanation of the intent behind Baio's casting?
An explanation of the intent, I reworded the sentence to clarify this
"His father would often joke about a man named Bob Loblaw—a pun on "blah blah blah"—and Tatham, remembering the name, suggested it to series creator Mitchell Hurwitz, who found it humorous." This feels like it would have come before writing it on the whiteboard; is that the case?
I believe it is, I reworded the sentence
Suggest splitting the Larry stuff into its own paragraph
Done
Themes and analysis
"Christopher C. Kirby, Jonathan Hillard, and Matthew Holmes, writing for a section in the book Arrested Development and Philosophy: They've Made a Huge Mistake" I think you can drop "for a section", as whether they did only a section or the whole thing does not really matter much
Done
I feel like this section could do a better job of clarifying what is the POV of the cited authors
I went back and reread the works used in this section to try to clarify more of the author’s thoughts without changing their words, but let me know if you feel more could be done
Release
Not sure if worth mentioning, but it did get a Region B Blu-ray release along with the rest of S1-3:[13]
This might be worth noting,but I cannot for the life of me find that information in the link you gave me. Is there another link you meant to paste, or am I going crazy? Nevermind, I found the SlashFilm article I believe you meant to link, and I included the information.
Reception
Change y!entertainment to Yahoo! Entertainment
Done
I feel like Lucille's line, if it's the best part, should be clarified what it is
I don’t know how I missed this because I went over the sources multiple times, but the Lucille line part seems to be from one of the rankings directly above it, not for "Forget Me Now", so I removed this part
Discussion of Bob Loblaw should be grouped together since they're relevant
Done
Inconsistent use of past vs. present tense
I tried my best to fix this, but I’m not sure if it’s all done, so let me know if more tenses could be fixed
I am comfortable offering mysupport now that my issues have been addressed (disclosure: made two edits, changing some usage of "note" perWP:NOTE and a minor edit to avoid repetition). -Cukie Gherkin (talk)22:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived.Gog the Mild (talk)14:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Hello, Gog, how are you? The article has since gained a support. I know this is not much in the long run, but I was wondering if the possibility of archival in the next few days no longer stands with the support, or if I should continue to try and scout reviewersCrystal Drawers🍌(wanna talk?)18:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CD, I hope things are good with you. Sadly not. As a rough rule of thumb a nomination which has not garnered two substantive reviews leading to general supports by the three-week stage - or at least solid indications that this is likely to be shortly forthcoming - is liable to be warned and is unlikely to make it past the four-week mark without being archived. (I assume that I have posted for you before my standard hints on how to find reviewers?) It may seem harsh - and no-one becomes a coordinator in order to archive other editor's nominations - but the weeding out of nominations which don't seem to be attracting a consensus to promote is necessary atsome stage.Gog the Mild (talk)13:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, no issue if it needs to be archived soon, totally understandable and I can always nominate it again in the future. I’ll continue to review other articles and try to hopefully get one or two more reviewers for this (but I must admit, I am having fun reviewing other articles just for the fun of it)Crystal Drawers🍌(wanna talk?)13:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Forget-Me-Now" received positive reviews from critics, with praise going towards its humor and content; and has been featured on several lists detailing the finest episodes of Arrested Development.
You could remove the semicolon and split the conjunction or replace the semicolon with a period.
Done, thank you!
“praise going towards its humor” → “praise goingtoward its humor”
American English
Good catch, done
“academic analysis from both scholars and critics”
"picking up Rita, but she is confused upon meeting them, still assuming Michael has no family" → "“picking up Rita, but she is confused when meeting them and still assumes Michael has no family"
Changed, thank you
“which he calls a "forget-me-now"
Capitalise to "Forget-Me-Now"?
Done!
the fire from the pressure of the balloon popping catches on to the evidence
You could drop the "on to".
Done
Production
It was Saunder's first and only writing credit
It should be "Saunders's"
Don’t know how I missed that, fixed
Release
Later, the series' first three seasons, including "Forget-Me-Now", was released on Blu-ray
"was” → “were” (Subject-verb agreement)
Done
Reception
"Murray felt the episode lacked a coherent narrative, but claimed the humor saved it from mediocrity." → “Murray felt the episode lacked a coherent narrative but said the humor saved it.”
A suggestion.
Done, only change I made was adding a comma before "but"
I have been through theprose and theimages; Ihave not been through the sources. But the former two look good to me, hence I willsupport the nomination.
"In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Baio said that when he was approached with the idea of appearing on Arrested Development by the series' producers, he suggested that his character could be first introduced randomly in Lucille's bedroom, or be tied up in her closet." --> Did either of those things happen? If not, this seems unimportant.
No, those are early suggestions. They do relate to the episode's production, as it was an early plan Baio suggested. I’ll keep it in for now, but I’m fine removing them completely if you want, just let me know
"The writers were conflicted on what toname Baio's character" --> "Title" is not appropriate.
Done
Dewikilink Canada.
Done
"remembering the name, wrote it on a blank whiteboard,a name which series creator Mitchell Hurwitz found humorous." --> That part of the phrase is both inappropriate and grammatically incorrect.
Fixed, thanks
"requiring the editors touse Audacity" --> Recommend slight rephrasing.
Done
Themes and analysis
Recommend putting forget-me-now in quotation marks.
Done
"simultaneously differentiating Arrested Development from other sitcomsthrough this" --> You don't need that last part.
Done
Reception
Recommend working the note into the prose and not leaving it as an add-on at the end of the article.
Done
"Hestated that the episode..." --> The rest of this section is in the past tense.
Here are the EW and Reading Sound quotations, I will add the rest soon:
EW, "Unexpected Development": I said [to Arrested producers], I just want you to go into Jessica Walter's bedroom one morning and I'm lying next to her in bed. Or hanging in her closet tied up.'"
Reading Sounds, in a chapter about how television captioning was able to ger around issues: The first reenlistment scene from Arrested Development ("Forget Me Now"), presented as an annotated sound wave. Audacity was used to create the sound wave, which was imported into Photoshop and marked up with text. Each word in the sound wave is identified. Clear speech is visible in the demarcations in the sound wave. By contrast, gibberish is revealed through the lack of clear demarcations in the sound wave. Gibberish appears as a single wave.
Here is a link to the For British Eyes Only paper, the work used is on the pages labeled 71, 72, and 73:[15]
Can't access the Entertainment Weekly, "Reading Sounds: Closed-Captioned Media and Popular Culture", "A State of Arrested Development: Critical Essays on the Innovative", or "For British Eyes Only:: Arrested Development and Neo-Victorian Television Comedy" sources. Can you please give me quotes to search for the respective refs so I can properly verify them if possible?
Sure, I’m out of the house right now but in about two or so hours I’ll be able to give you them
[16] I can't find this quote: "Hurwitz toying with the audience's expectations"
That seems to be an error on my part, the direct quote is "Hurwitz toys with audiences expectations", so I have fixed it to match this
Also, a comment: "While "Forget-Me-Now" is incongruous with the rest of Arrested Development for many factors" is POV, so should be attributed to Collins -Cukie Gherkin (talk)18:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the cross dressing is mentioned in the analysis section but not the plot
I get where you’re coming from, but the cross dressing is a 20 second scene of Tobias and Buster having a little back and forth, it does not affect the plot in any way and it’s presence isn’t required for the Plot section
"to use Audacity—an audio editor—" -> "to use the audio editor Audacity" or something similar because I'm not sure emdashes fit
I still don’t really love the idea of including it, and I also don’t have access to it as I don’t own the DVDs. I’ll try to see if someone uploaded it to YouTube or something, but when i previously used DVD commentary (when I was updating the article for "Pilot"), I was told that such sources wouldn’t be good for a FAC, which is the main reason I’m unsure if I shouldCrystal Drawers🍌(wanna talk?)02:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"a character created in order to replace Henry Winkler's character Barry Zuckerkorn." Suggest deleting "in order".
Done
"It has been featured on several lists detailing the finest episodes of Arrested Developmen." Do the listsdetail## the episodes, or just list them?Gog the Mild (talk)15:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The lists all contain paragraph long reviews of the episodes. I think "detailing" might be alright here, but I’ve reworded it to "highlighting" since that’s a bit more appropriate
This is a second attempt at FAN for this page. The first attempt was unsuccessful as the writing was considered inaccessible. I took all the recommendations from the previous reviewers and did my best to simplify an admittedly niche topic. I'm trying to go through every animal species alphabetically and get them to featured article status and this is #5.
This article did have an excellent GAN, and all suggestions from there and the first FAN were completed. Unfortunately, there is very little literature for this genus (it isall linked here), 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 (it is not considered predatory or in Beall's List, but it is owned by a publisher who also runs predatory journals). However, this addendum is absolutely critical to the article and I believe was allowed on exceptional grounds last round given the paucity of any information, and the fact it's an addendum to a high quality source.Mattximus (talk)21:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Size: the article is on a relatively narrow topic, so the article's size is correspondingly small: 1,602 prose words, which is appropriate.
The article has an appealing layout & visuals: including maps, a taxonomic tree, and informative images.
I looked at the prior FAC #1 on this article, and I see that the primary issue was that the prose was overly technical - aimed at graduate student level, rather than the general public. So, I'll try to focus on assessing that.
A source tool is highlighting one source as a predatory journal: but I see that was discussed in prior FAC #1, and the justification there (and also above in the intro to FAC #2) is adequate.
This source is missing ISBN ... if it is a book it should have it: Schmidt, Gerald D.; Nickol, Brent B. (1985). "Development and life cycles"...
The titles of sources listed in Ref section use various capitalization styles: e.g.
Title case: "Human Acanthocephaliasis: a Thorn in the Side of Parasite Diagnostics"
Sentence case: "New perspectives on Nephridiacanthus major (Acanthocephala: Oligacanthorhynchidae) collected from ..."
WP Guidelines suggest a consistent cap style is necessary (it is okay to ignore how the sources capitalize their own title). Suggest you pick one style & change all sources to use it.
Clarify:There are no known aberrant human infections for ... Can this be improved to tell the reader (via wikilink?) what "aberrant" means in this context?
Important terms are red-links:Acanthella (acanthocephala) andcystacanth. Normally, there is no problem with a few red links in a FA nomination, but these two seem like critical concepts for Intraproboscis. Readers will want either:
Sub-articles on those two concepts so they can click the link & learn more; or
Change those red links to the appropriate section withinAcanthocephala article and ensure that those section(s) have an excellent description of the two terms; or
Define the two terms here inIntraproboscis in a stand-alone fashion (and maybe remove the links entirely).
I left them as red links for any bold editors out there (they are red linked in the main acanthocephala page too), but I added a definition beside each one which should meet your #3 idea.Mattximus (talk)19:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Publisher field for sources: the book has its publsiher identified, but the journals do not. Not required for FA status, but consider addingpublisher field to all journal sources: it helps the readers (and FA reviewers) assess the quality of the source. Ideally, thepublisher field would be a wikilink so readers & reviewers can click and read about the publisher.
Source journals are not linked: e.g.Journal of Parasitology is a source, but in the citation it is not wikilinked toJournal of Parasitology article. Not required for FA status, but there are only a dozen sources in this article, so may as well help readers easily learn more about the sources.
Clarify Infestation by I. sanghae can cause intestinal perforation and death. Since two different hosts are named above in the paragraph, this sentence should specify which of the two hosts could be subject to perforation/death.
Alt text for all images: Consider tweaking the alt text a bit for images to make it more helpful for visually impaired readers. Ideally the alt text describes the content of the image in a way that helps a blind person imagine what the image shows. Examples: not so great: "A line drawing of an insect"; better: "A black and white line drawing, showing an insect with six legs, two antennae, three body segments, and a large stinger on its rear end."
Caption wording:The black-bellied pangolin (left) is the definitive host of I. sanghae. The tree pangolin is the second host of I. sanghae discovered. - the "... discovered" at the end is awkward; maybe put "The second host discovered is ... " at start of 2nd sentence?
Wording could be more direct?A survey of the medical literature published in 2021 did not list I. sanghae as infecting humans. Would readers benefit from simply stating a plain fact:I. sanghae does not infect humans. orThere is no evidence that I. sanghae infects humans.?
The current wording was suggested by another reviewer, who changed the wording from a suggestion from another reviewer. I don't have an opinion, but I'm not sure of the three reviewers which wording is the best.Mattximus (talk)00:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In scientific articles, it is assumed that all stated facts are supported by journal-based research. There is no need to preface a fact with the fact that there was research done (unless there are strange circumstances such as the fact is in dispute). Did the other reviewer explain why that preface was helpful to readers? And what, exactly, does the source say about"I. S. does not infect humans"? Is it a controversial fact?Noleander (talk)02:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The source says nothing about I. sanghae as the source was written before the worm was discovered. The source is a survey of all known acanthocephalan infections, so the current phrasing was suggested to account for the absence of evidence of infection. I think originally my wording was something like "There are no known human infestations of I. sanghae." but the reviewer said I needed to cite the null, and suggested the present wording.Mattximus (talk)17:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cite for caption:Left: Anterior region of a female I. sanghae showing the retracted anterior proboscis, posteriorly positioned proboscis receptacle, and insertion... Could this include a cite so readers can click on the cite and find the source of this image? (rather than clicking on the image & navigating to commons, etc).
Caught only one, so I must be blind. Are you supposed to link at the first instance in each section? If that's not the case then I can find many others as the host is linked in a few sections and the lead.Mattximus (talk)17:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not related to the article itself, but I'm puzzled by "I'm trying to go through every animal species alphabetically and get them to featured article status and this is #5. Do you mean every acanthocephalan article? Otherwise you'll be doing these for a few hundred lifetimes!
Oh it's just a relaxing hobby of mine. Yes alphabetically, the first was "Animalia, Acanthocephala, Archiacanthocephala, Apororhynchida, Apororhynchidae, Apororhynchus" and then I just went from there one genus at a time.Mattximus (talk)22:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Link proboscis in infobox caption and first mention in article body, where the term should also be explained in parenthesis. I see you link and explain it further down in the description where it intuitively might make more sense, but the reader will encounter it earlier.
The two last pangolin images seem to mess up the layout a bit, perhaps collect them into a double image template side by side so they don't take up so much space, like you did with the maps? Then the life cycle image could be left aligned, and the pangolins could be right further down.
I tried a different layout, would work better if they were of similar dimensions, but I think it looks less intrusive than before.FunkMonk (talk)22:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why you randomly switch back between the genus name and the abbreviated binomial, and even the full binomial? Could probably just stick to the shortest option after first full mention.
"The type locality for I. sanghae is Dzanga-Sangha Complex of Protected Areas" shouldn't it be "the Dzanga-Sangha Complex" here and in the article body?
"with the only species, Intraproboscis sanghae, being necessarily the type species" overly wordy, you could simply say "containing only the type species Intraproboscis sanghae".
"extracted post-mortem from a 5-year-old black-bellied pangolin." Post-mortem what, the worms or the pangolin? If the latter, just say a dead pangolin.
"was circumscribed and species I. sanghae was formally described in 2021" overly wordy without really adding much, could just say "was described in 2021".
This is how I originally wrote it, but another reviewer suggested splitting up the genus and species descriptions to what you read now using these terms (which I was previously unaware of!).Mattximus (talk)18:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"and a parareceptacle structure and a uterine vesicle" very technical, needs explanation up here too.
Well I did my best at adding succinct definitions to these technical words, but not sure if this works as the definitions themselves are technical.Mattximus (talk)01:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"was formally described in 2021" but the citation says 2022?
"Several phylogenetic studies have been performed confirming its position in the order Giganthorhynchidae.[1][2]" several means more than two, but you only cite two.
"Similar comparisons have been conducted by Gomes et al. (2019) and Amin et al. (2020).[3][4]" if these are the additional citations, cite them in the article body as well, not just the caption.
In this case the last two made similar phylogenetic trees excluding Intraproboscis, but are needed to complete the tree, so they are included in the caption but not the main body which deals exclusively with Intraproboscis.Mattximus (talk)17:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I just went back and remembered what I did here. The entire tree you see is from that one article (I did remove some species not relevant, but did not synthesize anything). And I added a few more that confirm the various relations between them.Mattximus (talk)00:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"and contains many fragmented nuclei" could be explained what this means.
Considering how few specimens seem to be known, I think it would make sense if you under the taxonomy section also mention when and how it was identified from the tree pangolin and how many specimens etc. Also, how it was determined the worms in each host were the same and not different species. I assume it is related to "and was supplemented with a second sample which included both females and a single incomplete male"?
"I. sanghae parasitizes two species of pangolin: the black-bellied pangolin (Phataginus tetradactyla), the type host, and the tree pangolin (Phataginus tricuspis)." the links and binomials should already have been given at first mention in the article body, and are not needed down here again.
Done. I've removed links per your suggestion, but I do think it's useful for the reader who scrolled down to the Hosts section to be able to click on the hosts. But I'll follow your advice.Mattximus (talk)17:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"There are no reported cases of I. sanghae infesting humans in the English language medical literature." Does the source say this specifically, or are you citing its absence?
Could perhaps be more carefully worded, the. Perhaps something like "a survery of the medical literature published in year X did not list it as infecting humans".FunkMonk (talk)22:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"while males seem to be smaller in all dimensions" why "seem"? Because only one male is known? Should be stated somewhere then if there is doubt.
I was recommended to use this word last nomination, because the only male sample is "incomplete" according to the reference (I do not know what that means and the article doesn't specify). Not sure what I can modify but I'm open to suggestions.Mattximus (talk)17:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Consider adding an efn footnote to that sentence, which re-states what the source says about the single/partial sample. That way, readers curious about the word "seem" can click on the efn footnote and learn more. Just an idea.Noleander (talk)18:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The first discovery of a parareceptacle structure in Archiacanthocephala represents an important taxonomic and evolutionary bridge between different acanthocephalan groups. " As earlier, this doesn't explicitly state the relation with the articles subject.
Thank youFunkMonk so much for the time you put into reviewing this incredibly niche topic. I have completed all your suggestions and added a question/comment on any I could not complete. Thanks again!Mattximus (talk)15:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The life cycle of I. sanghae remains unknown; however, like other acanthocephalans, it likely involves complex life cycles with at least two hosts." It may just be me, but it seems odd that you use both "life cycle" (singular) and ""life cycles" (plural).
"These are then ingested by the definitive host". Could we have a brief in line definition of "definitive host" for readers who are not aficionados of parasite terminology.
Ooo this is interesting, it means the host where the parasites mature and reproduce, but the next words are "where they mature and reproduce sexually". Not sure how to rephrase to avoid repetition.Mattximus (talk)00:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weell, this is the lead, so youcould duck the issue with something like 'These are then ingested by the second host, where they mature and reproduce sexually within its intestines.' Or maybe 'These are then ingested, typically by a vertebrate. This is where the cystacanths mature and the adult worms reproduce sexually within the intestines and it is known as the definitive host.' or similar?
I reworded it which I think matches your second suggestion fairly well. I would appreciate if you could give it a quick read to see if my changes make sense. Thank you!Mattximus (talk)00:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could "monotypic" be explained in line. Or, better, translated into English.
Similar to above, it means containing only one species, which is said later in the sentence. Would you prefer simply deleting the word/link?Mattximus (talk)00:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, taking out monotypic actually, and a little weirdly, improves the explanation.
"... no neck, and a parareceptacle structure (a distinct sac-like structure adjacent to the proboscis receptacle) and a uterine vesicle ..." Does the first "and a" need deleting? Ans a comma placing before the second?
This is a bit of a weird one I'll admit, but I'm trying to make it so the last two are what is being referred to when I later write "both of which". If I make your change, then we don't know which two "both" refers to from the list. Any thoughts?Mattximus (talk)00:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"and a uterine vesicle (a thick-walled, spheroidal compartment between the uterus and the uterine bell, replacing the uterine bell glands and encircled by ducts of unknown function) which are both absent in Mediorhynchus." → 'and a uterine vesicle (a thick-walled, spheroidal compartment between the uterus and the uterine bell, replacing the uterine bell glands and encircled by ducts of unknown function); the last two of these are both absent in Mediorhynchus.
"the sampled male body is 94.25 mm long and 1.5 mm wide. The body wall is much thicker on the dorsal side compared to the ventral side and ..." This reads as if the male is thicker on the dorsal side etc. Is that what you mean to communicate?
"parareceptacle" is unlikely to mean much to readers who are not already familiar with the terminology of the description of parasitic worms.
Indeed, it's a defining feature of this genus, for what it's worth, and I defined in in parentheses a few times to make it clearer. Not sure the article can do without.Mattximus (talk)00:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not, and I overlooked your immediately prior explanation. Apologies.
"The reproductive system is compact and well developed". What does "well developed" mean?
I don't know, so I asked an AI (don't shoot!), and it said "A system that is not rudimentary, reduced, or degenerate, which is important in parasite taxonomy". It's the wording used in the text, and is not explained. Any thoughts?Mattximus (talk)00:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
'fully developed'?
I don't know enough about these creatures to say that another one isn't more developed than this one, and this it can't be called "fully" if there is more to develop, if that makes sense. I'm happy keeping the wording from the source (as is now) or removing entirely.Mattximus (talk)00:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it as is then. Even if we don't know what it means!
"The distribution of I. sanghae is determined by that of its two known hosts." Suggest 'The distribution of I. sanghae is determined by that of its hosts, of which two are known.' or similar.
"large portions of central Africa south of the Sahara desert". I thought that central Africa was, by definition, south of the Sahara. In which case "south of the Sahara desert" is redundant.
Thank you so much for your reviewGog the Mild! I appreciate you taking the time. I've addressed all your concerns, however I did have quite a few questions/clarifications above when I was unable to complete your request myself.Mattximus (talk)00:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank youGog the Mild for the nudge. I did pose one question to you above, and the rest I believe is resolved? I also completed all changes from the other two reviewers. Thank you again for your excellent review!Mattximus (talk)00:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Image source, licence and placement are fine, I wonder if the ALT text of the infobox image could be improved. Nothing remarkable on the sourcing, identifiers are the bots' job in my mind.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)12:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, you are referring to the top image, and not the map in the infobox? If so, I'm at a loss for how to improve the wording.Mattximus (talk)15:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article focuses on the theoretical, institutional, economic and sociological dimensions of the powerful medieval and early modern movement that originated in the First Crusade. The military aspects of the Crusades and of other crusading campaigns are therefore treated only briefly, as they are the main subject of other articles (such asCrusades,Iberian Crusades,Albigensian Crusades andNorthern Crusades). The article has undergone substantial revision in the past. Earlier versions relied mainly on encyclopedic entries and showed some issues of close paraphrasing, but these have been addressed: the sourcing has been strengthened with academic literature, and the text has received a thorough copy-edit. It has since been promoted to GA status and has benefited from detailed peer review. I would be very grateful for comments, suggestions, and further ideas for improvement during this FAC review, as I believe the article is now in a good position to benefit from further development.Borsoka (talk)07:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the first (out of a total of six) GA nominations of this article, which I failed. I also reviewed it the last time it was at FAC, where I opposed. Those nominations were by another user who apparently has left Wikipedia. I am glad you took this over, and I am curious how it has developed. At first glance, the article looks more comprehensive and, at the same time, more concise. I will leave comments soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk)09:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence alone is quite long and throws a lot of information at the reader. Maybe you can split it, and simplify a bit by removing "at the Council of Clermont"?
I have rephrased it and omitted the reference to Western Christendom, as this is implied by the mention of the papacy. ([19])
Fear of damnation spurred reform movements – Add where the fear comes from?
where climate anomalies triggered famine – I think the link is too general; if it cannot be linked to the specific climate anomaly we are talking about here (the expected target for such a link), I would unlink.
a new military class of mounted warriors emerged. Known as milites – What is the difference between "milites" and knights? Can milites be linked to any article?
I would leave it as it is, since the text already explains that they were mounted warriors. Rendering the term as "knight" in an early-eleventh-century context could be misleading, and there is no appropriate wikilink.
c. 1140 – when using this abbreviation, I suggest the {{circa}} template, which givesc. 1140.
Sorry, I may be missing something, but the {{circa}} template is already used in the text.
Marino Sanudo Torsello, a Venetian writer, became a key crusading theorist,[193] and proposed a naval alliance against Aegean pirates, uniting Catholic powers with Genoese and Venetian island lords – When was this? Did he only propose this or did this result in an actual alliance? Is the alliance against pirates relevant enough to warrant inclusion to begin with (I can't find anything about pirates in his WP article)?
Rephrased (the plan merits mention in his article, but does not require detailed treatment here). ([23])
Grassroots crusading zeal later inspired mass movements known as popular crusades. – You just talked about the People's crusade in the previous paragraph; isn't that a popular crusade too?
In Iberia and the Crusader states, relations with natives followed the pre-conquest dhimmi model. – I believe this info is useless if "dhimmi model" is not explained.
Accounts on Christian experiences in the Holy Land on the eve of the Crusades vary.[note 23][212] Attacks on pilgrims likely shaped perceptions of danger,[213] though Asbridge highlights that interfaith violence mirrored broader political and social turmoil.[214] – I'm not sue what the point is here. Does it say that there was violence but Christians have not been suppressed based on their religion?
Following the Fourth Crusade, successor states like Epiros and Nicaea led Greek resistance – Can't follow. Successor of what? What Greek resistance, against whom?
Despite occasional alliances between Crusaders and Rus' leaders, lasting control over Rus' lands was never achieved. – Rus come out of the blue, the only time there are mentioned in the article at all, so their significance is unclear to the reader. I think the Rus should at least be briefly introduced if this sentence is kept.
Rus' principalities introduced in a previous section. ([29])
As some tribes followed the Eastern Syriac (Nestorian) Church, fragmentary reports of Mongol advances revived legends of Prester John, a mythical Eastern Christian ruler viewed as a potential ally against Islam – Can't follow. Some mongols(?) followed the church; what does this have to with Prester John?
By "taking the cross", they pledged to follow Christ's call: "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" – What is Christ's call, where is the quote from? Bible?
This reflected the 11th-century imitatio Christi ("imitation of Christ") movement – Lacks context, and the explanation is not very helpful (I could have guesst that "imitatio" means imitation, but I still don't know what this movement is)
The historian Peter Lock notes that launching "a crusade was no easy task and the time given for preparation was often short".– No easy task for whom? The pope, since he was the one launching the crusade?
After the Lusignan dynasty ended in 1474, the island passed to Venice. – I don't know what the Lusignan dynasty is or why it is mentioned here. Is this sentence needed?
Yes, it is relevant: the end of a major state established as a consequence of the Crusades is a significant aspect of the crusading movement. Modified. ([42])
Demand for wheat, olive oil, and silk enriched the lords of the Peloponnese in Greece, turning the court of the Villehardouin princes of Achaea into a centre of chivalric life.[424][425] Under Angevin protection, Achaea survived the Byzantine revival until the Despotate of the Morea annexed it in 1430. Achaea's former vassal, the Duchy of Athens, was first seized by mutinous Catalan mercenaries, and later by the Acciaioli, a Florentine banking dynasty, but fell to the Ottomans in 1460.[426] Despite Ottoman pressure, Venice retained parts of its overseas empire into the 18th century. – I believe this could be drastically shortened/simplified. It's just historical events, not a discussion on the Crusading movement.
Despite Ottoman pressure, Venice retained parts of its overseas empire into the 18th century – Is this needed at all?
Yes, because Venice seized these territories during the Fourth Crusade, and their survival is therefore closely tied to the crusading movement. Rephrased. ([44])
but Polish incursions, and internal strife weakened – Remove comma?
That's it from me after a first read. Great work overall. My impression is that you tried to squeeze as much information into as little text as possible, but this also makes the article less accessible. For the examples above, you could maybe try to either prune non-essential information, or add necessary context, and explain crucial terms. Hope this helps. --Jens Lallensack (talk)13:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your detailed and well-grounded review. Conciseness and accessibility are indeed often competing requirements. I hope that, by the end of the FAC process, the article will have improved significantly in this respect as well. I intend to address the remaining issues you raised above shortly.Borsoka (talk)17:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
File:BritLibRoyal5DVIIFolio067r.JPG needs a US tag. Ditto File:Ninety-Five_Theses_WDL7497.png
Done.
File:Rotunda,_Adomanan_de_locis_santis.jpg also needs a US tag, and the own-work tag is incorrect - under US law, reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright
Both fixed.
File:1099_Siege_of_Jerusalem.jpg needs a US tag and the source link is dead
Both fixed.
File:Double_page_from_the_Qur'an_manuscript_containing_the_opening_to_juz'_13_(DMA_K.1.2014.574.1).jpg: source link is dead
Source (a peer reviewed book) specified.
File:Egerton_ms_1139!1_fse005r.jpg: source link is dead, and I'm not sure this is a 2D work? It appears 3D from this view.
Just from a brief glance here, its not clear that you have covered all of the primary sources starting withHistory of the Crusades for the Recovery and Possession of the Holy Land. Where is the mention ofEdward Gibbon and his two famous chapters on the Crusades; where is the discussion of Hume's reading of the crusades. What of the criticism of their viewpoints as covered in the linked article? If you are excluding all of these, then even such an exclusion should be discussed as relevant to the article.ErnestKrause (talk)15:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comment. I appreciate you taking the time to engage with the article. As a general point, I would note that there are a number of figures which are not covered in it. These omissions are not oversights, but follow directly from the article's scope: the article is not intended to be about the historiography of the crusading movement or individual crusading campaigns, but to provide a broad outline of the movement itself, introducing its principal features and directing readers to the relevant main articles (such asHistoriography of the Crusades) for more specialised discussion. This approach is fully consistent withWP:SUMMARY style. For this reason, extended discussion of Charles Mills, Edward Gibbon and David Hume and their respective works belongs in the specialised historiography article rather than in a general overview. Moreover, according to the standard secondary literature, even a brief reference to them here would be open to challenge in light ofWP:DUE. For example:
Giles Constable does not mention Mills in his concise overview of crusading historiography (Constable 2001); inThe Oxford History of the Crusades Mills is mentioned only tangentially in the context of a 19th-century English translation of Tasso'sGerusalemme Liberata; and in Peter Lock'sThe Routledge Companion to the Crusades Mills's entry is among the shortest in the chapter "Brief Biographies of Crusade Historians".
Hume does not feature in Constable's or Lock's above cited surveys of crusading historiography, and is mentioned inThe Oxford History of the Crusades only as one of the Enlightenment-era critics of crusading.
Gibbon receives somewhat broader treatment in these works, but, asChristopher Tyerman notes, the "chapters Gibbon devoted to the crusades … show a close dependence on previous writers, in part to engage and frequently to refute their arguments" (Tyerman 2011, p. 86). Nevertheless, Gibbon's possible role in popularising the numbering of the crusades might be mentioned briefly in the text or in a footnote, although it is not clear that this would be a consensual approach, given the broad scope of the article.
Mills, I imagine, can be dealt with as a critic of Gibbon, however, its more difficult to just dismiss the relevance of Gibbon and his famous extended chapter on the Crusades here:[46]. Your article here already has a large Bibliography, though it would be questionable if you fully elide mention of Gibbon's importance to this question and to his important outline of separating Rome's influences from influences of Constantinople upon the Crusades. For Gibbon the discussion of the decline and fall of the empire has significant tie-ins with the Crusades. I'm not sure how you would think about the Crusades comprehensively in the absence of Gibbon's large outline and organizational apparatus.ErnestKrause (talk)16:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Borsoka on this one. Gibbon is a 18th-century scholar. He could be, very briefly, mentioned in the "Historiography" section if he or his work is as important as the other figures mentioned there. Everything else should go into theHistoriography of the Crusades article. This is a high-level overview of the crusading itself, not about the research history. We also have constraints on article length, and this article is already at the limit. --Jens Lallensack (talk)19:07, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Constable mentions Gibbon as a representative of Enlightenment-era anti-crusading criticism and as one of the first historians to enumerate the crusades. Lock’s treatment broadly follows this line. However, neither treats him as central to the interpretation of the crusading movement itself. For this reason, it does not seem necessary to include Gibbon in a general article on the subject.Borsoka (talk)03:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the earlierCrusades FAC that didn't pass, so it's nice to see this up as a sort of spiritual successor. I wonder, though, what the history of this is and what relation there is to the first nominatorNorfolkbigfish, who seems to have been blocked and to have had conflict with the current nominator? Not assuming any bad faith, I trust Borsoka's competences, I'm just genuinely puzzled.FunkMonk (talk)18:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your first comments. Yes, Norfolkbigfish was initially blocked for blatant plagiarism and later for sockpuppetry. I reported the issue at ANI several times. The case also highlights how difficult it can be to identify close paraphrasing and original research in reviews. Therefore, I hope I have ensured that there is no continuity between Norfolkbigfish’s text and the new text.
As this also seems to be about economic aspects and other motivations, I'd assume there would be some discussion of looting and other forced acquisition of wealth (which I don't see at a cursory glance)?
There are only cursory references, such as a short sentence in the "Crusaders" section: "Most saw no contradiction between piety and material gain, such as booty." The "Women" section also mentions raids by both Christian and Muslim forces targeting women and children. The caption of one of the images (File:Horses of Basilica San Marco bright.jpg) also refers to the spoils of the Sack of Constantinople. Would you suggest adding an explicit sentence about looting?
I do not recall this being explicitly mentioned in the works cited but three of them (Bysted, Cassidy-Welch, and Tibble) may address the topic. I shall check this shortly.Borsoka (talk)09:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since this seems to be about the ideology and background of the movement, I'd expect some discussion of the phraseDeus vult and any other such mottos and ritualistic concepts?
The phrase is linked in the "Justification" section. I deliberately avoided mentioning it in the text because not all primary sources on the Council of Clermont include it. Would you suggest mentioning it explicitly, at least in a footnote? The most common crusading rituals are mentioned in section "Taking the cross".
Somewhat to my surprise, most of the cited sources do not explicitly mention the expression, and I would therefore prefer not to refer to it either.Borsoka (talk)09:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The section about Jews only seems to cover relations with Jews in Europe, but as far as I gather they were also pretty complicated in the Middle East? Not that you should go into detail about this, but seems it could be more balanced, as you don't mention it at all.
The second and third sentences of the third paragraph deal with the relationship between Jewish communities and the Holy Land. Do you think this should be expanded?
The Muslims section seems to treat them as a monolithic group, whereas as far as I gather, the Crusaders had shifting alliances with some Muslim sects against others, etc.
I deliberately avoided mentioning the Shia–Sunni rifts because, ultimately, they played no greater role in the movement than conflicts between Sunni groups themselves (such as between the Seljuks of Aleppo and Damascus). The "First Crusade" section explicitly refers to "fragmented Muslim-held territories", and the last sentence of the "Muslims" section refers to "pragmatic Christian–Muslim alliances", with a footnote giving examples from both the Levant and Iberia. I would therefore avoid placing further emphasis on this point, especially since alliances between crusaders and their opponents (such as pagan Balts or Greek aristocrats) were not uncommon, as noted elsewhere in the article.Borsoka (talk)05:19, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even without mentioning sects, I think it could be explicitly mentioned that Muslim factions also fought internally? Now it's only implied.FunkMonk (talk)04:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The Crusades are commonly defined as religious wars waged by Western European warriors during the Middle Ages to capture Jerusalem." while it might seem like it goes without saying, wouldn't it be key to add "Christian" before "Western European"?
This might be misleading, as the region’s indigenous Christian population also included Greek-speaking communities, alongside ethnic Palestinians.Borsoka (talk)09:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"the Umayyads in Al-Andalus (Muslim Spain), the Fatimids in Egypt, the Abbasids (nominally) in the Middle East, and the Byzantine Empire." mention what area was included in the Byzantine Empire too as you do with the others?
The term Holy Land is first mentioned and linked unusually far down the article considering how important the concept is. Could be mentioned and explained earlier? Perhaps near "Penitential journeys to Palestine held special value"?
"Pagan" is a fairly common term, and I have not been able to identify a specific reference, particularly given that, in the context of the article, the pagans comprised several ethnic groups with distinct pagan traditions (Slavic, Baltic, and Finnic peoples).Borsoka (talk)09:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
LinkAlbigensian Crusades in the article body too instead of only in an image caption?
"Extensive piracy in the Mediterranean revived anti-Muslim crusading" linkBarbary pirates?
I had this in mind while completing the article; my concern is that the term ‘Barbary piracy’ does not encompass Muslim piracy in the Aegean, which initially prompted these crusades.Borsoka (talk)09:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Originally, miles Christi" is it intentionally spelled differently from "milites Christi" here?
The sack of Constantinople is mentioned several times without much elaboration, but it only leaves one wondering what the theological rationale would have been, if any, and possible justifications for Crusaders attacking other Christians should be given here for context.
You use both the names Nur al-Din and Zengi for the same person, would be easier to follow if you were consistent.
They are not one and the same: Zengi was Nur al-Din's father. I shortened the first reference to Zengi to avoid misunderstanding.Borsoka (talk)09:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Native clergy were readmitted at Eastern 1101" is something wrong with the wording here?
Could a crusader castle be shown under Military architecture?
My concern is that it would sandwich the text of the following section but a castle is shown in the "Other theatres of war" section.Borsoka (talk)11:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could a map of the crusader states be shown under New states?
Anything that could be said about specific melee weaponry used under Command, strategy and troops?
I think the section already covers this topic, both explicitly—through references to spearmen and the Almogavars’ daggers, lances, and darts—and implicitly, by mentioning knights and light cavalry.Borsoka (talk)05:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"by a Polish duke" Why not just name him instead of the pipelink?
"In Iberia, the Song of My Cid recounts the exploits of the Castilian noble Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar." since you give an audio sample, state it's language, as you do for other songs and authors? It's of course not a given that it's Castilian just because it says Iberia.
"warned of the threat of the "polytheists"" while you link to the trinity, I wonder if this could warrant elaboration in the article, at least as a footnote.
The link refers specifically to the article on the Islamic view of the Trinity. As the opening sentences of the linked article already explain the term in its relevant context, it could perhaps be unnecessary to elaborate on it further here.Borsoka (talk)05:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"such as the tale of the warrior woman Dhat al-Himma—also reference the crusades" this makes me wonder, how were the Crusades/Crusading referred to in the languages of the time. What was crusading called by the crusaders? Some Latin term we could mention in the article?
"Scholars disagree on how the movement shaped interethnic relations." Why just specifically interethnic and not interfaith? Or is within Christianity meant?
