Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

For the criteria to become a featured article, see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page. Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page:

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

John Bullock Clark

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Another biography of a Missouri State Guard officer. While the last one, William Y. Slack, was largely a local figure except for his military service, Clark was a prominent Missourian for much of his life. He was an officer in the state militia during the Missouri Mormon War, where he was the recipient of the infamous "Extermination Order". In 1840, he ran for state governor, where he was accused of being complicit in a plot to commit election fraud and almost fought a duel with Claiborne Fox Jackson. Elected to the US House of Representatives in the late 1850s, Clark was expelled from Congress in 1861 for, as a sitting US congressman, leading a body of armed troops into battle against the United States Army in the Battle of Carthage, Missouri. After a few months as a general in the State Guard, Clark became a Confederate senator although he was not nominated for a second term due to behavioral issues (alcoholism, disorderly conduct, womanizing, and mendacity). After the war he fled to Mexico and was arrested upon his return. Hog Farm _Talk 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• See this guidance regarding captioning

• File:Seal_of_the_Confederate_States.svg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: - Thanks! These matters should be resolved now. Hog Farm _Talk 13:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Ceoil

Reading through and enjoying learning about a perspective I need to read up on. Hope you don't mind some gripes:

• accusations of his involvement in an alleged plot - seems like a there is triple doubt being layed on the underlaying claim ('accusations, "involvement", alleged)
  • I'm not sure how to rephrase this best, although I agree that this is an issue. I'm just not sure how to phrase this without making it sound like any of this stuff was ever proven
    • "Alleged plot" implies that it was made up to frame certain people; maybe take it from that angle..ie motivation. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
      • Is "Clark was accused of conspiring to commit electoral fraud in the election and as a result almot fought a duel with Claiborne Fox Jackson, later a Governor of Missouri." an improvement? Hog Farm _Talk 01:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
        • yes Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Tense issues was appointed by Jackson to be a brigadier general - "as"
  • Done
• The prose are excellent, but sometimes old fashioned (eg "upon his return to Texas") - after his return
  • Is this a problem? I personally kind of prefer the older-fashioned prose but I'm open to changing this if you think it's problematic
    • Not a problem if its your preference. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Clark was educated in local schools.[2] so what
  • Not sure how best to address this without venturing into SYNTH issues as none of the sources on Clark go into why this is specific - essentially the public school system in the US, especially in rural areas. Most people on the future politics track would have attended a private academy. I can quote Willard Duncan Vandiver as stating that Clark "would have completely spoiled by higher education" if you think that helps make the point
    • Just say something like "in contrast to most other contemporary politicians who attended private academies, Clark was educated in local schools." Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• What does he was "unshackled by the constraints of a formal education" mean
  • I'm not sure, which is why I didn't try to paraphrase this. Would it be better to drop this and give the Vandiver quote suggested above?
    • I think so Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
      • I've done this - I'll need to try to find a source for the private academies/local schools item above which may be difficult. That'll have to wait until after my work trip in the early part of this coming week though. Hog Farm _Talk 01:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• The quote beginning "The Mormons must be treated as enemies" needs a direct cite
  • This is done
• Looking forward to reading through rest of the article; his demise seems especially interesting. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @Ceoil: - I've replied above - most of these are queries about how best to proceed for now. Hog Farm _Talk 01:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Hi Hog, the above were quibbles; have replied with suggestions as to how to resolve the o/s, in lieu I'm a Support. Ceoil (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Kusma (support)

Non-expert review.

• Lead: just a note to self to look again at the end.
• Early life and militia service: do we know anything about his parents? I assume they were not poor, but helped him start his career and wealth?
  • Allardice does not say anything on this matter while Warner & Yearns doesn't even name his parents. Vandiver says that he studied law with an older brother and that his father had a "large farm" as well as making the bizarre claim that Clark was held captive by Native Americans as a treaty hostage one winter (Burchett expresses some suprise that "his biographer" apparently believed the claim). I'm hesistant to use Vandiver for anything other than clearing up details about things referred to in other sources but not elaborated on well as the Vandiver source states outright that it is highly dependent on stories told by a septuagenarian Clark to a teenage Vandiver 55 years before the article was written Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
    • I see. I would expect (perhaps naively) some land ownership records from this time to exist, so it should be possible to find out a little more, but that might be too far on the wrong side of the boundary of original research. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
      • I don't think I'd be able to get into anything further on this without veering into original research; it would take a trip into archival material (if it still exists, which I don't know) Hog Farm _Talk 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• he married Eleanor Turner: do we know anything about her family? This might be a good spot to mention they had a son in 1831. Any other children?
  • The sources don't mention this, in fact Allardice doesn't provide her name and Warner & Yearns don't mention her at all. I've added a mention of John Jr.'s birth in 1831 to the proper place. None of the sources I've seen mention other children. This is perhaps not as bad as it could be; when I was working on Simpson Harris Morgan I found that none of the secondary sources actually provided the given name of his first wife. Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• "claims of atrocities" do we know which side was accused of these atrocities and what they were?
  • This is a (still controversial) mess; I've tried to explain this a bit better in a footnote as this is impossible to describe in a manner that would flow well in the main text. Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• "The order instructed Clark to move with a force to troops to Richmond, Missouri" look ungrammatical to me
  • Should be "force of troops"; fixed Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Political career: you have "Democrat candidates" and then "Democratic candidate".
  • Standardized to "Democratic"; that was probably a subconcious thing from spending most of my life hearing family member frequently use Democrat Party (epithet). Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• "thinly-pseudonymous" is that a word?
  • Not sure; I've split this into two words. Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• " Jackson's letter claimed to be based on a document sent between Clark and James H. Birch, with the Democrats claiming that it had been found in a saddlebag and Clark claiming that it had been stolen from his hat after he left it unattended." so the letter was real? what was the content? Was there a false ballot scheme?
  • Well ... here's what I've got. Phillips attributes the original news to a partisan newspaper known as the Boon's Lick Democrat reprinting content from the Ozark Standard and couches the description of this as claims, not facts. You then had Jackson's letter to the editor two weeks later under the name "Anti-Fraud". The most relevant passages in Phillips are Two weeks later, on September 7, a letter to the editor appeared in the Fayette paper signed "Anti-Fraud", which claimed to have intercepted a letter written in July at the height of the campaign from Clark to James H. Birch [... extended content discussing Birch's general sleaziness, the contents of the letter, and Jackson's authorship of it ...] A Clique member, Owen Rawlins, claimed to have found the letter in a set of borrowed saddlebags he had used in the recent election (Clark charged that Rawlins stole the letter from Clark's hatband as it sat on the podium while he delivered a speech), and upon his return to Fayette showed it to Jackson at his office at the bank. Phillips never states outright or not if this was all real, so I think it's best to provide Clark's lame excuse and let the reader judge as they think. I do find it telling that Clark's response questioned how the letter had gotten into Rawlins' possession, not the existence of the letter. Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
    • So Phillips does give some content of a letter that is undisputedly from Clark, just (according to Clark) obtained by illicit means? Perhaps mentioning some of the content could help make this more clear. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
      • Not quite - the only letter we have is the one from Jackson, which claimed to reproduce the contents of the alledged Clark letter, but of course there is no proof for that. I've tried to clarify this. Among other things, it apparently included "rascal" spelled as "raskal". Does what I've changed this to in the article help with this any? Kusma Hog Farm _Talk 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

        OK, that helps. It is still weird, but I think I am no longer confused about the facts. —Kusma (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• "owned 160 slaves" do we know what they did? Did Clark have any non-law business or were these slaves who helped with lawyering?
  • Neither of the two primary sources for this article (Allardice and Warner & Yearns) have anything to say on this matter, nor does Vandiver or any other source I've been able to turn up on this. About the only thing I can think of for that area that would make sense was if Clark was dabbling in the large-scale hemp farming that occurred along the Missouri River around that time, but I know of nothing to confirm or deny that. Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Confederate service: not something I can really ask for, but a map with all these locations would help a lot in understanding.
  • I've actually thrown together one using the location map template
    • Super, thanks! —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• "Clark later tried to order the cavalry portion of his division to support his infantry, but the cavalry became greatly disorganized and the few who entered the fighting at this time instead fought with McBride's men." do we know why this disorganisation happened?
  • I've added a bit on this and have also tweaked this a bit for accuracy per another reading of the source
• "no longer wanted"... "was arrested". looks a bit contradictory.
  • I've adjusted "having learned" to "having heard", as what Clark heard was apparently wrong
• I don't quite understand when Clark was allowed to practice law. Did he re-start as soon as possible or wait until he had not just the right to practice law, but also the right to hold political office?
  • From the relevant source - Clark returned to his home in Fayette, Missouri, where, after his disabilities had been removed, he practiced law until his death on October 29, 1865. The timing on this isn't exactly clear. Vandiver mentions a court case in 1869 where Clark supposedly opposed a former Union militia officer in court (Odon Guitar) but again the normal caveats about Vandiver apply. Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Do we know anything about his whereabouts between 1866 and 1870?
  • Not that I've seen. The returning in 1870 comes from Eicher and Allardice, neither of which provide any detail on this Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• The "Confederate service" section is quite long; would it be possible to subdivide it with subheadings or similar?
  • I've split this into two subsections
• The "Confederate service" section does contain some content that could also be part of "political career"; the division seems more based on time than on what kind of jobs he did
  • I've renamed the "political career" section

From my very non-expert POV (I know little about the civil war, and have spent less than five days in Missouri) I think the article gives enough context to understand what is going on, but there are a few completeness/clarity issues, especially around his family and business. —Kusma (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma: - Thanks for the review comments! I've tried to address things above, but these gaps are for the most part present in the underlying sourcing itself so I'm afraid there's only limited answers I can provide for some of this stuff. Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It always amazes me how little is known about fairly recent American history. I still need to review the lead, will do that soon. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't actually have anything to complain about the lead section at this point. —Kusma (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Just one more thing (I hope): why is the succession box titled "Party political offices"? These seem to be political offices that are not tied to a specific party; I would prefer "Political offices". —Kusma (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

This has been done by switching from {{s-ppo}} to {{s-off}} Hog Farm _Talk 16:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I think that's all from me, support. —Kusma (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Ajpolino

Thanks for the interesting read. Minor comments below. Will have another readthrough with fresh eyes in the next day or two, then I expect to support. Missouri and I have recently parted ways, but I'm still glad to see another (soon-to-be-)FA in the Hog Farm topical sphere. Ajpolino (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• "Clark's acquaintance... spoiled by higher education'" - I'm not sure I glean any meaning from this, is there something in particular you're trying to get across?
  • @Ajpolino: - This is one thing I'm having trouble with. Several of the sources all make oblique references to the quality of education Clark received. There's this; Burchett has "Unshackled by the constraints of a formal education". Warner and Yearns refer to "such schools as the county afforded". I'm under the impression that the statement of "Before the Civil War, Missouri followed the southern pattern that downplayed public schooling, as well-to-do families patronized local private academies." from History of education in Missouri is probably accurate, but I can't find a straightforward reference for it (McCandless dances around the claim but doesn't make a broad one) and I'm not familiar with the Kentucky stuff at all. I'm pretty much stuck on this issue. Hog Farm _Talk 21:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
    • "Unshackled by the constraints of a formal education" makes me smile. My suggestion would be to remove "Clark's acquaintance... higher education' " since I don't think it makes sense without more context. But it's not much of a bother either way; your call, of course. Ajpolino (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
      • I've just removed that quote from Vandiver entirely then. Hog Farm _Talk 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• "The historian Bruce S. Allardice refers to him as 'a born politician'." - is it possible to give the slightest context here? Is Allardice referring to his innate skills that match the occupation? His family ties that would have given him access to halls of power? Something else?
  • Unfortunately, there isn't really any context here from Allardice - we have from the source Clark studied law in Fayette, Howard County, and became a successful lawyer. A born politician, Clark served as county treasurer (1823 to 1825), clerk of the county courts (1824 to 1834), and state representative (1850 to 1851).
• Assuming Allardice is referring to Clark's skills/looks/demeanor, it might flow better to move "He was taller... a storyteller." up a sentence to directly follow Allardice's appraisal.
  • I've moved this, and the colorful legal anecdote, up to after this.
• Several places you use "began [verb]ing" which seems to unnecessarily focus the reader on the beginning of a task, even though the task gets completed without interruption. Would "[verb]ed" suffice? E.g. "Clark began studying law" → "Clark studied law", "Clark began to mobilize..." → "Clark mobilized".
  • I've rephrased most of these instances away
• "He further warned"
  • Done
• "speech as being humiliating"
  • Done
• "the harsher Mormon Extermination Order" - "harsher" feel weak and unnecessary when we're immediately treated to "must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State"
  • Removed
• "the statement that" - this may be a personal preference, but I often feel "that" is a removable filler word. CTRL+F "that" and you'll see a handful that can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentences.
  • I've removed about eight or so uses of "that"
• "spread claims that the Whigs had spread" spread... spread. Maybe "distributed" for the second?
  • Done
• "in parts of the state... Democratic candidate" had to read this twice to understand. Would it be accurate if shortened to "in parts of the state that substituted Clark for Thomas Reynolds, the Democratic candidate."?
  • Done
• "...and James H. Birch, with the Democrats claiming" at first read I was confused and thought "with the Democrats claiming..." was describing the contents of the aforementioned letter (rather that its provenance). Can we split this into two sentences? "Birch. The Democrats claimed..."
  • Done
• "Jackson's letter claimed to transcribe the contents of a letter... sent" Can we shorten to something like "Jackson transcribed a letter... purportedly sent..." I think "letter... letter..." and "claimed to transcribe" made my brain trip over itself for some reason.
  • Done
• "a possibility for the Whig" "considered for the Whig" would read more naturally to me.
  • Done
• "He continued to practice law..." → "He practiced law..."
  • Done

Happy to support. Thanks again for the read. Looking forward to the next one. Ajpolino (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• The article is largely sourced to 15 books: 11 from major university publishers, one from a major textbook publisher. The other three broken down below. Other sources are used sparingly to add dates or contemporaneous color. All seem uncontroversial.
• Burchett is not a Civil War historian (I think he's a visual arts professor?), but his book was reviewed positively by one. He's cited for just three things; two add color to Clark's biography, one is a date. Seems fine to me.
  • Consider whether "The historian Kenneth E. Burchett..." is deserved. He wrote a book of history, but his academic discipline isn't history per se. Where is the line for the title "historian"? I've no idea, and I don't feel strongly either way. But flagging it for you to consider.
    • I've gone with "The author Kenneth E. Burchett ..." - is that better? Hog Farm _Talk 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Hinze and Farnham is written by a high school teacher and published by a company for whom our Wikipedia page gives me pause (haven't looked into it any further than that). But it's only used here thrice to cite minor details, so I'm not worried. A historian calls it "the most comprehensive piece of research written on the Battle of Carthage to date." He has some criticisms, but they're not relevant to the bits cited here.
  • Yes, unfortunately there is a paucity of modern scholarship on Carthage. I found that work conflating William Y. Slack and Mosby Monroe Parsons in one paragraph while working on a different article so I've been using it with caution since then. I keep having a nagging feeling that something isn't quite right with one of the things sourced to this work, so I've removed it for now. Hog Farm _Talk 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Brooksher - According to University of Nebraska Press, the publisher didn't take on the name "Potomac Books" until 2004. The archive.org version is under the imprint Brassey's Washington and lists a location of Dulles, Virginia. Do you have a paper copy that was reprinted later under Potomac? Truly not sure this matters at all, just curious.
  • I have a "First paperback edition" that gives the publishing date as 2000. The publisher given is "Potomac Books An imprint of the University of Nebraska Press"
  • Either way, Potomac is a university publisher; Brassey's is a specialist publisher in the military sphere (I gather). So that all seems fine.

Sourcing seems solid. Happy to pass source review. Left a point above for you to consider. Feel free to educate me on anything I've got wrong. This field is new to me. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: - Many thanks for the revieew! My replies are above - I have removed one brief bit sourced to Hinze & Farnham due to nagging doubts and a bad experience with that source at William Y. Slack. Hog Farm _Talk 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Your replies all look good to me. I gather our University of Nebraska Press article is not quite right then. Perhaps once you get every MO civil war figure and event to FA status, you can start on the academic publisher articles ;) Ajpolino (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: - would I have permission for a second concurrent nomination (Arkansas, not Missouri this time) - for the article in question several major sources need to be back to the library by mid-May so I'd like to get as much of the FAC process done for that one by then to reduce the number of trips to the library. Hog Farm _Talk 00:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead. FrB.TG (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 7 April 2024 [1].

---

Crusading movement

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the ideology and institutions associated with crusading. Reviewers have suggested that to keep in on topic the MILHIST should be kept to a minimum - this is largely covered in the Crusades in any case. That article doesn't have the space to cover this subject in detail. It has just been through an exhaustive A-Class Review and passed GAR 9 months ago. So it should be in good shape. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Airship

I thought I had reviewed this article a long time ago, and I was right. I am glad to see from the nomination statement that the approach I suggested over two years ago, of cutting the majority of military history details, was followed. Back then, the article looked like this; the improvement is very evident, so well done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It was good advice, addressed the scope and focus issues it once had. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

General comments

• The structure needs another look. Why are the "Knights and chivalry" down to "Perception of Muslims" subsections under "Evolution"? These are very definitely "Major themes" or "Major elements" and should be sectioned as such.
  • MOS:HEADINGS: subsection headings should not have links in them.

—Taken this one. This is restoring the structure to what it was prior to GAR, changed on a recommendation. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Why so few images? This is one of the most well-represented historical eras in terms of images/diagrams/maps. It seems criminal not to use some of them for illustrative purposes (don't go overboard either).
• I disagree with Jens below that "Birth" should be renamed "First Crusade", as it is well established in scholarship that the movement began earlier. I also disagree that "main articles" are necessary for the century subsections, which should not be taken as subtopics of individual crusades. I do however concur with him on the length of the 13th century subsection (not helped by its complete lack of images to distract the eye from paragraphs upon paragraphs).

I will copyedit the century sections to reduce the length, particularly the 13th—this may go as far to reduce some of the WP:DUE questions below. Will look at those as part of the exercise. Might take a few days. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• I believe that the last time I looked at this article, I felt that there was substantial close paraphrasing. I do hope that issue has been adequately looked at and resolved—because that of course is a reviewing dealbreaker.
  • I remember, this has been rewritten repeatedly since then so I am expecting/hoping this is no longer an issue. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• This article likes its simple lists—I count eight. I think most of them are fine, but feel, per MOS:EMBED, that the last three (relating to Gregory IX and Pius II) might be better suited as prose.

More specific comments to follow later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think that I also raised the question of how to tell whether paragraphs sourced entirely or near-entirely to entries in a general crusade encyclopedia were WP:DUE. With that in mind, could you please justify how the following paragraphs are WP:DUE and "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature":
  • In "12th century", beginning with "From the end of the century..."

—added citations to Buck, Tyerman and Morris + 3xW-L Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

And why is it WP:DUE?

because Crusade historians, and these are just 3 examples + a church historian, consider it integral. How the crusaders understood their relationship to God, what impact it had on their behaviour and how they represented it formed part of the institution. It is literally how the whole enterprise got its name. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I can accept that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "13th century", beginning with "Crusade providentialism was intricately linked..."

added Barber citation - eschatology was a significant factor in the 13th century crsusading movement. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• "intricately linked with a prophetic sensibility" this is not very clear. In fact, the whole paragraph is not very clear at all (the "Third Age"—where are we, Middle-Earth?) As far as I can make out, it appears to be combining a general focus on prophecies with a semi-intelligible digression into the legends of the children's crusade. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "13th century", beginning with "For recruitment purposes, popes initiated..."

Added intoductory sentence sourced to Tyerman to explain—it is about propaganda. Abrideged, copyedited and added sources. Might be worth moving to its own subsection - what do you think ? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Better, but the prose is not FA quality. It gives the impression of a list in prose, with each sub-theme given its own bullet point new sentence. This is one of the parts that best exemplifies a "movement"—you can't not do it justice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "13th century", beginning with "From around 1225 to 1500..."

Again, rephrased and summarised. Paragraph is also about Propaganda + image added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Same stilted prose as above. Take the following four sentences: "Despite being written after the decline of crusading fervour, they indicate a sustained interest in the topic. Authors depicted a triumphant and morally superior chivalric Christendom. Some likened Muslim leaders to contemporary politicians. Common motifs included Christian knights engaging in chivalrous adventures against Muslim adversaries." This is something I would encourage you to focus on throughout the article Norfolkbigfish; get a non-specialist editor with FA experience to read it through and point out parts that might fail FACR 1a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, the image is meh: Jean de Mandeville himself is not explicitly mentioned in text, and his relevance to the topic is not immediately apparent, meaning one could pull up MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Consider using {{multiple image}}, and take some time to look for better ones. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "13th century", beginning with "Part of the tradition of outbreaks of popular crusading..."

Tyerman considers that Dickson has done notable research that expands the diversity of the topic. Added a sentence to that effect and cited to him. Added citation for Children's crusade. FYI this isn't actually sourced from the Encyclopedia but to another of Dickson's works. Rephrased. To me it now stands as WP:DUE but would seriously welcome your feedback. It is about the informal instituitions. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "13th century", beginning with "There is evidence of early criticism of crusading..."

—rephrased and additional citations added. Important to highlight support for crusading and its institutions (like taxation)was not uniform. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "13th century", beginning with "Remediation included ceremonial marches..."

—as above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "13th century", beginning with "At the end of the 13th century..."

—rephrased and additional citations added - crisis in the movement nad taxation both relevant, no? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "14th century", beginning with "There were more than twenty treatises..."

—rephrased. Cover the writing and failed plans of the movement and the successful taxation regime Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "15th century", beginning with "The Venetian Gabriel Condulmaro succeeded..."

—rephrased, the key here is the shift in strategy from conflict to conciliation with other churches. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "15th century", beginning with "The humanist Enea Silvio Piccolomini became..."

—rephrased, the shift in focus from Jerusalem to Constantinople. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "15th century", beginning with "Rodrigo Borja, who became Pope Alexander VI in 1492..."

—rephrased, and now the focus is on the Pope's christian enemies. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "Historiography", beginning with "The Byzantines held a negative view of holy war..."

—although taking your general point this segment is not from the Encyclopedia and was added at ACR at the request or a reviewer. I agree with them that it is relevant to identify other opinions amongst Christians of the crusades and to highlight that rather than a Muslim v Christian conflict it was more a Catholic Church v a variety of other actors. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @AirshipJungleman29, thank you for the comments, sincerely and seriously. I would be be most appreciative to know your view on my responses. Especially in the light of the interesting excahnge with @Jenhawk777 below. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, in light of the below from Borsoka and Jens, I believe I am currently somewhere between a "neutral" and a "weak oppose", with my main concern the prose quality and source-text integrity, which I noted above was a problem two years ago, although I haven't personally checked for it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

UC

This is a big one, but looks fascinating. I'll try to chip in at some point. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Entirely a question: are we sure that Latin Church, as opposed to Catholic Church, is the correct level of specificity here?

Hmmm, yes, and a good one at that. I don't have a strong opinion, but I suspect so. I think this is about the Latin Church specifically rather than all the churches in communion with the pope. But, I am happy to be corrected. I did check the four sources cited and Lathem x 2, Flori and Davies all use the term.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Happy here, then. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Crusading was a paradigm that grew from the encouragement of the Gregorian Reform of the 11th century and the movement declined after the Reformation. : I would put a date on the Reformation here, or at least for the decline of the crusading movement, as we have for the Gregorian Reform.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• but in practical terms dwindled in competition with other forms of religious war and new ideologies.: not sure about the last bit here. Suggest "in competition with new ideologies promoting other forms of religious war [such as...]?"

—I removed the latter clause. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• the ancient idea of just war: suggest clarifying ancient to "Greco-Roman", "Roman" or even "Augustinian": we're using "ancient" in its specific meaning of "belonging to Greco-Roman antiquity" rather than the more everyday "really old".

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• a form of special Christian pilgrimage: reads oddly to me: better as special form, I think, unless I've missed some distinction.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Pilgrimage and crusade were penitent acts and they considered participants part of Christ's army: reads oddly with they: I'd either clarify to "adherents" or put into the passive: "participants were considered..."

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• While this was only metaphorical before the First Crusade: I mean, it was metaphorical after, too, unless I've missed something big.

—combatants on the first crusade literally considered themselves Chris's soldiers.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This one is going to need some explaining, then: are you saying that they honestly believed that Christ had manifested himself and was leading the army in the same sense as its temporal leaders were? At least, we need to frame it in the positive: something like "during the First Crusade, this metaphor was developed into the belief that crusaders were physically led in their endeavours by Christ". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

—I have excised the sentence. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• After this, the movement became an important part of late-medieval western culture, impacting politics, the economy and society.: suggest cutting after this, or else alluding to what happened between the First Crusade (pretty generally early medieval) and the late medieval period.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• The final paragraph of the lead was tough going for me in terms of clarity. Suggest another look at the big list of places and peoples: can it be cut down and split up a bit?

— rephrased, does this work? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• the medieval concept of one Christian Church ruled by the papacy: this would have been news in medieval Constantinople, and therefore in much of the medieval "European" world.

—I think the idea of Papal primacy was a big deal, although softened this by changing medieval to western European. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Fine, but then we need solidifying Latin Christendom as a geopolitical entity (or similar). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

—removed geopolitical, w-l papal primacy, reworded. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• one Christian Church ... separate from non-believers: was this ever really a Thing? I know a few medieval realms tried to expel Jews, but most didn't, so I'm starting from a position of scepticism that medieval Christians generally believed particularly strongly that Christian realms should only contain Christians.

removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• so that Christendom was geopolitical: must admit I'm not sure what this means.

—rephrased, Christedom was a geopolitical entity, it acted in the world across its geography. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hm -- I'm not sure this is really true. Do we have any evidence that "Christendom" functioned in any meaningful sense as a political entity? We're clearly a long way off the Weberian definition ("claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of force"), but I'm also deeply unconvinced that any non-Christian powers ever sought to negotiate with, ally with, declare war on etc "Christendom" (as opposed to an individual ruler within that), or indeed that "Christendom" had any political structures that weren't (often temporary, fragile and self-interested) freely-made ad hoc compacts between its different rulers. After all, Christians were far more often found fighting other Christians during this period than pagans or Muslims, and the High Middle Ages were hardly a uniformly golden age of submission by temporal rulers to popes. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

— It needs expansion, not sure it is appropriate in this article. I think it is covered in detail so will remove the geopolitical reference. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

But you are right again. See below. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

From the ninth to the eleventh century, the concept of Christendom was pervasive in both East and West. Pretty much everyone - from medieval writers to ordinary folk - used the term to identify themselves, their religious culture, and yes, their state, and even civilization itself.

Evidence that it functioned politically can be found in the formation of those countries that eventually made up East-Central Europe - Poland, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Hungary and Croatia are certain examples. These countries were not formed politically separately from Christendom. They were formed because of it, because they saw the advantages and wanted to be a part of Christendom. Christianization and politicization went hand in glove. I would say this qualifies as examples of Christendom as a politically influential concept. This can be found in The Routledge History of Medieval Christianity: 1050-1500. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• The subtitle "Instituitional Reform" should be "Institutional reform" per MOS:CAPS (or possibly MOS:TITLE).

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist I think I may have addressed your points to date, although I may have missed something so stand to be corrected. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Will have a look through, bracket off resolved points and add new ones as needed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

More follow:

• The period following the collapse of the Carolingian Empire and the onset of the feudal revolution: a few things here. Firstly, when exactly are we talking about? Secondly, I can just about wear the word "feudal" (see this classic article), but really struggle with "the feudal revolution" as an uncritical term: see (especially) the conclusion of this no-longer-so-recent book, which is pretty clear that whether the "feudal revolution" was a Thing is, at best, highly contentious -- West is at least very hesitant about its utility as a concept.

—feudal removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• was seen by an 11th century reformist movement as an era of decline in morals and religious institutions: which 11t-century reformist movement? How influential were these people?

—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish You are correct in saying the eleventh century was an age of religious reform and renewal. It is generally seen by most scholars as a turning point in western Christianity. Cluniacs became the leading center of Western monasticism because of their reform, and the Cistercian movement - a second wave of reform - became a primary force of technological advancement and its diffusion in medieval Europe. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• the monasticisation of the clergy: I would explain this a bit more clearly: we don't literally mean that the priests became monks (or, frankly, anything close to it). I don't know much about the Cluniac Reforms, but what I do know is mostly centred on reforming the monasteries themselves, rather than exporting their ideals outside their walls.

—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• More generally, there's a lot of This-es in this section without clear antecedents. Replacing them with noun phrases would make things clearer.

— rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Latin phrases, even when in links, should be in language templates for the benefit of screen readers and the Wiki software.
• this became known as Cluniac reform: as the Cluniac Reforms, I think.

—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Thus, an ideological framework was created for a faction within the clergy: I am still very unclear on how big this fraction was: it previously sounded as if the whole Latin church had gone this way.

— rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• As church historian Colin Morris noted: Professional writing generally avoids false titles, so the church historian. Scholarship that is being treated as 'live' is also generally referred to in the present tense. More seriously, though, we should avoid a word like notes, which indicates an observable statement of fact, when we are introducing an opinion (MOS:SAID).

—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• this reforming party gaining control of the Roman Church was an important turning point because these were men who stood for the concept of holy war: lots here: we haven't said that they gained control yet, nor has holy war been part of our discussion of the Cluniac Reforms so far.

—left in place but changed grammar Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• 20th—century: needs an endash, not an emdash (MOS:DASH)

—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Andrew Latham, an international relations theory academic: in a high-level article on a historical concept, why are we giving the whole voice (on a fairly uncontroversial topic) to someone whose specialism is in another field? More generally, it would be better to explicitly say what scholars have established as a consensus on the issue: the nitty-gritty of individual interpretations can and should be left to sub-articles.

—toned down Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• The core interests of this identity provoked conflict with ... heretics: this is putting the cart before the horse: heretic was a label used by the Church to mark out people with whom it had or wanted a conflict: nobody identified themselves as a heretic and nobody was thought of as one until the Church labelled them. It's a bit like "terrorist groups" or "rogue states" in modern international relations: we need a more neutral term here, or to explicitly say something like "those with beliefs it [the Church] deemed heretical". The work of RI Moore is good here (there's a lot more on the same concept in Late Antiquity): even this somewhat critical review of his latest book accepts the basic point at issue here.

—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• There's a lot of Latham even after that bulleted list. A couple of big statements: what International Relations Theory considers the structural drivers of anarchy: what are those? More importantly, we're saying that it wasn't about them, but we haven't yet set up the case that it was about them. I'm also going to raise an eyebrow at Without these factors, the crusades were impossible: impossible is a big word in historical explanation. I can wear an argument that the specific ideology of crusading was inextricable from its historical context (as all ideology is), but saying that there was absolutely no scenario in which Christian armies launched religious wars if "these factors" (which ones?) were absent is a pretty WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim.

—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Theologians widely accepted Henry of Segusio's justification: when and who was this guy? We've been pretty loose on the chronology so far, but the current framing makes it sound like he was in play from at least the C11th.

—removed, it was incorrect. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• The theology of war evolved from the linking of Roman citizenship with Christianity; Christian citizens now had the obligation to fight against the empire's enemies: we're talking a lot of steps very quickly here. I'm very unconvinced by the argument that Romans, at least in late antiquity, believed that Roman citizens (as individuals) had a duty to fight against the empire's enemies: once we've demonstrated that, we can then go on to make an argument that Christian theologians conceptualised the Church as being basically an empire, and religious affiliation as basically citizenship, but we need to prove the first step first or the whole thing is built on sand.

—agree, I have excised this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Gregory VII extended the institutions of holy war: what does this mean, concretely? When did it happen?

— I have excised this as it seems to add little value. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Where is Barbastro?

— Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• the Norman conquest of the Sicily: of Sicily, or of the [Muslim] Emirate of Sicily.

—removed the pipe. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Capitalise Battle of Nablus.

— Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Jens

I remember I have reviewed this one a long time ago. I want to give some drive-by comments for now; I am not sure if I can commit to a full review. I have concerns about the structure of the "Evolution" section:

• For a reader that looks at the article for the first time, the sub-headings seem confusing or random: You have "Knights and chivalry", "Military orders" and so on, and then, all of a sudden, list the separate centuries. So the first four sections do not seem to express a chronological order, but the remainder do, which is not ideal. Maybe it would make sense to move the first four sections to the "Background" sections, because they cover the starting conditions before the crusades?

—As above, I have taken this restoring the structure to what is was prior to GAR. Seems like it was an unpopular change. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• The heading "Birth" is not particularly obvious. That could mean many things. I suggest to rename into "First crusade".

—removed entirely as part of the restructuring above. Does this work? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• The "century" sections are too long. Any chance to cut them down?

I will copy edit these to reduce the length, looking at them again I think this can probably be halfed without losing any important points. This might take a few days to do properly though. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• At the very least, the "century" sections should have sub-headings to break-up the wall of text. In particular the "13th century" is way too long.

Will look at this when summarising. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• It would help to have "Main articles:" indicated for the "century" sections.

—at the moment I agree with Airship above that this is not necessary. But, will look at this when summarising as noted above. These sections are chronological, and as such touch on a number of themes but I can't yet see how these map to main articles. Will have a think though. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• The "Dennis, Gorge T. (2001)" citation has an oversized "access required" icon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

—removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing some of the comments listed below and checking with the article, I have to agree that the article is not ready yet for FAC (even though I do not necessarily agree with all those comments, but there are enough where I do agree). Most importantly, I can confirm that some significant wp:close paraphrasing is still present after consulting of the main sources. For example, the article has The reformist Church's identity-interest complex framed Islam as a particular form of heresy while the source says "the reformers’ core identity-interest complex, which framed Islam as a particularly obdurate form of heresy", and Islamic polities' own identity-interest complexes led them to be equally violently opposed to the restoration of Christian rule while the source says "their own core identity-interest complex, were violently opposed to returning them to Christian rule". Additionally, I am concerned that by copying expressions from the scholarly literature (such as "identity-interest complex" in the example above), the article becomes unnecessarily difficult to understand; given our audience, I think we should attempt to summarize those sources in more accessible, less technical language, and avoid such expressions whenever possible. Oppose. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text

• File:SCONTRO_A_NABLUS_-_AFFRESCHI_CONTROFACCIATA_S._BEVIGNATE.JPG is incorrectly tagged. Ditto File:Fragment_of_the_Cairo_Genizah_-_The_Passover_Haggadah,_page_1_of_4.png

• File:Gestorum_Rhodie_obsidionis_commentarii_-_BNF_Lat6067_f3v.jpg needs a US tag

• File:Cappella_Piccolomini_sposa_Eleonora_e_cardinale_Pinturicchio_Siena.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria—happy to do the last three but lack the knowledge, would you mind explaning what, and how, needs to happen please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

On the first of these: these are tagged as own work by uploader. However, under US law, reproduction of 2D works does not garner a new copyright. These should instead be tagged according to the status of the original works (which are presumably PD due to age). The second needs an additional tag added to it to indicate its copyright status in the US (presumably also PD due to age - if you look at the current tag there is a link to a list of potential US tags). The last has a tag for the copyright of the photographer, but needs another added for the status of the pictured artwork (presumably also PD due to age). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose by Borsoka

After reviewing the Background section of the article I concluded that the article does not meet FA criteria. It neglects major facts and details, it is not a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, it is not compliant with WP's copyright policy and is not free of plagiarism and too-close paraphrasing, its structure is diffuse, lacks any logic, etc. I think the article could be brought to WP:Good article reassessment. Borsoka (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree, and neither did reviewers at Good Article and MILHIST A-Class Review. As such I have refeered this behaviour to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Crusading_movement.

Comments and feedback is welcome from all reviewers from this article. @Johnbod: would also welcome comments on previous incidents. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you chose to take me to ANI. I am sure that you realised that the article will probably quickly delisted during the GAR process. Borsoka (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

General remarks

• A general remark on sourcing: more than 30% of the article is verified by references to individual articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Our relevant policy says, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. ... Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." I think the use of a tertiary source goes beyond this boundary, and the rationale beyond the selection of individual encyclopedic articles is unclear. As a consequence of this approach, the article looks like an encyclopedia with individual articles following each other without much connection between them. I am not sure that this method can secure that the movement is presented in WP as it is presented in relevant scholarly literature. Could we write an article about "Humanity" based on arbitrarily selected articles from Encyclopædia Britannica?
  • I disagree. The Encyclopedia contains secondary and tertiary material in about 1,000 entries that make use of both source material and secondary scholarship in a variety of languages. Each entry is signed by its author and has a bibliography. In what way does that go outside WP's boundary? especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other which they do. Your standard seems different than WP's.
  • Nothing can be legitimately concluded from the complaint of individual articles following each other without much connection between them since there is often an absence of connection between historic events, and creating a connection would require OR.
  • Could we write an article about "Humanity" based on arbitrarily selected articles from Encyclopædia Britannica? Who says these articles are arbitrarily selected? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • Please read what our relevant policy says: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources." Could you list instances when the secondary sources cited in this article contradict each other, so the use of tertiary sources is inevitable?

• Sudden changes in tone and vocabulary and redundant content suggests that significant texts may be closely paraphrased. Has the article been reviewed from this perspective? I have only reviewed about one fifth of the article, but I have found several cases of close paraphrasing and copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Please list those. Earwig's copyright violation tester says there are no copyright violations. [2] If you are right, Earwig needs to be informed that their program has become undependable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • I listed several examples below.

• Secondary sources cited in the article dedicate several pages to the Muslim world and the influx of the Turks in the politics of the Middle East [Asbridge (pp. 17-29), Jotischky (pp. 40-47), Lock (pp. 3-19), Madden (pp. 1-5), Tyermann 2019 (pp. 33-45). Several other sources that follow the same path could be listed. Why does the article ignore this usual scholarly approach?
  • Perhaps because that is the scholarly approach to studying the Crusades themselves rather than the movement which prompted and sustained them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • Do you say that the above authors who are cited in the article should be ignored?

• The article's structure is diffuse, and seemingly lacks any detectable logic: several elements of the flourishing crusading movement are mentioned in section "Background". (For instance, why are the military orders or the development of the crusading ideology in the 13th century mentioned in this section?)

Borsoka (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• • The article's structure makes sense imo, and the content is good. It's just the section title "Background" that needs changing to Overview or Overview of relevant concepts to better reflect what it actually is. As an overview, it must contain all relevant factors for the entire period including the thirteenth century, which it does. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • And what about section "Evolution"?

• In most cases, the article does not explain the events, but mentions facts or PoVs without making clear the connection between them, or providing our readers with a coherent (or incoherent) story: "Pope X said this, Pope Y told that, and Pope Z said another thing, etc".
  • That's how history is reported - without interpretation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • I think we read different books of history. Borsoka (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• The article contains original research and original synthesis. Several examples can be found in the "Specific remarks" section. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • When making serious accusations like this one, it only seems responsible and respectful of others to be as specific as possible. Without specifics, there is no way to prove or disprove your claim. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Please read my list below. Borsoka (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Specific remarks

• The period following the collapse of the Carolingian Empire and the onset of the feudal revolution was seen by an 11th century reformist movement as an era of decline in morals and religious institutions. Links to "feudal revolution" and the reformist movement? Was this a political or a culinary reform movement? Why did they think that the period was a period of decline?

—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• The Crusading movement's beginnings were propelled by a significant shift in the western Church during the mid-eleventh century. Reformers, supported initially by Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor and later opposing his son Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, assumed power over the papacy around 1040. They astutely perceived the papacy as the optimal vehicle for their mission to eliminate corruption in the Church and strategically took control of it. 1. The cited source does not verify the two sentences. 2. The texts in italics repeat the same information. 3. The date is not around 1040 but in the late 1040s [Barber (2012), p. 84] 4. Link to Western Church? 5. Consequency: "mid-eleventh century" vs. "mid-19th century". 6. The "reformers" were specifically reformist clerics. 7. Why did they perceive the papacy as the optimal vehicle?

• It was considered the result of too much involvement in the dealings of the mundus, the Latin term for the world. Who were involved in the dealings with the mundus? The term mundus refers to secular affairs in the context. Do we have to use the Latin term?

—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

—replaced with secular world Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• The reformers responded primarily with the monasticisation of the clergy. This was centred on ideals of personal piety, chastity, moral purity, spiritual discipline, and elaborate liturgies. Could the two sentences be consolidated? This way close paraphrasing ("the monasticisation of the clergy") could be avoided. When writing of the monasticisation of the clergy Latham does not mention chastity and elaborate litrugies, the two terms are mentioned in connection with the reform of monastic communities. (The reform of the monastic communities and "the monasticisation of the clergy" do not cover the same concept.)

—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• This group viewed themselves as architects of a re-established res publica Christiana Closely paraphrased. The Latin term should be translated or explained.

—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• As church historian Colin Morris noted, quoting the early 20th—century German historian Carl Erdmann, this reforming party gaining control of the Roman Church was an important turning point because these were men who stood for the concept of holy war and sought to enact it. I assume Morris and Erdmann write of the Gregorian reform movement, not about the Cluniac Reforms because similar statements in other scholarly works are connected with the Gregorian Reform.

—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Who is Augustin Fliche?
• Explain "simony" with two or three words.
• Eventually, the reformist faction within the Roman Church took the lead... This fact is mentioned twice in the section's second and third sentences.

• Is Latham's PoV about the preconditions for the crusading movement widely accepted by medievalists who have published general works on the crusading movement or monographies about its origins?

• Why was the reference to Latham deleted if his PoV is described? Even if he is not mentioned, the relevance of his thoughts should be verified as per WP:DUE.

• Perhaps Latham's thoughts (if they are indeed relevant) should be described in a more natural style in order to avoid close paraphrasing: "motivated-by-God deliverer", "core interests of this identity", "war-making entity", "armed nobility"...

—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reform of the Latin Church identity:... Does "Latin Church" differ from "western Church" mentioned in the section's previous paragraph?
• The Latin Church underwent a significant transformation, becoming an independent force motivated by divine authority for religious revitalisation. Was the Latin Church indeed motivated by divine authority?

• The core interests of this identity provoked conflict with the Holy Roman Empire, Muslim polities, heretics, and pagans. This new identity led to conflicts with various entities, including the Holy Roman Empire, Muslim states, other Christian sects, and pagans Who and why was brought into conflict with these groups? Does the article suggest that relationship between the Christian communities/polities/leaders and Muslim polities, heretics "sects" and pagans had been peaceful before the Gregorian Reforms? Can the Eastern Orthodox Church be described as a sect?

—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Add a translation for milites Christi.

—and cited to Morris. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• ...milites Christi or knights of Christ... The cited author (Morris) does not verify the translation. He describes "milites Christi" as an "expression which until then had been the monopoly of monks had been extended to knights".

• The development of formal structures for building an army that furthered the Church's interests. Development of Formal Army Structures: The establishment of formal structures for raising armies was crucial in advancing the Church's interests in crusading endeavors. Examples of these "formal structures"? Why is "Formal Army Structures" capitalised?
• Section "Background" implies that solely the Gregorian Reform (or Cluniac Reform?) was responsible for the Crusades. I think this approach is quite unusual. Borsoka (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
• Section "Christianity and war" is quite confusing from chronological and logical perspective: Augustine is mentioned in at least three separate paragraphs, so the section does not clearly summarise his views. The section obviously mixes Augustine's views with his high medieval interpretators' thoughts (I will add at least one example below). As the section does not point at the differences between the classical just war theory and Augustine's views, and between Augustine's views and the high medieval theology of Christian holy war, the development of this important aspect of crusading ideology remains unclear.
• A distinct ideology promoted and regulated crusades. Could you quote the text verifying this statement from the cited scholarly works?

—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• It is still in the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

—aplogies, I thought I had removed. I have now. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish I don't agree this should be removed. It should be explained. Isn't this the core of what the article is about? The guiding presence of a distinct ideology is supported in Blake, EO. "The Formation of the Crusade Idea". The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 1970;21(1):11-31. doi:10.1017/S0022046900048429. and Maier CT. "Crisis, Liturgy and the Crusade in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries". The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 1997;48(4):628-657. doi:10.1017/S0022046900013440 among many. A good discussion is in Allington, Richard DG. "Prayer Warriors: Crusading Piety in Rome and the Papal States (1187-1291)". Diss. Saint Louis University, 2017. But it's a dissertation and not yet a book, so though we are allowed, Borsoka has a dislike even of journal articles and will surely put the kibosh on a dissertation if you use it. Reading it is still worthwhile. The existence of a distinct ideology is supported in Kienzle B., "Religious poverty and the search for perfection". In: Rubin M, Simons W, eds. The Cambridge History of Christianity. Cambridge University Press; 2009:39-53. and in Marcus Bull's "Crusade and conquest". In: Rubin M, Simons W, eds. The Cambridge History of Christianity. Cambridge University Press; 2009:340-352. Good luck. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• I put the kibosh on unverified statements. I have no problem with journal articles, although I doubt that a statement that cannot be verified with a reference to a book about the crusades should be mentioned in this article as per WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  Borsoka I am curious about what makes a book a better reference than an article? They each have one author, so both represent one person's pov. They are often written by the same scholars. WP:DUE is about minority views, but articles are not more likely to represent minority views any more than many books do. Articles are narrower and more focused by nature, but if that's the topic, why is that not actually better than a broad overview from a book? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• If books about the crusades do not refer to a specific aspect of the crusades mentioned in a journal article about this specific aspect we can hardly say that it is highly relevant in this article's context. Please try to make comments on the article instead of beginning discussions with other editors. The article needs significant improvement. Borsoka (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  • • Borsoka I can't apologize for bringing this up here, since this is the reason - so often - given for claiming "The article needs significant improvement" and therefore fails. That's a lot resting upon your claim that, "If books about the crusades do not refer to a specific aspect of the crusades mentioned in a journal article about this specific aspect, we can hardly say that it is highly relevant". But journal articles are not generally written on topics that failed to be relevant enough to get in the book. Journal articles most often represent additional research done after a book was published - books take longer to publish, and research moves faster than rewrites and republication. Articles cover the gap. That makes them highly relevant.
    • Books generally provide an overview, and therefore have a little info about a lot of topics; articles tend to have a lot of info about a single topic. Containing more detail as dedicated monographs demonstrates the importance of a singular point - not the opposite.
    • Assuming journal articles are less relevant, significant or valid than the content of a book is not a usable definition of relevance, it is not supported by WP guidelines, and it's based on a huge false assumption. It is not a sound basis for saying an article "needs significant improvement" and shouldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged. This is a good article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• With whom are you arguing? I have never said that this article needs significant improvement because it cites journal articles. Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Nice straw man. You said I doubt that a statement that cannot be verified with a reference to a book about the crusades should be mentioned in this article as per WP:DUE. Due is about handling minority views - and this sounds like you think anything not in a book is a minority view. Surely that can't be right, but how else can Due be applied here? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Please read the above discussion more carefully. I said that the article contained an unverified sentence, and this statement was true. Upon your remarks, I also said that I would prefer references to general books about the crusades in this article but I did not say that the article needs improvement due to its references to journal articles. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with you 100% @Jenhawk777 that sentence is the kernal of this article. Agree also that it should be explained fully, so many thanks for the sources. I did remove because it is a sentence that sort of hangs there, more of a introduction and it is the explanation rather than the sentence that it is important. When I get a chance I will look to restore supported by the sources. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thumbs up! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• The Church defined crusading in legal and theological terms based on the theory of holy war and the concept of Christian pilgrimage. Maier writes of four principal elements: holy war theology, the model of pilgrimage, Old Testament history, and New Testament theology, thus this and the subsequent sentences do not reflect Maier's thoughts.
• Theology merged Old Testament Israelite wars that were instigated and assisted by God with New Testament Christocentric views on forming individual relationships with Christ. What does this mean? I doubt that Israelite wars were any time merged with Christocentric views, first of all because of chronological reasons.
• ...Israelite wars that were instigated and assisted by God... Were these wars indeed instigated and assisted by God?
• ...canon lawyers developed it from the 11th century into bellum sacrum, the paradigm of Christian holy war. Maier mentions theologians as well. Could you name some of the theologians and canon lawyers?
• Theologians widely accepted Henry of Segusio's justification that holy war against pagans was just because of their opposition to Christianity. Unverified. Maier states the opposite.

—indeed, removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Maier emphasises that "In essence, the Christian theory of holy war was meant to justify, in specific circumstances, the transgession of the divine prohibition of homicide..." Likewise, Tyerman refers to the Bible's ambigious approach towards violence. The section does not draw our readers' attention to the fact that that crusading theology as it was developed by Gregorian theologians represent a radical shift from traditional Christian views' on acts of bloodshed.
• ...if an authority such as a king or bishop proclaimed the war... I know Latham (who is not a specialist) verifies the statement, but I doubt that Augustine wrote of kings in a positive context taking into account that in his time kings were mainly the enemies of the Christian Roman Empire.
• Gregory VII extended the institutions of holy war... No institutions of holy war are mentioned in the previous sentences.

—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• ...his supporter Anselm of Lucca consolidated the just war theories. Whose just war theories? What is the outcome of this consolidation?
• In the 11th century, the Church sponsored conflict with Muslims on the southern peripheries of Christendom, including the siege of Barbastro and the Norman conquest of the Sicily. Absolutely out of context statement.
• ...which produced a template for a crusade... This is not verified and obviously wrong: no crusades would be led by a pope.

—not what Asbridge writes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• ...but he was unable to garner the required support Why?

—see above Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Augustine's principles formed the basis of a doctrine of religious war that was later developed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas, canon lawyers, and theologians. Redundant with the exemption of its reference to Thomas Aquinas. Tyerman writes that Aquinas is responsible for "producing a codified theory of Christian just war".
• This movement's influence is apparent in Pope Urban II's speeches... Why are Urban II's speeches relevant?
• What is the connection between Latham's three pre-conditions for crusading (mentioned in section "Background") and Erdmann's three stages (listed in section "Christianity and holy war"). Why is Latham cited instead of Erdmann? Is Erdmann's PoV is widely accepted by medievalists who published general works on the crusading movement or its origin? I think the three bullet points could be distributed in the text in chronological order to better understand how the Christian ideology of Holy War developed.
• The Church viewed Rome as the Patrimony of Saint Peter. This enabled the application of canon law to justify various Italian wars waged by the church as purely defensive crusades to protect theoretical Christian territory. Absolutely out of context. Borsoka (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
• By the 11th century, the Latin Church developed a system that provided for the remission and absolution of sin in return for contrition, confession, and penitential acts. 1. Why? 2. Perhaps "contrition, confession, and penitential acts" could be rephrased to avoid close paraphrasing. 3. The term "confession" could be linked to the more specific "sacrament of penance".

— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• ...martial activity... Use a more natural language to avoid close paraphrasing.

— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• ...noble warrior class... What about commoner warriors?

— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• ...revolutionary innovation.... PoV statement copied from Latham's work.

— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• ...in support of his causes, if selflessly given. Could you quote the text verifying the words in bold?

Gregory VII offered all who fought for his cause, in whatever fashion, absolution of their sins and the prospect of eternal salvation. Provided their motivation was grounded on selflessness and faith not gain, such soldiers could combine penance and violence.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Is this from one of the cited works? Borsoka (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Is reference 11 necessary? (Furthermore, Tyerman explains Erdman's PoV in the cited page.)

::— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• This was developed by subsequent Popes into the granting of plenary indulgence that reduced all God-imposed temporal penalties. Could you quote the text verifying the statement. Did indeed God impose temporal or any other kind of panalties?
• At the Council of Clermont in November 1095, Urban II effectively founded the crusading movement with two directives: the exemption from atonement for those who journeyed to Jerusalem to free the Church; and that while doing so all goods and property were protected. Why is this in the "Background" section? Why is the protection of property mentioned in section "Penance and indulgence"?
• The weakness of conventional theologies in the face of crusading euphoria is shown in a letter critical of Pope Paschal II from the writer Sigebert of Gembloux to the crusader Robert II, Count of Flanders. Sigebert referred to Robert's safe return from Jerusalem but completely avoided mentioning the crusade. The text in bold represent copyvio; the remaining text is not verified by the cited source (it does not mention to whom Sigebert addressed the letter); the sentence from the article ignores the cited source's main message: "Sigebert attacked the idea of penitential war". Furthermore, why is something happening years after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
• It was Calixtus II who first promised the same privileges and protections of property to the families of crusaders. 1. Reference 22 does not verify the statement. 2. The text in bold is not verified by any of the two sources. 3. Why is something happening decades after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
• Under the influence of Bernard of Clairvaux, Eugenius III revised Urban's ambiguous position with the view that the crusading indulgence was remission from God's punishment for sin, as opposed to only remitting ecclesiastical confessional discipline. 1. The text in bold is not verified. 2. Urban's ambifious position is not previously mentioned. 3. What is Eugenius's conclusion. 4. Why is something happening nearly a half century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
• Innocent III emphasised crusader oaths and clarified that the absolution of sins was a gift from God, rather than a reward for the crusaders' suffering. 1. Reference 25 does not verify the text. 2. Why is something happening more than a century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
• With his 1213 bull Quia maior, he appealed to all Christians, not just the nobility, offering the possibility of vow redemption without crusading. 1. Could you quote the text verifying that indeed the bull Quia maior offered the possibility... 2. Did he appeal to the Orthodox, Nestorians, Copts also? 3. Which vow? The crusading vow is not previously mentioned in the article. 4. Why did he do this? 5. Are we sure that the payment did not constitute as an act of crusading? 5. Why is something happening nearly a half century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
• This set a precedent for trading in spiritual rewards... No spiritual rewards are mentioned in the previous sentence.
• ...a practice that scandalised devout Christians and became a contributing cause of the 16th century Protestant Reformation. Could you quote the text verifying the statement?
• As late as the 16th century, writers sought redemptive solutions in the traditionalist wars of the cross, while others – such as English martyrologist John Foxe – saw these as examples of papist superstition, corruption of religion, idolatry, and profanation. 1. The text in bold is not verified, the text in italic is closely paraphrased. 2. Why is Tyerman's encyclopedic article about "Historiography, Modern" (one of the cited sources) revelant in connection with "Penance and indulgence"? 3. What is the relevance of Foxe's PoV in connection with "Penance and indulgence"? 4. Why is something from the 16th century mentioned in section "Background"?
• Critics blamed the Roman Church for the failure of the crusades. War against the infidel was laudable, but not crusading based on doctrines of papal power, indulgences, and against Christian religious dissidents such as the Albigensian and Waldensians. Justifying war on juristic ideas of just war to which Lutherans, Calvinists, and Roman Catholics could all subscribe, and the role of indulgences, diminished in Roman Catholics tracts on the Turkish wars. Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius developed international laws of war that discounted religion as a cause, in contrast to popes, who persisted in issuing crusade bulls for generations. 1. Original synthesis? 2. Why are events happening in the 16th and 17th centuries mentioned in section "Background"? Borsoka (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• If chivalry was in its infancy at the beginning of the crusading movement (as the article states), why is "Knights and chivalry" mentioned in the "Background" section?
• At the beginning of the crusading movement, chivalry was in its infancy; but it went on to define the ideas and values of knights, and was central to the crusading movement. 1. The text in bold represents copyvio. 2. The reference to Flori's article should be fixed to verify the statement in italics.

—rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Literature illustrated the prestige of knighthood, but it was distinct from the aristocracy. 1. The text in italics is not verified by the cited sources. 2. What was distinct from the aristocracy: knighthood or its prestige?
• 11th and 12th century texts depict a class of knights that were closer in status to peasants within recent generations. The text is unclear.

• Texts from the 11th and 12th centuries portray a class of knights who were comparatively closer in status to peasants within the preceding generations. 1. The text is still unclear: were their fathers peasants or only close to peasants. 2. The texts in italics is not verified. (I think the cited encyclopedic article simply says that there were knights of peasant/humble origin.)Borsoka (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• In the 13th century knighthood became equated with nobility, as a social class with legal status, closed to non-nobles. The texts in italics contradict the cited source (Flori).
• Chivalric development grew from a society dominated by the possession of castles. The sentence makes no sense and is not verified by the cited source (Flori): development cannot grow from a society, and possession of castles cannot dominate a society.
• Those who defended these became knights. Copyvio. Some explanation?
• ...coupled with the growing naval capability of Italy's maritime republics,... Could you quote the text from the cited sources verifying that there is any connection between the naval capability of the maritime republics and knighthood?
• Contrary to the representation in the romances... Which romances?
• Instead, raids and sieges predominated, for which there was only a minimal role for knights. A previous sentence claims that those who defended the castles became knights.
• Knighthood required combat training, which created solidarity and gave rise to combat as a sport. The cited source (Flori) writes of special forms of combat.
• Crusade preachers used tournaments and other gatherings to obtain vows of support from attending dignitaries, begin persuasive campaigns, and announce a leader's taking of the cross. 1. This happened from the Second Crusade. Why is it mentioned in section "Background"? 2. Close paraphrasing and original synthesis (Lloyd mentions church synods when referring to the "attending dignitaries", and church synods can hardly be associated with "Knights and chivalry".
• ...medieval institutions were immature in feudal Europe... The statement makes no sense.
• ...the crusades in the Levant were typically unimpressive. PoV statement by a 19th-century historian. Is his view accepted by modern historians?
• Developing vernacular literature glorified the idea of adventure and the virtues of valour, largesse, and courtesy. This created an ideal of the perfect knight. Chivalry was a way of life, a social and moral model that evolved into a myth. The texts in bold represent copyvio.
• The chivalric romantic ideals of excellence, martial glory, and carnal—even adulterous—love conflicted with the spiritual views of the Church. Texts in italics are unverified, in bold represent close paraphrasing/copyvio.
• Writers lauded those who fought for the Church; others were excommunicated. Writers? The text in italics is not verified by the cited source.
• By the 11th century, the Church developed liturgical blessings sanctifying new knights. The text in italics is not verified by the cited source.
• In 1100, kings depicted themselves as knights to indicate their power. 1. Texts in italics are not verified by the cited source. 2. Where did they depict themselves? 3. I think this sentence contradicts the section's third sentence: "11th and 12th century texts depict a class of knights that were closer in status to peasants...".
• Reference 43 is obviously wrong. Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Could you list scholarly works verifying tha the the military orders can be mentioned in the background to the crusading movement?
• The section about the military orders lacks any inner coherence.
• The crusaders' propensity to follow the customs of their western European homelands meant that there were very few innovations adopted from the culture of the Crusader states. Three notable exceptions to this were the military orders, warfare, and fortifications. Is this a good introduction for the military orders? Why were the military orders established?
• The Knights Hospitaller were founded in Jerusalem before the First Crusade but added a martial element to their ongoing medical functions to become a much larger military order. The cited source (Asbridge) does not verify the statement.
• In this way, knighthood entered the previously monastic and ecclesiastical sphere. 1. The texts in bold represent copyvio. 2. Prawer's PoV about the Hospitallers' role as pioneers of the military orders is quite marginal. Other authors cited in the article make it clear that the Knights Templar were the first military order (Asbridge pp. 168-169, Barber p. 135, Tyerman [2019] pp. 151-155). 3. If the Knights Hospitaller were indeed established before the First Crusade, what is the connection between the origin of the military orders and the Crusader states?
• Military orders – like the Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar – provided Latin Christendom's first professional armies, to support the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the other crusader states. The cited author (Asbridge) does not verify the stament.
• These orders became supranational organizations with papal support, leading to rich donations of land and revenue across Europe. The text in bold represent both close paraphrasing/copyvio and original research. (Asbridge does not associate the development of the military orders into supranational organizations with papal support.)
• In time, the orders developed into autonomous powers. 1. When? 2. Asbridge is more specific.
• After the fall of Acre,... Some explanation?
• Section "Common people" mainly presents facts from the period when the crusading movement flourished. Why are these facts presented as belonging to the background to the crusading movement?
• Women also formed part of the armies. Were all women who joined the crusading armies commoners as the section's title suggests?
• Historians have increasingly researched the motivations of the poor who joined the early crusades in large numbers and engaged in popular unsanctioned events during the 13th and 14th centuries. Text in italics belongs to historiography.
• ...amongst the poor, Christianity and crusading were aggressive. Texts in bold are not verified.
• An emphasis on popular preaching, developed in the 12th century, generated a wealth of useful resources. 1. The text in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. 2. Does the statement imply that the Church started to urge commoners to join the crusades? If not, why the commoners were targeted by preachers?
• The most popular example began in 1268,... The text in bold contradicts the cited source.
• The popular but short-lived outbreaks of crusading enthusiasm after Acre fell to Egypt were largely driven by eschatological perceptions of crusading amongst the poor rather than the advanced, professionalized plans advocated by theorists. The sentence is not verified.
• Pilgrimage was not a mass activity. Copyvio and original research. (The cited source specifically writes of pilgrimages to Jerusalem.)
• In this way, what was known as the remotest place in 1099... The text in bold is not verified.
• The literate classes were hostile to this particular unauthorized crusade but mytho-historicized it so effectively that it is one of the most evocative verbal artefacts from the Middle Ages that remained in European and American imagination. The texts in italics are not verified. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Who is Humbert of Romans?
• Chroniclers used the ethno-cultural terms "barbarians" or barbarae nationes, which were inherited from the Greeks of antiquity, for "others" or "aliens", which were thus differentiated from the self-descriptive term "Latins" that the crusaders used for themselves. The texts in italics does not present the views of the cited author, Jubb. 1. Jubb specifically writes of the chronicles of the First Crusade. 2. She specifically writes that the Greeks used the term for 'others' "alien to their urban civilisation". 3. She does not say that "Latins" is a self-descriptive term used by the crusaders for themselves.
• Jubb's work is not properly listed among the sources: isbn and pages are needed, and the doi points to another study from the same book.
• Although there are no specific references to crusading in the 11th century chanson de geste Chanson de Roland, the author, for propaganda purposes, represented Muslims as monsters and idolators. The text in italics is not presented as a fact but as a possibility in the cited source.
• Visual cues were used to represent Muslims as evil, dehumanized, and monstrous aliens with black complexions and diabolical physiognomies. 1. Texts in bold represent copyvio. 2. The sentence does not summarize the main message of the cited author (Jubb). She says that a "black/white dichotomy" was used in medieval literature, especially in popular works, but it symbolised "religious and cultural difference, as much as race". She mentions "diabolical physiognomies" only when writing of the Song of Roland.
• This portrayal remained in western literature long after the territorial conflict of the crusades had faded into history. 1. The sentence is closely paraphrased. 2. The cited author (Jubb) specifically writes of the medieval period following the age of the crusades.
• The term "Saracen" designated a religious community rather than a racial group, while the word "Muslim" is absent from the chronicles. 1. Texts in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. 2. Which religious community?
• The conflict was seen as a Manichean contest between good and evil. 1. The text in italics is not verified by Jubb. 2. Who saw "the conflict" as a Manichean contest?
• Historians have been shocked by the inaccuracy and hostility involved in such representations, which included crude insults to Mohammad, caricatures of Islamic rituals, and the representation of Muslims as libidinous gluttons, blood-thirsty savages, and semi-human. Texts in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing.
• Historian Jean Flori argues that to self-justify Christianity's move from pacifism to warfare, their enemies needed to be ideologically destroyed. 1. The article does not refer to Christian pacifism in previous sentences. 2. Flori's work should be cited or at least mentioned in a footnote.
• Poets often relied on the patronage of leading crusaders, so they extolled the values of the nobility, the feudal status quo, chivalry, martial prowess, and the idea of the Holy Land being God's territory usurped and despoiled. 1. The text in italics contradicts the cited author (Routledge) who does not make connection between patronage and statements in the second part of the sentence. 2. Text in bold is not verified (actually, Routledge writes of the restoration of status quo ante.)
• The reformist Church's identity-interest complex framed Islam as a particular form of heresy. The text in bold represents copyvio.
• Muslim rule in formerly Christian territory was an "unjust" confiscation of Christian property, and this persecution of Christians required repayment. 1. The text in italics is closely paraphrased. 2. The text is bold is not verified by the cited author (Latham), since he does not define the persecution of Christians as the unjust confiscation of Christian property.
• Islamic polities' own identity-interest complexes led them to be equally violently opposed to the restoration of Christian rule. Copyvio.

FM

• So just to be sure, this is an iteration of the Crusades article that I also reviewed back then?[3] Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk, but no this is a different article. Crusades is still there and never made it to FA due to all the usual WP reasons and contains the MILHIST. Crusading movement is about the ideologies and instituitions and has no MILHIST. There is some overlap naturally and some attributed text has been moved from the former to this one. I tend to think of it as a Venn diagram. Norfolkbigfish Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• There are some WP:duplink that may not be necessary, which can be highlighted with this script:[4]

—although I only found one e.g. Madden. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Give approximate date for the last image caption?

Not sure what you mean here, or how to do it. If you can advise happy to action.

I think they mean add a date to the "Fragment of a haggada from the Cairo genizah" caption (i.e. when is this haggada copy is from). I'd also recommend a second line in the caption for the lead image of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Having just its name and a picture doesn't make it clear to an unformed reader of what its connection to the crusades is. Aza24 (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

—how about this :-)? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The last caption looks good, not sure about the lead one. The building's significance is explained properly in a general sense—but I'm not seeing an explicit connection to the crusades. I would say the image still has to justify its existence. I see that it was reconstructed during the crusades? Maybe something along that sentiment is more relevant Aza24 (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think so, thanks for addressing my badgering. Aza24 (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem at all @Aza24, didn't take it as badgering—more as helpful guidance. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking more the age of the page shown in the last image, but it looks like an improvement. As for the rest of this review, I don't feel qualified enough on the subject to review further until the issues raised by the earlier reviewers are resolved, but ping me if that happens. FunkMonk (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129

Hi @WP:FAC coordinators: . May I suggest the withdrawal of this article from the review process? It has basically now receiving a peer review—to the level of detail that should have been resolved prior to nomination—but which in itself still seems not to be getting properly addressed. So, two problems:

1) It is being peer reviewed whilst also a FA candidate, and

2) The results of this peer review do not seem to be getting addressed.

This is on top of the myriad problems—many small in themselves, but quantitative—raised over other reviews. ——Serial Number 54129 12:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

On edit: Looking above, I see that one of these issues is close paraphrasing; this takes us away from small issues that can be—and generally are—dealt with at FAC to outright policy violation. That's pretty non-negotiable in my book. ——Serial Number 54129 12:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I am somewhat inclined to agree; the unfortunate decision to escalate an oppose to ANI means, I think, that there will always be a shadow hanging over this nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI? Really? For a FAC? Blimey. ——Serial Number 54129 12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, while the article itself is around 10,000 words long, this page is currently standing at >11,500. ——Serial Number 54129 12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, I think around half of those are quotes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

More than half and I am responsible for it. Copyvio, close paraphrasing and original research in a sentence can hardly be demonstrated without copying whole sentences and marking their problematic parts. Borsoka (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nothing wrong with extra length where it's required. ——Serial Number 54129 13:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I am content that this is withdrawn but not for the reason given. This article has gone through two peer reviews, a successful GAN and was also granted A-Class status by the MILHIST project. It did not need a peer review, that was the choice of Borsoka. That is not to say it would have passed, there are clearly some issues here that have previously come to light or been resolved. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Thanks for the ping, SN. Without commenting on the ANI and the conflict history between the nominator and Borsoka, the latter's oppose regarding copyvio is indeed valid and so is Jens's. I decided to verify some of the copyvio/close-paraphrasing issues and they are indeed as problematic as Borsoka has noted (although it certainly would help to show a comparison of the source and article to better illustrate the copyvio problem). Such issues violate Wikipedia policy. I recommend that these issues should immediately be looked into and rectified, but FAC is not the place for that. With that in mind, I'm archiving this nomination. The usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2024 [5].

---

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

Nominator(s): All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a Nigerian writer, novelist, poet, essayist and statesman. She mostly dominates the use of Igbo in some of her works, like Purple Hibiscus, Americanah, and so many. Relatively, the author has aired so many talks on education, fashion, and feminism.

I started working on this article till it became a GA. It's quite non figurative to say, "African articles are rarely FA". It's best I nominate this for FA, haven met FA criteria. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from SusunW

Putting a placemarker here. I am a bit hip deep in real world stuff (101F/38.3C temps and no water. Plumber has the house in disarray searching for the problem, etc. etc. etc.) but will try to get to this, this week. Thank you for your work on Adichie. SusunW (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede

• "in postcolonial feminist literature" seems like odd phrasing. One cannot be inside the boundaries of literature. Suggest "of".
  • Done
• "Along with" would perhaps better be phrased as "Following" or "After" since they weren't simultaneously published.
  • Done
• "She moved to the United States…" is a really long sentence. Suggest breaking it into two sentences.
  • Done
• Subject/verb agreement is off in "Most of her works…delves", i.e. works delve.
  • Done
• correct spelling "marrige"
  • Done

Early life and background

• Comma needed after 1977
  • Done
• Where was she born? The Nation says Abba, Anambra state in Nigeria, which is in the lede, but Luebering's article for Britannica says in Enugu. Looking at various sources, the weight of the evidence[6][7][8] is that she was born in Enugu and her father was born in Abba. Add it in the body with curated sources and change it in the lede. (I would eliminate The Nation as a source, as we have better high-quality sources)
  • Done: eliminated The Nation too
• Her mother's maiden name of Odigwe should be given, i.e. (née Odigwe) and cited to the obit in This Day.
  • Done
• While looking for high-quality sources for her place of birth, I discovered this source, which gives a discussion about her name and where it came from. From reading it, it seems evident that Amanda N. Adichie was her English name, not a pen name and that "Chimamanda" was created by the author herself in the 1990s.
  • Done
• first use of Nsukka should be linked.
• Remove duplicate links for University of Nigeria.
  • Done
• Neither The Nation nor Luebering give any description of Nsukka or who populates it. If you are going to include this information it needs to be sourced. I am also unclear why you don't simply state that her parents were Igbo, since the biographies all say that.
  • Done: removed relatively all Nsukka
• "James graduated from the University College, Ibadan and thus, met Grace", lose thus, but more importantly, how do we know that's where they met? It is unsourced. His obit confirms he went there, but her obit says she studied at Merit College, in California and later at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
  • Done
• "After the declaration for secession" is a phrase, it has no subject or verb and I am completely confused as to what this has to do with the parents' employment. Perhaps a new paragraph is in order?
  • Done: not keep worthy also
• "It will mostly affect", it what? I am very confused by the text from "After the declaration" to "resumed teaching in the campus" and also note that none of it is cited to any source. Are you meaning that "When Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu declared secession of Biafra from Nigeria in May, 1967,[9] Enugu became the capital of the short-lived state"? How do you dethrone a village? People are enthroned, but are villages? Are you meaning the village was left leaderless after the death of Nzeogwu? The army – what army, i.e. Nigerian or Biafran? I am assuming you mean to say that "the university staff was forced to leave when the (which one?) army took possession of the campus"? If that is correct, I would end that sentence there and start a new one, "After they left, the troops burnt…research works)." Then start another sentence "It was rebuilt" (by creative professions is unnecessary). How does one "free a war"? Do you mean after the war ended? Or that he "fled during the war"? Where was he during the war? Was he married before, during, or after the war? Seems likely before or during, so where was the family?
• The next two paragraphs are unsourced. And while the final paragraph in this section is sourced, it refers to a minute in an audio recording to which the program description page has no link.

My overall impression from beginning this review is that the article is not yet ready for FA. I would strongly suggest that you withdraw it and submit it for [[10]]. If you choose not to do that and prefer to continue here, I am willing to continue reviewing the rest of the article here, but the coordinators may not prefer that method. She is a significant Nigerian author and I think that it is important that we get the article to the highest possible standard. Please ping me when you have decided which approach you prefer. (Note 2 U's no A) SusunW (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@SusunW: I have decided to withdraw it and re-nominate after peer review. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild can you do what needs to be done to withdraw the article so that Otuọcha can take it for more in-depth work at peer review? Thanks! SusunW (talk) SusunW (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Will do. As Susun says, a visit to PR should be helpful. If you can find a mentor, which I realise isn't easy, that would also help. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• Make sure all images have alt text

• File:Chimamanda_creative_writing_workshop.JPG: source link is dead

• File:Bookbits_-_2009-08-13_Chimamanda_Ngozi_Adichie-The_Thing_Around_Your_Neck.vorb.oga: don't see given license at source link? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I have corrected those fixed px used. All images have "alt" text. For the file, check the page; have archived source, see also [11]. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I was also thinking of that, and to avoid probs. For now, I have removed the file: File:Bookbits_-_2009-08-13_Chimamanda_Ngozi_Adichie-The_Thing_Around_Your_Neck.vorb.oga. Thanks for the review and do well to add other problems. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Draken Bowser

Thanks for taking the time to write and polish the article of this prolific Nigerian writer. I unfortunately have two major issues with the article, which I think would take some time to correct.

Firstly, the biography-section is mostly a list of releases and their aftermath. I would like to know more about the writing process leading up to each book. Does she chip away at her drafts slowly or finish them obsessively? Did she conduct interviews or dig into archives for research? Did she go back across the Atlantic to reminisce and set the mood before getting to work? Also, I think the section should be padded with more sentences concerning her life that are not directly tied to her books.

• • Done: fixed per your review

Secondly, I'm missing a section discussing her body of work in its entirety. In an FA-level article on a writer there would usually be a section on overarching themes and writing style based on academic sources. You have started such a section under "Influences and legacy", but it needs to be more comprehensive.

• • Done: fixing more sources

Finally, a few minor suggestions:

• Lead: Add "..which took the lives of both of her grandfathers and was a major theme of Purple Hibiscus and Half of a Yellow Sun." Also maybe change to "She cautions against.."
  • Done: placed on Lead after! (2nd paragraph)
• Education: remove the honorary degrees here, they are essentially awards.
  • Done. Already discussed in the "Award" section. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Lectures: I'd remove the last quote on Beyoncé under "We should all be feminists". I don't think it's necessary, she endorses B in the previous quote already.
  • Done: saw that also. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Best regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been pondering the quotes from critics and scholars in response to her book releases. I think such quotes make more sense in articles on individual novels (or other creative works), where a few can be selected to "represent" the critical reception. The space is much more limited in a biography article and it is likely better to use sources that attempt to summarize the response, and write standard prose. To the extent that there should be quotes from critics and scholars placing them in the section on influences, themes and style, seems more appropriate. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• • Ok. Will be doing that right away

For the record, my thinking is along the lines of SusunW. You're improving the article at a remarkable pace! Still, I think it would make a lot of sense to temporarily withdraw, work on the article for as long as you need to address our concerns, and return for another nomination. If you agree, feel free to contact me when you re-nominate. I'd be happy to pick up where we left of. Draken Bowser (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Draken Bowser:Thanks and will do that. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Mission: Impossible – Fallout

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Mission: Impossible – Fallout. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment from LegalSmeagolian

"relatively brief" - is not the case, article is potentially overly detailed. Additionally just because you liked a film does not mean the article meets the FA criteria. LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

So what was the purpose of this comment when you clicked publish? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

To highlight the size of the article and the fact that it was not relatively brief, which you must agree with to some extent as you edited your nomination to be more accurate towards the length of the article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No I don't agree, I removed it because it was meant to be a joke and it's attracted unnecessary comments like this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa

Without committing to a full review, I have to agree that roughly 8,000 words is not relatively brief. It's at the upper end of what might be appropriate for most well-covered topics. I think it's a pretty good length to aim for when writing about topics where the literature is extensive—Assassination of John F. Kennedy is about that length, for instance. Rarely, some topics may warrant lengthier treatments. WP:SIZERULE says roughly the same thing, as it turns out. TompaDompa (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

WP: Size is a guide. When discussing popular culture topics the size goes up and with every. single. nomination. 1000 of those words are thematic analysis which I have to include, don't choose to, and am forced to make reasonable coverage thereof. Hence the actual content is 7000 words but even if it was 8000 there would be no justification for splitting the article because it's all within scope and this isn't Geocities. As always, I appreciate your boundless support Tompa, it isn't killing my passion for this process at all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, the current length of this article is about what I would aim for if I were writing an article on a topic about which there is (fairly) extensive literature. I don't know if this is such a topic, not having taken a close look at either the article or the sources (at least not yet), but it very well might be. Generally speaking, 1,000 words of thematic analysis by no means seems excessive to me; it obviously depends on the work in question and the coverage in the sources, but in many cases an even greater (absolute or relative) length would be appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Draken Bowser

I don't immediately balk at the length, but I'll do what I can to help you cut it down to standard. I'll start off by providing my assessment on the production section, hopefully some of the suggestions can also help in polishing other sections.

• I'm concerned with the citation stacking. Three I'd consider borderline, but often fine. Four to five stacked citations could with few exceptions be considered overkill. If several reliable sources agree there is no need to cite them all. If citing up to five sources are necessary to piece together the preceding sentence, the text is probably trying too hard.
• The text talks a lot about the sensibilities and motivations of the involved. Maybe this is just a personal sentiment, but I occasionally find it a bit jarring to state this in prose (until things have moved further into the past), I much prefer the use of quotes. My skittishness is not universal, sentences like this is perfectly fine: "Cruise was particularly interested in resolving the long-running narrative between Ethan and his wife Julia.."
  • For example: "McQuarrie's main interest was in better exploring Ethan's emotions and motivations. He felt that the previous films made the character effectively a cipher on which the audience could project thoughts and motivations without depicting the character's true thoughts and feelings. For Fallout, McQuarrie wanted Ethan to be vulnerable and more relatable, exploring his fears such as the threat of nuclear annihilation, so audiences could establish a more emotional connection to the character." This is an occasion where I'd appreciate anchoring his motivations to a quote at some point during the paragraph.
• "..ideas they wanted to explore through the narrative." or story.
• "Fans often asked Cruise about Julia's fate and he wanted to provide them with closure, for Ethan and Julia which could also serve as Fallout's primary emotional narrative arc.
• "Abandoning this plot helped other scenes come together, such as the England-based sequences." "McQuarrie described his four main women characters — Alanna, Erica, Ilsa, and Julia — as independent and not requiring Ethan's protection." I suggest cutting these as superfluous.
• "A dispute over Cruise's pay stalled production in August 2016." "Although the dispute was resolved by September, it further delayed filming from January 2017 by several months." This can be rewritten into one sentence.
• "The helicopter weighed 14 t (14,000 kg) while the helipad was only rated to hold four so the pilot hovered the craft imperceptibly above the pad's surface." In my estimation this is an interesting tidbit, but still trivia.
• Filming: there are no technical details on the cameras used, although I'll have give you props for including details on lighting, which is easily overlooked. :)

I'll hold here for now. Cheers, and thanks for taking Dredd to FA-status. That's a boss movie. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Just letting you know I've seen this, I've had the good fortune of spending the extended weekend in perpetual pain from migraines, I will get to this as soon as it passes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries, ain't no hurry. Get well soon though! Draken Bowser (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Funny thing, I lost my original print out and made another one. I was surprised to learn that the movie was released in 2015 (I swear I saw it a few years ago with my mates, time sure flies..), halfway through the plot-section I realized my mistake. The good news is I was able to do some light c/e-work on Rogue Nation.

Now for Fallout.

Lead

• "McQuarrie's return marked the first time that anyone would direct more than one film in the series." Feels a bit clunky, is it ok to call him a "returning director" in English?
• "..by the interesting filming locations the production identified and allowing.."

Plot

• "..Ilsa explains that MI6 assigned her to kill Lane to prevent foreign governments interrogating him and prove her loyalty after working undercover as a Syndicate agent." Could use a comma or two.
• "Walker is also unable to kill Ethan.."

Stunts and effects

• "For the pursuit sequence through Paris after Ethan recovers Lane, Ethan's and Walker's escape truck becomes lodged in an alley, and they kick out the windscreen to escape; the scene had to be refilmed as Cavill's initial kick was powerful enough to knock it well away from the vehicle." To me this is trivia, re-shoots happen all the time. Ultimately it didn't affect the end result or impact the production.

Post production

• "Hamilton suggested adding sound effects, but McQuarrie wanted the score to further convince the audience that the events were happening." Perhaps I'm just being dumb here, but how would sound effects run contrary to realism?

Box office

• The final list in the third paragraph is not in order.

Release

• "..the proceedings, and making Fallout.."

Thematic analysis

• For me these kinds of sections offer the writer a lot of poetic license, since there is no obvious standard for balancing prose with quotes. Only stacking quotes is probably wrong. Only writing prose makes the section read like it's entirely in wikivoice, offering a few quotes would remind the reader that we are restating the views of prominent experts. How many quotes would be required for this? No idea, poetic licence.

• Fake news: why the first two thematic sections are included is obvious. This one confounds me a bit. Is it really unusual for news anchors to perform in movies like this in the US? Actual news anchors have been used to add realism to Swedish movies for at least a couple of decades. I understand reliable sources said all those things, but I'm still uncertain whether the coverage is extensive enough to make the information due when compared to coverage of themes in Fallout as a whole.

Legacy

• "..Fallout is often ranked as the best or second-best film." If Fallout is beaten by the same movie in most of the polls it should be spelled out, otherwise leave it as it is.

References

• The harvnb/sfn-anchors of Jinde, Lamb and Purse are broken.

Other than my concerns over refbombing, we're good. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Draken Bowser, I think I've done all of these now. I haven't removed the helicopter information because unlike kicking out the window I think it's a very interesting technical aspect of the film while yeah kicking out the window is not very important. With the ranking, it's almost always number 1 and if it's not it's always different films so there isn't a consistent challenger. Regarding themes, on all 3 of my previous nominations I have been criticized for using direct quotes so while I get where you're coming from if I start introducing quotes someone else will probably just tell me to take them out. Rest assured I have done my best to be faithful to the texts since I hate having to re-read sources, especially thematic ones that can be 30 pages of waffle with one page of interesting information. As for the fake news, I don't think it's always super common but there were several sources that focused on this aspect and I think in terms of contemporary media it came along at the same time fake news became a more prominent theme in real life which may be why it got more attention in analytical sources, I especially think it's a growing trend still. If several sources cover it it's more difficult for me to ignore that when tasked with comprehensiveness whereas if it's one fringe theory it's easier to ignore. Sorry for taking so long btw, still not feeling great.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: Oh and I added some camera technical details per your mention. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Good work, especially finding a decent source for "cameras".

Ok, I can buy into the "having to fake realness" aspect of the helicopter scene.

Yeah, I suppose "fake news" is zeitgeist, but the section still feels a bit forced to me, maybe that is clouding my judgement. The Vanity fair and Esquire articles make the case for such a section. I don't think that using Lamb here makes sense though. It's about the mustache Caville had to grow for Fallout, sure. But the fake news aspect is the retouching done for Justice League, which also seems to be used more as an example of what the technology can do (no direct connection made between Fallout and fake news).

I'm still clueless on the "post-production" question. Could you ELI5? Draken Bowser (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh missed that one, let me try to rewrite it. The gist is that McQuarrie wanted to use the score to evoke whatever feelings necessary in the audience that would convince them the scene was real rather than hypothetical, and he thought sound effects would lessen the effect since previous MI films have similar hypothetical scenes but it's obvious they are hypothetical. I'll re-read the source and try to give a better explanation. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I've just removed it, the actual explanation is too convoluted to properly parse and I don't think it's super important in retrospect as we've got hte main point of it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I think it's time to pass the torch. I still want Lamb removed, but I'm willing to agree to disagree on the section as a whole. Either way, the article seems to meet the criteria as far as I can tell. Support A final note on length: for many (most?) movies we don't have the kind of overarching sources discussed on the FAC-talk page, which might help us decide on appropriate length. This should result in a lot more leeway than usual. After the few tiny trims we agreed on, I'm not sure that theres even anything I'd want removed, so the size does not bother me. Thanks for making the effort to address or contend with my concerns. Draken Bowser (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed Lamb, thanks for the support Draken. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Igordebraga

Support I understand pushing straight for FA even though it would possibly pass the GA with ease (though both are taking quite long to review nowadays), and it's weird to see so many stacked refs (it's understandable regarding opinionated parts such as the ones on reception, but on Production, seems more fit for more complex sentences like the one regarding Cruise's rehabiliation, the ones in Development could backed up by one or two sources alone). Otherwise, can't deny this type of work deserves a promotion. igordebraga ≠ 19:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Igordebraga! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Great cuckoo-dove

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've nominated at FAC and I am still procrastinating on toco toucan, so we have this pigeon instead. It's somewhat better studied than most island species, but still pretty poorly-known; as always, the article covers pretty much everything ever written about the bird and is probably the most comprehensive resource on or off the web. AryKun (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

FM

• More birds are always welcome! I ran the "expand citations" tool, which only seems to have removed two source links, which I guess were already accessible from their DOIs, just so you know. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• I added some context for the illustration, the caption was pretty bare bones, and added a higher res version.
• No cladograms?
  • No cladograms of Reinwardtoena that I could find, just one or two that include one species from the genus as an outgroup that aren't particularly useful for the species page.

And its position is not just because it's basal to the rest, which would be interesting to show? FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't really get what's supposed to mean. AryKun (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Do these sources specifically that this species is used as an outgroup, or is it just basal to the other groups shown in the cladograms? FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• You give subspecies for some for the image captions, but can't it be established for the rest? I see the remaining photos have coordinates showing where they were taken, could indicate subspecies?
  • Added ssp for photo of juvenile, didn't add it for the last photo because I don't think it's relevant.

Is it the same subspecies as that in the taxobox? I think it's relevant for comparative purposes, especially since you list it for all the other photos. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, same ssp, added in the caption now. AryKun (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• You could give location for photo captions, if that is relevant?
  • I only added the island for the juvenile photo because otherwise the caption sounds a bit brusque, I don't think it's necessary everywhere.
• Perhaps rename "Status" to "Conservation status", for clarity?
  • Tweaked
• Redirect all synonyms here.
  • Done.
• Thanks, see responses above. AryKun (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• "on the basis of a specimen from Ambon Island" Specify this is in Indonesia.
  • Done.

• I think it would make sense to mention the etymology of the species name already when the naming is first mentioned in the first paragraogh, the reader has noidea you'll return to this latr,and I was puzzledatleast,as that's where you'd look for this information. Then when you mention the genus, you can just say something like "the generic name also referenced Reinwardt" or similar.
  • Most of our bird articles tend to follow the rough order of nomenclatural history→etymology→taxonomic relationships, which is what's followed here.

Hmmm, I'm not sure those are necessarily comparable, because most other recent bird FAs have not been about type species of a genus or monotypic genera. But not a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Link subspecies.

Seems to have been done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• "t is very similar in appearance to the pied cuckoo-dove" Perhaps give its binomial in parenthesis here, considering the possible relation?
  • Done.

• "The upper back, back" Reads a bit oddly, perhaps second back should be "rest of the back"?
  • Changed "upper back" to mantle.

• "Its population has not been estimated" Could add "size" after population for clarity.
  • Done.

• "per square kilometre" Could give a conversion.
  • Discussed in the GA review; this isn't the result of some survey or anything, just a rough estimate. Converting to sq mi gives a decimal that gives a sense of false precision, so I'm against it.

Hmmm, but this is not about giving a precise estimate, but to give readers unfamiliar with the metric system at least some idea of the area. The fact that it has now been brought up twice indicates that it's an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't really have a solution; any conversion makes the number seem excessively precise. I also think that familiarity doesn't matter because most people don't have a good handle on how big large areas are anyway, I couldn't tell you big a square kilometer or a square mile is if you asked me to mark it out.

A lot more people would know if there was some indication, though. But let's see if more reviewers bring it up; if they do, it's probably time to do something about it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• "preferring plants in the Araliaceae" Add "family" for clarity.
  • Done.

• "Its typical courtship display consists of a deeply undulating flight, with the bird flying sharply upwards, spreading its wings and tail or clapping its wings together at the top of the flight, and descending sharply. Another reported display involves the bird flying up obliquely from a perch and then returning after flying in a wide circle, similar to the displays performed by Macropygia cuckoo-doves." Is this done by one sex, or do both do it? Quite unclear now.
  • None of the sources say anything about the sex of the bird doing the display.

• The Distribution and habitat section could specify what countries the listed areas are located in.
  • Added for the Moluccas, left out for New Guinea because I think it's well-known enough to not need it.

• "Fledglings begin picking food by" What is meant by "picking food"? Could just say "foraging" for clarity, now it reads as if they "choose" food.
  • Source says "pick on food items". Changed to foraging.

• "sometimes joining flocks of other frugivores" Could specify these are birds, as you do in the intro.
  • Done.

• "It is known to defend fruiting shrubs it is feeding on, an uncommon foraging behaviour among frugivorous birds" I don't think the last" frugivorous" is needed, as this is implied by the start of the sentence.
  • Removed.

• Support - looks good, I added some responses above, but that shouldn't hold it back. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Jens

• Known parasites of the species include the feather louse Columbicola taschenbergi[16] and Coloceras museihalense. – Since "louse" is singular but two species are mentioned, does this mean that the second is not a louse?
  • The second also is, but we don't have an article on its family, so I miss dit. Now tweaked.
• Add legend to the range map.
  • Done.
• R. r. griseotincta Hartert, EJO – We do not provide author initials in species names, or do we? Same for one other subspecies.
  • Just following the IOC; there's one other Hartert who authored three ssp and synonyms, so they added initials for clarity on the more famous Hartert.
• Looks very comprehensive. More soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks, see responses for the comments so far above. AryKun (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

    Jens Lallensack: courtesy ping. AryKun (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review

All images are free (various CC licenses). The sounds linked to are CC, but NC and/or ND, so can't be hosted on Commons; using an external link in a template for them is fine. Suggest to use "upright" for the portrait format images (why should they be so much larger than the landscape ones?) ALT text has been provided. —Kusma (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Kusma, I've altered the image sizes for portrait photos to make them smaller. AryKun (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Great. Image review is passed. —Kusma (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Grungaloo

Marking spot, will come back later once others have finished so I don't retread anything. grungaloo (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Is there no publisher location for Gibbs et al?
  • Added.
• Any images of R r brevis?
  • Only one of iNat and it's BY-NC.
• "The feet are pink to purplish-red in adults." It would make sense to move this to the end of the previous paragraph.
  • Done.
• "purplish pink". Should this be hyphenated?
  • Added hyphen.
• 'the "slender-billed cuckoo dove" '. Why the quote marks?
  • It's a species complex that was split up, as mentioned later in the sentence. I thought there should be some difference bw the complex and the "good" species mentioned otherwise.
• "but is also found in logged forest, secondary growth, and gallery forests on Biak." Is it only found in any of those three when on Biak, or just gallery forests?
  • All three, reworded.
• "(377–4,593 ft)" seems spuriously accurate. As does "(3.9–16.4 ft)".
  • Rounded the first to three sig figs, the latter is appropriate as the original estimate also seemed to use two sig figs.

• "115–1,400 m (377–4,590 ft)": The source is to the nearest 5 m; your conversion is to the nearest 0.3 of a metre. This is spuriously accurate.

• "(3.9–16.4 ft)": Your second conversion is to 3 sig figs. More importantly, the source gives an accuracy to the nearest 100 mm; your conversion is to the nearest 30 mm. This is spuriously accurate.

• Adjusted the sigfigs; the problem seems to be that the original values don't have a consistent number, so I've changed all the conversions to the lower number; however, afaik the way you handle sigfigs during conversion isn't by calculating whether you're accurate to x quantity, it's simply retaining the same number of sigfigs that the original measurement had.

When converting a sources figures one should rtain, broadly, the sources level of precision, or one is ORing a level of precision for which their is no support.

• " It flies under the canopy". I am reading this as it only flies when under the canopy. Is that right?
  • Not only, but generally; tweaked the wording.
• "is rather fast". What does "rather" fast mean?
  • I'm paraphrasing "graceful, slow wing-beats but flight is deceptively fast"; tweaked it slightly to further emphasize the contrast that the source makes, but "deceptively fast" isn't really a measurement of speed either.

Delete "rather".

Done.

• "Breeding occurs throughout the year and varies in different parts of its range." What is it that varies?
  • Season; reworded.
• "Breeding occurs throughout the year ... On New Guinea, breeding seems to occur throughout the year"?
  • Reworded the first; it seems redundant, but I feel like both should be mentioned since breeding season is year round on both NG and its range as a whole, even though islands other than NG have a variable but not year-round breeding season. I can't really explain it well.

How you have it now seems fine to me.

• "Nests may sometimes". "may" and "sometimes" seem redundant. Suggest "may" → 'are'.
  • Done.
• "Young are brooded until 13 days after hatching". While "brooded" is a perfectly accurate word, it is not well known and almost certainly going to be confused with the more common usage meaning incubated.
  • I can't think of another word that has quite the same meaning; something like "cared for" would be inaccurate since parental care still occurs after brooding is over.

Ok. But perhaps add a Wikionary link.

Done.

• "it can be locally common in hills and mountains." A picky point, but "in" a hill? Perhaps 'it can be locally common in hilly and mountainous areas'?
  • Done.
• Elsewhere in the last paragraph, I am not convinced that "fairly" and "rather" are either encyclopedic or professional.
  • It's what the source says more or less; "Fairly common to common in hills of Seram" and "fairly common in Papua New Guinea". It's hard to make definitive statements about abundance without any quantitative estimates, so the sources use imprecise terms too.

Suggest deleting "fairly" and "rather".

Removed in one case, changed to "moderately" in another; that sounds more professional to my ears while still retaining the qualification.

That's all from me. A nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• • Gog the Mild, see responses above. AryKun (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Some comebacks above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Replied inline. AryKun (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

AryKun, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Rachelle Ann Go

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

After previously working on a Filipino music BLP of a band, here's my next work on singer and actress Rachelle Ann Go. She began her career in pop music after winning a talent show in the Philippines, before transitioning to musical theatre. Some of her earlier roles on stage include Ariel from The Little Mermaid and Jane Porter from Tarzan. She had her international breakthrough portraying a hardened bargirl in the 2014 West End revival of Miss Saigon, reprising the part on Broadway in 2017. She followed this with more prominent roles on West End, playing Fantine in Les Misérables and Eliza Schuyler in Hamilton. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from ZooBlazer

Saving a spot. -- ZooBlazer 18:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Go then competed at the 2004 Shanghai Music Festival and the 2005 Astana Song Festival, each winning the Silver Prize and Best Song" --> Needs a little rewording. It doesn't make it sound like she won.

I've tweaked it a bit for clarity. Hopefully that reads better. Happy to change if still ambiguous.

• "Go's father raised her to pursue musical interests and would encourage her to perform in front of a crowd" --> Go's father raised her to pursue musical interests and encouraged her to perform in front of crowds

Done

• Link bachelor's degree

Done

• "where she later advanced as one of the ten grand finalists" --> this might just be a personal preference, so feel free to ignore if you disagree, but what about "where she would advance as one of the ten grand finalists"

Done as suggested.

• 'featured vocals on a cover "Love of My Life"' --> featured vocals on a cover of "Love of My Life"

Thanks for catching this. Done

• "The track list initially contained songs Go had written, but decided against including it" --> this refers to the unreleased songs, correct? "...songs Go had written, but she decided against including them"

That is right. I've revised per your suggestion.

• Link DVD
• "a concert staged at the Music Museum on October 26, 2012" --> The paragraph starts with "Go began 2012", so you could probably just make the date October 26 without the year

Agreed. Done.

• Link R&B in its first use

If this the R&B singer Alicia Keys (I think), I've linked it now.

• She also considers Patti LuPone as one" --> Start the sentence with Go to avoid any confusion as the previous sentence was about what Salonga said

Good point. Done

• "Early in her career, Go's singing style has drawn comparisons to Carey" --> drew comparisons

Done

• Unlink Celine Dion from the influences section as it is a DUPLINK

Unlinked

That's all from me. Another great article from you. -- ZooBlazer 17:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer: thanks very much for your review. All comments actioned and addressed. Let me know if I might have missed anything. Thank you for sparing your time. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Happy to support! Good luck the rest of the way with this nom. -- ZooBlazer 22:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Image/media review - passes

• Both images are properly licensed, have alt text, and use makes sense in the article.
• There's one sound sample. It is under 10% of the full song, properly licensed, and its use fits the article.

I'll be back with prose comments later, but I did the image review and found no issues, so it passes. -- ZooBlazer 18:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the image review, and appreciate your time in having a look. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "performed rock-influenced covers in the live album" => "performed rock-influenced covers on the live album"

Done

• "eponymous brand of bridal line" => "eponymous brand of bridal wear"

Done

• "were impressed of the overall production" => "were impressed with the overall production"

Done

• "Described as a "hodgepodge" of wide-ranging global influences, Go again employed" - it (presumably) wasn't Go who was described as a hodgepodge. Presumably it was the album that was described in that way?

Oh right, I see where my error is. Thanks for catching that. I've revised it so that it begins with The album was described as ..., and Go again..

• "Go recorded "Paano" for the compilation album GV25" - album title should be in italics

Thanks for catching this too. Done

• "Critics were generally enthusiastic with the depth of her characterization" => "Critics were generally enthusiastic about the depth of her characterization"

Done

• "While for her cover album Falling in Love" => "For her cover album Falling in Love"

Done

• "and has sang "Butterfly" and "Never Too Far" in one of her first headlining shows" => "and sang "Butterfly" and "Never Too Far" in one of her first headlining shows"

Done

• "A reviewer from The Philippine Star has characterized her debut album as" => "A reviewer from The Philippine Star characterized her debut album as"

Done

• "As of 2020, they reside" - 2020 was four years ago, so if no more up-to-date info is available this should be "As of 2020, they resided"

That is correct, they still live here. Done as suggested.

• That's what I got. Great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful review ChrisTheDude. All comments have been actioned. Let me know if I might have missed anything. And thanks for the edits you did a while back on instances that require BE'ing. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

750h

Hi @Pseud 14: I have one minor concern: After Go's musical transition to theater in 2011,[126] reviewers were appreciative of her clear and sweet-sounding vocals… I recommend changing “were appreciative” to “appreciated” for conciseness.  750h+ | Talk  14:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for driving by 750h+. Done as suggested. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. I don’t have anything else. Great work, your articles are always nice to read!  750h+ | Talk  15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Averageuntitleduser

I plan to review this. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Averageuntitleduser, sorry to chase you, just checking in if you're getting around to reviewing? Pseud 14 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, yes, it is on my roster today! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I've only got minor nit-picks so far. The article feels very fluid and addresses thoroughly the recording, style, and reception of her works. I'll be finishing up tomorrow, in the meantime, feel free to revert any of my copy changes.

• "Pasig, Metro Manila" — as done in the infobox, combine the second unit's link into the first.

Done

• Perhaps add "contest" before "Birit Baby" for clarity. It is implied, but would still soften the surprise.

Done

• Perhaps add "her rendition of (Regine Velasquez's)" before "Isang Lahi", this likely doesn't require a source, but it'd be easy nevertheless.

Agreed. I have added as suggested

• Perhaps expand "OPM" and then bracket it.

Done

• "wrote that the album is 'another proof..." — a more common phrase would be: "wrote that the album is more 'proof...".

Done

• "(2009)" — for internal consistency, perhaps move the "2009" before "fifth studio album".

Since the sentence begins with Also that year (which I just realized) referring to 2009, I dropped the enclosure or putting 2009 before it. Hopefully that still works. 2009 nth studio album is not usually a practice I have seen in music articles. I think it's either 2009 studio album or nth studio album.... In this case, I think it would be preferable to go with the chronology.

Thanks for the review so far Averageuntitleduser. Your comments have been very helpful. I have provided my responses above. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I see no major prose issues, so a source review should be your last hurdle! A spotcheck will be necessary since this is a BLP. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 22 has no links- is there a reason for that?

I used the newspaper article as an offline source, as I could not find it archived online. I stumbled upon the full article posted to an online forum for verification, but for some reason it doesn't work anymore when I tried accessing it (at least for me). Alternatively, this link also provides the lists the nominees, but I have reservations if it is high-quality enough to be used. So I stuck with an offline source instead, as that seems to be much more acceptable (hopefully). Pseud 14 (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm impressed to find no other problems- well done! Spotcheck coming soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the source review MyCatIsAChonk. Provided my response above. Really appreciate your time in doing it. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

All good on 22. Spotcheck now, choosing randomly, AGF for Tagalog sources:

• 2: all uses good
• 3: all uses good
• 11: good
• 21: good
• 36: good
• 44: good
• 53: good
• 70: good
• 80: good
• 93: good
• 106: good
• 118: good
• 133: good
• 145: good

I'm impressed to say that all spotchecks and the source review pass- very well done! Sorry for the delay- I am very impressed by your in-depth work, and hope to see more in the future. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the spotchecks MyCatIsAChonk. I really appreciate your time and effort. Absolutely no need to apologize. You've taken the time out of your busy schedule to provide your feedback and review, so I'm most grateful for it. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2024 [12].

---

Prostate cancer

Nominator(s): Ajpolino (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

In 1 in 8 men, some cells in a small gland beneath the bladder go haywire. They grow and grow, eschewing the checks meant to bind them in place, and evading the ever-watchful immune system. Some split off the growing tumor, settling most often in nearby bones. In their race to grow, they digest the bone beneath them, causing excruciating pain and bone fractures. 350,000 men succumb to the disease each year, making prostate cancer the second deadliest cancer in men (after lung cancer, the subject of a 2023 FAR). Many thanks to SandyGeorgia, Colin, and Femke for shaping the article with their suggestions and feedback. My intention is that the article be clear to the medicine-literate and medicine-uninitiated alike, so please have a look and let me know what you think. Ajpolino (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Former featured article: Reminder to update the page and numbers at WP:FFA upon promotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks Gog and DrKay! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Graham Beards

Support My (few) comments were addressed on the article's Talk Page along with more extensive ones from other reviewers. In my view, this is a well written and well referenced medical article. I made a few very minor edits today for the nominator's consideration. Graham Beards (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: how well-covered in medical literature is the topic of prostate cancer in trans women? I see a couple sources from a quick Google search [13] [14] [15].‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 08:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Good point. It's well enough covered that we should have something in the article. I'll add a bit. Ajpolino (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've added a short paragraph. Pardon the clunky euphemism "Special populations", it's a MEDMOS suggestion. If folks prefer, we could swap it for a more direct heading like "Transgender women" or "Transgender populations". Or the info could be split up into the article sections each fact corresponds to. Ajpolino (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you; I believe the current amount of information you've added is sufficient given the research around transgender people in medical contexts is still pretty recent. I think I prefer the last approach @Ajpolino, as having a dedicated section singles them out and would probably be frowned upon by our trans laypeople readers. Of course, I would like the opinions of other, more experienced medical editors in this regard if ever anyone disagrees with me. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 02:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'm not familiar at all with medical stuff, but will try to review this over the weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 13:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The sum of the most common two assigned numbers is the "Gleason score".[27] Gleason scores of 2 through 5 are no longer commonly used in practice, making the lowest Gleason score 6, and the highest 10. " - this doesn't entirely make sense to me. Is this saying that, for instance, a score of 2 and 3 is unlikely to come up?
  • I've rephrased this paragraph since Femke and Draken Bowser both found it unclear as well. Take a look and see what you think. I've added a footnote to answer your exact question. In short, it's a historical quirk. The "Gleason grade group" system (with grade groups 1-5) is meant to eventually replace the Gleason score. The old Gleason score system had scores 2–10; the current one has scores 6–10, and is living alongside its successor that runs 1–5. Despite both being five-point scales, the current 6–10 score doesn't map perfectly onto the successor 1–5 scale. I'm having trouble clearly communicating that part, so if you have any suggestions I'm all ears. Ajpolino (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• " called castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)" - does this imply that castration is a potential treatment for this cancer? This appears to be discussed a bit in the history section, but the discussions on treatment leave this question unanswered
  • In medical jargon land, we call removing your testicles "surgical castration" and eliminating your body's testosterone with drugs "chemical castration". I've added (also called "chemical castration") to the first mention of the treatment. Do you think that would suffice to reduce a reader's surprise when they make it to "castration-resistant"? To your direct question, surgical castration is still occasionally used for prostate cancer, but its use is declining (3.5% and falling as of 2016). Most recent sources only mention it in passing if at all, noting only that patients tend not to choose it. As such, I haven't covered it in the article, but certainly could add a couple sentences if you think it would be helpful context.
• "Depends on stage, five-year survival rate 97%" - if this is important enough for the infobox, should it be in the body of the article as well?
  • Swapped it to summarize the more detailed description in the text. The rates vary so much by stage, that I don't think a total number is a helpful summary for anyone. Ajpolino (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent work; I expect to support. It perhaps says something that I have no issues writing content about horrible Civil War combat, but I spend most of the read-through of this article shuddering in horror. Hog Farm _Talk 00:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks much for your time and feedback. I'm gratified that the article elicited any response besides boredom. FWIW, a glance at American Civil War's infobox suggests your chance of surviving a bout with prostate cancer (as one or both of us might) are better than a man's chance of making it through the war alive. Not sure if that reflects more positively on the prostate cancer experience, or negatively on the Civil War experience. Probably the latter. Ajpolino (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Supporting; excellent work. Hog Farm _Talk 19:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Femke

As I said at the end of my GA review, I believe the article now meets the FA criteria. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Draken Bowser

Just like the new and improved lung cancer i find that the article is readable and offers a nice balance between completeness and conciseness. I have but a few suggestions:

• "Men with high PSA levels are often recommended to repeat the blood test four to six weeks later, as PSA levels can fluctuate unrelated to prostate cancer." I think it's perhaps of more interest to mention how PSA-levels spike in response to UTI:s and urinary retention, or do both sentences.
  • Recent reviews seem not to mention UTIs and urinary retention as PSA raisers, any idea why? I'm not familiar enough with the field to know. Carlsson 2021 mentions only BPH; the Harrison's chapter I use heavily mentions only prostatitis and BPH (Scher 2022); Rebello 2021 mentions only prostatitis and BPH; public-facing CDC site gives "certain" procedures/medications, BPH, and infection; similar ACS site gives a longer list but no UTI. To your more general point I've added two short sentences on what can raise and lower PSA levels. Hope you feel that improves things. Ajpolino (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

No idea why, in clinical practice I've regularly seen spikes above 20 in patients with a recent UTI, which then recedes to a baseline of ~1,5 within 2–3 months (just to be clear, I'm not the bozo ordering these PSA-tests :P). Maybe it's the good old case of experts refusing to repeat the obvious. Looks good now. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for a source. Ajpolino (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• "...and lead to unneeded biopsies and treatments." I think this sentence should also follow up with the word "complications", to stress clearly that it is not only an issue of resource allocation and mental health, but something that carries a risk of physical health issues. This is of course already explained elsewhere, but I'd still make the addition here.
  • Addition made. Ajpolino (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• My brain shuts down trying to read the section on Gleason scores. While I'm not a native speaker I'm also concerned there is an accessibility issue.
  • Femke had a similar concern at GAN, and I see it was unclear to Hog Farm above as well. I've tried some editing to hopefully clarify. Is it any better? I'm not sure how to clearly phrase the part about Gleason scores of 7 being converted into Gleason grade group 2 or 3. The fact that there's so many numbers named Gleason makes it challenging to communicate clearly.

Yeah, it's better and the efn is a nice touch. If I get any ideas on further improvements I'll get back to you. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think the article should briefly discuss pre-biopsy MRI.
  • Added a couple of sentences. Ajpolino (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That's all and once again, excellent work. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing. The section on radiotherapy mentions the diagnosis bladder cancer as a complication, but lists only symptoms related to radiation proctitis, without mentioning the diagnosis by name. I'm not sure if adding it is an improvement, but I thought it was worth putting up for consideration. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Added. Ajpolino (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Draken Bowser. I've taken a stab at implementing your suggestions. I'm not sure the Gleason grading paragraph is quite right yet, and would appreciate if you could take a look and let me know what you think. Ajpolino (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but since I have no more substantial concerns, as far as I'm concerned, we're done here. Support. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I'm willing to do a source review, but I'd need a copy of Rebello . Draken Bowser (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much Draken Bowser. Just emailed you a OneDrive link. Let me know if there's anything else I can send along to help. Ajpolino (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Spot check

1 30 38 39 44 60 69 78 82 93 127.