"called the war on terror a crusade" Perhaps put "crusade" in quotation marks, as you do with "Muslim fundamentalists often label adversaries as "crusaders""?
"the argument of Riley-Smith that in Kingdom of Heaven, the director Ridley Scott conveyed a historical perspective akin to Osama bin Laden's.[530]" seems a pretty extreme view to include, unless you add the year of release for context, so it's clear this was during the height of the "war on terror", and therefore quite hyperbolic. Perhaps it would make more sense to make a general statement about criticisms the film faced during the Afghanistan/Iraq wars.
In the sections about events during the crusades themselves, it can be a bit difficult to follow what happens when, as dates are rarely given. I assume this is to prevent clutter, but perhaps you could consider giving dates to more key events.
Especially in the latter sections, I wonder what criteria that make the included text about the Crusading movement and not the crusades in general? Of course, there is perhaps no clear distinction between the two, but what would be the criteria for inclusion here and not, say, in the crusades article itself? Or to just leave much of it in the spin-off articles that already seem to exist?
Could you please clarify which section you are referring to above? I understand that each of them covers several theatres of war.Borsoka (talk)05:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having considered the previous comment, I remain convinced that an article intended to cover the principal aspects of the movement as a whole should also address its impact on architecture, the arts, and literature, together with its legacy and historiography. I would therefore prefer not to reduce the article's scope.Borsoka (talk)02:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A little confused by the "Enemies and contacts" section: it seems to be a catch-all box for peoples and cultures not actually part of the Crusadingmovement but with which the Crusades sometimes overlapped. Some subsections, like the one on pagans, do focus on how pagans interacted with themovement, but to take what I am most familiar with, the "Mongols" subsection is more a list of events than any societal analysis.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)19:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for starting the review. Yes, this section is intended to give readers a broad, accessible overview of interactions between the crusaders and other major religious or ethnic groups. It is conceived in a similar spirit to the corresponding sections in Lock's book, which discuss contacts with Byzantines and Armenians, and it is also informed by other scholarship—most notably MacEvitt's monograph on eastern Christian groups and Jaspert's general overview of the crusading movement. While I hope that each subsection addresses this broader purpose of the section within its own thematic focus, it is important to stress that the nature of these interactions varied considerably from group to group. For example, pagan communities on the north-eastern frontiers of Western Christendom maintained longstanding economic and political relations with their Catholic neighbours and were ultimately conquered and integrated into Catholic Europe as a result of crusading campaigns. The Mongols, by contrast, were only tangentially connected to the crusading movement: their sudden emergence initially inspired hopes in Catholic Europe; they later became the target of relatively limited crusades; and although they intervened in Middle Eastern politics, they were eventually defeated by the Mamluks. The introduction to the section also explicitly notes the difference between the Mongols—as a suddenly emerging and hitherto unknown enemy—and other groups. I would be most grateful for any suggestions or comments on how this section could be improved.Borsoka (talk)03:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of sources, many not easy to spotcheck. That said, it sounds like they are reliable and consistently formatted. Apropos of nothing, given the geography I am always puzzled by attempts to interpret crusades as anything but a mostly religious matter.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)10:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A late-Victorian British cavalry officer who rose to prominence underGarnet Wolseley in theThird Anglo-Ashanti War. He went on to serve in theAnglo-Zulu War but the British defeat at theBattle of Isandlwana appears to have affected his mental health. He was accused of cowardice, perhaps unfairly, for his actions at theBattle of Hlobane and relieved of his duties; this doesn't seem to have affected his career too badly as he went on to command his regiment and retired as a major-general. The article recently passed a MILHIST A-class review -Dumelow (talk)15:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You refer to Wolseley as "the general" in the lead but he hasn't been introduced as such. Suggest just introducing Wolseley with his rank on first mention.
Russell was educated privately as in at home or as in private school? If the latter, do we know which one?
The source only says "educated privately", I have not seen any mention of a school elsewhere (I would have expected an obit in an old boys' magazine or similar) so I suspect he was tutored at home but can't source it -Dumelow (talk)
More out of curiosity than anything else: was merit required for the purchased promotions or was it simply a matter of finances?
It's fairly complicated. There was a minimum period to be served in each rank and the requirement to pass (often basic examinations) but otherwise the offer of promotion was made to officers within the regiment in order of seniority. I think it is worthwhile including some of this in the article so have added some context in footnotes, let me know your thoughts -Dumelow (talk)17:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You sort of hint that he was well-connected and from a "good family" but some background on what those connections were/what the family was famous for might be helpful.
I've added a bit of detail in the main text and a footnote. He seems to come from reasonably distinguished but not exceptional stock -Dumelow (talk)18:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know if he did something in particular to impress Wolseley or was it just nepotism/personal loyalty?
David notes that Russell "was a member of the Wolseley Ring of talented young staff officers". I've changed the text in the article slightly to note that Wolseley recognised him for his performance on the staff -Dumelow (talk)07:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how helpful the (very long) link on deputy assistant-adjutant and quartermaster-general is.
Is the rescinding of the local rank an important detail? If so, can we say why it was rescinded? Are the exact dates the letter was sent (or indeed who sent it) important?
Castle notes it as an example that "wheels were already in motion that would undermine him" before the events at Hlobane. I think it demonstrates that Chelmsford had already lost faith in him by this time. He notes that Russell was "furious" when he received the news. I have tried to expand on this a little in the article. It is important, I think, to retain the dates as word of this didn't reach Wood's column until after Hlobane and Kambula -Dumelow (talk)07:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe gloss "nek" inline as well as the Wiktionary link?
Do we need all the exact dates of promotions etc? In the last one in particular,Upon Prince Edward's accession to the throne as Edward VII, Russell was, on 22 February 1901, appointed, it breaks up the flow. I would suggestUpon Prince Edward's accession to the throne as Edward VII in 1901, Russell was appointed.
Agreed, have trimmed this one to "early 1901". It's probably a MILHIST thing that we like to include dates where we have them but this one is not particularly important. Happy to consider any others -Dumelow (talk)07:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In quite a few places, you have a rank linked right in front of a name, egColonelEvelyn Wood (btw, that's not the first instance of "colonel" in the body). I know this is common in Milhist articles but can we find ways to reduce them, like moving the link to somewhere the rank is mentioned, like promotions?
I've always tried to link at first mention, but happy to consider this. I think it would only affect links to Colonel and Major-General, the other ranks are mentioned first in relation to Russell -Dumelow (talk)07:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't done a proper source formatting review but no concerns about reliability.
Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived.Gog the Mild (talk)16:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HiSchroCat, thanks for reviewing and for fixing the dashes (I despair of them!). My preference is to leave this one as "Russell was" to avoid a run of four "He was..." sentences, but happy to consider alternatives -Dumelow (talk)17:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth checking your capitalisation – some of your refs are insentence case, others inStart Case
What's the logic with which sources are used inline (eg. Ref 5), and which are linked to works in the sources (eg. Ref 1)?
Anonymous: You should remove "Anonymous". You don't have authors listed for refs 80, 81 or 82 and these work perfectly well.
Laband: Barnsley, England -> Barnsley, South Yorkshire
Stapleton: Santa Barbara, US -> Santa Barbara, California
Range and reliability
All sources are reliable, high quality and appropriate
I've undertaken further searches but can't find any obviously absent sources, although I'm not a subject expert, so there is always a chance I have missed something.
Thanks for the reviewSchroCat, much appreciated. I have moved the anonymous obituary into the general references; the logic is now that named authors are in the "Sources" list, anonymous authors, websites, newspaper articles are in the general list. I did toy with just having the "Sources" list for proper books but it would mean moving one of the principal sources (Castle) and I struggled with whether to call Hart's Army List a book or periodical. Happy to look at this again. I have fixed ref 13, 71 and the locations you've given above and tried to move everything toTitle Case -Dumelow (talk)09:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Title says it all, Vatican City's delegation at the 2022 Mediterranean Games, their "first" appearance at a competing level for a multi-sport event. It's quite short I must say though I am willing to respond to any comments.Arconning (talk)07:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding alt text for the Vatican flag in the infobox?
Stade de Oran.jpg – needs a detailed image description. Would also benefit from aC:Template:FoP-Algeria, since Algeria has FoP except for museums and art galleries perthe Commons chart.
"alongside theFaroe Islands" is this trying to say that Faroe Islands was also not allowed to compete? If so, I don't think its relevant to this article and can be removed.
Removed.
"26 regular scoring teams were present at the Games." I don't think this is necessary for this article and can be moved to2022 Mediterranean Games
Removed.
Wikipedia calls the competition "2022 Mediterranean Games". Should this article's reference to the sporting event be changed to align with this name?
I believe I don't understand, it is the 2022 Mediterranean Games and is referred to as such in this article?
"Then-sovereign of the Vatican City Pope Francis" replace with "The sovereign of the Vatican City" as it is self-evident that he would have been sovereign at the time.
Changed.
"After Carnicelli competed at the Games, she continued to represent Vatican Athletics until she transferred to the athletics club Imperiali Atletica in 2024." -> "Carnicelli continued to represent Vatican Athletics until she transferred to the athletics club Imperiali Atletica in 2024."
Changed.
"Vatican City was once again represented by Vatican Athletics, competing at the 2024 Championships of the Small States of Europe in a non-scoring manner." -> "Vatican City was represented by Vatican Athletics at the 2024 Championships of the Small States of Europe in a non-scoring manner."
Changed.
"As of 23 August 2025, the 26 regular scoring teams that competed at the 2022 Games were set to compete at the 2026 Mediterranean Games,[29] though Vatican Athletics had announced a possible participation at the Games through the Holy See Press Office in 2019." I don't know what this sentence is trying to say. Is it stating that the Vatican hasn't committed to competing in the 2026 Mediterranean Games? I think this will need to be reworded to focus on the Vatican and not the other 26 clubs.
Support. One response above, but its resolution is not necessary for the declaration. I also made edits to the article that can be reviewed and reverted if not helpful.Z1720 (talk)16:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"... although the federation was later invited by ..." What is "the federation"?
Added "the federation Vatican Athletics"
"Vatican City and the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) had an agreement to ..." Link "Vatican City".
Done.
" albeit in a non-scoring means as they were invited as guests rather than official participants." I don't think "means" is the best word to use here.
Changed to "manner"
"competing at different editions of the Championships of the Small States of Europe." seems to be entirely repeated in the next sentence. I recommend deleting it.Gog the Mild (talk)20:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Removed and changed.
Lead: "Middle-distance runner Simone Adamoli was supposed to join the delegation but withdrew before the start of his event."; main article: "Shortly before the beginning of the Games, Adamoli withdrew from his event." the first version suggests that he withdrew much later in the day that the first. I suggest standardising the phraseology.
Changed.
""Note–Ranks given for track events are within the athlete's heat only". As no ranks are given, this note is not necessary.
Removed.
"the nation's integration towards the Olympic Movement". I don't think one can integratetowards something. Suggest rephrasing.
"I nostri atleti sono sacerdoti, o studenti che aspirano a diventarlo", "Our athletes are priests, or students aspiring to become priests", students aspiring to become priests are usually seminarians though I've changed this.
"with initial accredited members that included Swiss Guards, " - you currently link toSwiss Guards but I suspect that you probably want theSwiss Guard link instead? It's a bit non-intuitive that those links go to different articles
Whoops! Done.
"with initial accredited members that included Swiss Guards, nuns, priests, museum workers, and maintenance workers, as well as two migrant Muslim Africans as honorary members" - This is sourced tothis. Am I missing where the reference mentions the migrants?
Added a source!
"Carnicelli competed in her event at 8:00 a.m. on 30 June against twelve other athletes. She finished with a time of 1:17:21, though her result was not officially recorded, as the nation was invited as a non-scoring competitor. Had the nation been an official participant, she would have placed ninth overall." - some sort of reference placement issue? The following citation is from a source written a month before the event occurred
This article is about a sketchily known volcano in British Columbia, Canada. Despite there having been very few studies conducted at the volcano due to its very remote location in the Coast Mountains, I was able to create a comprehensive article for it. I'm taggingGeoWriter,Jo-Jo Eumerus andA.Cython as they were involved in the article'speer review.Volcanoguy21:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure 'sketchily-known' works in wikivoice.Poorly-studied maybe?
I replaced "sketchily-known" to "poorly-studied" in the introduction, but I kept it in the article body since I'm not sure if "sketchily-known" can also mean the volcano itself is poorly known; "sketchily-known" is used in cited source.Volcanoguy19:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume there's no info on why Silverthrone Mountain is called that?
You hatnoteSilverthrone Group, but don't use it in the respective section. I'm left unsure if the Silverthrone Group and the set of mountains within the caldera area are synonymous.
They're not synonymous; the Silverthrone Group includes mountains outside of the caldera and not all of the mountains in the group are volcanic. I've added a paragraph for the Silverthrone Group and explained that not all of the mountains consist of volcanic rocks.Volcanoguy19:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You linkcaldera at Tectonic setting but its used many times prior to this.
I would move the sentenceThe Silverthrone Caldera lies in Kwakwakaʼwakw territory which covers the northern end of Vancouver Island and surrounding lands to the start of Human history it's chronologically first.
I'm not sure if that would be the right thing to do since the section in which that sentence is found is about obsidian rather than Kwakwakaʼwakw territory.Volcanoguy19:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the wording toThe Kingcome obsidian source lies in Kwakwakaʼwakw territory which covers the northern end of Vancouver Island and surrounding lands, which may be better because the caldera is apparently not entirely within Kwakwakaʼwakw territory.Volcanoguy18:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen: Would this work:This protected area was mainly established to preserve a group of geomorphological features known as "the paint pots". The BC Parks website does not explain what the "the paint pots" are, but Kootenay National Park contains an acid spring system sharing the same name.Volcanoguy19:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Charnaud Creek originates from a valley-filling lava flow"->the water comes out of the lava?
Source does not claim the creek comes out of the lava flow. It might actually be fed by meltwater from glacial ice at the lava flow, but the map in the source is unclear.Volcanoguy18:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"At least one hot spring with a recorded temperature of 50 °C (122 °F) possibly occurs along a ring fault associated with the collapse of the Silverthrone Caldera" -> does that mean that the position of the spring relative to the ring fault is unclear, or the spring's very existence?
Reworded toAt least one hot spring with a recorded temperature of 50 °C (122 °F) occurs along the edge of the Silverthrone Caldera.Volcanoguy19:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
" the lack of electrical development at the volcano" not sure that one would say "electrical development" rather than "electrical infrastructure"
"a banded appearance which forms when pumice-rich material is erupted explosively and is then quickly covered and compressed by overlying rocks while still in a hot, plastic state" are the "is"/"and is" necessary?
File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg might need an explanation from where the underlying data come from, though. Is the Mazama eruption an accurate analogue of Silverthrone's activity? Since the images used are from the latter. Looked at the sources again, didn't notice anything untoward again.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)17:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a source for the volcano locations. The Mazama eruption isn't being used as an analogue of Silverthrone's activity; it's being used as an illustration of caldera collapse.Volcanoguy17:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But still, it's obvious the Silverthrone Caldera formed as a result of explosive activity; calderas formed by the effusion of large volumes of lava are not filled with pyroclastic rocks.Volcanoguy19:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
" a volcanic feature associated with the caldera whose name has been reported in Canadian Alpine Journal articles as early as 1933" - shouldn't the journal name of theCanadian Alpine Journal be italicized?
"Satellite image of Pashleth Glacier" - I would recommend putting the year the image was taken into the image caption, since most glaciers are undergoing significant shrinking
"a World War II aircraftman of the Royal Canadian Air Force who was killed when his aircraft was shot down over Europe on June 7, 1944" - a minor item, but technically the source states that he was aLeading aircraftman which was a slightly higher rank. I think just noting that he was a WWII RCAF soldier would be sufficient
"Immediately north of the Juan de Fuca Plate is the Explorer Plate, which are separated by the Nootka Fault" - are you sure this is grammatical? It doesn't seem to be so to me
"Nevertheless, there is a good possibility of finding a geothermal resource that is less than 80 °C (176 °F)." - my instinct is that this statement should be attributed to the relevant study, but you might disagree with this
"Like other volcanoes in Canada, the Silverthrone Caldera is not monitored closely enough by the Geological Survey of Canada to ascertain its activity level. The Canadian National Seismograph Network has been established to monitor earthquakes throughout Canada, but it is too far away to provide an accurate indication of activity under the volcano. It may sense an increase in seismic activity if the Silverthrone Caldera becomes highly restless," - I'm not seeing where the cited web page mentions Silverthrone at all
This is my first co-nom at FAC! Tatannuaq was an Inuk interpreter, serving as a guide, translator, and diplomat for the European explorers. He is notable for his work with two ofJohn Franklin's expeditions: they were disasters, but Tatannuaq's skills prevented a greater loss of life.
Generalissima wrote the majority of the article and suggested that this was close to FA status. I added more sources through my own database networks and suggestions from the first FAC, then copyedited the article. This is the first of hopefully many co-noms for Canadian articles: please post on my talk page if you have suggestions for Canadian articles that are close to FA status. Both of us are ready to respond to comments, and I thank everyone who reviews this.Z1720 (talk)15:40, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added two sentences: one about describing the north at the end of the first paragraph, and another about things named for him.Z1720 (talk)17:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tatannuaq, still in Inuit territory, was hired as an interpreter for the expedition.
Do we know the year or month?
I moved the year to the previous sentence. I don't think a specific month is ever mentioned: it wasn't really a formal contract, but more of a verbal agreement.Z1720 (talk)15:20, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could consider mentioning the full form of "NWC" on first mention.
Augustus Lake, a small lake near Great Bear Lake, was also named for him.
The lake is still named after him. You could consider changing "was also" to "is also".
I'm hesitant to make this change: the naming happened in the past, so past tense is appropriate, and this change will cause this sentence to be the only one in present tense. I'll keep it past tense for now; if others make the same suggestion, I'll change it.Z1720 (talk)15:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen: In the first FAC, an editor mentioned that they were unfamiliar with where these places were, so they were wikilinked so readers could click on them. If consensus here is that they don't need to be linked, I'll unlink them.Z1720 (talk)16:51, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720MOS:GEOLINK says:If the smallest unit is an extant place, but the largest is not, it is preferable to space the links out when feasible, e.g. Kumrovec, then part of Austria-Hungary. The one in the lede can be rephrased this way. Obviously this approach isn’t very practical for the infobox, so I’ll let you and others decide. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone delinked them at some point anyway, though.BorgQueen (talk)17:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I mentioned this recently atWT:LEAD#Length of first sentence, I'll note that I'm not convinced that non-English spellings, alternate names, and IPA pronunciations all need to be in the first sentence. They should be presented, of course, but better to keep the first sentence short and to the point.
I moved the Inuktitut and IPA to the article body. I kept the alternate names because, in this article's case, the sources used all three of the alternate names in significant amounts, so any of the three alternate names could have been the article title. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to keep them in the first sentence.Z1720 (talk)15:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Still on the first sentence (and the{{short description}}, I wonder if there's a less ethnocentric way to introduce Tatannuaq than encapsulate his entire life by his employment by Europeans?
Unfortunately, the sources almost exclusively focus on his employment by Europeans: most primary documents at that time and location were written by Europeans (especially other HBC employees) and there is little information about his life outside of those. I am open to rewording it if there are suggestions.Z1720 (talk)15:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I read it: the information seems to already be cited in the article to peer-reviewed academic sources. Therefore, I don't think this source is necessary to add to the article.Z1720 (talk)15:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After a significant delay due to staying with family away from Churchill This is kind of confusing. A delay implies some passage of time between two events. The second event here was his being hired by Franklin. But what was the first? Actually, I don't understand this sentence at all. What's the connection between his being hired and the expedition being plagued by starvation?
There's still the odd juxtaposition of his being hired and the expedition being plagued by starvation, implying some sort of connection between those events.RoySmith(talk)17:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tatannuaq was a great chief who acted with superiority over Hoeootoerock and insisted that other expedition members treat him with similar deference "him" almost certainly refers to "Tatannuaq", but the proximity to "Hoeootoerock" muddies that, so rephrase.
Tatannuaq proceeded ahead[29] and became lost in the unfamiliar terrain; he found his way to Fort Enterprise and reunited with the expedition how much time passed during this?
The citations have been a little unclear about the timeline of this part of the expedition, but I have confidently verified that he was gone from the party for at least a few days, so I added that to the article. If I find a more precise timeline, I'll change this sentence to reflect that.Z1720 (talk)14:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
after breaking a snowshoe, Franklin went back to Fort Enterprise as above, how long did this take?
In 1833, Tatannuaq learned that George Back was mounting a search for John Ross's second Arctic expedition, presumed lost, and hurried to join join what?
Alongside a Canadian voyageur clarify what a voyageur is. My first thought was that it was just the Canadian spelling of "voyager", but I see it has a more specific meaning in the context of the Canadian fur trade.
@Z1720: Wait a second.MOS:NOFORCELINK says:Use a link when 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. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links.BorgQueen (talk)21:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a quick read-through for me. I'll come back another day for a second pass, hopefully before an addition round of pings is required.RoySmith(talk)15:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He explained various geographical features of the Arctic to the Europeans (in the lead). Given the juxtaposition of this sentence to the previous one about his working at the HBC trading post, this sounds like he was explaining these things to the HBC people, but the main text only talks about this in reference to the Franklin expedition.
Changed to "He also explained various geographical and Inuit cultural characteristics to Franklin."
one of two Inuit interpreters to accompany Franklin's 1819–1822 Coppermine expedition (also in the lead). Franklin should be introduced here.
I think he is introduced in the first paragraph. What information do you think is missing here?
also spelt Tattannoeuck I could be wrong here, but my understanding is that Canadian English uses "spelled".
I looked around Wikipedia and did a Google search but could not find a source that could verify. The closest I got was Google AI saying that both were acceptable.Z1720 (talk)02:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tatannuaq stated that before his interpreter service this is the first time his employment as an interpreter is mentioned in the main text, so it needs some context.
supposedly offering a viable sea route it is ambiguous if the British Admiralty or the Northwest Passage was doing the offering.
Added "a geographic phenomenon that would supposedly offer a viable sea route" to clarify that they were looking for a geographic feature.Z1720 (talk)02:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
appointed to travel overland from the North American mainland what does it mean to travel overland from the mainland?
I had to go look up Inuit to discover that it is the plural of Inuk, so you might want to mention this the first time you use the term. It's also not clear how the grammar works when used as an adjective: "Inuit territory" but "Inuk interpreter"?
Cool, that helps quite a bit. From reading the text, I really had no feeling for the distances covered and in fact was quite surprised upon seeing the map that they basically spanned the entire breadth of the country, mostly on foot.
But, it's an awkward crop that makes it hard to place in geographic context; it really should show the entire country. I tried just getting rid of the{{CSS crop}} (which I'd never seen before), but that left me with a huge image. I'm also not a fan of hard-coding image sizes in pixels. So perhaps there's some other map technology which can do a better job on this?RoySmith(talk)14:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I put in a request at Graphics Lab, just to see what they come up with. Feel free to comment there if you wanted to add something or if I misrepresented this conversation.Z1720 (talk)01:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just gave this another read-through. The only additional comment I have is under Legacy. You say "Callophrys augustinus ... was named for Tatannuaq" I know you explain elsewhere that Augustus was Tatannuaq's English name, but I suspect most readers won't remember that and will just be confused, so it's worth a reminder at this point.Support on the prose, which is well-written and engaging. I know nothing of the history, so cannot give an opinion on the quality of the research or the sources.RoySmith(talk)23:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tatannuaq should be mentioned by name instead of by pronoun at the start of each paragraph. E.g. "After a significant delay due to staying with family away from Churchill, he was hired..." should become "After a significant delay due to staying with family away from Churchill, Tatannuaq was hired..." and so on.
Also the infobox gives miles first but the rest of the article gives km first. As this is a Canadian topic, I think the infobox should also give km first.
"His group regularly travelled by sleigh to Churchill in the spring and wintered along the Hudson Bay coast in igloos, travelling inland in the summer to hunt caribou and muskoxen, and would hunt seal along the coast before the spring thaws." This sentence is a bit long.
"Learning English and Cree (after already speaking Inuktitut) he worked as an interpreter for the company, assuming the English name of Augustus." A comma is needed after the brackets. Also, I suggest removing the brackets entirely and replacing them with commas, like this: "Learning English and Cree, after already speaking Inuktitut, he worked as an interpreter for the company, assuming the English name of Augustus." I find that bracketed phrases with several words usually work better as just commas.
"He was described by European explorers as a proficient writer, and would frequently write as a hobby." I suggest this instead: "European explorers described him as a proficient writer who frequently wrote as a hobby."
I removed it for now. I couldn't find the reference in the DCB source. MaybeGeneralissima, who added information from the Delisle source, will be able to clarify or determine if it should be removed.Z1720 (talk)21:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"He lived in Fort Churchill and was forced to fish every day, which he struggled with." To make it clearer: "Tatannuaq lived in Fort Churchill and was forced to fish every day, which he struggled with."
"The butterfly species Callophrys augustinus (brown elfin), first collected by John Richardson in 1827 during the Mackenzie River expedition, was named for Tatannuaq. Augustus Lake, a small lake near Great Bear Lake, was also named for him." This can be simplified to this: "Callophrys augustinus (brown elfin), a butterfly first collected by John Richardson on the 1827 Mackenzie River expedition, was named for Tatannuaq, as was Augustus Lake near Great Bear Lake."
One final comment: The infobox says that he died aged 38 or 39, but given the uncertainty of his birth year, I don't think his age at death can be given that precisely.
I appreciate the work that's been put into the map, but it is fairly big (over half the width of the text in desktop Vector 22). I also wonder if we could be more selective about the places that get labeled.
It is a bit big, but I'm unsure what would be worth cutting. -G
Regarding the map, I agree it is too large, and perhaps too detailed. But I think having a map of some sort showing where things happened (and perhaps the routes of the expeditions) is important. I'll repeat my suggestion to ask atWP:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. The folks there are really good at this stuff and can apply human map-making skills to produce a better product that most of us can by just plugging coordinates into a template. The self-serve process gets you maps which are "good enough" for most purposes, and I've done plenty of those myself (lately I've been diving into mapframes which integrate with OSM), but for a FA I think it's worth the extra effort to get a high-quality map built by folks who have the right skills.RoySmith(talk)19:52, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69 andRoySmith: After over a week, there has been no response at the Graphics Lab. In an effort to get this FAC moving along, I took it upon myself to split the map into three so that the maps could be smaller. Please let me know if you think this is a workable solution or if you would propose something different.Z1720 (talk)22:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been watching that. I think what you've got now is better than what was there before, but I'm still not a fan of the fixed pixel-size images generated by{{CSS crop}}. I'll work on this a bit and see if I can come up with anything better. I think we can do better than what we have now, but I also don't think we need to back ourselves into a corner if the graphics lab folks are unable to do anything. In any case, at the pace FAC moves, I'm sure there's still weeks to go before a final decision needs to be made.RoySmith(talk)22:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, with some help from @The Equalizer, I've got something reasonable done and put into the article. I'm still hoping the folks at the Graphics Lab will come up with something better, but these seem good enough for now.RoySmith(talk)20:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason the Inuktitut spelling is in§ Early life? I usually see non-English names mentioned in the lead, at least in a footnote.
@RoySmith I did. Someone in that thread said you underestimate the IPA, and I tend to agree. Anyway, per MOS, the lead is the correct place to give the subject's pronunciation when it isn't obvious from spelling.MOS:LEADPRON explicitly says that if an article title has a pronunciation that is not apparent from its spelling, we should include the pronunciationafter the first occurrence of the name, using either parentheses or a footnote.BorgQueen (talk)00:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"His groupregularly travelled ..." Which group is this referring to? There's also "his band" further down — are these the same people?
I think a few words to introduce this band would be helpful to provide context.—TS
Other than being Inuit, his band was not really described in sources. Many Inuit groups at this time were not given specific names by the HBC unless they were actively trading with them, and many were grouped together as "Inuit" or "Cree" instead of described with distinct names or adjectives. I don't think there's anything to add here from the sources.Z1720 (talk)02:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "In 1812... name of Augustus." seems like it has some information out of order. We should find out that he was an interpreter in the same sentence as we find out he was hired. The two consecutivedangling-modifier clauses also read awkwardly.
It doesn't look like this change was made. The reason I suggested this rephrase is because the sentence "They joined an advance party [...], then walked the Methye Portage, linking the Churchill River ..." makes it sound like theparty is linking the two rivers rather than the Portage.—TS
I thought you wanted Methye Portage to be wikilinked: my bad! Phrasing has been changed in the article per the above suggestion.Z1720 (talk)02:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In footnote b,"Inuk" and"Inuit" should be italicized instead (MOS:WAW).
Oh, the source doesn't mention Rankin Inlet, but Marble Island is directly next to Rankin Inlet. Do we need a source to clarify the location of the island? I no longer have access to the source, but Deslie did explicitly say that Tatannuaq had not been to Chesterfield Inlet.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)02:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 48 is only included for the claim about Augustus Lake, and seems redundant to (and seemingly of lower than) other sources already cited for that purpose. I'm not going to insist on its removal, but I just thought I'd being it up.
The publisher of the source is a department within the Government of Canada, which I would consider a high quality source in this instance. I think it should stay.Z1720 (talk)02:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Back 1994: remove the URL, which implies open access to the book that isn't there. The JSTOR link at the end of the citation can stay, though.
Citation 25: mostly fine, but the page range begins one page earlier, and contains a lot of pages that don't verify anything. Can this be split into at least two ranges for bettertext–source integrity? It might also allow linking the pages in the{{sfn}}s.
Apologies for the delay — I've been a little unwell this week, so I'd let this slip away from me. I'm planning on at least one more pass through the article before I leave a bolded !vote, but I also see a couple of pending points in the source review.—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)16:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69: Just in case the previous one didn't go through. I think everything above has been addressed. Let us know if there's anything else for us to address or if we missed anything.Z1720 (talk)03:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, Z; I have a bad habit of taking on reviews right before getting unexpectedly busy off-wiki. I'm aiming to do my final pass of source spot-checks tomorrow.—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)02:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, both of you! This has been a fun article to review. Jo-Jo did a more thorough check for source quality below, and I have no concerns on top of those —source review passed. Happy tosupport on prose as well.—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)01:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Only a minor source, but Beardsley hasa fairly critical review. Likewise, "Arctic Artist: The Journal and Paintings of George Back, Midshipman with Franklin, 1819–1822" has areview which notes in particular the depiction of indigenous people as potentially a problem.This review of "Arctic Circles and Imperial Knowledge: The Franklin Family, Indigenous Intermediaries, and the Politics of Truth." might also be worth noting. McGoogan also has acritical review, although more specific about which parts are potentially a problem. Source formatting seems mostly consistent, don't have access to most so couldn't do much spotchecking.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)12:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I read through There was lots of interest in the Franklin expeditions in the early 2010s, and lots of competing narratives of how various groups should be represented. Most of the documentation of the expeditions was from colonial sources who were all HBC employees, which is then viewed from the modern-day Indigenous and colonial politics of Canadian history. Beardsley is only used to cite the efn note about the date he arrived at Fort Enterprise, so I don't think its fine to include. I agree that Back's depiction of Indigeous people is very problematic, but the information it verifies doesn't speak about Indigenous actions (its not used to describe the encounter at Mackenzie River, for example). The review you gave for Claydon doesn't raise anything major for me; from what I read it mostly complains about the book jumping in timelines a lot. McGoogan's reviewer seems to think that McGoogan's information about Indigenous people is good (and important) but is critical on how McGoogan had to add other information in order to make the book long enough for publication. If there's anything you'd like me to address specifically, I'd be happy to do so.Z1720 (talk)01:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You sure? #5 seems like it's using Back as a source about Indigenous people. To me it sounds like Janice Cavell is also concerned about factual accuracy about indigenous people and their interactions with an expedition. "Unfortunately McGoogan’s text contains a troubling number of factual inaccuracies" is the quote that gives me pause.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)10:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The part of Back we use in #5 says this:In the winter they live in circular snow houses (constructed with great ingenuity) on the sea-coast — they kill seals when the ice begins to thaw — and in summer retire to the inland rivers and lakes where they obtain abundance of musk oxen. I don't think this shows any signs of bias, and the other sources just cite Back when giving information about Tattanuaq's life before the expedition. The one for page 119 saysAugustus employed himself in writing and smoking. (Is there any reasonable reason to doubt him on that?) Looking at it again, I decided to add a direct quote from him describing Tattanuaq. Cite 13 (p. 350) isn't to Back himself, its to a modern footnote explaining the timeline.
Also, the review you mention lists all the factual inaccuracies found in the book. While these are certainly mistakes, they're kind of trivial and are not the sort that would have any bearing on the text - the errors are overstating the primacy of the search for the Northwest Passage in the HBC charter, misquoting Ross as saying "young ice" instead of "rough ice", and saying that Ross's farm was southeast of London instead of northwest.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)11:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Ref 5 is also one of three different sources used to verify information, so I think it's OK to keep in. The text in the article is, in my opinion, not a negative portrayal of Indigenous culture. It instead describes their housing (verified by additional sources later in the article, when Tatannuaq built igloos for Franklin) his group's hunting schedule (which is pretty consistent with sources then and now) and that Tatannuaq stated he had never gone north of Marble Island (a specfic fact about Tatannuaq, not Indigenous peoples). Does this satisfy your concerns?Z1720 (talk)22:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't calls his salary trivia. Looking at a couple of recent FAs (Elizabeth Alkin andHistory of penicillin), they both talk about how much various people earned. As doRobert Downey Jr. andMary Mallon which are currently at FAC. I'm not saying it's critical that we have this information, but if it were available, it would be worth putting in the article. It would be particularly interesting if we could compare what Tatannuaq was paid to what other participants were paid.RoySmith(talk)00:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also could not find wages in any of the sources, although I agree these would be useful. Houston's appendix biographies inTo the Arctic by Canoe (1974) mention wages for St. Germain but not Tatannuaq. I know the voyaguers were paid through a mix of coins and physical goods, so I can assume that the interpreters were probably paid entirelyin kind, since they would have no way to use coinage. Nevertheless this doesn't seem to be recorded.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)02:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed in my spot-checks today that Delisle 2019, p.191, mentions that 6259"livres cours d'Halifax" was double an interpreter's salary. Not sure if there's further context given on p. 192, since Google Books doesn't show me that one.—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)02:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TheArchives of Manitoba looked promising ("The Hudson’s Bay Company Archives holds thousands of servants’ contracts, which date from about 1776-1927 ...") but also says the records are often incomplete for seasonal workers. In any case, I drew a blank on Tatannuaq or Tattannoeuck. Augustus returned some records, but none of them appeared to be this person.RoySmith(talk)12:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I always enjoy a well-written article about those who have played their part in history from the margins. Thank you both for this.Borsoka (talk)10:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mario Party: Star Rush is a 2016party video game developed byNDcube and published byNintendo for theNintendo 3DS as the fourthhandheld game in theMario Party series, as well as the second installment in the series for the 3DS. I brought bothMario Party DS andMario Party: The Top 100 to FA status some time ago, and I figure that another portableMario Party game is the way to go. I've previously run this article through GAN and a peer review, and I wholeheartedly welcome any additional feedback.
Looks good. I was not able to find any issues. However, I think that there is room of improvement in regards to explaining the gameplay, especially how the game differs from previousMario Party games. This is optional, though.
Gameplay
"artificial intelligence, with the latter having several difficulty levels." should be explained more clearly. how does this work?
I think that it would be more beneficial to explain how Toad Scramble works after the first sentence: "The main game mode is Toad Scramble, in which all four playable characters are different-colored Toads.[5] Here goes the explanation"
Whoever possesses the most Stars at the end of a board game wins, just like in the Toad Scramble mode. Balloon Bash is essentially a version of Toad Scramble that's more faithful to the traditionalMario Party formula.★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk)05:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the ability to pick up allies in the Toad Scramble mode" I am not sure what this is supposed to mean.
From the second paragraph in the gameplay section:AdditionalMario characters appear on the boards, and each player can recruit up to four at a time as allies, allowing them to roll extra dice and receive help during boss battles. Is there any way in which this could be better communicated in either section?★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk)05:04, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Balloon Bash mode most closely resembles the traditional gameplay of the Mario Party series, with players earning coins in minigames and trading coins for Stars. Have you covered all of the minigames that the source discusses in this paragraph, or just certain ones?
As far as I'm aware, no minigames are discussed in this paragraph. Rhythm Recital, Challenge Tower, and Boo's Block Party are all game modes, not minigames. Should I clarify this better within the article, or perhaps list a few examples of minigames in this paragraph?★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk)04:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mario Party: Star Rush's removal of the series' traditional turn-based gameplay in favor of simultaneous movement was intended to make the game much more fast-paced and better suited for portable play. Should be moved later in the paragraph, but otherwise looks good.
Praise was also given to the game's local multiplayer options, especially the free Party Guest software - name by whom, and what specifically did they say about the Party Guest software?
The image in the infobox is fair use as it's the game's cover. No problems there. But the NFUR onFile:Mario Party Star Rush.png has a slight issue where the source URL doesn't actually display the image. It may be a bug or something, but could you please try to find another URL with this image, or use another image?
Just to indicate that I'm still doing this, I've now ensured that all sources are reasonably reliable, whether primary or secondary. Reviewing citation info also:
I don't know that there is much of a need to include updates, a lathis source; to my understanding, IGN updates are often extremely minor and not to do with the contents of the article (this applies to other IGN articles; correct me if I'm wrong and there's a meaningful difference between versions of the same citation)
Ref 2:[51] this source feels like it adequately cites this sentence on its own: "Another game mode, Challenge Tower, functions as a vertical version of Minesweeper"
Ref 8:[52] "Additional Mario characters appear on the boards, and each player can recruit up to four at a time as allies, allowing them to roll extra dice and receive help during boss battles. There are five worlds" This does not appear to be fully cited with this source.
"Shares the same goal" could be read as that they have a shared, individual goal; perhaps rephrase to say that they are all tasked with collecting the most
"Coins can also be spent on items such as additional dice at a shop." - This feels a little random in its placement, and results in "However, similarly to in Toad Scramble, players roll dice and move around the board simultaneously." feel isolated (I assume the latter sentence is a response to the sentence at the start of the paragraph)
I forget how we handle past tense versus present tense with respect to functionality of delisted games; I may be wrong, but I feel like the fact that it is still usable by people who have downloaded it could justify saying "allows" instead of "allowed". Correct me if I'm full of it
There's a contradiction: Destructoid identifies it as the fewest minigames in the series, but Digital Trends states that the original game has three fewer.
Someone is going for a featured topic! I reviewed another one of the Mario Party games in the past, and I'm familiar with the series.
"... developed by NDcube and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 3DS." - I feel like "published by Nintendo" isn't necessary here, as the article never goes into what publishing even means. It's fine in the "Development" section but feels redundant having "Nintendo" twice in four words.
"The game has sold more than 88,000 copies" - are there any worldwide figures, or available for anywhere outside of Japan? This felt very low until I saw it was for Japan sales figures within two months of its release.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find much info regarding worldwide sales, especially recent updates. Seeing as this game sold pretty poorly compared to the precedingMario Party 3DS game (Island Tour's 2.95 million), there apparently hasn't been much interest in updating its sales totals.★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk)23:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Mario Party: Star Rush is compatible with several of Nintendo's Amiibo figurines, which can be scanned to give players advantages such as unlocking characters and receiving special items." - characters that aren't in the game already? Or allies? This is the main part that intrigued me wanting more detail.
Could you explain the car-based gameplay that this game got rid of? You mention it a few times, and I imagined it was Mario Kart-like minigames? Unless I'm mistaken.
"Shortly after the game's announcement, Twitter users commented on its box art being reused from other projects, including the label of SpaghettiOs canned pasta." - I read this several times and don't get the SpaghettiOs part.
All of the sources cited for this information emphasize the artwork being reused from SpaghettiOs labels (as does the tweet that initially pointed this out), hence why I choose to emphasize this detail as well.★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk)23:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of these should now be addressed. To my knowledge, "Amiibo" is actually written the same whether singular or plural, as indicated by Nintendo of Americahere. I could rephrase this to "seven new Amiibo figurines" if this would be preferable.★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk)16:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The first article in my upcoming trilogy of featured article candidates, theWilliam Street tunnel connects Perth'sMandurah line with theYanchep line. Construction started in 2004 and it opened in 2007, enduring route changes, political opposition, technical issues, strikes and contract disputes. Using newspaper articles, government reports, books and academic papers, I have written the most comprehensive overview of the William Street tunnel you can find, and one which I believe meets the featured article criteria. I await your review.Steelkamp (talk)16:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
of twin bored tunnel plus cut-and-cover tunnel ==> "of twin bored tunnel plus a cut-and-cover tunnel"
description
North from the station, the tunnel runs under should "from" be "of" instead?
planning
committee found it hard to maybe "struggled" instead of "found it hard"?
Street to veer out of the ==> "Street to exit the"
An opinion poll by The West Australian newspaper found that 39 percent of respondents supported the central route and 35 percent of respondents supported the western route. "percent" ==> "per cent" (Australian English)
procurement
taking the cost of the Southern Suburbs Railway to $1.059 billion ==> "making the cost of the Southern Suburbs Railway $1.059 billion"
contract for such a construction project has been ==> "contract for such a construction project had been"
released a report which said the City Project's ==> "released a report that said the City Project's"
construction
be more pedestrian friendly ==> "be more pedestrian-friendly"
back to before the Mounts Bay was reclaimed should "the" be here?
The delays were attributed on the heritage ==> "The delays were attributed to the heritage"
The possibility for further delays caused ==> "The possibility of further delays caused"
industrial action
ordered that they returned to work ==> "ordered that they return to work"
Always nice to see a bit of transport infrastructure at FAC! Reviewing prose/MoS/comprehensiveness; probably won't check sources/images in any detail.
with two stations: Perth Underground and Elizabeth Quay what's that "with" doing? It's trying to splice a clause about the two stations into the rest of the sentence but it's failing. Depending on how much you want to emphasise the stations, you could either rewrite the whole sentence or just give the stations their own sentence. Short sentences aren't a(b inherently) bad thing.
I've rewritten the whole sentence.
You don't need all three instance of "2007" in the last sentence of the lead; you could afford to lose one or even two.
Removed two.
I don't really get a feel from the lead ofwhy the tunnel was built or why it's important. I get that it was part of a line and you probably don't want to duplicate that article but a little context would be nice—what does it connect, who does it serve, is it metro/light rail or heavy rail? In other words, why was it necessary to dig a tunnel under Perth? I'd suggest maybe a sentence or two in the lead and a small paragraph of background in the body.
I've added some context to the lead withthis edit. I hope the first paragraph under "Planning" is sufficient background.
I feel the procurement section is possibly a little too detailed. All construction projects have procurement processes. I'm not sure the unsuccessful tenders and shortlistings are important details in the scheme of things (would we go into this level of detail for a 19th-century infrastructure project?) and the section could be pared back.
I've removed the list of 5 consortia. I've kept in the shortlist of two though, due to the commentary from Clough's managing director about the project's risks, which later proved prescient.
Due to pressure from the Liberal and Greens parties Greens parties?
I'm not sure all the detail on all the strikes is encyclopaedic. I think a summary along the lines of "there were lots of strikes" and the causes of them would be better than listing each of them one by one, especially as it seems to based largely on contemporary reporting. How much weight do later publications give it?
Later publications mainly talk about the February-March 2006 strike. I'll see what I can do to reduce the detail in this section.
I've cut this section down significantly. I've kept each individual strike and their cause, but removed the detail on each. The key strikes are the November 2005 one, which disrupted tunnelling and resulted in the strike ban, and the February-March 2006 one, which broke the strike ban and resulted in the prosecutions.
pre-trial settlement in November 2006, with the CFMEU paying Leighton that "with" isn't adding any meaning and is forcing a tense change mid-sentence. A semicolon would be better, or two separate sentences.
I've chosen a semicolon.
in protest to a shop steward being dismissed I've never heard the term "protestto" before; normally a protest isat a decision. Also "steward's dismissal" would be tighter.
I've reworded this to "in protest against".
Leighton said that the state government could deregister the union, pass legislation protecting the project, or launch its own legal action against the union,[176][177] while the state opposition said that the striking workers should be dismissed. Is this just normal politicking or does it have some greater significance?
I've left this as "MacTiernan criticised the strike, but said that there was nothing she could do as it was the contractor's responsibility to find a solution.[167][169] Leighton and the state opposition disputed the claims that the state government could do nothing."
issued writs against 107 workers wait, Aussie law allows employers to sue their employees for striking? Can they not just dismiss them if the strike is improper? At the risk of diverging too far the topic at hand, a few explanatory words or a link might be helpful.
Does this sentence help?: "The prosecution of those workers was described as "unprecedented" by the Australian Institute of Employment Rights, and relied on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 passed by the Howard government, which was criticised for removing the right to strike." To be precise, the Australian Building and Construction Commission sued the workers. I'm not 100% sure why the employees weren't just dismissed. Sources don't say, but I speculate that it would be hard to replace them as tunnelling roles are quite specialised, and firing them would cause even more strikes. Leighton-Kumagai probably just wanted the strikes to go away and for the project to be completed with the least delay possible. Apparently that worked, because there were no more strikes following that.
which was done as the strike was against the advice of the union Suggest re-casting the sentence to put this at the front so it can be in active voice. Also swap "as" for "because" in formal writing.
Done.
Throughout 2004 and 2005, the Leighton–Kumagai joint venture claimed Define "claimed", ie in a press release, letters, legal proceedings?
The sources all say the claims were "lodged", so probably letters. I have reworded accordingly.
The contract disputes seems an odd note to leave it on. Perhaps you move the "opening" section to the bottom so we finish on the current status of the tunnel?
The conclusion of the contract disputes happened over a year after the tunnel's opening, so I think its best that section comes after the tunnel's opening so things are in rough chronological order.
In a similar vein, is there any post-opening history? Even something banal like "X number of trains pass through the runnel each day"?
Not really any post-opening history to speak of, other than along the lines of what you suggest. I'm hesitant to include that though, as its duplicative of what's on theMandurah line andYanchep line articles, and I wrote this article to be about the tunnel specifically and not the service through it. Also, that's not history per se, and more about current service.
That's quite a lot of further reading. Is all of it directly relevant? Some of it looks like it would be better used as a reference.
Most of the further reading is documents that are too technical to be used as a source (the conferences and journal articles, the report appendices).The Australian Institute of Employment Rights report contains lots of additional information on the prosecution of the 107 workers, and the broader political debate around industrial relations in Australia at the time, but I don't think its suitable to be used as a source because its inherently biased. Actually, I just realised that the AIER source is already used, so I have removed it from further reading. I think its ok despite the source's inherent bias, because its providing the opinion of the AIER.
I think I'm happy with the prose, so I'd support on 1a only. Outside that, Commander Keane raises something that caught my eye as well: the article is heavily dependent on news sources. I don't know enough about the subject to know what material is available but I'd have expected a heavier reliance on engineering sources.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?21:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I won't comment on sourcing, as this is quite outside my area. As for the prose, there's nothing showstopping here, and these points are mostly pretty minor:
I'd try to make the short description a bit more descriptive: "Perth railway tunnel" or "Railway tunnel under Perth's CBD", perhaps?
I've used "Railway tunnel in Perth".
the construction of the Mandurah line, the tunnel connects the Mandurah line to the Yanchep line, – If it can be done without producing ambiguity, I'd avoid repeating "Mandurah line". For example, would "the Mandurah line, which the tunnel connects to the Yanchep line," work?
I've gone with "the tunnel connects it to theYanchep line".
It consists of 770 metres (2,530 ft) of twin bored tunnel, – Hmm, should "tunnel" be plural here?
I think so. Done.
a cut-and-cover tunnel at either end, – PerMOS:NOFORCELINK, I'd try to give a brief explanation of what this is.
I agree for the body, but for the lead, I don't think further explanation is needed or would fit.
The construction of the Mandurah line was divided into eight contract packages. The William Street tunnel was part of Package F, also known as the City Project, the contract for which was awarded to Leighton–Kumagai Gumi in February 2004 for $324.5 million. – As these two sentences are closely related and the first is quite short, I'd consider a semicolon.
Done.
Boring for the first tunnel was completed in June 2006, after which, the tunnel boring machine was transported back to Elizabeth Quay to dig the second tunnel. – No comma after "after which". I also think we can get away with omitting "tunnel" in "second tunnel".
Done both.
to dig the second tunnel. The second tunnel was significantly faster to bore, being completed in October 2006. – I'd probably just write "to dig the second, which was completed in October 2006", as I think it's fairly clear from the months we supply that it took less time.
Done.
Construction was significantly disrupted by industrial action, – A bit of a nitpick, but I'm not sure "significantly" is adding much here (if it wasn't significant, we probably wouldn't be mentioning it). I'd use "extensively", "repeatedly", or some other such word; alternatively, just "disrupted" might work.
I've just dropped the word entirely.
The strikes, along with complications involving heritage protection at Perth Underground station, engineering challenges on the foreshore, – I don't think we've mentioned a foreshore (or a body of water) so far, so I'd give a bit of an idea of where this foreshore was and what its relation to the tunnel was.
resulted in the tunnel's opening being delayed beyond December 2006. – Was this month when it was planned to open? If so, I'd mention this, as otherwise it sounds slightly odd to mention this particular month.
You've just made me realise that the whole line's planned opening was December 2006 but the tunnel's deadline was October 2006. They needed the tunnel complete before the rest of the line could be complete. I've decided to ignore this by just using the year in the lead. The rest of the article explains it.
The first train entered the tunnel in August 2007, and the tunnel opened to passengers on 15 October, ahead of the rest of the Mandurah line's opening on 23 December. – I think "the tunnel" can be replaced by "it" the second time, to avoid repetition.
Done.
Annoying, I realise, but there's someMOS:SANDWICHing on my screen between the infobox and the images of the two stations. You could fix this by moving them to the right; if you're concerned they might push the next image down, you could also consider placing them in a horizontal configuration.
Done. I've used a horizontal layout so that the images aren't too far away from the section.
The William Street tunnel consists of approximately 770 metres (2,530 ft) – We use "approximately" here but not in the lead: depending on what the source says, I'd omit or include it in both places.
Omitted, as per the source.
770 metres (2,530 ft) of twin bored tunnels, plus adjacent cut-and-cover tunnels. – Hmmm. I'm not sure I fully understand the meaning of "adjacent" here: it sounds a bit as though the cut-and-cover tunnels were adjacent to one another, which I don't believe is what we mean. Assuming it's accurate, the wording in the lead seemed a bit clearer to me (a cut-and-cover tunnel at either end). Also, similarly to above, I'd try to include a brief explanation of the term.
Done. And I've added a brief explanation.
Trains in the William Street tunnel are part of both the Mandurah and Yanchep lines between Perth Underground and Elizabeth Quay stations. – Correct me if this is common phrasing in writing about transportation, but saying that the trains themselves were part of the line sounds slightly odd to me. Would "The William Street tunnel is part ..." work?
Yes, I'll do that.
the William Street tunnel are part of both the Mandurah and Yanchep lines between Perth Underground and Elizabeth Quay stations. North of Perth Underground is the Yanchep line and south of Elizabeth Quay station is the Mandurah line. – I initially read the first sentence as saying that the whole tunnel was part of both lines, which were both situated between the two stations. I'd recommend writing something like "the section of the William Street tunnel between Perth Underground and Elizabeth Quay stations is part of ...". A better solution might be to swap the order of the sentences, which I think will allow us to avoid repeating the names of the lines and stations. I'd also consider that we haven't mentioned where these two stations are in the tunnel yet (that is, which is on the north and which is on the south).
I've flipped the order and reworked the sentences. It now implies that Perth Underground is the northern station and Elizabeth Quay is the southern station.
The rails range from 9 to 21 metres (30 to 69 ft) below ground level. The tunnel has a design life of 120 years. As these last two sentences are fairly short, I'd consider combining them (with each other, or with an earlier sentence).
I've combined the first sentence with the previous sentence, due to the similar subject matter. The design life is an unrelated thing to the geometry of the tunnel.
The southern cut-and-cover portion, a distance of approximately 648 metres (2,126 ft), – "measuring approximately 648 metres", perhaps?
Done.
The tunnel veers east of William Street to reach Perth Underground station, which was dug cut-and-cover. – Looking at the map, I think "veers" is a bit strong here.
Agreed. I have replaced it with "curves".
The bored tunnels then bend west to enter the rail corridor west of Perth station, which is the former Perth marshalling yard. – As I think this could sound as though the station itself was the former Perth marshalling yard, I'd rephrase this a little.
Done.
The tunnel then has a 200-metre (660 ft) ramp structure – I'd omit "structure", as I'm not sure a "ramp structure" is different to a "ramp".
Done.
taking it up to the surface to connect with the rest of the rail network. – "that leads to the surface, where it connects ...", perhaps?
Done.
This was originally not part of the tunnel, – "not originally" sounds a bit more natural to my ears.
Done.
Initial plans for the Mandurah line, created by a Liberal state government, had it branch off the Armadale line at Kenwick, – I think "had it branch off" is a little informal. Maybe "proposed it branch off"?
Done.
The Labor Party nonetheless supported the Kenwick route – Mmm. To my ears, "nonetheless" makes this sound as though the Labor Party was wrong to go against these experts. If possible, I'd omit that word.
Done. Personally, I do think the direct route is the best route, but I agree that its more neutral without the "nonetheless".
After Labor's election victory though, – Comma after "victory", I think
I've removed the "though" here as its unnecessary.
decided in July 2001 that the direct route would be constructed instead of the Kenwick route. – As we mentioned the Kenwick route in the previous sentence, I'd try condensing this: "decided in July 2001 to instead construct the direct route", perhaps?
Done.
To connect the line to the rest of the rail network, the new route required a tunnel under the central business district, – I think we've more or less said the same thing above (a direct route to be constructed instead, which would have necessitated a tunnel through the CBD), so I'd see if this can be condensed.
Done.
There was to be an elevated portion south of St Georges Terrace too, – "too" is a bit informal here, I think. "There was also", perhaps?
I've combined this sentence with the previous one, now that it's been shortened.
an elevated portion south of St Georges Terrace too ... the elevated section along the Swan River foreshore – As I think these refer to the same elevated section, I'd use one description or the other.
Done.
In response to criticism of the Mandurah line's route through the Perth CBD, – I'd omit "Perth"
Done.
and was tasked with submitting its report in February 2002. – This sentence is fairly long; I'd combine this last part with the sentence that follows, which is also about the report.
Done.
Feel free to push back if you disagree, but the listing of the three different routes and the discussion of which groups and entities preferred which options feels quite detailed to me.
I actually think this is one of the most interesting parts of the article. I wanted to go into detail on this article because it's already a spin off of the mainMandurah line article.
Sorry to add more points to the pile, but I apparently didn't review the prose in this part, so I've done that now (added to the end of the review). Having reread this part, I think the level of detail is mostly fine: my only concern is that we mention which proposed route was preferred by quite a few different parties. In particular, the preference of the convention centre doesn't appear super important to me, and the newspaper opinion poll probably doesn't tell us all that much (as opinion was fairly split). Let me know what you think. –Michael Aurel (talk)15:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have cut down on this section. I've removed the Halliburton Report and the Convention Centre's concerns. I've left in the Perth City Council's views though, as those are the main reasons that the bored tunnel option was chosen over a cut-and-cover tunnel. I've left in the opinion poll because even a fairly split poll tells you something (that opinions were split and there was no clear favourite).Steelkamp (talk)11:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
designed and constructed as part of Package F of the Southern Suburbs Railway. – Hmm. I'm not sure I know what "Southern Suburbs Railway" means here. In the lead, we described Package F as one of the contract packages that was part of the Mandurah line's construction.
Southern Suburbs Railway was the name use for the Mandurah line during construction. I've added a small explanation here.
Geotechnical testing by Golder Associates occurred between January and March 2003. – As this is a fairly short sentence, I'd try combining it with one of its neighbours
I don't think this sentence combines well with its neighbours, so I won't do this.
Expressions of interest for Package F – I'd linkInvitation to tender, as "expression of interest" seems to redirect there.
Done.
Concerns were raised regarding an increase in traffic congestion caused by the removal of the bridge, but Lord Mayor Nattrass supported the removal of the bridge because it allowed for a future redevelopment of the foreshore. – I'd suggest something like "There were concerns the bridge's removal would increase traffic". I would also replace the second "the removal of the bridge" with "it", to avoid repetition.
Done both.
After lobbying from the Perth City Council, consideration was given to sinking the Fremantle line within Northbridge – I'm assuming this is standard terminology in engineering, but do we mean "lowering"? "sinking" often refers to submerging into water.
The word sinking is commonly used, including by the sources, but I've gone with "lowering", which should be more understandable to a broad audience.
The state government attempted to reach an agreement for the City of Perth – I'm not sure "agreement for" is ideal; maybe "agreement under which"?
Done.
City of Perth to fund the sinking in exchange for the city receiving the right to develop the land on top of the railway, – I'd condense this to "in exchange for the right to develop".
Done.
The southern entrance to the tunnel, including the 135-metre (443 ft) of uncovered tunnel (image caption) – "including the 135 metres"
Fixed.
In conjunction with this, the roof of the William Street tunnel was extended from Lake Street to Milligan Street, – Is thisMilligan Street, Perth? This could also be linked in the image caption.
Yes it is. I've linked it in both cases.
and in November 2003, Leighton–Kumagai Gumi was selected as the preferred proponent. – No comma after "2003". I'd also write "the latter" in place of "Leighton–Kumagai Gumi".
Done both.
Not a big deal, but the article uses "due to" quite a bit. Depending on which style guide you open, this phrase may or may not be somewhat discouraged in British English. I'd try swapping out a few for "because of" or "owing to".
HJ Mitchell had the same comment as well. I've gone through and removed instances multiple instances of "due to" within the same paragraph.
The following month, the contract was approved by Cabinet – Minor, but we referred to it as "State Cabinet" above.
Changed to State Cabinet for consistency.
with the cost rising to about $320 million, making the cost of the Southern Suburbs Railway $1.059 billion – "making" seems a bit informal to me. Perhaps "bringing"?
Done.
The cost increase prompted shadow transport minister – As we mentioned "the cost" twice in the previous sentence, I'd write "This increase".
Done.
and National Party leader Max Trenorden – I'd give a link for "National Party"
Done.
As a result of pressure from the Liberal Party and Greens – Would "Under pressure" work? I'd also write "the Greens".
Yes, done both.
The contract was controversial due to the previous cost blowout and the risks of tunnelling. – By "risks", I'm assuming we mean financial risks (as opposed to, say, safety risks)?
Risks could include unexpected utilities underground, unexpected geology, ground subsiding, which are ultimately financial risks.
That makes sense. Would it work to write "the financial risks of tunnelling" here, so that this can't be interpeted as saying that there was opposition because there were fears it would be unsafe? –Michael Aurel (talk)01:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The contract was tabled on 2 March 2004. – As in a few places above, this sentence is fairly short; I'd see if it can be combined (perhaps using a semicolon) with a neighbour.
Done, I've combined it with the following sentence.
MacTiernan claimed it was the first time a contract for such a construction project had been publicly released. – Was MacTiernan correct? I only ask because the word "claim" cancall [the] statement's credibility into question (MOS:CLAIM).
Its sourced to a statement by MacTiernan herself. I've changed "claimed" to "said", which is more neutral but still shows its was MacTiernan that said it.
In August 2005, the state's auditor general – Should this be written as "Auditor-General"?
Sources are inconsistent, but the auditor general's office itself goes by "auditor general". Seehttps://audit.wa.gov.au.
MOS:JOBTITLES is the relevant guideline here, which says "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the King, not the king (referring to Charles III); the President, not the president (referring to Donald Trump)." So I've capitalised Auditor General.Steelkamp (talk)02:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
released a report that said the City Project's contract management had been good, – "effective", maybe? "good" seems slightly on the informal side.
starting with William Street, Wellington Street and the Horseshoe Bridge on 15 March, and followed by Barrack Street, Riverside Drive and The Esplanade the following month. – We used Oxford commas above, so I'd recommend using them here. Also, seeing as there are a few "and"s in this sentence, I'd remove the one before "followed by".
followed by [...] the following month – Very picky, but "next" month, maybe (to avoid repetition)?
Done.
Demolition of buildings to make way for the William Street station began in April 2004. The William Street bridge was demolished in August 2004. – These sentences are quite short, and both are related to demolition, so I'd consider combining them.
Done.
It was intended that the freeway interchange road layout would be redesigned to be more pedestrian-friendly. – I'd consider something like "The freeway interchange road layout was intended to be redesigned to make it ...".
I've just removed "road layout", which should make this sentence better. Otherwise, I think the sentence is good the way it is.
By October 2004, construction was several weeks behind schedule as a result of delays caused by demolition – This is fine, though I'd see if using both "as a result of" and "caused by" can be avoided: perhaps "owing to delays arising from"?
Done.
By October 2005, the Joondalup line tracks – We have mentioned this line above, in the section I skipped over (so this suggestion might apply to that part), but I'd make it clear that this is the former name of the Yanchep line.
I've added an explanatory footnote mentioning the name change.
had been slewed 6 metres (20 ft) to the south. – This word was new to me; I'd suggest adding a link to the Wiktionary page, and perhaps a brief explanation.
I've reworded this to avoid the word "slewed".
allowing for the Fremantle line to be slewed north above it, making room for the Roe Street drive structure to be built between the two lines. – Honestly, this bit has gone over my head: what's the "Roe Street drive structure"? I'd also add a link toRoe Street, Perth, as this seems to be the first time we mention it.
I've decided to mention Roe Street in the description section. I've also added that the dive structure contains the ramp up to the surface.
During excavation along the foreshore section of the tunnel, six wooden jetty piers were uncovered, – Hmm. I'm not sure I understand what a "jetty pier" is; would one of the two words suffice? Also, were the six of them whole jetties? My understanding is that jetties are fairly large.
I think I meant to write "jetty pillars" instead of "jetty piers". So not that large a find, it was from only one jetty.
dating back to before Mounts Bay was reclaimed – I'd try to give some idea of what Mounts Bay was (for example, is it related to the "Mounts Bay Road" we mentioned above?). I'd also consider mentioning when it was reclaimed.
I've added some context. The bay used to go right up to where Mounts Bay Road is today. The whole area was reclaimed so that the freeway could be built.
It was planned for there to be an art installation at the tunnel's southern entrance, – I'd go for something like "An art installation was planned at the tunnel's southern entrance".
Done.
at the tunnel's southern entrance, made of twenty reused sheet piles – I'd linksheet pile.
Done.
made of twenty reused sheet piles sticking out 24 metres (79 ft) high, – I'm not sure both "sticking out" and "high" are needed. Maybe something like "each 24 metres (79 ft) tall"?
Done.
painted on one side and left bare on the other. – Seeing as the art installation was cancelled, I assume these weren't actually painted? If so, I'd make clear that these paintings were only planned.
I've added "to be", which should help here.
The tunnels were dug by a single tunnel boring machine (TBM) named the Sandgroper, after the endemic insect. – I'd linkTunnel boring machine
Done.
launched from Esplanade station, boring north to the Roe Street dive structure via William Street station, – Earlier, we described this as a "drive structure".
Yes, drive structure is a typo. Fixed.
As the tunnel was dug at a shallow level below buildings on William Street through sandy soil with high groundwater, an earth pressure balance TBM was chosen, – I'd link to the specific "Earth pressure balance" section at that article. Then again, the solution here might be to change the redirect's target, as I'm not sure why it'd point somewhere other than that subsection.
I've changed the redirect target. Turns out the redirect was pointing to the section, but it was miscapitalised.
Special features of the TBM included a ground anchor detector, due to the ground anchors left behind following the construction of basements along William Street. – This makes it sound a bit as though the detector itself was "due to" the ground anchors, which I'm not sure works. Maybe something like "The TBM included a ground anchor detector because ground anchors had been left behind from the construction of basements along William Street"?
Done.
the TBM cost $10 million, was 60 metres (200 ft) long and weighed 300 tonnes (330 tons). – Missing Oxford comma.
Done.
Grout was injected into the ground underneath buildings above the tunnel's path to reduce ground movement. – I'd linkgrout
Done.
Initial planning aimed for the TBM to bore 4 metres (13 ft) per day, – Maybe something like "The TBM was initially planned to bore ..."?
Done.
to bore 4 metres (13 ft) per day, increasing to 10 metres (33 ft) per day. – Did the plans for how much would be bored become more ambitious, or was it planned that the amount bored each day would increase throughout the dig?
The latter. I've added some clarification.
However, after one week the TBM had bored just 3.5 metres (11 ft). – As this sentence is fairly short, I'd combine it with the previous one ("..., but after one week ..."). I'd also replace "the TBM" with "it".
Done both.
Progress was slow due to problems with o-rings, which needed to be replaced. There were further delays the following week because of industrial action. – As above, I'd combine these two short sentences.
Done.
It was intended that the first tunnel between the Esplanade and William Street stations, a distance of 470 metres (1,540 ft), would be completed before Christmas – I'd recommend something like "The first tunnel between ... , was intended to be completed before Christmas". I'd also use "spanning" in place of "a distance of".
Done both.
the TBM had bored a distance of 240 metres (790 ft). – I think "a distance of" can be omitted.
Done.
Tunnelling resumed early from the Christmas break to make up for lost time. – Maybe "earlyafter"?
I prefer the current wording.
It was relaunched heading north on 4 May, reaching the Roe Street dive structure on 3 June, twelve days ahead of schedule. – "relaunched heading" doesn't entirely read naturally to me; maybe "It was relaunched on 4 May, heading north"?
I've redone the sentence as per the following suggestion.
It was relaunched on 22 September and reached the Roe Street dive structure on 24 October 2006. – The two sentences before this one started with "was relaunched" and "was launched"; not sure whether it can be done easily, but I'd try to switch up the phrase "was relaunched".
Done. I've rephrased this paragraph.
The maximum speed attained was 19 metres (62 ft) over a 24-hour period. – Perhaps a bit of a technicality, but I'm not sure "19 metres" counts as a speed. Maybe go for something like "The maximum distance covered over a 24-hour period was 19 metres (62 ft)"?
Done.
In April 2005, MacTiernan revealed that the New MetroRail project completion date had been delayed from December 2006 to April 2007 – I think this should be "New MetroRail project's"
I've changed this sentence due to an earlier comment, so this doesn't apply anymore.
The possibility of further delays caused by the City Project was first raised by the Public Transport Authority in December 2005. – Were these concerns raised to the public? If so, I'd write "announced" (or similar). If not, I'd specify to whom these concerns were raised.
The possibility for delays was revealed toThe West Australian newspaper, so not exactly "announced", but it was revealed to the public. I have gone with "revealed".
In April 2006, she announced that the City Project's likely completion date had been delayed – As we haven't mentioned her name since the beginning of the paragraph, I'd use it here.
Done.
As the last two sentences are saying largely the same thing with different dates, I'd see if they can be combined. A bit rough, but something like "She announced further delays in April 2006 and April 2007, with the estimated opening date being pushed back to July 2007 and October 2007, respectively" might work.
I don't think its a good idea to merge these two sentences. It gets unwieldy and confusing with what i have tried. I have improved the wording here a bit though.
The City Project reached practical completion in September 2007 – I'm not quite sure what "practical completion" means (was it practically complete, but theoretically incomplete?). Would just "completion" work, perhaps?
Practical completion has a specific meaning in construction, which is that the infrastructure is ready to be used for its intended purpose but minor defects remain.
and was handed over to the PTA on 10 September. – As we haven't used or introduced the abbreviation above, I'd either use the full name consistently, or introduce the abbreviation in the first instance and it use from then on.
I've added the abbreviation upon first mention.
the Fremantle line was fully closed and the Joondalup line was closed south of Leederville station – I'd linkLeederville railway station.
Done.
so that the William Street tunnel's tracks, signalling, electrical, and communications systems could be connected to the rest of the network. – If we're referring to "signalling systems", I'd remove the comma after "tracks" and use "and" there.
Done.
The William Street tunnel and its two stations opened to the public on 15 October 2007. The rest of the Mandurah line opened on 23 December 2007. – I'd combine these two.
Construction was significantly disrupted by strikes, starting in November 2004. – Similar comment on "significantly" as above.
Done.
The state government generally took a hands-off approach regarding strikes, saying it was a matter between the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) and Leighton–Kumagai Gumi. – The first part of this sentence initially led me to think it was talking about how the state government usually responds to strikes in general, whereas the second part seems to suggest we're talking about how it responded to these specific strikes. Would something like "The state government took a hands-off approach to the strikes" work?
Yes, it is referring to these strikes in particular. I've implemented the wording you suggested.
By May 2005, the City Project was subject to twenty-eight days lost to strikes – I'd go for "the City Project had lost twenty-eight days to strikes"
Done.
the most days out of any of the Southern Suburbs Railway project's packages. – I think "days" and "out" can be omitted here.
Done.
in July due to ... in August for ... and October due to – I would include an "in" before "October" for parallelism.
Done.
Leighton–Kumagai Gumi applied for a strike ban, telling the commission that unscheduled stoppages to tunnelling would change the pressure at the TBM's cutter head, which could potentially cause pipes to burst, – I'd omit "potentially", as I think it's already implied by "could".
Done.
pipes to burst, buildings to crack and potholes to appear in roads. – Oxford comma
Done.
The contractor said that it had lost forty-six days of work to industrial action since July 2004. The following month, – This sounds a bit as though "the following month" is referring to August 2004. This can probably be fixed by including the month in which the contractor made this statement.
I've reworded this section in response to HurricaneHink's comments, so I think this issue is resolved.
On 28 February, they voted to remain on strike until the unfair dismissal claim was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission. – To me, "by" seems a little more natural here than "in".
Done.
MacTiernan criticised the strike, but said that there was nothing she could do as it was – I'd go for "said she could do nothing".
I like the current wording better, so I have not changed it.
Leighton and the state opposition disputed the claims that the state government could do nothing. – I'd probably shorten this to "disputed this claim", as we mentioned the content of the claim in the previous sentence. A semicolon might also be appropriate.
Done both.
The strikers voted on 8 March to return to work. – As in a few places above, this is a fairly short sentence. I'd see if it can be attached to a neighbour or expanded.
I don't think this sentence would work well if combined with another.
Because the strike was done against the advice of the union, the Building and Construction Commission sued – By "the union", I think we mean the CMFEU? If so, I'd use the abbreviation, as we do above.
Yes, done.
the Building and Construction Commission sued the individual workers instead, the first time such an action had been undertaken. – Is this the first time this had happened in Australia (or in the world)? I'd specify this. I think the final phrase could also be reduced to "the first time this had happened ['in Australia' or similar]".
It was the first time under a new act, which I have clarified.
Nice. Inthe first time such an action had been undertaken under, would it be possible to switch "undertaken" out for "taken", so as to avoid repetition? –Michael Aurel (talk)02:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but saying an action was "done" is a bit informal, I think. Would "taken" work? Or you could write "this had been done", which is fine. –Michael Aurel (talk)15:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The prosecution of those workers was described as "unprecedented" by the Australian Institute of Employment Rights, – As this was the subject of the previous sentence, I think we can probably write "This was described".
Done.
and relied on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 passed by the Howard government, which was criticised for removing the right to strike. – I think there's a touch of ambiguity here: was the act or the Howard government criticised?
The act. This section has been reworded to avoid this issue.
Eighty-seven workers admitted the strike was illegal in October 2007. – Were these 87 workers all among those who were prosecuted? If so, I'd specify this.
Yes, done.
fined the workers up to $9,000 for striking and $1,000 for ignoring a return to work order from the Industrial Relations Commission. – "return-to-work order" was hyphenated above, so I'd make this consistent. The hyphenated version seems correct to me.
Done. I see both used in sources, but have chosen the hyphenated version for consistency.
In early 2006, the joint venture lodged a claim for an additional $141 million in cost overruns – I'd replace "the joint venture" with "it", and I'd swap our "lodged" for something like "submitted" to avoid repetition.
Done both,
resulting from ... the difficulty in preserving heritage buildings – If it doesn't affect the meaning, I'd omit "the difficulty in".
Done.
Leighton had initially expected to make an $8 million profit on the project, which was reduced to a $10–15 million loss. – Maybe "became" in place of "was reduced to" (given we're aren't talking about only a reduction in profit)?
Done.
The claims had risen a further $13 million by March 2006, reaching a total of $204 million. MacTiernan said that only a small portion of that total would be paid out. – Two short sentences: semicolon, maybe?
Done.
Leighton filed a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia in April 2006 seeking to be relieved from its contractual obligations – "relievedof" seems more natural to me.
Done.
or alternatively have the practical completion deadline extended until the PTA provides the insurance. – "provides" should be "provided", I think, as we're situated in the past tense here.
Done.
By this point, tunnelling had stopped because the joint venture did not want to start the most challenging phase with the proper insurance to cover potential risks such as cave-ins. – Hmm, should "with" be "without" here?
Yes, fixed.
was reached for the government to cover insurance claims until the Supreme Court determines the appropriate level of insurance. – As above, I think "determines" should be "determined".
Done.
The first writ, filed in June, related to the contract's rise and fall provisions, – I think "writ" can be omitted.
Done.
By September 2007, there was another writ for the costs of dewatering – I think this could sound as though there were earlier writs that asked for dewatering costs to be covered.
I've clarified in the article.
In September 2008, the court ruled in favour of Leighton, awarding them about $6 million in damages. – As we seem to be talking about just Leighton here, should this be "it" rather than "them"?
Done.
The western route runs along the Mitchell Freeway, entering a tunnel south of Malcolm Street to exit the freeway median strip, – Would "exiting the freeway median strip via a tunnel south of Malcolm Street" work? The "to" here initially sounded to me as though it would indicate direction rather than purpose. I'd also consider a link tomedian strip.
Done.
before bending east to surface in the existing rail corridor, terminating at Perth station from the west. – I think "from the west" can be omitted here, as it's implied by "east".
Done.
retain through-running with the Joondalup line, necessitating an additional train for $18 million. – "costing $18 million", maybe?
Done.
The central route runs in a cut-and-cover tunnel along William Street, bending west to connect with the Joondalup line. – By "bending west", do we mean the bend south of Elizabeth Quay? Or perhaps we're referring to the slight turn to the east that occurs before Perth Underground?
Its talking about the large bend west, north of Perth Underground.
Yup, makes sense. I think I was recalling that the section north of Perth Underground was part of the Yanchep line, and so I assumed that whatever bend we were talking about must have been south of that. But the station of course didn't exist at this point, and you can't connect to something which doesn't exist yet! –Michael Aurel (talk)14:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There would be underground stations at William Street near the Esplanade Busport and at William Street between Murray and Wellington streets, – I think we mean that there would be two underground stations along William Street, at different parts of the street? I initially read "near the Esplanade Busport and at William Street" as part of one phrase. Would something like "There would be two underground stations along William Street, the first ... and the second" work?
Done.
This route differs from the government's proposed route planned by the Perth Urban Rail Development office by having the line underground south of The Esplanade instead of elevated. – I think "in that the line runs" is a little more natural here than "by having the line". I'd also put "planned by the Perth Urban Rail Development office" between commas, to help with parsing the sentence.
I've removed "planned by the Perth Urban Rail Development office" as I don't think it adds much. I've implemented your other suggestion.
underground south of The Esplanade instead of elevated. – LinkThe Esplanade (Perth) and delink it in the next paragraph. Not quite sure "instead of elevated" works here: would something like "and is not elevated" or "instead of being elevated" work?
Done both.
The estimated cost of this option was A$139 million. – I'd move the link toAustralian dollar to the previous paragraph, which is where we first mention an amount of money.
Done.
because of the significant disruption – Similar comment to above about "significant".
Done.
There would be underground stations at the Esplanade Busport – Linked above
Removed the duplicate link.
Another route considered involved tunnelling – Would something like "They also considered a route which involved ..." work?
Done.
disruption to St Georges Terrace to construct a station there. – I'm not totally sure I understand what we mean by this: is it that the construction of a station at St Georges Terrace would disrupt St Georges Terrace?
The source doesn't outright state it, but I believe a station at St Georges Terrace would be underneath the street, and the street would have to close for some time for construction to occur.
Makes sense. Would something like "the disruption that constructing a station there would cause to St Georges Terrace" work? Alternatively, "the disruption it would cause to St Georges Terrace" might work. –Michael Aurel (talk)14:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
However, that route would cause significant disruption to the Mitchell Freeway during construction – I'd write "duringits construction", to make clear that the Mitchell Freeway wasn't under construction.