• 30: after reading the source several times I'm now convinced that it supports this claim. No wonder it is hard to make this make sense if professionals in peer reviewed journals are struggling. Should we add "Gleason patterns", or just cite the generic "Epstein 2018" (as one footnote) since the information is scattered under three headings.
  • Apologies. Trying to make the best of a dense topic. I've merged the two prexisting references into one (slightly inelegant?) reference with the three section titles. Let me know if you'd prefer an alternative. Ajpolino (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    • I like this. /DB
• 82 very close to the source, but I don't think there's necessarily a simple way to rephrase this, so it might not meet the threshold for creativity?
  • Reworded. My mistake. Ajpolino (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• 127 while true, shouldn't we stress that GEMMs have mostly supplanted older methods at this point?
  • Yes, good point. I've just removed the chemical induced bit. If you think another sentence on mouse models is due, let me know and I'll happily generate one from the source. I'm not sure if your comment was also referring to PDX models. They've remained very common in the prostate cancer research world, particularly for testing therapeutic molecules. I'm not sure why the GEMMs haven't more fully supplanted them. Ajpolino (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Nah, I like this solution. Less is more. /DB
• 38, 44, 60 & 93 on hold while I figure out why I can't access it via the uni library, which it says I should be able to.
  • I'll email you that one as well. Our access to the textbook was always finicky. I think McGraw Hill has a heavy handed paywall. Secret knowledge for only the initiated (or well-resourced). Ajpolino (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Notes 1, 39, 69 & 78 raised no concerns. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is gonna be a bit confused, because I forgot that the combination of two notes moved all others down a notch. I will from now on refer to the current (new) numbers.

• 43 & 44: the source says "into the prostate" and my clinical decision aid says "directly into the prostate gland", I think near the lesions would be correct though.
  • Changed to "into the prostate".

• 37b these intervals seem to reflect clinical practice, but I couldn't find them in the source.
  • Must've got my wires crossed somehow. Replaced with the correct source.

Notes 59 & 92 raised no concerns. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Overall

Could I trouble you to say something about Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med and Cureus? I'm not familiar with them. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine is published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, the publishing arm of the non-profit molecular biology research institute Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. They publish nine journals, which are probably of mid-tier impact. Their two "Perspectives in..." journals only publish narrative reviews, so they're often useful for crafting Wikipedia articles. The publisher's director is a well known academic editor with a long history in prestigious science publishing. The journal's editorial board is mostly big shots at major research institutions.

Cureus, I didn't know much about. A quick Google suggests it has a checkered reputation. I struggled to find sources for a "Society and culture" section and may have reached too far. It was only referencing "and social media posts", so I'll remove that. Ajpolino (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The article cites peer reviewed journals of repute, including top tier journals, and textbooks by established publishers. Thompson was published 17 years ago, which is a bit on the older side, but it's only used to verify content where practice hasn't changed in at least two decades and is unlikely to change in the next few years. It would be preferable to start replacing it, but I'm not gonna demand it. Spot check revealed one instance of very close paraphrasing, but I'm not convinced the sentence paraphrased reached the creative threshold for copyright. Apart from the tiny mistake on brachytherapy probe placement, there were no other discrepancies of concern. I'm going to call this a pass. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time, Draken Bowser. Ajpolino (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review

Gotta skip the source review here because it's a medicine article and these need more specialized knowledge than I am comfortable with assessing. With some of these images I wonder if we can source the information they present e.g File:Diagram showing T1-3 stages of prostate cancer CRUK 278.svg. Was File:Verlauf Prostatakrebs 2011-01 Posttherapie-Szintigramm.jpg published anywhere? File:US PC Inc by age 2016.tif seems to imply that the incidence falls off past 75 years - is that correct, and if so, the article should say it. ALT text seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Could you clarify your concern on sourcing the information the images present? If the image represents data (like the histogram) or comes from elsewhere (like the radiation cartoon) I cite those sources. But for images that don't fall into one of the above categories I think we typically don't attempt to source the underlying information (of course related claims in the text are cited). The image you mention as an example comes from Cancer Research UK. They've since made a slightly tweaked version which they display on their website. I could add a link to it to the file's description page?
• File:Verlauf Prostatakrebs 2011-01 Posttherapie-Szintigramm.jpg has not been published to my knowledge. It was uploaded to Commons by a user who has uploaded numerous radiology images. I have assumed the user is a radiologist and is the copyright holder for those images. We host many such images at Commons and here on our articles, so I assume it's settled that a radiologist is considered the "photographer" of the images (s)he takes. But I can look into those assumptions if you have a concern.
• File:US PC Inc by age 2016.tif I believe incidence falls because it's rare for men over aged 75 or so to be screened for prostate cancer -- the rationale being that the disease progresses so slowly that they're unlikely to die from prostate cancer before (sadly) something else takes them. I'm not sure I'll be able to find a source that clearly says "incidence falls for this reason" (though I will look presently!) but I can at least add mention of this in the screening section. Most national medical guidelines set an explicit upper age limit on screening recommendations.

  Didn't yet find a source that clearly addresses this, but CRUK gives a general note alongside their UK prostate cancer incidence data: "A drop or plateau in incidence in the oldest age groups often indicates reduced diagnostic activity perhaps due to general ill health." Not exactly definitive, but again suggests the drop in that graph is due to diagnosis. Ajpolino (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Ajpolino (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  The bigger worry is that the article seems to say the opposite (i.e that incidence grows). Someone reading text and image may be confused. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm, I've added an explanatory footnote to that image caption. Does that address your concern? Ajpolino (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the lengthy responses to your simple questions. Thank you for taking the time to review the images. Ajpolino (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo, any comebacks? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  No, don't think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia

So happy to see this here; what a fine job you've done! Expect to support after I've had time to catch up here with nitpicks.

• A score of 7 (Gleason scores 4 + 3) can be grade group 2 or 3 – grade group 2 if the less severe Gleason score (3) covered more area; grade group 3 if the more severe Gleason score (4) covered more area. A score of 8 is grade group 4. A score of 9 or 10 is grade group 5 (worst prognosis).[28]

  Things might have changed since my husband's prostate cancer, but isn't a Gleason 7 expressed as either a 4 + 3 or a 3 + 4, with the most prominent first, and would adding that info/distinction help explain the difference in grade group? Also, maybe replace the endash to make the whole construct less confusing? That is:

  • A score of 7 (with Gleason scores 4 + 3, or Gleason scores 3 + 4, with the most prominent listed first) can be grade group 2 or 3; it is grade group 2 if the less severe Gleason score (3) covered more area; grade group 3 if the more severe Gleason score (4) covered more area. A score of 8 is grade group 4. A score of 9 or 10 is grade group 5 (worst prognosis).[28]

  I think this important since there's a significant difference between a 3 + 4 and a 4 + 3, in the sense of it being a dividing line where worry starts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  • • Sure, I've implemented your suggested wording. Ajpolino (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Vary wording to avoid additionally, additional? "Those with metastatic disease are additionally treated with chemotherapy, as well as additional radiation or other agents to alleviate the symptoms of metastatic tumors."[38] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Removed both actually, sentence seems to flow fine without. Ajpolino (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• "Throughout the treatment course, blood PSA levels are monitored to assess the effectiveness of treatments, and whether the disease is advancing.[39]" I am unsure of the generalizability of this sentence ... at a top NCCN clinic, my husband's PSA was not re-taken after the biopsy and once the treatment course (radiation) was decided upon, and was not re-taken until some time after treatment was completed. As written, the sentence seems to imply PSA checks are ongoing during radiation treatment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • It's possible this has changed since your husband's treatment, or maybe the sentence is implying more frequency than intended. The current NCCN guideline (free, but you have to make a login to view) says "For patients initially treated with intent to cure, serum PSA levels should be measured every 6 to 12 months for the first 5 years and then annually. PSA testing every 3 months may be better for patients at high risk of recurrence... Similarly, after radiotherapy, the monitoring of serum PSA levels is recommended every 6 months for the first 5 years and then annually." (it's page 120 of the PDF; page MS-36 in their numbering scheme). The ACS website I cited says "Doctors tend to follow the PSA levels every few months to look for trends." Do you think I should tweak the wording to clarify the testing frequency? Ajpolino (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

    Ajpolino we're both right then ... my husband's radiation treatment was every weekday for one month, and his PSA was first re-tested some weeks after treatment ended. That is, it was not re-tested "throughout the treatment course", and the source doesn't seem to say it should be ??? The source seems to deal more with after treatment than during; I guess that's where my confusion is ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

    Tweaked to "Blood PSA levels are monitored every few months to assess the effectiveness of treatments, and whether the disease is recurring or advancing." Hopefully clearer and more accurate? Ajpolino (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

    Works for me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Vary wording to avoid monitor ... monitor ? "Men diagnosed with low-risk cases of prostate cancer often defer treatment and are monitored regularly for cancer progression by active surveillance, which involves monitoring the tumor for growth at fixed intervals by PSA tests ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Varied. Ajpolino (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Apologies for throwing this at you without doing the research myself (I could have misremembered this whole thing, so ignore as needed) ...

  "Those with a family history of prostate cancer are more likely to have prostate cancer."

  As I remember, a BRCA mutation in the family also increases risk across genders, so that a family history of BRCA-related breast cancer in the women would also indicate the men need to watch their prostates. And vica-versa. I could have that wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  • You remember correctly. Inherited variations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 are associated with increased prostate cancer risk, though the risk increase isn't as high as it is for breast cancer. It's currently covered in Prostate_cancer#Genetics (a subsection of Epidemiology) as "The greatest risk increase is associated with variations in BRCA2 (up to an eight-fold increased risk)..." and "Variants in other genes involved in DNA damage repair have also been associated with an increased risk of developing prostate cancer... including BRCA1..." If you think that's too buried, I could move it to a Causes subsection, have a separate Risk Factors section, or just make the wording a bit punchier. What do you think? Ajpolino (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

    Ajpolino, My main concern is that women know to watch their brothers, and men to watch their sisters :) :) There was breast cancer in my husband's family before BRCA testing was known. Methinks it would be optimal to somehow punch up that first sentence "Those with a family history", to reflect that it's not only the men and not only the prostate that increases risk; if there's BRCA breast cancer, need to keep an eye on that in relatives as well, and it goes both ways. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

    Punched it up a bit. Emphasized family history of any cancer is a risk, and snuck the word BRCA in there so it'll raise flags for folks who have heard it. It is the most substantial single gene risk factor, so I think it's due. Let me know if you think even more punching is appropriate. Ajpolino (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

    Excellent! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• I stumble over "often frequent" ... blood in the urine or semen, or trouble urinating – often frequent urination and slow or weak urine stream. Can we rewrite this whole thing as (or some such):

  As a tumor grows beyond the prostate, it can damage nearby organs, causing erectile dysfunction, blood in the urine or semen, or trouble urinating – commonly including frequent urination and slow or weak urine stream.[4] 21:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Implemented your wording. Ajpolino (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Do a ctrl-f on the word often? I'm stumbling over how often often occurs :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Reduced "often"s 36%. Can probably trim a couple more if it's still bothering you. Ajpolino (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

    Looking fine now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Why "typically" (which implies there is a third option)? "Those who elect to have therapy typically receive radiation therapy or a prostatectomy." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Ha. Removed. Ajpolino (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Radiation (with pros and cons) is discussed. Prostatectomy (with pros and cons) is discussed. But we never get a comparison of the outcomes of the two. (My perhaps dated understanding was that they were about equal in terms of prognosis ... or at least they were in our case, and the NCCN group let us decide which way to go ... but something needs to be said about the relative benefits/outcomes of the two main treatments.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Your understanding is up-to-date. Added. Ajpolino (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Is this "average" misplaced? "The average person who dies from prostate cancer is 77." The average age of those who die from prostate cancer is 77 ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Changed to your wording. Not sure if you're also curious about the number itself, but yes that's a typical number you see. Idk where the textbook chapter's data came from, but our beloved SEER program also calculates a median age of 79 at prostate cancer death in their participants.[16] Ajpolino (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  I am not worried about death stats :) :) Thanks, Aj! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Once you are through my list, I hope we can get both Colin and WhatamIdoing to have a look to assure the bronze star is truly and optimally shiny!!! But I'll leave pinging them 'til you're ready ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Actioned your first set of comments above. Thank you for taking the time to go through the article. It is, as always, much improved for your feedback. Ajpolino (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I am at a support for Ajpolino's fine work, but because I was once accused of COI and reverted when removing dated and inaccurate information from a prostate-cancer-related article, I alert the FAC Coords to the need to weight my support accordingly if they believe my prior involvement, and my husband having prostate cancer, constitutes a troubling COI. @Colin and WhatamIdoing: this FAC is maturing to promotion, Graham has been through already, Hog Farm has given a layperson review, it has had a source and image review, and your once over and feedback could make it a truly shiny star! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Several works need page ranges. Eg Dall'Era; Pilié et al; Stephenson; and others.
  • Added page numbers for Stephenson and Valier.
  • Dall'Era; Hessen; Pilié et al; Scher and Eastham are online resources and are not paginated.
  • Coleman et al; Mai et al; Pernar et al; Rebello et al are online-only and give a single "page" number that identifies the document
• "Most men are diagnosed with tumors confined to the prostate"! Suggest 'Most men diagnosed have tumors confined to the prostate' or similar.
  • Oops! Went with your suggestion.
• "Tumors that have metastasized". "metastasized" - why use "spread" at first mention and the unlinked, unexplained technical term at second?
  • Good point. Changed first to "metastasize (spread)" but am open to a more thorough rewording if you think it would help.
• "As surgery became more common, prostate tumors were found". Perhaps 'more prostate tumors' or 'many prostate tumors' or 'increasing numbers of prostate tumors' or similar? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Went with "more" to keep it short and sweet.

Thank you for taking the time to leave comments. Happy to take any others. Ajpolino (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, Dall'Era, or Stephenson, for example, do specify in which section material occurs which is OK for online sources without page nos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2024 [17].

---

Narwhal

Nominator(s): Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the narwhal (Monodon monoceros), the closest living relatives of beluga whales. I made some improvements to the article and addressed concerns from the first FAC and second peer review. As is well known, the left jaw of narwhals contains a very long canine tooth. This gives narwhals their distinctive appearance. Because they spend most of the year on the Arctic ice, narwhals are challenging to photograph. I'm not sure why I chose narwhals over all other cetaceans, but something seemed to be driving me, perhaps because they're so unique among cetaceans and I think they'll make a fantastic addition to the mammal list. Regards and thanks for your time. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Jens

I can only repeat what I said in the last FAC and at the Peer Review – I do not think that that the "European" (now "Alicorn") section meets the FA criteria. It partly relies on a journalist's article (Washington Post) when high-quality scholarly sources are available, to cite information that is contradicted by those scholarly articles (which are cited in the same section). "Alicorn" as section title is too specific, since half of the section is about Vikings. Overall, the section is not comprehensive per FA criteria; the cited sources provide much more, they just need to be incorporated properly. The second paragraph picks some aspects but fails to deliver the big picture in a systematic way. I already said most of those things at the Peer Review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, but I don't understand what you're saying. All right, let me describe the section so it can be easy to make it FA quality. In the Middle Ages, Europeans thought narwhal tusks were unicorn horns. Thus, the trade is thought to have started about 1,000 AD, when Norsemen and Vikings exchanged them with Europeans. Due its supposed magical powers, the horns were employed for medical purposes as well as gifts to wealthy individuals. However, in the late 1600s, science refuted the unicorn horn notion. Therefore, the Vikings and Norsemen deceived Europeans into believing that narwhal tusks were unicorn horns for a very long time. And I used the Washington Post for the quote. That's all the valuable information the sources had to offer. I hope we are clear. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 22:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the scholarly sources you cite in that section in detail? For example, what do they say about the origin of the horns (where did the Vikings get them from), and where is the discrepancy with your article? "That's all the valuable information the sources had to offer" – sorry, but no – and again, did you read those sources? Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The statements I added are just speculations. One citation stated, "Surprisingly, the question of the origin of the narwhal tusk that circulated in Europe has never been the object of a thorough investigation." Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

And what about the extensive discussion on the question that this very source provides? I can understand that you might not be interested in the culture section and don't want to spend time on those sources, but it doesn't help, without reading them you cannot fix that section. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, then tomorrow. I swear I'm never doing this FAC thing again once I get narwhal featured. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: Added some more. The source was mainly talking about the theory around Norsemen whale-hunters. Going to sleep now. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 00:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa

I don't intend to do a thorough review, but I'm going to oppose this on (chiefly) prose quality at the moment. A non-exhaustive sample of issues I noted while reading through the article follows:

• "The narwhal typically visits the Baffin Bay, between June and September." — the Baffin Bay? That sounds off to me. Also, why the comma?
  • Fixed
• "The narwhal has been harvested for hundreds of years" – "harvested" seems like an odd word choice.
  • Fixed
• "The narwhal has been depicted in human culture since ancient times." – has it? I don't find this in the body.
  • Removed
• "he accurately designated it as "Monocerote"" – accurately? The meaning of this is not clear to me.
  • Fixed
• "derived from Greek μόνον-δόντι μόνον-κέρατο" – should be transliterated. See MOS:NOTLATIN.
  • Fixed
• "a body length of 3.5 to 5.5 m (11 to 18 ft), excluding the tusk. Males average 4.1 m (13.5 ft) in length; females average 3.5 m (11.5 ft)" – it seems peculiar that the lower bound for the species should equal the female average. Is this correct?
  • Fixed
• "The tail flukes of female narwhals have a sweep-back in the front edges and those of males lack such a characteristic; their tail flukes are curved inwards." – does "their" refer to males or all narwhals?
  • Fixed
• "Its skeletal muscle is designed to withstand" – certainly not. Adapted, perhaps.
  • Fixed
• "a single long tusk, which is in fact a canine tooth" – "in fact"?
  • Fixed
• "forms a left-handed helical spiral" – what is meant by "helical spiral" here—a conical spiral? I tried looking at the cited source to see if that clarifies anything, but I didn't find either "helix"/"helical" or "spiral" there (and only two mentions of "tusk", neither of which say anything about the shape).
  • Removed
    • Okay, but now we have no description of the tusk's shape. The tusks of other species come in various different shapes, so this seems like a rather egregious oversight, especially considering the tusk is the narwhal's "most conspicuous characteristic", as the article says. An image of a tusk is not sufficient; readers who cannot view images, such as those using screen readers, should also get information about the tusk's shape. TompaDompa (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• "The purpose of the narwhal tusk is debated." – "purpose" seems a dubious choice of word. I would use "function".
  • Fixed
• "The narwhal's mouth is toothless; it instead has several small vestigial teeth" – not really toothless, then?
  • Fixed
• "Dive times can also vary in time and depth" – times can vary in time?
  • Fixed
• "in spite of the fact that water depths in these areas are typically deeper" – "in spite of the fact" is typically a needlessly intracte phrasing, and depths being deeper is somewhat repetitive.
  • Fixed
• "which then causes narwhals to subsequently alter their foraging strategies" – "then [...] subsequently" is redundant.
  • Fixed
• "Large quantities of Boreo-Atlantic armhook squid (Gonatus fabricii) were discovered, but this feeding likely occurred outside the summer." – the significance of that last part is not immediately clear to me.
  • Removed
• "averaging 1.5 m (4.9 ft) in length and white or light grey in colour" – I'm guessing "averaging" only refers to the length and not the colour, in which case it would be better to swap this around.
  • Fixed
• "Their reproductive lives on the other hand, remained stagnant." – the meaning of this is not clear to me. This comes in the context of menopause, so I'm guessing it has something to do with that (reproduction of course ceases after menopause)?
  • Fixed
• "while those used for echolocation typically falls between 19 and 48 hertz" – subject–verb disagreement.
  • Fixed
• "Lifespan and mortality" – an odd word choice, methinks; obviously narwhals are not immortal.
  • Renamed
• "Breathing holes in the ice may be up to 1,450 m (4,760 ft) apart, which limits the use of foraging grounds" – "limits the use of foraging grounds"?
  • Yes, the sea ice limits the movement of narwhals, as they need these breathing holes to stay alive. It's like a water source in a desert, you have to be close to it to have a good chance at survival.
    • I understand that they need to stay near the breathing holes. What is confusing to me is the phrasing "limits the use of foraging grounds". TompaDompa (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• "Several cases of sea entrapment were recorded in 2008–2010, during the Arctic winter, including in some places where such events have never been recorded." – had never been recorded before, presumably.
  • Fixed
• "off the waters of Svalbard" – off the waters? Not "in the waters off [the coast of] Svalbard"?
  • Fixed
• "Inuit are able to hunt this whale species legally." – "this whale species" is something of an odd choice of phrasing, and "legally" would seem to imply some sort of significance that is not elaborated upon further.
  • Fixed
• "They are extremely difficult to encroach, and make tricky catches for hunters." – "tricky" is a bit informal.
  • Fixed
• "Almost all parts of the narwhal; the meat, skin, blubber and organs are consumed." – I would say that the semicolon should be a regular colon, but that wouldn't work with how the sentence ends. Surrounding the list with dashes would probably be the best option.
  • Fixed
• I generally don't mind duplicate links much, but there is at least no reason to link harpoon in consecutive paragraphs. There are some other duplicate links that are borderline.
  • Fixed
• "approximately 1,000 AD." – years are not written with a thousands separator (see MOS:BADDATEFORMAT), and "AD" is unnecessary when there are no BC(E) dates.
  • Fixed
• "Hadley Meares, a historian, quoted "The trade strengthened during the Middle Ages, when the unicorn became a symbol of Christ, and therefore an almost holy animal"." – rather unusual way of using the verb "quote".
  • Fixed
• "The price tag of tusks were said to be a couple of hundred times greater than its value in gold per kg." – does "its value in gold per kg" mean "its weight in gold"? If so, just say that.
  • Fixed
• "After being proven that narwhal tusks were antithetical to actual antidotes" – anacoluthon.
  • Fixed

Regrettably, TompaDompa (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Fixed all, please have another look. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 00:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Like UndercoverClassicist below, I provided what was from the outset an explicitly non-exhaustive sample of issues, do not wish to get stuck in a WP:FIXLOOP, and stand by my opposition as I think the article still has a ways to go. TompaDompa (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

UC

With some trepidation, I am also an oppose for now on prose quality and general polish. This list is not exhaustive but is, hopefully, representative:

• The narwhal is white in color: this isn't really true, since most of the white is covered by markings: you may as well say that labradors are pale pink.
  • Fixed
• and is only vulnerable to predatory attacks from polar bears and orcas: and humans!
  • Added
• The narwhal typically visits Baffin Bay between June and September. After this period, it moves... this sounds as if there's only one of these things. At best, the use of the singular here is archaic.
  • Fixed
• It is mostly found... At the start of a new paragraph, the antecedent should be repeated. There are several examples of this problem throughout.
  • Fixed
• is derived from Greek monódonto monókero,: per least surprise, "Greek" should be "Ancient Greek" (we expect that link to go to the modern Greek language): secondly, transliterated Greek should be given in a transliteration template, thirdly, this isn't (correct) Ancient Greek, or indeed modern Greek. It also isn't given in the cited source.
  • Fixed
• The tusk cannot serve a critical function for the animal's survival, as females—which generally do not have tusks—typically live longer than males. Therefore, it is generally accepted that the primary function of the narwhal tusk is associated with reproduction: therefore is inappropriate here (the second postulate doesn't follow from the first). Secondly, the narwhal's tusk might have a role in sexual selection or similar, but giving it a role in reproduction would be extremely painful.
  • Fixed
• The narwhal has several small vestigial teeth that mainly reside in open tooth sockets which are situated in the upper jaw.: what does mainly mean or modify here?
  • Removed
• Narwhals typically travel further north, to the Baffin Bay between June and September. : the missing comma after Baffin Bay aside, this whole section is very confusing: we've suggested that various populations of narwhals "reside" in different places, but now have them moving en masse in a cyclical pattern between several different places.
  • Explained. See the map in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait.
• calf numbers varied from 0.05% to 5% of the total numbering from 10,000 to 35,000 narwhals, indicating that higher calf counts may reflect calving and nursery habitats in favourable inlets.: this does not indicate that at all: the latter is a hypothesis developed to explain the former.
  • Fixed
• In a 2024 study, scientists concluded that 5 species of Odontoceti evolved menopause to acquire higher overall longevity. Their reproductive lives on the other hand, did not increase or decrease.: this needs a bit of explaining: were pre-menopause whales simply stopping having calves after a certain age, despite retaining the capacity to have them?
  • By "reproductive lives" we mean the period when narwhals are able to conceive.
• The tusks were then displayed in cabinets of curiosities: what does then mean here, and why is tusks plural -- which tusks does this cover, exactly?
  • Fixed
• in addition to the purification of polluted water in nature,: this clause makes very little sense to me.
  • Rephrased
• narwhal tusks were antithetical to actual antidotes: likewise, what does this mean -- it should mean that narwhal tusks somehow stop actual antidotes from working.
  • Fixed
• a growing fetish for the supposed powers of unicorn horns: this is not the right WP:TONE for an encyclopaedia (see especially the term "fetish").
  • Fixed
• Hadley Meares, a historian, quotes: quotes whom?
  • Fixed

I can see that work has gone into the article since its last FAC, but I'm afraid it isn't there yet. It really needs a good review and, I'd suggest, the assistance of an experienced mentor in the preparation stage. I am, of course, open to reviewing this vote, but it will require the article as a whole to be fixed, not only the examples I have picked out here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how fixing the entire article will make you change your mind, if I'm being completely honest. Rather than on the first day, it would have been better if you had objected on the seventh or whatever. And two opposes in a single day—well, I'll see what I can accomplish. Let me just play COD now. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Took your advice and "polished" the article prose. How's it looking so far? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 11:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a quarrel with most of what's been done above: as I said before, though, the list I gave was a representative sample rather than exhaustive. In the interests of avoiding WP:FIXLOOP, I'll refrain from throwing you another set: I can only repeat my suggestion that the whole article could really benefit from a through look-through, and that it would probably help if that were done with a second pair of non-expert eyes. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Draken Bowser

I enjoyed the read and have no major concerns.

• "..which are typically slow-twitched, allowing for slow yet manoeuvrable motion." The difference between fast- and slow-twitch muscle fibres is explosiveness vs. endurance. While slow is true, stamina should also be stressed.
• "Females, who usually do not have tusks, usually live longer than males.." Remove to avoid repetition, or replace.
• "One or two vertebrae per animal are used for tools and art." Why just one or two? Is their anatomy peculiar or is there a custom of leaving the rest?
• "..entrapment affected around 600 narwhals.." Sounds like a statement of fact. Perhaps it should be rephrased as the number of whales discovered?
• "It is currently unclear how far sea ice changes pose a danger to narwhals." I prefer "to what extent".
• ".. in one case killing up to dozens of narwhals in a single attack." I'd prefer phrasing this as a known limit of a range rather than as an example.

Since the FA-process wisely puts the emphasis on tangible criticism rather than tallying supports I know it's not worth much, but you have my support. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to pick a nit, I think you want "twitch", not "twitched". I don't know what the official grammar rule is, but I've always heard it as "twitch". RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Three reviewers feel that the prose is not up to FAC standard. (IMO they are correct, it - still - isn't.) There seems little chance of a consensus to promote being reached without extensive changes, and FAC is not the place for that. I am therefore archiving this. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. I would suggest a visit to GoCER, and perhaps at the article's next visit to PR waiting until reviewers there feel it is ready for FAC before nominating it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 April 2024 [18].

---

David J. Brewer

Nominator(s): Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

David J. Brewer spent twenty years on the U.S. Supreme Court. Theodore Roosevelt thought he had "a sweetbread for a brain" and was a "menace to the welfare of the Nation", and he hasn't fared too much better in the annals of history, despite considerable scholarly efforts in recent years to rehabilitate his reputation. But whatever one might think of him, he undeniably served at a formative moment in modern American history, and this article provides a window into how a conservative Supreme Court responded to that moment.

I wrote the bulk of this article back in 2022, when it passed a GA review by MaxnaCarta. After a few recent touch-ups, I think it's now ready for FAC. Most of the sources should be easily available (usually through the Internet Archive or the Wikipedia Library), and I'm happy to provide help accessing any of the others. Looking forward to your comments! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ll definitely leave some comments. It would simply be rude not to do so 😅. It’s EW after all. As usual this just looks *italian chefs kiss* perfect. Your articles are a model I try to use when writing. Will review and come back, though I don’t have much experience at FA and others may be better at polishing diamonds than I am. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text

• See this guidance regarding captions. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Both done, Nikkimaria. I could only find one that was missing alt text, so if you're seeing others, please let me know which ones. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

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) 18:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not showing signs of moving towards a consensus to promote, and so I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "In Board of Education v. Tinnon,[b] " I would mention much further up that Brewer dissented. As it is, we have to wait several sentences.
  • Done.
• Is it worth consolidating in one place the discussion of Mugler and that Mugler was affirmed by the US Supreme Court? The way you phrase it, it might escape the reader they are the same case.
  • Yeah, it probably does make more sense that way (despite the chronology). Done.
• It might be made clearer that as a circuit justice of the Eighth Circuit, Brewer would have heard both trial and appellate cases. I also wonder at your capitalization.
  • Sentence added. Re capitalization, I've reworded to make clear I'm using "circuit court" is a description rather than a title. (Pre-1912 circuit courts are strange: Brewer was a circuit judge for the 8th Circuit, but the court is called the "United States Circuit Court for the District of [state]" rather than the Circuit Court for the Eighth Circuit.)
• In an era when regional representation on the Supreme Court was so important, as was Ohio in presidential politics, how on earth did Ohio lose Matthews' seat to Kansas? The Eighth Circuit was already represented through Miller, and Waite, an Ohioan, had just been replaced by Fuller. The Sixth Circuit had nobody.
  • Harlan was from the Sixth Circuit (as were two of Harrison's next three appointments), and geography wasn't quite as important once circuit-riding started to decline (there was no one from the Fourth Circuit for almost 80 years), but yeah, definitely surprising. Foraker used a lot of political capital on McDougall, and allegedly Harrison actually offered the nomination to him, but when McDougall refused there wasn't much more the Ohioans could do. (It couldn't have helped that their next choice, Taft, was pretty clearly too inexperienced and that Foraker's "recommendation of Taft, whom he disliked personally, was relatively cool".[19]). The sources don't have much else to say, although from what I can tell from the newspapers, it was realized from the beginning that a non-Ohio candidate was likely. It seems Harrison was more concerned with picking someone from "the Midwest" broadly construed than from any particular state or circuit. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• "Vice-President Levi P. Morton " Why the dash?
  • Fixed.

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks—looking forward to the rest of your comments! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• "most well-known opinions" Why not "best-known opinions"?
  • Fixed.
• Consider a quote box with a longer extract from the "Christian nation" opinion opposite the paragraph in which you discuss it.
  • The famous part comes at the end of a lengthy paragraph where Brewer lists a bunch of different religious aspects of American life. If I quote the whole 220-word paragraph it'd be too long, and if I quote just the decisive sentences I'd have to start at "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations...", which leaves the reader wondering what "these" are. Not sure there's an easy way to make a quote box work.
• Where did Brewer live as a justice? Did he live in DC or did he maintain a home in Kansas where he went when court was not in session?
  • He seems to have spent most of his time in DC (illustrated tour of Fuller Court houses available here), with occasional vacations to this cottage in Vermont, his first wife's home state. ("Justice and Mrs. Brewer always go north, but usually far from the haunts of society, and have a restful time of it.") Brodhead's biography says he "regularly visited" Kansas, but I can't find any evidence he owned property there (his will just lists a DC house and the Vermont cottage). I've added the cottage to the article.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

All responded to. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all of them. Looks good. Support. Wehwalt (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Charles Edward was born a British prince and had a quintessential upper-class Victorian upbringing. Nannies, governess, prep schools, Eton and regular visits to Granny Vicky. Until one day a succession crisis in a tiny German statelet changed his future forever. He was not the first candidate for the dukedom but German emperor (and cousin) Wilhelm wanted a boy he could mold into one of his henchmen and Charles Edward, whose father had been dead since before he was born, seemed like the perfect candidate. The teenaged prince had been put on path that would take him to strange, nasty places.

This is my first featured article candidacy. I have been working on this article sporadically over recent years, heavily in the past several months and done a lot research into this man's life. The article has been promoted to good status, informally and formally peer reviewed since december. Thank you to anyone who takes the time to review it, I will try to respond as fast as I can. Llewee (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to FAC! I'll open with an image review

• Don't use fixed px sizes for images, see MOS:IMGSIZE

done

• Suggest adding alt text where it is missing

done

• File:Groepsportret_van_de_familie_van_koningin-regentes_Emma,_anonymous,_1896_-_1897.jpg is missing information on first publication, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Ditto File:Duke_Charles_Edward_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha_with_wife_and_children.jpg

The first image is old enough to be assumed in the public domain. I've added a copyright tag specifying that. The second image has been given to the commons by the German archive.

The first one still has a tag based on publication date, so we still need info on first publication. On the second, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

1. The United States section of List of countries' copyright lengths says that anonymous works enter the public domain "95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter" so it should be in the public domain by now whenever it was published. However, I'm not sure what tag to use to indicate that point.

1. The 120 from creation piece only kicks in if it was first published after 1978, according to that table, so we'd still need to know when it was published. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• I've found the relevant page on the source website. It says the picture's in the public domain. I'll update the page momentarily.--Llewee (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• You've added a CC BY tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, the page on the museum website has a link to this licence (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en).--Llewee (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Okay, so why then are you adding a CC BY tag? I'm confused. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think I have got the right licence now.--Llewee (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Sorry I got mixed up between images, I'm not quite sure how to interpret the second image, the source says (http://www.zeno.org/Zeno/-/Lizenz%3A+Gemeinfrei) it thinks the image is in the public domain but isn't sure. Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Since this is hosted on Commons, even if we take that as correct we'd still need to know US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• the source (http://www.zeno.org/Bildpostkarten) says it is from a collection of "Over 5,000 postcards... [which] provide a comprehensive overview of... postcard production from around 1895 to 1928". So it must have been published before 1929, given he stopped being duke in 1918 and the fairly time-specific appeal of the image, probably long before then. It also appears photographs that remain anonymous enter the public domain in Germany after 70 years (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymes_Werk#Fr%C3%BChere_Rechtslage_in_Deutschland_/_%C3%9Cbergangsrecht). I've added a different tag to the page.--Llewee (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Same author problem exists with File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_136-B0556,_Karl-Eduard_von_Sachsen-Coburg_und_Gotha.jpg. Ditto File:Landwirtschaftliche_Ausstellung_Coburg_Juni_1910.jpg

I've looked up a translation of the source and it seems to have been taken by someone who died in 1913. I've added a translation

What about File:Landwirtschaftliche_Ausstellung_Coburg_Juni_1910.jpg? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry I meant the second image, the first image was taken by someone who died in 1936. Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha_in_the_German_Reich_(1871).svg: suggest clarifying the caption to specify which portion is the polity of interest - there are two shapes that could potentially be highlighted

Both are - one is Coburg and the other is Gotha. I've added a clarification of the relevant colour.

• File:Gotha_Order_of_the_Garter.JPG: under US law replication of a 2D work doesn't garner a new copyright - this should be tagged for the status of the work pictured

I've added a UK government copyright template. I'm not sure if it also needs a US template?

No, but the source should be clarified. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to make the source and author sections more informative--Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that these have been edited? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to publish the edit, done now.--Llewee (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:ZIEL_ERKANNT!_12._Reichs-Frontsoldatentag_des_Stahlhelm_B.d.F._Breslau_30_31_Mai_1931_15_Propaganda_Erinnerungsschrift_(Commemorative_rally_book_of_Stahlhelmbund,_German_right-wing_paramilitary_organisation_1918–1935)_No_known_copyri.jpg: why does this have a CC license? I don't see that at the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I've taken that image out now.--Llewee (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review Nikkimaria, apologies for asking lots of questions, I'm not hugely fluent in copyright issues.--Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I've taken out the order of the Garter image and added File:"L'oncle de l'Europe" devant l'objectif caricatural - images anglaises, françaises, italiennes, allemandes, autrichiennes, hollandaises, belges, suisses, espagnoles, portugaises, américaines, etc. (14776736585).jpg.--Llewee (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Is a more specific tag available for this new image? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added a couple of more specific tags.--Llewee (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, I've added an additional image to the article. File:Sibylla med Prins Gustaf Adolf och alla barnen.jpg

Drive by comment by Nick-D I don't think I'll have time to post full review, but the statement that "In March 1945, the German government formed a "Committee for the Protection of European Humanity" of which Charles Edward was made chairman. This group was meant to negotiate with the Western Allies in order to gain better living conditions for the defeated Germans after the war. The committee members were in theory "uncompromised" Germans with fewer links to the regime. The quick collapse of Nazi Germany after that point meant that enough time was not available for negotiations" jumped out of me:

• The first sentence is surprising given that the main body of what remained of the German Government (Hitler and his group in Berlin) was determined to go down in flames. Hitler sacked, jailed or killed anyone he found was engaging in negotiations of this type. Was this a committee formed by one of the breakaway elements of the government who recognised that the war was lost?
• The last sentence is wrong as the Allies had a policy of insisting on the unconditional surrender of Germany, and they would not have engaged with this group (except to see if it could be used to bring about unconditional surrender) no matter how much time was available. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The source "Charles Edward of Saxe-Coburg: The German Red Cross and the Plan to Kill "unfit" citizens 1933-1945 pp 165-166" says;

In March 1945 Hitler asked Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop to form a Committee for the Protection of European Humanity. Charles Edward was designated as chairman, and the group was supposed to represent "uncompromised" Germans in their association with the National Socialist government who could negotiate with the Western Allies to ensure tolerable living conditions for civilians in Germany after the war concluded. As president of the DRK, Charles Edward contacted ICRC Vice President Carl Burckhardt who agreed to act as an liaison with the British and American governments on the matter. The coordinated military thrusts from both East and West resulted in such a rapid collapse of the German military that the committee never really had time to begin fruitful negotiations with the foreign governments. Total surrender devolved by May 1945, and Hitler was dead (Zimmerman, 1980; Stauffer, 1991, 167-190, Stauffer, 1998, 350; Poguntke, 2010, 125).

Given the quality of the source I mainly just took its contents on trust. I suppose lack of time might be shorthand for not enough time for the allies to be asked and say no but I don't really know.--Llewee (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I checked Ian Kershaw's book The End today, which is one of the standard works on the last period of Nazi Germany, and it confirms that Hitler didn't want to enter into any form of peace negotiations (aside from sort-of tolerating negotiations to end the fighting in Italy). There were multiple breakaway groups though that attempted this. As this topic seems to be outside of the book you're consulting's area of focus, I'd suggest cross checking these claims against more specialist sources, as I'm fairly confident that the author here is mistaken. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I've searched the book you referenced on Google books for uses of the phrase "Committee for the Protection of European Humanity" but none appeared. I can't find any relevant search results on this website or the wider internet. As the sources Rushton references are all German language sources I probably wouldn't be able to much information out of I think it might be best just to take the text out.--Llewee (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies Nick-D, I forgot to link to you.--Llewee (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Drive by comment. ... died ..., [[Haemophilia in European royalty|having suffered]] from [[haemophilia]] is a MOS:EASTEREGG violation (and perhaps one of MOS:SUFFER as well). You could write something like "... who was a haemophiliac like many other European royalty, died ..." but I am sure there is an even better way to phrase it. —Kusma (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the wording now.--Llewee (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

I am interest to read the article again after the informal peer review. I will leave the lead for last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional comments, I'll work through them as quickly as possible.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Birth and family background

• I think Family would be enough of a header.
  • I've done that and moved the detail about his birth to the childhood section.
• I'd like to see both father and mother introduced before his father's death, and the titles the boy inherited at birth. Possibly even before the sister.
  • I've reorganised the section so that his parents are introduced first, then his sister and then the stuff about his father's death

Childhood

• "He was then sent to school without his sister. His schooling took place at boarding schools." - I feel that these extremely short sentences could perhaps be combined, avoiding "school" - "schooling".
  • done

Selection as heir

• I believe that the "colonies" in the image caption is not needed, as the two districts will not be expected in colonies.
  • ditto
• ref order: I notice twice in this section that references are not in numerical order as expected, - didn't watch before, please check.
• "... King William II of Württemberg, and found him a tutor. Later, Emperor Wilhelm organised ..." - it looks a bit strange to see two people with the same name so differently next to each other.

• I can see that but it's based on the names the two men's articles use.

• "He attended Bonn University. He studied law but ..." - I bet these sentences can be combined.

• done

Marriage ...

• "His entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography comments that they were happy, but Urbach indicates otherwise." - if the "happy" from the dictionary should be mentioned at all - how would they know - please find an abbreviation when it's mentioned first.

• The dictionary entry does cite sources. I've added an abbreviation.--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Personal life

• "They are so sensible, 'wenn sie nicht verhetzt werden' (when they are not poisoned)", - I suggest to render the sentence in English, and give the German expression in brackets. I believe that "poison" is too ambiguous, - my dictionary has no good word for "verhetzen" but "incite" seems to work.

• The quote uses different brackets than those usually used for translations by Urbach, so I think the duke might have decided to write the phrase in both languages in his letter.--Llewee (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The family often do not appear happy in photographs." - I am not happy with that sentence, as a construction (The family often do not ...), and it contradicts the two photographs we can see ;)
• "It is unknown whether it was true." - I feel that this sentence is redundant to "allegations".
• "When they grew up, Charles Edward's children were often a disappointment to him in their choice of romantic relationships, ..." - I think it could be simpler saying that the their choice disappointed him, which would also make "when they grew up" redundant.

• I've given the paragraph these previous few points refer to a general tidy up.--Llewee (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• "The marriage meant that Sibylla would be expected to become Queen of Sweden (which however did not happen)." - I seem to remember that we discussed that all this is implied in "second to the Swedish throne".

• I personally think it looks silly but their was a slightly meandering discussion on the talk page that went against me. (See:Talk:Charles_Edward,_Duke_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha#Suspense_build-up?) So, I don't particularly want to mess around with it any more.--Llewee (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• "The former duke began to look for political options he felt were tougher than the former emperor had been during the First World War." - sorry, I don't understand the meaning.

• I've reworded this, is it clearer now?--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Political ...

• I think that the lead of the linked article gymnasium is better than the footnote offered.

• Apologies if I'm mistaken but I assume the school types weren't the same in the 1920s. I've changed the footnote to something more general.--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Unofficial diplomat

• the dictionary again, - it should certainly not be linked again

• done

Second World War

• "Hubertus † fürs Vaterland" (Hubertus died for Germany). - no Vaterland means "fatherland", or home country, not Germany.
  • Apologies, I am aware that's the literal translation but I thought it would be easier for readers to translate it as Germany. I have changed it now.--Llewee (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
• "committed suicide" - I guess you are aware that the phrasing is contentious, - too close to "commit a crime"

• done

Trial ...

• dictionary once more

• done

• can we avoid "as a result" in two sentences in a row?

• done

• "Seaforth Highlanders" are mentioned five times, linked three of those (1,2,4) - perhaps check for duplicate links.

• done

Death

• "Elsässer Straße (Alsatian Street)" - if the street is needed (which I doubt) there's no need to give it italics and a translation.

• done

General: the separation of personal and political life (under Far-right) makes for a tricky chronology - something to think about. I'll look at the lead tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• I've now organised it into sections based on time period--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead, infobox

• I believe that the lead has some unneeded detail. It should focus on the subject.
  1. I don't need his father's cause of death, and even less that the father's condition was frequent in nobility, - that's for later, the latter perhaps not at all.
     • I've taken that out now.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Instead of "His paternal grandparents were Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.", an addition to the father as being the Queen's son might be enough to make the connection.
     • I'm reluctant to take out the reference to Prince Albert because I think the "of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" is a helpful way of quickly conveying to the reader why a British prince might have been in the line of succession for a German dukedom.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

       understand that now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC) (accidentally deleted comment)

  3. I didn't get "sickly" from remembering the body section, rather "the perfect little prince" ;) (but that may be just me).
  4. I don't think his children are lead material (beyond saying "five"), unless perhaps Sibylla. They have prime position in the infobox.
     • I've kept her but taken the rest out.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
• I think if we hit the reader with "Nazi politician" in the first sentence (on top of the uniform), we might want to add his position with the Red Cross and "unoffical diplomat" there, for perspective.
  • I've put the details about his Nazi positions into the first paragraph and moved down the content about his life as a kid. I've added a brief reference to his status as a British Prince to the first sentence as I think that's one of the most notable details to an English-speaking audience and necessary context to his diplomatic roll.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
• I think he lost his English titles before the German ones which might be reflected.
  • It formally happened slightly later. The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 started a bureaucratic process that ended in 1919.
• "like the other German monarchs" - he was no monarch, and for "nobility", it's the wrong link.
  • Federal prince, I think this the right one?--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

    That looks better to me. I know, however, very little about nobility, - others may have other ideas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC) (accidentally deleted comment)

• I think his function as head of the Red Cross should somehow in the infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I've embedded an officeholder box.--Llewee (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the comments, I tried the indenting also. Easy rule: when replying to something indented, copy that indenting. (If not the whole idea gets lost. Which may make it tricky for someone blind.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

For your return: reading the lead again after your changes, I like it much better. I suggest you introduce "a state of the German Empire" sooner, because that is so unexpected. I wonder if it would be better to mention in the first paragraph - which should be a rough overview - his functions in the Red Cross and as informal diplomat, and bring the details later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I've made those changes.--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I don't know how else to say it. In the first paragraph, I'd just say he was leader of the Red Cross and an informal diplomat (to distinguish from a SS leader or minister). The details - that at the time the Red Cross was carrying out eugenic concepts - don't belong in the first few sentences, but rather the last para of the lead, and in not too much detail. Other than that, I'm ready to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

done--Llewee (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, it was a pleasure, - support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Therealscorp1an

• I have noticed the lead being brought up, but not this point: the lead currently exceeds "four well-composed paragraphs", which is prohibited per MOS:LEAD. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I have reorganised the lead now.--Llewee (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Llewee: "In 1899, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha decided on how to deal with the succession of Duke Alfred, who was in ill health. Duke Alfred's only son, Prince Alfred, had died in February 1899." These sentences may seem a little confusing. Specific dates are given as to when Prince Alfred died, but not for when the succession is dealt with. I would suggest changing it to "In late 1899, the House..." - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think its taken awkward wording from one of sources. It should be better now.--Llewee (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Llewee: Keeping the sections of "Selection as heir" and especially "Regency" out of the "Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" section may seem a bit illogical as he had a regent while being the Duke, so should it not technically be inside the Duke section? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• I created a new section in order to create more of a balance between the different sections sizes. I'm reluctant to split up education and regency because they cover heavily overlapping time periods.--Llewee (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Llewee away until next weekend (Old post, please ignore)

Hello all, thank you for your comments which have been very helpful. I am about to go away on holiday, I'll carry on working on the article when I get back.--Llewee (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. I came to say that in this edit (conflict?), you lost indenting and replies, wanting to ask you to fix it. Perhaps I can do it, just not right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment from Buidhe

Article says that Martha Liebermann was going to be deported to Auschwitz. This is unlikely because elderly German Jews and especially those well connected were almost always deported to Theresienstadt. Martha Liebermann's article seems to have the correct information with a source. Can you fix this? (t · c) buidhe 17:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Buidhe, The cited book says it was Auschwitz.--Llewee (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's wrong though, for the reasons discussed above, and especially because the source in Liebermann's article seems to say the opposite. (t · c) buidhe 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Even just googling for "Martha Liebermann" "Auschwitz" I find plenty of sources that say she was about to be deported to Theresienstadt, and no claims that she was going to Auschwitz. —Kusma (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I've changed it and added a source from her page.--Llewee (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 April 2024 [20].

---

My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy

Nominator(s): K. Peake 13:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (2010), the fifth studio album by American rapper Kanye West. It was recorded during West's exile in Hawaii after a period of controversy through 2009, resulting in a maximalist style with elements of his previous work. The album was met with widespread critical acclaim and also received much retrospective praise, including being ranked as one of the greatest albums of all time. West promoted the album with four singles that were top 40 hits in the United States and the film Runaway, while it reached the top 10 in countries like the US and Canada. The article became a GA back in 2011, more than five years before I joined this site, though I have monitored it over the years and put in extensive work back in both 2022 and the start of 2024 for a FAC. I did take it through peer review before a third FAC and also made sure to incorporate the book sources, as West's magnum ops my dedication was guaranteed! --K. Peake 13:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Elias

Will be saving a spot ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 02:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• You do not use false titles in the lead section but you do in several instances down the article (e.g. "recording artist Lady Gaga"). Make this consistent

• Not sure about this one; the lead has lists of collaborators, so wouldn't it be tedious to list all of them out with the identities? --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• It feels weird to cite grammy.com pages as "Grammy Awards", given the awards/ceremonies themselves obviously do not write or publish the articles. usually I see those sources cited under the work/publisher The Recording Academy.

• Done. --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• I will be commenting on the lead after I'm finished reviewing the prose, to ensure that it properly summarizes all relevant details in the article.

Background

• MOS:CONFORMTITLE is not consistently applied; see the refs for this version of the article, [3], [10], [39], [42], [47], and [129] (I excluded [220] because the citation is template-generated)

• Done. --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Not quite; you missed [10]. - E.

• Done, sorry I must have not noticed. --K. Peake 08:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think it would be more beneficial if the explanation for the "public-image controversy" bit came immediately after the sentence. What's the purpose of the sentence "Around a year previously..." in this part of the paragraph?

• Done, also I moved that to the end and I've kept because it shows the relevancy of this studio. --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Linking just the word "outburst" and "interruption" is a MOS:EASTEREGG issue; furthermore, the sentence does not clearly convey that the outburst happened at the VMAs.

• Done, although does the version in the lead look acceptable now? --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• I would say yes. - E.

• Indicate the VMAs acronym immediately after spelling it in full, as the article uses the acronym a few more times down the line.

• Great, but I think you can remove the "VMAs" from the lead since you don't use the acronym elsewhere in it. - E.

• Done. --K. Peake 08:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• What is "rode the waves and rode it and rode it" here supposed to say? I assume it means West thought Swift was "riding the wave" of public sympathy - if so, make it clearer, possibly with a wiktionary link .

• Done. --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• "he feels like 'a soldier of culture', realizing no one wants this to be his job and he also honestly set out to maintain a large involvement in culture" two things. first, all of the verbs should be in past tense, and number two, i do not understand what any of this intends to convey. unfortunately, i do not have access to the cited book at the moment, so it will be hard to check.

• "I feel like, in some ways like I’m a soldier of culture, and I realize that no one wants that to be my job...will I feel convicted about things that really meant stuff to culture that constantly get denied for years and years and years and years, I’m sorry, I will. I cannot lie about it in order to sell records." phrased to be most appropriate. --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• I feel like this can still use a bit of work. The easiest approach, I think, would be to let the quotation speak for itself. You may replace this with the quotation, but I warn you will have to be careful with limiting these. - E.

• Done. --K. Peake 08:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• close paraphrasing issue with "a minimum of 80 percent was what he wanted to deliver, with the remainder 'fulfilling a perception'". it does not sufficiently reflect the source, "It's always going to be 80 percent, at least, what I want to give, and 20 percent fulfilling a perception". from what i understand it's "80%" of west staying true to himself and "20%" assuming the role the public expects him to play?
• "dissing Dark Fantasy" can be paraphrased; also I don't think you should enclose "Dark Fantasy" in single quotation marks since West was clearly referring to the album

• Done. --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• "what he wanted to deliver" can be tightened to "genuine" IMO. - E.

• Done. --K. Peake 08:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Recording and production

• the "later" in "He later explained" is not necessary
• "Various contributors engaged in sessions with West... Other artists recorded vocals for the album... Record producers who contributed in the sessions..." repetitive sentence structure. i think we can switch it up a bit?

• Eh, good enough - E.

• "Record producers who contributed in the sessions include:" misuse of the colon
• link the "Tweeting" from "No Tweeting" to Tweet (social media), removing the wikilink in "West tweeted", and link Rolodex

• Linking rolodex has yet to be done - E.

• Done, must have not seen. --K. Peake 08:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• "The heavy work ethic led to West and his crew having a multi-course breakfast" was this, along with the 21 games, marijuana, and workouts, a one-off thing? readers would benefit from a clarification that these happened regularly or at least a lot
• "solicited other producers" perhaps you mean enlisted ? to solicit sometimes means to ask someone for sexual favours ..
• "to weigh in" sounds informal; trim to "for opinions"
• "In an interview with Callahan-Bever" don't think this is needed given the previous sentence establishes we are in the context of an interview"

• Done. --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• IMO the fourth paragraph of this section contains too many quotations, and there are ways to paraphrase some if not all of them to avoid this issue.

• Done, if this is enough? --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• I still think there are still too many. - E.

• For single quotation marks in close proximity to double quotation marks, use Template:" ' or Template:' "

• Any examples now after edits? --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Not to my knowledge, no. - E.

• "West subsequently recorded in hotel rooms for Watch the Throne" i am unsure if this fact is relevant enough for inclusion in the article.

• Removed. --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Will return with comments soon, perhaps this weekend ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 13:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the long delays. Here are some further comments after a sweep at my previous suggestions.

• WP:CLOP issue with the last sentence at the Background section. Furthermore, I don't exactly understand why this sentence is relevant to comprehending the article's contents.

• Done, also it is relevant since it gives the background on West's views re the album. --K. Peake 08:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• It might be worth namedropping chipmunk soul in the article, as it is a prominent production style used in the album.

• This has been added as best as it can be now; see my edit to understand why and I will add more info if you can find any FA level sources about chipmunk soul further. --K. Peake 08:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Usually, I appreciate the use of quote boxes when the quotation picked is compelling. In this case, I am unsure about using it for the aforementioned section especially since we already have so many quotations. It just essentially repeats what is already said in the prose. Perhaps we can remove this?

• Done. --K. Peake 08:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Apologies in advance, but I still see even more quotations in the article as I read through the musical styles section. I completely understand that some descriptions of the album and summaries of critical commentary are best described by quotations and/or cannot be sufficiently paraphrased, I found twenty-three quotations in the musical style section alone --- in almost every sentence, some in close proximity to each other. Of the 452 words in that section, 149 come from quotations, or almost 33% or around 1/3 of the section. In the next section, 165/423 (39%) of the words come from quotations, and I note that every sentence about a critic saying something consists of at least one quotation. The rest are more generous: the song section has a 205/964 (21.3%) quotation/prose ratio, title/packaging 128/654 (19.6%), marketing 106/631 (16.8%), sales 0%, reviews 116/476 (24.4%), rankings 80/456 (17.5%), and industry awards 110/479 (23.0%).