Done.
it claimed a station at the Esplanade would be a security risk for the convention centre if it were to host heads of state. – "wouldpose", maybe?
I've removed this section entirely as per an earlier comment.
would be a security risk for the convention centre if it were to host heads of state. – I think "for the convention centre" can be omitted here.
I've removed this section entirely as per an earlier comment.
was re-established to conduct a more detailed analysis on the two remaining routes, – "analysisof"
Done.
State Cabinet endorsed this route in June, with Lord Mayor Peter Nattrass now being in support of the improved central route. – Would "and it received the support of Nattrass" work?
I've gone with "State Cabinet endorsed this route in June, with Nattrass now in support."
That's all from me. As I said above, these are fairly minor prose points for the most part, and my only real concern is that the article might be a bit technical in places. Looking forward to your responses. –Michael Aurel (talk)09:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience,Steelkamp, throughout what ended up being a quite extended review. There's one outstanding point above, but I trust you'll address that, and I have no further concerns here. I'm happy to support. –Michael Aurel (talk)14:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article is comprehensive on news information, but for a bored tunnel I would expect more on the geology, distance between bores, number of lining segments etc. I have seen this info in sources, but I am too busy to contribute and I don't know what a general reader should expect. I am happy to read through when if is added though.--Commander Keane (talk)07:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I didn't see your comment Gog. I've added citations to the infobox where its needed. There's some more information in academic sources on such things as geology, distance between bores, number of lining segments etc. I'm wary of being too technical. Michael has above said he's concerned the article is a bit too technical. I'll reread all the academic sources to see what I think.Steelkamp (talk)16:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Commander Keane: I've added some more technical detail using using academic sources. I've added info on ground anchorshere, ground conditionshere, and compensation grouting to reduce ground settlementhere. As for things like distance between bores and number of lining segments, I think those are a bit too much like trivia to be mentioned. Its like mentioning the number ofsleepers on a railway line. What do you think?Steelkamp (talk)12:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is an improvement, and I am not going to stand in the way of this promotion :-). By lining segments I didn't mean along the route. I read somewhere that 5 were used to form the rings - you can see the gaps in the lead photo. However, it is not widely reported so I suppose it is just common knowledge that TBM construction uses segmental lining. I think one day someone could, persummary style, write an article on the technical aspects given the sources available - however I value this information more than most/newspapers.
the TBM had three ground anchor detectors in case any undocumented ones were present - theones is a little awkward
Striking these could damage the TBM and cause ground settlement if the backfilling was not done properly. -properly is awkward. The source emphasises the settlement, not the TBM damage (Sigl & Yamazaki 2007, p. 48, mentions the special cutters to mitigate this potential damage). As it is a new sentence, it may not be clear if the backfilling responsibility refers to the previous decommissioning of the old wells or the new tunnelling.
I like transportation projects, and sinceI have an FAC open, I figured I should review this, especially since it looks like someone is working on a good topic for theYanchep line!
Tunnel boring machine should be linked when you mention "twin bored tunnels" in the lead, like you do in the body of the article
Done.
"the contract for which was awarded to Leighton–Kumagai Gumi in February 2004 for $324.5 million" - I suggest adding a note that all dollar figures are (presumably) inAustralia dollars, unadjusted for inflation
I haven't added the note, but I've added a link toA$ upon the currency being first mentioned in the lead and body, as perMOS:CURRENCY, which says "the first mention of a particular currency should use its full, unambiguous signifier (e.g. A$52), with subsequent references using just the appropriate symbol (e.g. $88), unless this would be unclear". (TBH I thought I had already done that, I do it on most articles I write)
"Construction was disrupted by industrial action, which culminated in the prosecution of 107 workers for illegally striking in February and March 2006 following the issuance of a strike ban by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission." - interesting stuff, I suggest splitting it into two sentences.
I don't think it needs to be split into two, the sentence isn't that long already. Unless you are suggesting making this part longer?
"resulted in the tunnel's opening being delayed beyond the 2006 deadline" - this is the first instance knowing there even was a 2006 deadline. I suggest changing something like "delayed the opening a year beyond its originally 2006 deadline." That gives more context to the deadline.
Does "beyond its 2006 deadline" work?
"The first train entered the tunnel in August 2007" - as a test, I'm guessing?
Yes.
"120 years" - make sure all number+units like this have a non-breaking space, like "120 years"
I think I got them all.
You mention the "Claisebrook sewer" without any context. What is Claisebrook? Was that the old name for Perth? Or the river here?
Its a stormwater drain that used to be a sewer that drains intoClaisebrook Cove. Claise Brook used to be an actual brook that ran in the general vicinity.
"The contractor said that it had lost forty-six days of work to industrial action since July 2004." - it's not clear when the "46 days" was as of. If it's in total, maybe mention this at the beginning of the section, after "Construction was significantly disrupted by strikes, starting in November 2004." I suggest moving this because immediately after "July 2004" it mentions the strike ban in "The following month", but I don't think that's referring to something happening in August 2004.
The 46 days is as of the contractor applying for the strike ban in November 2005. I've added an "In its application" to clarify that this was said when the strike bad was applied for.
"the CFMEU paid Leighton $150,000 plus legal costs and admitted to breaching the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act twenty-nine times." - small nitpick but numbers larger than ten should be written out in numbers, so "29"
MOS:NUMBERS says that "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words".
"Tunnelling resumed on 8 May after an agreement was reached for the government to cover insurance claims until the Supreme Courtdetermines the appropriate level of insurance." - present tense?
Good catch, I've changed this to past tense.
Should the part about the Perth link in 2012-2013 have a separate section, like "Subsequent construction"? It doesn't seem logical to include in "Procurement".
You're right. Its not just an offhand comment, so I've added it to a new "After opening" section.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: That newspaper has a right of centre bias and a high level of factual reporting according tohttps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-west-australian/, which is why Labor politicians sometimes criticise it. I've used other news sources such as the ABC,Sydney Morning Herald and theAustralian Financial Review where possible, but as Perth's only daily newspaper,The West Australian provides the most coverage. Aren't newspapers generally be considered independent reports?Steelkamp (talk)23:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with newspapers is that they are typically not experts on the topic they report on. Technical details too are often missing in news reports. So for an infrastructure project, I wonder about technical reports.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)09:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that newspapers aren't the best for technical details. For the technical details in this article, I've used academic sources, mainly Sigl & Yamazaki 2007, and Hudson-Smith & Grinceri 2007, plus the original reports by the Perth City Rail Advisory Committee and the Master Plan, which covers the gaps that newspapers don't/aren't good at covering.Steelkamp (talk)11:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a former bank building in New York City. Designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, it was the first bank building in the United States to be built in theInternational Style. While the metal-and-glass facade may seem commonplace today, it was very unusual for a bank in the 1950s. Among its most distinctive features was a bank vault that was directly visible from the street, a feature intended to prevent theft. The second story was designed to give the impression that it floats above ground. Overall, the building has only four stories and a penthouse, sticking out among the skyscrapers nearby.
This page became a Good Article five years ago after a Good Article review by Filmgoer, for which I am very grateful. After a copyedit and some other adjustments, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback.Epicgenius (talk)15:55, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{While Hughes had won a design competition held within SOM
According to Horace C. Flanigan, the CEO of Manufacturers Trust when the building was constructed,
Earlier in the lead he is described as the bank’s president. Here he is called CEO. If he held both roles at the time, would it be worth clarifying this for consistency?
Form
You could consider moving the link to "penthouse" up so that it is linked on first mention, if you want to retain the link.
You could link to "mechanical floor" for the penthouse in this instance, since it housed mechanical plant (western section) and office/executive space (eastern section) and was not intended for residential use.
Thanks for these comments. I've fixed most of these (for Flanigan, he was the president, not the CEO).For the link topenthouse apartment, while this isn't ideal, the link is referring to the second definition of penthouse ("a structure on the roof of a building that is set back from its outer walls"). A link todormer might also work, but that term is usually used to refer to a window projecting from the roof. I've added a link tomechanical floor elsewhere in the section, and moved the penthouse link above. –Epicgenius (talk)15:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.
If Flanigan was not the CEO, why is he mentioned as such on two occasions in the article:
The bank's CEO at the time, Horace C. Flanigan,
and who was friends with Flanigan, the bank's CEO.
"was hired to design a four-story "Federal Classic" bank branch for Manufacturers Trust on that site," → "was hired to design a four-story "Federal Classic" bank branch for them on that site,"
I have rephrased the article to avoid this. - EG
You could link to "architectural historian" in the sentenceThe architecture writer Carol Herselle Krinsky wrote that since Krinsky was one.
Done. - EG
"and who was friends with bank president Flanigan" → "and who was friends with Flanigan"
Since you have already described him as such once each in the body and the lead.
He is already linked in the lead and architecture sections; I've fixed the mention of his name here. - EG
"The opening of the Manufacturers Trust Company Building" → "The opening of the building"
Done. - EG
Link to the NYT on first mention?
The New York Times reported that Manufacturers Trust
Done. - EG
"Chase Bank" has been linked on each of its three mentions in the article.
Removed the second and third links (it is now linked once in the lead and once in the body). - EG
"Vornado Realty Trust indicated its intent to acquire the Manufacturers Trust Company Building in March 2010" → "Vornado Realty Trust indicated its intent to acquire the building in March 2010"
Done. - EG
Link to "Historic Districts Council"?
Done. - EG
Joe Fresh occupied 14,000 square feet (1,300 m2) of retail space on the ground floor and second-floor mezzanine for its flagship store, starting in 2012.
You could delink "mezzanine" here.
Done. - EG
Do we know any of the preservationists except for Grunewald?
Unfortunately, I did not see any specific names. - EG
“the interior was restored to resemble their original design”
→ “the interior was restored to resembleits original design”
whose president Horace C. Flanigan wanted the design ==> "whose president, Horace C. Flanigan, wanted the design"
upper stories are carried on four columns maybe use "supported by" instead of "carried on"? just for more formality
The design inspired that of other bank is "that of" needed?
site
It contained accountants', brokers', and lawyers' offices, and also had the offices of tobacconist Alfred Dunhill. maybe this could be put together better. what about "It contained offices for accountants, brokers, and lawyers, as well as those of tobacconist Alfred Dunhill."?
architecture
According to Horace C. Flanigan, the president of Manufacturers Trust when the there should be a comma after "Trust"
By leasing 508 Fifth Avenue, and thus don't think a comma's needed here
was designed with ceiling tiles made of glass. maybe "contains" instead of "was designed with" is more simple?
the first floor except with comma before "except"?
history
Walker & Gillette's successor firm Walker & Poor was hired ==> "Walker & Gillette's successor firm, Walker & Poor, was hired"
Manufacturers Trust wanted the building to have an "inviting look", and comma not needed here
the building had to accommodate high volumes of customers and it had comma after "customers"?
Not too sure about here, but with "under the city landmark designations", should it be "city" or "city's"?
and additional steel framing and reinforced polymer fabric was installed ==> "and additional steel framing and reinforced polymer fabric were installed"
impact
A subsequent set of three hearings were held in 1989 and 1990 ==> "A subsequent set of three hearings was held in 1989 and 1990" (the subject is "set" not "hearings")
@750h+, thanks again. I've fixed all of these. For "under the city landmark designations", it should be "city-landmark" since that is an adjective phrase modifying "designations". –Epicgenius (talk)16:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This has been stalled for roughly four weeks. The nom is listed at FAC Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so I am afraid that it is going to time out.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk18:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could rowhouse be linked in the "Site" section at all?
Could it be clarified what "cantilevered" means?
I don't have many comments. This was pretty understandable and most of the other reviewers have hit on any major points of criticism, so my commentary is mostly nitpicks unfortunately. Will be happy to support once the two minor things above are resolved. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)00:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particularly significant connection to the nearby buildings? It reads a bit like a random list of blue-linked buildings.
The architecture section is a bit dense and contains information that's not strictly "architecture".
The "Form" subsection feels randomly organised and a little repetitive. The prose is also quite dense. For example: the penthouse is mentioned three times in two fairly short paragraphs, Fifth Avenue appears four times in a few sentences, words like "wherein" are a good sign that your sentence structure is too complicated.
it was originally illuminated by sunlight What is "originally" hinting at?
You start a lot of sentences with "The Manufacturers Trust Company Building is/was". Some can't be avoided but variety is the spice of life!
Thanks for the initial comments, Harry. As to your queries:
1. The building sits directly between 500 and 520 Fifth Avenue, while the Salmon Tower and Century Association Building are adjacent to the building to its west. I removed the library and park, as they are not directly visible from this building, being one block away.
2 and 3. I've tried to make the architecture section, particularly the "Form" section, less dense. I was trying to hint at the presence of a height restriction but, at the time, didn't have a good way of expressing it.
4. I changed this to "Because the building is surrounded by skyscrapers, it received only small amounts of sunlight daily when it was built." Regarding your comment about non-architecture info being in the architecture section, I've moved this up to the Site section.
That's alot of material on the interior. Is all of it important? Certainly the first floor sounds fairly typical for a bank.
In the vein of excess detail, it's not really surprising that a space would be lit at night or cleaned regularly.
When used as a bank, the second floor housed a banking area You don't say! The whole section is full of details like this that could be culled.
It returned two years later, after being cleaned and restored, as part of the settlement under which Chase retained ownership of the piece but agreed to place it on indefinite loan for public display in its original home for as long as 510 Fifth Avenue retained landmark status. That's a very long and convoluted sentence for a fairly simple fact.
I'm really sorry but I'm going to stop andoppose here. I haven't read all the way to the bottom but from what I've seen so far there's a lot of dense prose and unnecessary detail. It feels a bit like you've tried to cram every possible fact in rather than summarising what's important about the building and its life and it doesn't really tell a story. I'm not saying these concerns are insurmountable but equally they're more than just minor nitpicks.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?20:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell, I appreciate the feedback nonetheless. I can take a look at this article in more detail over the weekend. This is one of my older articles, so at the time I did think the article needed all this detail to meet the FAC criteria. If I can't get to it, I'll withdraw this one and work on another page. –Epicgenius (talk)20:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just leaving a note to say that I've trimmed unnecessary detail that some readers might find dense, and will work on it more over the weekend. Regarding "When used as a bank, the second floor housed a banking area", I meant to say that individual and commercial account holders met with their bankers there; I'm not sure how best to describe that, but I'll find a way. For the other design details, they might seem commonplace now, but, at the time, were unusual for a bank. –Epicgenius (talk)22:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell, as an update, I've trimmed the prose by about 18% while keeping the most important details. If you have the opportunity, I'd like to invite you to take a look at the article again. –Epicgenius (talk)14:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ran the "show ref check" tool: no issues detected.
Visually examined style, formatting, & consistency of sources: No issues detected. Cites comply with recent "consistent capitalization of source titles" guideline. I note that many source journals/newspapers do not have wikiinksNew York Herald Tribune vsNew York Herald Tribune .. but I don't think that is required by WP:FACR.
I actually decided to unlink all the sources for consistency. The FA criteria require only that the sources be consistent, rather than requiring or banning links, so I went with one of these options. - EG
Visually examined citations: The article is not using cite bundling (e.g ... facade and open plan.[54][121] but (a) bundling is not required for FA; and (b) the number of double superscripts is rather small. So, no issues there.
All images have "alt" text to assist visually impaired readers; The alt text properly describes the visual content of the images.
Scanned two random paragraphs in the AI detector tool: both concluded "100% human written"
I note that reviewer Harry above commented on overly-detailed prose. Nominator responded by reducing the raw size of the article from 89,322 bytes to 77,460 bytes in early Febrary 2026, a reduction of about 13%. I'll read thru the article and make my own assessment of prose quality & "encylopedia-ness".
Lead: Clarify:After Vornado Realty Trust in 2010, the Chase branch closed that year. .... I don't quite understand that. It is written as if "Vornado Realty Trust" is an event, not a thing. Is there a word missing?
Oops, I made a mistake; it was supposed to be "After Vornado Realty Trust bought the building in 2010". - EG
Clarify:While Hughes had won a design competition held within SOM, senior architect Bunshaft and project coordinator William S. Brown were given responsibility for the project, ... Will some readers think it was some random " design competition"? When in fact it a specific competition within SOM for this building? ConsiderSOM initially conducted an internal design competition for the project, which was won by Hughes. Project leadership was then given to Bunshaft and Brown, ... and Hughes subsequent involvement is unclear. or something like that.
Done. - EG
Fact or opinion? Odd wording: SOM characterizes the building as being 74 feet (23 m) tall, including the penthouse roof. Is there some controversy or uncertainty about the building height?
I have removed the "SOM characterizes" phrasing, as this is a fact. It's just that sources don't talk about the precise height, aside from SOM's own website. - EG
Air space rights above the building? It is a relatively short building. Are the building-height rights still owned by the land-owner? Or have the air rights been sold off? [I have not read full article yet, so apologies if that is covered elsewhere] Nevermind, I see the article hasThe building's height was affected by an agreement with Walter J. Salmon Sr.,[9] who had developed the adjacent 500 Fifth Avenue. Salmon had leased the site at 508 Fifth Avenue and used its development rights to make his skyscraper larger. As such, any building there could not rise higher than 63 feet (19 m) tall or obstruct the adjacent skyscraper.
Zoning in NYC grants each land lot a certain amount of development rights based onfloor area ratio, which they can use to develop a building. Property owners can also acquire air rights from neighboring plots to construct a larger building on their site; the seller therefore has a smaller amount of air rights that they can use for their site. This is briefly discussed in theAir rights article, but unfortunately the article discusses mostly transport-related air rights, rather than development air rights. At some point, it may be helpful to write an article about this, but that is a matter for another time. - EG
Any pic available?The first story originally contained tellers' booths, the vault, and quick-service banking facilities. The space was relatively plain with individual writing desks and a marble countertop. I'd kill to see a photo of that.
Unfortunately, no freely licensed pics that I could find. It would be nice if one were found though. - EG
Present vs past tense: The "Interior" section is 100% about what the interior was like in 1950/60s in its original incarnation. That is a bit confusing, since some readers (myself included) may expect it to discuss thecurrent (2026) interior. It is doubly confusing since there is a separate "History" section, and one might expect the 1960s interior to be described in the History section. Consider this: (a) Define "Architecture" to focus on the permanent/structural aspects of the building that never changed over time (or, if there are some elements thatdid change: describe both original and new); (b) Rename "Interior" section (within "Architecture" section) as "Original interior"; and (c) Define "History" section to contain any aspects of interior decoration or architecture that changed over time (including "First floor" and "upper stories" sections).
This section actually discusses both the current and historical interiors (the floor area, structural details, etc. have not changed over time at all). To make this more clear, I have moved some of the historical changes to the History section. Unfortunately, there is very little info available about the building's post-2010s appearance. - EG
Clarify? Asloped partition made of aluminum and glass was installed between the first and second floors ... I cannot quite picture what that looked like. Consider removing the word "sloped" unless there is some way to clarify what, precisely, it means in this context. Also: How does one install a partition between 1st and 2nd floors? How is that different from a ceiling?
It consists of panels separating the first and second floors (see the left side of the second photo onpage 22 of this source). One can probably consider it a ceiling, given that it's above the first-story floor; the second floor is recessed from the facade, and this partition is installed in the gap between the edge of the second floor and the facade. - EG
Clarify... Chase sold the edifice to Tahl-Propp Equities for $24 million. Chase retained ownership of 150,000 square feet (14,000 m2) in development rights ... What does "in development rights" mean in this context? Since the 1st sentence says "edifice" does "in development rights" mean the land? IF so, the wording should be plainer. If "in development rights" does _not_ mean the land, then it should be defined (and distinguished from the land) so reader knows what it means.
This means air rights. In theory, Tahl-Propp was allowed to construct a building of 150,000 square feet on the site. - EG
Overall the prose seems professional and consistent withWP:FACR. As of today (9 Feb 2026) I'm not seeing any overly-detailed content.
"Clarify? A sloped partition made of aluminum ..."
"Clarify ... Chase sold the edifice to Tahl-Propp Equities for $24 million. ..."
were any changes to the article? My intention in posing questions for those two items was to improve the clarity in the article (for all readers), not simply for my own edification.Noleander (talk)14:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wording is a bit awkward:The North Face store had closed by 2025, after the lease expired. Any way to make that plainer and/or state the exact year it closed?
Unfortunately, I do not know when it closed. I know the store was open in 2021 (when I took pictures of the interior) and was closed by 2025, but the exact closure date isn't really published in any reliable source that I could find. - EG
Price of the single building available?The Reuben Brothers purchased the building and three other properties in August 2023, paying $50 million.
Oops. That was the price paid for this building; the whole package of four buildings cost $124 million. - EG
Define: The 2012 renovation andadaptive reuse received a 2013... [emphasis added] Can "adpative reuse" be defined or wiki-linked? I don't know what it means.
Unfortunately, I do not know how to do that. Maybe someone with graphics skills can help. - EG
I made a copy of that image, and brightened it, uploaded it to WikiCommons, and replaced the article image. If you think the orig pic was better, feel free to revert.Noleander (talk)01:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Any way a photo of the "wire cloud" art can be included?
Sadly for us, this seems to be under copyright, so it would not fall under the US'sfreedom of panorama exemption. - EG
Quotes?Bertoia created an unnamed "wire cloud" artwork above the escalators. The quotes might mislead some readers into thinking it is the official name of the art, maybe? ConsiderBertoia created an unnamed metal sculpture, resembling clouds, above the escalators. or similar.
Actually, the exact quote was "wire 'cloud'" rather than "'wire cloud'", so I've changed the text to reflect this. - EG
Infobox:Known for: first bank building in the United States to be built in the International Style Should the word "first" be capitalized?
Done. - EG
Key fact?Vornado hired SOM to redesign the building, whose tenants at the time included Bloomberg L.P., the company of New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg... The preservationists ... suggest[ed] that the changes were part of a pattern of city government unduly favoring developers... If Bloomberg was mayor at that time the sentence should have a word or two added to convey that fact to the reader, so they can connect the "mayor was a tenant" sentence to the "allegations that city govmt was exhibiting favoritism".
Thanks again for the review. I've responded to all of these, except for the image question, which I do not know how to resolve suitably without someone else's intervention.Epicgenius (talk)00:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done with FA review: Supporting for FA on prose & MOS. I updated that dark image (see note above). Excellent article ... makes me excited to visit New York check-out the architectural wonders!Noleander (talk)01:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the eighth of these dinky little steam-powered torpedo boats I have nominated for FA, all of which, along with the class article, are part of the 36-article Featured TopicShips of the Royal Yugoslav Navy, which I'm slowly progressing to be exclusively made up of FA/FLs (this and five others to go...). This one was active in the Adriatic in WWI as a Austro-Hungarian ship, was handed to the Yugoslavs after the war and then following her capture in 1941, used by the Italians for coastal and second-line work in the Adriatic. When the Italians surrendered to the Allies in September 1943, she was sunk by German Stuka divebombers while trying to escape to an Allied port. Have at it!Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)03:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is a legitimate question to ask at FAC, but is there really enough that's specific to each boat to justify their own article? Comparing this andYugoslav torpedo boat T3, the "Background" and "Description and construction" sections are almost identical. Even when you get into the "Career" sections, the first paragraphs of "World War I" are word-for-word identical. They even use the same photo in the infobox.RoySmith(talk)22:23, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not a fan of you raising this at FAC rather than on the talk page, as such a comment tends to cruel the pitch in attracting FAC reviewers. Frankly, I think it is poor Wikiquette, and I personally would never raise the question of notability on a FAC nomination page. In this case, seven other boats of this class have gone through the FAC process successfully and the individual notability of them was not raised by one reviewer. However, seeing as you have, essentially what you are suggesting is that this boat is not notable in its own right, and I can’t see a legitimate argument for that. Yes, all eight of the Yugoslav boats are of the same class, although there are actually three sub-classes within the overall 250t class of 27 boats, only two of those sub-classes served with the Yugoslavs, T1-T4 and T5-T8 are slightly different technically, but they are all grouped in the same class by most of the reliable sources. Each ship of a class is created for the same reasons and with the same background, and the technical details are usually the same, although there can be variations, usually where the navy sees changes are needed as the class is built, or where several manufacturers are used. Where they differ significantly is in the career section, which is to be expected. This is hardly a new thing with ship articles on WP, and the threshold for a separate article for a ship (like any other subject) is that significant coverage of the individual ship in multiple reliable sources exists, perWP:NOTABILITY, although there is some additional advice atWP:MILNG. Thegeneral notability guideline is certainly met with these boats, you only have to look at the number of sources used in the career sections that make specific reference to the individual boat. There are several classes of boats in the FT which only have a class article precisely because there is insufficient coverage of the individual boats for them to be notable. Thanks,Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)01:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Roy, due to the nature of standardized ship classes, the design and construction material will be quite similar for ships of the same class. It would be a comprehensiveness issue to exclude it though. I personally think the amount of distinct career material here is sufficient grounds for separate articles- it's not like some cases where ships had very brief careers or always worked together in operations. I intend to complete a full review here, but it will be close to New Year's before I have time I think.Hog FarmTalk22:31, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I raised an issue that concerned me. It would have been disingenuous for me to do otherwise. Other reviewers are, of course, free to have other opinions and having stated my concern, I'll leave it there.RoySmith(talk)23:48, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROSELINE is only an essay, but does make some good points. Some parts of the article do fall into this pattern, particularly the last paragraph of the World War I section.
Is there not at least a general high-level map showing the relative locations of the more important locations from the World War I section? The events are hard to follow without a general understanding of the regional geography
"The ships and crews made a very good impression on the Royal Navy while visiting Malta" - from what I can tell about this source, this appears to be sourced to a collection of period British politicial documents. I suspect that this statement should probably be attributed to the original report, unless this is a conclusion by the editor of the compilation (Jarman) as a general statement.
As a comprehensiveness check, I referred to the index of Halpern'sA Naval History of World War I to check for material regarding this torpedo boat not included in the article and noted no mentions of this vessel. I think this article is very close to the FA standard but could use a bit of polishing if possible.Hog FarmTalk23:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"a high seas or fleet torpedo boat of 500–550 t (490–540 long tons), top speed of 30 kn and endurance of 480 nautical miles". inserting 'with a' before "top speed of" would make the sentence grammatical.
"she and the other seven 250t-class boats". Do you mean something like 'she and the other seven surviving 250t-class boats'?
well, that might indicate they were the only surviving 250t-class boats, but the 250t class were distributed to a lot of nations after WWI, and some others were still in service with other nations. Thoughts?Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)07:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Hum. Ok, that is probably the least worst option.
"In KM service it was intended to replace one or both guns on each boat of the 250t class with a longer Škoda 66 mm L/45 gun, and according to Freivogel this included the forward gun on T8." The first part of the sentence states what wasintended; is the last part intended to state that accordingg to Freivogel the forward gunwas replaced?
Bar is actually off the current map to the south east. I haven't been able to find a better map than this for the Adriatic that doesn't show contemporary borders, the use of which seems to me to be more likely to result in confusion rather than clarity.Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)07:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that I didn't find much information on Despot Infinitus and Freivogel, they seem to be a reliable source to me. Nothing else jumps out. Source formatting seems consistent. Note that I didn't do any spotchecking for lack of source access.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)12:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article, on which I began work in 2016, is a deeply researched piece on a deeply researched subject. It builds on Bruce-Mitford's exceptional biographical memoir, written byMartin Biddle in 2015, that traces three generations of the family across China, Japan, Canada, and England. It also includes an unparalleled bibliography of Bruce-Mitford's publications. This, through sheer serendipity, was aided by the auction catalogue of his library: Another library obtained a copy at my request from a book dealer in Atlanta, only to discover that it was Bruce-Mitford's personal, and extensively annotated, copy. The articlewas reviewed byChiswick Chap in 2023, and recently given a clean-up; it is now ready to be brought here. --Usernameunique (talk)20:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see this here. I've stuck a few oars in already at various points, but haven't yet given the article a full read in its new form. This will be a good opportunity to do so.UndercoverClassicistT·C20:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks,UndercoverClassicist. A drawback to my general approach of responding line by line to discrete points, and then responding in full once I've finished with all the points, is that I sometimes forget to say thank you at the outset for taking on a review. So I just wanted to belatedly note that I appreciate your review and the points you raise, and am enjoying going through them. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk)21:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General thoughts
The review below is getting pretty long, so I thought I'd spin out three things that are starting to stick out for me:
WP:DUEWEIGHT: the article is clearly a labour of love when it comes to research. However, I think it sometimes falls into the trap of trying to say everything about everything in it, rather than providing an encyclopaedic overview of its subject. This is particularly apparent in the Background section, where we spend many hundreds of words talking in great detail about quite distant ancestors.
WP:DUE is about neutrality, not detail; it instructs not to overemphasize fringe sources, hence why, to use its example,the article on theEarth does not directly mention modern support for theflat Earth concept. The policies thatdo discuss detail, by contrast—such asWP:CONTEXT,WP:AUDIENCE, andWP:Summary style —instruct toProvide context:People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. ... Assume readers are reading the article to learn. And the main example they give for removing detail is if it can be placed in its own article, which we do not have here.
In any event, as discussed below, the three paragraphs of Bruce-Mitford's background are distilled from a much larger wealth of material: eight pages in his bibliographic memoir, and an entire essay by him on "My Japanese Background". There are many reasons to include the (already judicious) detail that we do. For instance, it helps explain (a) how Bruce-Mitford was raised poor and fatherless, but by a mother (formerly a schoolteacher, and formerly married to one) who valued hard work and education and imparted those values to her children, (b) his interest in his heritage, explored in trips and in writings, (c) why his great library may have ended up in the country where his parents once tried to forge a life, and (d) part of the origin of the "romantic man" who fared poorly in the department of museum politics. All this is why, in the first sentence of the first section of Bruce-Mitford's memoir, we are told thatThe history of the family over previous decades, complicated by changes of name and fortune, was to have a profound influence on Rupert’s life. --Usernameunique (talk)07:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes heavy use of quotations, often from primary sources such as memoirs. I've set out below why there are reasons to avoid this where possible. There's nothing wrong with an occasionaljudicious quote, but I think there needs to be a positive case for using that exact phrasing -- where a quotation is simply stating bare facts in fairly plain language, it should be paraphrased. This would improve readability in several sections where the quotes come thick and fast.
There are quite a lot of technical, academic and other learned terms throughout -- I don't have a major problem with theseper se, but we do need to make sure they are clear to the reader. The article is stylishly written but on occasion this gets in the way of comprehensibility.
In some places, the large number of individual references make reading difficult. Sometimes this is down to repeated references that can be cut: in others, multiple references could be bundled or trimmed.
As discussed below, the paragraph where this was flagged as an issue has now been substantially reworked, which has the result of bundling many of those citations together. --Usernameunique (talk)22:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this and the above comments, I'm reminded of the time that a client returned a 25-page document with the sole comment "there's a typo"—without indicating where. In any event, I've searched the full article (as I did those 25 pages), and am pleased to report that in the 40 other paragraphs, there are only 9 instances of 3 successive citations, and 1 instance of 4 successive citations. --Usernameunique (talk)18:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On occasion, the article veers from encyclopaedic biography into hagiography, and strikes an unduly positive tone regarding its subject. Part of this may come from the fact that one of the dominant sources is itself an obituary by a personal friend of Bruce-Mitford's, and other sources were written by people who knew and admired him. The sources aren't themselves a problem but the tone is.
As discussed below, the two places where this was flagged (thecontributions of Bruce-Mitford's career, and the criticism he faced for delays in publication) have now been revised. --Usernameunique (talk)07:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BLUF: having now reviewed the whole text of the article (barring the bibliography), the above remain sticking points for me. There are smaller issues below, but I would need to see a good amount of movement on all of the above before I would be able to support promotion. It's an interesting and clearly lavishly researched piece of work: these aren't reallyquality concerns per se as question-marks about how far it is currently written like a Wikipedia article, as opposed to a different sort of text.UndercoverClassicistT·C17:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To put my cards on the table, I am unlikely to support or oppose this nomination. I don't think it's ready to go as it stands, but I note thata very wise and experienced reviewer has judged otherwise below. If others think the issues I've raised are fixed, nonexistent, or should be no bar to promotion, I won't stand in their way, but I don't think I'm going to get into a position to put my name to the article's elevation.UndercoverClassicistT·C07:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Specific points
Resolved points
theSutton Hooship-burial: this is a particularly unfortunateWP:SEAOFBLUE, as neither link actually points to the "obvious" target (Sutton Hoo § Burial ship (Sutton Hoo ship)).Sutton Hoo is a very long article: I wonder whether a sub-article could be spun out, in the longer term? But in the meantime I think we need to rework this sentence.
I tend to think thatSutton Hoo ship-burial could be a standalone article, although there are several people (one beingJohnbod) who have contributed greatly to theSutton Hoo article, and, as I understand, do not think it should be split. Unless and until I jump in and work on that article, I think it's reasonable to defer to them. --Usernameunique (talk)21:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the redirect more specific, toSutton Hoo#Mound_1. If someone really wants to work at a standalone, personally I'm ok with that. There are a number of articles on individual artefacts, probably too long to all be merged into that.Johnbod (talk)00:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considered the spiritus rector of such research: the source doesn't say that he wasconsidered this, but rathercalls him this. We need a slightly less confident verb of speaking here: something like "He has been called...". Strictly speaking, quotations that are matters of opinion should be attributed inline, but to my mind at least this is flexible in the lead (as long as it's done when those quotations are repeated in the body).
Though Bruce-Mitford was born in London,the preceding two generations had lived largely abroad: missingof his family or similar. Optional, but I'd stick a full stop at the end of this chunk rather than a colon -- it's a very long sentence indeed as it stands.
This is actually a proper use of the term. PerOED definition I.4.a., "generation" can meanA set of members of a family, esp. the offspring of the same parent or parents, regarded as a single step or stage in descent. That is to say, "of his family" is included within the definition of the word. --Usernameunique (talk)00:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it can really be used for that unless the family context is already clearly established: e.g.my aunts and uncles had happy childhoods; the previous generation were not so lucky. I'd be interested to see an example in print where this isn't the case. Even so, I think adding "of his family" or similar is a useful clarification, and it's better to be clear than to be (technically) right.UndercoverClassicistT·C16:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
his parents as schoolteachers recently returned from Japan: er... his parents lived abroad as schoolteachers returned from Japan? So where did they live? I think something's gone awry here.
His mother was left to raise the four sons, of whom Bruce-Mitford was the youngest, on a tiny salary; the stresses were substantial, and Bruce-Mitford was fostered for a time after his mother had a breakdown. Bruce-Mitford attended preparatory school: lots ofBruce-Mitfords here -- I think we could probably replace all of them with pronouns.
Don't italicise "Lindisfarne Gospels" -- it's English and a label rather than a title (you know this, of course, but thetitle of the work would simply be "the Gospels"). The eponymous article does this correctly.
"Schoolteacher" was more common than "school teacher" for most of the C20th and earlier; it reads a little "posh" now, but might help the sentence parse more easily. Or simply "teachers"?
the "School for European Boys" founded: was that its name? Cut the quotes if so: if we wroteto teach at the "Cheltenham Ladies' College", we would be rightly accused of casting aspersions about the students there.
he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society; he subsequently became interested in geography and vulcanology, writing additional works on the country: six footnotes! Can these be bundled: "the works in question are Bruce-Mitford 1905, 1908..."?
he subsequently became interested in geography and vulcanology, writing additional works onthe country: do we mean Japan or the "country"(=territory) of Weihaiwei?
16s6d: space here. More generally, it's hard to get a sense of how these different figures stack up: we've got an annual income versus a weekly house payment. Would it be worth converting the latter into an annual figure (in addition rather than instead)?
Converted to yearly figures. I've continued to note that it was paid weekly, which gives an indication of the precariousness of their housing situation. --Usernameunique (talk)03:29, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Francis Brinkley, owner and editor of the Japan Mail: perMOS:HONORIFIC, we probably don't need his military rank here.
I don't feel strongly here, but MOS:HONORIFIC doesn't seem to apply; it's focused on titles bestowed as honors (Sir, Lady, The Right Honourable, etc.), rather than those earned (e.g., military rank). The closest it gets is by linkinghonorific, an article in need of substantial work that does mention military rank, but they're otherwise not mentioned in the MOS. --Usernameunique (talk)03:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TryMOS:CREDENTIAL then:Academic or professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor"), including honorary ones, should be used only with subjects of a biography that are widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing the title (whether earned or not). It's usual in military articles to use someone's rank when it's relevant in context (e.g. when they're commanding a certain formation or giving orders), but we wouldn't normally use it any more than we'd call someone "Mr. John Smith".UndercoverClassicistT·C19:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Military titles aren't "Academic orprofessional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor")", so MOS:CREDENTIAL doesn't appear to apply either. (Note the the article "Title" expressly distinguishes between military and professional titles, writing in the first sentence that a titlemay signify [a person's] generation, official position, military rank, professional or academic qualification, or nobility.) If anything, the spirit of MOS:CREDENTIAL would seem to support including the title, considering that it writes that "Post-nominal letters foracademic degrees following someone's name (such asSteve Jones, PhD;Margaret Doe, JD) may occasionally be used within an article where that person is not the subject, to clarify their qualifications with regard to some part of the article". Here, the captaincy suggests that Brinkley carried some respect, particularly important for Eustace Bruce-Mitford given the scandal in which he found himself embroiled. --Usernameunique (talk)22:42, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Military titles are professional titles in my book. The idea of using that title to convey that he was a respected man worries me greatly – we don’t seem to have a source which actually says that he was respected, so inferring that merely from his rank (which is incidentally quite a low one, at least assuming he was a soldier) isWP:SYNTH.UndercoverClassicistT·C10:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's Wikipedia's book that matters as far as the MOS goes, and that book distinguishes military from professional titles. As to WP:SYNTH, we're not combining sources—we're simply referring to Brinkley as he's referred to in Biddle 2015, which is with the title. No suggestion of respect is being conveyed, therefore, if that suggestion is not conveyed by Biddle; rather, the suggestion of respect is probably why Biddle included the title. (And, in addition to respect, probably to indicate some courage: The full line is[Eustace Bruce-Mitford] was thrown a lifeline by Captain Francis Brinkley, the doughty owner and editor of the Japan Mail, 'the leading English-language newspaper, at least in Yokohama', who took him on as Assistant Editor.) But apropos of the different types of hills on which one finds oneself, our man has now been stripped of his title (in the article, at least). --Usernameunique (talk)19:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rupert Bruce-Mitford was educated with the financial support of his mother's cousin.She did so -- this isn't grammatical, since she didn'tdo anything (grammatically) in the previous sentence. We need something like "She provided the money..."