I will have to pause my review here and oppose this in the meantime. Two sections have over a third of its words come from source quotations, indicating an overuse of them, which in turn tells me more work needs to be done to properly summarize the literature around this album. Not to mention a hint of close paraphrasing issues; if you wish, you may ask for spotchecks from a more experienced reviewer to weed out some of these instances. My sincere apologies because I have never opposed a nomination before, but my gut feeling tells me it must be done. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 01:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Your Power Thank you for the comments, regarding the direct quotes and close phrasing I have chopped these down heavily throughout now if you want to take a look. While I do appreciate these comments for improvement and will also be searching today to find source(s) for chipmunk soul, the opposition is not justified since these are not issues that take a long time to resolve so it may not be supportable upon your comments but they would be more suitable as comments rather than oppose – sorry if this strikes your gut, so to speak. --K. Peake 08:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

For the record, a reviewer should feel free to oppose anytime they feel the FA criteria are not (yet) met. If the issues can be dealt with quickly, and the oppose struck, that's great, but a reviewer clearly flagging such concerns is a benefit to the process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, this should not have really been somewhere to intervene regarding whether it is suitable or not for the user to oppose. Who knows, maybe they will support on next comments now... K. Peake 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Elias, any further comment in light of the changes? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Gog the Mild, apologies for taking me a week to get to this. I just saw Heartfox's comments below, and after comparing it with the state of the critical reception as well as the rest of the article, I doubt I will be striking my oppose any time soon. ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

100cellsman

Support on prose. The only thing I suggest is using subheaders in the Songs section, i.e. Tracks 1-6 and Tracks 7-13. 웃OO 02:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I added these in now, although it actually is 1-7 and then 8-13 but thank you! K. Peake 20:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

magiciandude

Also support on prose and as well as the issues addressed above. Erick (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

NØ

Got into Ye's music recently so I will try my best to make time for this!--NØ 15:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Is the Swift interruption relevant enough for the lead? It looks too text-heavy, honestly.

• I would say so since this album is often seen as West's redemption after his incident with Taylor Swift, therefore this being in the lead brings significant context for viewers instantly. --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• "During the album's marketing, West released free songs through his weekly GOOD Fridays series, as well as four singles, including "Power" and "All of the Lights", with all of them becoming top 40 hits on the Billboard Hot 100." - "During the album's marketing" bit is redundant. Maybe the simpler "Alongside several free songs released through his weekly GOOD Fridays series, West supported the album with four Billboard Hot 100 top 40 singles, including "Power" and "All of the Lights"?
• I would avoid referring to the singles as "hits" later on in the article as well for neutrality
• "It eventually registered a triple platinum certification" - Registered does not sound right. Maybe achieved?
• The "RIAA" abbreviation does not need to be included since it is not used again.

• Done. --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• A clean version of the alt cover seems to be available from Amazon, which seem to be generally preferred

• Is this really suitable since the censorship is mentioned and also, shouldn't the original be shown ideally anyway for readers? --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest combining more than three refs in a row to avoid citation overkill: "[6][26][27][28]"

• Done. --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• The "EW" abbreviation in the bracket after Entertainment Weekly seems unnecessary to me

• I disagree with you here, being that EW is later used in the rankings sub-section. --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Why not "Commercial performance" instead of "Sales" as a section title? The certifications included here include streaming performance and the last sentence concerns Spotify.

• Done, I agree with you here but this had been the idea of another editor a while back yet that was not at FAC so commercial performance outweighs sales verdict! --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• "At the end of 2010, numerous critics and publications included My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy on their year-end top albums lists" - That the lists were published at the end of 2010 is sufficiently implied by them being year-end lists, imo. So I would let go of the part preceding the comma.

• Done. --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Are HipHopDX Awards notable enough to be included? Just asking since I am not familiar with the hip hop scene and these do not seem to have a Wikipedia article.

• I would say yes, being that this is an established website with the hip hop community and there is a section in their article. --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I will refrain from voting since this isn't an in-depth review. Hope this is helpful--NØ 02:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• MaranoFan Thank you for your beginning comments, these have been addressed now and feel free to leave more comments or even ask away if anything is uncertain here! --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

MaranoFan, is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I am a bit dissatisfied with the convolution in the prose. That's the primary reason I haven't converted to a support after my initial comments. Significant work looks required in that department and I unfortunately won't be having the time to help with that within the time constraints of an FAC.--NØ 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

MaranoFan Thanks for your comments in detail here, I have looked and tried to revise the convolution even though I'm not 100% sure what you mean – I appreciate your viewpoint on the time constraints, although can you explain convolution and cite at least one example please? --K. Peake 06:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Heartfox

I am going to oppose per 1a due to the structure of the critical reception section as unengaing. Right now it is mostly a line-by-line quote/paraphrase of each reviewer, with little discernible themes/patterns among reviewers and paragraphs lack topic sentences which are helpful to readers. With 45 reviews indexed on Metacritic alone, I don't think it is unreasonable for there to be more of a thematic structure. Overall I don't think it's as good as it could be at the moment. There are also weird statements such as "In a November 2010 review" (the album was released in November 2010), and "esteemed reviewer Robert Christgau" which is unsourced and not really neutral, etc. Heartfox (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Heartfox I have revised the reception now to be more cohesive and neutral, how is this coming along? --K. Peake 06:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• With two outstanding opposes, a consensus to promote does not seem to be forming. So I am going to archive this with the suggestion that work on the reviewers' concerns continue off-FAC. I look forward to seeing it back here after this, although the usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Iron Man

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

When engineering genius Tony Stark was kidnapped and forced to build a weapon, he turned the tables on his kidnappers by designing a powered suit of armor and fighting his way out. With this new armor, he pledged to fight evil as the superhero Iron Man! First created by Marvel Comics in 1963, Iron Man has since become one of the company's most popular characters, in no small part because of his central role in Marvel's films. In the 60 years since Iron Man was first created, the character has appeared in countless comic book stories and other media, commenting on issues like Cold War politics, alcoholism, and technological progress.

There's little precedent for comic book superheroes as featured articles. The topic area is rife with articles that depend on primary sources and go into excessive detail, both things that I had to address when I began working on this article. I've cleaned out the comic book citations entirely, replacing them with analytic, scholarly sources, supplemented by reviews, news articles, and character handbooks to fill in the details. I'm hoping that by refining this article to FA standards, it will create such a precedent for other articles in the comic book topic area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Iron_Man_(circa_2018).png needs a more expansive FUR. Ditto File:Tales_of_Suspense_39.jpg, File:Iron_Man's_armors.jpg

• File:TalesOfSuspense48.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Alt text added, source link replaced, and non-free use rationale improved for File:Iron_Man_(circa_2018).png. I don't see any missing non-free use information for File:Tales_of_Suspense_39.jpg or File:Iron_Man's_armors.jpg. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the more non-free content is included, the stronger the rationale required for each. These rationales have no empty fields, but they are also not strong enough to justify having so much non-free media. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: "I'm hoping that by refining this article to FA standards, it will create such a precedent for other articles in the comic book topic area.". I hope so too. :) There are a great many comic book characters, superheroes having dominated the field for most of the media's existence, that have this kind of potential; right now at GA we currently have Captain America, Joker (character), Norman Osborn, and Spider-Man which have the most potential for FA, and several others that are GA but may not be suitable for FA, and easily dozens of other characters that could be GA or better if someone could find the time and energy to find the sources and basically rewrite them from scratch. Batman and Superman are former FA articles, so it would be nice to see a comics character back up there. BOZ (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by ZKang123

I thought the film was being reviewed. That said, I shall review this article to the best of my ability.

No problems with the lead I can find.

Creation and premiere:

• "superhero comic books" – would it make a difference to just say "superhero comics"? Just want to make it more general, succinct and referring to the genre.
• "designing an unlikeable character and making him likeable." – suggest changing the connector "and" to "while"
• "Lee described the national mood toward Vietnam in which Iron Man was created as" – This chunk is worded rather weirdly. Would suggest "Lee described the national mood toward Vietnam at the time "when..." "
• "Heck continued as the primary Iron Man artist until 1965, as Kirby had obligations to other Marvel properties." – "Until 1965, Heck continued as the primary Iron Man artist, as Kirby had obligations to other Marvel properties." I find the initial wording a little confusing as it seems the reasoning was due to his tenure until 1965, and not exactly Heck's tenure itself.

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi ZKang123, just checking if further comments are on their way? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I will get back to this. A bit busy these days with other things at the moment.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I would briefly mention Stark's relationship with Patsy Walker (aka Hellcat) in the "Romantic Interests" section. I believe it is notable enough as they did have an annual publication together (here).
  • Interesting. I would think that was significant, but the sources that cover this area don't mention her.
    • There is this source from Syfy about the relationship, but there does not seem to be too much high-quality coverage about it. It seems that the relationship is not particularly major or noteworthy in the overall scope of Iron Man's story so I will leave it up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• What is the rationale for the infobox image choice? It is an awesome cover, but I could see the external pieces of armor potentially confusing readers who are not as familiar with the character design. I'd imagine that there would be a clearer image of just the armor by itself so why not go for something like that instead? Just to be clear, I am not saying you need to change it. This just came to my mind when I first saw the image.
  • This was the image that was there when I started editing the article. I had the same reservations, and I skimmed through Iron Man cover art while writing the article to see if there were any good alternatives, but nothing stood out to me. I'm sure there's something good out there however.
    • Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. I do not have a good alternative in mind either. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• I do think File:TalesOfSuspense48.jpg has a strong enough justification for inclusion. The red-and-gold armor is already shown in the infobox and the all gold armor is already shown in File:Iron Man's armors.jpg so this image does not add much and could be removed without losing anything.
  • Agree, removed.
• This part, (As a superhero, his armor suits), is grammatically incorrect. It reads that the armor suits are the superhero.
  • Fixed.
• Errol Flynn is linked twice in the same paragraph. There are other instances of duplicate links, but I believe they are intentional as those kinds of links are more accepted now. Would that be the case?
  • Flynn definitely should not have been linked twice, and there were a few other accidental ones. I chose to use duplicate links in the character biography since it's a single narrative explanation, but I have no issue removing them if you or any other reviewers object.
    • Thank you for the response. I do not have any objections. I can understand the purpose of links in the biography as I can imagine readers jumping down to that section separately to read through. The links there would help them in that regard. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• I am uncertain about this part, (and for much of popular fiction). It is a bold claim to say that telling a story about an alcoholic is "unprecedented" in "popular fiction", particularly when there are no limits put on the type of media or the location. I just do not think this claim is true. I could believe the "unprecedented for a major comic book hero" claim though.
  • I imagine the author meant it in some context, but after looking at it again, it doesn't elaborate enough to where I feel comfortable using it like this. Removed.

• Thor, Wasp, and Scarlet Witch are each presented without the "the" in front of them in the "Fictional character biography" subsection. I am accustomed to always seeing them with the determiner used, but are they referenced without it?
  • It can go either way I think, but I'll add "the" to Wasp, Scarlet Witch, and Hulk since that's how it is in their respective articles.
    • Understandable. You would know best or at least better than me. I am just used to seeing them with the "the" attached, but it is up to what you think is best. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Would Iron Man's roller blades be worth mentioning in the article? It may not be notable enough or too trivial, but it is a sillier aspect of the character that I do enjoy.
  • I don't believe I encountered it in any of the sources, unfortunately.
    • Understandable. Thank you for the response. It is likely one of those things that would be discussed amongst fans as a silly fun fact over anything else. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• The section on Iron Man's reception seems rather short. I can appreciate going for a more summary-style approach for a character who has such a long history and will only continue to have more stories in the future, but it does abruptly jump from his reception on his debut to his MCU revival. I am talking about the "Cultural impact and legacy" just to be clear. What about his reception in the time between all of that?
  • I clarified that part of it is in the 1970s. "General" reception for a character like this is hard to come by beyond "he's a popular superhero".
    • That makes sense. Thank you for checking this point. I understand what you mean as I'd imagine a lot of the discourse falls into the same conversations. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• From my understanding, Iron Man was not a super popular character prior to the MCU, which is why the character was not sold off to other studios as was done with the X-Men and Spider-Man. The lead does mention that the MCU helped to popularize the character, but I think it would be worth mentioning this more explicitly in the article. That would be of course only if I am correct.
  • That's my understanding as well. Currently the lead says Downey's portrayal popularized the character, elevating Iron Man as one of Marvel's most recognizable superheroes and the cultural impact section says Iron Man became widely popular following the success of the film Iron Man, which made him one of Marvel's most recognizable characters, and Iron Man is credited with redefining the superhero film genre. Are there other aspects that you have in mind?
    • Thank you for including the quotes. I saw the part in the lead, but for whatever reason, I had read over the second bit in the article itself without fully processing it. Apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Make sure to italicize titles in the citation titles. For instance, The Invincible Iron Man should be in italics for Citation 59 and Iron Man should be in italics for Citation 210. There are quite a few instances of this so I'd make sure to carefully go through the citations to correct it.
  • Done.
• It is not required for a FAC, but I would still encourage you to archive your web sources just to avoid any future headaches with potential link rot and death.
  • I never got around to figuring out how to do this automatically.
    • There is a bot for it (here), but I have not used it in a while as I had difficulty with it later on. Again, it is not required for a FAC so I would not worry about it too much. I just wanted to leave it more as a note than anything. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will do a more thorough read-through of the article. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47, I've addressed everything so far. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I will look through the article again tomorrow if that is okay with you. I hope you have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Apologies in advance for this admittedly super nitpick-y note. I am unsure about the word "iconic" in this part, (he builds his iconic Iron Man armor out of scrap), from the lead. I am not denying that the look is iconic, but at least in the beginning, wouldn't this reference the silver armor (i.e. File:Tales of Suspense 39.jpg) and not the iconic red and gold look?
  • Good point. Removed.
• Would it be worthwhile to include the civilian names for Black Widow and Hawkeye in the lead? I ask this because War Machine, Rescue, and Ironheart are all presented with their names so it may be nice to have some consistency. It would also signify which of these characters are being discussed, although I believe Natasha Romanova and Clint Barton are the ones that are most commonly associated with these roles.
  • Added.
• This may be a bit contradictory to my above comment, but is Rescue such a prominent and definitive aspect of Pepper Potts to be named and linked in the lead as opposed to just linking Pepper Potts? Is it done this way to match the other names in the listing?
  • Yeah, she's not known primarily as a "superhero". I've removed her from the lead. Maybe if "Rescue" catches on more in a few years then she can be listed with them.
• Would it be the Sub-Mariner or is just Sub-Mariner also correct? Apologies for harping on this part.
  • That's how it is in his article, so I've added it.
• It may be helpful to link inking in this part, (While inking the series), as well as other comic-specific words to help readers who may be less than familiar with them or want to read up on them. I cannot remember if other similar words are used in this article, but if so, they be worth linking.
  • Linked. The only other jobs I see are writer and artist, which probably don't need links.
• This is more of a clarification question. Marvel has recently started a new Ultimate Universe. Has there been any stories with Iron Man or a new version of the character in this?
  • A quick search doesn't show anything significant. Another thing where maybe it will come up in the next few years.
• Is there a reason why the Hoskin source does not have page numbers?
  • Yes, it's an encyclopedia-type source that uses entries by character instead of page numbers.

Here are some additional comments. I hope they are helpful. I will look through the article again later today. Thank you for your patience. I just want to make sure I look through the article as thoroughly as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• For this part, (Soviet spy Black Widow and American street criminal Hawkeye), do you mean the more specific Black Widow link for the Natasha version?
  • Fixed.

I believe this should be the end of my review. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47 I've replied to all of the above comments. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. I hope this review is helpful. I do have one quick additional comment. I would link Marvel Comics, superhero, and American comic books the first time that they are used in the article to be consistent with how they are linked in the lead. It is not a major point though so it does not hold up my support. Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

TBUA ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support Impressive work. Considering the only comic book character FA is Anarky, is good to see one that is worth a promotion. igordebraga ≠ 18:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Igordebraga, just to clarify, you didn't see any details or any aspect that might need to be changed to best meet the featured article criteria? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Reading it extensively, could only find one issue, and it's less about the FA criteria than article consistency: the character biography ends on Infamous Iron Man, but the publication history above mentions the series that followed that. I understand that it's because it was the latest story on the ref (Marvel Encyclopedia), yet it still makes that section incomplete. If a reliable source summing up at least Tony Stark: Iron Man could be found, it would be very helpful. igordebraga ≠ 04:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments from PMC

Putting myself down here. If I don't get to it within a week, feel free to give me the gears. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos, It's been a week. :) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Aaaah it's the gears. Okay, here we go. My FAC comments are always open to discussion, anything that's a hill I'm going to die on will usually be marked as such, otherwise I'm generally willing to be convinced. Suggested phrasings in particular are only suggestions, feel free to ignore or re-revise them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• I have very little to gripe about here. This is a 7000-word article and the lead is a nice tight summary of the most salient points.
• "Iron Man's supporting cast has produced" - not sure of the phrasing here, as a supporting cast doesn't really "produce" things, but I can't think of how to replace it. Something like "Many of Iron Man's supporting cast and reformed villains have become superheroes in their own right, including blah blah blah"?
  • Reworded.
• You have "as well as" in two successive sentences
  • Reworded.
• "elevating Iron Man as one of" - "into" rather than "as" I think?
  • Changed.

Publication history - up to 1970s

• "Lee was interested in designing an unlikeable character and making him likeable". I think you could say a bit more here. It's not just that he was unlikeable generally, it's that per the source, Iron Man exists as he does - as a billionaire weapons developer - because Lee wanted to pique the presumably lefty audience. It underpins the entire character.
  • Specified that it was a generally anti-war audience.
• Some context for Howard Hughes and Errol Flynn please, so the unfamiliar reader doesn't have to stop and wander off to find out who they were and why they would use them as inspiration
  • Described them as a business magnate and an actor, respectively.
• Since you're comparing Tony Stark's visual design to Flynn here, you could probably get away with a photo of Flynn
  • Added. I tried to find an image other than the main one on Flynn's article, but all of the good ones had questionable copyright licenses.
• "Heck later said that when designing Tony Stark, he was attempting to create "an Errol Flynn type" this sentence is redundant to the first mention of Flynn, which already mentions Heck
  • Removed.
• Since "creation and premiere" starts in the 60s, it feels odd to have the next section be titled "1960s". Maybe "Late 1960s" or "Early Avengers"? Idk
  • Renamed to Late 1960s.
• "Some of Iron Man's villains were given new motivations" - not essential, but any interesting examples in the sourcing?
  • Specified "personal motivations", but the source didn't have more than that.
• Did Friedrich take over from Conway or write for him during his 4-year tenure? It's not quite clear
  • Reread the source, it looks like I had the details wrong there. Fixed.
• The two sentences about his alcoholism/Demon in a Bottle feel a bit stilted to me. I might condense and combine them, something like: "Their largest change was making Iron Man an alcoholic, an unprecedented issue for a major comic book hero, addressed in the Demon in a Bottle story arc that ran from #120 to #128."
  • Changed.

Publication history - 1980s and 21st century

• Since you're very picture light in the whole publication history section, you could maybe throw in some pictures of the more famous writers just to break it up visually? Not mandatory.
  • Added one.
• "having the character again fall into his alcoholism" - "having him relapse" maybe? It's tighter
  • Changed.
• "O'Neil eventually wrote..." do we know when? The next arc starts in 1987, but it would be nice to know when Tony retired and how long it lasted.
• "This story blended..." you have "Iron Man" twice in this sentence, you could maybe write around it with "aspects of the character" or similar phrasing but it's not a hill I'll die on
  • Changed
• "with issue #211" again year might be nice here, so we know how long they lasted before Byrne replaced them
  • I added years for each issue that didn't have context about its release date.
• "In 1990, Michelinie and Layton stopped writing for Iron Man, and the series was given to John Byrne" - it feels like the middle part is redundant to the bit about Byrne. If the series was given to Byrne, surely the others stopped writing it? I'm willing to be convinced here.
  • Reworded.
• I might swap the order of the two sentences that start "He did not have" and "During his run". To me it makes sense to say here are the arcs he did, here's the change he made, and here's where he quit
  • Yeah, switched them.
• "He did not have further interest in the series by 1992" this feels a bit clunky. "By 1992, he had lost interest in the series" maybe?
  • Changed.
• "The 2014 AXIS event led into the Superior Iron Man series by Tom Taylor, featuring Iron Man with a new reversed personality." in what sense? What caused this change? Did it last?
• "This series moved away from the developments and deviations" Is there any way you can expand on these? Right now this doesn't give the reader very much. What changes were undone? Why?
• This section (and the end of the 1990s section) feels a bit dry, mostly being "and then this guy wrote it. and then they rebooted it. and then this other guy wrote it." It's not necessarily your fault - if that's all the sources say, that's all you have. But if you have anything else you could get in here, I think it would break it up a bit.

Characterization - Fictional biography

• This section is quite tightly written, covers the main points at a good clip without getting bogged down in trivia or being too brief. Comments here are basically nitpicks, there's no major concerns.
• Your link to retroactive continuity is a bit of an easter egg; I might swap the phrase "changed retroactively" from a line or two down to up here
  • Swapped
• You've dupelinked Obadiah Stane, why not dupelink SHIELD also? Seems useful in this section
  • Linked
• You link to Armor Wars and Civil War in this section but not Demon in a Bottle or Extremis - any particular reason to link some and not others?
  • Linked
• "During this time, James Rhodes takes the Iron Man armor." this is ever so slightly ambiguous - takes as in he swipes it from Tony's estate or takes as in "takes up" the mantle
  • Clarified
• "and he fakes his death" you could probably get away with "and fakes" since I think it's clear who we're talking about
  • Changed.
• "their real son could be hidden" from?
  • Added "from an alien threat". The full answer is stupidly convoluted.
• "When several heroes' personalities are temporarily inverted" how or by whom?

Characterization - Personality

• Organization
  • I'm going to start by apologizing for the amount of commenting I'm about to drop in about this section. The general organization of the paragraphs isn't 100% working for me. Having skimmed the sources, however, I can see what you're working with and it's a lot, and a lot of it is intertwined in a way that feels difficult to separate. This may well wind up just being a situation where there's no perfectly-optimized organization. That being said.
  • I have the biggest problem with para 2. You start out with how Iron Man acts differently depending on which self he's being, then pivot into masculinity, then pivot to his negative traits without really explaining how he represents American masculinity. Then we're into his moral ambiguity and how it helps readers relate to him.
  • This is a bit of a radical change, but hear me out. I suggest splitting para 1 into the "billionaire playboy" stuff and the physical disability stuff. Then move the "acts different depending on which hat" and masculinity content from its current spot to paragraph 1, putting that all under "billionaire playboy" in a way that more clearly explains how he reflects American masculinity. Then with para 2 being now about his injury, the mention of how it threatens his masculinity calls back to what you discussed in para 1. Then you can transition from his health issues into a third paragraph about the rest of his flaws and how they make him interesting.
  • Para 3 is all about his intellect and technology - might the opening sentences of para 1 not fit better here?
  • I'm surprised that there's such minimal discussion of his alcoholism in this section. It's such a big part of his character, it feels like it would be a good place to expand on, but maybe the sourcing isn't there

• Nitpicking of prose
  • "Iron Man is a businessman and an entrepreneur who constantly seeks to innovate and improve his technology. In this capacity, he is motivated to create and develop technology both for personal benefit and for the benefit of society." You could merge these two sentences for less redundancy
  • "Stan Lee modeled Iron Man after businessman Howard Hughes, and the character shares many traits with Hughes," similarly, second clause is redundant to the first.
  • "making him misanthropic so as not to reveal" I'm not sure this is quite in line with the source. It reads to me like it's saying Tony's reliance on the armor as well as his superhero identity make him isolated from other people. I don't see where he's described as becoming hateful or distrustful of other people.
  • "While he engages in" - you have "engages" twice in this sentence
  • "Stark was a child prodigy, and he graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at age 15." isn't this more like character bio?
  • "His form of intelligence is..." this sentence feels a bit knotted up in itself. If you move the MIT sentence, you could combine it with the first sentence and convey your meaning more clearly: "Like many Marvel superheroes, Iron Man has a genius-level intellect, although he distinguishes himself from them by focusing on the practical societal applications of the technology he develops." That does make the following sentence "Iron Man is defined by..." slightly more redundant, but you could trim or combine them too ;)
  • Tacking on to this, ref 105 refers to him as a "philosopher guardian", which is a lovely turn of phrase that neatly summarizes how he acts at his best as Iron Man, and I feel like there's a place for it in the article (perhaps following the bit about how he acts more superheroely as Iron Man)

Themes and motifs

• "By 1975, Iron Man was an opponent of the Vietnam War.[121] This created a new driving motivation to make up for his past of being too willing to promote violence,[124] and he responded by becoming a philanthropist." I'm not sure the connection here is supported by the sources. Neither Robichaud nor Henebry mentions Vietnam in their separate discussions of Tony's attempts to right his wrongs. Wright kind of does on 243, talking about Stark's vow to avenge the lives lost by warmongers like himself, but he doesn't connect it to philanthropy.
• "but it was shown as less threatening." I think you need to expand on this for it to be meaningful to the reader.
• "A second Civil War event in 2016 portrayed Iron Man as an advocate of free will against Captain Marvel's determinism." I recall Civil War I being hugely divisive against Stark which is mentioned in the article; was there a similar reaction to Civil War II against one side or another?
• No issues through Technology section
• "It must be calibrated to the user, and Iron Man has to design the armor specifically for who will be using it, whether it be himself or an ally" - suggest tightening to "Iron Man must calibrate the armor to its specific user, whether it be himself or an ally."
• "The armor's primary function was to produce" - past tense - does it not do that anymore?
• How did Extremis ultimately conclude? Has he still got bioarmor or what? I just realized the resolution is never explicitly mentioned. Maybe here isn't the best spot, but somewhere earlier might be.
• That's it for this section, which is overall pretty tight

Supporting characters

• I think you could definitely dupelink all these people in this section for reader ease
• I'm torn here. I understand the need to be clipped because you don't want to be redundant to these characters' individual articles, but some stuff feels like it needs more explanation:
  • Does Pepper still need the arc reactor?
  • Iron Man built her a set of armor in secret, and after finding it she became the superhero Rescue. - why in secret? What was he up to that she had to find it rather than him handing it over?
  • Was Rhodey WM before Stark gave him control of Stark Industries and the War Machine armor?
• "were leadership of" - not sure this works. "were leaders in" maybe?
• "Justin Hammer,[71] Shockwave, the Controller, the Mauler, and Stilt-Man." Fragment of a reordered sentence I assume
• I would probably mention that Zeke Stane is Obadiah Stane's son

Cultural impact & other media

• I'm a bit surprised that for a character with 60+ years of history, there's only 2 paragraphs of impact/legacy
• Usually good practice to mention the year of a film to give context (either in the text or in parentheses after works)
• "in the top ten in best Marvel character and best superhero lists." something in here is not right. Maybe try "in lists of best superheroes and best Marvel characters"? Bit simpler anyway
• Why did that particular Italian town erect an Iron Man statue?
• No gripes for Other media section

Okay, that's all I have for now. For the most part, the article is really well-written, and there are plenty of places I had little-to-nothing to criticize. My biggest thing is the organization of the Personality section, but as I said above, given the complexity involved, I'm open to discussion. Take your time responding. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Mount Hudson

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about one of Chile's most active volcanoes. Mount Hudson had several intense eruptions during the Holocene, the latest of which took place in 1991 and had substantial impacts on . A few notes: The table contains only cross-correlatable tephras; not all tephras are present at all sites hence the incompleteness. While the 1991 eruption is the best documented in its history, it isn't actually the most significant either in the volcano's history or its impact on humans in South America, hence why it gets only a little more coverage than the others. That and I think a detailed coverage might overwhelm the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review by ZooBlazer

• File:Cerro hudson.jpg - Is used in the infobox and has proper licensing, but could use alt text. The source link also appears to be broken/dead.

Two total images in the article, one being the map of Chile to mark the location of Mount Hudson. -- ZooBlazer 18:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

ALT text added and source fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. The image review passes. -- ZooBlazer 17:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll review this but it'll probably be a few days - I've got a GA review and a FAR review to finish before I can get to this. Hog Farm _Talk 15:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• "It is often erroneously considered the southernmost." - the statement in the source is " including Hudson, the southernmost in the Andean Southern Volcanic Zone (SVZ).". This doesn't really support the footnote content here

  This one's a tough one - lots and lots of sources say that Hudson is the southernmost SVZ volcano. They are demonstrably wrong about this because Río Murta (volcano) is farther south still and is considered part of the SVZ, but it is obscure so I guess many sources just don't consider them. I think we need some formulation to point this out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  If it's only one or two sources that are clearly wrong, I usually just ignore them. But in this case, it sounds like a lot of sources make this error. Maybe It is sometimes considered the southermost ... [three or four of the higher-quality refs making this statement], but Rio Murta is part of the SVZ and is further source.[supporting reference]" if the references will support this outright? Hog Farm _Talk 02:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• "During eruptions, pyroclastic material and lava can melt the ice." - is this necessary? It seems, well, obvious

  Sometimes the ice is simply run over instead, so yes. Also, how much of the ice melts is important at times. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm assuming that AVZ is the Austral Volcanic Zone but this is never explicitly stated

  Buh, not sure how I missed this. Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The composition of Hudson rocks diverges from that of other SVZ volcanoes" - is it known why?

  Probably b/c it lies just east of the triple junction. I am not sure that any of the sources says so explicitly, Weller 2015 and Kilian 1993 might. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Since we discuss the flora of the volcano, do any of the sources provide detail on the presence or absence of fauna?

  There probably is, but I haven't seen any source discussing any fauna relating to Hudson specifically. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Stopping for now; I'm ready for the eruption history material and will hopefully start back tomorrow. Hog Farm _Talk 03:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The closest tephra record to Hudson is the Laguna Miranda record 50 kilometres (30 mi), which shows on average one tephra layer every 225 years " - this feels like it is missing a word somewhere in the vicinity of the 50 kilometres

  Added word. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Thicknesses reach 4 to 20 centimetres (2 to 8 in),[110] thicker than deposits closer to the volcano" - do the sources say why? This seems unexpected

  Aye, sometimes ash layers have secondary thickness maxima. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• "-21 (1971 AD)" in a Dates Before Present table. Is Present being calibrated at 1950?

  Yes, that's the radiocarbon calibration date.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The H2 eruption occurred about 4,200 years[j] ago." with the footnote stating "Older estimates of its age are 3600[107] or 3920 BP[17]". What does "older estimates" mean here? These estimates are for newer dates than the one given in the main text and of the five sources used for the sentence for the 4,200 bp age, only two are actually newer sources than the footnote sources. I'm not sure what "old estimates" means here

  It means that more recent dating estimates are about 4,200 years ago e.g this one. I don't like spelling out exact values b/c they tend to vary for every site. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• " Not fluorosis, as is commonly reported.[155]" - I'm struggling to find this in the source although admittedly it is hard to look for it as all of the various tab on the page share the same URL

  It's the one at October 1991 (BGVN 16:10) in the "Bulletin Reports" tab. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Chile Volcanoes (USGS)" - this external link redirects to a homepage now - can this be pointed to a page more immediately relevant to this volcano or should it be removed?
• ""Cerro Hudson". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution." - this is used as a source so it should not be listed as an external link as well
• "Mount Hudson at AGU" - this external link is a 404 deadlink
• "Mount Hudson at VolcanoWorld" - I struggle to see how this external link clears the WP:ELNO hurdle

  Eh, removed them all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Is this the best title for this article to be at? It looks like a number of the references use names other than Mount Hudson. A google scholar search (which of course has its limitations) has 794 results for "Cerro Hudson", 989 for "Hudson Volcano", and only 313 for "Mount Hudson"

  I have my doubts, a page move might be in order. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That's it for the first read-through. Hog Farm _Talk 02:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Supporting with the understanding that the article titling issue will be revisited after the FAC closes, since it is not recommended to move an article during the FAC process. Hog Farm _Talk 01:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Harry

Mostly just prose. Haven't checked sources.

• Check for duplicate links throughout.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Are we using BCE/CE or BC/AD? It doesn't really matter but you should be consistent.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Some terms might benefit from an explanatory gloss (eg "lahar")

  Done, but I'm afraid that I am not that great at spotting technical terms that require explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• which is technically the correct name of the volcano as "Hudson" is the name of a different mountain. Huh? That caught me by surprise a bit. I feel some elaboration is needed.

  I have moved it down to a footnote. I don't know of any map of local toponyms from that time and it's just one source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Do we know how its volcanicness if that's not a word it should be! was discovered? Your footnote says there was an unpublished report in 1970 but doesn't mention the method of discovery.

  Sans access to the unpublished report, we can't. I figure that geologists went there and noted that the structure was a caldera, one year before the eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• With more than 55 eruptions during the past 22,000 years,[40] Mount Hudson is the most active volcano in Patagonia I don't think that's a strictly grammatical use of "with"

  Is the reformulation better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Likewise The tephra was emplaced northeastward, with thicknesses exceeding 50 centimetres (20 in) which is what Tony calls Noun plus -ing.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• and was preceded by increasing hydrothermal activity.[174] It was preceded by several days Repetition of "preceded" and generally repetitive sentence structure; can the sentences be merged?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• It began on October 26 What did? The eruption or the earthquake activity? Could be read as either.

  Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Three vents formed in the southern sector of the caldera, with ash columns rising see above about noun plus-ing

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• However, as of 2023 the municipal planning of the municipalities on the Chilean side close to the volcano largely ignores volcanic hazards. "however" is a word to watch because it's often editorialising (as it is here); repetition of "municipal".

  Removed the however, but I am not sure what to replace the first municipal with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Is there much to say on its proximity to other volcanoes or their relative activity levels in relation to each other?

  Not really much beyond what's currently there - Hudson is the most active volcano in the area, and only Lautaro has unambiguous historical activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. I'm satisfied that my quibbles have been addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "they are among the most intense volcanic eruptions in South America." Ever?(!)

  Nay, other eruptions in the Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex and the Paraná and Etendeka traps were larger. But often we limit our attention to the last 100,000 years or so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I assumed so. In which case could we say. Perhaps add 'during the past 100,000 years.'

Don't think that works without OR - it tends to be an unstated assumption. Every mountain in the world was once part of a volcano during the Hadean, and yet we don't call them all "volcanoes". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the sources, but currently it is an inaccurate statement. And possibly unsourced(?) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hrm. Individual Hudson eruptions are often cited among the largest (e.g doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.03.007 for H1 and doi:10.1007/s004450050193 for them in general) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any mentions of specific Hudson eruptions in the first of those. The second has "This eruption, which is considered to be the largest for Hudson and possibly for any volcano in the southern Andes during the Holocene" which does not support your claim.

It's in figure 4 of the first source. Also, the claim is cited in the article, to doi:10.1007/s00410-009-0426-1 and is plausible - Cerro Blanco (volcano) is the only confirmed Holocene VEI7 eruption and there aren't that many VEI6 eruptions in Holocene South America - Michinmahuida, Huaynaputina and Quilotoa are the only other volcanoes cited by GVP. I've changed the lead so that it matches the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Which is what I requested two weeks ago. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• "Four large eruptions took place 17,300–17,440 (H0), 7,750 BP (H1), 4,200 BP (H2) and in 1991 AD (H3)". Is there a BP missing from after "17,300–17,440"? Add 'in' after "place". Link BP at fist mention. Are "H0" etc the names of the eruptions? If so, say so.

  All done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Nice phrasing.

• "The volcano has the form of ..." Name it in full, the last volcano mentioned was "south of Hudson is a smaller volcano".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Only one image? Are there no other free use images available?

  Not that many, as the volcano is so remote; commons:Category:Cerro Hudson is pretty empty. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think File:Map chile volcanoes.gif could be used in this article. Volcanoguy 14:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hudson's GVP entry also has USGS photos that could be uploaded on Commons to use in this article. Volcanoguy 16:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding File:Map chile volcanoes.gif, possibly, but I wonder what the inclusion criteria are. Put one other image in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  File:TOMS SO2 time nov03.png could be used in the 1991 eruption section. The caption could be something like "1991 eruption sulfur dioxide emission levels compared with other volcano eruptions from 1979 to 2003". Volcanoguy 18:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm. Currently there is not much discussion of sulfur and Hudson in the article. I don't think this volcano is considered a major sulfur source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• "accessed either from the sea through the Huemules River". I don't think you mean "through" the river.
• "or by land through the Blanco River". Likewise.

  Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• "covers an area of about 300 kilometres (190 mi)". Should that be square kilometres?
• "and covers an area of about 300 kilometres (190 mi) ... and it covers an area of about 300 square kilometres (120 sq mi)." Duplication?

  Merged the previous sentence, as the information was duplicated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• "including the Cerros Hudson 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) south of the volcano". I thought Cerros Hudson was another name for Mount Hudson.
• The top of the infobox has "Cerro Hudson". Is this the same as Cerros Hudson, and why is this name not mentioned in the lead?

  No, Cerros is a plural form of Cerro, not the same name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok. What about the other question. "Cerro Hudson" is at the top of the infobox but not mentioned in the lead.

Added it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• File:Subduction-en.svg or similar would be helpful at the start of the Geology section.

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• "the Tres Montes Fracture Zone to its south that forms the northern boundary of the slab window." This doesn't form a whole sentence. (Or make sense to me.)

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• "The subducted plate is still young". Is it known how young? Ie, when did it form?

  Pretty unclear from the sources; In agreement with this geometric model of the plates, the subducted segments of the Chile Ridge at about 6 and 3 Ma would be located close to HV and the surrounding monogenetic cone from Gutierrez 2005 isn't clear on whether that's the age of the plate there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• "may be responsible for its unusually high activity." The activity of Hudson, the triple junction or the plate? Ie, what does "its" refer to?

  Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Is it really necessary to have that single sentence paragraph? It looks as if it could run on quite happily from the previous paragraph.

  No, merged it up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• "in the late Pleistocene and Holocene ... emplaced during the Cretaceous-Neogene" and any others. Could we be told the age of their ranges at first mention.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• "The Hudson rocks define a potassium-rich" What does "define" mean here? Is there a less specialist way of describing it?

  Went for "are". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• "deglaciation may have enhanced volcanic activity, explaining why the volumes of the intense Hudson eruptions have decreased over time". I don't understand: "deglaciation may have enhanced volcanic activity" means that activity increased, while "the volumes of the intense Hudson eruptions have decreased over time" means it decreased which is it? And why should deglaciation have any effect?

  'cause deglaciation occurred at the beginning of this period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the response. Possibly my queries were unclear. They are:

• Why should deglaciation have any effect on a volcano's activity.
• In this case did the deglaciation a) enhance volcanic activity or b) decrease the volumes of intense eruptions? On the face of it, these are opposites. If deglaciation caused both - which is what the article claims - I think some level of explanation is necessary; especially regarding the mechanism.

• Sorry, I meant that if eruptions are enhanced by deglaciation, it's not a contradiction if they decline after deglaciation. The sentence is just a little unfortunate syntactically; I've rewritten it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That is clearer, if still not actually giving any hypothesis as to why deglaciation may have enhanced volcanic activity, but I guess that's optional.

I've added a source discussing a mechanism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• "The 1991 Plinian eruption was larger than the 1971 event". This seems a strange way to introduce H3, when a reader has not been told anything about the 1971 event - and so the 1991 event being larger does not mean anything.

  Recasted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• The H3 event should have the date it occurred in the first sentence about it.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Cite 131: should it not be to page 27 as well as 25?

  Cite 131 currently contains page 9, did it shift in the meantime. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

"Seismic and fumarolic activity continued for the next months" which is cited to Naranjo et al page 25.

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• "Seismic and fumarolic activity continued for the next months" Given "Durante estos meses no se registró actividad eruptiva, aunque continuó una debil actividadfumarólica" couldn't we be a little more specific?

  According to the page, there were also seismic phenomena in the following months. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• "The largest Holocene eruption of Hudson – and any volcano of the southern Andes". This does not match the lead.

  Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Naranjo and Stern have "This eruption, which is considered to be the largest for Hudson and possibly for any volcano in the southern Andes during the Holocene" so there would seem to be disagreement among the sources as to whether it is definitively the largest regional Holocene eruption. The article should reflect this.

Hmm. The problem I see is that this source isn't the only one and gives no specific justification for the "possibly". Certainly, most sources discussing the impacts of volcanism in Patagonia say that H1 was the most significant (not necessarily the largest) volcanic event during the Holocene there and the only comparable eruption (MIC1 of Michinmahuida) has smaller volume estimates. I think the problem is that we don't have any sources that are dedicated to volcano to volcano tephra volume comparisons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok. The lead now reads "the second is among the most intense volcanic eruptions in South America during the Holocene." The article obviously needs to match this, so how about 'The largest Holocene eruption of Hudson – which was among the most intense in South America during the Holocene ...' or similar?

Added something like this, but I am not sure that I like the sourcing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• "trachydacite/trachyrhyolite". The MoS: "Generally, avoid joining two words with a slash". See MOS:SLASH for more details and suggested alternatives.

  Unfortunately, it is not clear from the sources why sometimes trachydacite and sometimes trachyrhyolite. So we can't do without a slashed word here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to. See MOS:ANDOR. ('which consist mostly of trachydacite, trachyrhyolite or a mixture of the two'?)

No, because the definitions partially overlap and I can't be sure that they aren't referring to the same thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• "while (subglacial) lava flows". I suggest removing the parentheses.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• "About 84,000 people live around Hudson." If we also cite page 40, can we be more precise and say 'About 84,000 people live within 50 km of Hudson'?

  We can, I guess. Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• "It appears to consist of two nested calderas." The source says (my translation) "two or even three".

  My impression is that most other sources only credit Hudson with one or two calderas, and the more detailed ones on the local structure prefer two. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You can't cite "It appears to consist of two nested calderas" to a source which says (my translation) "two or even three caldera ... two or, possibly, three caldera".

Well, that's interesting. doi:10.1007/s00445-014-0815-9 says that there are two calderas, but cites Orihashi which mentions "two or three". Anyhow, it seems like I was mistaken here; so it now says two or three. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• "Which may be an overestimate." If "yielding more than 20 cubic kilometres (4.8 cu mi)[m] of tephra" is an estimate, could we say so in the text.

  This is another case where sources disagree. My impression is that Bertrand 2014's objection hasn't been picked up widely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If the sources disagree, we need to explicitly say so.

Hence the parenthetical - there is that disagreement, but not enough to put it down as an equal opinion. For example, doi:10.1007/s00445-015-0991-2 knows about Bertrand 2014 and yet uses the Weller estimate. These sources too cite the large estimate despite post-dating Bertrand 2014. I think the objection needs to be mentioned, but it'd be undue weight to say it in text. If there is a better way to present a situation where 1 source has a substantial objection and yet 3-4 keep going with the previous estimate, though, I am listening. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me. Nice work, as always. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• "The largest Holocene eruption of Hudson – and of any volcano of the southern Andes – took place at Hudson in 7,750". You don't need to say "of Hudson" and "at Hudson". Suggest deleting the latter.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• A couple of further comebacks with suggestions and one new point. I think we are nearly there. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild: And done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Volcanoguy

• The volcano type for Mount Hudson is inconsistent. In the article, Hudson is described as a caldera but in the infobox stratovolcano is given as the volcano type.

  I hate dealing with infoboxes, fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• I notice throughout the article that Mount Hudson is simply referred to as Hudson. Isn't this a bit informal?

  I've seen plenty of academic articles shortening the name. Besides, as you can see a few sections above, the article will be due a rename after the FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Introduction

• "Hudson has the form of a 10 kilometres (6 mi) wide volcanic caldera filled with ice." 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) wide → 10-kilometre-wide (6.2-mile)
• "covered a large area in Chile and neighbouring Argentina" - would "in" be better replaced with "of"?

  No, because while the area is large, it is not a large portion of Chile. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Geology

• "Hudson rises from the Patagonian Batholith, a 1,000-kilometre (600 mi) long formation" - formation (geology) redirects to geological formation which is about stratigraphy rather than intrusions.

  The Patagonian Batholith is also a stratigraphic formation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't been able to find any sources describing it as such. Volcanoguy 17:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  You also checked Spanish ones? One would expect that these intrusions (which are grouped together as an unit) being called in a certain way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• "including the Liquine-Ofqui Fault Zone (LOFZ) that runs parallel to the volcanic belt" - I think "that" should be "which" here.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Composition and magma plumbing system

• "The cone lavas include MORB and ocean island basalt components" - why not spell out MORB (mid-ocean ridge basalt) since it isn't used elsewhere in the article?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• "possible along with the assimilation of crustal material" - should "possible" be "possibly" here?

  Yes, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• "Magmas ascending into Hudson halt at about 6 to 24 kilometres (4 to 15 mi) depth" - this would read better if it were changed to "Magmas ascending into Hudson halt about 6 to 24 kilometres (4 to 15 mi) underground".
• "and is then stored at a few kilometres depth" - like above, it would read better if it were "and is then stored a few kilometres underground".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Climate and vegetation

• "Winds usually blow from the north or northwest and are strong, easterly winds are rare." Should the comma in this sentence be a semicolon instead?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Eruption history

• "has yielded ages of 120,000-100,000 years" - en dash.
• "from the Pleistocene-Holocene transition time" - en dash.

  Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Holocene

• "erupted rocks have grown less mafic" - I think you mean the rocks have become less mafic; rocks don't "grow".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• "Having erupted 55 time during the past 22,000 years" - time should be times.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Why do some tephra layers in the table have footnotes while others don't? The dates appear to be missing sources completely.

  'cause some of them are sourced in the column header. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

H1 eruption

7,750 BP

• "The tephra deposits have three layers," - I think this comma should be a semicolon.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

H3 eruption

1991 AD

• "a phreatomagmatic eruption commenced on August 8 at 18:20" - 18:20 UTC?

  Source does not specify; I figure it's Atlantic Time Zone though as that's Chile's timezone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• "entered a trachyandesitic reservoir at 2 to 3 kilometres (1.2 to 1.9 mi) depth" - this would read better as "entered a trachyandesitic reservoir 2 to 3 kilometres (1.2 to 1.9 mi) underground".

  Eh, I think in this case the first formulation works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• "Part of the ice cap melted." - this sentence would be better off as part of the previous sentence using a semicolon.

  Not sure that it is germane to that sentence, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• "tephra fell along two axes: A narrow northern one" - the "A" doesn't need to be capitalized here does it?

  I think it should, after a colon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• "the southeastern one by the Plinian one" - I would replace "Plinian one" with "Plinian phase" to avoid repetition.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Other historical activity

• "On the morning of August 12, 1971 tremors" - missing a comma after 1971.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• "between 0 to 10 kilometres (0 to 6 mi) depth" - I would use "underground" instead of "depth" here.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hazards

• "the highest hazards exist in the Huemules and Sorpresas valley" - I think valley should be plural.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• "As of 2023 the municipal planning of the municipalities" - comma after 2023.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

FYI I've nominated the Big Raven Formation article for FA. Volcanoguy 20:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• SC - a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 April 2024 [21].

---

1878 FA Cup final

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought for once I would nominate an article which isn't about Gillingham F.C. I mean, sure, it's still football, but at least it's different football :-) For this one I take you back to the very early days of the sport, when well-to-do gentlemen who had been to the finest schools in the land were the top stars of the game. Oh, and one thing you can definitely say about this particular match is that the referee was a Bastard ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• including the first FA Cup final, in 1872, -- I think the comma after final should be removed
• Wanderers, who were considered firm -- The Wanderers. I noticed that for the Engineers you precede it with the article "the" whereas you don't in instances for the Wanderers. Perhaps that should be consistent throughout. (unless there's a rationale I am not aware of in British usage, then the rest of the similar comments below can be ignored)
• In the 1877–78 season, Wanderers were the -- same above the Wanderers
• No other club had yet won the competition more than once -- does this statistic still hold? If so, perhaps worth adding to date or something along those lines.
  • TBF, it already says "no other club had yet won the competition more than once", which means the same as "to date". And no, this certainly isn't still true, 23 clubs have won the competition more than once as of 2024, with the record being 14 wins -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Not until 1882 would a working-class team would a working-class team reach the FA Cup final -- It was not until 1882 that a working class team reached
• Wanderers were allocated a home -- same as second point
• Wanderers were considered strong favourites -- same
• Two weeks later, Wanderers won -- same
• In the quarter-finals Wanderers -- in the quarter finals, the Wanderers
• In the quarter-finals their opponents -- comma after quarter-finals
• Hon. Arthur Kinnaird for Wanderers -- the Wanderers
• played in goal for Wanderers -- same
• Wanderers, who were considered the firm favourites
• went on to play the remainder -- play for the remainder
• had he left the game, Wanderers would have -- the Wanderers
• Charles Wollaston took a shot for Wanderers -- for the Wanderers
• Shortly after the interval Hedley appeared to have -- comma after interval
• Heron of Wanderers for his performance -- of the Wanderers
• On that occasion the club was presented -- comma after occasion
• the Cup final, Wanderers played the winners -- the Wanderers
• poor conditions, Wanderers were defeated -- same
• Neither Wanderers or Royal Engineers -- since you have mostly referred to the team as Engineers throughout, perhaps it should be applied in this section too.
• That's all from me. Quite a nice change in your usual Gillingham series, and very interesting read. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @Pseud 14: -thanks for your review! All done other than where noted. Sources are inconsistent in use of "Wanderers" vs "the Wanderers", but I have added "the" anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Looks good and great work. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• 'a "scrimmage" (a contemporary term for a group of players all struggling to gain possession of the ball)': suggest making this 'a "scrimmage" (a contemporary term for a group of players all struggling to gain possession of the ball, now known as a "goalmouth scramble")' which would allow you to use "goalmouth scramble" for the second instance of "scrimmage".
• Why are the times of two of the goals marked as "disputed" in the "Details" subsection? The body text doesn't say there's a dispute about Morris's goal's timing, and doesn't give the time of Kinnaird's second.
• "The club's committee, however, returned the Cup to the FA": suggest "Wanderers' committee -- we haven't said the name of the team yet in the "Post-match" section so this would be kinder to the reader.
• "after which the focus was instead placed on teams open to all ranks representing individual battalions within the corps, which took part in the FA Amateur Cup and army-specific competitions": what does "which took part" refer to? The teams open to all ranks? I think so but I think this could be more clearly phrased.

That's all I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: - thanks for your review, all addressed I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review by ZooBlazer

• File:1896 FA Cup.jpg - Used in the infobox, has alt text, and is properly licensed.
• File:Cricket, WG Grace, 1891- Kennington Oval.jpg - Use in the article makes sense as this was the location of the semis and final. Image has alt text and is properly licensed. Maybe add the page number that the image is from for the source link.
  • @ZooBlazer: - done (I think) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Oh, I just meant adding the page number with the source in the image's summary (probably have to do it on Commons). Just because the source that's used has over 500 pages. -- ZooBlazer 17:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  • • @ZooBlazer: - yeah, that's what I did [22]...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

      @ChrisTheDude Weird, the page wasn't showing that revision for me a few minutes ago. Oh well, looks good now, so happy to pass the image review. -- ZooBlazer 18:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Arthur Fitzgerald Kinnaird.jpg - Everything looks good for this one.

For the most part everything looks good. Just one small suggestion for the second image. -- ZooBlazer 23:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Chris ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - might not be immediately clear from the out-of-sequence back-and-forth above but this has been done and ZB passed the IR -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene

• "went on to defeat Pilgrims 6–0 and Druids 8–0" ==> maybe indicate these were the second and third rounds respectively
• "The Sheffield and ... dribbling was "excellent"" ==> it seems more logical to me to put this sentence after the following one
• "the Wanderers were defeated 3–1" ==> this result is included in the Football World Championship article, maybe you can link it?
• Nice to see another FA Cup final article at FAC. Great work! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @Eem dik doun in toene: - done the first two. I'm reluctant to link to Football World Championship as there was absolutely no suggestion in 1878 that the match was for any sort of championship, let alone the championship of the world. It was simply a friendly between two teams who by coincidence were the cup-holders of their respective countries. I feel that linking to that article would give readers the false impression that the match was arranged or promoted as being for a championship..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Support - Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

PCN02WPS

• "third goal after the interval" → Perhaps a link to Half-time on "interval", just for the non-familiar
• "In the second round they were paired with High Wycombe" → is there a reason not to link High Wycombe F.C.?
• "on to defeat Pilgrims 6–0 and" → same here with Pilgrims F.C.
• "won the pre-match coin toss" → perhaps link Coin flipping here?
• I normally see {{goal}} used like this for a goalscorer with multiple goals, like with Kenrick: {{goal|5||65}} to give 5', 65'

That's all I spotted, other than how much of a nightmare those jerseys must have been for the referee to tell apart. Nice work as usual! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS: - thanks for your review. All done! The only reason I hadn't linked those two clubs is that I didn't realise/never thought to check that they had articles :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks great, happy to support! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request. I am going to assume, once more, that these English local newspapers are reliable. Is SportsBook the same as SportsBooks Limited? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Link added, I simply didn't realise (and didn't think to check) that the company had an article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Evening Jo-Jo, is this a pass? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Doing some light spotchecking, and wonder if #36 is a bit WP:SYNTH - it refers to the practice of substitutes in general, not about what would have happened in a specific game of 1878. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The source is there to support the fact that the concept of substitutes was still more than 80 years away from being introduced to the sport at the time. Is it SYNTH to say that, given that the concept of subs did not exist in 1878, the team could not have brought on a sub if the player had left the game? Happy to rework that sentence but I feel like if the bit about there being no subs was removed completely, readers might think "why didn't they just bring on a sub...."...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem is the part "had he left the game, his team would have been required to continue with fewer players" - not being familiar with football rules, is there no third option beyond that and substitutes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No, there isn't. For around a hundred years until the introduction of subs in the 1960s, if a player was injured and unable to continue, the team had to simply play on without them i.e. with a reduced number of players -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

How about if I reword it to something like "had he left the game, his team would not have been able to replace him as the concept of substitutes did not yet exist".......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - change made :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Co-ord query

@WP:FAC coordinators: - not 100% sure if the above constitutes a source review pass. Can I nominate another article......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, we normally like to see a nomination up for three weeks before allowing a second. For you we could be flexible Chris, but let's just nail down what Jo-Jo thinks first. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it'll be three weeks as of tomorrow ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

More than six hours early :-) , but go for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - apologies for being over-keen :-) When I posed the initial question I hadn't checked and honestly thought it had been a bit longer than three weeks...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No harm in pushing your luck. I always used to. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Etika

Nominator(s): PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Desmond Amofah, better known as Etika, rose to popularity through his gaming videos, reactions, and spirited personality. However, his life took a tragic turn when he publicly underwent numerous incidents due to his struggles with mental health, leading to his suicide in June 2019. I nominated this article for three reasons.

1. Etika was the reason I created my Wikipedia account. When I first heard of his passing, an overwhelming mix of emotions whirled in the pool of my mind, with regret leaping for air the most. As someone who saw his unraveling in real time, all I wanted to do was change the past, but was powerless to do so – instead I focused on the future. In 2023, I brought the page to GA status as a healing process of coping with tragedy through copy-editing and typing. This year I continued my journey in hopes to bring it to FA.
2. If everything goes well, Etika would become the very first article of a YouTuber, and perhaps an Internet personality, to reach the coveted title. This is quite unprecedented territory in several ways, and I feel that in those same ways there couldn't be a more fitting person to wear that crown, because
3. His story is a compelling yet tragic tale about one's journey through fame and battles with social media and mental health. Although dealing with troubling subject material, Etika's life is one future generations deserve to know about. I wanted to do my part in honoring his life and legacy.

I'd like to thank @HappyBoi3892, Vaticidalprophet, Masem, and VARNAMi: and every other contributor to the article. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

I only have time to look at the lead right this minute, but I picked up these points:

• "He became known online for his enthusiastic reactions to Super Smash Bros. character trailers"......"He garnered popularity following the release of Super Smash Bros. 4, primarily stemming from his videos discussing news related to the game" - "enthusiastic reactions to trailers" and "discussing news" don't really sound like the same thing. Can you clarify?
  • It was meant to convey that he uploaded both news and reaction videos to the game. I'll rewrite to "...from his reaction videos of news surrounding the game" for now.
• There are three refs against the penultimate sentence. Refs should only be in the lead in exceptional circumstances. Are the observers who commented also mentioned in the body? If so, just have the refs there....
  • I mentioned this in the GA review, and admittedly this is a bit unorthodox. But the reason why I kept those was because I felt they were the three best and most pertinent sources discussing him. I intended it so that if an interested reader had little time to read all the sources, they could at least check those articles. If anyone disagrees however, I'd be more than open to refactor them.

I'll look at the body later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• "Amofah had stated that he was distant from his father" => "he stated that he was distant from his father" ("Ambofah" is ambiguous as you have just talked about multiple people with that surname)
• "Amofah had an older brother" => "He had an older brother" (same reason)
• "He would be pulled out" => "He was pulled out"
• "He had also stated in a livestream" => "He also stated in a livestream"
• "Within months after creating" => "Within months of creating"
• "screams "Mewtwo!" with other profanities" - Mewtwo is not a profanity, so saying "other profanities" doesn't work. Try "screams "Mewtwo!" with several profanities"
  • I also added specific profanities he exclaimed per sources.
• "Despite his earnings, Amofah had revealed in a June 2017 video" => "Despite his earnings, Amofah revealed in a June 2017 video"
• "Amofah continued to evince erratic behavior" - "evidence" is a pretty obscure word, I think. Maybe "display" would be better?
• "where he was subsequently taken to a Brooklyn hospital in an ambulance" => "after which he was taken to a Brooklyn hospital in an ambulance"
• " and as part of this, sends information" => " and that as part of this, it sends information"
• Bridge image caption isn't a full sentence so doesn't require a full stop
• That's what I got. An excellent (but, of course, sad) read -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Applied all of your changes above except where noted. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment from NegativeMP1

I'll take a look soon. I'll likely do an image review alongside one for prose. λ NegativeMP1 19:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find any issues with the prose, and all images are free to use. My only comment is requesting the addition of alternative text to all images for accessibility. λ NegativeMP1 23:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for the halt on this, I forgot that I put this down. Since alt text has been added, I'm giving my Support.

Comments from Skyshifter

• As I said in the peer review (though now I say as a view of mine instead of "what FAC reviewers may say"), I think some sources listed as "primary" can't be used, as they are fan reuploads of the original videos, meaning they could be altered, for example. The sources in question are 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 (from this revision). I'd try to find primary sources from Etika himself or secondary sources to confirm the information instead of fan reuploads.
• Those primary references also need consistent formatting. Some examples are:
  • You should use {{cite tweet}} for ref 10 as you did with other tweets.
  • Some YouTube sources are lacking author and the |via=YouTube parameter.
  • References 5 and 11 list the author as "Etika @ 999 [@Etika]", while ref 7 lists him as "Amofah, Desmond [@Etika]".

Skyshiftertalk 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Skyshifter and NegativeMP1: Apologies for the late response - I've been trying to find more suitable substitutes for some of the primary sources the past few days. I replaced some so far, but even the Wayback Machine isn't helping me here - some of the videos aren't even archived properly (like the 200,000 sub video where source 8 comes from). This might be a case where the reuploads either remain as surrogate archives per WP:IAR or rewritten entirely; I'll let other editors weigh in on this. Considering how sparingly they're used however, I don't think it should be too much of a loss if removed. Also, I implemented the Alt Text. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, just checking in. Anyone still have more comments for the article? PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

4/19 Reply: Skyshifter Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I fixed the formatting for several of Twitter and YouTube sources. Unfortunately, after searching for several weeks, I was unable to locate other sources that replace 2, 3, 4 and 6. In advance for the source review, I would like to refer to this past discussion, and if the reviewer is okay with it based on said discussion, I'll leave that section intact. Otherwise, if I still don't find any by next week, I'll trim that info. Besides that, any other comments and suggestions? PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think the fact that these were reuploads was made very clear in that discussion. For example, one user referred to "self-published primary sources". However, self-published here would mean published by Etika himself, and that's not the case here: the sources were published by, basically, random Internet users. Again, the problem of reuploads is that the content could be edited or altered in a way not intended by the person themselves (in this case, Etika). I think more opinions are necessary here. Skyshiftertalk 13:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyshifter: As a compromise, I rewrote the Early Life section without the videos because I still haven't located his original clips through the Wayback Machine. I kept two SPSs directly from him - his own tweet and his "25 Things About Me Video": here's the proposed version. Also for the record, I did clarify in the discussion that they were originally self-published videos by Etika, but were deleted as a consequence of his channel terminations, meaning that the reuploads are literally the only remaining sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! Skyshiftertalk 21:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment from DecafPotato

Just a drive-by comment: In the second paragraph of the "Origins and popularity" section, the article states that he was earning over $300,000 a year through stream donations. The New York Times article to which this quote is attributed says that When the sessions got frank, or the high jinks got crazy [...], viewers would shower the chat with donations. At one point Etika claimed he was making over $300,000 per year. That source, to me, doesn't attribute the income directly to stream donations (although donations are mentioned in the previous sentence so it does carry that implication). Would it be better to rephrase that sentence to "he was earning over $300,000 a year through streaming" (or some other variant that doesn't explicitly mention donations)? DecafPotato (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense; how about "$300,000 a year through his internet career"? PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That works for me. DecafPotato (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from Elli

• "and he stated that he was distant from his father because of his political occupation" this is a bit of a nitpick, but this could technically be read ambiguously (the "he" could refer to either his father or himself). Maybe could rephrase with a bit of expansion on why his father was in NYC at the time, and clarify when exactly he went back to Ghana (to get an idea of when the two had time together).

• Expanded based on suggestions, but the GhanaWeb source notes that their relationship was unclear (a clip where he talks about his father was used as a SPS, but it's a reupload so it may not be permissible).
  • Looks good.

• "During that time" is kinda redundant to "in 2007"; maybe do "Under that name"?

• The previous sentence already has "under the name," so I'll just omit "during that time."

• The comicbook.com source doesn't appear to be relevant to the sentence about Model Mayhem (it says less on the topic than the other sources do and as far as I can tell doesn't link the profile either).

• That was meant to be for the claim that he modeled during his early 20s - swapped the sources around.

• The first paragraph in the "Origins and popularity (2012–2018)" covers content from the following section as well. Kinda breaks the sequence here. If the info on subscriber counts is meant to be a summary, I'd pull it out to the "YouTube career" section and also integrate the information on subscriber counts to the particular sections where it's sequentially relevant.

• Pulled to YT career section, but I couldn't find a way to integrate the subscriber info without it feeling awkward. I think it'd make a good summary as is.
  • That's fair.

• Is there more coverage of his personal life? He was in a relationship with Cardona for six years but she, nor his other potential relationships, aren't mentioned anywhere outside the context of his YouTube career. Understandable if the sources don't exist, though (and it's not our job to try to dig up that sorta stuff from his YouTube videos).

• AFAICT, his relationship with Cardona was his only verifiable one. Besides that, outside of SPSs and secondary sources already in the article, there isn't much I could find of his personal life anymore. Also, the only info of his mother I could find is in relation to the aftermath of his passing, which is why details of her are included later in the article.

• "he blocked close friends of his and other YouTubers" not sure this is supported entirely by the sources? Kotaku: "Sky Williams, who apparently considers himself a friend of Amofah’s, realized he was blocked by the YouTuber today" and Shacknews doesn't say anything about Slasher being a friend with Etika at all.

• 4Gamer translation says this: "Amofah began sending direct messages to his friends and famous YouTubers one after another, and blocking them if they did not receive a sincere response". Appended ref there and readjusted accordingly.

• "which he also posted to Twitter repeatedly" can't find this in the sources? All they say is that he posted it -- not repeatedly.

• Decided to remove.

• "he assaulted the police officer in self-defense" - assault is a crime, not an action. The Power Unlimited source says "hit" (at least, with Google translate as I can't read Dutch), and the People source doesn't mention self-defense at all. Would figure out a different phrase to use here (it's fine to use "assault" generally, but it doesn't make sense to say someone "assaulted in self-defense").

• Agreed and changed; it has more source integrity (plus every other translator I used says hit). Also added his claim the officer hit him first based on both sources.

• "A tweet Amofah posted" saying "had posted" would probably be clearer.

• Agreed and changed.

• "both from his fans and from mental health facilities" maybe better to say "by both his fans and mental health facilities" or similar.

  Agreed and changed too.

• "After raising money for charity, Abe Hunter and Double A worked with mural artist BK Foxx and graffiti artists Kestaadm and JMZWalls to create a 40-feet-long mural completed by November 2019 dedicated to Amofah in Bushwick, Brooklyn." would it be possible to add a picture of this? (think it would be considered non-free copyrighted artwork, but there's a good case for including it here).

• I'd include one but I'm admittedly unfamiliar with uploading images, especially non-free ones. I'd leave this to anyone with expertise in this.

Overall, this is quite good. These are just some minor nitpicks and shouldn't be too difficult to deal with (also if you disagree with me on some of them, that's fine, just let me know what your thoughts are). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Elli: I think I addressed them all, and also added and revised some statements too. Please let me know if you have any other concerns or comments. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me! Happy to support now :) Elli (talk | contribs) 20:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Mars Society

Nominator(s): CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The Mars Society is a nonprofit organization that advocates for human Mars exploration and colonization. There is very little available source that is said about the Mars Society, yet early in its history it played a crucial part in Elon Musk's creation of SpaceX. I've spent more than two years trying to improve the article and I'm hoping for the best for the third FAC. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I've also contacted some Mars Society members to take a look at this article. No responses yet, but hopefully there will be a few by the end of the week. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

They don't know what more to add to this article. Looks like this is comprehensive enough for now. Also, I just managed to borrow the book and is skimming it for facts. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Note, this is when I contacted individual members of the Mars Society. Now that I finally found the official communication forum for the TMS, I emailed to the New Mars Forum to get more feedback. Hopefully they will provide insights that are still missing from the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: is this article still missing an image and source review? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I have placed a request at WP:FACSR. FrB.TG (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment by TompaDompa

I almost certainly will not do a full review, but I would like to suggest using Robert Markley's Dying Planet: Mars in Science and the Imagination (2005) as a source. There is a fair amount of material about the Mars Society therein; the index points to pp. 23, 350–353, and 385, but there's more—I would suggest at minimum checking out the "Mars Direct and the High Frontier" portion (pp. 346–354) of chapter 8 ("Mars at the Turn of a New Century"). It could for instance be used to verify James Cameron as a member. TompaDompa (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@TompaDompa Thank you so much for the source! It took me ages to make sure that every single source has been extensively checked, and you proved me wrong. Always nice to find more sources for the article, will get the book and write the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@TompaDompa Reading it... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@TompaDompa, I just finished adding everything I can think off to the article with that source. Wow, what an oversight. It confirmed some of my suspicions about the society earlier, but it's nice to confirm it with a reliable source. If you know any other sources that mentions the Mars Society, please tell me as soon as possible! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That's it, I'm afraid. I'm only aware of Markley's book because I used it heavily for Mars in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Prose support from PCN02WPS

• Minor, but maybe reword "Many Mars Society members and former members" in the lead to "Many current and former Mars Society members" to avoid repetition?
• The "Philosophy and propositions" section mentions a founding conference in the present tense initially and then switches to past tense
• "2003 that Mars Society is a fundamentally" → when referred to like this elsewhere in the article, the phrasing "the Mars Society" is used
• "They published their plan to NASA" → recommend linking NASA on first mention
  • Secondary point: The wording that they published a paper to the organization sounds a little strange, maybe "for NASA"? I'm not really sure what the best fix would be here.
• "the same year as the sixth and last Case for Mars" → I think you can drop "sixth and" since you mention that the sixth was the final one earlier
• "near Hanksville, Utah" → comma after "Utah" per MOS:GEOCOMMA
• The crew would stay for eighty days" → reads better to me as "The crew stayed for eighty days
• "totaling 236 crews,with each crew" → need a space
• The second-to-last paragraph in "Earlier activities" seems to be missing a few articles here and there; for example, I think it reads better with wording like "later renamed to the Mars Gravity Biosattelite" and "students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology"
• MIT doesn't need to be linked again in the last paragraph
• I would also consider giving the "MIT" abbreviation at first mention and using it instead of the long form name at subsequent mentions as it is far more digestible
• "had dwarfed the one of Mars Society" → "had dwarfed that of Mars Society" - also might need a "the" in front of "Mars Society"
• remove links from FMARS and MDRS; they're given already above
• Ditto for Devon Island and Hanksville, Utah
• "As of 2017, it is back" → consider "it was back" since you're mentioning an update given seven years ago with no update since then

That's all I've got as far as prose goes, nice work! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent review! I've implemented all of your changes to the article. I still haven't being able to loan "Dying Planet: Mars in Science and the Imagination" yet but I hope I will be able to loan it soon. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I went back and changed a couple words to fix tenses and such myself so I didn't have to hold this up just for that. The article is very well-written and I'm happy to support on prose quality. (As a note, if you've got a bit of time I have an FAC of my own that could use some eyes) PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the support! It's my 4th year on Wikipedia and my 5th FAC, and this is the first ever FAC support that I've received. Thank you so much for believing in this FAC. I really do appreciate that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Draken Bowser

Neat and to the point, probably doesn't need to be much longer than this until we get boots on the ground. I'm having a little trouble with the "current" in the "current projects" heading, in part because we're unaware of whether two of these projects are even ongoing as of 2017 and august 2022.

• "..and Peter Smith" If he is notable as a member we should be able to verify his membership with a secondary source.
• "president is Robert Zubrin., and nNotable members" English loves commas, couldn't we still do a full stop here?
• "The testimony seems to not have influenced the committee" Reads a bit like a stylistic understatement, can we be blunt here?
• Could we do the inverse: "where the island is not uninhabited and lacks vegetation."
• Google hits for the exact phrasing "student university competitions" do not look promising, rephrase?
• "The MarsVR Project aims.."
• Source spot check (random.org) 13, 14, 16, 24 and 28 — 24: I can't seem to find the date on page 4, or any other page. It's in source 17 though. Also, please add the rp-template to source 17.

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

In order:

• Cannot verify whether Peter Smith was a board member or not, even on his personal website. If he had ever been a Mars Society member, he was most likely a member in the society for an insignificant amount of time. Removed.
• I was stupid. Implemented.
• Rewrote to "The committee was indifferent to the testimony"
• Made sense. Implemented.
• Removed "student"
• To be explicit, added another ref after "In December 2001,"

Thank you so much for the source check! Sorry if I haven't been about to respond to you immediately. Courtesy ping: Draken Bowser. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

No probs. I'm gonna hold here for a while pending further comments/polishing and return later for another read through. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Draken Bowser Would you mind reviewing the article again for any further omissions? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't get to a printer today, unfortunately, will get back to you no later than Wednesday. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Draken Bowser Wow, you're very dedicated to copyedit the article. Thank you so much for your time and effort! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I mostly wanted to see how far my holistic impression had improved since the first look.

Final notes:

• "This goal can be seen in.." prefer "These goals were set out.."
• "..to espouse his own views on how human Mars mission should be done." Add "-s" or "a".
• "Mars will be a way to give birth to an ideal society." Prefer "would".
• "..and no further development of TEMPO3 has been done since the initial proposal." Do our sources confirm this, or should we go with "reported"?

That's all, and Support. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thank you so much for your support and your comprehensive review. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "advocates for human Mars exploration and colonization". This may be different in US English, but to my ear it is clunky. Perhaps 'advocates for human exploration and colonization of Mars'?
• "to make human mission to Mars". Not grammatical. Either 'to make human missions to Mars' or 'to make a human mission to Mars'.
• "... which aims to make human mission to Mars as lightweight and feasible as possible. The Mars Society aims to generate ..." Is it possible to avoid "aims" twice in such clos proximity?
• "the Mars Society has been active with organizing events and research activities." Suggest 'the Mars Society has organizied events and supported research activities.'
• "aim to replicate a true Mars mission for research." Suggest 'aim to stimulate a Mars mission.'
• "Crew members in the stations must perform ..." Delete "must".
• "do research assignments" → 'carry out research assignments'.
• "and researching the effects on Martian crews via Mars analog habitats." Researching the effects of what?
• Reference: books should either all have publisher locations or none should.
• "and notable members and former members" → 'and notable current and former members'.
• "chapters in Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe, etc". Etc doesn't really work. Is it possible to give a full list? Or end with 'and x other countries'?
• "The Mars Society's founding conference" - give the year.
• Link Mars Direct.
• "a panel made by the Obama administration" → 'a panel set up by the Obama administration'.
• "During a testimony". Delete "a".
• $20 bn is not "one-twentieth the cost" of $250–500 bn. Perhaps 'less than one-twentieth the cost'?
• "conference had happened" → 'conference took place'.
• "as a spiritual successor". Delete "spiritual".
• "Some of the invited were from the Mars Underground and those who had written to Zubrin" → 'Some of those invited were from the Mars Underground or had had written to Zubrin ...'.
• Section heading: "Earlier activities". You shouldn't use "earlier" without saying what it is earlier than what. Perhaps 'Historical projects' or similar.
• "on Devon Island." Where is that?
• "The construction cost for FMARS is jointly shared by the Mars Society and the Haughton–Mars Project team. Part of the funding also came from commercial sponsorship such as the Discovery Channel." The second sentence contradicts the first.
• "FMARS was first occupied in July and August 2000". It can't be first occupied on two dates.
• "In mid-2001, the Mars Society received a US$5,000 check from Elon Musk for a fundraiser event." That is not what the source says. Possibly you mean 'at a fundraiser event'?
• "Musk joined the Mars Society's board of directors". I cannot find this on the pages cited. It is discouraging that the one cite I have checked seems to have two errors.
• "invited aerospace engineers whom he had met beforehand at Mars Society-sponsored trips". Delete "beforehand".
• "Since then, Musk occasionally kept contact with the Mars Society". This needs rewording. Maybe 'Since then, Musk has occasionally worked with the Mars Society' or similar?
• "as evident by his presentation". Either 'as is evident in his presentation' or 'as is evidenced by his presentation'.
• "The first four-month-long mock mission was done in 2007" → 'The first four-month-long mock mission took place in 2007'.
• "Shorter missions were done in 2009 and 2013" → 'Shorter missions were carried out in 2009 and 2013'.
• What is a "field season"?

• "The money that had been donated by Elon Musk". Delete "that had been".
• "MIT": In the last paragraph of Earlier activities you use MIT twice, then give the name in full. Is there a reason for this?
• What is a "student university"?
• Is "MarsVR Project" a computer program? If so, say so at first mention.

That's it for my first run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, thank you so much for your kind comments! I've implemented most of your suggestions to the article. As for "Musk joined the Mars Society's board of directors", it can be verified with this quote, around page 100-110: "Musk took to the Mars Society right away and joined its board of directors." I need to find the page number for the print version though... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

On my epub, the print edition page number for that quote is 100. Unless I own a hardcopy of the book, I really don't know what's wrong with the citation here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I have sorted it. If you think I have done anything wrong, could you flag it up here. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Sources: Bishop, 2011 needs a page range.
• "Field season" is not the same as "fiscal year".

Looking good. Just the two minor points above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild Done. As a side note, all three citations to Bishop, 2011 have attached {{rp}} CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Bishop: I know, doesn't matter. If a source is a part of a larger work (eg a chapter of a book or an article in a journal) its page range needs to be given along with the other details on how to find it. Note the tweak I gave. Nice work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from Graham Beards

The article has improved by leaps and bounds since its first FAC coming up to two years ago. I think it satisfies the FA criteria. I made a couple of tiny edits rather than list them here. Well done. Graham Beards (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Graham Beards, would you mind taking a look at the article again? I've made some addition to the article from the source that TompaDompa has suggested. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes: "degree" should be "degrees" and you should say if they are university or college degrees. Here " with certain influences from science fiction", you don't need "certain". Here " The first convention also saw the signing of the Founding Declaration of the Mars Society" the "also" is redundant. Graham Beards (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I've made my first copyedit pass through the article and fixed the issues that you've addressed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review

Image placement and ALT text seems fine for me. Regarding File:Elon Musk at MSC 2006.jpg, I kinda wonder why the Flickr images are so lacking in EXIF details. I am not sure that the licence statement on File:FMARS Station Construction 2 2000-07-21.JPG means that it can be re-used by other. Source review wise reviewing this version. Looks like we are working mostly with major news sources and specialized sources here. Spot-check:

• 3 The fee thing is on the other page. OK otherwise, although you may want to alphabetize the countries list.
• 4 Can I have copies of the pages in question?
• 8 OK
• 10 OK although I wonder if this is somewhat detailed information for a Wikipedia article.
• 13 OK
• 14 Mostly OK but where is it said that it was a "successor"'
• 15 OK
• 17 OK
• 18 OK
• 19 OK
• 20 Where is "temporary foundation for his publicity projects,"?
• 22 OK
• 24 OK
• 25 OK
• 27 Can I have copies of the pages in question?
• 28 OK, but it's interpreting the reasons why these sites were chosen.
• 29 OK
• 33 OK, some paraphrasing of "propulsion module, heat shield and landing engines" may be warranted.
• 35 Need a copy of this webpage.
• 36 Where is "the training part has an attached cost for the public"?

Not source or image related, but the article is conspicuously lacking in any outside review or commentary on the organization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review. About the images, I will email to the Mars Society to confirm that these images are indeed made by them. As for the reviews that you're talking about, sources available for TMS are very scant, even more so for external commentaries. I tried my best to layout critical commentary of the organization at Mars_Society#Philosophy_and_propositions.

Addressing source concerns... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

As for the IRS filing information, I think it's appropriate to put it into the article. The organization is really small by many standards and there's no official member count for the TMS. So the next best thing is to assess the revenue and spending of the organization. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 April 2024 [23].

---

Cora Agnes Benneson

Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Cora Agnes Benneson was a late-19th and early-20th century American attorney. She was one of the first women to open her own law practice in New England, a member of several organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and an accomplished writer and lecturer. Benneson was also a complicated figure; she held nativist beliefs and her feminism saw marriage and raising children as natural for women (although she herself never married nor had children).

This article was written during WikiProject Women in Red's 2024 year-long education initiative, after I found Ms. Benneson in the missing articles list for Julia Ward Howe's Representative Women of New England (1904). The article was just promoted to GA after a thorough review by Sammielh. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:CORA_A._BENNESON_Sketches_of_representative_women_of_New_England_(page_442_crop)_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Added a US tag. Elliot died in 1942. Stimpson appears to have died in 1940. Hoyt died in 1915. Howe died in 1910. Graves died in 1908. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Where does the death information go on commons? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• It can be added to the author field. (Some licensing templates have a parameter for it but I don't think this one does). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, not seeing that a US tag has been added yet? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: I had added it to the parent image. Now added to this one. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Okay, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment: The image on Commons has terrible compression artefacts near mouth and nose that are not present on archive.org, so it might be better to upload a new copy (even a screenshot would be better than whatever happened with that .djvu). —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Kusma: I'll see if someone at Commons can help to get a better extraction. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Voorts, I made a slightly better (in my opinion) version: File:Cora bennesson crop.jpg. —Kusma (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! Image changed. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from SusunW

Hello, voorts. Happy to make your acquaintance. Thank you for writing about her and allowing me to learn her story. I warn you in advance, I am a bit methodical (okay obsessive), and agonize over reviews, so I am really slow and work in spurts. But, I view reviews as a conversation for improvement, so feel free to disagree with anything I write. Always ping me. (note 2 u's no a). SusunW (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede:

• I find the excessive repetition of Benneson to be distracting from comprehension, meaning that I find myself looking for the repeated word rather than the content. Please consider reducing the number of times you repeat her name with appropriate pronouns.
  • Done.

Early life:

• First sentence uses Benneson 3 times. Perhaps use "Electa Ann (née Park) and Robert Smith Benneson".
  • Done.
• How do we know Robert worked in lumber and real estate?
  • I can't remember or find the sources, so I've removed it for now.
• Trueblood (p. 326) says her mother was known as Annie, but you call her Electa.
  • First sentence of the fourth paragraph on page 326 says "Miss Benneson's mother, Electa Ann Park Benneson ...".

Probably not a huge deal, but since Trueblood says "Annie Park, as she was generally called" I thought it worth mentioning. It's kind of like referring to Michael Philip Jagger as something other than Mick. Most people wouldn't know who you were talking about and likely finding sourcing would be impacted. Your call. SusunW (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

My reading was that she was called Annie Park in her younger years, but not as an adult. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• If we are giving information on her ancestors who were clergy, why not include that both sides of the family were originally from England, (Cyclopedia p 399, Trueblood p 326) and that her mother descended from Richard Park (Parke) one of the original proprietors of Cambridge, Massachusetts? (ISHS Journal p 307, Trueblood p 326)
  • Done.
• "By the age of 8" I do not see this in the Cyclopedia p 399 nor ISHS Journal p 307, but it is in Trueblood p 327 and Nazzal p 274; and "[able] to get at the pith of an argument" is a direct quote requiring citation, but only found in Trueblood p 327 and ISHS Journal p 307. Suggest splitting up the bundled citation at the end of both sentences to reflect only the citations which apply to each sentence.
  • Done.
• How do we know that Quincy Seminary was a prep school? Was it a coeducational school? Both seem very unusual for the period, boys/men and girls/women were typically educated separately and women were not deemed to be university material. Looking at the link for the seminary class photo, it states it was the Quincy Female Seminary. This newspaper clipping confirms she was the valedictorian of the 1869 class from the Quincy Female Seminary. In my experience, "female seminaries" were typically normal schools. Searching for the curricula, I find little, but this piece on the Milwaukee Female College, where Caroline and Mary E. Chapin (why doesn't she have an article?) were principals from 1857 to 1863 makes clear that these types of schools focused on career training "suitable" for women, i.e. teaching, child care, morality, family health, and home economics. pp 21-22 But maybe it was more, as this says in Milwaukee they taught both normal and collegiate courses including math, natural science, history, geography philosophy, language, composition and literature. Chapin's obit doesn't clarify. Do you have something that confirms it was a prep school? Suggest you add "Female" to the name of the school.
  • I've removed preparatory school and added "Female".

Don't know if you think it worthwhile to mention that she was the valedictorian, per the Quincy Whig. Not a deal breaker, for me to support, but it's definitely noteworthy, IMO SusunW (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Added. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Higher education

• The note says Harvard did not admit women until 1950, but Nazzal p 275, says Harvard admitted Benneson in 1896 and she completed a master's degree. But then later, on p 280 he says she got her 2nd master's from Radcliffe. Not sure if you think it is worth expanding the note to give a bit more info, i.e. Radcliffe began as the Harvard Annex to teach women, but became its own degree-granting institution in 1894.
  • The note refers to Harvard Law School specifically, not Harvard University more broadly. I don't think it's worth getting into Radcliffe's degree-granting status since when she applied there, they had already been accepting women for two years.

That's fine. SusunW (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

World travels

• is interest "in the treatment of women and their opportunities" per the source the same as "including the rights of women" in the article? I tend to think of rights as legal or at least recognized rules or norms that people are owed. Women at that time were not typically legal entities, as they had no individual personhood in law. How they were treated and what their opportunities were, were largely dictated by a husband, father, or guardian and were considered private matters. A husband could beat his wife, rape her, take all of her money and it wasn't any type of crime because she was seen as merely an appendage of his personhood. I also note that her observations of women on her trip don't seem to be concerned with rights, rather with their appearances and societal positions, which I concede might go toward "opportunities" but rights? not sure.
  • I changed the phrase to "who was interested in foreign legal cultures and rights of women"

I like your change to status of women. Seems much nearer to the source. SusunW (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• "two year" and "four month" should have hyphens, since they are functioning as an adjective to tour.
  • Done.
• Perhaps link Burma and Abyssinia, as they are no longer known by those names?
  • Done.
• "Benneson wrote dispatches" does not appear in Nazzal p. 278, but rather p 285 says her notes were published after her return in The Unitarian. Dispatch, i.e. information that is published in media about recent events and typically sent by someone in a foreign country, perhaps is the wrong word? or did she publish in other media while she was traveling?
  • Fixed.
• I find it a bit odd that you specifically mention that she went on the tour to learn about women's rights, but the descriptions of her travels you have included give none of her observations on women, which admittedly were pretty superficial.
  • Addressed above.

Career

• Perhaps I am wrong, but Trueblood p. 329 and the Cyclopaedia p. 399 give Law Reports as if it is a journal name, not a generic report.
  • Law reports are usually a generic name. Many publishers of case law call their publications "law reports".
• The only source that mentions Woodrow Wilson or the quoted material is Bohan p 20
  • The other sources substantiate the unquoted portion about the fact of her moving there for a fellowship.
• "From 1897 to 1892"?. Nazzal actually says 1897 to 1902.
  • An interesting prapraxis on my part. Fixed.
• No need to repeat that she was a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association
  • Done.
• Do we have any idea what area of law she specialized in? The Cyclopaedia says she had "a large and successful practice", but gives no clues as to what type of law she focused upon. Likewise, do we have any clue what she did as a special commissioner?
  • No clue and I haven't found anything about her practice. Same with being a special commissioner.

I figured that would be the case, but thought I'd ask. SusunW (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Final year and death

• While I can plainly see that Nazzal states the obituary said she died of a stroke, it doesn't actually say that (and yes, I did check that the obit you cited is the same obit Nazal cited). The obit says her health broke down from overworking.
  • Fixed.
• Per the obit, she was buried in Mount Auburn Cemetery.
  • Added.

I think that's it from me. Ping me for further discussion. SusunW (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@SusunW: I believe I've addressed everything. Thank you for the thorough review. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Voorts Thank you. I am happy to support. The two outstanding comments, I leave up to your discretion as they don't alter the validity or thoroughness of your work. SusunW (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@SusunW: Thank you for the support. I've addressed your remaining two comments. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

This is a short but interesting article. I have the following comments:

• The three final sentences in the lead para refer only to the subject as 'she' (including two sentences in a row starting with this)
  • Fixed.
• "She spent her youth reading, writing, and learning from her parents' guests" - what's the value of this? It's hardly uncommon, and wrongly implies that she was self educated.
  • Fixed
• The last sentence of the lead should be tweaked to be two sentences. More broadly, semicolons are somewhat over-used across the article.
  • Fixed.
• Should the Quincy Academy and/or Quincy Female Seminary be (red?)linked?
  • It can't hurt. Done.
• What did she do between 1872 and 1875 and 1878 and 1880?
  • The sources don't say.
    • Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• The sentence starting with 'Harvard rejected her application' has two full stops
  • Fixed.
• Do we know how she funded the world tour?
  • No, but I would guess using her parents' money.
• "She was also the founder of, counsel for, and member of several organizations" - the grammar is off here
  • In what way?
    • The sentence is trying to cover too much ground and becomes a bit of a mouthful of words as a resu;t. I'd suggest splitting this into two sentences (being the counsel for organisations seems a bit different than the other roles, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Can anything else be said about her legal career? E.g. notable cases, clients, etc?
  • Not that I've been able to find.
• I'm confused at why a range of articles about Benneson, including what's probably the main source for the article, are listed as 'primary sources' when they are not.
  • Fixed.
• I note that the references to Trueblood are to the version on Wikisource - is this reproduction a reliable source? Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Changed.

@Nick-D: Replied above. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I've addressed your last comment. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. Well done with this article - it's a good example of a short but sharp FA quality article on an under-remembered person. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Otuọcha

@Voorts:: You did a very good job. I have no thought of criticism, and will express my own way of supporting the article. I will check some words out too.

• In "Final year and death" section, this statement: "According to her obituary writer, her death was reportedly caused by overworking." Don't we need a source there. Or is The_Quincy_Daily_Herald19195-33 the next source supporting that?
  • It's supported by both of the citations at the end.
• This is not much a problem. Isn't it just simple putting it as "Death". I don't see much emphasis on "Final year" addition.
  • I like final year because the section also notes that she stopped practicing law that year.
• The "career section" wrote: "In 1899, she was made a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Do change that "made" to "elected" or rewording: "In 1899, she was elected as a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science." AAAS fellows are elected.
  • Done.

@Otuọcha: Responded above. Thanks for your support. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request. Are Mary Esther Trueblood and Julia Ward Howe known to be biographers? Everything else seems to be OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Howe was a suffragist (perhaps best known for writing the Battle Hymn of the Republic), and Trueblood was a professor of sociology and mathematics. I'm not sure who else Trueblood wrote biographies of. The book that the Trueblood biography is in was also edited by Mary H. Graves, who was a literary editor and writer, and the publisher's note at the start of the book notes that Graves fact-checked the biographies. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Did some minor spotchecking and didn't notice anything untoward. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 April 2024 [24].

---

Munsey's Magazine

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a magazine that revolutionized the magazine publishing industry. Munsey's Magazine cut its price from twenty-five cents to ten cents in 1893, and became the first magazine to derive its revenue primarily from advertising, by driving circulation up with a low price, and reaping the rewards in high advertising rates. The magazine was a stable-mate of Argosy, which I brought to FAC a couple of months ago: Argosy was much more influential in the world of genre fiction, but Munsey's had a much greater impact on the industry as a whole. The publisher, Frank Munsey, had a rags-to-riches life: half the story of how he became a millionaire was told in the article on Argosy, and this is the other half. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa

I'll try to find the time to review this. TompaDompa (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• I have added italics in a few spots where they seemed to be missing for magazine titles and done some other minor copyediting as well; please check to see that I did not introduce any errors.

Lead

• Any particular reason to give his name as "Frank A. Munsey"? Our article is at the title Frank Munsey.

  I think when I started working on the article I used this form because the business was the "Frank A. Munsey Company", but I agree there's no need. Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Originally launched as Munsey's Weekly, a humorous magazine, in 1889, it was not successful, and by late 1891 had lost $100,000 ($3.39 million in 2023), and Munsey converted it to a general illustrated monthly in October of that year, retitled Munsey's Magazine and priced at twenty-five cents." – this is a rather lengthy sentence with a high number of commas, which impedes readability.

  Split. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• "the American News Company, which had a monopoly on magazine distribution" – a near-monopoly, going by the body.

  Some sources describe it as a monopoly; I believe it was effectively a monopoly for national distribution but there may have been some local distribution options in some areas. No need to go into those details, though, so I've made it "near-monopoly". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Other magazines, notably McClure's and Cosmopolitan, quickly followed Munsey's example" and "another magazine, Everybody's, managed to outstrip Munsey's" – are those "Munsey's" as in "Frank Munsey's" or the magazine? If the latter, "Munsey's" should be in italics.

  I meant the magazine and have italicized it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  For both? Only the latter is italicized now. TompaDompa (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I meant the person (or company) rather than for the magazine, but I've now italicized it as I think it reads OK either way and this avoids any doubt in the reader's mind. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Many well-known writers appeared in its pages, including O. Henry, H. Rider Haggard, Arthur Conan Doyle, Bret Harte, Frank R. Stockton, Max Brand, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and Ella Wheeler Wilcox." – I don't know if these examples were picked for any specific reason or if it's just a more-or-less arbitrary sample, but here are at least my thoughts: Henry should definitely be mentioned due to his deal with Davis. From a pure name-recognition perspective I would certainly keep Haggard, Doyle, and Burroughs, and I would consider adding, or replacing one of the others with, Joseph Conrad for the same reason. It's probably a good idea to strive for some amount of variety/diversity.

  I took out Stockton and added Wodehouse and Conrad. I'd like to keep Brand -- he was enormously prolific and a famous pulp writer. Harte I put in because I think he shows up in American curricula, but I'm OK with cutting him if you think he's not well enough known. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have no strong opinions on the individual authors beyond the above-mentioned inclusion of Henry, Haggard, Doyle, Burroughs, and Conrad. That being said, this is now a list of eight men and zero women, which seems unlikely to me to be the proper balance. TompaDompa (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I put Wilcox back in. There were definitely women writers who were popular at the time, but as far as I can see it's mostly the male writers whose reputation has survived. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• "it was not until 1904 that another magazine, Everybody's, managed to outstrip Munsey's, reaching a circulation of almost a million" – does "outstrip" here mean outsell (higher number of sales) or outgross (more money)?

  Circulation. I made it "managed to outstrip Munsey's circulation, reaching a figure of almost a million". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Publication history

• If there are appropriate links for "quarto" and "saddle-stapled", they should be added.

  Both linked: Bookbinding#Stitched_or_sewn_binding and Quarto#Quarto_as_size. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• "the same market as Life. and Munsey hired" – stray period; or was some other punctuation intended?

  I don't remember, but I did a little rework of that and the following sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• "at 18% interest" – annually?

  The source doesn't say, but I would assume so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Alright. This seems like a high interest rate to me (not being familiar with typical interest rates at the time). If the sources comment on whether they consider this steep (or whether it was viewed as such at the time), that should be added for context. TompaDompa (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's implied that it's high, but not stated directly. Britt quotes Fogler: "He told me afterward that he had to pay 18 per cent for money to take up the loan"; I think "had to" implies it was an unpleasantly high rate. As you say, a reader will consider this high without being told, so perhaps we don't need to make the inference explicit? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Stronger sourcing would be needed to comment further upon it. TompaDompa (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• "They agreed to pay five and three-quarter cents, but Munsey stuck to his seven cents price." – should probably be rephrased to say that they offered to pay the lower price; I initially parsed "they" as "Munsey and ANC" rather than just ANC.

  Good point; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• "pulp paper for the signatures that did not include any illustrations" – maybe I'm just revealing my ignorance here, but what does "signatures" mean in this context?

  Linked to section (bookbinding). Modern paperbacks are usually perfect bound, but if you've ever looked at an old hardback that's falling apart you may have noticed the pages are in groups; those are signatures. It's relevant in this context because a signature had to come from a single paper source (it would be folded and cut), but two different signatures could be from different paper. So you could save money by using cheap paper for signatures with no images, and only using the more expensive paper for signatures with images. An editor might deliberately move material around to minimize the expensive signatures. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• "circulation was down 64,000 by 1924" – down to 64,000 or down by 64,000, and if the latter from what?

  The former; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Contents and reception

• "a gossip column about Washington society and politics" – probably shouldn't have to check the link to find out if that's D.C. or Washington state.

  I can add the "D. C." but the source doesn't say -- I think Mott probably thought it was obvious, given the state only joined the union that same year, and probably didn't have society gossip or politics of interest in New York. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think the inference that it refers to D.C. is probably fine. If not, we would need to remove the link. That being said, we should think about how best to serve the readers here—if we leave it unlinked they may be unsure as to which is intended (they may not be as familiar with the overall context). The best option is probably to make it explicit in the text. TompaDompa (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Added "D. C." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Few of the contributors were well-known, except for Horatio Alger [...] at first the other fiction came mostly from little-known writers" – is there something I'm missing or is this a bit repetitive?

  Yes; cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• "the policy probably gave the circulation another boost" – is this an uncontroversial supposition or should it be attributed?

  What Churchill says is "Munsey astutely sold his new magazine for ten cents. Even so, another innovation assisted him more in his climb to forty millions. He was the first publisher to make a steady policy of putting a picture of a pretty girl on the front cover of his magazine." I put "probably" in because Churchill gives no hard evidence that this happened. I didn't want to weaken it further to "may have given" because Churchill is unequivocal about it. It's not mentioned by other sources and I don't think is controversial in the sense that other sources would disagree, but I also don't know if Churchill was aware of evidence that it was definitely so -- perhaps some essay of Munsey's that I haven't read. I don't think it's necessary to attribute this inline, given all that -- I think the "probably" avoids giving the reader too strong a sense that this must have been so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds reasonable. TompaDompa (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• If it is possible to provide a short gloss to explain to the reader what muckraking is, this should be done.

  Done with a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Munsey's obtaining a head start in circulation because it had taken the first move to the lower price" – I might link to first-mover advantage.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Bibliographic details

• I have to say that a fair amount of the second paragraph seems rather WP:Original research-y.

  I wondered about that. I decided to include it because Reed explicitly makes that comment, so I felt it was OK to indicate what other information supported or contradicted him. Worldcat shows that Harvard has one issue and part of another, and that's about it. The Library of Congress card indicates which issues were copyrighted, and I think that's a legitimate way to say those issues did appear -- it's the same as consulting an index. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hm. Having thought about it:

  1. Reed's comment should obviously be included.
  2. The internet sale thing I think falls on the wrong side of WP:Original research.
  3. I am not familiar enough with WorldCat to say whether this is an okay way to use that source. I'll have to defer to someone else, though unfortunately I don't know who might be knowledgeable about it.
  4. Using the copyright records in this way is definitely okay.

  TompaDompa (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi TompaDompa. Removing my coordinator hat and speaking just as an editor, I am happy to consider WorldCat a HQ RS for this limited purpose. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• OK, that seems fair. I've cut the internet sale comment. I also changed the sentence cited to Worldcat to say that almost no institutations "have any copies", rather than "have copies", to avoid the implication that any institution has a full set. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• "A British edition of Munsey's Magazine was begun in 1899, printed in New York and distributed in the UK by Horace Marshall & Son." – is this all that is known about it? Were the contents identical?

  Almost nothing is known of it, unfortunately. I can't find any references to it except for Galactic Central, and as you can see there they only know of three issues. It seems likely that more appeared but that's just speculation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's a shame. Oh well, sometimes we just have to accept that the information/sourcing we want is not available. TompaDompa (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Ping Mike Christie. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review -- replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Cautious and conditional/preliminary support. As stated above, I would like somebody more familiar with WorldCat to weigh in on whether its use as a source is appropriate in the context it appears in the article. The article looks good otherwise—though as usual with these magazines, I'm not sure I would be able to tell if there are disqualifying issues. TompaDompa (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Munseys_Magazine_May_1911.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Horatio_Alger_Jr.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Updated the source for the first. For the second I can't find a source, so I changed to another image of Alger for which I was able to find a source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  New image needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Updated to PD-US-expired. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

UC

Saving a space. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

Suggest reworking the first sentence per MOS:FIRST: something like "Munsey's Magazine was an American publication founded by Frank A. Munsey. Originally launched as Munsey's Weekly in 1889..." Yes, better; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC) both fiction and non-fiction departments: don't magazines generally have sections: when I see department, I think of a shop -- or was this the term used at the time? It's a fairly standard term in modern histories -- see here, for example, or search Google Books for 'magazine "nonfiction departments"'. I don't think it was current at the time, though I can't easily find evidence either way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC) Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Munsey became one of the first publishers to put on the cover a picture of a pretty girl: this is not quite supported by the article, which says that Munsey was one of the first to do that regularly. More generally, I was tickled by the implication that other publishers had only ever used ugly girls: is there a way to rephrase? Added "regularly" and rephrased slightly; does that avoid the "ugly" implication? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC) and although this became less common later in the decade the reputation took some time to die out: could do with a look for prose and elegance: the reputation, in particular, could/should be expanded to something like "its reputation for low-brow smut". I don't think I can be as definite as that. As far as I can tell the evidence for this is primarily the Wilkes-Barre Public Library story (which is known because Munsey printed a response ridiculing them in the magazine). I say "as far as I can tell" because going through the sources has been a bit of a game of "telephone". I am pretty sure that at least half the sources have relied on Mott and Britt for nearly all their information. I don't know for sure there is more evidence than is in Mott. What Mott says is "[after 1895] ... anatomical display was toned down greatly; but the reputation for naughty pictures that it had gained was hard to shake off. Libraries sometimes reacted unfavorably to such reader-lure; and as late as 1898 the Wilkes-Barre Public Library cut Munsey's off its list "because of the many illustrations ... which are on the nude order". Mott then describes Munsey's responding editorial. I don't think this is enough to say "low-brow smut"; in fact these were very often (I haven't looked at all of them!) classical nudes, so "low-brow" would be misleading anyway. The body gives the story in sufficient detail, so how about if I cut the lead to just "... women, though this became less common later in the decade", and leave the reputation issue to the body? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC) Good plan. Perhaps something about how some libraries refused to stock it -- the reputation change seems significant? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC) I've cut the reputation phrase from the lead. All Mott says is that libraries "sometimes reacted unfavorably to such reader lure" and I don't think we can definitely assert any library other than Wilkes-Barre refused to stock it -- Mott might have been referring to libraries' attitudes to any magazine that carried nudes, rather than to Munsey's in particular. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC) The change from a price of twenty-five cents to ten cents was the start of a revolution in magazine publishing: I'd rephrase the start of a revolution (at least in WikiVoice) per MOS:IDIOM and perhaps WP:PROMO. If someone has called it this, I'd name them and keep the phrasing. I think it's a commonplace in the field that it was a revolution. Mott (1957) has (p. 7) "What was the appeal of these ten-cent magazines, which caused a revolution in the field of periodical publishing?" Schneider (p.76, here says "The development of the popular general interest magazine, driven by advertising revenue ... has been described as a "magazine revolution". This view, common among magazine historians, ..." Searching Google Books for '"ten cents" munsey revolution' finds half a dozen more. I would be hesitant to attribute this to any single author, but I could use Schneider to say that it is common among magazine historians to say this. Do I need to, though? I don't think we'd need to attribute a statement that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was "catastrophic" for the Ottoman Empire, would we? We'd just have to source it, and I was hoping that that would apply here. Or perhaps just add a couple more citations to support the language? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) I'd definitely be in favour of "has been described as...": "catastrophic" literally means "really bad", which is true, whereas revolution literally means "folks in short trousers building guillotines", which isn't, so the MOS:IDIOM argument is there. More importantly, I think it's the sort of phrase that's appropriate in a magazine article or popular history, but not in an encyclopaedia: this is one of those cases where we have different editorial goals than our sources, and so shouldn't sound exactly like them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC) I've changed the lead wording to be "is considered by magazine historians to be the start of a revolution". The body has ""revolutionized the popular magazine market". I'd argue that neither is really an idiomatic usage; for the latter, Merriam Webster gives "to change fundamentally and completely", with "revolutionize an industry" given as the example usage. The body text is supported by three citations, not including Schneider's "common among magazine historians". I'd like to leave that as is -- it would feel finicky to, effectively, say inline that the sources all agree with what they source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Happy with that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Before 1893, magazines made money by selling subscriptions: needs nuance: they still did this after 1893 (and indeed by selling to non-subscribers). Suggest something like "the bulk of most magazines' income came from the sale of subscriptions". Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC) it was not until 1904 that another magazine, Everybody's, managed to outstrip Munsey's circulation: Munsey's peak circulation? We earlier mentioned that things began going south, though that might not have started by 1904. I think you're asking if Everybody's exceeded Munsey's circulation as it was in 1904, or exceeded the peak? As it happens it was both: Munsey's never got close to a million circulation, but Everybody's did in 1904, and passed Munsey's on the way. Perhaps if I add the "almost a million" that would settle it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC) Yes, I think that would work well. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC) The magazine was not initially profitable, and for years Munsey was under immense financial pressure. An advertising campaign in 1886 brought a surge in circulation: I'd like to see some detail here, if it's known: how much money was Munsey losing? How many readers came in 1886, and how did that compare to its previous circulation? The story is told in detail in Argosy (magazine); it's a long story and as far as Munsey's is concerned it's the preface, so I didn't want to give too much detail. There's no simple number to quote, unfortunately -- Munsey was losing money, then he got credit with his suppliers because of his support for Blaine's presidential campaign, then he lost more money, then he had a brief success via an advertising campaign, then that circulation shrank again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC) Are the circulation figures not at least known? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Added; unfortunately this is a case where the secondary source disagrees with the primary source so I had to add a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Bangs found Munsey to be so energetic as to be a difficult man to work for: better and simpler as difficult to work for? Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC) By this time Munsey had written several novels for his own magazines, and he submitted one, titled A Tragedy of Errors, to Bangs: does "his own magazines" mean "magazines he edited himself"? He also owned the magazine that Bangs edited. I checked and all his serialized novels had appeared in The Golden Argosy, so I changed the sentence to say that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) of pay rates of different magazines: part of a long sentence: I think this clause could be cut without sacrificing much (it's all obvious from what immediately follows). Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) $163.00: recommend losing the decimal places as false precision. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Munsey was forced to borrow the money elsewhere, at 18% interest: I get the sense that that was a lot, but there's nothing here to contextualise it. There's nothing more in the source; the context says it was high, as you say, but I think most readers would feel that 18% would be a high interest rate almost anywhere and any time, so I was hoping this could stand by itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) He notified about ten thousand dealers that ANC would not be carrying Munsey's Magazine, but that it could be had directly from the publisher for seven cents in New York plus the cost of shippingto the dealer: cuts for brevity suggested. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) seven cents price: compound modifier, so hyphenate. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) A trickle of orders: consider a rephrase per MOS:IDIOM Done. This is one part of the MoS I dislike; I understand the reasoning but it can make the language unnecessarily bloodless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) began to be used in magazines: for magazines? We wouldn't say "soldering irons began to be used in computers", though we might say "in computer manufacture". Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) The Blood'n'Thunder Guide: spaces around 'n', as if it were and? I'm not sure here. Done -- I checked a couple of mentions elsewhere on the web and it seems that's how it's usually rendered. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) from ten cents to fifteen cents: consider cutting the first cents. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) The Argosy had merged with another of Munsey's magazine: magazines Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) the combined magazine was now far outperforming Munsey's, with a circulation of 500,000: which one had a circulation of 500,000? Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi UC, gentle nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• This was not a completely new idea: the Ladies' Home Journal had been launched at a price of five cents in the 1880s, and was by this time priced at ten cents,: a story of a magazine raising its prices is an odd choice as the first data point to show that lowering prices was a tried-and-tested idea.

  The most notable thing about Munsey's is that it started the ten cent magazine revolution. The LHJ was not a general magazine, so it doesn't really count as a precursor; Mott mentions it in this context because it had an enormous circulation and had started at five cents -- when it went up to ten cents it was still far cheaper than the general monthlies. Mott mentions it so he can dismiss it: despite the price and success it wasn't competing in the same arena as Munsey's. I think it does have to be mentioned. The point the paragraph is trying to convey is that it was the particular combination that was new -- a cheap general magazine, funded by advertisements rather than subscriptions. I think to cover that the predecessors have to be covered. Perhaps if I reverse the order? E.g. "This was not a completely new idea: the Ladies' Home Journal was priced at ten cents (and had been launched earlier in the decade at only five cents)"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think that phrasing more effectively shows what you're trying to. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• though it was targeted at women rather than a general audience: just looking at the Munsey's cover in the infobox, I wonder how "general" the audience was -- particularly given our previous conversation about cover girls. It sounds like it was really targeted at men. More generally, don't most magazines have a target audience in some sense?

  The sources don't cover this explicitly, but I think the point of a "general magazine" is that it tried to appeal to all possible buyers. Certainly to men, but there are a couple of mentions elsewhere in the magazine histories that the buying power associated with the readers of advertisements in general magazines was thought to be mostly held by women. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  OK: if the sources consistently call Munsey's "general" and nobody has written about its specific appeal to men, then we're good here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

More (hopefully) to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these; all replied to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi UC, just checking to see if there will be more to come. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Not until next week, though I don’t have any issue with Mike’s replies above and would not wish to be an obstacle to promotion if it is felt that consensus has been established for that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• about Washington, D.C. society and politics: comma after D.C. (MOS:GEOCOMMA). Presumably, DC politics were also national politics, so perhaps "about politics and the society of Washington, D. C."?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Does A. E. Fenner rate a redlink?

  I don't think so -- I can't find any other references to them. I included the name because Mott mentions it, and his work is a survey so apparently he thought the illustrations were notable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest giving the date of the Alger portrait in the caption, as it's a lot older than his appearances in the magazine: he didn't look like that when he was writing for them. Alternatively, can we find one from closer to 1892?

  Added the date to the caption. For more recent portraits there's this, but it not very near the relevant date and the quality is not great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Munsey's own novel Derringforth was part way through serialization when the first monthly issue appeared: I'm not quite clear on the implication of this: I'm mentally adding "... and so had to stop being serialised", but don't really have anything to hold onto with that. What, if anything, happened to the novel after the change? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  In checking the references for this I discovered I had misremembered Mott's point when I added that; it was partway through serialization when the first ten-cent issue appear, not partway through when the schedule changed to monthly. I've fixed that. I mentioned it mainly because I think it's interesting that Munsey published his own writing -- that paragraph is "what were the typical early contents of the magazine". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• An early contribution from a well-known writer was Hall Caine's The Christian: we just said that the "initial" (=early) writers, apart from Alger, were not well known. I'd suggest changing the framing of this sentence to be clearer that something is changing here in 1896.