No, it isn't: the previous sentence has a perfectly good subject ("Rupert Bruce-Mitford") and verb ("was educated"). Themeaning is clear enough but the grammar is not correct.UndercoverClassicistT·C19:53, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced, and—as an intellectual matter—would be interested in seeing an authority on the subject. But there are hills at which to gaze, and hills upon which to die; this ranks amongst the former variety. I've reworded toThe support hinged. --Usernameunique (talk)02:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce-Mitford was thereby sent to Brightlands preparatory school in Dulwich, London, which his brothers Terence and Alec also attended,receiving scholarships to Dulwich College.: this is a little confusing (the "also" doesn't apply here, but that's not immediately obvious) and probably not DUE in an article about Bruce-Mitford.
the C.H. diggers learnt something", and named Bruce-Mitford "among willing helpers, mentioned honoris causa: suggest using the{{abbr}} template on CH and glossing/Wiktionary-linkinghonoris causa. It also needs a Latin lang template.
It may be to most, but I can't see that welose anything from doing{{abbr|C. H.|Christ's Hospital}}, which gets youC. H. -- and we do help people who might be a bit slow on the uptake or unsure whether this is some other abbreviation they don't know.UndercoverClassicistT·C19:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he went on to obtain a Master of Arts in 1961: I'm not sure how notable this is, given that Oxford gives them out (almost) automatically. Do we need the comma after the date?
Well this was a learning experience for me too, and explains why I was never able to find a thesis by him. I've changed the sentence toHe never finished the Bachelor of Letters, although he was promoted to the rank ofMaster of Arts in 1961 and awarded aDoctor of Letters in 1987, both from Hertford College. (Note also the more specific MA link, rather than the previous genericMaster of Arts link.) I could also add a footnote here explaining the process if you think that would be helpful. --Usernameunique (talk)17:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would do that, personally, especially as you've used the phrase "promoted to the rank of..." -- it would help to be clear that this wasn't a promotion in the usual sense of acknowledging someone's greater ability/conferring on them greater duties.UndercoverClassicistT·C19:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But at Oxford Bruce-Mitford "fell in love with the atmosphere and smell of the oldest part of the Library where, under the flat-arched 15th century ceiling, cases displaying illuminated manuscripts were set out": another quote in a quote-dense passage, and this one not attributed. I would suggest thinking hard about this paragraph, which bits of Bruce-Mitford'sphrasing (as opposed to the ideas) are essential, and then trimming out what isn't.
I've reworked that paragraph to minimize the quotations and ensure that the quotations all come at the end, giving us a few contained sentences of his recollections. I've also clarified that the specific quotation that you mentioned came from him. --Usernameunique (talk)04:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In 1936, he took a Second Class in Modern History: this will be opaque to many readers.
It was also, he wrote, "a village deserted, in ruins, and archaeologically sealed within a century of the Black Death"; this precise dating—the village was deserted by 1439—"promised to provide important evidence for specialists in connexion with the chronology of mediaeval pottery and small objects" such as "brooches, ornaments, buckles, fittings of various kinds, shears, horseshoes, [and] nails" the dating of which was "notoriously vague". another candidate to be cut down and paraphrased: I think we could say this in a much shorter sentence without quoting directly or losing anything.
a first lieutenant on 1 August 1942: did the Royal Signals have first lieutenants? Most British Army branches don't and didn't; I know theRoyal Artillery were an exception at one point, but I think they'd done away with that sort of silliness by the First World War. Being very picky, he was onlycommissioned (=given a commission) once: he waspromoted to subsequent ranks.
But at Oxford Bruce-Mitford "fell in love with the atmosphere and smell of the oldest part of the Library where, under the flat-arched 15th century ceiling, cases displaying illuminated manuscripts were set out": another quote in a quote-dense passage, and this one not attributed. I would suggest thinking hard about this paragraph, which bits of Bruce-Mitford'sphrasing (as opposed to the ideas) are essential, and then trimming out what isn't.
I've reworked that paragraph to minimize the quotations and ensure that the quotations all come at the end, giving us a few contained sentences of his recollections. I've also clarified that the specific quotation that you mentioned came from him. --Usernameunique (talk)04:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In 1936, he took a Second Class in Modern History: this will be opaque to many readers.
a group of seventeenth-century houses gave way to a large extension to the Bodleian Library.: this is a bit too idiomatic for me: I initially readgave way asfell into.
Before the demolition, Bodley's Librarian invited: I think this one needs a name and might be clearer if expressed as "the librarian of the Bodleian" or similar. I know it's the correct term, but we need to balance the interests of clarity, and this isn't an article about Oxford academic titles.
invited the Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society "to investigate and record any features of architectural or antiquarian interest which are contained in the block of houses ... and also to watch for any finds that may turn up during the demolition of these houses and the subsequent excavations for the foundations of the new building": I really cannot see that this one needs to be a quote.
That seems as if it might create a sense of false precision. After all, two or three feet isn’t necessarily half a meter—if it's three feet, then it's a full meter. --Usernameunique (talk)03:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does that really help things? If a source said "he tipped her a couple dollars", would we really include a footnote or abbreviation to say "(equivalent to approximately 1.7 Euros)"? When we're dealing with small figures that are already very approximate, the conversion is less helpful than when dealing with large figures, where differences in units of measurement are magnified. Whether or not someone routinely uses feet as a unit of measurement, they're likely to have a conceptual understanding of whattwo or three feet looks like. --Usernameunique (talk)21:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not someone routinely uses feet as a unit of measurement, they're likely to have a conceptual understanding of what two or three feet looks like: I really don't think that's compatible with being comprehensible to abroad audience, which includes people from countries where imperial measurements are not used. Is a foot roughly a centimetre or roughly a decimetre, for example? To use your analogy, the reader might know that "a couple dollars" is a unit of currency, but not have an intuitive understanding of whether it's closer to "a few pennies" or "a few pounds".UndercoverClassicistT·C21:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the wells quickly silted up during their use and had to be replaced by new ones every 50 or so years, Bruce-Mitford found it possible to accurately date pottery within uniquely short time-frames: [citation needed] on "uniquely". 50 years is pretty good for certain periods of archaeology, but would be pretty rubbish for others, and there are plenty of contexts that can be dated to much more precise windows because of the nature of the site.
wrote Mellor, and "has never had to be challenged: this judgement was made almost 30 years ago: I don't think we can use it for a statement that, as written, seems to cover the present day.
In December 1937, Bruce-Mitford was named assistant keeper (second class) of the then Department of British and Medieval Antiquities at the British Museum: can we explain what this unusual rank meant? Separately, I don't think we need the "then": we wouldn't say that Henry VIII was king of the then kingdom of England, for example.
Dropped thethen. Absent a source delineating the responsibilities of an assistant keeper (second class), we may have to leave it to the reader to intuit that it was a junior curatorial role. --Usernameunique (talk)14:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph beginning "Throughout the 1950s, Bruce-Mitford's attention" is dense with references to the point where it hits readability. This is noticeable throughout the article but particularly here: I would strongly suggest bundling at least some of the multiple references.
There are more cites in that paragraph than in most others, but it covers a lot of ground, taken from a lot of sources. As a whole, however, there are only 11 places in the article's 41 paragraphs where more than two references sit side by side. That's a conservative number, particularly compared to other well-referenced articles that have come through FAC. For its part, the MOSinstructs thatit is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor. The section of the MOSregarding bundling states that itcan be employed, but does not mandate it—and it goes on to state thatWithin a given article only a single layout should generally be used, meaning that we could not (as you suggest) bundle onlysome of the multiple references. There are a host of reasons I dislike bundling—among them that it's messy, it makes references difficult to parse, and it creates duplicate references—and the MOS states that there is no reason to employ that approach here. --Usernameunique (talk)01:32, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But he admitted that he could not see "any real prospect of getting the catalogue out the way things are at present", and in a 1957 addendum, he wrote "[t]here was no reply to this report". The museum had other needs, and Bruce-Mitford other responsibilities; the country plunged into the Korean War, and resources were diverted elsewhere: the chronology is a bit confusing here: Britain joined the Korean War in 1950 and the war ended in 1953.
We have three marriages in the infobox. Could the relevant parameter be added to show how the first two ended?
Done. In the process, I discovered that the article was in need of a source for the date of the first divorce (which is now also in the body of the article). --Usernameunique (talk)22:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oversaw the acquisition of the Lycurgus Cup: I was intrigued by this, as I've enjoyed seeing the Lycurgus cup in the BM and had no idea of the connection to Bruce-Mitford. I was disappointed not to be enlightened by the body, which only saystwo of his most significant efforts came in 1958. That year,the museumpurchased the Lycurgus Cup from Victor Rothschild, 3rd Baron Rothschild for £20,000 (equivalent to £525,000 in 2023). We then go into detail on Ilbert's watch collection but don't give any indication that Bruce-Mitford had anything to do with the Lycurgus Cup other than being in the building when it was bought.
It is an incredible piece—I remember being taken by it the first time I visited the BM. Unfortunately there's not much material on this. Biddle 2015 states merely thatRupert’s twenty-one years as Keeper were a time of outstanding curatorial acquisition, including the Rothschild Lycurgus Cup and the Ilbert Collection of Clocks and Watches, his greatest coup, and one in which he took immense pride and pleasure. Meanwhile, Biddle 1997–1998—the publication of his 1994 memorial address, which served as the backbone of Biddle 2015—states thatThese were years of extraordinary curatorial acquisition. The Rothschild Lycurgus Cup, for example, which he showed me in his room just after it had arrived, and the Ilbert Collection of Clocks and Watches. This was perhaps Rupert's greatest coup and the one in which he took immense pride and pleasure. In both cases, they then go into extended discussions of the Ilbert collection, and don't return to theLycurgus Cup. I also checked sources about the cup, including those published shortly after the acquisition, but didn't find anything. --Usernameunique (talk)22:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was keeper at the time, so had responsibility over it. This is inherent in the above two sources, both of which include the cup in with the spoils of Bruce-Mitford'soutstanding curatorial acquisition. He may have had a larger role over the Ilbert collection—possibly because the drama of that collection demanded additional effort—but that's not to say he wasn't responsible for both. --Usernameunique (talk)22:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was keeper at the time, so had responsibility over it: do the sourcesexplicitly say that? I don't know much about the BM's internal workings, but I do know that major acquisitions tend to be handled at the Museum or even at intergovernmental level: do weknow that the department head was the major force here, rather than the Director, for example? Biddle's twofold "greatest coup" comment seems to be fairly straightforwardly and solely about the Ilbert collection.UndercoverClassicistT·C17:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the sources are quoted above, I assume your first question is rhetorical. That being the case, how would you rephrase the article? As forgreatest coup, that has never been suggested to refer to anything other than the Ilbert collection. --Usernameunique (talk)00:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce-Mitford's paternal great-grandparents, George and Elizabeth Beer, sailed to the Godavari River Delta in India to work as missionaries in 1836; "poor unordained Baptist missionaries" when they left, in the words of Anthony Norris Groves, they went on, according to Groves's biographer, to "stand amongst the most tenacious Christian workers of all time": this is another very long sentence. I'm not sure I'm totally sold that how hard-working B-M's great-grandparents were is reallyWP:DUE in an article on their great-grandson. More generally, we get half a paragraph here before we even get to the parents: I think the detail needs to be cut out a bit here. It's probably enough to say that his grandpaternal family were Christian missionaries in India. More generally, in this section, we get three main-body paragraphs and about 550 words (longer than many articles!) before our subject is actually born. This seems a lot.
I'll add a specific respond to DUE above. But Bruce-Mitford's biographical memoir, written byMartin Biddle and published by theBritish Academy, spendseight pages on the family background. As Biddle writes at the beginning of that first section,The history of the family over previous decades, complicated by changes of name and fortune, was to have a profound influence on Rupert’s life. It explains how Bruce-Mitford was raised poor and fatherless, but by a mother (formerly a schoolteacher, and formerly married to one) who clearly valued education and imparted that value to her children. It gives a sense of the origin of Bruce-Mitford the "romantic man" who did poorly when it came to the department of museum politics. It explains his interest in his heritage, explored in trips and in writings—and perhaps explains why his great library ended up on the other side of the world. And, frankly, it's just plain interesting. Against this backdrop, condensing eight pages in a secondary source into a few paragraphs feels quite judicious. --Usernameunique (talk)17:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that it's interesting, or that his family was important to him -- but I am reallynot convinced that it matters (for example) exactly where in India they went, or that we need the long sentence with two quotes to say that they were dirt poor and worked very hard. More generally, I'm very much unconvinced that we need 550 words to make that point. As I've said below, our sources may be very verbose on a topic, but it doesn't follow that the coverage in Wikipedia needs to straightforwardly reflect the amount of words our sources spend on things -- this is a biographical article in an encyclopaedia and we have different aims to many of our sources, for whom a general family history may be in scope.UndercoverClassicistT·C20:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He left less than nine months later, however, departing to Japan.:departing for, and I suspect thehowever could be cut as editorialising.
Made the first change. As to the point about editorializing, the "however" is backed up by the source, which uses a similar word ("but"), and explains why this was an about-face:The school was thriving, but by the summer of 1902, less than nine months after arriving, Eustace had left for Japan 'with ambitions to set up his own school, and devise its curriculum and ethos according to his own ideas'. The words are Rupert's. They seem to reflect that breaking away from his family's missionary past which Eustace showed at this time by dropping the surname Beer, adopting his mother's maiden name of Midford, modified to Mitford, and adding the hyphenated Bruce-. --Usernameunique (talk)13:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of quotes in this article. Quotes, particularly from non-free sources, need a positive justification -- they break up the flow of the text and often foreground primary sources rather than secondary, which isn't great. The one here seems ripe for paraphrasing to something like "As Rupert Bruce-Mitford later wrote, he intended to set up a new school oriented around his own educational philosophy". Ditto, later,Following the death of his father, Bruce-Mitford later wrote, "the family was stranded in London and fell on very hard times".
I'm open to rewording some of these if they break up the flow, but I don't share all of the concerns. First, these aren't necessarily primary sources: They're mostly in published works, including Bruce-Mitford's essays in the auction catalogue of his library, and his article "The Archaeologist" published inAntique Collector. Second, even if theyare properly categorized as primary sources, most of these arealso quoted in secondary sources—thereby both bringing them up to the secondary tier, and also providing evidence that others, too, thought them noteworthy. That's the case with the two here:"with ambitions to set up his own school, and devise its curriculum and ethos according to his own ideas" is in Biddle 2015 p. 63, and"the family was stranded in London and fell on very hard times" is at page 67. The latter quotation is particularly valuable. It provides Bruce-Mitford's recollection of an extraordinarily difficult time for the family, and is evocative through its combination of understatedness and plaintiveness. --Usernameunique (talk)04:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a primary source is quoted, copied etc in a secondary source, it remains a primary source (though the fact that it has been copied may help to establish that it'sWP:DUE in an article) -- and it needs all the caveatsgenerally employed when using primary sources. For instance, as WP:PRIMARY notes, they are written by people directly involved in the events, with a necessarily limited view of them, and perhaps some level of vested interest.UndercoverClassicistT·C20:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The caveats are indeed employed, given that each of the quotations includes an in-text attribution indicating its source. It's thus clear that Bruce-Mitford is the speaker. --Usernameunique (talk)22:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good start, but not enough to wash our hands of the problem, unfortunately. I'll leave this for now and come back to it once I've gone through the whole text.UndercoverClassicistT·C19:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
his mother's petition for him "to be Educated and Maintained among other poor Children": looking at the language, the capitalisation and the source, I strongly suspect that this was the standard formula (i.e., what was written at the top of the application form) rather than his mother's choice of words. I would cut.
The quotation comes from Biddle 2015, sourced to Bruce-Mitford's original presentation papers. There's a separate letter from Bruce-Mitford's mother that is also referenced as being attached to the presentation papers, but it's cited in a separate footnote, so you may be right that the text on the presentation paper itself is primarily boilerplate. Biddle thanks someone at the Christ's Hospital Museum for providing photocopies. I sent them an email earlier today asking if they might be able to send them my way also. (I've also reached out to Biddle a couple times, although he is now older, and I haven't received a response.) --Usernameunique (talk)04:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, it looks like they'll be able to send the presentation papers in the new year. If the quoted line is indeed boilerplate, I'll adjust it in the article. --Usernameunique (talk)19:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a ten-day signals camp: it might be worth explaining what that was, for the readers unfamiliar with the odd militaristic goings-on at many British public schools.
It sounds like I'll be able to get a copy of this article in the new year (as per the response above re presentation papers). Assuming so, I'll add a footnote with some explanation of what they did. --Usernameunique (talk)22:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bachelor of Letters: likewise, perMOS:NOFORCELINK, it would be helpful to clarify somehow that this was not a bachelor's degree in the usual sense. We should also explicitly indicate the abbreviation B.Litt., which is used later.
The above change (noting that the bachelor's came before) should clarify that this is not that. Since defining an abbreviation only to use it once isn't hugely helpful, I've changed B.Litt. to Bachelor of Letters. --Usernameunique (talk)17:30, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would you suggest adding here? Note that the topic of the B.Litt. is given (The Development of English Narrative Art in the Fourteenth Century), which already indicates that this was a more focused/specialized degree. --Usernameunique (talk)15:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you: you could add "a postgraduate Bachelor of Letters degree", or a more expansive bracket like (a second, more specialised bachelor's degree taken after the BA), or an EFN explaining the full distinction.UndercoverClassicistT·C16:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Society, in turn, created a subcommittee consisting of E. T. Long, Edward Thurlow Leeds, and William Abel Pantin, the latter of whom wrote an article on the houses and commented on the "practical consideration or morals to be drawn" from their destruction: again, do we really need this inthis article?
The source (Biddle 2015) contains two and a half pages on this, including a half-page block quotation, and (separate to that) the quotation that you reference here. This was a significant part of Bruce-Mitford's early career. The sentences you quote is one of only four in this section that don't fully relate to Bruce-Mitford; they are minimal, but help to establish the importance of the archaeological work. Everything else is directly related to Bruce-Mitford's work on the project. As said above, condensing two and a half pages (and far more quoted material) in a secondary source into two paragraphs feels judicious. --Usernameunique (talk)05:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure the amount of material in the source is quite the right measure to use here. Look at e.g.Augustus: I could find you hundreds if not thousands of pages on the material covered in any given section of that article. To be specific about this sentence in this place: why does the reader need to know the names of the men on the subcommittee, or about Pantin's article, or indeed that the subcommittee existed at all? If you're trying to establish the importance of the work, none of those do much for it, if I'm quite honest.UndercoverClassicistT·C19:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Augustus hardly scrimps on detail; there are no fewer than eight-four "Main article", "Further information", and "See also" links crowning that article's many sections. The implication, therefore, is that the question is notwhat information to include, butwhere to include it. Here, by contrast, you're focusing on the detail included within asingle sentence—detail that other secondary sources saw important enough to note themselves (Biddle;another;a third).
The fact that this is in other secondary sources serves as an objective benchmark by which the judge this sentence's inclusion here. But, since you asked specific questions, here are their answers. First:why does the reader need to know the names of the men on the subcommittee ... or indeed that the subcommittee existed at all. Among other reasons, because (a) these were some of the people that Bruce-Mitford was working on for the project, and some of his earliest colleagues (note that he wrote two obituaries for Leeds), (b) it shows the importance that was placed upon investigating these houses, and (c) it introduces Pantin, who wrote the article. Second:why does the reader need to know ... about Pantin's article. Among other reasons, (a) it shows both that the houses were archaeologically important and their demolition was controversial, (b) the article is consideredW.A. Pantin’s pioneering investigation into the history and archaeology of the site (source), and (c) in Bruce-Mitfordown article on the site, he wrote that Pantin's articleshould be read in conjunction with this [i.e., his own] account of the site.
I've shortened the sentence, but it's unclear why the detail of a single sentence is controversial, when (a) multiple secondary sources find it worth discussing, and (b) there are good reasons to include it. --Usernameunique (talk)01:05, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this precise dating—the village was deserted by 1439—: theby, as well as the "within a century", suggests to me that the abandonment date wasn't known particularly precisely. Was it?
I've clarified that the known abandonment by 1439 provided aterminus ante quem for artefacts from the village, which is the precision in question (although the reworked paragraph no longer uses this word). Again, however, it's worth keeping in mind that we're not talking about Pokémon cards; we're talking about a "notoriously vague" chronology. --Usernameunique (talk)14:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have some sympathy there as a Bronze Age specialist, though I'd note that even in my field -- where dates are also "notoriously vague" -- we can quite often pin something down to +/- 50 years and don't usually get very excited about that.UndercoverClassicistT·C12:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the Georgian Theatre Royal,: I would give its location.
I'm not talking about a date, but rather saying that it's in Richmond. Unlike (for example) Middleham Castle, the name at least sounds generic: lots of towns have a "Theatre Royal" and many of those are Georgian in date (I'm fairly sure there's one in Bath, for example).UndercoverClassicistT·C12:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Date" was a slip—presumably me thinking about something else while typing. I meant "location." Adding locations for some but not others is inconsistent, and if we add a location for, one we'll have to add a location for the others. The links are sufficient. --Usernameunique (talk)06:07, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:NOFORCELINK does not state that. It instructs thatas far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. Here, while one would have to click on each link to understandnuances related to each site—their precise locations, their dates, their archaeological importance—no link-clicking is needed for a reader tounderstand the sentence. Indeed, as far as your point goes, the sentence in question already gives the general location:From 1943 to 1945, he led parties from the School of Signals toarchaeological and other sites across Northern England, includingRichmond Castle,Jervaulx Abbey,Easby Parish Church,Stanwick St John,Middleham Castle, and theGeorgian Theatre Royal, recording notes and commentaries when there. --Usernameunique (talk)21:59, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the logic here is mistaken, but it's at least compatible with the MoS and with readers understanding at least the essential details, so it isn't a sticking point.UndercoverClassicistT·C21:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the article relies heavily on Biddle's PBA obituary. I've used those obituaries regularly and have no problem with them as sources per se -- however, they're usually (as here) written by friends and from the sort of sympathetic perspective you'd expect in an obituary. That should give us a measure of caution in making them the main basis of a neutral article. Are there any other sources that cover the same ground?
To your precise question, yes and no. Biddle 2015 is exceptionally well referenced, and I've tracked down and incorporated most of the sources that he cites. There are also several obituaries (The Guardian;The Daily Telegraph;The Independent;Medieval Archaeology;The New York Times). These are much shorter; they thus have similar bones to Biddle 2015, but substantially less detail, and none of the supporting citations. In any event, while Biddle writes warmly, he does not ignore the criticisms that Bruce-Mitford faced throughout his career—these criticisms are mentioned here, and sometimes in more detail than in Biddle (e.g.,David M. Wilson's disparaging references to Bruce-Mitford are quoted here, while Biddle refers to them more obliquely). We could theoretically add more detail on the complaints of other academics who criticised him—viz.Christopher Hawkes andJoachim Werner—but those disputes are already mentioned, and I don't think added detail is beneficial. We could also add more detail from Bruce-Mitford's own autobiographical writings—but I suspect I know your take on that. --Usernameunique (talk)02:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few examples of doubled citations (I noticed two in the paragraph beginningBruce-Mitford returned to a museum that had suffered during the war: perMOS:CITE, it's usual to put the citation (only) at the end of the material it supports.
There are multiple problems with that approach: A reader doesn't know whether multiple sentences are supported by one source, or if unsourced material has been added (my suspicion always increases the more sentences I see without a cite), and intervening edits can muddy up which source supports what fact. I'm also not sure to which part of MOS:CITE you're referring, but—if it'sWP:CONSECUTIVECITE—it doesn't say that each sentence can't have a footnote (and we're in a different universe from that elephant example). --Usernameunique (talk)06:37, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is more a "what" question than a "how" one -- the problem is that there are so many little blue numbers that it impacts readability (a problem under criterion 1). You have various tools available to solve that: you could delete consecutive citations, bundle multiples (if necessary, using a footnote to say "for X, see A; for Y, see B" or similar), or simply remove citations that aren't strictly required (e.g. to primary sources). Which of these you use, and in what proportion, is your decision: all that matters is that the article becomes more readable.UndercoverClassicistT·C12:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pegging this to the first criterion is a stretch, especially when the criterion regarding citation style (2c) specifies only that they be inline and consistent, which they are. But be that as it may, I've substantially reworked that paragraph to focus the structure on subject rather than year (which is also salient to your point below re WP:PROSELINE), which has also had the advantage of bundling more of the citations. --Usernameunique (talk)06:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Herbert Maryon, a Technical Attaché recruited for the task, set to work restoring what Bruce-Mitford later termed "the real headaches – notably the crushed shield, helmet and drinking horns". "When I began work", he continued, "I sat with Maryon while he took me through the material and with infectious enthusiasm, demonstrated what he was doing". "There followed great days for Sutton Hoo when new, often dramatic, discoveries were being made in the workshops all the time. Built from fragments, astonishing artefacts – helmet, shield, drinking horns, and so on – were recreated.": another beat on this drum: I really don't think we can narrate this entire episode in Bruce-Mitford's own voice.
Added "main article" and "see also" headers at the top of the section, linking to theSutton Hoo andSutton Hoo helmet articles, where this process is discussed in more depth. Bruce-Mitford's role at this point was primarily research (later also excavation), not conservation (which is whereMaryon came in). A high-level gloss of this process is thus all we need at this point, which Bruce-Mitford's words provide. We could also add Biddle's take on them—In these words that Rupert wrote later, it is as if we hearCaernarvon toCarter: 'Can you see anything?' And Carter's reply 'Yes, it is wonderful.'—but I suspect neither of us thinks they are needed. --Usernameunique (talk)07:45, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In these "fallow years for Sutton Hoo", as Biddle termed them,germinated many of the other defining contributions of Bruce-Mitford's career: I think the tone here is getting away from the encyclopaedic and towardsWP:PROMO or the sort of language you'd see in an obituary.
Colder still, I fear. WP:TONE is an essay, which instructs us to make articlesclear and understandable by avoidingargot,slang,colloquialisms,doublespeak,legalese, orjargon that is unintelligible to an average reader. WP:NOTMEMORIAL, for its part, is aboutnotability: It states thatWikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others whodo not meet such [notability] requirements. --Usernameunique (talk)18:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably unnecessary; it just helps, when invoking the imprimatur of authority, to ensure that it's the right authority. But leaving to the side policies that may or may not exist, and essays that we may or may not someday write, I've docked thelasting, which takes us tomany of the other contributions of Bruce-Mitford's career. (One might note the similarity here with the twice-used line inGeorg Karo, regardingKaro's greatest contribution to scholarship). Gone, too, is some of the more sympathetic language, as I'll specify below. --Usernameunique (talk)06:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tellingly, though a commissioned officer by the time he first married in November 1941, he still wrote himself down as a civil servant:tellingly: seeWP:OFCOURSE.
We had it in Wikivoice, though, not attributed to Biddle: the material I quoted was the whole footnote. I'm still not totally sold on "even after" in Wikivoice: I'd like to know what the norm was for people who knew that they were only serving for the duration of the war. I'm sure I remember seeing a wartime document whereHenry Biard gave his civilian occupation on paperwork written while he was commissioned with the RAF. Unless we can definitively say that this was unusual (and cite that), I don't think we can use "even after" or, to be honest, state this in Wikivoice at all. We could do "Biddle considers it telling that...", but even then I'd personally want to do a bit of digging to make sure that Biddle hadn't just misunderstood the norms of the time.UndercoverClassicistT·C11:04, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find the first paragraph of "Other matters" very tough going indeed. Part of this is the density of references (on which see above), but we also have a bit ofWP:PROSELINE. There are also a couple of opportunities to trim the prose for clarity:Bruce-Mitford also begandeveloping an interest in, and began compiling information on, Celtic hanging bowls;He became a semi-regular participant in the show Animal, Vegetable, Mineral?, too,appearing in 1955 (or even "he appeared on ... in ...")
approached the treasury, the chancellor of which: while thetitle is "Chancellor of the Exchequer", the actual name is a bit of a relic: nobody actually thinks of the holder as "the chancellor of the treasury" (much as we wouldn't refer to the PM as "its first lord" in the same context). I would use the title.
I've rephrased tothe head of which. "Chancellor of the Exchequer" has the unfortunate tendency to run into your other points about technical terms and non-UK audiences. --Usernameunique (talk)02:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, in 1960, Bruce-Mitford embarked:is this meanwhile? It looked in the last paragraph like we were in 1956.
The ivory cross, which a panel of experts at the museum declared "one of the finest and most impressive objects of the 12th century they [had] ever seen", appeared at the museum on 5 December 1960, following years of rumours as to its existence: this confuses me a bit. We seem to be saying that nobody was totally sure it existed until it arrived in the BM in 1960: however, our article shows that it emerged in murky circumstances before or during the Second World War.
What's the inconsistency? There were rumors that it existed for years before 1960, but there was no definitive record of it being seen until 1960. Then, when it was finally seen in 1960, there were additional rumors that it wasNazi loot. If the latter rumor is true, then presumablyMimara acquired it at the close of the war; covertly shopped it around, leading to the rumors of its existence; and then approached the BM in 1960. But until it was definitively recorded in 1960, the rumors were just that. --Usernameunique (talk)03:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That contradicts the source we cite inCloisters Cross (p. 459 here), which hasHowever, as long as the cross is perceived to be English it is perhaps unlikely that anyone will think too hard about where it really was made and whether it might still have been there in 1940. In other words, an English origin has effectively deflected people from asking if it was looted, stolen, or even bought quite legitimately during the Nazi takeover of Continental Europe.It was during the Second World War that the man who ultimately sold it to the Metropolitan Museum, Topic Mimara, took part of it to Rome and showed it to Fritz Vollbach. At that time it was very dirty. That source is the review of a Met Museum book on the cross (at the Internet Archivehere), which hasThe history of the cross is as much an enigma today as when it first came to light on the art market in the 1950s. From the beginning it was described as English, an attribution that has riot been disputed, and its authenticity was clearly established by early research ... In 1955 the then owner of the cross. Ante Topic Mimara, began offering it for sale. Again, that is also incompatible with the cross's existence being doubtful before 1960.UndercoverClassicistT·C11:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source from which you quote opens its review by stating that the crossemerged from obscurity in about 1960. Similarly, the second source from which you quote opens its first chapter by declaring the cross to have beenVirtually unknown when it was acquired for the Cloisters Collection of the Metropolitan Museum in 1963. Thus, while each source goes on to describe what may have been pre-1960 disclosures of the cross, neither source labors under the impression that such disclosures made the cross widely known. If anything, such disclosures are presumably what led to the rumors. With the benefit of hindsight, it's a lot easier to assign credibility to those rumors, and write that they areincompatible with the cross's existence being doubtful before 1960. But before it showed up at the British Museum in December 1960, someone saying "Hey Tom, John told me that Mark's good friend Bobby told him that Frank was shown pictures of a twelfth-century ivory cross" probably sounded a lot more fanciful. In any event, our sentence now readsThe ivory cross, which a panel of experts at the museum declared "one of the finest and most impressive objects of the 12th century they [had] ever seen", appeared at the museum on 5 December 1960, prior to which it was virtually unknown. --Usernameunique (talk)21:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce-Mitford was alerted by a note marked "URGENT" that there was "a man at present over in Manuscripts: seeMOS:EMPHASIS andMOS:CONFORM.
MOS:EMPHASIS is about the emphasis that an editor supplies, not about emphasis found in sources. In any event, I've obviated the issue by paraphrasing the quotation. --Usernameunique (talk)02:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again on quotations: we quote this note three times in the text, then quote the whole note in the footnote! This seems a bit excessive: surely we can paraphrase it in the body given that the full thing is available down below?
Bruce-Mitford studied the cross over the ensuing two years, including four days spent in a bank vault in Zurich, assembled a file an inch and a half thick, and successfully persuaded the treasury to allocate £195,000 (equivalent to £5,030,000 in 2023) for its purchase. But the purported owner, Ante Topić Mimara, steadfastly refused to disclose how he had obtained possession of the unprovenanced cross, amid swirling doubts about his background, and that the cross might be Nazi loot.: two long sentence which both wander a little: I think some editing for clarity would be beneficial here.
the following year made two floors of a Montague Street house available for Bruce-Mitford to devote to Sutton Hoo: what does "devote to Sutton Hoo" actually mean here -- use as an office? Put the findings? Set up as a museum?
There's no further information in the source:In 1960, following the appointment of Frank Francis as Director of the Museum, two floors of a house in Montague Street were at last made available and into this Rupert moved the whole Sutton Hoo operation. A Research Assistant was agreed in 1962 and eventually there was a team of thirteen people at work. --Usernameunique (talk)06:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The word "operation" in the source makes (reasonably) clear in my view that the premises were used as working space for the scholars working on Sutton Hoo, which is at least a bit more specific than what we've got. But agreed it could be much more informative!UndercoverClassicistT·C21:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed tofor Bruce-Mitford to devote to the Sutton Hoo operation to clarify that others were working there as well as him. I do wonder if theentire team was there—in particular, were conservators such asNigel Williams working there, or were they in more specialized spaces? But as we've both said, it's unclear. --Usernameunique (talk)22:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After the volumes were ultimately published, Hawkes and his wife Sonia went as far as to translate, privately publish, and distribute amongst colleagues, a biting German review by Joachim Werner; Sir David M. Wilson, who became director of the museum in 1977, disparaged Bruce-Mitford in his 2002 book The British Museum: A History, and wrote that work on the Sutton Hoo volumes "presents a precautionary, if unique, tale of procrastination and obfuscation: another very long sentence. Suggest cutting at the semicolon at least, and the comma aftercolleagues needs to go.
If part of the delay was attributable to what Biddle termed "Rupert's dogged perfectionism", such criticism perhaps failed to account for the many other demands on Bruce-Mitford's time, and the museum's delay in making resources available for the publication: this is all sourced to Biddle, but reads as if it's an independent comment on him: it's very much a matter of opinion (see "perhaps" in particular), so shouldn't be in WikiVoice. See also the next sentence.
speaking on The Sutton Hoo Ship-Burial: Reflections after thirty years: I'm not a huge fan of using titles within sentence prose, but if we're going to do it, we need to capitalise as title case. Lectures are, I think, generally considered amongMOS:MINORWORKS.
and even beyond the specific site of Sutton Hoo, the art critic Terence Mullaly suggested the book marked a "com[ing] of age" for archaeology, writing that it "sets standards for archaeologists everywhere: I think this needs reordering: presumably Mullaly's point was that the book was important within the whole field of archaeology (ie, beyond just Sutton Hoo), but that takes a bit of decoding at present.
Amongst some internal conflict, some of the museum's trustees, led by Eric Fletcher, Baron Fletcher, sought to refuse to permit Bruce-Mitford the last six months: it took me a while to figure out what the last part of this sentence means. It would also be clearer, I think, if you referred to Fletcher by only one of his name and title (as we might for e.g.Colin Renfrew).
Once again, reviewers termed the work a "tour de force: who was it that termed the first volume atour de force? Same question for the other numerous epithets used here.
The first was calledone of the great books of the century, so by that standard,tour de force may be a downgrade. But I've made some adjustments here to give in-text attribution to everyone quoted, and remove theOnce again. --Usernameunique (talk)05:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
to whom Bruce-Mitford "handed the Sutton Hoo baton" after publication of the work, called the publication "the most compendious ever produced for a British archaeological site".: it isn't clear who said the first of these quotations, and I'm really not sure this is better than "who succeeded B-M as excavator of the site" or similar.
and any needed revisions, although its fate was uncertain even after volume one was in press. The plan was ultimately shelved, however, in the face of financial considerations: given thealthough clause, I think thehowever needs to go, as this now is giving exactly what we'd expect from what came before.
It's an edge case underMOS:CAPS, but I'm going onGeneric words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them (university, college, hospital, church, high school) do not take capitals:. I think "the department of English" is a generic term, because every school and university has one, whereas e.g. "Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities" at the BM may not be.UndercoverClassicistT·C10:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That section of MOS:CAPS states that when a generic term is used in place of the proper noun—such asthe department rather thanthe Department of English—the capitals fall away. Inthis article from an Australian newspaper, therefore, we have both the capitalizedDepartment of English (proper name) and the uncapitalizedEnglish department (generic term). Further, nothing in the MOS suggests that if enough institutions employ the same proper noun, it is not capitalized. Think of the term Main Street: Every town in America may have one, but the 'M' and the 'S' are still capitalized. --Usernameunique (talk)08:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to beat a horse with no further need of a beating, but the second bullet under saidguidance on people's titles confirms my reading of MOS:CAPS. It states thatStandard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper names, such thatPrime Minister of the United Kingdom,Emperor of Japan, orKing of France, keep their caps. In generic use, by contrast, we would say thatLouis XVI was a French king. Thus, we would say with caps thatBruce-Mitford was a faculty visitor in the Department of English, and without caps thatBruce-Mitford was a faculty visitor in the department. --Usernameunique (talk)22:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
he was elected an Honorary Fellow at Hertford College:of, and no caps as above.
During these years, Bruce-Mitford worked to bring old works to publication: which years, exactly? Are we talking only about the two at Hertford or his entire retirement?
He also resumed work on the opus A Corpus of Late Celtic Hanging-Bowls: do we need both "the opus" and the page count/glowing praise in the next sentence?
In November 1941 he married Kathleen Dent, with whom he fathered Myrtle (b. 1943), Michael (b. 1946), and Miranda (b. 1951).: underMOS:BIO, parenthetical dates are generally discouraged: my usual thinking is that they should be brought into the main text in prose. If there's no good place to put them in, they're probably not particularly valuable inthis article in the first place. At any rate, we should use the abbreviation template if we're going to use an abbreviation.