  Changed to "In 1896 another well-known writer appeared: Hall Caine's The Christian, serialized from 1896 to 1897 ...".

• which was very popular: a bit limp (and arguably unverifiable): what are we basing this on?

  Mott says it "was a great hit"; presumably he's referring to reader reaction in letters, but he doesn't say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• The covers were initially simply a table of contents for the magazine: as phrased, it sounds like we're talking about the "Etchings" column here. Suggest "the magazine's covers were initially simply a table of contents".

  Done; and that's more concise anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Fiction from the early monthly issues was heavily used to provide The Argosy with reprinted fiction to fill its pages when it began its fiction-only policy at the end of 1896: this is a bit clunky. Suggest something like "When Argosy began its fiction-only policy at the end of 1896, Munsey heavily re-used reprinted fiction from the magazine's earlier monthly issues."

  Yes, much better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Most style guides would write numbers under twenty in words, but there's no problem here as long as consistency is observed.

  MOS:NUMERAL allows a choice for these numbers, but I've no strong opinion myself, though as I have a maths background I probably have a bias towards digits rather than words. I can change these if you think that would read more naturally. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• In the middle of the 1890s Munsey's became known for printing images of "half-dressed women and undressed statuary". This would seem to fit more naturally with the pretty girls on the cover: presumably they were at least part of the reason? More generally, the paragraph above this is a bit short, and I wonder if some reorganisation could/should be done around here. I'd also attribute this quote as being both an opinion and, more relevantly, important at least as much for its creative phrasing as for the information conveyed.

  I've moved a couple of sentences around; how does that look? And I've attributed the phrase inline. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• , a natural vehicle for numerous halftones: I found this a bit unclear: perhaps "a natural vehicle for illustrations"? We've mentioned that they were halftones a few sentences ago.

  I used "halftones" instead of "illustrations" because of the importance of the halftones -- as this editorial points out ("Cheap Magazines") the halftones were an advantage the cheap magazines had acquired, and the ability to print a lot of them while keeping costs down was key to Munsey's' success. I don't like "a natural vehicle for including numerous cheap halftones" as it appears to mean that there were also expensive halftones. If you think the point is already clear to the reader I can make it "illustrations", as you suggest. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  No, I don't think any of these solutions are better, and reading again there's enough mentions of halftones around that readers should understand that they're pictures. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Etchings" (now including poetry): perhaps related to the organisation point above: the now reads oddly since we mentioned Ella Wheeler Wilcox contributing poetry to this section two paragraphs ago.
• "Literary Chat" and "Etchings" (now including poetry) were joined by "Impressions by the Way" (editorials): from the order of things here, it sounds like this should have something to do with nudity, but I'm not seeing it. Perhaps a further thing to look at in (re)organisation? Could we perhaps put a halftone illustration somewhere down here, as we're talking a lot about how attractive they were?

  I haven't found a halftone from that era that I think is good enough quality. See this, for example; the left hand page is the sort of thing The Independent was commenting on, but it's a poor reproduction. Re the order: "Literary Chat", "Etchings" and "Impressions by the Way" were generally text only and didn't carry nudes as far as I've seen. I don't want the mention of the nudes to overwhelm the paragraph -- Mott treats the magazine's contents at greater length than I've given here, and separates out a half-paragraph to talk about the temporary emphasis on nudes. In this shorter length I'm finding it harder to keep that discussion from being connected to the sentences that relate other changes in the content. Perhaps '"Literary Chat" and "Etchings" (now including poetry) were among the departments not including illustrations; they were joined by "Impressions by the Way" (editorials).' The "not including illustrations" could be said to be original research, I suppose (i.e. the secondary sources don't make that comment), but it's not very onerous or speculative research. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• After the Spanish–American War began in 1898: in April 1898 -- any reason not to be precise?

  No -- done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Munsey himself argued: I would cut himself here as needless and arguably WP:PUFFERY.

  Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Link Republican to the political party.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• leaving Titherington in overall charge: it's been a while since we mentioned him: suggest "the editor, Richard Titherington" or "Titherington, as editor, in overall charge".

  Took the first option. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• In return Davis agreed to pay ten cents a word for everything he bought: from Henry, or from everyone?

  Amended. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• all of Munsey's magazines: I'm not quite sure on the AmerE here, but the article has generally gone for all the magazines rather than all of the magazines. BrE would go strongly for the latter: unless there's some rule I'm missing here, I think we should try to be consistent, one way or the other.

  I'm fine with "all of the magazines", and like you I'm unsure what the AmEng would be (my Engvar is now mid-Atlantic, meaning both sound right to me after decades on each side), but I don't see any examples of "all the magazines" -- can you point me at one? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• World War I brought more articles on military topics: per WP:POPE, I would suggest giving a date here (also possibly ambiguous: do we mean 1914 or 1918?) Could also link WWI.

  I think WWI is typically thought of as an overlink, but I've linked it here as better than adding a date, which wouldn't be precise anyway -- the war starts towards the end of the year, and so the first articles might have been in 1915. Mott says "With the coming of the First World War, the successive numbers of Munsey's were very martial" and goes on to give details, without dates. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Link science fiction? Is there a point to be made here about the (lack of) esteem in which the genre was held?

  Linked. I don't think so -- it wasn't really considered a separate genre until the mid-1920s, and the sources don't mention anything like that. I think the low opinion of sf as a genre derived from its origins in the pulps; pre-war sf that was written outside the genre magazines, such as Last and First Men or Brave New World, was not derided. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• The section headers on "Contents and Reception" read oddly to me. I think we really need a subheader for the C19th to balance the one for the C20th: otherwise, the reader might expect the first part to cover the magazine in general. I think the Assessment section could stand alone as a "Reception" section: it's longer than the L1 "Bibliographic details" section that follows.

  Added a 19thC section heading. I've promoted "Assessment" to level 1, but I'd like to keep the title as it is -- the most important point made in that section is that it revolutionized the magazine industry, which is not really a point about its reception. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Almost none of the academic institutions and libraries that have holdings of Munsey's Magazine have any copies of the weekly issues: presumably, the ones that don't have holdings of the magazine don't have any of its weeklies either, so we could just have "Almost no academic institutions or libraries have any copies of its weekly issues".

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Surviving copyright records indicate that Munsey's Weekly appeared on a regular weekly schedule: I think the second weekly should be cut as obvious. Could we do a routine calculation to say how many lost issues there should therefore have been?

  Cut the second "weekly". There were probably no missing issues. The history of the Weekly is so obscure that no indexes exist that I'm aware of, but Mott (who clearly examined issues) mentions no break in publication, and nor does Munsey in his 1907 account. I found a reference in another contemporary magazine that said something like "Munsey's Weekly is resuming publication", implying a break, but I have lost the reference and in any case as I recall it was vague, with no dates given, and so I was unwilling to use it. The copyright card cited from the LoC is the only source I know of that gives specific dates of issues, but it certainly doesn't list all of them, since Mott would definitely have commented on a year's break, and contemporary sources would have regarded it as restarting the magazine, not simply changing the frequency to monthly. The upshot is that I don't want to assert there were any missing issues, but I want the reader to know there is surviving evidence only for these issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Titherington is still listed as editor in September 1928: should this and the following be was?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• What makes FictionMags Index Family a high-quality (or indeed necessary) source?

  The site is run by Phil Stephensen-Payne, a professional bibliographer who is highly respected in the field. Other material on that site comes from William G. Contento, who was an amateur bibliographer who published some of the most important bibliographies in the field. The site is only used for bibliographic details, not for opinions in any way -- for example, I often use it to get exact dates for issues in which an item appeared, as the secondary source may just give a year. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• To me, the cite to WorldCat for the claim that few institutions have copies is close to the line for WP:OR (or at least WP:PRIMARY) -- it's entirely possible that collections exist which, for whatever reason, aren't on WorldCat, are misfiled under another name, or so on. At the moment I'm happy it's on the right side of that line, but has anyone else put this claim into print to help us be convincingly over it?

  TompaDompa's review above also brought this up. I think Reed's comment needs to be mentioned, and once I say that I need to qualify it since Harvard does have one issue and part of another. I did also have a cite to eBay where a bound volume of the magazine was sold a few years ago; I'm sure it was real but it had to go as OR and unreliable. The existence of that bound volume is why I worded this paragraph as "Reed reports" and why I avoided specifically saying no other issues exist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi UC, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the recent batch of replies: I'll give them a look a bit later. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

No quarrel with anything here, and nothing more to add -- support. Very nice work and will be a worthy addition to the Christie FA canon. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene

• "and priced at twenty-five cents" ==> you can also inflate this figure

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The magazine was not initially profitable" ==> was there any specific reason why this was the case?

  Not really -- it's just hard to start a successful magazine. See Argosy for the full story, but it was not for want of trying. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• In the "Publication history" section, two images ("Cover of Munsey's Magazine for November 1893" and "Advertisement in the New York Sun on October 7, 1893 for Munsey's Magazine at the ten cent price") cause sandwiching text

  Fixed, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• "over $30,000 in December 1895" ==> this figure can also be inflated

  I'd like to avoid inflating too many figures, since it interrupts the reader. In this case we've just said given the inflated figure for $3,000, so I was thinking the reader could just add a zero without me needing to say so. But if you're not convinced I can add it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• "flatbed printing process" ==> rotary press is wikilinked, but the flatbed printing process is not. Maybe wikilink it when possible, or give a small description what it is?

  Linked to History of printing#Flat-bed printing press. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• "is one recent academic comment" ==> the source is from 2000, which isn't IMO very recent. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, fair point. Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Support - Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request. What is this Galactic Central? I can't find any About Us or other explanatory page about who writes it. I admit that with a number of books cited I'd like to know if they have a reputation - can't find much information on them. Is there a reason why some sources have ISBNs and others OCLCs? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Galactic Central is run by Phil Stephensen-Payne, who is a professional bibliographer: see his SFE entry, which praises Galactic Central. As that article says, the other main collaborator was William Contento, also a highly respected bibliographer -- SFE article here which lists his publications. I use the site almost entirely for bibliographic data -- which issue of a magazine was a given story published, for example. He has some bibliographic summary information on the magazine information which I sometimes also cite.

For the books, I can tell you what I know about the reputation of most of the books, though some I only found during the research for this article. The two most important sources are Mott, whose five-volume history of US magazines is a standard work, and Britt's biography of Munsey. Britt is, as far I can tell, the only source on Munsey's life that depends on independent research -- Britt talked to many people who knew Munsey personally. Britt comes from the world of newspapers, and could be said to be biased against Munsey; he doesn't paint a very flattering picture of him. None of that material is needed here, though; newspapermen of the era loathed Munsey because he brutally killed many of the newspapers he bought, but that doesn't come up in this article.

There should be ISBNs for books new enough to have them, and OCLCs otherwise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Some light spotchecking, what information is #44 supposed to source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I had to dig through the history to figure this out. #44 is a short editorial piece by Munsey about the improvements in the magazine; he mentions the improvements in the illustratios, referring to the change from woodcuts to halftones (though he doesn't use those words). Initially this was the only source for this, but it didn't support the whole sentence, so I added the citation to p. 614 of Mott. Looking at it now, neither source makes it explicit that it was woodcuts that were the expensive predecessor to halftones, so I've added another ref to Mott which makes that statement directly. That makes the Munsey ref unnecessary so I've dropped it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo, how is this one coming along? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to be more persistent in reviews. "Levey, Nathan M. (June 1890). "Comic Papers and Their Editors". The Newsdealer. 1 (4): 79–83. " is a source that I can't find much information about. The others seem fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about the source; it's a contemporary periodical. It's only used to name a couple of artists who contributed to the magazine, and I think a contemporary source about the industry, like this, should be reliable for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like I have anything to add here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Kusma (support)

Reviewing. —Kusma (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Lead: as a general observation, there is a lot of content about the price and circulation, but nothing about the editors.

  Good point; added the two named editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  OK, but "he reduced the price" now refers to Titherington; is that intended? I would link Bangs instead of Titherington if you link to only one of them, as Bangs is blue. —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  I meant to link both and have now done so; and it would have been Munsey that raised the price so I've clarified that -- thanks for catching that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Munsey's Weekly: I know what quarto means in books; is this something else or why do you not link to the standard book format? The note should have conversion to metric (or a comparison to ISO 216 paper sizes)

  The quarto size for books is about 10" x 8"; for magazines, the source gives a slightly different size and also specifies that it's saddle-stapled. I think this is different enough that a link to quarto would not help. Added the conversion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Bangs found Munsey difficult to work for." is this just the story about Bangs and Munsey's novel?

  No; the source says "Munsey was a man of extraordinary energy. Bangs describe him as a human dynamo. The man who discovered Munsey, said Bangs, discovered perpetual motion. Munsey was all the time in and out of the office, wanting to know what his editor was doing. This practice so diverged from that of John Ames Mitchell, to which Bangs had become used, that the electrical atmosphere became too surcharged with Munsey for endurance. The immediate cause of the severance of relations between Munsey and Bangs, however, resulted from the fact that Munsey had literary ambitions." Then the story about the novel follows. [Mitchell was one of the owners of Life, where Bangs had worked for some years.) I could expand this to "Bangs found Munsey to be difficult to work for; Bangs was used to a relaxed relationship with his previous publisher, but Munsey was constantly asking him about his work"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps; that would make it clearer it was not just "publish my novel even if you don't like it". —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• "the same team that was running The Argosy" is it worth elaborating on them?

  I don't think so -- the point here is just that nobody was given sole responsibility for the magazine. Titherington says somewhere that in the early days of Munsey's magazines the editorial tasks were shared generally, but doesn't give any specifics. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• the "standard" size also has a footnote missing a metric equivalent.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Cosmopolitan cut its price to twelve and a half cents the next month" How did people pay half cents at that time?

  Good question. Wehwalt, can I pick your brains? I know the half cent coin was no longer legal tender at this time (1893). Do you know if there was a way to pay a half cent price at that time? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Technically, the half cent was never legal tender, no one had to take it, least of all the government. But yes, it had been withdrawn before 1893, and there was no other way of making change for a fractional cent. Twelve and a half cents, or one bit (one Spanish colonial real) was a traditional price, including for magazines, see here, but there were not coins to effect the making of change at that point. Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Of course people deal with prices that can't be paid exactly all the time, by adding prices for several items and then rounding up or down; I just found it confusing for a magazine that is often the only item somebody would buy. —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  I looked at Newspapers.com to see if retail prices in 1893 were expressed in tenths of a cent. I didn't see anything. Perhaps people bought two different magazines for a quarter. People read a lot of periodicals in that day. Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Few of the contributors were well-known, except for Horatio Alger" I'm not sure the "except" in this construction really works well.

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• What type of content did "The Stage" have other than nudes?

  The theater. Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Robert Lansing, William Redfield, and Franklin Knight Lane." gloss them for those of us who don't know where they are? The link William Redfield likely does not go where you want it to go; the politician is William C. Redfield.

  Fixed the link; thanks for catching that. I hesitate to give their roles because they'd take up far more space in the sentence than the names would, and where one of them had multiple roles in the government I'd need to dig up the details on when they contributed to the magazine and then determine what their job title was at that time. I was hoping "members of the government" would be enough, given that they're linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  They were more senior members of government than I expected. —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  OK -- this will take a little longer; will post again here when it's done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Almost none of the academic institutions and libraries that have holdings of Munsey's Magazine have any copies of the weekly issues." this is sourced to a WorldCat page, not ideal.

  It's not ideal; see the discussion about this in TompaDompa's review above. Gog expressed an opinion there that it's good enough for what the article uses it for, though I agree I'd like a better source if I could find one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Do we know anything at all about differences between the American and British versions?

  Nothing, sadly; the three copies listed at Galactic Central are the only reference to the British edition I can find at all. I assume there were other issues, but that's only a guess. I can't tell if they were the same contents as the American edition or not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice article overall, well written and well researched. —Kusma (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; all responded to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A few answers where I think further follow up is needed (or just could not keep quiet). —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Outstanding items now responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. The footnote for the government officials is a good compromise. Support. —Kusma (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

SC

Comments to come post-Offenbach. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support Nicely written article, meets the FA criteria to my eye. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• The first two sources are not in date order. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 March 2024 [25].

---

Protocol Wars

Nominator(s): Whizz40 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about... a long-running debate in computer science which occurred from the 1970s to the 1990s, when engineers, organizations and nations became polarized over the issue of which communication protocol would result in the best and most robust computer networks. This culminated in the Internet–OSI Standards War in the 1980s and early 1990s, which was ultimately "won" by the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) by the mid-1990s and has since resulted in most of the competing protocols disappearing. Whizz40 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Don't use fixed px size

• Captions need editing for MOS compliance (and would suggest checking the article text as well)

• File:Donald_Davies.jpg: where is that licensing coming from?

• File:Bob_Kahn_1969.jpg: why is this believed to be public domain?

• File:Battle_For_Access_Standards.png has an inadequate FUR. Ditto File:Internet-OSI_Standard_War.jpg, File:Vint_Cerf_IP_on_Everything.jpeg

• File:First_Internet_Demonstration,_1977.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, Nikkimaria. Apologies for the delay in responding. I am being held up by a heavy workload in the last couple of weeks and the next couple of weeks, plus family commitments and a bereavement in the extended family. I will come back to this in early April. Whizz40 (talk)

Comments Oppose by Ceoil

The article has great potential for a gripping story, but assumes too much knowledge on the average readers behalf. As an older person who was connected from the mid 90s, I read with interest for the first few sentences, and then lost grip; TCP/IP, PTT, DoD? Not suggesting you dumb it down, but can you please explain the meaning of the terms, and their relative importance, so the non comp-sci readers know what the issues and dynamics were. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Here are a sample of places that could do with trimming of detail for clarity, or oppositely use wiki-links, or explainers so the lost can get grounding'

• Separately, proprietary data communication protocols also emerged....wiki proprietary and legal trademarks
  • Linked "proprietary" to proprietary software. Whizz40 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Why does The first use of the term protocol...occurred in April 1967 need four refs
  • Reduced down to three; four was unnecessary. Whizz40 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• AT&T in the United States and the postal, telegraph and telephone service (PTT) in the United Kingdom, the General Post Office (GPO). The incumbent utility companies had a monopoly on communications infrastructure -
  • Reworded this sentence. Whizz40 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Licklider, Baran and Davies all found it hard to convince incumbent telephone companies of the merits of their ideas. - Innovators found it hard to convince the incumbent monopolies to innovate (or some such)
  • For this sentence, I still prefer the original wording. Whizz40 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Fine. Ceoil (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Also, between users of the best effort service, use of network resources does not enforce fairness, for any definition of it - Any definition of best effort service
  • we have the unexplained terms "fairness" and then the weird add-on "for any definition of it".
    • Clarified the wording in relation and added a couple of references. Whizz40 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• On the ARPANET, the starting point for connecting a host computer to an IMP in 1969 was the 1822 protocol - punct
  • Reworded this for ease of reading. Whizz40 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Its an enjoyable if for now confusing read - but I don't think much heavy lifting is left. More later. Ceoil (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• For accessibility for a lay reader, brief explainers on terms such Packet switching, internetworking, dynamically routing, distributed networks, etc would be v. helpful
• In the early 1960s, J. C. R. Licklider proposed the idea of a universal computer network while working at Bolt Beranek & Newman (BBN) and, later, leading the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) at the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA, later, DARPA) of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). - do we need his CV
• Only use a person's full name after first mention[26]
• Keep with either the "United States" / "United Kingdom" or "US" / "UK".
• Still only scanning, will read full through shortly. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Ceoil, I hope that things are good with you. If you are coming back with further comments then in the next few days would be good, as this is in danger of timing out. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Gog, will revisit in coming days. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. For probably good reasons, the nominator isnt in a position to engage atm, weeks old comments above remain unresolved, with no indication of a timeline for closing out. Its certainly not ready now; maybe the article will be worked on and returned at a more convenient date. Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Sohom

I want to take a look at the article at a later date. Sohom (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sohom Datta, you may wish to consider doing that sooner rather than later. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

On it, I'm not a subject matter expert when it comes to networking, but I do have some background knowledge of modern network protocols in the OSI model.

Lede

• Define "packet switching" in the lede
• The lede really isn't selling the article too well here, the first paragraph is probably fine, the rest is a bit of word salad especially if a person is not familiar with the protocols being mentioned. I would personally try to keep jargon to a minimum in the lede. (For example, instead of "X.25", try mentioning what was different about the standard)

Background

• Please provide a simplified background section where you give a brief outline of the topic and explain the context and potentially broadly talk about the protocols involved. (This used to be optional, but now is generally recommended by MOS:CS)

Packet switching vs circuit switching

• Why do we have 5 citations for the third paragraph?
• The heading of this section talks about two technologies, packet switching and circuit switching. However, the section effectively does not mention circuit switching at all (the only mention of it is in the last sentence of para 3). As a reader, I'm left confused wrt to what "circuit switching" is and why it was considered a viable competitor to packet switching at all (besides the fact that AT&T uses it)

Datagrams vs virtual circuits

• As a reader, this section starts out great, describing the two technologies and then mentioning the advantages and disadvantages of each. However, there is no mention of datagrams once we start talking about the events occuring during this "war", as a uninformed reader I'm confused as to why datagrams is even mentioned.

TCP vs CYCLADES and INWG vs X.25

• Don't create external link to RFCs, desribe what you need and move on. The average reader of this article is not going to be interested in the exact RFC spec of a protocol.
• There were two competing proposals, one based on the early Transmission Control Program proposed by Cerf and Kahn Probably use the TCP abbreviation here.
• Even in this section, I'm losing track of who/which group supported what. The first paragraph mentions that CYCLADES used virtual circuit networks, but partway through the section we learn that it's creator was a strong advocate of datagrams?
• I would suggest trying to look for more coverage of the virtual circuit camps. You've dedicated 7 paragraphs to covering the people advocating for datagrams, but only 3-4 for the virtual circuit camp.

Common host protocol vs translating between protocols

• LGTM, no issues

DoD model vs X.25/X.75 vs proprietary standards

• Ditto, this section looks good if a bit jargonny, which seems unaviodable.

I'm going to stop the review here for now to give some time refute/address my points. As I see it right now, the article's "Early computer networking" section needs some major restructuring, triming and/or content-addition to be compliant with the FAC criteria surrounding completeness (as I read them). (that being said this is my first FAC review so feel free to let me know if I went wrong somewhere) Sohom (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

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) 19:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This is still some way from gathering a consensus to promote, so I am going to archive it for the nominator to work on the issues raised off-FAC. I look forward to seeing it back here in due course, although the usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 April 2024 [27].

---

1912 suspension of Ty Cobb

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about... Baseball player Ty Cobb's suspension for going into the stands and beating up a fan. His teammates took his part and refused to play, which resulted in one of the great mismatches of all time, a group of replacement players and the manager and coaches against baseball's World Champions, which went about as you'd expect.Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Can you find a way to work the bit about Cobb being the CF of the Tigers into the first sentence? Currently the very perfunctory first sentence "During the 1912 season (what sort of season?), Ty Cobb (who's he?) was suspended for ten days" reads very oddly without any prior context.

Ty Cobb is among the best-known baseball players of all time, but for his hitting, rather than as a center fielder (a position he played for only part of his career. Still, I've done as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Aided by Connie Mack, the Philadelphia owner/manager, they did so" - "they" should be "he" (Jennings) per the previous sentence

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "teams put additional security into their stadium's" => "teams put additional security into their stadiums'" (the teams did not all share one stadium)

Done slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "to attend all four games of the series between the Detroit Tigers and the New York Yankees." - no need to relink Tigers

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "stating they would not play" => "stating that they would not play"
• "five sandlot baseball players" - what's a "sandlot player"? Is there an appropriate link?

Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "with three hits (two on bunts)" - link bunt

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "on an of the attempted stolen base" - this seems a bit mangled

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "tried throwing Home Run Baker a fastball, who" => "tried throwing a fastball to Baker, who"

I've kept the nickname but otherwise done as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "managed only a walk" - link walk

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "then Collins bunted a ball" - ah, there's the link for bunt. Move it to the first usage

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "each of which drive in a run" - wrong tense

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "urged them got go back to work" - this seems a bit mangled --

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

That's everything. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Prose issues

I remember reading about this in Strange But True Baseball Stories or something like that when I was a kid, and as such I am pleased to see that we have an article about it. It might make a great movie (yeah, we think fans only started doing things like this since the pandemic). However, some of the prose sounds like it would be more appropriate in a book of that nature, or a baseball history magazine, than an encyclopedia article written under an NPOV policy. And there are other issues:

• "By the fourth inning of the fourth game, on May 15, 1912, with the stream of insults continuing and questioning Cobb's racial ancestry, the hot-tempered Southerner had had enough, and raced into the stands, punching and kicking Lucker, who due to an industrial accident had lost eight fingers and could not defend himself." First, there's "hot-tempered Southerner" ... doesn't seem right in Wikivoice (Yes, I know Cobb was infamous for his temper, but this way it reads like a false title more at home in hack journalism). Second, just look at this sentence and how it's practically on its knees begging to be broken up (Pro tip: If you've got two clauses in your sentence starting with "and", it's a run-on sentence).

• ".. even so mild-mannered a player as Cy Young" Tone issues again.

• "Cobb's patience, never one of his outstanding character traits ..." Again, is this the Wikipedia way to say this?

I may have some more things to point out later, but this will do for now. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Case, encyclopedic descriptions of things that involve emotion can be an issue. I've changed the first two. On the third, the source says, "By the fourth game, May 15, Cobb’s patience, a fine filament under the best of circumstances, was wearing thin." I think it worthwhile to be able to explain that Cobb was not a patient man. The reader should be on notice that Lucker was yelling insults at someone with a short temper and (as is related elsewhere) someone known to be violent. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Your improvements are better. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've cut it to "Cobb's patience was nearly exhausted."

OK. Some other things:

• "By 1912, rowdyism in Major League Baseball (MLB) stadiums ..." I am not sure we should use the formalized term as the entity we have long known as MLB did not exist legally until earlier this century—it was the two leagues. Would that term have been in common use at that time? Maybe we should just say "major league stadiums". And was that fan unruliness exclusive to just big-league ball? IIRC baseball at every level at the time had that issue ... they had Ladies' Day for a reason.

The source discusses only the majors. From what I recall from my research for earlier articles, one of the things Ban Johnson pledged in founding the AL was a family-friendly environment, which was one of the reasons he was so anxious to get rid of John McGraw. There doesn't seem to have been much difference between the leagues by 1912.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• And while we're on that, would "stadium" have been appropriate for the time, either? "Stadium" makes me think of the 50,000+-seat venues also used for football and rock concerts, where the announcer's voice audibly echoes once or twice à la that scene in Airplane!, that didn't become common until about the mid-'60s or so. Back then, as with both games discussed in this article, baseball was played in "parks" or "fields", per that George Carlin routine. Perhaps "major-league ballparks" is the best way to say it?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Is it necessary to say that Jennings was from Pennsylvania? The only way I see his geographic origins being relevant is if we are trying to subtly justify Cobb's actions not only on the fact of Lucker being an asshole (which, by today's standards too, he was) but by Lucker having picked that specific way of getting under Cobb's skin (which by today's standards of course makes Cobb look even worse, but then again who yells things like this at ballplayers now? This was just a classic "ESH" situation). I think the quotes are enough to show what Jennings understood without needing to tell us he was from the North (and also, it is assuming a lot that Jennings, from Eastern Pennsylvania coal country, was unaware before his baseball career that "half-nigger" wasn't fighting words in many situations ... I think there were very few places in fin de siécle America where people would have been astounded that a man would be set off as much as Cobb was that day (as indeed Ban Johnson seemed to be)).

I've deleted it. Jennings, of course, spent years in Baltimore, a Southern city by the standards of the times. How to describe the insults and the reaction by Cobb and by others is something I'm trying to be very careful with in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, even today, Baltimore is sort of where North and South meet (weren't the stands at Memorial Stadium segregated until '64?) He had to have understood how Cobb would take this. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Despite Cobb being thrown out in the fourth inning, Detroit beat New York, 8–4." Despite? Somehow, not with Sam Crawford, another future Hall of Famer, in the Tigers' lineup, I don't think they were absolutely helpless with Cobb out of the game. It might provide better context to know what the score was when Cobb was ejected. I mean, if the Tigers were down 4-0 and came back to win, yeah, that might mean something, but if they were up 8-0 and the Yankees fell short trying to come back, well, so what? Certainly this information is available somewhere ...

The box score is here. They were up 3-2 when Cobb was kicked out (the top of the fourth), fell behind 4-3 in the bottom of the inning and then scored three in the top of the fifth and two more in the ninth. I've cut it to simply the final score.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• It would be nice to know, if we could, what Lucker's opinion of Cobb actually was, as expressed to the baseball press, even in paraphrase (I half think it was some variation of that modern jerkass self-justification, "I thought it would be funny ...").

He denied doing more than good-natured joshing, and says Cobb got the wrong guy. Of course, the secondary sources are unanimous against him, but I now give him his say.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• It would also be interesting to have some idea, now that I've added the inflation templates, how serious the fines were to Cobb and the team. How big a hit was it/would it have been? Because a $1,500 fine, per the inflation adjustment, would be something a modern player would put on his credit card before going back home/to the hotel or airport after the game (and for that reason, naturally, MLB would probably fine a modern player into six figures for doing something like this) What was Cobb's salary at the time? How many games worth of road gate was the team's proposed fine equivalent to? It had to be a serious hit for them to put on a replacement team that got creamed as an alternative.

I got Cobb's salary ($9,000). Thus he was fined not quite a game's pay. One of the SABR article says "Tigers owner Frank Navin anticipated that the players might refuse to take the field without Cobb. He also knew that a forfeit would carry a $5,000 fine, which in 1912 was more than many players made in a year, and potentially result in the loss of the franchise." That's as far as the sources seem to go into the finances of this. Cobb was already wealthy by 1912 and became more so, therefore the fine, even if he had been required to pay it, was nothing to him.

• I remember reading that "Maharg" was actually "Graham"—for some reason (probably not wanting to be associated forever with this farce beyond the money). Is there anything in the sources on this?

His SABR biography dispels that myth.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay ... more evidence, as if it were needed, that '70s baseball books meant for younger readers are not reliable sources. Especially when mistily remembered.

Of course, all the SABR piece proves to me (not that it necessitates a change in the article) is that Maharg was born with that name. I do think it's quite possible that at some point some ancestor reversed the "Graham" spelling as "Maharg" is not really that common a name (and "Mahar" is the more frequent Irish last name). It was also not unknown for people to significantly change the spellings of their last names before the 20th century in order to evade prosecution or debt collection, especially when relocating (For instance, I have ancestors who were part of Clan McGregor in Scotland; when they all found themselves proclaimed after the Battle of Glen Fruin they took the name Agor so that they might live to die natural deaths, and it is still used in the family today). I suspect in Maharg's day this might have been more widely understood. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I admit to reading the same books and thinking the same thing. And I agree, such things were common. Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• This might be somewhat OR-ish, but I do think this counts as the first MLB strike of any kind. The Indians' action in the endnote was really more of a walkout ... they chose not to play that game to go to their teammate's funeral. Whereas the Tigers' players set a condition for their return (they didn't win, but they did make the effort), as most workers on strike do.

Only the one source gives credit to the Indians for the first strike, so I'm going to lose the footnote and go with the majority.

Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done or responded to all those now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

OK. I took the trouble of changing "partisan" to "partial" ... that seems to fit better as the former word is really about politics or debates, not what was going on here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

PCN02WPS

• "accident about 1910, and subsequently did odd" → remove comma
• "During pregame fielding practice Cobb muffed a fly ball" → I would say to link "muffed" but I don't think there is a good thing to link it to (other than Muffed punt, which is football-specific). Maybe for clarity for non-sports-familiar readers we should change "muffed" to "dropped" or something?

Linked to the entry in glossary of baseball terms

• "perhaps Davy Jones, or Sam Crawford" → I think the comma after "Jones" is unneeded
• "Cobb was kicked out of the game, but was allowed to remain" → remove comma
• Consider linking "Georgia congressional delegation" to United States congressional delegations from Georgia

I guess, though it seems pretty far afield to me.

• "regarding his ancestry, and stated that" → remove comma
• "Jennings and his coaches Deacon McGuire and Joe Sugden" → Sugden links to the wrong person
• "shirts off their backs and they were signed to one-day" → "they" seems superfluous here

I think if you don't say "they", there is a risk of confusion as to who is meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• two-time defending World Series champions" → link World Series
• "the future Hall of Famers" → link "Hall of Famers" to National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum
• "In the top of the first inning" → "top", as it is currently linked, is not anchored to anything in the Glossary page; recommend changing the section in the link to "Top of the inning", which is an entry in the glossary
• "with three hits" → link Hit (baseball)

It is linked further up in the article as a statistical category in which Cobb led the league

• link fastball on first mention
• Ditto for foul ball
• "walked to load the bases" → link Glossary of baseball terms#bases loaded
• "Maharg was unable" → this sentence is a little long; at one of the commas, I would recommend breaking the sentence into two
• "Catcher Lapp threw to first in an attempt to pick off Maney" → link pickoff
• "bases-loaded double, and was himself" → sort of awkward wording, recommend a full stop after "double" and beginning the next sentence with "He was himself"
• "who was picked off first base" → reads like there might be a word missing, perhaps "picked off at first base", or "of first base"?

No, that's correct. See for example Herb Washington.

• "Since Sunday baseball was illegal" → "Sunday baseball" redirects to "Sunday sporting events", you can anchor the link to the "Baseball" section
• "Detroit had a record of 13–14" → unless there is a prior instance of a record being given, add {{Win-loss record}} here
• "won their next four games, but finished the season" → remove comma
• "assistant trainer for the Philadelphia Phillies, and was allowed" → remove comma
• "In 1919, he was one" → I think you can get rid of one of the two instances of "1919" in this sentence - my recommendation would be to just start the sentence "He was one..." and let the "1919 World Series" link stay intact and tell the reader what year it happened

I enjoy reading about old sports so this was an enjoyable one. Nice work! If you've got the time, I have an old sports-related FAC here that could really use some eyes. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at it. All done or commented on here. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Everything looks good, happy to support the nom. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review

Image placement and licence seems OK, one image lacks ALT text. Are The Sun (New York City) and Statmuse a reliable source? Bleacher Report doesn't seem to be a very good source. Everything else seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The Sun was a serious newspaper, according to our article on it. Statmuse is reliable for statistics. I've eliminated Bleacher Report. All three images have alt text. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Bak, 1994, needs a publisher location. (Dallas)

Actually, I intended to omit locations from all books. I don't consider them helpful in this day and age.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Per MOS:LEADLENGTH could the lead be condensed to 2 or 3 paragraphs; the current 4 are all very short.

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Could the lead be condensed. I think it could be condensed with little loss of information.

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• "The replacement players in the Tigers dugout". Apostrophe?

I think there is no apostrophe. See for example, this.

I am unsure if I am being gently ribbed. Leaving aside the stylistic title, from page 11 of the same book "from inside the Tigers' dugout": note the "' ". Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Changed to "Detroit dugout".--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• "in the aftermath of Cobb's suspension, almost all teams provided ushers." Assuming "ushers " refers to Usher (occupation), how did this reduce heckling? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think in the sport context, the role of an usher is broader than that. To quote from the article you linked, "Ushers are also expected to help with security and to ensure that only people with proper authority have access to backstage areas. Ushers also monitor the crowds and can summon security when needed".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand the point, but can we convey this to a non-North American reader somehow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The source is not very vocal on this point, so I've excluded the word "ushers" and simply said they complied with Johnson's request. Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is a former FA. It is about the monastery in Kyiv, which was rebuilt since its destruction in the 1930s. The article about the monastery and its beautiful cathedral has been extensively expanded. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• As Ukraine does not have freedom of panorama consistent with Wikipedia's definition of freedom, all images of 3D works (including the building itself) will need to include a tag for the original work.

@Nikkimaria: Understood, but there is is discussion here that I think makes the situation with this monastery less clear cut. I have replaced one of the article's images with the one that was discussed. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

All the images of the reconstructed parts of the monastery have now been removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Several 3D works still need a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Tags added. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Still some missing, eg File:Kiev_khmelnitsky.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Image removed. There were several tags there, and I have no idea why you still think another is required. Please advise which other images in the article still do not meet the FA criteria, and I will remove them as well. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Kyev_Zakrvsky_map_02.png (here) needs an author date of death. Ditto File:Plan_of_St._Michael's_Golden-domed_Monastery_in_Kyiv.jpg (here)

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Er, looks like one of the authors listed died less than 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Tag replaced. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Kyiv_Pechery_Kalnofoysky_Athanasius_Teraturgema,_1638.jpg (here) needs a US tag. Ditto File:Kyiv-Michael-monastery.jpg (here).

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Київ._Михайлівський_Золотоверхий_собор.jpg (here): which rationale from the Russian tag is believed to apply?

2 (a). Amitchell125 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ditto File:Cathedral_Church_of_St._Michael's_Golden-domed_Monastery.jpg (here),

@Nikkimaria: I have changed the tag, do you agree with the one I have used? Amitchell125 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria:1914, Kyiv—text amended to make this more obvious. Do you agree with the tag?

FYI, pings don't work if they're not signed. Yep, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Cossacks_of_Haydamatsky_Kosh_of_Slobid_Ukraine_near_the_St._Michael's_Cathedral_in_Kyiv.jpg (here).

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Tag replaced. Was it not first published in 1918? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying it was? The source link provided appears to simply state it was taken then. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No source found after an extensive search, so image removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Румовища_собору_Михайлівського_золотоверхого_монастиря_після_підриву_14_серпня_1937_року.jpg (here) needs a US tag.

Image (dated 1937) now removed from article. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ditto File:Michael_of_salonica.jpg (here).

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Carl_Peter_Mazer_-_St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Monastery.jpg (here and here): when and where was this first published?

Both drawings were made in 1851 for a project that never materialised. They are to be found in an album now at the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm. Commons pages edited accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If the project never materialized, when were they published? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm unclear why you are asking about works of art being published, as most works of art are never 'published'. Imo this tag is correct—if I am wrong, please let me know which is the correct tag to use for these drawings. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking about publication because publication is what matters in most instances for US copyright status. For example the current tagging indicates that "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929." Do we know that that happened? If no, then to figure out the appropriate tag to replace that with, we need to know what the first publication known is. This applies to several other works as well - we can't assume date of creation and publication are the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: If Mazér died in 1884 and his 1951 drawings were never published but have subsequently made available on the internet in Ukraine, which tag do you advise I use for them? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

When were they made available on the internet? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The link from WikiCommons states "05 . 04 . 2022". Amitchell125 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

If that is the earliest publication, {{PD-US-unpublished}} might apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Refectory_of_St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Monastery.jpg (here): if this is dated to the 1930s it can't have been published before 1929. Ditto File:Economic_Gate,_St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Monastery.jpg (here),

Both images now removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Replacement image found to depict the Economic Gate. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

What's the status of this photo in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Tag added. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ditto File:Ceremonial_kissing_of_the_holy_remains_of_St._Barbara_(St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Monastery,_Kyiv).tif (here).

Image replaced with similar photograph (known author, known date of publication). Amitchell125 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Lithograph_of_Mikhailovsky_Golden-Domed_Monastery._Kyiv.jpg (here) needs an author date of death and info on first publication.

Date already provided, but author not able to be identified. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If the work dates to 1911 and the author is not able to be identified, how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Where was this published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The source is the website (I searched but have so far not found any further information). Tag replaced.Amitchell125 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This tagging requires that the work was published in a certain place by a certain date - can that be verified to have happened? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, so image removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ditto File:V._Nikolaev_-_drawings_of_the_iconostasis_of_St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Cathedral_in_Kyiv.jpg (here).

Done. The best date to be found is still "1880s", though. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Is that a creation date or is that known to be a publication date? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Publication. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose simply due to the volume of issues - happy to revisit if they can be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Above issues addressed, hopefully. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

FromSupport from Tim riley

I'll look in over the next day or so, Tim riley talk 08:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

First comment after an initial read-through: we need to be clear which language the article is supposed to be in. At present we have a mish-mash of English and American spellings: BrE centimetres, centre, metres, remodelled, storey, and traveller alongside AmE center, colored, colorless, honoring, neighborhood, remodeled, and sepulcher. Those the ones I spotted, but there may be more. Either BrE or AmE throughout, please. Tim riley talk 08:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley: BrE now in place as recommended, and rest of article checked. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

After a second perusal I have no further comments. One or two things in the prose I'd have written differently but there's nothing that calls for objections from me. The content of the article is not within (or anywhere near) my area of expertise but to my eye it looks balanced, comprehensive and well and widely sourced, and it is beautifully illustrated. Having reviewed other articles by the nominator I feel confident that the content meets the FA criteria and that once the language is sorted out I shall be able to support. Tim riley talk 09:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Happy to add my support. A top-notch article, it seems to me. I look forward to its appearance on our front page. Tim riley talk 22:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Review and support from Gerda

I'll look now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead makes sense, but I'll return to it after reading the rest. The infobox has a bit too many ill links for my taste, but that's no problem. The headers and article structure look fine. I'd probably integrate the one See also item as a link in the article.

Reading with pleasure, there are only tidbits:

Frescoes

• Mary is linked here, but wasn't further up.

Link moved. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Mosaics

• Apostles is a very general link, perhaps Disciple (Christianity) of Apostle (Christianity)?

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead proves fine. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request. This just looks like a random website to me - can we trust that it reflects the encyclopedia? I see lots of Ukrainian news websites in the source list, does anyone know whether they are reliable? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'll check the dictionary entry. Any news websites that were used cited non-controversial information, and seem quite reliable to me. Is there a particular reference that concerns you? Amitchell125 (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The entry seems fine, see the identical text here. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Nothing specifically, just that my familiarity with Ukrainian news isn't great. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Aza24

Happy to review this. May be later this week. Best – Aza24 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've been delayed, but should be able to look at this either tomorrow or Wednesday. Best – Aza24 (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comments below:
• Generally, I applaud the depth of research present here. Given the variety of sources, and the vast amount in Ukrainian, I'm convinced that this article is worthy FA-worthy in its coverage and survey of the relevant literature.
• When speaking about the time of Iziaslav I, could something be said to explain to what nation/empire Kyiv was controlled by? I.e. a mention of Kievan Rus'. Y Done. AM
• "wealthiest monasteries in Ukraine"—again, what is "Ukraine" here? Perhaps "in what is now Ukraine"? Y Sorted. AM
• Could the ref for Tagebuch des Erich Lassota von Steblau have an orig-date/year=? Y Done. AM
• There's a few architectural terms in Lassota's quote, which I suggest be linked, e.g. cupola and choir. Y Done. AM
• You have "Saint Sophia" and "St. Sophia"—I'd stick to one. Y Done (should be St Sophia). AM
• aisle could be linked, given its specific meaning for churches. Y Done. AM
• II don't understand what "low-strength soil" means—is there a better way to explain it? Y Sorted. AM
• "To prevent public protests, the art critics ... were arrested"—not entirely sure of this meaning either; are you saying that these art critics were expected to oppose the demolition, so were arrested before they could say anything? Or had they already commented on it? Y Done. AM
• I'm wondering if the "Restoration" should also be a subsection of "history"; otherwise the "History" section alone is incomplete, and makes it seems like its history ends at demolition. Alternatively, the "History" section could be renamed "History [of original building (or something?)] Y Done, let me know what you think. AM
• Similarly, the "In modern Ukraine" seems strange as its own section. Y Agreed, text now moved. AM
• Could Cathedral artworks (pre-1935)#Frescoes somehow be linked when the "In the 1880s, the Russian art historian Adrian Prakhov discovered" paragraph begins?
• I'm afraid I don't think I'll have time to read more in depth, but I've skimmed through the rest and found no other issues. Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aza24: All the above now addressed, apart from one comment—sorry, I don't understand this last one. Could you explain it please? Amitchell125 (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aza24, is there any more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to support this article.

@Amitchell125, as for the last comment (a minor observation, which does not effect my support): when I read Prakhov's discovery in the 19th century section, I'm wanting to see a link to the frescoes in question. Since those frescos are mentioned later in the article (in the Cathedral artworks (pre-1935)#Frescoes) section, I'm wondering it the 19th-century could somehow link to the Cathedral artworks (pre-1935)#Frescoes. – Aza24 (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment from ——Serial Number 54129

In passing, Amitchell125, and without wanting to politicize anything, the history sections overall only bring us up to the early/mid-2000s. Obviously, the elephant in the room is current events, and the reader will almost certainly want to know how the monastery fares at the moment. Does it still stand? Has it been repurposed? Etc. There is a bit of a dearth of information overall from ~2002, and considering it was consecrated in memory "of all the Ukrainian victims of Soviet repression", it begs the question even more. Also, for example, the present tense is used—for example, where "12 bells that are tuned chromatically" and "and can play 23 well-known Ukrainian melodies". Really? Is it still playing 23 Ukranian melodies? According to the BBC, it's taken a bit of a battering. In a similar vein, why no images of the post-1997 restored cathedral, in its blue and gold? I saw the discussion with Nikkimaria above, but at least one would be available under NFCC, I would've thought, being literally "an illustration of the topic of the article in question", etc. I mean, the whole of Kyiv has been listed by the UN as a site of World Heritage "in danger". Apologies if I've confused/got confused by anything. But if not... what. ——Serial Number 54129 19:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: Thanks for the above. I will check for any more recent information directly relating to the monastery (e.g. the bells, the effects of the war), and any national events that have taken place there since it was rebuilt. The BBC article doesn't seem to mention the monastery, so I'm unsure what you are referring to, please explain.

The issue with the images of the new buildings cannot I think be helped—as I understand it, the freedom of panorama rules for Ukraine prevents any image of a modern building being used for the article unless I have permission from the architect. @Nikkimaria: do the NFCC allow one image of the post-1991 monastery to be used? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, with an appropriate rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll see if I can produce something. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Plenty to chose from... ——Serial Number 54129 13:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

See here for the image I have used. The problem is that the Commons images of the modern monastery are in WikiCommons because they are considered to be public domain, except that none of them are, of course! Amitchell125 (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

1914 FA Cup final

Nominator(s): Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This was the first final to be attended by a reigning monarch. Although both teams struggled with the heat and nerves, the King was treated with a worldie. I've used contemporary and modern sources, and am curious what you think of it. All comments are appreciated! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't think "of which six Lancastrians" works grammatically. I think it should be "of whom six were Lancastrians" (in two places)
  • Done
• "Watched by a crowd of 72,778, although attendance figures ranged between 72,000 and 100,000" - this reads oddly - if wildly varying figures were given, a reader may wonder how you settled on the figure of 72,778? I think you need to clarify that this was the official attendance figure
  • Removed the latter part (but retained it in the body of the article)
• "became the first footballer to receive the trophy from a reigning monarch" - is this not a bit redundant to the mention just a few sentences earlier that it was the first final attended by a monarch?
  • True, reworded
• "Burnley began its campaign" => "Burnley began their campaign" would be by far the more common way to express this
  • Done
• Boo hiss to Liverpool for beating Gillingham!
  • This made me chuckle, thanks.
• You mention that West Ham and QPR played in the Southern League but not the Gills?
  • Added
• "Villa won 12 of their last 13 matches before the semi-final tie" => "Villa had won 12 of their last 13 matches before the semi-final tie"
  • Done
• "It was the first meeting between both clubs" => "It was the first meeting between the clubs"
  • Done
• "The Birmingham Daily Post stated the majority expected" => "The Birmingham Daily Post stated that the majority expected"
  • Done
• "Although improvements were since made to the ground" => "Although improvements had since been made to the ground"
  • Done
• "Miller scored for Liverpool but he was ruled offside by the referee" - in that case he didn't score, is there a way to reword this?
  • Reworded
• "and made slow progression" => "and made slow progress"
  • Done
• That's what I got - great article! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Hi Chris, thanks very much! I've addressed your comments. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Support.

• "One of the people in attendance was Freeman's father, who travelled 13,000 miles (21,000 km) from Australia to see his son play": this seems unlikely as he would have to have left before the semifinals given sailing times.

That's the only thing I can find to complain about, and it doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

• Hi Mike, thank you very much! Hmm good point about the travelling. It might be possible he was staying in the UK for a few weeks/months, not just for the final, but the reports only mention him having travelled many miles and being present at the final. Do you think the sentence should be deleted or retained? Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Do the sources actually they he came specially to see his son, or just for the final? I think it's worth mentioning whatever the sources can support (so long it's not illogical per the travel time). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  The (book) references just stated the fact without further context. However, I found a reference (by the Burnley Express) that did provide some further info; Freeman sr. was visiting family! I've corrected it in the article and added the ref. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review

I'd probably put a "PD-published too long ago" template on File:1914 fa cup final programme.jpg just to be safe - while I don't think it's copyrightable, it's also quite long and "selection and arrangement" copyright might be close. That image also needs ALT text. Regarding File:The King George V presents the FA Cup 1914.jpg do we know when it was published? What is "Football Post"? Is historicalkits a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the review. I added that template, and added ALT text. Looking in the British Newspaper Archive, the second picture was already published two days after the final (in the Sheffield Daily Telegraph; added the info on Commons). Football Post was part of Nottingham Post; added wikilinks in the article. Historicalkits is a site used on many FACs, the authors/historians/experts make use of books and newspapers (as can e.g., be seen at the bottom of the Burnley entry). Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Good afternoon @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, have I addressed your concerns? Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Did check some sources for reliability indicators and it seems they are fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Nice piece of work. I made a couple of very minor tweaks, and am happy that this article satisfies the FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2024 [28].

---

Pseudastacus

Nominator(s): Olmagon (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a fossil crustacean which lived during the Jurassic and possibly Cretaceous periods. Olmagon (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Jens

• though the placement of some species remain – "remains"

Fixed Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• late Cretaceous – here and elsewhere: "Late" and "Early" has to be upper case (except for stages, which are lower case).

Fixed Olmagon (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• The carapace is usually uneven, with either small tubercles or pits across the surface. – Could be reformulated with "surface" in the first part of the sentence, otherwise it is not immediately clear what "uneven" refers to when reading.

"Surface" is now in the front half of the sentence. Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• link "invalid"

Linked Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• change "et al." to "and colleagues" to make it easier for non-experts to understand

Changed Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 1: pages are missing. Also, could you link to the exact page where the genus is named in the BHL?

Pages added and linked directly. Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• A year later, Münster described several fossils from the Solnhofen Limestone he believed to represent isopods, and erected the genus Alvis to contain the single species A. octopus, naming it after the dwarf Alvíss from Norse mythology. – Why is this relevant here? What is the point?

Alvis is a junior synonym of Pseudastacus, just added in the part where it gets synonymized (took me way too long to find out what publication lumped the two). Olmagon (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• The name Pseudastacus means "false Astacus" – from which language? If possible, provide the original word from which it is derived ("pseudo").

Seems to be a Greek word, added that now. Olmagon (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• and that P. muensteri is a junior synonym of P. pustulosus – you could directly state here that they suggested they were female specimens of P. pustulosus, which would me more reader-friendly.

Now directly written. Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• synonyms of Pseudastacus – (in the taxonbox): Why is "synonyms" in lower case, but the heading of the section in upper case?

All now start with capital letters. Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Link Oppel in the taxonbox?

Linked Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• more later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Fossils of Pseudastacus had been described prior to the naming of this genus, under other names which are currently invalid. – seems to be without a source?

The taxonomic history is explained within the section, by reading the years you will realize Bolina and Alvis (now invalid) were named prior to Pseudastacus. Olmagon (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• The generic name references the nymph Bolina from Greek mythology. – Maybe add that she "threw herself into the sea" to give a hint for why the genus was named after her? (this hint is provided in the first description).

Added. Olmagon (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• some have since been moved into different genera after they were discovered not to be closely related to the type species. – should this be "after it was discovered that they were not closely related to"?

Changed to that. Olmagon (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• In 2020, Sylvain Charbonnier and Denis Audo published a study including a summary of recognized stenochirid species, which covered the reclassification of former Pseudastacus species and left the following as members of the genus – This could be more concise, e.g. "A 2020 revision by Sylvain Charbonnier and Denis Audo retained five species within the genus Pseudastacus" or similar.

Changed to that. Olmagon (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• moved to Pseudastacus in 1861. – moved or renamed?

I suppose "renamed" works better. Olmagon (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• and is a fragment of the pincer. The chela is very large, – if "chela" is just a synonym of "pincer", then please stick to one term. Always use the same term for the same thing, otherwise the reader assumes that you mean something different.

Changed to pincer.Olmagon (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Pseudastacus is a small crustacean, with the carapace of P. lemovices reaching a length of 11 mm (0.43 in) excluding the rostrum, and a height of 6.5 mm (0.26 in).[6] The known specimens of P. pustulosus range from 4–6 cm (1.6–2.4 in) in total length. – Any reason why you cover lemovices before covering the type species?

Reordered to have the type species first. Olmagon (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• lateral – you could avoid this term by writing "on the sides".

Changed to that. Olmagon (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• arch-shaped incision. – translate for the general reader

Changed "incision" to "depression". Olmagon (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• and long setae on the margins. – explain setae (just "bristles"?)

Now explained. Olmagon (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• in a wide variety of families by many different authors – I think it is better to drop the "wide" and "many" here.

Removed. Olmagon (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Albert Oppel noticed that Pseudastacus fossils from the Solnhofen Limestone could be distinguished into two morphs – "divided" instead of "distinguished"?

Replaced with "divided" now. Olmagon (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• a separate species which in 1862 he named P. muensteri. – suggest moving "in 1862" to the end of the sentence.

Moved. Olmagon (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• actually representing female specimens of the sexually dimorphic species. – I think this doesn't fit grammatically with the first part of the sentence.

Rewrote this part a bit. Olmagon (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• possibly indicating the species exhibited gregarious behaviour, – needs a "that"

Added. Olmagon (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• You use a mixture of British and American English spellings (e.g., both "palaeo" and "paleo"). This should be uniform.

The 'a's are now removed. Olmagon (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Pseudastacus pustulosus, the type species of the genus, is also known from the most specimens. – Why "also"? Is there another one that is known from "the most specimens"?