That is not what MOS:BIO says. Per its subsectionMOS:BIRTHDATE,Abbreviations like b. and d. can be used, if needed, ... when used repetitively (e.g., in a list of people). Incidentally, you used a parenthetical date for the birth of a daughter in your featured articleGeorge E. Mylonas. --Usernameunique (talk)06:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it'sMOS:BIRTHDATE:Beyond the first paragraph of the lead section, birth and death details shouldonlybe included after a nameif there is special contextual relevance.. What's the special contextual relevance here -- that can't be met, as inGeorge Mylonas, by putting the birthdate into prose? There's a small but important difference between "George III (born 1738) went mad" and "George III (born in 1738) went mad".UndercoverClassicistT·C14:51, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:BIRTHDATE is theexact section of the MOS from which I just quoted. And the line which I quoted expressly sanctionsAbbreviations like b. and d. ... in a list of people. The line that you quoted in response isn't abouthow the details are given (b. versus born); it's aboutwhether the details should be givenat all. We both appear to agree on the latter issue, as we've both given birth years of children in the articles about their fathers. As for the former—born vs. b.—the MOS controls. --Usernameunique (talk)22:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking on this a bit more, I think we're in "I would do this differently" rather than "the MoS requires a different approach": the (low) bar to include the date at all is met in a section on family, and the MoS is fairly agnostic as tohow we present that information once we're OK to do so.UndercoverClassicistT·C10:50, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce-Mitford was married three times,and had three children by his first wife.In November 1941 he married Kathleen Dent: seems an odd way to order this, as Dentwas his first wife. I would cut as marked.
Cutby his first wife. The affirmative statementand had three children tells the reader (after the reader sees the next sentence, about his three children by Dent) that Bruce-Mitford didn't have any children with his second or third wives. --Usernameunique (talk)
He announced his engagement to his former research assistant Marilyn Roberta Luscombe in March 1975, and married on 11 July: eithermarried her orthey married is more idiomatic.
I reworded to make the announcement mutual rather than coming from him, which also gets at your point:In March 1975 he and his former research assistant Marilyn Roberta Luscombe announced their engagement, marrying on 11 July. --Usernameunique (talk)06:48, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
realizing: unless we're in Oxford English (which is agnostic on this anyway, as there's no Greek -ίζειν root in question),realising in BrE.
the address was given by Biddle, and later published in The Hertford College Magazine.: what's the rationale behind including this in the article?
It's a substantial address/publication, and an interesting read, although you make a good point about singling it out. I've added mention of his other obituaries to that paragraph, so someone who is interesting in reading them has them all in one place. --Usernameunique (talk)07:50, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and a member or regular at the Athenaeum and the Garrick.: seems to be crying out for the question -- which one? A member of the Athenaeum and a regular visitor at the Garrick?
If I knew the answer, it would be in the article. Biddle 1997–1998 says:There was the excitement of the new campaign of excavations at Sutton Hoo, his friendships to keep up, and the clubs he enjoyed, the Athenaeum, the Garrick, the MCC, the Cocked Hats. In any event, I've reworded the sentence. --Usernameunique (talk)03:51, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He enjoyed cricket and boxing: it seems a bit odd to separate his enjoyment of cricket from his MCC membership.
I've rearranged. Originally, however, we had a sentence about clubs followed by a sentence about sports. Now we have a sentence about clubs, followed by a sentence about one club and several sports. --Usernameunique (talk)03:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We now have (in part)He was also a member of Marylebone Cricket Club, and a fan of cricket, which isn't much better -- again, it implies that being a cricket fan and an MCC member were different things. I'd suggest doing it a bit differently: something like "he was also a fan of boxing and of cricket; he became a member of the MCC in [year]".UndercoverClassicistT·C14:48, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if I knew when he joined MCC, it would be in the article. And, again, I think we can trust our readers to divine that being a member of a club that has "Cricket" in its name goes part and parcel with being a fan of the sport. We also find ourselves chest deep in stylistic differences where, it seems to me, no one phrasing is either correct or incorrect. Once again, however, I have implemented a stylistic rewording. --Usernameunique (talk)02:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the works below are listed in Bruce-Mitford 1989b, the catalogue of Bruce-Mitford's library produced in preparation for its sale: I would not name a source like this in prose, which to me conflicts with at least the spirit ofWP:PAREN. It would be better to add a recurring footnote to B-M 1989b to those works which are included there.
WP:PAREN is about thesource of a sentence. Here, Bruce-Mitford 1989b is thesubject of the sentence (really, the subject of theparagraph). A guideline that actuallyis relevant isWP:INTEXT, which expressly sanctionsthe attribution inside a sentence of material to its source. --Usernameunique (talk)04:01, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Attributing sources to e.g. an author's name is fine (and this is whatWP:INTEXT talks about), but I don't think that extends to using citation-style author-date language. At any rate, the repeating footnote approach would fix the other problem, which is that we have the vague word "many" (all but one? Half of them? Five of them?) with no sense of which we're actually talking about.UndercoverClassicistT·C14:46, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed thecitation-style author-date language to a citation. As forthe vague word "many" and whether it constitutesall but one? Half of them? Five of them?, perhaps it would help to read the two sentences that follow:The first 156 items in the catalogue are works by or about Bruce-Mitford; Bruce-Mitford's personal copy is held byColumbia University'sAvery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, and contains 14 additional works added by hand. --Usernameunique (talk)22:11, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the catalogue and our list are not necessarily the same thing. It's very common for even a supposedly complete published bibliography to miss works, particularly when the list was compiled before the internet. Thinking ofWP:ENDURE, it's a live possibility that additional works will turn up and be added to the list by editors, so having a citation against those listed in the source would both preserveWP:TSI if this happened and allow readers to be sure in the meantime that the sources cited actually do appear in that list.UndercoverClassicistT·C10:48, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the encyclopedic significance of signalling which works by a scholar were included in the auction catalogue of his library? The catalogue is useful, to be sure, in compiling the bibliography here—but at the end of the day, all it reflects is which of Bruce-Mitford's works he still owned when he sold his library in 1989. The way the article is currently presented is essentially the same as in the featured article onRobert Kaske (also nominated by me), which statesKaske published more than 60 works throughout his career, including articles, chapters, reviews, and a book; most of these were listed in his 1986Festschrift, but does not indicate which works were, or were not, included in saidFestschrift. --Usernameunique (talk)08:36, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the encyclopedic significance of signalling which works by a scholar were included in the auction catalogue of his library?:WP:V -- to some extent, simply including a work in a list is a citation, but in some cases it's helpful to have third-party verification -- for example, where the work isn't available online or easily findable in print -- to reassure readers that the work actually exists and that the bibliographic details are as we have given them. Signalling "I know this work is real because it's in the library catalogue, this one because it's mentioned by Smith, this one because it was reviewed by Jones", etc, is particularly helpful in these days of LLMs and hallucinated bibliographies.
Thinking on it, though -- the issue isn't really whether it's essential to give the provenance of the bibliography (in my view it usually isn't), because the article has already chosen to do that, by stickingMany of the works below are listed in the 1989 catalogue of Bruce-Mitford's library produced in preparation for its sale at the top. I'm struggling to square the approach adopted here with that you defended further up, where you advocated repeating a citation at the end of every sentence to reassure readers that all the material actually was included in that source. This approach to the "works" section has all the problems you tried to avoid there, and clearly isn'trobust against future editors who might add or remove works such that the statement ceases to be true.UndercoverClassicistT·C20:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a citation to each work in the bibliography isn't analogous to having a citation at the end of every sentence of text. Instead, it would be analogous to having asecond citation for each citation used in the body of the article, to attest that the first citation comes from a reference that actually exists. (And then would be add a third citation, to attest that the second exists; and a fourth to attest to the third; and so on and so forth?) Happily, however, we both seem to agree that no Wikipedia policy requires this.
As for your question about whether the statementMany of the works below are listed in the 1989 catalogue of Bruce-Mitford's library will endure, well, the catalogue includes some 150 works, and our bibliography here some 200 (fewer if you account for multiple editions, etc.) Unless literally hundreds of hitherto-unknown works suddenly pop up—and I'll note that we already include painfully obscure ones like his ghost story—we're in the clear. --Usernameunique (talk)05:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I still cannot see why we have three sentences at the top of a "Publications" section to say "Bruce-Mitford owned a lot of his own books". Having gone through this conversation I am even more confused as to the rationale for their inclusion, but I can't really see that they're doing any job very well.UndercoverClassicistT·C07:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not to show that Bruce-Mitford owned many of his own books. The point is to point the reader to the (hitherto) most complete published bibliography of his works. --Usernameunique (talk)17:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "Publications" section is throwing Harvard errors on those works cited in the article. I'm not sure what the best fix would be here: one clunky way would be to use{{refbegin}} and{{refend}} templates and add|ref=none to those which are not cited, but there might be a neater solution.
What sort of errors are being generated? Thedocumentation page for that script says that there are three types of errors. I'm wondering if you're seeing "wrong section" errors—i.e., if the script doesn't like the fact that certain references (including the four on which you mention seeing errors) link up to the Publications section, rather than down to the Bibliography section. --Usernameunique (talk)17:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The error message is e.g. "Harv error: linked from CITEREFBruce-Mitford1947a". That normally comes up when the item is cited but not in a section named "Bibliography" or similar. Ithink enclosing the list in{{refbegin}} and{{refend}} tags solves it. (EDIT: I'm not sure about this. On one level, it's a relatively minor matter, since it only affects logged-in editors using a certain script; equally, it's a very widely used script among editors and most FAs manage to avoid angering it. Perhaps ask for help on the script's page or from Trappist directly?)UndercoverClassicistT·C18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the titles in the Publications section are not in title case.
The consistent practice used here was to print the titles as they appear in the sources themselves. Dissappointingly, I now see that,as of this past May, this is no longer considered to be consistent. I've gone through and added various capitals as a result. --Usernameunique (talk)21:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is it "British Museum Publications" or "British Museum Publications Ltd"? In either case, are publishers generally referred to as "Foo Books" or "Foo Books Limited"? This is inconsistent.
My general practice is to go with whatever's on the publication page, although (a) sometimes publishers are inconsistent across books, (b) sometimes publishers are inconsistentwithin a book, and (c) there were some inconsistencies here that I've caught. --Usernameunique (talk)20:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some journals are given with ISSNs, others are not. This should probably be consistent.
Many of the journals cited in the article pre-dateISSNs (which originated in the 1970s). In that case, my general practice is to not include them unless there is neither a link to the article or another identifying information. I've gone through to ensure that each cited work does in fact include one of those (i.e., a link, identifying number, or ISSN). --Usernameunique (talk)20:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some journals are given with publishers, others with locations, others with neither. Ditto.
Generally speaking, if I can find the publisher and location, I include it. Some journals do not make one or either obvious, however, and I haven't been able to get the front/back matter for every source that is cited. I have been able to find some more since this comment, and if I am able to find more, will add them. --Usernameunique (talk)20:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Books with no (I)SBN should have an OCLC or some other identifier (an OL number if nothing else). I noticed the volume of B-M 1956 (chapter).
Agreed; that's my general practice, although (as you noticed) there were some slips. Every work should now have a link or identifying number, with the exception of the 1997 Dominic Winter Book Auctions catalogue, which does not appear to be in any library (the auction house sent me a scan instead). --Usernameunique (talk)20:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rupert_Bruce-Mitford.jpg is mistagged, and the purpose of use overlaps with the lead image - if you want to have two non-free images, that means each needs stronger justification than one alone.Nikkimaria (talk)06:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No - the purpose is separate from the tagging issue. The "unique historic images" tag is intended for cases where the image itself is the subject of commentary - egTank Man. Here, the image is being used to illustrate the person, so should have the same tag as the other image being used to illustrate the person.Nikkimaria (talk)00:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Steelkamp, just checking to see if you might still be able to take a look at this? No worries you're tied up—I'm just asking givenGog the Mild's note below that this is a few days from being archived without additional progress. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk)17:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Its up to you, but I like to link more than you have. I would linkBritish Columbia andLondon.
I tend to agree with you, although I've experienced enough pushback over the years that I've become more conservative with links. Here, I've linked BC, but not London, which is an express example inMOS:OVERLINK of a city large enough to not need linking. --Usernameunique (talk)18:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think its a bit strange to have such a quote like "You will also be responsible for Sutton Hoo. Brace yourself for this task." in the lead.
"and, finally, a faculty visitor in the Department of English at the Australian National University." I recommend removing the word finally: "and a faculty visitor in the Department of English at the Australian National University."
"He left less than nine months later, however, departing for Japan. He intended to establish his own school there, with a curriculum and ethos reflecting his own ideas." -> "He left less than nine months later for Japan, intending to establish his own school there, with a curriculum and ethos reflecting his own ideas."
"In 1908, however, by which time the family had three sons" -> "In 1908, by which time the family had three sons".
Here, I think thehowever helps as a transition; it also provides a counterpoint to the marriage discussed two sentences earlier, given that this sentence is about the marriage being declared illegitimate. --Usernameunique (talk)19:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"There Bruce-Mitford met Charles Phillips, the secretary of The Prehistoric Society (for which Bersu was digging)." I would put a comma here: "There, Bruce-Mitford met Charles Phillips, the secretary of The Prehistoric Society (for which Bersu was digging)."
"He was in Catterick Camp in North Yorkshire by autumn, when The Yorkshire Archæological Journal reported that he and his friends, cleared out a Roman hypocaust at Middleham." The second comma is not necessary. The first comma is arguable too.
"The work quickly proved to be the museum's most successful publications". That should be "The work quickly proved to be one of the museum's most successful publications". Or alternatively "The work quickly proved to be the museum's most successful publication".
The first paragraph under "Other matters" has some sentences with four or five(!) citations. The content is not at all controversial and is just straightforward statements of fact, so this many citations is not necessary (exception being his appearances on Animal, Vegetable, Mineral?). I would just go with at most 2 in this case.
I've smoothed out two of these, which contained inadvertent duplicates. That leaves us with just one remaining example with more than three citations: the one with five. There, two are necessary to support when Bruce-Mitford joined theAncient Monuments Board for England and the length of his tenure. The others are articles that discuss certain matters he worked on as a board member. They're thus provided so that an interested reader may learn more by clicking on them. --Usernameunique (talk)15:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Does the body specifically say he learnt Danish? The lead does, and the body implies it by saying he went to Copenhagen, but I don't think its explicitly stated.
The line that supports this isAround the same time, he translatedP. V. Glob's 1965 bookThe Bog People from Danish to English, with the result published in 1969. It's not perfect—the isn't a source which expressly says "he learned Danish"—but he had to have done so, given that he translated the book. --Usernameunique (talk)13:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The company then again approached the treasury, the head of which this time agreed to petition parliament for the funds." I'm confused. If the company purchased the collection for the museum, why did they approach treasury after?
The donor purchased only one portion of the collection for the museum (the clocks). The treasury provided funds for the remainder of the collection (namely the watches). I've clarified this in the article. --Usernameunique (talk)13:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First batch of comments, down to the end of "Other matters":
"I don't share the view that the use of the passive voice is invariably a bad thing. But I think it should be used sparingly – and in the lead alone we have "was left", "was fostered", "was admitted", "was awarded", "was appointed" and "was excavated".
"Orphaned and poor, Rupert Bruce-Mitford …" – this is the first we've heard of the death of his mother and rather breaks the flow as one skips back to see if one has missed something.
NowFatherless and poor, as his mother was still alive. I used the wordOrphaned partly to reflect Bruce-Mitford referring to his father as beinghimself twice orphaned while still a small boy, but it was unclear as you say. --Usernameunique (talk)22:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"his tenuous grasp of Greek and Latin" – can one grasp tenuously? Perhaps, but it looks a bit odd to my eye.
To my mind a doctor is a person and a doctorate a title. In the unlikely event of my being offered a doctor of letters I should have to decline, having nowhere to put him/her in my flat.Tim riley talk09:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"A Provisional Guide, which Bruce-Mitford had written and produced" – not clear what "produced" means here.
There's no further clarity in the source, from which the wordproduced is taken. As I imagine it, however, it means he was responsible for tasks such as designing the layout, selecting photographs, and so on. --Usernameunique (talk)23:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"he took over the keepership from a retiring A. B. Tonnochy" – curious phrasing: makes the old boy seem shy rather than superannuated.
"Bruce-Mitford joined Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark and Harold Plenderleith to search Lincoln Cathedral for the burial place of Saint Hugh of Lincoln" – the reader may wish to be told if their search succeeded or not.
"While at the Laurentian Bruce-Mitford also studied ... Meanwhile, Bruce-Mitford translated…" – perhaps "he" the second time? And I think your usual practice is to insert a comma in such constructions: you do so in the second of these but not in the first.
"Thomas Hoving, untroubled by the issues with the cross and owner, stayed up over dinner with Mimara and purchased it immediately" – do their dining arrangements add anything of value here?
It clarifies, I think, that this truly was a midnight deadline with another party waiting in the wings—it wasn't one buyer saying no and another taking the opportunity to think on it, but rather one party's option lapsing at midnight, and the other party sealing the deal at 12:01. --Usernameunique (talk)03:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Also in 1975, Bruce-Mitford relinquished his role … This period was the only time during Bruce-Mitford's career" – again, I think a pronoun instead of the repetition of his surname would help the flow of the prose.
"the effort was stymied by the advocacy" – "stymied" is doubly inappropriate, because (i) slangy and (ii) out of date (stymieing was abolished in the year I was born, and I'm older than God.)
Indeed, Shakespeare uses the verb inTwelfth Night ("it is excellently well penned") but I still think it's a bit flowery for 21st-century formal prose.Tim riley talk09:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Bruce-Mitford was a fan of boxing … Bruce-Mitford was fond of recalling" – another place where a pronoun instead of the repeated name would help the flow of the prose.
Four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next day or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived.Gog the Mild (talk)16:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thereGog the Mild, just flagging that this now has four supports, and image/source reviews. I recognize there's an additional review that came to a neutral conclusion; I'd be happy to discuss any of the points raised there, although I think that the salient issues have been addressed. --Usernameunique (talk)15:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The exhaustive excavation and analysis of this nom is I suppose appropriate to the subject. I won't step in and muddy any of the trenches, but taking a view from further back, the article seems clearly to meet the FA criteria. Happy digging, everyone!Johnbod (talk)15:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What makesDaily Mail a reliable source for #149 and #233? Is "Dann, Robert Bernard (2004). Father of Faith Missions: The Life and Times of Anthony Robert Groves. Waynesboro, Georgia: Authentic Media. OCLC 58027950." a reliable source?Germania is linking the wrong page. A pretty diverse source set, and thus some inconsistencies are to be expected.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)12:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks,Jo-Jo Eumerus. The twoDaily Mail articles are actually from theHull Daily Mail, not the LondonDaily Mail. (At the time of the articles—1960 and 1969—the Hull version branded itself justThe Daily Mail on the first page, hence how it is cited here.) As for Dann 2004, it's held in many libraries and is cited in Bruce-Mitford's bibliographic memoir (Biddle 2015), which notes that professorAlan Millard is the one who referred Biddle to it. Finally, I've unlinkedGermania. --Usernameunique (talk)19:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"spiritus rector": it's not great that people have to click away to get a definition in the opening paragraph. This needs either an inline explanation or—better still—being replaced with "guiding spirit" or similar.
", having returned there two years earlier": is this lead worthy?
The full sentence isWhen Bruce-Mitford was five his father died in Japan, having returned there two years earlier. If we take out the second clause, we'll also have to take outin Japan, as it would then beg the question what he was doing there when Bruce-Mitford was born in London. I think there's some value in those parts—they show that Bruce-Mitford's father was out of his life when he was three, and help to show how truly stressed the family was—but if you think they're overkill I'm happy to take them out. --Usernameunique (talk)15:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'd take that out too. In terms of Rupert's 79 years, with all his achievements, this is a small matter, although I'm sure was impactful at the time. It needs the space of the body to describe it fully though, rather than this canned version in the lead. -SchroCat (talk)19:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably me rather than others, by most of the paragraph starting "Bruce-Mitford's paternal great-grandparents" is too tangential for an encyclopaedic article on Rupert. It's partly because after the first paragraph, there are two and a half paragraphs before we get back to the subject of the article, which feels a lot.
There are two perspectives on this, but it's worth remembering that the source of this (primarily Bruce-Mitford's bibliographic memoir, alongside the sources cited therein) devote eight pages to the subject, and Bruce-Mitford himself wrote several articles on his background. It did a lot to shape his later life, so all things considered a couple paragraphs doesn't seem so bad. --Usernameunique (talk)15:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Eight pages of an autobiography doesn't really sound that much to me, and going back so many generations feels like we're almost going to trivial levels of detail. I think the two paragraphs (comprising 360 words), could be dealt with in one paragraph of about a hundred words to the very great benefit of the article. However, I won't push the point any further. -SchroCat (talk)19:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, it's a bibliographic memoir, not a full biography (it's essentially a journal article, and byMartin Biddle, not Bruce-Mitford himself). So it's 8 pages out of 28 (29%), which is quite a lot of weight. --Usernameunique (talk)19:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of places where there are long strings of references; is there any chance of bundling these to make them less of a distraction?
I've already done a fair amount of work on this in response to some comments above. There's one paragraph under "Other matters" that's the main one, which is because there is so much detail in that paragraph, frequently coming from several sources. I've now split that paragraph in two to try to help with readability. --Usernameunique (talk)15:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Shalom Nagar was a Yemeni-born Israeli prison guard who carried out the only judicial execution in the history of Israel, that of Nazi war criminalAdolf Eichmann in 1962. The article covers Nagar's early life, his role in Eichmann's imprisonment and execution, and his later years, including his involvement inKiryat Arba and his presence at theCave of the Patriarchs massacre.
"After working in various security roles..." — The body of the article only mentions him working for the border police in between his IDF service and joining the prison service. Did he hold other roles?
"He was chosen at random to carry out Eichmann's execution" — The body seems to imply that this is a little dubious, and that he may not really have been chosen at random. Perhaps that uncertainty is worth acknowledging somewhow in the lead?
I've gone with the wording "He was selected to carry out Eichmann’s execution, reportedly through a lottery, though this has been questioned by later commentators.", referring to Mann, Braun, Shimony all cited in the body.Jonathan Deamer (talk)07:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"and revealed only in 1992" -> "andwas revealed only in 1992"
"...what kind of Jews were these?" — Missing a full stop
I think it'd be useful to add some (approximate) dates to the end of the the "Early life" section if these are known (i.e. when did he complete his military service, when did he join the border police, when did he join the prison service)
Unfortunately I don't think this is available in sources (details of some of my checks below). I think the best that's possible is stating he turned away from religion "in the mid-1950s" usinga date calculation, which I've added.Jonathan Deamer (talk)18:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Times of Israel - "Nagar was born in Yemen in 1936 and arrived in Israel aged 12, an orphan. He served in the IDF’s Paratroopers Brigade and later joined the Israel Prison Service, where his path would cross that of Eichman."
NY Times - "He enlisted in the Israeli army at 16, serving in a paratroop brigade, and then worked for the police and as a border guard before joining the Israel Prison Service, where he spent 28 years."
Mishpacha - "Nagar joined the army at 16, and then went on to serve in the Border Police. [...] Then Nagar joined the Israel Prison Service working as a guard, which brought him to that fateful night."
Economist - "At 16, four years after migrating to the new state, he had joined the Israeli army, first in the parachute brigade and then in the border patrol. "
The Times - "He emigrated to Israel as a boy, shortly after the founding of the Jewish state. He served as a paratrooper with the fledgling Israel Defence Forces, then worked for the border police before joining the prison service."
"Nagar was working at Ayalon Prison in Ramla in the early 1960s when Eichmann was held there during the trial for his role in the Holocaust" — I'd suggest moving this sentence to a little later in the section. In my mind the section would flow a little better if you were to begin by introducing Eichmann, then describe Ben-Gurion's decision that the guards should not be Ashkenazi Jews, and then return to Nagar.
"After Eichmann's sentencing to death" — Suggest changing this to "After Eichmann was sentenced to death"
"the "hierarchical relationship" with Ashkenazi guards" — Perhaps clearer to say "the "hierarchical relationship" between Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi guards"?
"so they returned to say he had been called in as the prison was short staffed" — Who is "they" referring to here?
"Ashkenazi guards[13] and those who survived..." — At the moment this ref isn't really supporting a full statement (just "Ashkenazi guards"), suggest moving it to the end of the sentence
You could consider changing "trap door" to the more common form of "trapdoor"
"Nagar is thus presented as a scapegoat" — It's a little ambiguous who is doing the "presenting" here. Is this saying that Mann presents him as a scapegoat, or that his commanders/Israeli society used him as a scapegoat?
Rephrased to "Mann argues that Nagar functioned as a scapegoat". FWIW, source is "Nagar figures as a kind of scapegoat: in order for Ashkenazi victims of the Shoah to experience catharsis, trauma has to be transferred onto a third 'disinterested' party."Jonathan Deamer (talk)08:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understandingMOS:ELLIPSIS correctly, I believe square brackets should only be used around an ellipsis where it is necessary to distinguish it from another ellipsis that is part of the original source text.
File:Shalom_Nagar_2010.webp needs a more expansive FUR
File:Flickr_-_Government_Press_Office_(GPO)_-_Nazi_war_criminal_Adolf_Eichmann_walking_in_yard_of_his_cell_in_Ramle_prison.jpg needs a US tag.Nikkimaria (talk)21:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I always wonder why newspapers have ISSNs. Is there anyone discussing the reliability of "Sperber, Avigail; Braun, Netalie (2010). The Hangman (Documentary film) (in Hebrew). First Hand Films."? I must confess that I don't know much about the reliability of the various Israeli sources used here so I'll AGF. What is "Dehe, Astrid; Engstler, Achim (2014). Nagars Nacht"?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)13:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Dehe, Astrid; Engstler, Achim (2014). Nagars Nacht" - this is the German-language novelization of Nagar's story, referenced once in the article simply to support the fact its existence, authorship, and year of publication.
"Sperber, Avigail; Braun, Netalie (2010). The Hangman (Documentary film) (in Hebrew). First Hand Films."
I haven't found any explicit discussions about the reliability of this documentary.
However, it is used only as a primary source (with one nuance, below) of Nagar's own direct speech, which is attributed to him (and the documentary) in the article text, not just with inline citations.
One nuance: while the article mentions the film's dedication to Nagar's late son and its inclusion of funeral footage, these are presented factually and not used to support any claims in the article.
The article does not include any interpretative commentary by the filmmakers.
It's worth noting too that The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Oxford Handbook of International Criminal Law sources referenced in the article themselves use the documentary film as a primary source for Nagar's own speech.
These citations by major secondary sources suggest the film is widely accepted as a reliable primary source for Nagar's testimony.
This article is about Ednyfed Fychan, the first important ancestor of the House of Tudor. He was thedistain to the Welsh prince Llywelyn ab Iorwerth, and his tenure of the position coincided with the transformation of the role from that of apparently a chief domestic servant to the prince's right hand man. He was an invaluable asset for holding together Llywelyn's principality, whose efforts helped to lay the foundation for the Principality of Wales established by his liege's grandson, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. He was richly rewarded for his service, allowing his descendants to remain important in Wales even after the Edwardian Conquest of 1282-3. I have exhausted every academic source mentioning the man, and thus feel this article is worthy of being an FA.Tipcake (talk)11:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have added alt text and fixed, I think, MOS errors. There's not really much I can do about the colours of the map, though. I didn't make it!Tipcake (talk)11:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiTipcake. I have made some minor edits, mostly adding links and replacing "men" perWP:GNL. I hope these are alright with you. My comments:
In some places, the details seem irrelevant to an article about Ednyfed, like the 2nd sentence on Gwyn ab Ednywain (Strata Marcella), the 3rd sentence on Gwenillian (listing her children).
Who is Radnor? Is this theEarl of Radnor we are referring to, because a position created in the 17th century is anachronistic here.
Bryn Euryn and Dinerth seem to be the same location, but they are interchanged without informing the reader they are not different places.
Translate gogynfeirdd as done for marwnad.
Is the R. C. Christie we cite here actuallyRichard Copley Christie? The timelines match, but there is no list of works in the article so I can't confirm.
Translate the titles of Lewis 2023, Luard 1876, Luard 1890?
Lyte 1901 and Andrews 2017 are not cited in the text, so probably should remove them or cite them.
Why are there 6 standalone citations below the genealogical table in the Works cited section, starting from Williams 1869 and ending with Bartrum 1976? Should probably remove them or cite them using the format for the other citations.
Add[55] as the URL for Edwards 1940? This is a Oxford archive which has the source listed free of copyright, though it does not have page numbers and is structured as a bare plain text file.
Thanks, I'll have a look at these. However, the original source I cited says 'men'; they were by no means all officials. One is Ednyfed, one is his son Hywel, bishop of St Asaph, one is Einion Fychan (a minister and Ednyfed's son-in-law), and the last is a certain Gruffudd ap Rhodri of whom we know nothing. They were just leading men, though they were not necessarily servants in the administration. I'll have a look at the sources I do not cite; I would have in prior versions of the article. Radnor is the castle of modern (New) Radnor, not the earl of the shire, I didn't even know there was an earl of Radnor! The point of discussing Gwyn's last act is because it is theterminus post quem after which we can say Ednyfed could have beendistain, while Gwenllian's children are the most important descendants of Ednyfed, including ultimately the House of Tudor.Tipcake (talk)16:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the folk-memory of Ednyfed's actions – this should not have a hyphen I think.
but hostilities between prince and king broke out in April 1231, when Llywelyn attacked Radnor after his foe William Marshal died and management of Braose's patrimony was entrusted to the powerful justiciar Hubert de Burgh. – I could not follow here; it is very complicated with all these new names, and I think the context is just lacking to understand what is going on. Maybe you could simplify somehow?
However, in 1233, Llywelyn threw in his lot with Richard Marshal's baronial rebellion. – rebellion against whom?
No castles could be built or repaired in the Marches – Unclear to me what you mean with "Marches". Is that all the orange areas you show in the map, including the southwestern tip of Wales which is very far away from the English border?
This poem is preserved in Liber B – What is "Liber B"?
The role appears in the Welsh law-books – again, no hyphen here
as depicted in the Laws – further above, you wrote "the laws" in lower case
According to Glyn Roberts, professor of Welsh History at Bangor University – do you introduce all mentioned scholars with this verbosity? We usually do not provide titles.
Image: "The dẏsteẏn with his dish". Is that a historical image or a modern illustration? I assume historical; if so, I would state in the image caption where it comes from.
Oh, great! Just as I was editing the categories for the article. I have just edited the article as you suggest. The introduction was actually suggested by the GA reviewer, so I have just removed it now.Tipcake (talk)22:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll have a look at these. Regards the Coflein entries, I have merely usedTemplate:Coflein. I think I was told to put them in a separate section in the GA review. The Tudors of Penmynydd tree is using Peter Bartrum's genealogies, I removed it as a source from the tree as it caused errors with citing Bartrum's work in the article itself since there would then be two references to the work in the body of the article. Is there any way to resolve this that you know of?Tipcake (talk)14:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well. I have added back the references. There's no errors now. But you can see now that I have two discrete reference lists in the article. Is there really no better way to do this? It makes the article very cluttered.Tipcake (talk)15:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative would be to move it above the existing reference list, and remove the reflist from the template - that should result in those references being incorporated into the existing reference list.Nikkimaria (talk)04:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I should say, I still don't know what you think would be best to do with the Coflein articles. As I said I just used the template.Tipcake (talk)21:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like some of the lead/infobox details remain unsourced - eg what source says probably born at Abergele?
The issue with the Coflein template is that its formatting doesn't match that of the templates you're using elsewhere in the article. Is that customizable? If no, you may have to not use that template. I've checked the GA and don't see mention of the sectioning - do you recall the rationale that was suggested?
"..whom Gruffudd Hiraethog says was Pro[te]ctor Deffender and Arglwydd Protector to the ninth-century king of Gwynedd Rhodri Mawr, and whom Robert Vaughan calls 'Lord of Abergeleu'." – Who are these people and why am I interested in what they say? Establish their credentials inline: "..whom the famous Welsh footballer, Gruffudd Hiraethog, says was.." "..whom the 12th century ice cream maker, Robert Vaughan, calls.." etc.
"This commission recorded Ednyfed fought against King John.." For readability, change to "This commission recordedthat Ednyfed fought against King John.."
"J. E. Lloyd identifies.." Again, tell me who this is.
"almost certainly significantly [occurred] after his death in 1246" In this quote, "occurred" should really be before "significantly", shouldn't it?
"..according to David Stephenson." Another person I'd like to know who they are.
Is there a reason "terminus post quem" isn't in language tags?
"in the rôle" The o doesn't need a hat here.
"..with marcher lord William de Braose.." Is "marcher lord" a title? If not, soften the false title with "..with William de Braose, a marcher lord,.." or similar.
"..he sent Ednyfed and Dafydd ap Llywelyn, his son by Joan daughter of King John.." Joan was already linked in the previous paragraph. Although I understand the justification, it is also weird to give her a fuller introduction here (daughter of King Jonh) than her first mention.
"Ednyfed was presumably with Llywelyn during these negotiations." According to who? Wikipedia shouldn't speculate, and without attribution for this opinion, that's how this comes across.
Reviewed to the end ofService under Llywelyn ab Iorwerth. I do wonder about the balance of the content in theService under Llywelyn ab Iorwerth section: at times it seems to stray from providing context to Ednyfed's life into an account of Llywelyn's. Do consider whether some of the content can be trimmed down to keep on subject. Will review more later when my brain can cope with all the Welsh names again!Harrias(he/him) •talk17:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I have followed things as you suggest, though I think introducing modern academics by their titles when they are quoted is a bit wordy. I can see what you mean about Llywelyn's career, but everything I say about him is just what is relevant for Ednyfed's actions. I guess you mean what is said about Braose and Joan? But this is necessary to say to explain what led to the quick treaty after hostility broke out in 1231 (i.e. that a marcher lordship was being managed by the king's incompetent justiciar because Llywelyn had hanged its previous owner the year prior). I'd be open to any suggestions you might have.Tipcake (talk)10:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
17: In 1210 the earl of Chester advanced his claim to Perfeddwlad and built castles at Treffynnon (Holywell) and Degannwy; in 1211, John, flushed by his successes in Ireland and Scotland and outraged by Llywelyn's insubordination, led two campaigns into north Wales. The second of these was devastatingly successful, penetrating further into Gwynedd than any other royal expedition prior to that of 1282-3 and compelling Llywelyn to agree to the most humiliating terms. The comprehensiveness of the defeat stunned the Welsh into unity (much as had happened in 1165) but their resolve was more than matched by John's anger and by his determination to deliver the coup de grâce. In 1212 the king assembled a huge army and seemed intent on nothing less than the conquest of Wales and the destruction o f Llywelyn; but at the last moment domestic discord forced him to abandon his campaign.
No, that is in the other source I cite in that sentence: p. 191: 'And he (John) gathered a mighty host against Gwynedd with the intention of destroying it all. And along with his host he summoned to him at Chester these princes of Wales: Gwenwynwyn of Powys and Hywel ap Gruffudd ap Cynan and Madog ap Gruffudd Maelor and Maredudd ap Rhobert of Cydewain and Maelgwn and Rhys Gryg, sons of the Lord Rhys.'Tipcake (talk)13:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
26: p. xlvi: If we allow for the possibility that Llywelyn's spurious charters to Aberconwy may incorporate parts of an authentic grant of 7 January 1199, including the witness-list, it would seem that by that date Llywelyn had acquired the support of Gwyn ab Ednywain, a man of Gwynedd wwch Conwy who had apparently served Gruffudd ap Cynan. p. 14: He (Einion ap Gwalchmai) is not known to have been distain: Ednyfed Fychan is seen in that office from about 1216, and, before Ednyfed, the holder of the office was probably Gwyn ab Ednywain, who was certainly distain about 1209. p. 215 is a list of his recorded actions.
Ah, that comes from another source I added to the Llywelyn ab Iorwerth page: Feer, Esther; Jones, Nerys Ann (2005). "A poet and his patrons: the early career of Llywarch Brydydd y Moch". In Fulton, Helen (ed.). Medieval Celtic Literature and Society. Dublin: Four Courts Press. pp. 155–157. ISBN 1851829288. I'll add that now.Tipcake (talk)13:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
28: It is clear that any theory of hereditary tenure is difficult, if not impossible, so reconcile with the fact that the first two disteiniaid of the thirteenth century were Gwyn ab Ednywain of the 'tribe' of Collwyn ap Tango and Ednyfed Fychan of the 'tribe' of Edrud ap Marchudd, Ednyfed almost certainly being Gwyn's immediate successor.
33: The marriage between Llywelyn’s daughter Helen and John of Scotland, heir of Earl David of Huntingdon (d. 1219) and nephew and eventual heir of Ranulf (III) earl of Chester, occurred in 1222, and was negotiated ‘for the purpose of effecting a lasting peace’ between the prince and the earl (Ann. Cestr., 50–3).
35: This one should be moved down to the discussion of the background of the campaign of 1231, good eye. I'll move it down after you look over this.
43: J.E. Lloyd had no doubt that the 'renewal of strife' was due to the ill-will with which Llywelyn saw the justiciar attempt to build up for himself a mighty power in South Wales'. He was referring to the fact that during 1231 the king entrusted the custody of the Braose lands to de Burgh, thus augmenting his already extensive land holdings in Wales.
The custody was given to de Burgh because Braose was executed and had a minor heir, here it is more fully: "Llywelyn's exceution of William de Braose was passed over in virtual silence in England and did not contribute to the outbreak of hostilities in 1231. The cause of that conflict has been hotly debated but, as yet, no satisfactory answer has been forthcoming. J.E. Lloyd had no doubt that the 'renewal of strife' was due to the ill-will with which Llywelyn saw the justiciar attempt to build up for himself a mighty power in South Wales' He was referring to the fact that during 1231 the king entrusted the custody of the Braose lands to de Burgh, thus augmenting his already extensive land holdings in Wales."Tipcake (talk)13:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
53: 270 Agreement with Henry III: Notification by the king that he has confirmed the truce made at Myddle by Edmund, archbishop of Canterbury, Henry, bishop of Rochester and Alexander, bishop of Coventry between the king and his men on one side and Llywelyn and his men and adherents, both Welsh and others he had at the beginning of the war of Richard Marshal, earl of Pembroke, on the other, on Wednesday after the feast of Holy Trinity [21 June 1234], to run for two years from the feast of St James [25 July]. Each side shall have the same tenements, lands, men and homages as at the beginning of the said war in any pleading over those tenements during the truce. If in the mean time any wrong is committed, amends shall be made by supervisors chosen from both sides, with the power of making amends according to the law and custom of the March, in a suitable place in the March, regarding the same seizures and trespasses within a term which the supervisors may think fit, the truce nevertheless remaining intact. No new castle shall be fortified or demolished castle restored in the March during the truce, and lands shall be common in accordance with the terms of the previous truce made by the aforesaid bishops of Rochester and Coventry at Brocton. Master John Blund, Henry of Audley, John Lestrange and Harvey Bagot have sworn on the king’s behalf to observe the truce. Witnessed
They were held by Llywelyn at the beginning of the war and so were returned to him. See Turvey, Llywelyn the Great, p. 129. I'll add that now to be explicitTipcake (talk)13:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
69: He had fathered only two surviving sons, one in and the other out of wedlock. But even two sons was one too many. Gruffudd, his son by a pre-marital liaison, was a n impetuous youth whom his father had t o discipline more than once, expelling him from the lands h e had given him in 1221 and imprisoning him for six years from 1228.
Nevertheless, Welsh custom and parental duty alike required that Gruffudd be given lands to rule and the means to support his retainers; his father created various apanages for him and seems to have had no intention of disinheriting him totally. But Llywelyn was determined that the principality of north Wales and the overlordship of the rest of native Wales should pass intact to his younger and only legitimate son, Dafydd.
70: Howell de Sochlac, being sworn and diligently examined, says that he saw a plea between Griffin and David, his brother, son of the prince of Wales, and appeal was made by Griffin, and Idnevet answered for David, and after the appeal had been made Griffin was imprisoned and died in prison while the suit was pending.
84: 18 arfod Cai a Bedwyr Am amryfal ystyron arfod, gw. 7.21n uchod. Ar yr arwyr Cai a Bedwyr, y blaenaf ymysg marchogion Arthur, gw. G 53, 122 a TYP2 279-80, 303-7, 5
103: Yes, Batrum's genealogy (from 1974) does not have two daughters named Gwenllian, but it does say that one daughter married both Rhodri and Ednyfed. But there is a genealogical table of the page in the other work cited (from 1996) which gives Rhys two daughters of the same name.
113: The designation is slightly misleading, for, in fact, it includes all of the descendants of Ednyfed Fychan's father, Cynfrig ab Iorwerth, who is stated by the Denbighland survey of 1334 to have been the original grantee of the hereditary tenurial privileges enjoyed by Wyrion Eden. As Glyn Roberts has pointed out, this may imply that Cynfrig preceded his son in Llywelyn ab Iorwerth's service. But the account as preserved in the Denbigh survey may be confused, and even if accurate, it would still be easy to imagine how the term Wyrion Eden arose, for Ednyfed was by far the most famous of Cynfrig's sons.
115: Llys Euryn is the name of the court ('llys' is court in Welsh), whereas Bryn Euryn is the name of the hill on which it was situated. Coflein is just the name of the website run by the RCAHMW.
119: True. But I found the source I used by using the 'related archives' page at the bottom of that page. How would be best to incorporate this? The Coflein entry is the most official modern source but it leaves much to be desired in terms of description of the place.
129: Maybe you are using a different version of the book? On page 73, mine says "From the poet’s precise account the site of the battle can be located near
Bwlch Dau Fynydd, close by the boundary between Arfon and Eifionydd."
131: This is the whole range for the entry on the treaty, printing its text and translation. The relevant bit is (in translation) on page 532: And on the following Thursday, Michaelmas [29 September] Llywelyn, in the presence of Ottobuono and the king’s sons, counsellors and barons, accepted and ratified the settlement and peace in all its articles, having first given homage and fealty to the king, and Llywelyn, on behalf of himself and his heirs and successors, together with Hywel ap Madog, Goronwy [ab Ednyfed], the prince’s steward, Tudur ab Ednyfed and the aforesaid Einion and Dafydd, have sworn on the Gospels that they will not break this peace and settlement but observe it in all the aforesaid articles for ever.
136: This is a diagram which says Einion Fychan = Angh[arad] f[erch] Edn[yfed] F[ycha]nMarchudd 4 with a 'Dafydd' underneath them and notes to other sources on his distainship.
139: By early 1258, perhaps shortly after the death of Gruffudd, the office was probably conveyed to Goronwy ab Ednyfed, who was distain during the decade which saw Llywelyn consolidate his hegemony over Powys and Deheubarth and secure the king’s consent to his achievement.
Well, I guess I have nothing else to say here. With the caveat that I am relying entirely on the quoted text, this probably passes the spotcheck.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)09:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have somehow missed this one even though I see that I have been pinged.
distain in the first sentence is used without explanation. After some research, I have found that it is Welsh, the equivalent ofdiscthegn (dish-servant) in Old English). See[56] andDish-bearers and butlers in Anglo-Saxon England. You say below that it is equivalent to seneschal elsewhere in Europe. It is true that historians use seneschal as a synonym fordistain anddiscthegn, but seneschal is first recorded a century later, so it is wrong to imply that it is a contemporary equivalent. These points need (briefly) clarifying in the lead and below. You also need to clsrify thatdisteiniaid is the plural ofdistain.
You have things the wrong way around re: the equivalence between distain and seneschal. Ednyfed is never contemporaneously referred to as a distain, rather always as a seneschallus in charters or in English sources. The only contemporaneous Welsh-language source speaking of him is his elegy. The ONDB says 'Ednyfed (whose epithet means ‘little’) is said to have become the steward or distain of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth (d. 1240), prince of north Wales, about 1215, when he first appeared as witness to a charter, although the earliest reference to him as holder of that office was when he witnessed a grant by Llywelyn in 1225'. The event of 1225 is a reference to a charter which calls him a seneschallus (Acts of Welsh Rulers no. 256). Secondary scholarship also unanimously says he began in the role in 1215 owing to his prominence in charters (or 1217 with Huw Pryce's relating), but I will mention this important caveat. Distain is the standard term used for his role in secondary literature since it is equated with seneschallus in the Latin version of the Welsh laws (mid 13th century), even if the laws itself state the role involved domestic service (yet clearly this is not the case by the 13th century). Note that Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru also shows that distain is only first attested in Welsh in the mid-late 13th century in the Black Book of Chirk. Nobody knows when the word entered Welsh, but by the time holders of the position are actually attested and their actions recorded, the position it describes bears no resemblance to the Anglo-Saxon role in practice and its holder is always referred to as a seneschallus or (in the law texts) the more archaic term asselca. Nevertheless, it is still a good idea to link to the Anglo-Saxon word as its origin, so I shall do that.Tipcake (talk)20:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how I have things the wrong way round but I have found a source, theDictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, vol 15, pp. 3024-3025, which gives much earlier British uses of seneschal (assenescalus). The word should be linked in the lead as well as the main text and the plural of distain should be in the main text as well as the lead. Jenkins is not a reliable source fordisc-thegn. He makes the officer sound like a servant, whereas he was a high aristocrat who formally served at table but also had military and adminstrative duties.Disc-thegns were lower in status thandistains, but some rose to the highest rank as ealdormen governing large areas on behalf of the king. See Alain Gautier'sButlers and Dish-Bearers in Anglo-Saxon Courts: Household Officers at the Royal Table.Dudley Miles (talk)
I meant thatdistain only is attested from the mid-13th century, notseneschallus. However, the position in medieval Wales is not the same of that as the one in Anglo-Saxon England, even if the name of the role is a loan from OE. I don't know how you could say a professor of Welsh law is not a reliable source for a medieval Welsh court officer; especially as the description of his duties I quote is just taken verbatim from the Laws of Hywel Dda, not any discussion of the role based on an Anglo-Saxon source. I don't see the point of mentioning the development and meaning of the Anglo-Saxon role because it would be rather irrelevant for this article in the light of the fact that we have very fulsome descriptions of the Welsh role in Middle Welsh sources. In fact, it has been argued that the worddistain is merely a loan from OE which replaced the indigenous Welsh title for a preexisting role, called aswyddwr: see Russel, Paul, 'Swydd, Swyddog, Swyddwr: Office, Officer and Official', in Charles-Edwards, Thomas, and Paul Russel (eds.) The Welsh King and his Court, pp. 281-295, 565.Tipcake (talk)09:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quote from the last two pages of that paper:
One possible explanation begins from the etymology. Swyddog and swyddwr are both based on swydd, seat. While the terms might have been interpreted in slightly different ways depending on the sense of swydd which was uppermost, we may usefully begin from the basic sense, not least because the notion of seats and seating was crucial to the court and the relative status of its members. If so, the swyddwr would be the ‘seater’, the person who seats the others, and again this implies high status; the others, the ‘seated’ would be the swyddogion. We may also note that the swyddwr llys or the swyddwr neuadd was responsible for the distribution of food; in Lat C suidgur neuat is glossed dapifer aule, a term which is also used in Lat B and corresponds to swyddwr llys elsewhere.90 These considerations could be taken to reflect a more archaic arrangement whereby the swyddwr llys was the native predecessor of the distain (an Old English term introduced in the tenth or eleventh century) and so was originally the principal officer in charge of the feeding, billeting and seating of the court. To judge from his residual function as dapifer, he may have been the Welsh equivalent of the Irish rannaire, though he was defined by reference to his performance of the important task of seating.91
91: A possible parallel for this development may be found in Gaelic Scotland where an Anglo-Norman steward may have been introduced over the head of the native rannaire (Scottish renner); see Regesta Regum Scottorum, I. The Acts of Malcolm IV, ed. G. W. S. Barrow (Edinburgh, 1960), 32–3 and no. 226. Contrast D. Jenkins’s view in Chapter 1, p. 25, above.
"Ednyfed's description as bychan ('small' or 'junior', Fychan when used attributively in his name as the result of a soft mutation)". I had to read this two or three times to clarify. As this is the only use of "bychan" in the article I suggest leaving it out and just explaining "fychan".
The Welsh language has initial mutations when words are used in certain positions or affected by certain prepositions. There is no word 'fychan' in Welsh, rather, 'bychan' is changed to 'fychan' because it is an epithet used with a proper name. It is a bit like case endings in Latin, but at the other end of the word and not by itself encoding meaning by virtue of the mutation. Thus, the proper way to explain it is by using the unmutated form. I'm open to suggestions as to how else it may be expressed, of course!Tipcake (talk)20:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Ednyfed Fychan is first recorded in Llywelyn ab Iorwerth's service in the role of a distain (roughly equivalent to the position of seneschal elsewhere in medieval Europe) in summer 1217". This is contradicted by ODNB, which says that he is first recorded with that title in 1225. The contradiction should be recorded in a note is it is not possible to find out which is correct.
" Ednyfed Fychan led a diplomatic mission to Henry III which saw a truce extended between Llywelyn and the king for a year on 30 November 1231." saw" is vague. Maybe "which resulted in a truce between Llywelyn and the king for a year from 30 November 1231"
"Ednyfed made two further visits in May and November 1232 together with Llywelyn's wife Joan to further negotiate with the king's representatives." I think you need to explain that Llywelyn had forgiven Joan.
Well, we can't say that he forgave her, I think, but he certainly did not punish Henry III's sister Joan for her infidelity, so I've just said that.Tipcake (talk)20:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See ODNB on Joan at [www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-14819].
Sure but that doesn't say he forgave her, wouldn't that be reading into Llywelyn's feelings a bit much? I shall just say she was gaoled for a spell instead, but returned to service in 1231.Tipcake (talk)09:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"This led Dafydd to assume effective rulership of Gwynedd, and therefore Ednyfed's service in this period was even more crucial to the governance of the principality." "therefore" is incorrect. Dafydd might hav preferred different advisers.
"However, this was later cancelled, "because he did not have it"." What does this mean and who is being quoted?
It means that the treasurer could not find the cup. It is marginalia on the original roll, according to the edition. The order heading of the order was crossed out. I have made this clearer.Tipcake (talk)20:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK I will try to take another look at this, but I do not like your method of replying in a single block to some comments but not others instead of individually below each comment. It is inconvenient and time consuming for the reviewer comparing the comment with the reply when they are far apart, and also checking which comments you have dealt with and how.Dudley Miles (talk)10:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry about not responding to each individual comment, I am not too experienced at this but I shall address your other comments and respond individually below each later today.Tipcake (talk)12:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an American new religious movement that emerged in the 1930s and which exerted a major impact in many African American communities during the 20th century. Over recent years, I have also brought three other articles on Black-oriented new religions of North America to FA status (Rastafari,Santería, andPalo (religion)), and I am hoping that this article, which was made a GA in November 2024, can now join them.Midnightblueowl (talk)12:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, the prose quality seems professional, encyclopedic, and meets WP FA standards. I'll see if I can find any sentences that could be improved.
Cite error: "Finley" here:Lee 1996, p. 30; Curtis IV 2016, p. 18; Potorti 2017, pp. 75, 85; Finley. Harv error: link from CITEREFFinley doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link from CITEREFFinley doesn't point to any citation. Probably missing year 2022.
Reception: balance? The Reception/influence section has a subsection on Opposition, but no parallel section on Support/Positive reception. The sources certainly have a lot of material on criticism, but do the sources suggest a parallel section on Support? The article has these sentences in the "Reception and influence" intro:The Nation has cultivated a sense of pride among many African Americans,[502] and its role in confronting gang violence, drugs, and poverty within African American communities has earned it respect.[503] The sociologist A.A. Akom opined that the NOI had a reputation among African Americans of "speaking truth to power";[504] a 1994 Time/CNN poll found that two-thirds of African Americans who knew of Farrakhan viewed him favorably.[505] Similarly positive assessments of the Nation have been observed among black communities in Britain Should this material be in a "Support/Positive" subsection? As the article points out, Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X - two of the strongest advocates for African-Americans - were part of the Nation of Islam, and emphasizing Opposition over support seems to run afoul ofWP:NPOV.
I have tried, always, to fairly represent the range of opinion about the NOI that is recorded in theWP:Reliable Sources (i.e. namely the writings of scholars). To that end, I believe that the article does represent the NOI's own perspectives, the opinions of those (especially African Americans) who have expressed positive views of the group while not becoming members, and those who are critics of the group. To that end, I don't think there is an underlying NPOV problem in the article.
However, I appreciate your point that having a sub-section explicitly titled "Opposition and criticisms", while not having a sub-section explicitly titled "Support", might be interpreted in such a manner. I am not sure how best to deal with this issue; positive perspectives on the NOI, as voiced by a range of individuals, are scattered throughout the article, at appropriate junctures (including in the opening part of the "Reception and influence" section). Pulling those bits and pieces out of their existing locations and assembling them together into a "Support" sub-section would look messy and haphazard. Moreover, I do think that there is a case for having a specific "Opposition" sub-section on the grounds that the NOI has been extraordinarily controversial and generated the sort of substantial criticism and organised opposition that certain other new religions have not. On these grounds, I would suggest leaving things as they are, but am also interested to hear what other editors have to say.Midnightblueowl (talk)10:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the positive information is spread around; but the same could be done with criticism. TheWP:CRITICISM essay correctly suggests that "Criticism/Controversy" sections should be avoided. Concentrating the negative information into an "Opposition" section is an editorial choice. The very act of creating the Opposition section (without a balancing Support section) is steering readers into a certain viewpoint. Yes the NOI was controversial ... but African Americans are a minority, and any expression of power by them was treated as a threat by the white majority. MLK and Malcolm X articles do not have "Controversy" sections. In this article, each of the four paragraphs in the Opposition/Criticsm section could be easily moved into anothertopical section.Noleander (talk)15:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, I had already attempted to shift some of the material out of the 'criticism/opposition' section (particularly regarding antisemitism) into other parts of the article. What I have now tried to do is restructure that closing "Reception and influence" so that the subsection within it is now titled "Cultural influence" and contains both positive and negative appraisals of the NOI from non-members. Hopefully that deals with the concerns that you raised.Midnightblueowl (talk)15:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error:Crawford 2015, p. ix. Harv error: link from CITEREFCrawford2015 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link from CITEREFCrawford2015 doesn't point to any citation.
Size: currently at 10,381 prose words. Over 15% beyond the 9,000 guidance fromWP:SIZERULE. Perhaps okay given the notability of the subject. The FAC community doesn't have a strong consensus on that quasi-limit: some reviewers atWatergate scandal FA nomination are currently objecting to that article exceeding 9,000.
In my edits, I've already tried to cut this article down in size, while at the same time ensuring that no important area of the topic is left unexplored. I could create a separate article on theHistory of the Nation of Islam, transfer much of the material from the pertinent section of this article into that one, and then trim back the historical coverage here?Midnightblueowl (talk)10:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from my above comment, I have gone ahead and created the History of the Nation of Islam article and thus have been able to trim back the historical coverage in this main article. That has helped get the number of prose words down to 9818 words.Midnightblueowl (talk)11:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quote vs italics:The name "Nation of Islam" has represented two ... Doesn't the WP MOS say that quotes shouldnot be used to highlight a term/phrase (that is not a quotation of a source), instead, italics are preferred? SeeMOS:WORDASWORD (italics) andMOS:QUOTEMARKS (list of uses of quotemarks: highlighting a term/phrase is not listed as a usage).
I ran the article thru the Earwig copyVio tool, and it reported no issues (all green).
The article does an excellent job of providing multiple sources to give various perspectives on a single sentence. E.g. the body textThe Nation criticises birth control methods as the white establishment's attempt to lower the black birthrate is supported by four sources:Gardell 1996, p. 335; Gibson 2012, p. 103; Curtis IV 2016, p. 16; Finley 2022, p. 59. This gives readers (and future editors!) breadcrumbs to delve deeper.
Alternative text for images looks good: describes the visuals of the image (rather than restating the caption).
Idiomatic/slang?... and help tackle African American unemployment. ESL readers may not grasp "tackle" here.
Hyphen for adjective "African-American" - The article has chosen to not use the hyphen, which is fine, but the Short Description at top hasAfrican-American new religious movement
The article uses sfn template for the vast majority of sources, but chooses to use "ref" for newspapers, is that correct? Provided the treatment is consistent, that approach is not prohibited, of course. But using 100% sfn would make the "Citations" section look cleaner. Not an FA showstopper, simply an observation.
I had tried to go with a system of sfn for scholarly/academic sources, and ref for websites and media sources, but in practice it does look a bit messy and many readers may not be clear on the reasons for this distinction. As such, I have now standardised everything as sfn.Midnightblueowl (talk)19:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Semicolons: the article uses semicolons in a useful & appropriate manner. A welcome sight.
Ambiguity:The Nation provides conflicting statements about its theology;... Does that mean that the religious texts themselves contain contradictions; or that commentaries/press releases/speeches/informal docs contain contradictory statements? And if the latter: the contradictions are between the commentary and the texts? or between multiple commentaries?
My understanding is that the ambiguity comes from the NOI's broader discourse (i.e. the total collection of its publications and its leaders' public speeches). In that body of material, it repeatedly refers to "God" in the singular, much as mainstream Muslims or Christians would. However, when you actually examine the NOI's theology, it talks about a succession of (mortal) gods who have ruled the universeand the notion that black people are innately gods. This is the sort of semantic ambiguity that the article is referring to. Do you think that there is a better way of framing this?Midnightblueowl (talk)10:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quote vs enc voice:The Nation of Islam's theology is"completely divorced" from mainstream Islam... Consider either (a) replacing the quote with a paraphrase in encyclopedia's voice; or (b) attributing the quote. I cannot recommend one or the other, since I haven't read the source. It's particularly confusing here because above in this section David V. Barrett and Elijah M. and others are quoted, so reader wonders who said it.
Citation formatting errorBarnard 2012. Harv error: link from CITEREFBarnard2012 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link from CITEREFBarnard2012 doesn't point to any citation.
The NOIsays that itsfinances come primarily from donations and its businesses. The word "says" suggests that there is some dispute or skepticism about the source(s). If there is no dispute or skepticism, consider stating the sources as a plain fact. And consider "funding" rather than "finances".Funding for NOI's operations comes from ...
I've changed this to "Funding for the NOI's operations come primarily from donations and its businesses."
Re the image sandwiching issue: You can work that out with the image reviewer.
On my browser there isn't any sandwiching, but I appreciate that different users will have different sized browsers and devices. Is there a particular section where you feel that this sandwiching is an issue to address?Midnightblueowl (talk)11:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl Sandwiching can happen (in certain devices/skins/browsers) in any section that contains both L and R aligned images, such as
I've used this same approach (of one image to the right, and then, lower down, another to the left) on various articles in the past, including those that have reached FA status. Accordingly, I wouldn't have thought that this is an intrinsic problem. Surely, what matters is that there is a sufficient quantity of text between the two images, so as to prevent the sandwiching of text? I think that having two images to the right, one immediately below the other, really does look a bit messy.Midnightblueowl (talk)10:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Moorish_Science_Temple_1928_Convention.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published?
I've not been able to determine the first place of publication, so I shall go ahead and remove the image from the article. Hopefully, if information about its origins is forthcoming, the image can be restored.Midnightblueowl (talk)11:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:W.D._Fard_mugshot_Detroit_1933_(cropped2).jpg: when and where was this first published?
Again, I'm not sure when and where this was first published, so the copyright claims made for it may be spurious. Accordingly, I've removed it from the article.Midnightblueowl (talk)11:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the former of these images with File:Louis Farrakhan 2018.jpg, a more recent image of Farrakhan that seems to have a clearer and less ambiguous copyright status. As for the second image, the original link is dead, but there is the statement that "This file, which was originally posted tohttp://www.al-vefagh.com/File/File/110814, was reviewed on 24 May 2018 by reviewer Leoboudv, who confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date."Midnightblueowl (talk)11:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka - How is theWP:SIZERULE guideline applied in the FAC process? That guideline says:
Over 9,000 words: "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. "Over 15,000 words: "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed. "
Is the 9,000 limit a hard limit for FAC?
Or may 9,000 be exceeded in any article where there are ample reliable sources, and plenty of useful and encyclopedic material, and a lack of convenientWP:SUMMARYSTYLE sub-articles?
Or does FAC tie the size to the Vital Article level? 12,000 for Vital Articles level 3; 10,000 for Vital Article level 4; 9,000 for others.
Or if reviewersfeel that a topic is important, it may go over 9,000 words? That approach could lead to systemic bias: articles oriented towards white, male figures may exceed 9,000; topics on people of color, not so much.Douglas MacArthur andHenry IV, Holy Roman Emperor (nominated for FA by you) are both over 11,000 words - on topics important to white Europeans or white Americans.
I am somewhat concerned that the 8,500 to 9000 readable word limit is being applied a little over-zealously, both at this article and at Wikipedia in general. Having brought 37 articles up to FA status over the past 15 years or so, it does feel that there was a greater flexibility among editors active at FAC in the past. All this being said, I have gone through the article once again with the pruning shears, and brought the readable prose down to 8989 words. Please do take a look, if you have time,Borsoka.Midnightblueowl (talk)15:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank both of you for pinging me. I have realised the importance of size limits in developing a competitive and reader-friendly encyclopedia this summer. We are not here to write essays but to provide our readers with accessible or rather readable encyclopedic entries on various topics. Otherwise, WP is neutral. Perhaps, themes like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Africa, Europe can exceed the 9,000 word limit, but this is the exception, not the rule. Interestingly, I also came to the conclusion that I should trim the article about Emperor Henry IV on last Friday :). I am planning to complete it before the end of the year, and then I will initiate its FAR.Borsoka (talk)17:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka - Your demand above was very dismissive and peremptory:"Shorten the text by at least 8-10 percent. Ping me when you trimmed the text." The racist overtones of that demand cannot be overstated (I'm speaking about the treatment of African American topics in English WP, not you individually). TheNation of Islam is a very significant movement for African Americans. Although the number of members appears small, they are recognized as a major historical movement that promoted black pride and black strength. The NOI is whereMalcolm X began his journey. If we dismiss the NOI with an arbitrary 9,000 word limit, while white men of European ancestry likeDouglas Macarthur get 12,000+ words, we need to ask ifWP:SYSTEMICBIAS is in effect. May I ask you, @Boroska, what special insight you have to the African American community that enables you to assess the importance of the Nation of Islam? Or have you unilaterally decided thatallFA articles must adhere to the 9,000 word limit? If the latter, shouldn't you get consensus on the FAC Talk page first? The vast majority of WP editors are white men of European ancestry. Can they fairly assess if 9,000 words is enough forNation of Islam? I can tell you that the African American community would emphatically tell you that 9,000 words is not sufficient.Noleander (talk)20:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am not questioning the significance of the topic, only how the article presented it. You seem to assume that length is what matters, but readers values quality over article size. Overlong articles risk losing readers, obscuring key points, and becoming harder to maintain. A more focused structure is simply an editorial improvement. Clarity and concision make the article genuinely useful for readers.Borsoka (talk)04:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scholars of religion classify the Nation of Islam (NOI) as a new religious movement. Why? I assume because it was established in the 20th century, but I am not sure.
Yes, the comparatively recent origins of the NOI are surely the primary reason for its characterisation as a new religious movement. However, I am not sure if any of the cited scholars explicitly outline that, which means that we would not necessarily be able to state it in the article itself.Midnightblueowl (talk)11:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...a black nationalist religion, an "ethno-religious movement", a "religious nationalist" movement, a social movement, and a form of esotericism... Why are some of the terms placed in quotation marks?
My approach was to leave more standard or common terms (like "social movement") without quotation marks, but include the marks around those terms which are more idiosyncratic. I appreciate, however, that the result does look inconsistent, so I shall remove all the quotation marks from this sentence.Midnightblueowl (talk)11:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...scholars of religion... I would only say "scholars" or "specialists" to avoid the repetition of the word "religion".
Which of the two organizations is the article's subject? (For instance, does the second paragraph's third sentence apply to both organizations or only the new one?)Borsoka (talk)13:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following the example of the academic Reliable Sources, this article encompasses both of the organisations, rather than just one. While an argument could be made that there should be separate articles for the two separate organisations, as I said, that is not the way that the topic is approached in the Reliable Sources, whose example we should follow. There is considerable direct continuity between the two groups, of course: continue of much senior leadership, continuity of teaching, and continuity in terms of the premises owned and used. To that end, I have reworded the opening sentence of this paragraph in the hope that it avoids confusion.Midnightblueowl (talk)11:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the two organisations could be presented together, but the lead's first sentence should be modified. I understand the article's subject is not an organisation, but a movement that existed in two organisational forms.
The ongoing discussion on this issue has now been resolved at the Talk Page. The decision there was to introduce the NOI as a "group" in the opening sentence.Midnightblueowl (talk)12:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I miss a reference to the movement's Black American background at the very beginning of the main text. It is only tangentially mentioned when it is described as a black nationalist movement.
The second sentence in the main body does refer to the NOI as "an African American religion" and subsequent sentences and paragraphs do go on to refer to its presence in a "Black cultic milieu" etc. Is there is a specific point that you feel needs to be reiterated at a particular juncture?Midnightblueowl (talk)18:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...the Nation denigrates Christianity... I would avoid this verb in the article's context and would choose a synonym.
I've replaced "denigrates" here with "condemns", if you think that is better? The cited article (Berg 2005) does state the NOI engages in "the denigration of Christianity".Midnightblueowl (talk)17:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...prayers five times a day... Consider linking "prayers" toSalah.
It does not adhere to the Five Pillars of Islam,... I think this contradicts the sentence about the five daily prayers.
Agreed; this is probably a misleading statement in the way that it is currently formulated. It also overlooks the fact that NOI members sometimes perform Hajj too. I'll take this out of the article.Midnightblueowl (talk)17:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...God's final and most important messenger... Consider linking "final" or the whole text toSeal of the Prophets.
Although Islam died out among the African American community in the generations following the American Revolution... Why?
Truthfully, I'm not sure why Islam died out altogether. Surely the promotion of Christianity, both by some white proselytisers and also by African American missionaries and preachers themselves, would have played a role. However, I don't think that this is necessarily a topic that would be best tackled in this article; it would be more appropriately explored inAfrican-American Muslims andIslam in the United States.Midnightblueowl (talk)18:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Various older movements influenced the NOI, including African American Christianity,[46] Freemasonry,[47] and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Could some examples be listed?
Do you mean some examples from NOI belief/practice where the influence of these older traditions can be seen? I'm not sure if that would really work in this section, or whether it would go off at too much of a tangent from the sentence that follows on. An earlier version of this article did mention that Fard Muhammad encouraged followers to listen to Jehovah's Witness broadcasts, although that was cut to get the word count down to under 9000.Midnightblueowl (talk)18:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...was the latest Allah (God) God? Latest God?
I appreciate that this notion of a succession of gods is going to be confusing for many readers, but I hope that it is sufficiently explained in the lead and then in the "Theology" sub-section.Midnightblueowl (talk)18:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be explained very shortly here as well ("the latest Allah (God), in accordance with the believe in a succession of godly personalities", or something similar)?
The Nation has since taught that Fard Muhammad was the latest Allah (God). ... Elijah Muhammad claimed that Fard Muhammad had been the latest Allah... Contradiction or repetition? (The first sentence implies that he was regarded as the latest God since his appearance.)
...deems Christianity a tool of white supremacy used to subjugate black people, and... Repetition of previously mentioned information, so could be deleted.
You make a fair point, but I think in both of these instances the information is important explaining the broader context of the information in the respective paragraphs. Removing the information, in either case, would potentially result in some confusion.Midnightblueowl (talk)18:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the second mention could be shortened by deleting "used to subjugate black people".
...the city of Babylon as presented in the Bible Some explanation?
The NOI is black nationalist... Already mentioned in a previous section.
In this case, I think it is legitimate to mention the information twice in the article. The first appearance, in "Definition," is specifying that the NOI has been called a "black nationalist religion", while the second appearance is in a section specifically devoted to the movement's black nationalism and racial separatism.Midnightblueowl (talk)18:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would rephrase: "The idea of black unity is the core of NOI's nationalist ideology", or something similar to avoid repetition.
The NOI encourages followers to live highly disciplined and structured lifestyles.[262] Members are encouraged to obey the law... Rephrase to avoid the repetition of the verb "encourage".
At the start of the 21st century, Barrett called the NOI "one of the most visible and controversial black religions", while in the 1990s Gardell termed it the "most renowned and controversial" of the African American Muslim groups. Why is not chronology followed?
Looking again, I think it makes sense to take out "in the 1990s" and "At the start of the 21st century" altogether, especially in light of Buidhe's further concerns about article length (below).Midnightblueowl (talk)19:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...historical and scientific errors... Could this be rephrased to be more neutral? ("unverified or dubious historical and scientific claims", or something similar)Borsoka (talk)06:44, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also taken this out altogether. It comes too close to the following sentence, which describes how the NOI has been accused of promoting pseudoscience.Midnightblueowl (talk)19:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After completing the review, I am glad tosupport its promotion. This is a thoroughly researched and engagingly written article. Thank you for your dedication and hard work on it.Borsoka (talk)05:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article is well written overall I find myself agreeing with the length concern, it seems like summary style has not been followed enough and the sheer length of the article makes it difficult to find the most important information as a reader. I notice that there is already a sub-article onBeliefs and theology of the Nation of Islam, yet it takes up a huge space in this article. I would move a significant amount of content to that article. I would also consider moving content to a new sub-article on "Practices". (t ·c)buIdhe16:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article consists, at present, of 8991 "readable prose" words, which is certainly valid within the scope ofWP:LENGTH. For a topic of such complexity and importance I don't think more could be taken out without the quality being significantly undermined as a result. Concerns that the article is now too short have already been raised by Noleander, above, so I am caught between a rock and a hard place: some editors feel the article is too short, others feel it is too long. What's an editor to do?Midnightblueowl (talk)18:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander's comment is totally off base. I would recommend shortening an overlong article regardless of the subject matter—more is not better. (t ·c)buIdhe01:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I would like to repeat whatBuidhe says, that the current content is well written. (Which is not to say it is perfect :-) . Eg "also" is used 45 times!) And also (sic) repeat "I notice that there is already a sub-article onBeliefs and theology of the Nation of Islam, yet it takes up a huge space in this article. I would move a significant amount of content to that article. I would also consider moving some content to a new sub-article on "Practices"." Ie, use this article as the main page and point readers wanting more details on specific points or topics to sub-articles. I note that there are already articles on "History of the Nation of Islam" and "Nation of Islam and antisemitism" as well as beliefs. As it stands, "Beliefs", IMO, is considerably too long and too detailed for this over-arching article. Being a bit blunter than I might be normally, large parts of it could do with a good copy edit to tighten up the language into a more summary style. Usually I would be quite tolerant of this sort of difference in approach, but given the overall length, my perception that much of the existing detail would fit better into existing sub-articles, and that - to quote Buidhe again - "the sheer length of the article makes it difficult to find the most important information as a reader", this becomes a sticking point.Gog the Mild (talk)12:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In November 1976, the Nation was renamed the World Community of al-Islam in the West and in April 1978 the American Muslim Mission This is two different renamings, yes? Make that clear with something like, "... and again in April ...".
And since I'm here,World Community of al-Islam in the West links toAmerican Society of Muslims, which says the later was a third renaming. I think that name also be mentioned here, if for no other reason than to avoid a click-through from going to an unexpected target.
My understanding is that the American Society of Muslims is a separate organisation from the earlier World Community of al-Islam in the West/American Muslim Mission. The latter was disbanded in 1985, with Wallace Muhammad then creating a new organization in 1988. Given that the American Society of Muslims thus has little to do with the NOI specifically, I'm not sure that it is worth mentioning in this article - particularly given the concerns regarding word length.Midnightblueowl (talk)14:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In 1985, Wallace Muhammad disbanded his organization, telling his followers to affiliate instead with their local mosques.[118] sorry to keep harping on this one small section, but now I'm really confused. Were these different organizations, or just different names for the same organization. If they were just different names, then Wallace's disbanding of "his organization" was really disbanding the NOI. This confusion continues in the next section where you say about Farrakhan:His NOI spent the first several years rebuilding. What does "His" mean in this context? Were there different competing NOIs? Or do you mean "The NOI under Farrakhan's leadership"? This all needs to be clarified.
Then, 76 trillion years ago, the first Allah willed himself into being If I'm following this right, this is the current teaching, and the theology has changed over time. That should be clarified.
I'm hesitant to make a change here as I do not know exactly when this theology was introduced. It was definitely there under Elijah Muhammad, and may have been introduced earlier by Wallace Fard Muhammad. There has not been a lot of academic research conducted into the transformations of the NOI's teachings as Fard Muhammad's leadership switched to Elijah Muhammad's. I am also hesitant about making additions to the text given the concerns voiced to the article length raised at this FAC.Midnightblueowl (talk)14:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The two images in the "Cosmogony and the Tribe of Shabazz" section specify "male member" in the captions. This seems extraneous and obvious from the picture (but could be useful in the AlT text).
The Nation calls this region "East Asia",[166] reflecting its belief that Asia and Africa were once a single continent Ah, this explains the mysterious mention ofdark-skinned Original Asiatic Race in the lead. That deserves a quick explanation when first mentioned there.
To be honest, I am not sure that this is a point that warrants inclusion in the lead. The notion that Asia and Africa were once a single continent is part of the NOI's general mythic-history, but is not necessarily integral to understanding the very basic elements of their worldview, which is what the lead should achieve. For comparison, I'm not sure it would be worth mentioning theGarden of Eden in the leads of the Judaism or Christianity articles, for instance.Midnightblueowl (talk)14:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(taking a break here, I'll pick up with Practices)
OK, I've finished a full read-through. Overall, I'm impressed. I've been aware of the NOI for many years, but didn't know much about it. Now that I've read this article, I feel like I'm much better informed, so that's a good thing. I will confess to a preference for shorter articles, but I'm not as absolute about that as some of the other reviewers here. In particular, I thinkBorsoka is being over-zealous in his quest to enforce specific numeric word counts in articles. This is a big subject and I think the scope justifies the length. The prose is generally well-written and (perWP:FACR) engaging, which kept me reading along. The only place I started wondering if this was going into too much detail was "Services, prayer, and celebration" so there's some opportunity for a bit editing there with an eye towards concentrating on general practices and less on specific details.RoySmith(talk)16:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I realise your remark was meant as a criticism, though I am quite happy to take it as a compliment. When I started the review, the article was 9729 words long ([57]). By the time you finished yours, it had come down to 8365 — a reduction of about 14%, which is more than I originally suggested — and yet you still feel that it could be trimmed further. This rather suggests that your enthusiasm for brevity may exceed my own. While I am satisfied with the article's current length, you need not fear being labelled over-zealous about the article's size, as two other reviewers have likewise called for further trimming since I completed my review. In any event, your comments have reinforced my view that paying attention to article length has genuinely improved the piece. My approach to reviewing is a simple one: by following our guidelines on size, we improve articles and show proper respect for our readers' time.Borsoka (talk)05:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pace my (very) esteemed colleagues above, but I will comment on length and disagree that this nomination fails criterion 4. At less than 9,000 words, it summarises the salient aspects of this extremely important topic fully in accordance withWP:SUMMARYSTYLE. It should be emphasised that the organisation is nearly a century old, and played a formative, multi-faceted role in American history, including theCivil Rights Movement—made even more notable by its non-integrative stance in opposition to 'mainstream' views on civil rights—theBlack Power movement and African-American economic self-help and self-reliance. The organisation remained significant well past the CRE, for example theMillion Man March of '95, and has fundamentally influenced US society as it is today, most notably through theBlack Lives Matter movement. Its significance is not solely internal to US politics either. It had a transnational reach, particularly to Europe, and its traditionalanti-colonial position has made it influential in several African independence struggles, as well as Islamic states in the Middle East (e.g. Libya).
Notwithstanding these remarks, I think Borsoka's original suggestion sound; I myself havebenefitted from their advice on the issue.
I fundamentally disagree with the suggestion that such a history and breadth of influence can (or, should) be reduced to much less than it currently is. I also note that, standing at 8383 words as it currently does, means that there would still be >600 FAslonger than this one.(I mabnaged to keep a straight face at the fact that apparently apop album can be nearly twice as long as the group that brought youMalcom X...)
The section ends on mentioning the 1995 Million Man March, but further up the paragraph the article does mention the growing relationship between the Nation and theChurch of Scientology that was evident by the early 2010s. As this paragraph is structured in a largely thematic manner, it does mean that an event from 2010 is mentioned before an event from 1995. I appreciate that this might seem counterintuitive, but I think that keeping themed material together works better here.Midnightblueowl (talk)12:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I've missed something, it looks like we still need a source review for reliability (in which case a request can be left at the top of WT:FAC). Cheers,Ian Rose (talk)12:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
SC
The article is tagged as being in AmEng, but there are a lot of non-Am spellings in there (unless AmEng is more flexible than I knew). The spellings I think of as Br, rather than Am Eng include organisation (x multiple), labelled (x multiple), characterised (x multiple), organizational, travelled, criticising, destabilise, grey, recognise, civilise, behaviour, criticises, symbolising (x multiple), prioritises, utilising (although I don't know what's wrong with "uses" instead), greyish, centre (x multiple), organisation and criticised (x multiple).