I think I originally meant that it is both the type species and most abundant, but yeah it seems better without the also. Olmagon (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• interbedded – explain or avoid the term

Changed to "embedded between each other". Olmagon (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I think something like "alternating mudstone and clay layers" is better. Also, aren't mudstones simply the diagenetic form of clays? (i.e., clays turn to mudstones upon compaction). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Used "alternating" instead now. Geology isn't really my strong suit but the first sentence of the mudstone page seems to support that they come from clays. Olmagon (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What does the source say precisely? Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

In the abstract: This is reflected through the marine interbedded calcareous mudstones and clays. Olmagon (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not really understand this; usually you have interbedding of mudstones and sandstones, but mudstones and clays do not make sense to me; how would they have been formed? I just see that the source is a Bachelor thesis. These are generally not considered to be high-quality reliable sources per WP:Reliable sources, unless they can be demonstrated to have had significant scholarly influence, but I can't find a single paper that cites it. I fear this source has to be removed/replaced. Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Found a whole different source now and rewrote that bit to match the new source. Olmagon (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• That's all from me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

grungaloo

Marking my spot, will be back later. grungaloo (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• "noted that the name Bolina was preoccupied" - would change to "was already assigned to" or something similar

Changed. Olmagon (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The name Pseudastacus combines the Greek word ψεύδος (pseudos, meaning "false") " - Greek spelling is probably not needed, having "pseudo" is good enough I think

I don't think it's too much a problem to have it there, the Greek spelling is also shown in some other paleontology featured articles like Tyrannosaurus and Megalosaurus. If you still insist though I suppose it could go. Olmagon (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• "His analysis also found that the specimen named as Alvis octopus by Münster is not an isopod" - is to was? Keeps the tense consistent throughout this section

Changed now. Olmagon (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• "lived in Lebanon during the Cenomanian stage." - switch to "found in Lebanon" so it's consitent with the other listings

Switched. Olmagon (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Individuals with smoother carapaces are also documented, though this may be due to abrasion" - was this abrasion caused during its life or during fossilisation?

Source doesn't say unfortunately, though I guess it might be difficult to tell. Olmagon (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Will be back later with more. (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Grungaloo, just checking to see if there will be more? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Did a final read-through, nothing else stands out to me. Support grungaloo (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Morrison Man

Leaving this here just to mark my spot. Will be back with comments soon. The Morrison Man (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• "of which one was from the Redenbacher collection of the Berlin Natural History Museum" - I would change the first words around to "one of which"

Changed to that. Olmagon (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• "but have now been moved to different genera." - Change now to since?

Done. Olmagon (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• "and actually represent female specimens of the sexually dimorphic species." - I still don't think this fits with the first part of the sentence. Maybe change to something like "representing female specimens of this species."

Tried to keep "sexually dimorphic" in the sentence since I was told by one of the other reviewers to link it in the section at least once but the sentence has now been changed a bit. Olmagon (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• "This sediment in this locality" - Change this sediment to the sediment

Done Olmagon (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• "mantis shrimps" - Should this not be mantis shrimp?

Fixed. Olmagon (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• "that initially was deposited during a period of low sea level" - Change the first part to that was initially

Changed. Olmagon (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• That's all the notes I have. Apologies for taking so long to leave them here. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Considering the changes made, I will Support

Coordinator note

The last FAC was archived due to lack of feedback, and I'd hate to see that happen again; Olmagon I would recommend following up with the editors who participated last time to see if they're willing to give input this time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Just left a post about this on the WP:Paleontology talk page. Olmagon (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Olmagon, don't know why I didn't think of this before at the GAN, but have you considered doing a life restoration? We have that for all other extinct taxon FAs, and since you do restorations yourself, would be fitting? Or one could be requested at WP:paleoart. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Had been using Oppel's 1862 recons which as far as I can tell are still accurate (not too surprising with how complete Solnhofen fossils get) but I suppose I could also make one, perhaps also one of P. lemovices in addition to P. pustulosus. Not sure about the other 3 since 2 of them have no remaining material and one is just a pincer, not to mention their status as members of the genus being questionable. Olmagon (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise so many of them were already reconstructions (thought they depicted fossils). Perhaps this could be stated explicitly in the rest of the captions (instead of just "illustration"), I only see it in one? FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Now that I read this comment I'm starting to question if those are recons or extremely well-preserved fossils. I had just assumed the former all along because they look so life-like, but Solnhofen seems like the type of place to produce fossils like that. Olmagon (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, from what I checked, it didn't seem to be labelled as a reconstruction. But it's a bit hard to check them all, because the Commons descriptions don't link to the correct pages. Could you fix those links, then I and Jens could maybe check their German captions? FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Should've fixed the Sources sections of the images now. Olmagon (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I can read, they all just seem to be illustrations of particular specimens, with no indication of reconstruction. Perhaps Jens Lallensack can confirm. FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they are interpretative drawings of particular specimens, not life reconstructions. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Damn, Solnhofen preservation really is something. Well I have uploaded a reconstruction of P. lemovices now, waiting for approval on the paleoart review page. Could also restore P. pustulosus now thay those turn out not to be recons. Olmagon (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review

Some of the file have raw URL links, I think some information about what's in the link would be good lest link rot sets in. Also, File:Pseudastacus pustulosus Oppel.jpg isn't on the linked page. Images need ALT text. Spot-check upon request, and reviewing this version. Not sure that sources with DOIs need a retrieved on. There is some inconsistency in which sources have publishers and which don't (e.g #9). I have been always unsure if Frontiers in Earth Science and Frontiers... things in general are reliable or not, given what it says on Frontiers Media. Don't think that Google Books archives bring anything. Lots of oldish sources but I don't think that's wrong here. #7 needs a bit more information on what it is about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Links on the image files should be fixed now, Retrieveds removed from DOIed sources, source 9 has a publisher. Not sure what more in particular you think source 7 needs. Leaving the Frontiers source there for now but if there's a consensus to get rid of it I could probably find another article on Lebanese Cretaceous squamates to put in its place. Olmagon (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, how is this looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd love to have a discussion somewhere about the suitability of Frontiers in general, but that's not here. Do folks want a spotcheck here too? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck would be great, thanks Jo-Jo. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• 1 Need a source that says Pseudastacus=Bolina. Where is the timing of the Solnhofen limestone stated?

Sources 3 and 5 at least, anything with a systematic paleontology section for the genus lists Bolina as a junior synonym. Olmagon (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• 2 Needs a pagenumber since apparently you can't search this source.

Alvis stuff starts on page 20. Olmagon (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• 3 That doesn't say that the name Bolina was already taken.

Sorry this took embarrassingly long but I finally figured out where I first read the name was preoccupied (in the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology), apparently I saw it and forgot to properly attribute that source assuming Oppel would write the same thing in German. Anyways adding this source has made all the source numbers afterwards shift by one so I am adjusting the number points below. Olmagon (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• 6 It says "median-sized" and describes additional grooves? I am not sure that list in "Late Jurassic" always reflects species in the Solnhofen environment.

Extra grooves now mentioned, the list should all be Solnhofen since the whole paper was about Solnhofen taxa. I supposed it is median-sized compared to other members of its own family but 6 centimeters is still a small animal. Olmagon (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• 7 Can I have a copy of this page?

Here Olmagon (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Got it, where is "oldest known"? Also having some difficulty finding the "chelae" description. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion section says something about the pereiopod differences between the species and being oldest is said at the end of Conclusions. Olmagon (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• 8 Searching for "mucronatus" doesn't find the information.

Weird thing, I don't think I see it either yet that paper is cited by anything else mentioning P. mucronatus as the publication that described it. However the "claw of a large species" mentioned on page 124 and figured near the end is the type specimen (according to the P. lemovices description paper). Olmagon (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Decided to add source 7 in there as well since that paper does state the things written. Olmagon (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• 10 Searching for "minor" doesn't find the information.

The P. minor stuff is right on the linked page. Olmagon (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• 12 Can I have a copy of this page?

I think I need you to send me a wikimail so I can reply with the file attached. Olmagon (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Got it, it checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• 15 OK
• 19 Neither family name appears in the source.

Protastacidae is literally right in the title and the whole paper is about the establishment of that family, with Pseudastacus being assigned to it. Olmagon (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, not sure how I missed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• 21 Supports some of the information

• 22 Not sure what information comes from this source.

Getting placed in Chilenophoberidae. Olmagon (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• 23 OK
• 25 OK
• 25 OK
• 28 OK
• 42 Doesn't mention "minor"

Well it's not about P. minor, it's just a reference for the Lebanese Cretaceous environment. Olmagon (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• 43 OK
• 45 Supports some of the information
• 48 Supports some of the information

Gotta say, verifying stuff with sources that are 10s or 100s pages long sans pagenumbers is hard, especially when keywords don't help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm turning this into a list using "*" because it is easier to read as a list this way. Olmagon (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, is that a pass on all three? Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

No, several things in the spotcheck are outstanding. Did I send that wikimail? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Olmagon, just checking, is Jo-Jo waiting on a response from you? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly else is left unless "supports some of the information" needs me to do something about it. Olmagon (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

If you believe that you have addressed all of Jo-Jo's comment you need to ping them to tell them that. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Well then, @Jo-Jo Eumerus is there anything left to fix? Olmagon (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I really keep forgetting to finish these reviews. It seems everything checks out now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from Wolverine XI

Reads well, don't have much to complain about though a life restoration would nice. Will add some suggestions if I spot anything. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 00:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Two of those have now been added. Olmagon (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Both of these are labelled as "own work". In what way are they not OR? Where are they cited to "high-quality reliable sources"? This recent discussion is relevant. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I did make mentions of the papers I based their proportions on. I guess I could make a note in the caption about color being hypothetical and all. Olmagon (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• References: some of the works cited have a publisher location and others don't. In the latter cases, are they not known.

I had been adding locations for the books since that was a parameter which automatically pops up when adding a book as a source and not any other form of reference. Leaving it like that for now unless there's consensus for locations to be added on more sources. Olmagon (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

That is fine, and is normal practice. But isn't Palaeontologische Mittheilungen aus dem Museum des koenigl. bayer. Staates a book? Published in Stuttgart. And Aus dem Orient: Geologische Beobachtungen am Libanon. II? And Fossilium catalogus: Animalia.

Can't find a location for Aus, added them for the other two. Olmagon (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Several works lack identifiers when they are available. Eg Garassino and Schweigert (OCLC 1104150486).

Added ones I could find. Olmagon (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hay et al, OCLC 40266857.

Added. Olmagon (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if at the first mention of each age, era, etc how long ago - which may mean giving its age range - it was, for readers for whom descriptions such as "Sinemurian-aged" do not convey this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Added age ranges in the Paleoenvironment section. Olmagon (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Also, in the text: "Garassino & Schweigert (2006)" and "Garassino and Schweigert (2006)". Could these be standardised. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Changed the latter one. Olmagon (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2024 [29].

---

Hanford Engineer Works

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This article was split from Hanford Site. During the FAR of Hanford Site, I decided to create a new article on the World War II establishment. This brings it into line with the articles on Los Alamos, Berkeley and Oak Ridge, all of which have subarticles on their role in the Manhattan Project. The sources complain about how Hanford has been overlooked compared with Los Alamos and Oak Ridge. This seems to be the case, but not for any scarcity of sources.

On Wikipedia the fault is mine. I began overhauling the Manhattan Project articles over ten years ago, but did not deal with Hanford, because Hanford Site was already a featured article. I did gather material though, and overhauling Hanford Site for its FAR made me aware of how poor the coverage of Hanford was compared with the other sites. So I took the opportunity to create this article.

It is a subarticle of both that article and Manhattan Project, and covers the site during the years of the Manhattan Project. The article contains a lot of beautiful images, many of which I located and uploaded specifically for it. The article has recently passed an A-class review that included source and image reviews.

Support from PM

I recently reviewed this excellent article at Milhist A-Class, and consider it meets all the FA criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Support / Image review from Adam Cuerden

I've done an image review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hanford Engineer Works, and would support the promotion of this article. I mean, I'm sure others will pick apart the text more than I, but I'm very happy with the images. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 01:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Placeholder for now, will take a while. But... Hawkeye, I was just making my way up from bottom of FAC page and this nom doesn't appear there? JennyOz (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

That's odd... the FACBot normally complains if a review has not been transcluded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Heightened security on email. Should be working again now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye, told you it'd take a while! Lots of questions, most just for confirmation of intention. It was heavy going to read this as someone with very little knowledge of its subjects but I did find it very interesting and informative. I doublechecked it against the Hanford Site article and whilst there is a little unavoidable overlap, I find both articles can stand alone very well. I've added some Misc notes at end which you might (or not) prefer to read first.

I still though, per my note above of 6 March, don't understand why this nomination appears on here but not on here???

lede

• The acquisition was not completed before Manhattan Project ended in December 1946 - the Manhattan?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• The site suffered an outage on 10 March 1945 - The Works?

  Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• The Manhattan Project ended on 31 December 1946 and control of the Hanford site passed - site and works?

  The whole site actually but used HEW for consistency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Contractor selection

• Approximately four tonnes of uranium was required to produce one kilogram of plutonium - no conversions intentional?

  Yes. Metric is the customary unit for fissile metals, just as troy is for precious ones. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• seemed beyond human capability."[9] - move full stop out?

  It is there in the original, so okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• met with Dupont's executive committee - DuPont's

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Groves assured Dupont's president - DuPont's

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Dupont initially refused payment, - DuPont

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Land acquisition

• White Bluffs - link White Bluffs, Washington

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Rattlesnake Mountain - link Rattlesnake Mountain (Benton County, Washington)

  What a great name. Sounds like something out of those 1950s westerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• were based in Seattle, or Portland and - is comma needed?

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• during the Great Depression. - refine link to Great Depression in the United States?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• and Justice Departments - change link to US federal ie United States Department of Justice rather than generic article?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Priest Rapids -link

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Township

• two fruit packing warehouses - add hyphen fruit-packing

  Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Two types of barracks were erected: two-wing barracks for women and four-wing barracks for men. White and non-white people had separate barracks. Barracks construction commenced on 6 April 1943 and eventually 195 barracks were erected - that's 6x barracks. I reckon the 3rd and 5th (or 6th) can go?

  Only two types. White and non-white, and men and women were separated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, was not alluding to number of types, I was mentioning the 6x repetition of the word "barracks".

  My suggestions reduced them to 4;

  Two types of barracks were erected: two-wing barracks for women and four-wing barracks for men. White and non-white people had separate barracks. Barracks construction commenced on 6 April 1943 and eventually 195 barracks were erected.

  Or, in last sentence, Barracks 'Construction commenced on 6 April 1943 and eventually 195 barracks were erected, ...' JennyOz (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• There were 110 for white men, 21 for black men, 57 for white women and seven for black women. - numeral 7 per mos

  Enumerated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Not all were used for accommodation, and one white-women wing was turned over to the Women's Army Corps. - if not for accommodation what did WACs use it for? (And... what was role of WACs at Hanford?)

  Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for adding info re WACs etc. "She established a Red Cross and a scout troop", to "Red Cross" add branch/group/unit? And maybe dab to American Red Cross? JennyOz (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• For heating, they had a wood- or coal-burning stove in each unit - mention temps at Hanford?

  There's a chart back in the Hanford Site article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• In all, 820 double huts and 272 single huts were bought from the Pacific Huts company in Seattle - were they Quonset huts? (per "This design was conjured in the Seattle area and was termed the Pacific Hut." yeah not RS and per Camp Columbia (Hanford) and this. Your sources do not name them?

  No, but there were Quonset huts at the HEW. From the look of it, this was a design with sloped rooves. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• one aligned north–south and the other east-west. Both were 200 feet (61 m) wide, but the north-south runway was 4,000 feet (1,200 m) long and the east–west only - 2x dashes v 2x hyphens

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• tendered the lowest bid of $103,005.30 - is the 30 cents important?

  Basically there to show that the Army took quotes to the penny. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• 23,000,000 board feet - link Board foot

  Um, sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Richland

• which was already being acquired, instead. - "instead" is redundant?

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• The citizens of Richland were given until 15 November 1943 - no date was given at "Richland was chosen", so for context, how long were the citizens given?

  Said up above that the acquisition was announced in February 1943. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• The village plan initially called for a village of 6,500 people - 2x village, second one can go?

  Deleted the first. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Two 5,000-kilowatt and one 10,000-kilowatt substation were built - plural substations

  Changed. Note that metric is the customary unit for electric power. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Personnel

• About thirteen percent were women, and 16.45 percent - mos, both words or both numerals

  Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Matthias instituted a five-and-a-half-day and then a six-day work week - in that order?

  Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• An eight-week campaign against absenteeism among the construction workforce reduced the rate of absenteeism from 9.8 percent - 2x absenteeism, second one can go?

  Sure. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• would fly them from their home state - fly them in (or that just me hearing fifo so often?)

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• The first of them arrived at the Hanford Engineer Works on 1 September. - add year?

  1944. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Facilities

• The ideal canning substance had a high resistance to corrosion by water, a low capacity for absorbing neutrons, and be capable of transmitting heat to the cooling water. - "be" seems wrong in this statement, swap to 'was'?

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• This involved cleaning the slug with carbon tetrachloride and sprayed with - tense spraying?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• would normally run at 65 °C (149 °F), well below - this is only temp C-->F

  The sources are inconsistent. Apparently, when work needs to be done, Americans switch to Celsius. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• laminated steel and masonite sheets, - masonite (x5) is brand name ie needs cap M?

  Uppercased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Separation

• In the original plan there was to be eight separation plants - were to be?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Operations

• would require only a few kilograms of plutonium - convert

  Yes. Metric is the customary unit for fissile metals, just as troy is for precious ones. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• containing kilogram-quantity shipments - convert?
• On 10 March 1945, a Japanese balloon bomb struck a high-tension line running between Grand Coulee and Bonneville. This caused an electrical surge in the lines to the reactors. - did the Japanese know what Hanford was processing or just a coincidence in locality?

  No, they had no idea. But it caused quite a scare at the Manhattan District. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Postwar

• Possible replacement companies... - explain intention of keeping Hanford operating now war over?

  What do you want me to say? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know! I suppose I expected it would be shut down at end of war, so wondered if these replacement companies were for wind-down operations, or if Hanford was to continue processing with no planned end date. I've read a bit more so I'm fine for you to leave it as is. JennyOz (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Until news arrived of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, - add 6 August ie 'of the 6 August atomic bombing of Hiroshima'?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• adjacent to its research centre in - center

  Always one of those. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• During the Cold War, - link?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• sixty thousand weapons built for the U.S. nuclear arsenal - this is only use of "U.S." ie with dots

  Undotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• The United States Department of Energy (DOE) offers free guided tours of the site, which can be reserved via the department's website. - obviously not intentional but unfortunately that sounds like an ad? Maybe drop "free" and change "which can be reserved via the department's website" to just 'via its website'. And DOE acronym not needed?

  Cut back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

References

• Gerber, Michele (June 1996) - chrono, move up?

  Michele Gerber is the historian in residence at the Hanford Site. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Nichols, Kenneth (1987). The Road to Trinity: A Personal Account of How America’s Nuclear - curly apos

  Removed. Another editor likes Nichols's autobiography but I am wary of it. (I think it was written by Stephane Groueff) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Images

• no alts?

  I'll think about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Image caption "Aerial view of 300 Area in 1944" - use lowercase for 'area' to match accompanying text?

  Um, okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Image caption "Front face of B reactor in 2013" - use cap R

  Capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Tables

• Table Reactor startup - 'Charging completed' column is alone aligned right intentionally or make all columns right aligned? (and per Land acquisition table and Housing authorized table)

  Aligned left. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Misc

• Please add Use American English template - if only to help stop the itch to "fix" aluminum:)

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• HEW is used in lede a lot and then once in Site selection section but not thereafter, ie Hanford Engineer Works is used - intentional?

  Pretty much. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hanford site (x6) v Hanford Site (x2)

  Uppercased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• I noticed when checking some links that the articles of eg Franklin Matthias, B Reactor, DuPont, etc have prose/links to Hanford site - should any be changed to this Works article?

  Yes. This article was forked from Hanford Site. So the latter now mainly deals with the post-war era. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Manhattan Project is dmy, Hanford Site is mdy and Hanford Engineer Works is dmy - all intentional because MP and HEW are military but HS more a civilian area?

  Yes. It reflects the sources too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm wondering about work hours. I'd guess some workers were in plants at all times. Did plants etc operate 24/7? Anything about workers' shifts in sources?

  Yes, the reactors ran 24/7. The workers worked eight-hour shifts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Found a source for this and added it to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That's me. Let me know any problems with my comments. JennyOz (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@JennyOz: Everything okay now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I've added 3 clarifications above and have one new question for you...

• explosives department under Roger Williams known as TNX. - change "known as" to 'code named' eg this?

Pretty sure that's the last from me. JennyOz (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Nothing more of any importance so happy to add s'port. JennyOz (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Source reviewish

Source formatting seems consistentish. Is Plutopia a reliable source? Leslie Groves was pretty deeply involved in the project, can we rely on his word in #177 and similar? I didn't notice any source that blatantly did not belong and the sauces used seem like the ones you'd expect on this topic, but this is hardly my field of expertise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Plutopia is a reliable source. It has won multiple prizes for historical works. The author, Kate Brown, is a is a Professor of Science, Technology and Society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Groves's book is widely cited. In fact by all of the sources cited in the article except those written before it was published, including the official history. Groves was critical of historians who relied entirely on documents. Most of the references refer to his own motivations, or are duplicated by other sources. The outlier is, oddly enough, fn 177. When I double-checked I found another version of the story, cited by the National Parks Service [30] in which the sum is 32 cents. I'm going with Groves's and DuPont's version, which makes more cents, but am willing to remove the sentence if it is a problem. (Maybe @NuclearSecrets: will know more.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Kusma (support)

Reviewing.

• Lead: "The HEW erected 554 buildings". I may be misunderstanding things, but if the HEW it is a "nuclear production complex" I don't see how it can erect buildings; that would have been the HEW's owners?

  The HEW was an organisation. Attempted clarify this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Construction commenced in March 1943 on a massive and technically challenging construction project." perhaps do not duplicate "construction" here?

  Deleted second "construction". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Site selection: "Physicists at the Metallurgical Laboratory were more sanguine; Eugene Wigner claimed they could be built on the Potomac River near Washington, DC" here "they" are the reactors, not the physicists. It might also be better to first say what the security concerns before explaining that Wigner dismissed them.

  Attempted to clarify that they were talking about safety rather than security. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• "for planning purposes it was intended ... The ideal site was described by eight criteria:" I think it would be great to state in this section when exactly this planning took place.

  This was the plan at the meeting with DuPont in December 1942. Obviously some thought went into it beforehand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Land acquisition: perhaps remind us who Stimson was

  Is this necessary? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is not strictly necessary in the sense that (a) it would be a silly point to oppose over and (b) you have introduced him. My point is that I read this and thought "huh, who's that? Sounds like a powerful guy" and had to ctrl-F him (easy on my laptop, hard on mobile) so another word about him would be helpful. Perhaps it should be embarrassing for me that I don't know him. —Kusma (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Changed it to "Secretary Stimson" to remind people. I don't think he is well known at all anymore. To the people interested in the Manhattan Project, he is still a leading figure, and it has become what he is best known for. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Area E, which was acquired only if necessary" shouldn't this be "was to be acquired only if necessary"?

• Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hanford: "Construction was expedited by locating them on the sites of existing villages, where they could take advantage of the buildings" who are "they"?

  The construction camp and the operating village. Added, at the risk of excessive repetition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• What is a "hutment"? It redirects to shanty town.

  Military term. Linked to the wiktionary definition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Groves released construction workers working on barracks by purchasing hutments." how did purchasing hutments release construction workers?

  Provides accommodation without the need for construction workers building it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The school closed on 13 February 1945" do we know why?

  The Army built a nuclear reactor complex nearby, and the town of Hanford was abandoned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, but in the article this is only mentioned two paragraphs later. —Kusma (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The subcontractor ran afoul of wartime regulations requiring the company to hire local drivers, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, who cited safety issues." can you make this easier to understand, also for people who don't know that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters is a union? Is it the union referred to in the sentence "He negotiated a settlement with the union"?

  Yes, it is. Changed to "International Brotherhood of Teamsters union" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Health and safety: do we know of any cases of radiation sickness or long term injury caused by radioactive materials?

  Not from the wartime period per se; the postwar period is covered in Hanford Site#Environmental concerns Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Fabrication: "Metal Fabrication and Testing (500) Area" what about the 500? is this the area designated 500? where is that on the map?

  Ooops! Typo. It should be the 300 Area. (For a moment there I thought I would have to explain about the 500 Area.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Irradiation: maybe remind us again who TNX is

  Sigh. Another editor wanted more specifics. Originally I had just said "Wilmington". Changed to "the TNX Department at DuPont in Wilmington". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• "each reactor would require 30,000 US gallons per minute" gallons of cooling water

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Why is the section called "irradiation"? A lot of it is about water and reactor construction

  More of a literary device: Fabrication -> Irradiation -> Separation. Which is the industrial process. The purpose of the reactor was to produce plutonium through irradiation of uranium. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Do we know how much helium was used for the cooling?

  No, we don't. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Xenon-135: I don't understand whether they did anything about the Xenon-135, or just loaded the reactor differently.

  Loaded the reactor with more fuel to increase the neutron flux. The Xenon-135 was "burned" and produced Xenon-136, which is stable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Separation: "separate the plutonium in the irradiated slugs from the uranium" how long were the slugs irradiated for? the "irradiation" section did not say

  Depends. Added a paragraph about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  OK, so they were in the reactor for something like a few days, not weeks. —Kusma (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  A few weeks. The exact details have been deleted by the censor. Apparently, that information is still classified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Operations: there is some context missing here. It would be helpful to explain that both Thin Man and Fat Man were plutonium based, and what the problem with Thin Man was, and how much plutonium they needed.

• I don't want to get into it too deeply, as the article is long, and the subject is covered elsewhere. Added some more explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• "On 1 May four tubes in D reactor were loaded with 264 slugs containing bismuth. The irradiated bismuth slugs were shipped to Los Alamos for processing" is this connected to the polonium production or is it a separate thing?

  Separate. Bismuth is irradiated to produce polonium, and "polonium was required for the Fat Man's neutron initiators". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• "There was intense pressure [...] to produce more plutonium [..] in late July for operational use." is the (fairly euphemistic) "operational use" just Fat Man?

  Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Postwar: from 1947, was the complex no longer called "Hanford Engineer Works"? Was there a new name for the facilities?

  It was no longer called the HEW, because it was no longer a military facility after 1 January 1947. Instead, it became known as the "Hanford Site". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

A very detailed article about an important part of the Manhattan project. Excellent work, but I think a few clarifications would help. —Kusma (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Happy with responses. Of course I have a different opinion on a few issues, but I am happy to support whether you do something about them or not. —Kusma (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2024 [31].

---

The Overlook (Alexander McQueen collection)

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

1999 was a good year for Alexander McQueen. No. 13, his Spring/Summer 1999 collection, was an incredible work of romanticism whose finale - Shalom Harlow being spray-painted by robots - is a famous work of art in its own right. No one expected him to match the success of No. 13 with his Autumn/Winter show, but he managed to exceed expectations with The Overlook, a staggering work of heartbreaking genius in which McQueen channeled the wintery isolation of The Shining into a fashion collection. Famously, one model wore a corset made from coiled aluminium, and another, a bustier covered in raw rock crystal. Although some critics complained of the theatrics and the use of real fur, it is widely regarded as one of McQueen's best works. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

Saving a spot here. Feel free to needle me if I haven't left feedback in 3-4 days. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Epicgenius, I know I haven't finished reviewing 270 yet but - friendly poke. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry about that PMC - it did slip my mind. As promised I will have my first comments on Thursday. Epicgenius (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Lead:

• Para 1: "It was inspired by the Stanley Kubrick horror film The Shining (1980) and named for the Overlook Hotel" - First, is the Overlook Hotel fictional? If so, you may want to add "fictional" before "Overlook". Second, I recommend a comma after "Hotel" for flow.
  • Added fictional, didn't add the comma - I think Sammi Brie would tell me not to
• Para 2: "Vogue editor Anna Wintour, making her first appearance at a McQueen show" - I suggest "Vogue editor Anna Wintour, who was making her first appearance at a McQueen show" or something like that.
  • Done
• Para 2: I notice that the "Production details" subsection of the "Runway show" section is not really mentioned in the lead. Perhaps that section can be briefly summarized here.
  • Added a tad about the repeat creative team, but not sure the rest
• Para 2: Also, for the "Notable pieces" subsection, it might be good to mention the rock crystal bustier and the coiled corset as being particularly significant.
  • The coiled corset was already mentioned in para 1, but I've revised it to add
• Para 3: The first two sentences seem a bit disjointed: the first talks about positive reception, then the second suddenly pivots to a criticism. How about something like: "Critical response to the clothing and the runway show for The Overlook was positive, and it is regarded as one of McQueen's most memorable shows. However, some observers objected to the use of real fur."
  • Revised to account for other criticism instead, without the however

Background:

• Para 1: "British designer Alexander McQueen was known in the fashion industry" - Should this be "had been known"? (As in, the knowing is continuous, not a one-time thing.)
  • I don't think so, although I can't muster a better argument than "it doesn't feel right"
• Para 2: "Other explicitly film-inspired collections include The Birds (Spring/Summer 1995), The Hunger (Spring/Summer 1996), Deliverance (Spring/Summer 2004), and The Man Who Knew Too Much (Autumn/Winter 2005)" - Similarly to the above, should this be "have included"?
  • This, I don't think so, because the including is continuous
• Para 3: "He had a light touch with collaborators" - This seems a bit idiomatic compared to something like "He allowed collaborators wide latitude" (though, you do use "latitude" again later in the sentence).
  • OED doesn't note the phrase as idiomatic

Concept and creative process:

• Para 1: "named after the Overlook Hotel where much of the film takes place" - As above, I'd recommend a comma after "Hotel".
  • I've added fictional, but as above, no comma
• Para 1: "Some reviewers detected influence from the Arts and Crafts movement," - Any specific reason why they thought it was evocative of the Arts and Crafts movement?
  • Revised
• Para 3: "As always with McQueen" - I'm all for wording like this, but it sounds a bit too colloquial for FAC. How about "As with McQueen's other work"?
  • Went with "As was typical with"
• Para 3: "The boots worn by the models were designed to have heels" - I'd shorten this to "The boots worn by the models were designed with heels" or just "The boots worn by the models have heels".
  • Done

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Production details:

• Para 1: "these were resolved in time for the show to proceed" - I think this can be reworded to "these were resolved before the show" or "these were resolved without interrupting the show".
  • Went with option 2
• Para 1: "andVogue editor Anna Wintour" - You should add a space before "Vogue".
  • Lol, yes
• Para 2: "Joseph Bennett, who had designed all of McQueen's runways since No. 13 (Spring/Summer 1999)" - Isn't this show (Autumn/Winter 1999) at the beginning of the year? So The Overlook seems like it's coming before No. 13. (More to the point, is "Autumn/Winter 1999" referring to shows in late 1998 and early 1999?)
  • Fashion seasons are off compared to natural seasons, because they follow industry practices. The runway show is always staged about 6 months before the collection is going to be in stores (to allow for purchasing, production, delivery, etc). So, Autumn/Winter collections are shown in February (ish), and Spring/Summer collections are shown in October (ish).
  • That being said, I don't think it's that confusing. This one is labelled as A/W 99, #13 is labelled S/S 99. Most people will logically infer that Spring/Summer comes before Autumn/Winter, and also, I mentioned earlier that No. 13 is the previous show. So I think readers will follow.
    • Ah, that makes sense. Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• Para 3: "Because the vinyl release of the film's soundtrack was rare" - I suggest "Because few copies existed of the vinyl release of the film's soundtrack".
  • Number of copies isn't strictly supported by the ref - all it says it that it was "hard to source". I've changed the wording to say "difficult to find"

Catwalk presentation:

• Para 2: "the film's Overlook Hotel was built on" - I suggest "on which the film's Overlook Hotel was built".
  • Much nicer, yeah
• Para 3: "Look 8 from this phase" - Does this use of "phase" carry the usual meaning of "part" (period, chapter, episode, etc.) or does it have a different meaning here? Usually, I only use "phase" to mean "part" if we're talking about time period. In addition, what is "this phase" referring to - is it referring to the soft brown/taupe/pink phase?
  • I've used "phase" before in this context; def 1 in wiktionary is "A distinguishable part of a sequence or cycle occurring over time", which I think fits.
  • I did mess up the order though with Look 8, now fixed.
• Para 4: "McQueen took his bow The show earned a standing ovation, regarded as a rare achievement in the fashion world" - This looks like it's missing punctuation or a few words.
  • YUP lol. That was a leftover from when I realized I had lost the soundtrack section :|

Notable pieces:

• Para 2: "Leane built the aluminium corset over the course of six weeks, working 16-hour days" - I'd say "Leane worked 16 hours a day for six weeks to build the aluminium corset" or something like that.
  • I think I like my phrasing better, is there a specific issue with it?
    • Not really. I think your phrasing is better too, now that I think about it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• Para 3: "Taking it on and off could take up to 15 minutes." - The word "take" is repeated in close proximity here. I'd say "Donning and doffing the corset could take..."
  • I went with the slightly longer "putting it on and removing it" if only because donning and doffing have always been very silly sounding words to me

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Reception:

• Para 1: "Anna Wintour, although reputedly difficult to please" - Is this view attributed to a specific commentator, or just in general?
  • In general. She has an industry-wide reputation for being extremely unpleasant. Meryl Streep's character from The Devil Wears Prada is based on her, if that gives you any idea. The Telegraph ref that follows that sentence covers her reputation fairly broadly, and the other ref is for the actual "I loved it" quotes from her.
• Para 1: In general, the second half of this paragraph feels a bit repetitive. You have three sentences in a row that are structured like "In A, B wrote that C" or the similar construction "B wrote in A that C" (emphasis on the repetition of the words "wrote that", which is my main point of contention). I'd rephrase it a bit, and personally I would also paraphrase at least one of the quotes per WP:RECEPTION, though this is not required.
  • Ohh ugh yeah, I didn't even notice. Adjusted these and a few elsewhere, and paraphrased a couple quotes
• Para 2: "Menkes argued that McQueen's time there had enabled him to elevate his signature styles to match them to the winter theme." - The second part of the sentence repeats "to" three times. Is there a way this can be condensed, like "Menkes argued that McQueen's time there had enabled him to match his signature styles to the winter theme"?
  • This is much better, thank you
• Para 3: "evidence of McQueen's growing maturity" - Maturity in what sense? I get that it's figurative, but do you mean the maturity of his designs, his career, or something else?
  • Designs, career, personality in general. Early on, McQueen was a bit of a shock jock - he made good clothes but he also did a lot of gross weird stuff that critics often put down to immaturity. They saw him as a kid lashing out for attention even if it's negative. Once he started making it in the industry, he toned it down somewhat, and reviewers often responded by noting what they saw as his growing maturity. This reviewer doesn't really get into the weeds with it unfortunately.
• Para 4: "Winwood wrote that "animals rights campaigners will be less than impressed" with the rabbit fur and crocodile skin." - That reminds me, did animal rights campaigners have any opinion on this?
  • Not that I ever came across. They did vandalize the set for the show after Eye (so two seasons past this one), so maybe they just took a bit to get planning

Analysis:

• Para 2: "In addition to its explicit references to The Shining, The Overlook also reflected the film" - The phrasing "In addition ... also" is redundant because "also" means "in addition". I suggest removing "also".
  • Done
• Para 2: "Similarly, the skating segment interrupts the usual sequence of a fashion show. It uses the same song" - Because the show has already occurred, should this be past tense instead of present tense?
  • Done
• Para 3: Were there any other examples cited by Skogh, other than the bodice? (Unrelated, but it would be funny if the Swedish king got an artificial mountain.)
  • No, just that one from The Overlook. Yeah, gifts given to royalty were really weird back in the day

Legacy:

• Para 1: I'm not sure if Eye would be considered legacy, if McQueen already knew prior to The Overlook that he would be hosting Eye at NYFW. Though there might be a good reason for this.
  • I've retitled to "aftermath and legacy". Mostly it's important because it was already generating coverage even while The Overlook had just been staged.
• Para 3: "The coiled corset was the sole item from The Overlook to appear in original 2011 staging" - Might just be an ENGVAR thing, but in the US we'd generally say "in the original 2011 staging".
  • It's not, I'm just stupid

That's all from me. Overall, a very good article. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Epicgenius, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, I left a few comments an hour ago that haven't been resolved yet. Once these are resolved, I think the article will look good. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies Epic, I misread "That's all from me." Time to take a break. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

These are all resolved now :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Support - Looks all good now. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Edge3

Just a quick comment. At the recent FAC for oyster dress, we disagreed on the applicability of MOS:SEASON. After that discussion, I modified MOS:SEASON for copyediting and clarity. Although the current version of the guideline has a provision for a "title of a work", there is an exception for a "seasonal edition in running text". If you disagree with that guidance then I suggest taking it to the talk page, where you'll see a recent discussion on this topic.

I don't have time to conduct a full review currently, but if this is still open in April I might be able to help out. Edge3 (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Obviously my feelings on the matter remain as they were, and I will continue to capitalize fashion seasons as proper nouns, per the consensus of over a dozen FACs now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The consensus for oyster dress (and your other articles) was based on the previous version of MOS:SEASON, which has since been amended. You could discuss your disagreements on the MOS talk page, where I did ping you to participate. Edge3 (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, MOS:SEASONS has been amended by you, with wording that you arbitrarily decided on! I saw the ping and deliberately didn't participate in the discussion because your behavior at the oyster dress FAC clearly demonstrated that you have no interest in listening to the opinions of other editors. Something like over half a dozen people responded there to tell you you were wrong, and you still unnecessarily opposed. And the article passed, which indicates the coords did not feel your oppose carried much weight.

As it happens, the capitalization is still correct under your wording: "Season names are generally not capitalized (a hot summer), except when personified (Old Man Winter) or when part of a formal name". A fashion season such as "Autumn/Winter 2008" or "Resort 2014" is a formal name for a particular period in the industry, so it is capitalized. Other editors clearly agreed with this interpretation in the last discussion, so although the MOS wording may have changed, the reality underpinning my reasoning has not.

I am not interested in debating this with you at every FAC I nominate in the future. I am not going to change it. It is not up for debate. If you feel you must oppose on the basis of capital letters, just do that and let the coords weigh it accordingly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from The Night Watch

Saving a spot. The Night Watch (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• The Night Watch gentle poke :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Almost done! Sorry, my health hasn't been particularly good lately. The Night Watch (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  No problem! I understand completely. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Alright, here are some comments. I'm unfamiliar with fashion articles but I can still provide some general notes:

  • Is the wikilink to aluminium necessary? I think most people know what aluminium is but you don't need to remove it, this is just a simple preference of mine.

  I tend to land slightly on the side of "why not" when it comes to links

  • "Some reviewers detected influence from the Arts and Crafts movement, which McQueen had drawn from in his previous collection, No. 13 (Spring/Summer 1999)" What kind of influence exactly?

  Resolved already per Epic's comments - I now mention the knitwear and embroidery the critic was referencing

  • "surprised the audience by instead taking inspiration from its wintery, isolated setting" —> "wintery and isolated" and maybe remove the wikilink to setting.

  I'm not sure the "and" works better than the comma. Can you clarify your thinking?

  • "The Overlook attracted its share of criticism" —> some criticism

  Hmm. Tweaked.

  • "McQueen had announced that his next collection"

  I think the "had" belongs, as we're talking about two past events, one of which occurred before the other.

  That's it. The article is very well written and I could not find many more points without being nit-picky. The Night Watch (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi The Night Watch, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do support. The Night Watch (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support The Night Watch, I've made a change and replied to some others. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

PCN02WPS

• "named for the 1976 Martin Scorsese film." → might be more helpful to link "the 1976 Martin Scorsese film" to Taxi Driver rather than just linking Scorsese's name
  • Done
• "latitude for interpretation, and often" → remove comma - see Sammi Brie's comment below. It appears that I am sadly still a comma novice sometimes. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• "andVogue editor" → missing space
  • Fixed in Epic's comments above
• "making her first appearance" → tense switches from past to present here, perhaps "who made her first appearance"?
  • Fixed in Epic's comments above
• "McQueen's runways since No. 13 (Spring/Summer..." → "No. 13" is already linked in the first paragraph of "Concept and creative processes"
  • WP:DUPELINK allows duplicated links in separate sections if they're relevant
• "McQueen took his bow The show earned" → something funky here, part of the sentence either missing or misplaced
  • Fixed in Epic's comments above
• "Anna Wintour, although reputedly" → Wintour is linked earlier in the article
• "was learning at Givenchy had influenced" → Givenchy already linked
  • Dupelink again for these two
• "elevating it from kitsch" → if "kitsch" is kitsch, recommend adding the link
  • Ah yeah good thought
• "offering The Overlook and Voss (Spring/Summer 2001)" → Voss can be delinked since it's linked at the end of the previous section
  • This I've done because they're quite close
• "brand internationally, and was clear" → remove comma
  • Done
• "the revised 2015 stating" → typo
  • Yup lol

Nice work as always, that's all I've got as far as prose is concerned. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments PCN, all responded to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Nice, easy support for me! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The sourcing is as perfect as I would expect. The PRNation source is probably as good as one could expect for what it supports. I think it adds something about the lasting impact of the show. The daily record is the only newspaper with a location. You might want to consider removing it for consistency reasons.

Unrelated, the MOS:SEASON dispute seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how the fashion industry works. *channels Miranda Priestly giving her cerulean blue speech* Most designers release two major collections per year, traditionally titled Spring/Summer and Fall/Winter, that are shown at the major fashion weeks. You sometimes see one or two additional collections of more "fun" clothes titled something like Resort, Cruse, Holiday, Pre-Fall, Pre-Spring, etc. The names are of the seasons, but they are shown at times that line up with the southern hemisphere's seasonality while being created for Europe, Canada, and the US. The name Spring/Summer 1999 shows clothes debuted in 1999 that were created for warm weather rather than speaking about the seasons as spoken of in normal English. I encourage reviewers to see it as a term of art or a descriptive part of the title of the work. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments and source check Guerillero; always appreciate it. (In case it matters to any coords, I *think* the source being identified as PR Nation is the RR Auction source. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Daily Record location removed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Sammi Brie

I reviewed the GA and am here to take a look at FAC too. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The runway show was staged on 23 February 1999, at Gatliff Road Warehouse in London." no comma needed here because dmy
  • Fixed in both instances
• I disagree with PCN's "latitude" remark. That's an appositive: "He had a light touch with collaborators, providing short creative briefs that permitted latitude for interpretation, and often did not see the work he had commissioned until right before the show." You could read the sentence without the bolded section.
• "As always with McQueen" is "As always" appropriate wikivoice?
  • I swapped to "as was typical" per Epic's comments
• Should "trip hop" be linked?
  • Sure why not
• "Prior to the show, McQueen had announced that his next collection, Eye (Spring/Summer 2000) would be presented" you need a comma to complete the appositive after "2000"
  • Done
• "McQueen viewed this as a step toward developing the brand internationally, and was clear from the outset that he intended to return to England the following season." Classic CinS. There's one subject: McQueen. Toss the comma.
• "Stating" or "staging"?
  • Both of the above done per PCN

Thanks for your comments Sammi! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Happy to flip to a support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review

File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 42.jpg might need something to say about whether the clothes are copyrighted - in the US fashion apparently isn't copyrightable, but in the UK? Spot-check upon request. I don't think that The Sun is usually considered a high-quality reliable source. Wipf and Stock Publishers seems to have a speciality quite far removed from fashion? Is there a logic behind which links have ProQuest and which ones don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

We had this conversation at the oyster dress FAC. Clothing designs are not copyrightable in the US or in the UK ([32], [33]). Nor in Canada, where that photo was taken ([34]).

Normally I wouldn't cite The Sun, but here I think it's relevant as a piece of criticism from outside the fashion world. Everyone inside the bubble is very impressed with the whole thing, but it's interesting to see someone from the outside call it a load of BS.

I've never found publisher specialty to be prohibitive when citing sources, unless it's a publisher that's unreliable on the face of things. For me, it's interesting to see analysis of fashion from a religious/theological perspective. It's a shame he didn't have more to say about The Overlook.

There's no logic, it's just whatever sources I found where I found them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The file page still ought to say something, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2024 [35].

---

Anna Blackburne

Nominator(s): —Kusma (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about one of the earliest woman naturalists in England, a notable collector of specimens who corresponded with Linnaeus and Pennant, among others. —Kusma (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Family image is missing alt text

  Added

• Avoid sandwiching text between images

  Moved all to the right, which has other downsides. (I use large images, where it is normal to have left and right images on the same height; I do not understand the "no sandwiching" thing as that is very much dependant on settings, and often less bad than other options). Happy to hear furtrher feedback, especially from people using standard settings.

• File:Eurasian_wren,_raspberry,_wood_lice_and_pupa_from_the_Natural_History_Cabinet_of_Anna_Blackburne_(1768)_painting_in_high_resolution_by_James_Bolton._(51927517051).jpg: the description indicates this work is PD, but the tag used is CC? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the work is PD as indicated by the Yale library holding it, for example. The version in the article is cleaned up and watermarked by some company that then put a CC-2.0 on it, possibly in the belief that their cleanup work entitles them to it? I am not sure what the best thing to do is here; I could just download a non-watermarked version from Yale and upload it if you think that's better.

  I do - we should be avoiding watermarks anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done. —Kusma (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria for the image review! —Kusma (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• While she called herself "Mrs", I don't think it counts as an honorific prefix as Wikipedia understands it.
• Remove the disambiguation from her father's name in the infobox
• Should be birth name rather than other name
• I assume at the time of her birth Orford Hall was not in fact inside Warrington, so perhaps add the full link in the infobox

  All done. I'm not an infobox person so I'm terrible with them :)

• Suggest beginning the first section with her full name rather than just the surname
• I thought I'd have a look for any portraits of her. Didn't find any, but have added them for John, John, and John.

  I don't think there is anything except for the lost painting by Hamlet Winstanley that shows her "aged 15", the sources say. The painting is from 1741 after her mother died in 1740, but Winstanley had a technique of painting just the heads from life, then sending them to London to be put together on a large canvas. [36]. For the botanist, you may enjoy the ghost pineapple, see [37].

• There's a slightly confusing tendency to swap between calling her "Anna", "Blackburne", or "Anna Blackburne". I understand that we want to keep readers from being confused about which Blackburne is being referenced, but for example in the "Johann Reinhold Forster" section all three names are used, making me at least more confused about who exactly I'm reading about.

  Tried to make it better

• "Anna Blackburne eventually became the mistress of the manor" do we know when?

  From Wystrach, it is only clear to me that it was after her mother's death, which is in 1740. moved to a different place because we don't know the "Mrs" for sure before the 1771 letter to Linnaeus.

• Priestley is only mentioned in the article as being replaced by someone else. I don't quite see why he needs mentioning at all if this is the extent of his contribution.

  Name dropping removed.

• "On 29 June 1771..." try not to start paragraphs with dates

  Rearranged.

• Was Fairfield Hall a new-build specifically for Blackburne, or was it an existing house adapted for her use?

  New build.

• I think the caption for the warbler image could be expanded slightly

  Longer now, but I'm not sure what to write

• Did she learn Latin in order to read Systema Naturae or did she learn Latin and then also read it? The lede and main text differ on this wording

  The lede has it right: the motivation was botany.

That's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you Pickersgill-Cunliffe for the review! —Kusma (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, are you able to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• My apologies to Kusma for leaving this hanging! Happy to support based on these changes and the responses to the other reviews. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• In both the lead and the main article "had an extensive collection of natural history specimens". Is is known how this came about. Eg, did she assemble it herself, inherit it, receive it as a gift or series of gifts or what? For the lead I would suggest replacing "had" with 'assembled'.

  Changed in the lead, need to do more about this in the body.

Are we still waiting for the "need to do more about this in the body"? If so, could you ping me once it is done? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm done with this in the body after adding some "bartering". —Kusma (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "corresponded with several notable naturalists of her era." I gather from the absence of 'other' that she is not herself considered a notable naturalists of her era? Indeed, I note that the article avoids describing her as a "naturalist". Is that a reflection of the sources' view?

  Hm. She is often described as a naturalist, or as an amateur botanist. Wystrach says "She was not a significant contributor to the botanical or ornithological literature, but she was well regarded by her contemporaries as a knowledgable collector of considerable importance."

The lead now describes her as a naturalist, but the main body doesn't.[?]

I used "botanist" in the lead now. I think "naturalist" fits better, but that's not what the sources say. —Kusma (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "where Anne likely studied botany". Is there a reason for the USvar English in an article about an Englishwoman? ("likely" rather than 'probably'.)

  My personal biography (English as second language, two years in the US, a decade in the UK) tends to make me mix varieties.

No worries. I do it myself. And get picked up at FAC for it. My excuse is too much reading of US light fiction.

• " Thomas Pennant studied these birds in Blackburne's collection". Pennant needs introducing.

  done

• The lead is long in relation to the article and would benefit from condensing.

  Dropped Pallas and reduced to two sections.

• "and her museum". What museum?

  Introduced earlier

• "produced salt in Cheshire and at Salthouse Dock in Liverpool". Did they "produce" salt in Liverpool?

  Fixed.

• "following her mother's death". Is it known when this occurred?

  Fixed.

• "Anna's surviving siblings left Orford Hall". Are their number and sexes known?

  I think all were men, but it is a bit unclear. In the footnote to the claim that Anna was the fifth child in Wystrach's paper, he mentions six sons and three daughters, with Anna the fourth child. From [38] I gather people cared little about two of the other daughters (not even their names are given). This is another source mentioning eight children and naming seven. I changed the "fifth child" to "fourth or fifth".

So little is known about those who survived her? Ok.

• Could "natural history" be both defined and Wikilinked.

  Wikilinked yes. A definition would need to explain that at the time, it mostly meant geology and biology, but I haven't got a citation for that right now.

Page 2 of Allen (1994) would give something like 'Natural history was not a precisely defined term but was understood to include the study of natural objects and organisms'. What do you think?

The coded source would be Allen, David Elliston (1994), The Naturalist in Britain: a social history, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 270, ISBN 0-691-03632-2

Thanks. I use p. xviii, is that what you had in mind?

• "she obtained most of her specimens from her widely travelled family members." I am absolutely ORing here, but it seems highly likely that merchant captains who worked for or contracted with the family on business realised that gifts of exotic organisms brought back from their journeys would ingratiate them. Anything in the sources to suggest this sort of thing.
  • When I was a kid, my father had a client who was a seafarer. Every so often, my father would come home in the evening with a pocket full of coins from exotic places. I have no idea how it affected their business relationship, but I've kept them to this day for the memories. I just went and poked through the pile and found 5 Spanish Pesetas, 50 Philipine Centavos, 50 Mexican Pesos, and 100 Milimes (not sure if I read that right) from someplace Arabic. Thank you for reminding me of this. Sadly, I suspect the gifts of exotic organisms also included exotic microorganisms causing exotic diseases which were previously unable to cross oceans. An early example of the unintended consequences of modern technology. RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Roy, SusunW recently took me down memory lane on my talk page. I am unsure what this says about our mental functioning. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Nothing to suggest this. I know she used the family's merchant captains to help her trade specimens with Pallas in Russia, but that is all I know about them.

A shame, but can't be helped. The bit about merchant captains and Pallas is, IMO, worth mentioning.

• "presented his lectures on entomology to her". I am unsure what is meant by this. Presented her with the transcripts? Gave her private lessons? Something else?

  Private lessons where he read the content to her, I think.

• What is a folio copy?

  Explained more and linked.

• "Forster dedicated one genus to Blackburne and her father". Is it known what it was a genus of?

  Plants.

• "including a young musk deer". Dead or alive?

  I strongly suspect it was dead, but the source doesn't say (neither Wystrach nor the Pallas-Pennant correspondence see a need to specify).

• "She had a herbarium". A brief in line explanation would be helpful.

  done.

• "After her father's death". Perhaps insert 'in 1786'?

  added

• "She also had plans for a botanical garden, but was unable to carry these plans out due to health issues." Suggest deleting the second mention of "plans".
• Interestingly, St Oswald's Church, Winwick featured in one of my recent FAs.

  Neat!

• "Her collection was inherited by her nephew". Which of her siblings was he the son of?

  Thomas. [39] (but I can't figure out how to cite that, so I cite something else).

• Is it known what happened to her collection - both the part taken by John and that not. Is any extant?

  Very little is known and very little seems to be extant (some specimens in a herbarium in Liverpool, and the Bolton watercolours in Yale). Added.

• Hoare needs a publisher location. As do Urness and Williams.
• The titles of books should be in title case. Eg Shtier.

  Done the ref issues.

Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you! A lot of things fixed, some still need to be done. —Kusma (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

On a skim, it looks good so far. Could you ping me when you have finished responding to my comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, thanks again. I have finished responding, and also added a mention of Blackburne's cousin Ashton Lever. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Nearly there. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, I think I have addressed the remaining points. —Kusma (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith (support)

For now, just a few random comments.

• In the lead, you refer to her family as merchants. I tend to think of that as meaning a shopkeeper, not somebody who "owned merchant ships". Maybe there's a better word that could be used here?

  Haven't found one :( Even for Jakob Fugger the Rich, the word is "merchant".

  • • Properly, a merchant is a wholesaler/importer/trader etc, rather than a retailer (whatever they put on their shop signs). Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• My first big thought upon reading this was, "Why is this only talking about who she corresponded with, and not about what she did herself?" Reading the Wystrach paper, I see the reason: "She was not a significant contributor to the botanical or ornithological literature, but she was well regarded by her contemporaries as a knowledgable collector of considerable importance". It might be worth mentioning her lack of authorship so as to head off the same question that our readers might be wondering about.

  You are right, I added something.

• On the topic of the Wystrach paper, Figure 1 is a contemporary drawing of the Blackburnian Warbler. I assume this is out of copyright; maybe it would make a more interesting illustration than the 2010 photograph?

  I was thinking of using File:Robert Havell after John James Audubon, Black-throated Green Warbler, Blackburnian Warbler and Mourning Warbler, 1837, NGA 32540.jpg, but that raises the question of the history of the scientific name of the warbler, which I would prefer to avoid.