I have to agree with whoever put in a 'How' tag in the definition following the sentence "Farrakhan's Nation differs from its predecessor".
We have two sources cited here. Austin (2003) simply notes that "observers noted the many significant changes which Farrakhan made from the original teachings", while Gibson and Karim (2014) state that "Minister Farrakhan’s Nation is a very different organization from its predecessor. Women have much more freedom to contribute to and hold positions of authority within Minister Farrakhan's NOI." So one source is referring to changes in teaching; the other is talking about structural changes in how it is run. I have tried to amend the sentence in the article to reflect this: "Certain differences exist between these forms, with Farrakhan's Nation adapting existing teachings and permitting a greater role for women."Midnightblueowl (talk)13:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That brings me to a slightly wider issue I have with this section: it delves into a definition without any context of what we're talking about. It's an analysis without having the precursor of context. This section may work better after the History section, just so the really basic information is all explained up front.
I think that it is important to define the topic before delving into the history; that is what we do at the FA-rated religion articlesRastafari,Santería,Palo (religion), andHeathenry (new religious movement), for instance. I can appreciate the point that having already read about the history would help to contextualise the definition, but equally having an understanding of the basic definition also helps contextualise the history, and so on.Midnightblueowl (talk)13:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"savage dress and hair styles,"[245]: comma outside the punctuation, per LQ
This is a long article, but at less than 8,500 words and looking atWP:SIZERULE, this article can, I think, be justified by "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material". -SchroCat (talk)12:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree entirely with the position of the Definition section, but I'm sure there's probably merit for both approaches. Either way, my opinion on that shouldn't hold up mysupport on this. -SchroCat (talk)16:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll qualify up-front that I know nothing about the topic. I am bothered by #348 - the source does not say anything about NOI commenting on air pollution? Nothing jumps out as unreliable or anything among the sources, which seem to be consistently formatted.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)10:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HiJo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for your comment. I double-checked footnote #348, and the source cited, Akom (2007), states that the NOI engage in "door-to-door campaigns to increase community awareness concerning environmental and toxic waste". In this Wikipedia article we refer to "local pollution," as opposed to "air pollution," with obviously pertains to environmental and toxic waste. Would you recommend that we reword our text here?Midnightblueowl (talk)15:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the wonderful RDJ. He has gained critical acclaim for his roles across a versatile range of films. His meteoric comeback as Iron Man following a series of drug related issues has contributed to his status as one of the most well known actors of the 21st century, and I am excited to present this article to you all. Enjoy the read, and all comments are welcomed. If successful this will be my fourteenth FA.750h+17:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All fine here except for thatKnown for portraying charismatic and intelligent characters over a versatile range of films,... sounds more British than American.
Early life and acting background
Link "addiction" and "marijuana"?
“Aged eleven and twelve” → “At ages eleven and twelve.”
The present one sounds more typical of British English.
"On November 23, 2004, he released his only studio album, titled The Futurist." → "On November 23, 2004, he released his only studio album, The Futurist."
"Downey has repeatedly collaborated with English musician Sting." → "Downey has repeatedly collaborated withthe English musician Sting."
Since you mention "English" rather than just "musician". When you add a descriptive adjective such as "English", the phrase behaves more like a specific identification.
“jazz pop” → “jazz-pop”
Hyphenation is more standard (not obligatory).
In a 2008 interview,...
You could consider mentioning who or which organisation conducted the interview.
"to promote" → "promoting"
"I have a really interesting political point of view, and it's not always something I say too loud at dinner tables here, but you can't go from a $2,000-a-night suite at La Mirage to a penitentiary and really understand it and come out a liberal. [...] [I]t was very, very, very educational for me and has informed my proclivities and politics ever since".
Is this entire quote necessary to the prose?
You could consider linking theDemocratic Party and Nanotechnology.
You could link to the articleSan Francisco Chronicle in the sentence:portraying San Francisco Chronicle journalist Paul Avery, who covered the Zodiac Killer case.
You could consider explaining briefly what a "Tesseract" is to the general audience.
“In a December 2000,” → should be “In December 2000,”
The article “a” is incorrect with a month + year.
“…making it fifth-highest-grossing film of all time…”
→ “making itthe fifth-highest-grossing film of all time”
American English prefers “cesarean section” (no “ae”).
"over a versatile range of films" is a bit awkward. Would be better as "over a diverse range of films".
Early life and acting background
"and Greenwich Village." -> "and Greenwich Village in New York City."
Source 8, "Actor's toughest role" gives me a 502 bad gateway error.
Career
"Downey committed to appear in at least eight additional episodes of Ally McBeal." What is meant by "at least"? Is the exact number of episodes not known?
This means he committed to doing this (likely as per a contract), but as stated later, the producers cancelled him from the show soon after
I see now.
Source 78, "Robert Downey Jr.'s Drug 'Deal'" gives me a page not found error. URL status should be set to dead.
"a professional dancer who poses as the soulmate Tomei's character Faith." -> "a professional dancer who poses as the soulmate for Tomei's character Faith."
"A month later, while on parole and under the influence of a controlled substance". Was he really on parole here? if its a month later, it sounds more like bail.
I think it should be mentioned that he pleadno contest in September 1996. Here's a source:[58].
"while a The Age writer deemed it a "terrific comic performance"." -> "while a writer for The Age deemed it a "terrific comic performance"." This flows better.
"The film, the second produced by Team Downey". What was the first?
@Steelkamp: all done (I think). I think when you ask if it's normal for the "Acting credits" sect to not have sources you may be referring to the "Discography". I believe it is; it seems to be the case for most musician articles.750h+07:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and has become one of Hollywood's most bankable stars. All the sources are from 10-15 years ago. The fact they all appear in close succession and not after that should indicate whetherMOS:DATED applies.
All sources are newer.
I don't think any of these sources work:
The first is a fluffy republication from news.com.au, which is aNews Corp outlet that has received a mixed reception atWP:RSN. Published before the flop of Doolittle, and hardly a HQRS.
A listicle from the Independent, says he went from his low point to being the most bankable, but does not speak to his current status. I understand that seems strict, but if I were writing this article I would not consider it adequate.
Same with the Vanity Fair piece, which merely describes him becoming bankable around the Iron Man era.
Can't find too many sources, so I've removed "bankable" entirely. Plus I think him being the highest-paid actor from 2013-2015 as well as being one of the highest-grossing actors ever does the job of explaining his success.
Downey is a self-described "incredibly gifted faker" who knows "very little about acting". We are putting in wikivoice that heis indeed an "incredibly gifted faker" and that he knows "very little about acting". RDJ is not an unbiased, credible source in such matters, and these claims should not be in wikivoice; you implicitly contradict them in the next sentences.
"is a" ==> "has described himself as an"
"He extensively rehearses and prepares for his film roles" is in no way verified by the source, which is a quote from Downey how 35 years ago he prepared intensely for one role, and is not verified by a short tangent by McBride when he says "Oh shit, I can hear what he's saying,'" McBride said. "He was talking to people, and he was in character the whole time. And then I even watched him walk back to his trailer and saw it from down there, and he was talking to himself." McBride said he heard Downey Jr. saying in character: "I'm gonna go drain the snake.""
I've rewritten this
I still take issue with the sourcing for the Tropic Thunder claims. A humorous anecdote from Danny McBride in a light GQ interview, relayed by Yahoo! Entertainment is not a HQRS or really due.
I'm still not particularly pleased with the contents of these verifying "His preparation for specific roles has included... character immersion" when it is ambiguous whether this is all a joke and the provenance, but that probably goes into the territory of me being unfair.
"Keith Gordon, who directed Downey in The Singing Detective (2003), remarked..." hardly an independent, dispassionate comment to be quoting when it was made during the press cycle for the film.
I don't see too much of a probelm with this?
Director praising lead actor during a period while he is promoting the film is highly unlikely to be due.
Makes sense, I've removed this
"In a 2010 Rolling Stone article, Walter Kirn praised his ability to "refuse to follow any kind of script, never quite coming into focus, always in thrall to another idea"" again more inappropriate wikivoice. What we are saying here is that RDJ "refuses to follow any kind of script, never quite coming into focus, always in thrall to another idea", and that he received praise from Kirn for this.
Changing to analyzed has meant "essence of his mind and spirit, and, arguably, of his genius as an actor" is not in wikivoice, but we are still putting in wikivoice that [Robert Downey Jr. has an ability to] "refuse to follow any kind of script, never quite coming into focus, always in thrall to another idea". This is an opinion of Downey's acting, falling underWP:NPOV's requirement to "avoid stating opinions as facts".Rollinginhisgrave (talk |edits)16:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to verify "Grzymkowski 2011, p. 277.", I see this book only has 245 pages in the edition linked.
I changed the source entirely, the book was kind of annoying me
This is a small thing, but it is still there as [252]
"honoring his talent as an actor and career resurgence as Iron Man" the profile is written by his buddy, we can't say this stuff in wikivoice
Hopefully this is more neutral
Don't see why we care about Ben Stiller's opinion. "Friend thinks it's good that friend has had a career resurgence".
removed
"the forty-fourth-greatest actor of the 21st century" film actor.
added
? Still there on my screen.
Oops, done
"According to Rotten Tomatoes, Downey's most critically acclaimed films include Tropic Thunder, Oppenheimer, the Sherlock Holmes film series" ??? Sorted by critics highest, his most critically acclaimed films on RT are"Sr.",True Believer,Richard III,Short Cuts, andAvengers: Endgame. Many of these films had Downey in leading roles.
Don't really know how that happened (must not have been looking from most high to least high), anyways I've fixed this.
The Artistry and public image section jumped out at me as quite problematic and I opposed on that basis, but 750+ handled the most egregious ones quickly and I pulled the oppose. I wasn't and haven't planned on doing a full review. From a quick look up now from the Artistry section, independent of any plans to do a full review I would like to see the prose in the personal life section less choppy.Rollinginhisgrave (talk |edits)17:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 5: What makesHungary Today a high-quality source? I could not find information on their editorial staff on their website.
Ref 8 (Vanity Fair): "Steve Garbarino" is credited as the author. Why is the name not included?
Ref 13 (ABC news): "Luchina Fisher" is credited as the author. Why is the name not included?
Ref 33 (NPR): When in the show does this take place? I know the transcript was probably used to find this information, but the time stamp will help with verification.
Ref 37 (Daily Mail): Murphy Williams is credited as the author. Why is the name not included?
Ref 84 (Glamour): Charlotte Duck is credited as the author. Why is the name not included?
Ref 86 (LA Time): Julie Makinen is credited as the author (see the bottom of the page). Why is the name not included?
Ref 88 (Shootout): What is the timestamp of this source?
Ref 99 (Reuters): Kirk Honeycutt is credited as the author. Why is the name not included?
Ref 101 (Complex): Matt Barone is credited as the author. Why is the name not included?
Ref 140 (Empire): James White is credited as the author. Why is the name not included?
Ref 146 (Roger Ebert): Roger Ebert is credited as the author. Why is the name not included?
I'm going to pause there. Please check the rest of the sources to ensure that the sources have the author where one is listed. Please ping when completed and I'll continue reviewing the list.
Source check: checked 1, 70, 71, and 76
Ref 101 (Complex): Could not verify that the role was created specifically for Downey
Ref 162 ("Iron Man 3 has a release date, but what about a villain?"): Author is Josh Wigler, publisher information (MTV.com) needs to be provided.
Ref 171 ("'Loki' Director Kate Herron on Shooting New 'Avengers: Endgame'-Era Footage".): Author is Brian Davids
Sometimes Hollywood Reporter is wikilinked in the references, and sometimes not. Is the article wikilinking every instance or just the first one? This needs to be standardised either way.
Ref 190 ("Lewis, Hilary; Nordyke, Kimberly (July 17, 2024))": Penske Media Corporation is included in the reference. Should this be removed?
Ref 206 ( Carr, David (April 20, 2008)): Should New York Times be wikilinked?
Ref 209 ( "Hillary Clinton fundraiser..."): Perthis discussion atWP:RSN, Sunlight Foundation is not considered a reliable source and this should be removed.
Ref 235 ("Pardon: Brian Keith Allison"): Suggest citing the specific page and changing the title to the specific page (pg 26) because calling this ref "Pardon: Brian Keith Allison" is a little confusing.
Ref 247 ( "Robert Downey Jr to 'talk to the animals' as Doctor Dolittle".): The source is used to verify that Downey tends to play eccentric characters, but the source only states that Downey is playing an eccentric character in a film. I don't think this course can be used to verify a generalised statement about his broad acting career and the article text should be rephrased
Ref 258, 259, 261: PerWP:FORBESCON, these Forbes sources are not considered reliable. The other ones (260 and 262) are fine because they were written by Forbes staff.
Ref 263 ("The 2008 Time 100"): Author is Ben Stiller
Ref 264 (The 60 greatest film actors of the 21st century (so far)"): Author is Annabel Nugent.
@Z1720: thanks for the review. as for the Forbes contributor sources, they rank Downey on anannual list ranks celebrities by how powerful they are. I believe it's simply the articles that are written by the contributors.750h+02:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: not sure what's up with the first so removed. given that the the second was confirmed once, would it be okay to stay, or should it be removed? I can't find it on flickr anymore.750h+19:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't forgot about this, it's just that I did not have a lot of free time this week to commit enough to Wikipedia. I'llmost likely take a look at it during the weekend. Cheers,Vacant0(talk •contribs)18:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe italics should be used for groups, I'd assume that it shouldn't be italicized in the main article
"After serving time at the Corcoran Substance Abuse Treatment Facility on drug charges" maybe it would be the best to say when this happened.
"In 2024, he was nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award for the miniseries The Sympathizer and made his Broadway debut in the title role of Ayad Akhtar's McNeal." maybe split this sentence? "...He made his Broadway debut in the title role of Ayad Akhtar'sMcNeal."
"Time named Downey one of the 100 most influential people in 2008, and Forbes featured him on the Celebrity 100 in 2013 and 2014." I do not think that we need a comma here.
"Downey was named one of the greatest actors of the 21st century by The Independent." when?
Early life and acting background
"His parents divorced in 1977when he was twelve"
I removed "in 1977" if that's fine?
"fifth-floor apartment in New York" New York as the state?
"At age 17, Downey relocated to New York City..." → "At age 17, Downey relocated to his home town..."
"He reprised the role as Tony Stark in the MCU films Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015),[167] Captain America: Civil War (2016),[168] Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017),[169] Avengers: Infinity War (2018),[170] and Avengers: Endgame (2019).[169] Three of his scenes from The Avengers and Avengers: Endgame were used as archive footage in the first episode of the Disney+ series Loki.[171]" Is there a reason why these films are not featured as detailed as previous films in the article?
2020–present: Oppenheimer and expansion
No issues.
Music
Maybe include reception forThe Futurist?
Social activism
No issues.
Personal life
"Although Levin was initially hesitant about the relationship, the two began dating during production and remained together after filming ended. Downey proposed the night before her thirtieth birthday, and they married on August 27, 2005, in a Jewish ceremony in Amagansett, New York." Do we really need four references for this?
"The pardon did not erase his criminal record, it restored his eligibility for jury service." note needs a reference.
As you say, it has been open quite a while. It has attracted a fair bit of comment, but this has not so far translated into a consensus to promote. Unless this last point changes in the very near future I am afraid that we will be thinking about archiving the nomination.Gog the Mild (talk)11:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave some feedback, possibly over the weekend and early next week. This nomination has been open for a while, and it would be a shame to see this be archived purely due to a lack of commentary, so I'll take a look. –Epicgenius (talk)15:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Para 1: "he was the highest-paid actor in Hollywood annually from 2013 to 2015" - While thisis relevant, I don't really think it ties in that well with "Known for portraying charismatic and intelligent characters over a diverse range of films". Maybe instead swap this out with something about his artistry/public image?
Para 2: "In 2001, he was dismissed from the show following further drug-related arrests. He entered a court-ordered rehabilitation program and has remained sober since 2003." - Could these be combined into one sentence? E.g. "After he was dismissed from the show in 2001 following further drug-related arrests, he entered a court-ordered rehabilitation program and has remained sober since 2003."
Para 3: "After Mel Gibson paid his insurance bond" - Related to the rehab program?
yep
Para 4: "Divorced from singer Deborah Falconer, he has been married to film producer Susan Levin since 2005" - The first part seems a bit out of the blue. When were Downey and Falconer married?
Early life and acting background:
Para 1: "His father, Robert Downey Sr. (né Elias), was a filmmaker, while his mother, Elsie Ann (née Ford), was an actress who appeared in Downey Sr.'s films. Downey Sr. had Lithuanian Jewish and Irish ancestry, while Elsie had Scottish, German, and Swiss ancestry." - Perhaps these can be arranged so that the info about his father is in one sentence, and his mother in another? For example, "His father Robert Downey Sr. (né Elias) was a filmmaker and had Lithuanian Jewish and Irish ancestry. His mother Elsie Ann (née Ford), an actress who appeared in Downey Sr.'s films, had Scottish, German, and Swiss ancestry."
Para 2: "He has said that his father introduced him to marijuana at age eight," - I see somesourceswhich cite an age of six. This is relatively minor, but if I were a reader who only saw these sources, I would be interested in knowing why this article instead says eight.
Para 2: "for which he later expressed regret" - Who expressed regret: Downey or his father?
Para 2: "he appeared in the surrealist Western Greaser's Palace (1972)" - I would reword to get rid of thisMOS:SEAOFBLUE somehow.
This article is about the third and longest-serving prime minister of Liechtenstein, Josef Hoop. This is the first article that I contributed to significantly on Wikipedia in 2022 and have continued to improve and expand upon since, successfully bringing it to GA in July 2024. While it is not my first nomination of this article, there were concerns about the copyright status of the images in the US (URRA). I have now addressed this, including with meeting with the archives directly about the use of images in their collection, and I now believe those issues are solved.TheBritinator (talk)20:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both the lead image and the signature are repeated in the sidebar - would suggest removing the signature from the sidebar, and if possible replacing the image to avoid the immediate repetition
File:Josef_Hoop.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is its status in the US? Ditto File:Hoop_Vogt_Schaedler_Marxer_1938.jpg, File:Franz_Josef_II_Berlin_1939.jpg.Nikkimaria (talk)05:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not sure what exactly you mean. The Liechtenstein National Archives, with some exceptions, owns the rights to the works in its collection. They are responsible for managing them and releasing them upon request, so in this case the Historisches Lexikon and book. I have done this myself several times to get things on commons, and this is pretty much the same. If the organization who holds the rights to the images say its okay to use them, then why does it matter about their status in the US?TheBritinator (talk)16:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In order for an image to be on Commons, it has to be free/PD in both the country of origin (Liechtenstein) and the US. The Liechtenstein National Archives owns the rights to works in its collection per the Liechtenstein archival law - please correct me if I've misinterpreted that. Assuming that's correct, then we need to know whether that also makes them free/PD in the US.Nikkimaria (talk)00:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there isn't any outgoing conditions (personal details, for example), they are allowed to be used for any purpose. So yes, they should be free in the US.TheBritinator (talk)01:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Public archival material is subject to a protection period of 30 years, unless otherwise provided by law or it was already publicly accessible before its transfer.
2) The protection period begins on January 1st following the day the documents were last substantively processed. If the documents are compiled in a file, the protection period for the entire file begins on the date of the most recent entry.TheBritinator (talk)20:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't say for sure. Assuming they weren't already publicly accessible, they're used by the lexicon and the Geiger book, so at least 25 years.TheBritinator (talk)11:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Britinator, this is liable to be archived if you don't address the outstanding image review issues pretty quickly. Or, if they are addressed, obtainNikkimaria's agreement that everything is satisfactory. I am aware that there has been a second image review further down the page.Gog the Mild (talk)16:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the last review, I noted that I couldn't find the location in source 8 with the quote "one of the finest men to serve within Liechtenstein, for his long-term service in the country". Could you please let me know on which page it is? I suggested adding page numbers last time, which I still think would be a good idea. Everything else from last time looks to be done.
I think I'll spotcheck the citations to 1997b next, then check source formatting.
I've adjusted the volume formatting from "1st" and "2nd" to "1" and "2".
1997b:
23, 26, 27, 34 good.
I find the wording of this sentence awkward, especially as the next sentence also begins with "As such". I suggest splitting it in two and describing the agreement more concisely: "However, Liechtenstein's desire to work with Germany independently contradicted the agreement with Switzerland to represent Liechtenstein where it did not hold representation in its own right, as such Switzerland expressed its desire for no independent meeting to be held between Liechtenstein and Germany to solve the issue." May I suggest something like: "As Switzerland represented Liechtenstein's interests abroad, it opposed Liechtenstein's desire to discuss the issue with Germany independently and requested a meeting between representatives from all three countries."
Thanks for the ping and apologies for the delay.
53 and 54 are good. 55 and 56 are good, except it was theFederal Foreign Office (Auswärtiges Amt), not the NSDAP Office of Foreign Affairs. 57 is good.
"Sieger, who had repeatedly pushed for Hoop to consider Liechtenstein forming a customs with Nazi Germany earlier in the month". The source says Sieger had pushed for this since the Anschluss, and in Berlin earlier in the month. So "repeatedly" yes, "earlier in the month" yes, but not "repeatedly"and "earlier in the month". I suggest rewording to "Sieger, who had long pushed for Hoop to consider Liechtenstein forming a customs with Nazi Germany, including earlier that month". Otherwise 58 is good. That's all for 1997b.
Checking some of the more unique source types:
4, an archive source, looks good.
9, a Liechtenstein newspaper, looks good.
43, an American newspaper via Newspapers.com, looks good.
HiToadspike, I would just like to clarify a couple of things. You have indicated your support for the nomination. Can I take that as a general support for promotion, or a pass of the source review, or both? And, given that the nominator has not yet had a promotion at FAC, should I take your review to include a a first-timer's source to text fidelity check and plagiarism check? And if it does, do you consider it to have passed? Apologies for being a bit of a job's worth.Gog the Mild (talk)16:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild No worries about the ping. This was a source review, which I consider to have passed. I think all of my source reviews are rigorous enough for the FAC "first-timer" standard, for better or worse I don't do them differently depending on how many FAs the nominator has. Between this and the previous nomination, I've spot-checked about twenty of the footnotes, primarily for source-to-text integrity but also for copyright violations. (In this case the copyright aspect was pretty easy, since the article is a very, very heavily condensed summary of the German sources. This tends to be more of an issue where the source material is sparse and large amounts of text are based on a single source. But I digress.) I haven't done a read-through of the whole article necessary for a prose review, but if that would be helpful I could do so in the coming days.Toadspike[Talk]20:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support, or even a general review. 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)18:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A disclaimer upfront that I have no knowledge at all of Liechtenstein or its politics, so please forgive any silly suggestions or questions. Feel free to push back on or disregard any of these points if you don't agree.MCE89 (talk)12:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Do we need "from Liechtenstein" in the first sentence? I think "who served as Prime Minister of Liechtenstein" probably covers the same ground
"his government faced numerous domestic and foreign challenges to the country,notable events such asincluding the Rotter kidnapping, 1937 spy affair and 1939 putsch" — suggest simplifying this phrasing
I'd suggest going over the infobox and checking that everything is either sourced in the infobox or mentioned and sourced in the body (from a quick check, his brother-in-law and place of death don't appear to be mentioned anywhere else in the article)
Early life and diplomatic career
You could probably link Landtag of Liechtenstein here given that it's the first mention outside of the lead
MOS:GEOLINK suggests that Austria should not be linked
Do we know which Oriental languages he studied? Would be interesting to specify
Perhaps linklegation? I'll admit it's not a term I was familiar with
"removal of visa requirements for Austrian citizens in Liechtenstein" - I think it might be clearer to say "for Austrian citizensseeking to travel to Liechtenstein"
"This led to Hoop being criticized in a letter by prime minister Gustav Schädler, as his government had already agreed to be represented diplomatically by Switzerland." — This confused me a bit — who was this letter to?
"He became a member of the Historical Association for the Principality of Liechtenstein in 1921" — This seems like it is probably better placed in the previous paragraph about his time working at the legation, rather than in this paragraph about its closure and his subsequent career
Prime Minister of Liechtenstein
I think adding a brief sentence providing some context on the structure of Liechtenstein's government during this era could be helpful (i.e. noting that it was/is a semi-constitutional monarchy with the Prince as head of state and the Landtag as the legislature, and naming its two major parties)
The fact that he became prime minister at just 32 straight from a position in the customs administration seems surprising to me. Is there anything more that can be said about how he ended up managing to be appointed prime minister?
Suggest introducing as "Prince of Liechtenstein Johann II" on first mention
"resulted with a win for the" - Suggest changing to "was won by the"
"the challenge of the effects of the Great Depression in Liechtenstein" - I think this can be simplified to "the challenge of the Great Depression" or even just "the Great Depression", the rest is implied
The duplicate link on Johann II in this section can probably be removed
"gave the Landtag of Liechtenstein relative freedom to pass laws" — Could a bit of context be added here? (i.e. what kind of power did the Prince have toprevent the Landtag from passing laws?)
"received a large amount of Jewish refugees" — Can this be quantified?
"pioneered a financial naturalization scheme for Jews to obtain citizenship in Liechtenstein" — This feels like quite an indirect way of saying that they offered citizenship in exchange for payment and could probably be worded more straightforwardly
"an area of contention between Liechtenstein and Nazi Germany arose with Alfred and Fritz Rotter of Jewish background, who had previously succeeded in being naturalized in 1931" — I didn't really follow this at all. Could you be a bit more specific about what this controversy was about, and why the German press started attacking Liechtenstein over this?
"whomwho were hired"
"This plan, failed, however," (comma in wrong spot)
"However, Alfred and Getrud later died by falling from a steep slope" — Suggest removing "later", as I take it from context that they died during the escape?
"and urgedfor both government's to work towards"
"As such, on, 6 October 1933"
"it demanded that two of the men, who were still in prison for the kidnapping,were to be released early"
"sent a letter three years prior in 1934" — You probably only need either "three years prior" or "in 1934", including both seems redundant
"the search against Vogelsang, the"
"during the Anschluss of Austria" — Could this instead just be "the annexation of Austria"?
"and as such he sought reassurances from Nazi officialsfor Liechtenstein's continued independencethat Liechtenstein would be allowed to remain independent" — Suggest clarifying this phrasing
"under the initiative of Franz Joseph" — Could Franz Joseph's title/position at this time be introduced?
"for the introduction of proportional representation to Liechtenstein, despite itbeinghaving been rejected"
You could consider adding "the capital Vaduz" or "Vaduz,the seat of parliament" to provide readers with a bit more context
"On the day of the coup" — Should this be "on the day of theattempted coup"?
"Sieger, who had long pushed for Hoop to considerLiechtenstein forming a customs union with Nazi Germany" — I don't think the country needs to be specified here
"de facto inclusion of Liechtenstein in the Swiss national supply" — Not sure I understand the meaning of "national supply" in this context, can this be clarified?
Later life
"Hoop's former deputy Vogt came under police investigation in both Liechtenstein and Switzerland when German documents revealed his connection to intelligence contacts." — The relevance of this to Hoop isn't immediately obvious, I'd suggest that the connection to Hoop be made more explicit or that this be removed.
"After resigning as prime minister, Hoopsoon went on to study law at the University of Zurich and then at the University of Innsbruck in 1946,wherefrom which hegraduated receivingreceived a doctorate in 1948." — Purely a suggestion, but this reads a little more smoothly to me
Could be an EngVar thing, but I've never seen "home-town" used in hyphenated form as a noun before. Should this instead be "home town"?
"and his achievements as "wasundoubtedly of fundamental importance""
Personally I'd probably move the information about his death into the previous section and have sections titled "Later life and death" and "Personal life", but up to you
Overall a great article, thanks for this. Just ping me when you're done responding to these comments and I'll take another look.MCE89 (talk)12:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Just a few more comments from another read through:
"considered friendly, non-binding, non-provocative diplomacy to be appropriate" — Is there a reason this "considered…to be appropriate" phrasing is used, as opposed to a verb like "employed" or "preferred"? It almost seems to imply that this was an abstract preference, and not the style of diplomacy his government attempted to employ in reality
Did Hoop earn a doctorateinphilosophy, or just aDoctor of Philosophy? I don't speak German, but from what I can gather "Dr. phil. I" from the source just means a doctoral degree in the humanities, not necessarily a doctorate in philosophy
"and finished in 1943" - Suggest "was completed" instead
The new sentences that you've added here help a lot, but I think the passage that begins "However, an area of contention between Liechtenstein and Nazi Germany arose with Alfred and Fritz Rotter of Jewish background…" could still use some further editing for clarity and flow, as those few sentences now feel like they're jumping around a bit. Some of the language also feels a bit passive or indirect (e.g. "it was publicly demanded", "an area of contention…arose") and could probably be conveyed more straightforwardly
There's still an unnecessary apostrophe in "urged both government's"
"and as such he sought reassurances" — needs a conjunction between these clauses
"for the introductionof proportional representation" — missing word
"where they met Adolf Hitler and Joachim von Ribbentrop and in which they discussed safeguarding Liechtenstein's independence" — needs a conjunction
"forming a customsunion with Nazi Germany" — missing word
"andthe Swiss government demanded that Hoop's government" — missing subject
Unless I'm mistaken it looks like "Sieger" has been misspelled as "Seiger" in a few places
I know Toadspike's already done a source review, but just a few additional ref formatting nitpicks that I noticed:
Ref 16 seems to be missing the language parameter
p -> pp on ref 25
Refs 37 and 39 appear to be duplicate refs and should be merged
Refs 56 and 63 also seem to be duplicates
I believe ref 51 is missing its original German title
Publications aren't entirely consistent on linking (e.g. Kenosha News and St. Louis Post-Dispatch aren't linked)
Refs 2, 18, 37/39, 40, 53(?), and maybe 75 could all use English translations for their titles
Overall it's looking good and I think these should all be pretty minor fixes, will be happy to support once these are resolved.MCE89 (talk)16:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"He returned to politics when he was elected to the Landtag of Liechtenstein in 1957, and he was the president of the Landtag from 1958 to 1959." The back half of this sentence reads awkwardly. Recommend something along the lines of "He returned to politics in 1957 when he was elected to the Landtag of Liechtenstein, for which he was also the president from 1958 to 1959."
Early life and diplomatic career
Doctor of Philosophy is a proper noun; both words should be capitalized.
I believe Prime Minister should be capitalized as it is used in this context as a title.
Rotter kidnapping
"Liechtenstein received a large amount of Jewish refugees." --> Recommend "large number" instead.
You havenaturalization wikilinked in the third sentence, but it appears in the second sentence.
"with Alfred and Fritz Rotter of Jewish background, who had previously succeeded in being naturalized in 1931." --> The phrase "of Jewish background" reads awkwardly. Also, you might consider rephrasing the end as "who had been naturalized in 1931".
You do not need to continue using the phrase "Nazi Germany" when Germany would suffice.
You use the word "however" twice within short proximity.
1938–1939 crisis
"...returned to Liechtenstein on the 14th" --> "...returned to Liechtenstein on 14 March"
"Hoop agreed to allow the VU to enter government" --> should that be "to enter the government"? How does one enter the government anyway?
"introduction of proportional representation to Liechtenstein" --> I believe it should be "in Liechtenstein".
Is there no wikilink for Feldberg?
"Although Franz stated..." --> Recommend clarifying asFranz I.
"Starting from 1938..." --> I think that should be "in 1938".
"Franz Josef II, Hoop and Vogt paid an official visit to Berlin, where they met Adolf Hitler and Joachim von Ribbentrop, where they discussed safeguarding Liechtenstein's independence and neutrality while maintaining good relations." Too many clauses beginning with "where".
"...to seize control of the government, which they hoped would cause clashes between them and the government." Super awkwardly written; I think the problem is the repeat of the vague term "the government". Who specifically did they want to clash with?
"600 German troops from Feldkirchwould have then moved into Liechtenstein in response to a call for help and incorporate the country into Germany." The past conditional is needed as the event did not actually take place (in the past).
Recommend rephrasing "coup attempt" as "attempted coup".
Why was there not already a Liechtenstein embassy in Bern if Liechtenstein had such good relations with Switzerland? Why would the opening of an embassy be against the wishes of the Liechtenstein government?
"It was also further strained in 1945 by Hoop permitting Sieger asylum in Liechtenstein." --> "granting asylum" would sound better.
Later life
"the University of Innsbruck in 1946, from where he received" --> "from which he received"
"He re-entered into politics..." --> "He re-entered politics..."
Personal life and death
"died on 19 October 1959 due to heart failure following a surgery, at the age of 63 years" --> recommend reordering as "died on 19 October 1959 at the age of 63 due to heart failure following surgery"
I will go ahead andsupport this article whether your choose to make this correction or not. I believe it would be no different than writing Chancellor Angela Merkel.Bgsu98(Talk)18:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Buh, thanks for fixing this. Anyhow, can you provide quotes from the sources I marked as "can't access this one"? Note that I can read German, don't need a translation.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)12:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Considering that they are offline sources, it would take a considerable amount of time to gather all the quotes and put them here. Alternatively, I have scanned PDFs of them which I could email to you, such as was done with @Toadspike.TheBritinator (talk)14:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Still need 12 and 24 and 38. 26, 28 and 33 work. 32 and 38 I think too. Regarding 38 while I think the source is politics-speak I don't know if we can interpret it as referring to "diplomatic relations" as opposed to "relations" period.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)11:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus I can confirm that I checked footnote 24 in the previous review (link). I could potentially provide you a scan of the relevant page(s) for that footnote, but it would require some travel and I don't want to do this unless absolutely necessary. I can't comment on 12 and 38, which I believe are fromElections in Europe: A data handbook? Neither is used to support any content on "diplomatic relations" in the diff you linked, I'm a little confused by that.Toadspike[Talk]12:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn here about what to say. I've looked at this a few times but now that it's at the bottom of the queue I guess I need to stop dawdling. I think the prose isn'tbad, but it could be better. I've railed about "choppy writing" in other reviews and this has some aspects of that in the repetitive structure of many sentences. "He attended high school ... He graduated in 1920 ... He worked towards the removal ... He also raised concerns ... He became a member ... He visited Austrian Minister ... He lived in the capitol ...". It's not bad enough (by a longshot) that I'm tempted to reach for the oppose button, but it's also not what I thinkWP:FACR is inspiring us to aim for withprose is engaging and of a professional standard. A surface fix for this would be to replace some of the "He" pronouns with other words, but I think what's really needed is a somewhat deeper reformulation of at least some of these sentences to use a more varied grammatical structure so it doesn't sound so much like facts poured into templates. I'll leave this for now. If you could work on that and ping me when you've finished, I'll come back and take a deeper dive. My apologies to the coords for leaving this until the last moment and I ask your indulgence to not time this out yet.RoySmith(talk)14:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I'm happy to address any concerns you have regarding the prose if you provide specific examples in a review. However, "it could be better" unfortunately doesn't really help me.TheBritinator (talk)14:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "it's also not what I thinkWP:FACR is inspiring us to aim for withprose is engaging and of a professional standard."Roy, the FA criteria are not aspirations, they're requirements: "A featured article ... has the following attributes ..."Gog the Mild (talk)14:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's take this paragraph as an example:
The Liechtenstein legation in Vienna was closed in 1923. Hoop had resisted the closure of the legation, as he believed it would negatively affect relations with Austria. He visited Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs Alfred Grünberger regarding the closure, who had also privately opposed it. This led to Hoop being criticized by Prime Minister Gustav Schädler, as his government had already agreed to be represented diplomatically by Switzerland. From 1924 to 1928, he worked for the Swiss customs administration in Geneva and St. Gallen. He lived in the capitol of Vaduz from 1928 onwards.
There's no real flow from one sentence to the next. Each one stands alone. You could tie the first two sentences together:
The Liechtenstein legation in Vienna was closed in 1923 despite Hoop's objection that doing so would negatively affect relations with Austria.
This not only saves a bunch of words, but putting the two basic ideas (the closure and Hoop's objection) into the same sentence joined by "despite" emphasizes the conflict. That's what I mean by "flow". It's not just a sequence of facts, it shows how these facts are related to each other: one is a consequence of another, or in conflict with another, or gives somebody else's perspective on the same event.
It's not entirely clear what is being referred to in "This led to Hoop being criticized ...". Is "This" the closure of the legation, Hoop's resistance to the closure, or Hoop's visit to Grünberger? The ambiguity is in part because these three things all get presented as individual sentences with full stops. I'm not sure this is semantically correct, but from a grammar point of view if you tied the last two sentences together with a semicolon instead of a period, i.e. "He visited Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs Alfred Grünberger regarding the closure, who had also privately opposed it; this led to Hoop being criticized ..." it would be clear that the criticism was of Hoop's visit.
Up until now, everything has somehow revolved around the closure of the legation; when it was done, who opposed it, who criticized it, and why it was criticized. That's good. One general rule for paragraphs is that they should encompass a single line of thought. Then we get to the last two sentences in the paragraph, i.e. starting with "From 1924 ...". Suddenly we're talking about what other jobs Hoop had and where he lived. That's awkward. Think of paragraph breaks as a place where the speaker pauses to implicitly signal that they're done with one idea and are moving on to the next.RoySmith(talk)12:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but please note I was just giving one specific example. There are lots of places throughout the article which could do with this kind of copyediting to make the prose more enjoyable to read.RoySmith(talk)16:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'm not sure I can tease apart which changes you made from which changes Toadspike made, but no matter. My goal here was not (with apologies to the coords) to do a full review and drop a support or oppose weight on one side of the scale, but just to get you thinking a bit more about writing style. I think I've accomplished my goal, so I'll content myself with that.RoySmith(talk)18:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fmedia.springernature.com%2flw1200%2fspringer-static%2fimage%2fart%253A10.1007%252Fs11686-021-00472-7%2fMediaObjects%2f11686_2021_472_Fig1_HTML.png){kind=link}
_-_Nazi_war_criminal_Adolf_Eichmann_walking_in_yard_of_his_cell_in_Ramle_prison.jpg){kind=link}