• You mention that she learned latin. Wystrach says, "Anna Blackburne discloses that she was essentially self-taught in Latin, but admittedly not very fluent" which is worth mentioning.

  Mentioned "self-taught".

OK, going through the whole article this time:

• "had an extensive collection of natural history specimens" I'd make it clear that she did the collecting as opposed to having been the passive recipient of the collection as a gift.

  Not sure where this was, but I tried to clarify at some point.

• I kept mis-reading "Orford" as "Oxford", leading me to be particularly confused when I got to "Occasionally, Blackburne visited London and Oxford", i.e. if she lived there, why did she only visit it occasionally? I don't know that there's anything useful that can be done to make the distinction more obvious to the reader, but if you can think of something...

  Not really. Something like "the southern cities of London and Oxford" also sounds awkward.

• "Blackburne collected insects, shells, minerals and birds", Clarify whether you're talking about Anna or John here.

  Done.

• You've got Ashton Blackburne redlinked. Is there reason to believe he's notable on his own and thus the link might turn blue at some point?

  After looking through Wystrach again, there is probably currently not enough known about him for a separate article.

• "Thomas Pennant studied these birds" When somebody says they "study birds", I tend to think of live birds. If you're studying their dead bodies in a naturalist collection, I think "specimens" is a better word, although I can see the desire not to be overly repetitious with the word. I don't feel strongly about this, so I'll leave that up to you.

  Tried with extra "specimens".

• "After her father's death, Blackburne and her museum moved to nearby Fairfield Hall." This is the first time you mention a museum. I'm guessing that's just another way of saying "her collection", but it's a little confusing.

  There's a lot more "museum" now.

• "and the Blackburnia pinnata, now called Zanthoxylum pinnatum", I'd tell the reader what this is, i.e. "and the flowing plant Blackburnia pinnata, now called Zanthoxylum pinnatum", just like you did with "the beetle Geotrupes blackburnii"

  Is "plants" enough?

• "the fifth of nine children of John Blackburne ..." I would have written "... to John Blackburne" instead of "of John Blackburne". Maybe it depends on what that phrase is suppsosed to be modifying. I read it as modiying "was born", i.e. "Anna Blackburne was born (in 1726 at Orford Hall, Warrington, as the fifth of nine children) to John Blackburne (1693–1786) and ..." Not a big deal either way.

  Rearranged. I am not sure anymore that she was the fifth, as Wystrach is contradicting himself in the footnotes.

• "exotic plants including pineapples and cotton." To me, cotton is not an exotic plant, but I guess it could have been in 18th century England. Maybe it's worth saying something like, "he grew pineapples and cotton, neither of which were native to England" Or maybe just link "exotic" to Introduced species#Introduced plants, and that'll be enough.

  Linked. Cotton is exotic in Europe, and has always been imported.

• " In the years following her mother's 1740 death, Anna's surviving siblings left Orford Hall; eventually, only Anna, who became the mistress of the manor, and her father remained" Many of those commas could go away. Also, I'd link "mistress of the manor" to Mistress (form of address), lest somebody think you're talking about Mistress (lover).

  I love commas. Reduced a bit and linked as suggested.

• "surprised the bystanders with the extent of her botanical knowledge" It would be interesting if you could give some specific examples of what she knew that the gardeners didn't.

  Unfortunately not much other than it was about the geranium; I think this episode is only known through the exchange of letters between Blackburne and Linnaeus.

• "She collected various natural history specimens", no need to say "various"; that's implied by the list of things she collected.

  done

• " In the early years of her collection, she obtained most of her specimens from her widely travelled family members" This comes back to my earlier comment about being the actual collector vs being the passive recipient of the collection. Was she ever out in the field getting her hands dirty digging up plants and bugs and picking up dead birds? I'm guessing a high class lady from a wealthy 18th century family never got her hands dirty doing anything, but if she did, that would be the most interesting part of her story. In that respect, this reminds me of Margaret Sibella Brown.

  She did no field work. I assume that also the botanical gardens were tended to by others for her. No un-ladylike dirty hands seem to have been reported.

• "The claims in her obituary that Blackburne was a "friend and constant correspondent of Linnaeus" or that he named a plant after her are inaccurate." That seems like a strong statement to say in wiki voice. It should be attributed, something along the lines of "biographer V. P. Wystrach argued that..."

  I've gone for "exaggerated". None of the newer literature repeats such a claim (it would be in the excellent ODNB article [40] if there was any basis for it).

• "Her collection was inherited by her nephew John Blackburne, who moved selected parts of the collection to his seat at Hale Hall" I don't know what "seat" means in this context.

  WP:ELVAR, tried to avoid saying "residence" as in the source, replaced by "manor".

• "she bequeathed a total of more than", just say "she bequeathed more than"

  done.

Looking through JSTOR, I see a bunch of sources you don't use that at least mention Blackburne (although most don't say much). Just want to make sure you've seen these.

Green Languages? Women Poets as Naturalists in 1653 and 1807 Author(s): Donna Landry Source: Huntington Library Quarterly , 2000, Vol. 63, No. 4, Forging Connections: Women's Poetry from the Renaissance to Romanticism (2000), pp. 467-489 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3817613

Gender, Science and Physical Geography in Nineteenth-Century Britain Author(s): Cheryl McEwan Source: Area , Sep., 1998, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 215-223 Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20003898

Making Natural History: Doing the Enlightenment Author(s): Bettina Dietz Source: Central European History, Vol. 43, No. 1 (MARCH 2010), pp. 25-46 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Central European History Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40601018

WOMEN TRAVELLERS, ROMANTIC-ERA SCIENCE AND THE BANKSIAN EMPIRE Author(s): Carl Thompson Source: Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London , 20 December 2019, Vol. 73, No. 4, Special issue: Rethinking Joseph Banks (20 December 2019), pp. 431-455 Published by: Royal Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26858986

• Thank you for the review! These JSTOR sources are like many of the mentions of Blackbourne in books, where she is mentioned as an example, but without any usable details. I have dealt with some of your comments already, and will respond to all of them after some more sleep :) —Kusma (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  @User:RoySmith, all done I think. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

All your changes look good. I have no strong opinion on replacing the 2010 photo, so do what you feel is best there. Nice job! RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments/source evaluation by SusunW

Gog pinged me about walking him down memory lane, I got intrigued and thus here I am. It will take me a bit to peruse, but I will add comments as I see needed.

• Info box shouldn't contain anything not cited in text and I was curious about that "Baptised 3 January 1726". Wystrach p. 164 says her birth is commonly shown as 1740 but that calculating from age 67 at death she was "actually born in 1726" and that he was unable to find records in the archives of Warrington or Winwick churches. Thankfully, we have digitized records. Per p 44 (Sorry about the ancestry link with proxy, but I don't know how else to show it.) of the Church of England Register of Christenings, Marriages, or Burials for Warrington, Lancashire 25 February 1720-27 March 1727, we have under the heading "January 1725" 3rd line: "Anne Daughter of John Blackborne of Orford Esqr. and Catherine his wife 3rd" I think the year is likely in error, as January 1725 follows December 1725, which if one is listing things as they occurred in a registry book is illogical. However, Christenings: Warrington, Lancashire, England, March 1701—March 25, 1760 (from the Norman Collection, Salford, England) (1961) Salt Lake City, Utah: Genealogical Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, p. 65, Microfilm 823699 image 72 also has it listed in 1725, and a couple of pages further (68, image 75) on the page labeled 1726, I found on 12 February the christening of William son of John esq and Catherine. So maybe 1725 is correct? I also note that the ancestry record says it is a "bishop's transcript" so I am wondering if that means that it is a master list of the various individual priest/vicar's registration books, which would then make sense of the date duplicates? SusunW (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  The year was known as 1725 when this was written, as it is an Old Style date (so "March 1724" is followed by "April 1725" in the record). January 1725 is indeed the month after December 1725 :) I decided to follow the ODNB, who apparently use the New Style year together with the Julian date. —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, right, forgot that bit about when the year started. Perhaps you need to mark it as New Style if you are using 1726? SusunW (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Trying not to do too much OR here and not cause too much confusion; I don't have any source explicitly saying this is New Style and Julian. —Kusma (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but we do have the actual record, made before the Gregorian calendar was adopted in England and before 1752 when England changed the start of the year to 1 January.[41] and as the Julian calendar was in effect at that time, it isn't OR and to my mind would eliminate the confusion that currently exists (in my mind anyway). SusunW (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have used a version of Gog's footnote and clearly stated the register says "1725". —Kusma (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Edmondson gives no dates or places of birth for Anna – consider removing it here. Wystrach p. 150 gives only 1726 and calls her 5th of 9. Shteir (ODNB) should be added. States born at Orford Hall, Warrington, Lancashire 5th of 9 kids and gives baptism date of 3 January 1726 in Warrington. (Were it me, methinks I'd clip/upload the registry page to avoid confusion of what year.)

  Should be "Edmondson and Rowley 1998", sorry. Wystrach's footnote has her as fourth child, with very confusing information on how many children.

• Text reads "fourth of fifth of nine children", 1st of should be or. If you are going to list her as or 4th, you need a source. Your Hale Hall given above shows on p. 34: Thomas 1720, Jonathan 1721, John 1723, William, Ann, Mary, Asheton, infant with no dates on the last 5, but we know from the baptismal records above that William was younger than Anna/e. Were it me, I'd make 4th or 5th a separate statement so it can be cited and explained.

  Footnote of Wystrach is cited for "fourth".

• Edmondson and Shteir (ODNB) and the baptismal records show mother's name as Catherine, Wystrach p. 150 says Katharine. Perhaps show Catherine and change parenthetical to (Katharine Assheton)?

  Done. —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• How do we know the hothouse was "coal-fired"? Shteir (ODNB) says he grew pineapples in a hothouse. Blake p. 37 says it had lead-glass windows, was a "wonder of Lancashire" and grew pineapples and cotton.

  We know it was heated, but indeed coal-fired is OR. See File:John Blackburne (1693–1786).jpg for the chimney. Here is a source for artificial heating, but I think "hothouse" in the context is sufficient.

• "Little is known about Anna's formal education" ... Rosove p. 617 says Forster tutored her in "biology, entomology, minerology, and other sciences", between 1767 and 1770. Easterby-Smith p. 87-88 also states that she may have attended classes at Warrington Academy which unusually allowed women to attend classes (but not enroll), and notes that even if she didn't attend classes, she benefited from the close relationship of her father to its instructors and students.

  Went for "early education". She is in her mid-30s and 40s by the time things get interesting at Warrington Academy. —Kusma (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Pennant obtaining shells is not on Wystrach p. 157, but is on p. 158

  Indeed, thanks.

• Characteres generum plantarum in the source is in title case, which per the MOS is how English works should be cited. Looking through ref section in general, case seems to vary and is not standardized, nor is title case used consistently. This is a handy tool.

  The book is in Latin, though, where I don't think there is a unified concept of title case. In general, title case is an abomination and should be burned with fire (most languages do not have such a concept), but I will try my best. All {{cite book}} are now in title case. I have been taught to use sentence case for titles of journal articles -- do we have other conventions here? I couldn't find a MoS page about that. —Kusma (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works#Capital letters "In titles (including subtitles, if any) of English-language works (books, poems, songs, etc.), every word is capitalized except for the definite and indefinite articles, the short coordinating conjunctions, and any short prepositions". (Although my writing training was decades ago, the title of "any work" should be in title case, i.e. newspapers, journal articles, etc., for English, but for other languages varies.) SusunW (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but it allows the use of citation styles where the title case is for the journal name and the article title in a journal is in sentence case, as I am trying to use. (This is what most of the maths journals where I write professionally use). —Kusma (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Fine with me. As long as they are consistent. It isn't how I would list them, but my preference doesn't have to be yours. SusunW (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• "publish his work.[31][28]" flip refs
• "it is instructive."[44][19]" flip refs

  Sorted all refs; as I don't put any meaning into the ordering of refs, they can be in ascending order without harm.

• Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but "skins sent to Blackburne by her brother Ashton" does not seem supported. Wystrach p.609 doesn't indicate that they were skins, but rather specimens. Do we know that he skinned them? (Admittedly, I have zero clue how one obtains bird specimens, but I clearly remember pickled frog specimens from biology class and those were definitely not skins, but whole critters.)

  No idea why I said "skins", perhaps trying to stop saying "specimens" all the time.

Thanks @SusunW for your careful reading, very helpful! —Kusma (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Perhaps preserved birds to avoid specimens again? Easterby-Smith p 87 indicates the museum had "taxidermy collections" of birds, so possibly taxidermied birds? SusunW (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You are very kind. You and I both acknowledge that I am somewhat obsessive about certain things. I appreciate that you humor me. SusunW (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I am so not going there. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• In case it helps, I use the formulation "on 14 October 1747 by the Julian calendar then in use in Great Britain. Following the normal convention, all further dates are Old Style and use the Julian calendar; they also assume that each year starts on 1 January." as a footnote the first time a date comes up, usually in the first sentence of the lead. If applicable use Gregorian instead of Julian. See eg Second Battle of Cape Finisterre for an example. (Which went through FAC.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You sooooo made me laugh, Gog. Thanks for the suggestion about dates. SusunW (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Daniel Solander as well.[51][10]" flip refs (and yes I know it doesn't matter as far as accuracy, but in FA consistency does.)
• "cousin Ashton Lever.[52][13]" flip refs

  all done

• Not sure "Blackburne had a museum" has the same meaning as that she created/assembled/curated it.

  Not sure what you mean here?

• Had is passive. She didn't just have a collection, i.e. possess a collection someone gave to her; instead, she actively created the museum and carefully curated what pieces she included or gave to other researchers. Happy that you changed it to assembled. SusunW (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• "St Oswald's Church, Winwick" Wystrach p. 150 says only in the family plot in the churchyard in Winwick. How do we know that's the church in question? (Although I admit that Edmondson (ODNB) says that St Oswald's is where her father was buried.)

  Indeed that is where her father is buried. Also, it is the only church in Winwick, so people did not feel the need to specify.

• Cool. As a non-Brit, I had no clue that was the case. Thanks for the explanation. SusunW (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Yale Center for British Art.[61][53]" flip refs

  done

Sources: Except as noted above, spot check does not reveal copyvios or problems with attributions. Overall, sources appear to be reliable and given the time-frame in which she lived, contemporary records are likely the best available. For consistency, I note the following:

Publishing houses and locations are not consistent for journal articles, for example Easterby-Smith gives Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, but Edmondson & Rowley, immediately following gives neither. Should be standardized IMO.

Easterby-Smith is a book.

• Fries language? Trans-title?

  Added.

• Hoare isbn isn't segmented properly – should be 978-0-7256-0121-8

  Done.

• Kendrick source says 2nd edition which per worldcat is oclc 561059791
• Pennant (1774) is oclc 939438039
• Pennant (1784) is oclc 890812562
• Rylands is oclc 904223196

  All added.

Thank you for another lovely article on a woman, Kusma. I appreciate your work and enjoy working with you when our paths cross. Overall, well-done. I won't be able to respond again until sometime tomorrow afternoon (on my side of the pond Mexico CST) SusunW (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot again SusunW for the detailed review and for helping me root out remaining inaccuracies! I hope I have answered everything, let me know if I have overlooked a comment. —Kusma (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Enjoyed the collaboration, as always. Congrats on another lovely article. Happy to SUPPORT. SusunW (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that SusunW. Just doing my usual belt and braces thing: is that a general support and a source review pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, to both, Gog the Mild. Should I have said it differently? SusunW (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, the instructions suggest "To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s) ..." but we are used to editors being creative. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You usually can follow my tendency to follow my own syncopation, but I'll try to stick to the classical form henceforth. No promises, however. SusunW (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Turabay dynasty

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the Turabay dynasty, a family of Bedouin emirs that governed northern Palestine in the 15th–16th centuries under the Ottoman Empire. Their territory, formalized first as the 'Iqta of Turabay' then as the Sanjak of Lajjun, spanned the area between Jenin and Haifa. The long reign of the Turabays was owed to the strength of their tribe, their largely consistent loyalty to the sultan, and their success in administering and securing their sanjak. Backed by their close allies, the Ridwan and Farrukh dynasties of Gaza and Nablus, they prevented Fakhr al-Din II, the powerful Druze emir who had reduced Ottoman rule in the Levant "to a mere shadow", from conquering Palestine. These three local dynasties treated Palestine as their own dominion and, ironically, with Fakhr al-Din out of the way, the Ottomans were freed up to gradually eliminate these dynasties' power. Turabay governance finally ended in 1677. Their descendants still live in northern Palestine and Israel. Al Ameer (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

FM

• Marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Sanjak is linked twice in the intro.

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Add date in captions of images that lack it for context?

• Done Al Ameer (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Link Mamluk.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think the common term soldier needs to be linked.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• "were in the coastal plain of Palestine" it seems a bit odd that Palestine is only mentioned and linked this far down, shouldn't it be already in the first paragraph of the article body?

• Yes, done. Al Ameer (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• "according to Sharon" You haven't presented any Sharon before this point.

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Link Arabian horses?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Link Transjordan.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• "to avoid a future a Ma'nid takeover" Second a seems redundant.

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• You use both Laurent d'Arvieux and Chevalier d'Arvieux, probably best to be consistent.

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Do we know anything about the women of the family?

• Unfortunately, no, at least not from the modern, secondary sources. Al Ameer (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• I see you added a map, but unfortunately it creates some WP:image sandwiching under Governorship of Ahmad. Are there other ways the images can be placed to prevent this?

• I replaced the map with one I produced using a PD map as the base. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• The copyright info of the new map also needs to be the same as the original, as it is still the same authorship and public domain though it has been modified

• Replaced per above. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• "and the use of a band composed of tambourines, oboes, drums and trumpets" For what purpose?

• Clarified that sentence in general—the innovations concerned their tribal way of life (not innovations to government) and the band is a military band. Let me know your thoughts on the revision. Al Ameer (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The building was the only grave of the Turabays to have survived into the 20th century and no longer exists today" Do we know what happened to it?

• No. According to the source, the mausoleum no longer exists as far as he knows. For my part, I cannot find anything else about it. It was last documented in 1941 by an antiquities inspector with the surname "Husseini" and was in a deteriorating state at that time. Al Ameer (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• The mausoleum image could be right aligned to precent it clashing with the section title beneath it.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Sharon attributes the decline of the Turabays to the eastward migration of the Banu Haritha to the Jordan Valley and the Ajlun region in the late 17th century" How would this have affected them? It was their power base that moved away, or?

• Clarified. The tribe was their base of power and with them migrating away from northern Palestine, the Turabays probably lost their means to keep order and enforce their rule and became useless to the Ottomans who were trying to centralize power away from local dynasties anyway. I should note here that so far it has been frustratingly difficult to find much information about the Haritha tribe in general. The plain south of Haifa, the 16th-17th-century stomping grounds of the tribe, was known as “Bilad al-Haritha” as late as the 19th century but even for this I cannot locate a source that explicitly associates the name with the tribe. I also have no information about why they left the region or what later became of them. Al Ameer (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The family remained in the area, with members living in Jenin at the close of the century and in Tulkarm." But the article body indicates they still exist?

• True. Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Thank you for taking the time to review this candidacy. I believe I addressed the points you raised but let me know if there is anything else that needs improvement. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support - looks good, I still see some image sandwiching under Governorship of Ahmad (perhaps move an image to the empty Governance section?), but that won't hold it back. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• @FunkMonk: Thank you for your helpful suggestions and support. I adjusted accordingly--please let me know if images look ok now. Al Ameer (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka

• Are Bakhit (February 1972) and Rhode (1979) reliable sources?

• Yes. I replaced Bakhit's 1972 thesis with the version published in 1982. He is one of the leading authorities of Ottoman history of the Levant and this work in particular is widely cited by scholars in the field. Rhode's work is well-cited in academia about the subject of his work—16th-century Ottoman Safed and its sanjak. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Introduce Deir al-Balah as a Palestinian town/city in footnote "a".

• Is this suggested because Deir al-Balah is relatively obscure? (we are not treating other cities mentioned in the article this way). Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think the geographical context should be determined because for the time being Palestine is first mentioned in connection with the Mamluk rule.

• Their power was dealt a serious blow in a Mamluk campaign in 1253. Unclear: were they fought for or against the Mamluks?

• Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• ...tradition claims that their ancestors "migrated to Palestine during the Early Islamic period." Do we know from where they migrated to Palestine?

• Rmv; this was added later and without a page number or way for me to verify, but more importantly the article already offers more elaboration on the family's origins. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Why is not "transl" template used when mentioning Mamlakat Safad. I would also mention that it was a Mamluk province to introduce the reference to the Mamluks in the next sentence.

• Mamlakat Safad is a proper noun, so not sure it should be presented that way, but please correct me if I am wrong. Mamluk-era Palestine is mentioned as the context in the sentences preceding and following this mention. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Do we know why Turabay was executed and why allowed the Mamluks his son to succeede him?

• Unfortunately, none of the secondary sources on hand provide any explanation. Abu-Husayn mentions that Bakhit elaborates about the possible reason in his Arabic-language article in Al-Abhath vol. 28, but I have zero access to it (and cannot read Arabic in any case!) Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Qaraja's son is Turabay or Turabay II?

• Turabay II but the sources do not denote any of the emirs of the same name as the first or second, etc., so not sure we should either. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• I understant Qaraja was still alive when his son joined the Ottomans. This fact should be mentioned because Qaraja's execution in 1519 surprised me in the next paragraph.

• Qaraja's activities are mentioned in the preceding and following sentences so this should be sufficient for a reader to conclude he was still alive. I will take another look to see if I can make this clearer. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• I would make it clearer and explain why the son joined the Ottomans instead of the father. Did he support the Ottomans on his father's order or against his father's will?

• Revised, let me know if clear now. Qaraja supported the Ottomans and his son Turabay even joined the sultan's campaign against the Mamluks in Egypt. The sources do not elaborate on whether Qaraja ordered his son to go on campaign but it is probably implied. Al Ameer (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• A link to the conquest of Mamluk Egypt?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delink soldier.

• Done!

• Why Constantinople instead of Istanbul?

• I understand this is the preferred name for Ottoman-era Istanbul, though I modified the pipe to the more relevant article. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Introduce Via Maris.

• Done (hopefully satisfactorily). Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Why is not "transl" template used when mentioning iqta?

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• A sentence about the iqta system?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• ...three chiefs... Bedouin chiefs?

• Yes, done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Turabay was already introduced as Qaraja's son.

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• A link to akce?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Some general remarks about the administration of Palestine under Ottomans? Perhaps: extensive taxation, employment of local chieftains in state administration, appointment of rival chiefs to offices, ( I am only guessing). Do we know why the Turabays were frequently conspiring against the Ottomans?

• In Early relations with the Ottomans, I added further context about the Ottomans' main challeges in the Levant and how the Turabays played into this. In Assessment, I added about the power dynamics between the Ottoman imperial state and the local chiefs on whom they often relied for keeping order and, most importantly, collecting taxes. Still looking to add further info about why the Ottomans had to rely on such local leaders in the first place and the administration of Palestine, or the Levant more broadly, during early Ottoman rule. As for their run-ins with the authorities, the Turabays are actually noted for being mostly loyal to the Ottomans while preserving their autonomy and Bedouin spirit of independence to a great degree, as hopefully the article demonstrates. This was the key to their unusual longevity as practically hereditary governors of Lajjun. Their 'rebellions', unfortunately are rarely elaborated by the sources, but were usually short-lived and could simply mean they were stockpiling muskets or failing to meet tax obligations, both illicit activities that were often reason enough for the state to deem someone a rebel. They may also have been implicated in Bedouin raiding against Muslim pilgrim caravans, either by direct participation or failure to prevent, though this is only speculation by the secondary sources. Al Ameer (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
• Pending. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• The Iqta of Turabay became its own sanjak... Perhaps, "The Iqta of Turabay was transformed into a sanjak..."? Do we know why?

• Revised wording. I can only guess why at this point, so will look into this further. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Do we know the relationship between Ali and Assaf?

• Yes, brothers. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Was Assaf exiled to Rhodes and pardoned in the same year?

• Yes, clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Why is Sinan Pasha linked in the name of his son?

• Removed. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ahmad's rule over Lajjun was soon followed with the appointment of the Druze chieftain Fakhr al-Din Ma'n to... I assume Ahmad's ascension was followed by Fakhr al-Din's appointment, because Ahmad will be mentioned in subsequent sentences.

• Fakhr al-Din became governor of Safed in 1606 (he was already governor of Sidon from 1593) and Ahmad became governor of Lajjun after the death of his father in 1601. Al Ameer (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think the wording is misleading: for me, "Ahmad's rule was followed" indicates that Ahmad was dead or dismissed by the time Fakhr al-Din was appointed governor.

• Revised, hopefully much clearer now. Al Ameer (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Overall commander? Perhaps supreme?

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• ... he ignored summons... Who?

• Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• In the picture's caption: Ahmad Turabay sounds a little bit strange.

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Explain the terms "kethuda" and "sekban" with one or two words.

• Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Introduce Ali Janbulad.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• A link to piaster? What is the exchange rate between piaster and akce?

• Never thought about this until you raised it: apparently a piaster was how Europeans often referred to the Ottoman kurush—1 kurush was apparently equal to 120 akce. Al Ameer (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

An excellent article. Thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and suggestions Borsoka. I addressed most of the points you’ve raised but there are a few more I need to tackle. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• If you watch a preview for the article before publishing your edit you will find two messages at the beginning indicating errors in the "cite journal" and "cite book" tags.

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Khan al-Lajjun.jpg: it needs a US PD tag, and the source link does not verify the picture.

• Added and fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Lajjun Sanjak in Ottoman Palestine.png: I would add a direct source to the picture.

• Replaced this map with a clearer one and provided link to base map. Al Ameer (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• My concern is that the map is verified by a primary source. Could a secondary source be added? Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Revised the map slightly based on Marom et al, a source cited in the article, as well as Hutteroth and Abdulfattah's work about the 16th-century Ottoman tax records concerning Palestine. Sources listed in the file summary. Al Ameer (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Palm trees at Jenin, possibly the site of ancient Jezreel. C Wellcome V0049488.jpg: PD tags are needed.

• Added. Al Ameer (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• I added an alternative (more universal) PD tag.

• File:Muhammad Turabay by d'Arvieux.png: the name "Muhammad Turabay" is strange in the caption.

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Qubbat Amir Turabay Jenin 1941.png: it needs a US PD tag.

• Added. Al Ameer (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• ...preeminent household... Household? Borsoka (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Revised the lead sentence altogether. Let me know your thoughts. Al Ameer (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think two three pending issues remained (citation errors, general remarks about Ottoman government in Palestine, one picture). Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Al Ameer son ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

BorsokaGog the Mild Truly sorry for the slow-going here. Please see replies above. Al Ameer (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. An excellent and interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Cplakidas - support

Looks very interesting, will have a look. Constantine ✍ 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Not much to complain about, just a few nitpicks.

Lede

• under the Mamluks for clarity for readers who may not immediately understand the reference, perhaps 'under the Egypt-based Mamluk Sultanate', or similar? Likewise, During the Ottoman conquest 'during the conquest of the region by the Ottoman Empire'?

• Thanks, revised. Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Origins

• Mamluk (1250–1518) periods the end date is incorrect here

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Early relations with the Ottomans

• Do we know why they defected to the Ottomans? Was this common occurrence or were they driven by rivalries or ambition?

• Their motive is not spelled out by any of the sources that are available to me. However, I clarified that their contacts with the Ottoman sultan followed the Ottomans' victory against the Mamluks in Syria. We're left to presume they simply went with the tide to preserve their Mamluk-era position and priveleges, and the Ottomans clearly saw them as useful from that earliest stage. Al Ameer (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• According to Bakhit, he has not been introduced yet

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• The iqta was a Mamluk-era form of land tenure while technically correct in that it was also used by the Mamluks, the iqta pre-existed them, and was established by the Abbasids in the 9th/10th century; perhaps strike the 'Mamluk-era' part or replace it with 'common form of land tenure in the medieval Islamic world' or similar?

• Correct, revised. Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• but Abu-Husayn suggests Abu-Husayn has not been introduced yet

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• akces -> akçes, an requires a {{transl|ota|}} template I think as it is not a common English word. BTW, the {{transl|tr|}} should likely be {{transl|ota|}} throughout.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Early governors of Lajjun

• in connection to a Bedouin rebellion any more details here?

• While checking on this, it turns out the whole episode of his dismissal, possible exile and return and his successor was a confused series of events, the confusion starting with the 16th-century imperial records and then with modern scholarship's reading of events. Revised to clarify. Al Ameer (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Governorship of Ahmad

• of the janissaries corps either 'Janissary Corps' or 'corps of the janissaries'

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• held iltizam, timars, and ziamets as the latter two terms have not appeared in the main text so far, suggest linking them and adding a brief explanation

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Will do the rest later today. Constantine ✍ 10:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Later chiefs and downfall

• "courageous, wise and modest" does this quote come from said sources or is it Sharon's summary of these sources' portrayal?

• Sharon's summarization. Let me know if the new wording needs to be adjusted. Al Ameer (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• religious scholarly elite link to faqih or ulama?

• Linked ulema, though will look into faqih (might be more fitting for a grouping called the fuqaha, plural of faqih). Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Governance

• akce per above

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• They levied customs recommend spelling out the Turabays again here

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Maltese pirates I assume that this refers to the Knights of Malta? Then relink and/or adapt accordingly.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• whose solidarity 'solidarity' is an odd word to use here; perhaps 'loyalty'? Or is this meant to represent asabiyya?

• I believe in this instance group solidarity is meant, so linked asabiyya. Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Way of life

• The year 1010 [AH link to Hijri year?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That's it. The article is well-written and well-referenced, comprehensive and takes pains to introduce the context to the non-expert. Constantine ✍ 18:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Thank you for taking the time to review, and for your recommendations. I addressed most of the points raised and aim to finish by tomorrow evening. Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: I completed the final items, pending your review. Al Ameer (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Support or oppose?[edit]

• Hi Constantine, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Hi Gog the Mild given that my comments are mostly minor or cosmetic issues, I have no problem with supporting as-is. The article is definitely a very solid piece of work. Constantine ✍ 17:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review

Image placement is sound. I see no ALT text. If File:Qubbat Amir Turabay Jenin 1941.png was taken in Jenin which is in the West Bank, wouldn't a Palestinese copyright law apply? commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/State of Palestine implies that the copyright law applicable is unclear, though. Spot-check upon request. Sources seem reputable, although with distinct information available for each. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Al Ameer son ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:@Gog the Mild: I missed the part regarding the missing ALT text, which I have now added to all of the images in the article. As for whether or not Palestinian copyright law applies, unfortunately I am not sure. I had been under the impression that Israeli copyright law still applied in the occupied territories. @FunkMonk: As usual with any of my image copyright queries, can you please offer some guidance on this point? Thank you ;) --Al Ameer (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems mandatory/British law would apply then, so it may only have to be switched to another tag. It also depends on where the photo was first published, though, not where it was taken. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this clarity FunkMonk. It would have been published in British Mandatory Palestine, as the image is in the possession of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Does this mean we continue to use the PD-Israel tag? Al Ameer (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

From the guideline Jo-Jo linked (The Copyright Act 1911 (extension to Palestine)), I think we could assume so, as it's from 1941. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Nasutoceratops

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This aticle is about a ceratopsian dinosaur which is unusual for its large snout and similarity to a Texas Longhorn. This is perhaps also why it has gained a bit of fame recently by being featured in the Jurassic World franchise. Everything published about it should be summarised here, and luckily there are a lot of nice, free images available. Note that a Master's thesis (Ridgwell) that was also used in the FA Kosmoceratops is included here for comprehensiveness, as it does not present controversial information. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

HF - support

Will review later this week. Hog Farm _Talk 02:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• "Specimens were discovered in Utah in the Kaiparowits Formation of the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument (GSENM) from 2006 onwards," - it seems odd to put this in the past tense, as there's nothing that would prevent new specimens from being collected in the future

Changed to "The first known specimens". FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• " including a subadult skull with a partial postcranial skeleton and rare skin impressions and two partial skulls. In 2013, the adult was made the holotype of the new genus" - I'm assuming "the adult" is one of the two partial skulls, but it might not hurt to clean up the phrasing here a bit

Well-spotted, it refers to the same subadult as the former sentence, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The holotype specimen UMNH VP 16800 consists of a partial, associated, and nearly complete skull that preserves most of the skull roof. The specimen has been interpreted as being a subadult, based on fusion of skull elements and bone surface texture." - but the lead says the holotype is an adult specimen

Yep, fixed per above. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Is an epiparietal a type of epiossification?

Yes, I've now presented the different types of epiossifications by name in the first paragraph under description. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Move the link for neoceraptosians up to the first mention

Done. Unfortunately it doesn't have a separate article from Ceratopsia. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Since the holotype was not fully grown, it is possible such hooks would have developed as it matured, but this is considered unlikely due to the fusion of its epiparietals on the frill and fusion of other bones related to maturity" - does the descriptions of the adult skulls shed any light on this matter?

Unfortunately they don't preserve that part (what they do preserve is listed under discovery). FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "In 2018, Dalman and colleagues found the specimen from New Mexico" - for reader clarity, I would recommend mentioning upfront that this is the Menefeeceratpos specimen

Good idea, I changed to "the specimen that was later named Menefeeceratops" to make clear it wasn't named by the time the statement was made. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that's it from me for the first read-through. Hog Farm _Talk 00:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

AryKun

• "Petri, Alexandra (2 December 2021). "Three-horned poems for the new dinosaur, Nasutoceratops, relative of the triceratops". Washington Post." If you're italicizing and capitalizing Nasutoceratops here, you should also do that for triceratops.

Fixed, but that brings up something I'm uncertain about, the actual source[42] neither capitalises or italicises these names, so should I do that or not? It is of course formally incorrect not to do it, but it doesn't reflect the source to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

While not wishing to opine on this particular case, what the sources do and what, eg, the MoS requires us to do frequently differ. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll just keep the "corrected" titles for now, then. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Irmis, Randall B. (21 June 2022). "NHMU Dinosaur Stars in Jurassic World Dominion". nhmu.utah.edu" Publisher name should be National History Museum of Utah.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• "Whalen, Andrew (16 September 2019). "All 7 Dinosaurs in 'Battle at Big Rock,' Including Nasutoceratops". Newsweek." Italicize genus.

Done, but note it has the same problem as above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• "Rivera-Sylva, Héctor E.; Hedrick, Brandon P.; Dodson, Peter (2016). "A Centrosaurine (Dinosauria: Ceratopsia) from the Aguja Formation (Late Campanian) of Northern Coahuila, Mexico". PLOS ONE." Sentence case.

Fixed, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• "Dalman, Sebastian G.; Hodnett, John-Paul M.; Lichtig, Asher J.; Lucas, Spencer G. (2018). "A New Ceratopsid Dinosaur (Centrosaurinae: Nasutoceratopsini) From The Fort Crittenden Formation, Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) Of Arizona". New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin." Sentence case.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• "76.0-75.5 million years ago" en-dash and maybe link million years ago?

Done, though these are usually not linked in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• "honors Alan L. Titus" Since we don't have a link here, maybe mention his profession ("honors the paleontologist Alan L. Titus")

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Will add some more comments later. AryKun (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi AryKun, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks nice, but I don't think I've read through it deeply enough to have an opinion either way. AryKun (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "and the collaborative effort has been called the Kaiparowits Basin Project": seems rather hesitant wording; could this be just "and the collaborative effort is known as the Kaiparowits Basin Project"? Or is it the case that this isn't any sort of official name?

Changed, yeah, it's called this in most sources. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Among the discoveries made were three new ceratopsian (horned dinosaur) taxa": if the project is still going on, I'd make this "that have been made", and shouldn't it be "are", not "were"? They were discovered, but they are taxa.

Took your suggestions. I meant "were" as in they "were among the discoveries", but not sure if that's unclear. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a link available for "air scribe"? Or could it be redlinked? Maybe an entry in Glossary of sculpting, if my Googling hasn't led me astray.

Redlinked, but I think it's a more specialized tool:[43] FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "based on fusion of skull elements": I haven't looked at the source, but would this be better as "based on the degree of fusion of"? I assume it is less completely fused than an adult skull would be.

Yeah, added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "right hindlimb without hand bones": is it customary to use "hand" for a hind limb?

Yikes, no, it should have been forelimb, not sure how that happened, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The external nostril forms 75% of the skull length in front of the eye sockets, which is unique for ceratopsians": perhaps "The external nostril forms 75% of the skull length in front of the eye sockets, more than in any other ceratopsian"?

Went with "more than in other ceratopsians", the source doesn't specifically say it's more than in any other, but I assume that's what's meant. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "snout-region": I don't think this should be hyphenated unless I'm missing some nuance of meaning (or it's hyphenated in the sources).

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The nasal bones had well-developed internal cavities behind the horn, which suggests they were hollow": I think it should be "have", not "had", though "were hollow" seems right as I assume we don't have currently existing examples of complete nasal bones.

Right, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The brow horns of Nasutoceratops also differed from those of other ceratopsids": should be "differ"? I assume the rule being followed is to use the past tense when speaking of the ceratopsids as animals, but present tense when speaking of their specific anatomical characteristics as known from fossil evidence.

Yep, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "being convex across from side to side": "across" seems redundant.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• The paragraph starting "The scapula" has "typical of ceratopsids" four times in the last four sentences. Would it be possible to replace these with a sentence at the end of the paragraph saying something like "These characteristics of the humerus, ulna, and radius are typical of all ceratopsids"?

As the "typical of" does not necessarily refer to all the features of these bones listed, I've tried by instead using different wording and taking one instance out, if that is any better. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest linking "narial" to nostril.

Glossed with "(bony nostril)" instead, as nostril is a pretty common term. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Just checking that there is intentionally no mention of MOR 692 (which is in the cladogram) in the body text -- I know nothing about it, but there's considerable discussion of related taxa and specimens so I thought this might be an omission.

I originally went into this, but cut it as maybe unnecessary and confusing because it's only known by specimen number. I've re-added the cut text now now, which also discusses other unnamed specimens, perhaps a bit of a mouthful: "These authors named this new clade Nasutoceratopsini, with Nasutoceratops as the type genus; this group was defined as all centrosaurines more closely related to Nasutoceratops than to Centrosaurus, containing Nasutoceratops, Avaceratops, MOR 692 (previously treated as an adult Avaceratops), CMN 8804, and another undescribed ceratopsian (specimen GPDM 63) from Malta, Montana." FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• "they only became common in the Early Cretaceous": suggest "angiosperms only became common in the Early Cretaceous".

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• "which ranges 200–350 m (656.2–1,148.3 ft)": what do these distances refer to?

That should be depth, I've added "relative depth", but perhaps Jens Lallensack can confirm if this is the right terminology. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that should be "in thickness"; you could even link to the article Thickness (geology). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, added that instead. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Rivers flowed generally west across the plains and drained into the Western Interior Seaway": surely they flowed east, given the geography?

I can see what you're getting at, but this is what the source says: "The Kaiparowits Formation was dominated by an array of continental depositional environments, with large, deep fluvial channels supported by stable banks. Rivers flowed generally west across the alluvial–coastal plain, draining into the retreating Western Interior Seaway. The floodplains to these large channels were dominated by long-lived perennial ponds, wetlands, and lakes. The nearly ubiquitous nature of large aquatic mollusks, coupled with the abundance of aquatic vertebrates (Gates et al., 2010) and plants (Miller et al., this volume) in many overbank units, testifies to the wet nature of this alluvial system and the persistence of standing water deposits." I'm not entirely sure how this adds up, so pinging Jens Lallensack again (an actual palaeontologist). FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what Jens says. I'd almost be inclined to drop the reference to the direction as it seems so implausible I wonder if it's a typo. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I also think it's just a typo. No way the rivers were flowing west. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I tried with the following by removing reference to direction, if that looks ok: "Rivers flowed across the plains and drained into the Western Interior Seaway". FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That works. If you contact the authors they might issue an erratum; I've seen that done a couple of times and then you could cite that. But it's fine as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

These are all minor points. I know little about the subject but the article is in excellent shape as far as I can tell, though I'm not competent to review the detailed skeletal discussions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, very useful observations, all should now be addressed (but see last uncertain answer). FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Wolverine XI

Will look more into this. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 08:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait; reviewing now. Note the underlined words.

• In 2016, Lund and colleagues stated that the functional adaptations associated with the very short and deep front part of the skull of Nasutoceratops were unknown, but suggested that the may have been related to a change toward more derived masticatory functions in basal ceratopsians. The sentence seems long, and would benefit from splitting.

Tried with semicolon for better flow: "In 2016, Lund and colleagues stated that the functional adaptations associated with the very short and deep front part of the skull of Nasutoceratops were unknown; they suggested these may have been related to a change toward more derived masticatory functions in basal ceratopsians." FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• In a 2017 Master's thesis, the paleontologist Nicole Marie Ridgwell Not idiomatic

Different reviewers always have different opinions on this, but the important thing is that an article is internally ocnsistent. In this case, "the" is used throughout, so shouldn't be different in a single instance. Both forms are correct. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

See also current discussion about this here:[44] FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Sampson and colleagues stated in 2013 that while various hypotheses about the function of ceratopsid skull ornamentation have been proposed, the consensus at the time was use<--

I'm not sure what this is trying to say. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was pointing at the word use. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

So are you suggesting something like "was as use in" or similar? FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Not really, I feel like it should be "its use in" as that makes much more sense. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a well-written article with a few corrections needed. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 08:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request and reviewing this version. #7 doesn't have a complete date. Regarding #9, theses are seldom good sources but I see that this one's been cited a few time so it might pass. Does the news coverage really require 5 sources? Some sources seem to link to the PMC and DOI links twice. #26 is also a thesis, but not cited anywhere, which makes it a bit iffy as a source. Everything else seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• For ref 7, I assume you mean that the year isn't in parenthesis like the other citations? I have no idea how that happened, I can't find any difference in the formatting of that and the other citations? Pinging J JMesserly, who has helped with citation formatting before. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  That and the article has a day and a month. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think ref 8 is the outlier in how the access date is formatted? None of them have other than year as the publication date. FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging User-duck, who also works on citations, if they know where the parenthesis went. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a very good article at first look. Guidlines:

1. Use templates and let them do the formatting. Parens only appear if there is an author/editor specified.
2. News articles and web posts should have the complete publication date. Do not omit authors.

Yes, ref 7 is a little unusual but deserves a better cite. I will do one this evening (about 11 hours). It will be my opinion and feel free to change it.

P.S. Decide on a date format and add {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} template to document it. Thanks for asking, User-duck (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that, I had no idea the parenthesis wouldn't show up around the date if there was no author field. I've also added full dates for the other news sources. FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• As for 9, all it does it say he used another name for his thesis version of the description, which shouldn't be controversial. Same with the theses used for 26 and 33, they don't provide any controversial information (one just lists fossils from the formation, the other reports on fossil dung).
• As for all the news sources, I use several because they're used to support a wider statement about how the discovery was reported, which would hardly make sense with fewer citations: "the large nose of the dinosaur was emphasized... This was reflected in news outlets", with the examples cited.

Image review - failpass

• File:Nasutoceratops UDL.png: While not wishing to question UnexpectedDinoLesson's credentials, what leads you to believe that they are a HQ RS?

The image has had a very detailed review here[45], where it has been cross-checked with all available sources (cited on Commons). FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Kaiparowits Formation swamp.jpg and File:Kaiparowits fauna.jpg: Similarly.

These match the inferred environment and published figures of the fossils (as listed in the Commons description). You can see if such images have been listed for WP:dinoart review under their links. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure what you mean by "links". If either has been listed, could you give me the links to the discussions. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if you scroll down on an image page, you can see everywhere it has been used across all Wikipedias. Here's the section where one of the images was reviewed[46], and here's the section with the other.[47] Note I had heavily modified the first image to make it more accurate according to the sources, and the second one was pretty accurate, so they did not get many comments at the reviews. Reviewers mainly comment when something is wrong, so if they don't, nothing has been identified. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Two follow up queries.

• If you have "heavily modified the first image to make it more accurate according to the sources" should your name and that of the sources not be in the image Summary?
• Are all details of Nasutoceratops in the images clearly supported by a consensus of the HQ RSs? I am particularly thinking of the colouration and the false eyes in the upper neck frill, but their may be others. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The sources are listed in the description field, as for crediting myself, I think that would be too much, it's made clear in the upload summary that I've modified them either way, I don't really feel like it warrants listing me as author. As for colouration and markings, we don't know for the species depicted here (we do know from a handful others, though), but it has been generally suggested that the ornamentation of dinosaurs could have been colourful and bold in life, as it is in modern animals. But it's such a general idea and repeated in most sources about that subject that I wonder if it makes sense listing any particular citation for that? Here are two sources mentioning colour in relation to dinosaur display off the top of my head:[48][49] FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to colouration and patterning being informed but conjectural. However, there is the risk of a reader taking it at face value. Perhaps the two group images could have 'colouration is conjectural' or similar added to their captions? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is a given, and not really how the sources (or even popular works) would treat such an image, so I'm a bit wary of it (would make a lot of captions unnecessarily long). It is usually the other way around in relevant sources and other articles; if colouration is known, it is noted in the captions (as in for example Microraptor and Tylosaurus). As for those eye spots specifically, ceratopsian dinosaurs are not uncommonly depicted with them, here by Gregory S. Paul[50] and Mark Witton.[51] FunkMonk (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

That is not really how Wikipedia works. If we say or portray something it is because we have a solid source which states it is a fact and we refer to that source. If no source states something, we don't mention it. I don't see how "Anything you see or read may just be a guess, but we will let you know if there happens to be something we are sure about in there" is compatible with a Wikipedia article, much less one at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but it goes both ways; an article about a subject should cover it in a way similar to how it is covered by the relevant sources or by other encyclopaedias, not in an original way. And you usually just don't see either with captions like that (saying depicted colouration is conjectural or even addressing colouration if it isn't because it is actually known), so there are no published sources to use as precedent. To take some example, Britannica's article about the related Pachyrhinosaurus:[52] The original Nasutoceratops press release intended for general audiences with a bare-bones image caption:[53] National Geographic'scoverage of the dinosaur:[54] FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, we do lots of things differently here. Is there any reason in policy or the MoS why we should follow the sources in this? Or policy support for "an article about a subject should cover it in a way similar to how it is covered by the relevant sources"?

I am unconvinced by the "would make a lot of captions unnecessarily long" argument. Currently the article includes captions 178 and 317 characters long (including spaces). Adding the 28 characters of my suggestion would make the two captions affected 126 and 113 characters long. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware this is not the case on any of the other Dinosauria-related FA's with life reconstructions. If necessary, perhaps just adding 'colouration subjective' at the end of the caption could work. If it is a requirement, we should at the very least employ this unilaterally across all dinosaur FA's, maybe even all FA's on extinct animals. The Morrison Man (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the overly long captions is the main argument (though I personally find it unappealing), but rather the lack of published precedent in relevant sources. I do think such information could maybe make sense as part of the alt-text, which is concerned about the visual side of an image. Could that be a compromise? But yeah, if this really is an issue, it should be brought up at a more general venue rather than in a specific article, since we literally have thousands of articles with the same issue. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It's an issue. I am entirely open to being persuaded that we are not telling readers something not supported by HQ RSs - in the two specific cases in this FAC. I don't think that "but it's that way in other articles" is going to convince me. And has this has, to my surprise, become an "issue" I am formally recusing. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not about following other Wikipedia articles, but about following the published literature we base our articles on. The reason why I mention other Wikipedia articles is just that if we create a new precedent here, it should be followed everywhere else on Wikipedia, hence it would need a wider discussion to see if there is really support for this. I'm totally open for that if we believe the issue is serious enough for it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

If there is a consensus of the HQ RSs on the colouration portrayed in the images and the false eyes then cite it and I'm happy. If not, state so in the article and I'm happy. Or come up with a policy based reason why things are fine as they are. Barring any of those I don't see how I can support the use of either of those images in an FAC. Everything else is fine and the closing @WP:FAC coordinators: may disagree with my approach regarding this, narrow issue. I am not over-fussed one way or the other what other editors support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I think we have differing interpretations of the rules then (me emphasising that we should follow how the relevant sources cover a subject). I'll bring it up at a more general venue at some point, faster if more people find it an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that we do have "differing interpretations". The first thing I wrote in my summary of my position was "If there is a consensus of the HQ RSs on the colouration portrayed in the images and the false eyes then cite it and I'm happy." What do you consider to be the difference between that and "we should follow how the relevant sources cover a subject"? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Because no sources exist that give such a rationale for depictions of particular species because there is no fossil evidence to base it on, they only give very general pointers, and generally no comment is made on the colouration shown in image captions. Going beyond that isn't possible with existing sources, except for the very rare cases where colouration has been preserved in the fossils, but that is not the case for the animals depicted here. As I mentioned above, some notable palaeontological artists have shown such spots, but entirely without comment, so while there is published visual precedence for it, there is nothing in the captions for these images that can be cited in support. Gregory S. Paul had this general statement, for example: "Archosaurs of all sizes may have used specific color displays for intraspecific communication or for startling predators. Crests, frills, skin folds, and taller neural spines would be natural bases for vivid, even iridescent, display colors, especially in the breeding season." A citation to something like that could be added to the Commons description, no? FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, as I mentioned earlier, I'll start a discussion about this at a more general venue, as it's a general issue not restricted to this FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Added "hypothetical life restoration" to all restoration captions, per the discussion here:[55] FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Caption "The Kaiparowits Formation environment has been compared with the swamplands of Louisiana." Perhaps 'The swamplands of Louisiana, with which the Kaiparowits Formation environment has been compared'?

Why not, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Make File:Ceratopsia skin integument.png larger.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Alt text is missing from most but not all images.

Added to rest. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith (comments)

I don't know if I'll be able to commit to a full review, but I'll make a few suggestions.

I know WP:ALT is not a WP:FACR, and I do appreciate that all the images here do at least have alts, but I can't help feeling some of them could be improved. For example, File:Ceratopsidae Scale.svg. The image itself complies with WP:FIDUCIAL by including the silhouette of a human, but the alt text just teases our screen-reader users by not actaully telling them how that human compares to the dinosaurs. Even adding something as simple as "The tallest, Triceratops prorsus, is about twice as tall and the shortest, Nasutoceratops titusi, is about the same height" would add useful context. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think most people feel particularly comfortable doing these, tried with something along your lines for that image. Anything else? FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The Morrison Man - support

Seeing as this review seems to be missing a third reviewer, I'll provide some comments in a bit. Just marking my spot. The Morrison Man (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright, finally got around to reading through the whole thing. A few notes:

Lead

• “including a subadult skull with a partial postcranial skeleton and rare skin impressions and two partial skulls” - maybe clarify that these skulls do not belong to the partial skeleton, something like “two other partial skulls”.

Added "other". FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “and may have formed a distinct clade within this group” - Isn’t Nasutoceratopsini well-established at this point? If so, may have can be removed here.

It has recently been put into question, see latter part of classification section. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I seem to have missed this one when I was looking over my list at the end! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “the deep front of skull” - the deep front of the skull.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Discovery and naming

• “the paleotologist Alan L. Titus” - Fix typo.

Yikes, done. How did no one before spot that? FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “which formed much of the upper jaw” - Would this not fit better in present tense? ‘which form much of the upper jaw’.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Description

• “that lined the margins of the neck frill [...] and on the cheeks” - I’d swap lined out for something like were present on, to make sure that first part matches up with the mention of the cheek ossifications.

Went with "on the". FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• “as is typical of ceratopids” - Fix typo.

Fixed, but note "ceratopid" is a valid alternate form! FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Did not know this, interesting! Though I do believe that using ceratopsid is the right way to go to avoid reader confusion.The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, an article should of course be internally consistent (and ceratopsid is way more common). FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• “A maxillary flange at the front” - Considering the extensive explaining of anatomical terms, would an explanation for maxillary flange also be useful here?

Can't really find anything about this other than it's an, uh, flange, but tried to make it clearer that it's on the front of the maxilla: "The maxillary flange at the front of the maxilla". FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• “a somewhat raised teardrop-shaped expansion” - Comma in between raised and teardrop-shaped?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• “hour-glass shape” - No hyphen needed.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “without torsion. The postorbital bone” - It would make more sense to me structure-wise if this new section starts a line down from the ending of the skull section.

You mean as a new paragraph? FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes The Morrison Man (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Split. FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• “trihedral” - Would a link be possible here?

No article to link, but added "(with three plane faces meeting at the same point)". FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• “in for example Avaceratops” - Going a bit off of personal preference, I’d change this to in taxa like Avaceratops.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• “The epiparietals are low, roughly crescent-shaped, asymmetrical and wedge-shaped” - What is the purpose of naming two types of shape here? 2d/3d?

Removed "wedge-shaped" as crescent-shaped is mainly emphasised by the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• “the back if the skull” - Fix typo.

Fixed, dammit... FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “pavement tubercles” - Perhaps this could be explained?

Added explanation taken from a paper on hadrosaurs "(smooth, polygonal scales forming clusters)", but it seems to conflict or overlap with the description that's already there. Pinging Jens Lallensack who wrote about the hadrosaur mummies for advice, he may be more familiar with it. We should really have an article where dinosaur scale terminology is explained... FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

See Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060#Skin; combined with the picture, I hope it makes the meaning of the term clear. The term was, I think, coined by Osborn in 1912; he called them "pavement tubercles" because they are raised above the smaller "ground tubercles" in-between the clusters. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, would "(clusters formed by raised scales)" work? FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

No, "pavement tubercles" are the individual scales, not the clusters. However, it looks like there is no evidence for such clusters in Nasutoceratops in the first place? As far as I see, Lund and colleagues seem to be the only ones who used "pavement tubercle" outside of the context of hadrosaurs. So I wonder if they had a different meaning in mind, or simply were sloppy with the terminology. Given that we are not sure what they mean here, maybe it would be best to just remove the term (and its explanation)? Maybe simply Patches A and B have variably sized scales that are round to elliptical and are arranged in irregular rows, similar to what is known from other ceratopsians (including Psittacosaurus, Chasmosaurus, and Centrosaurus)? Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Could be a solution, but what to do about the following sentence? "There is also no evidence in Nasutoceratops of round, ossicle-like scales surrounded by pavement tubercles, as seen in Chasmosaurus and Centrosaurus FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

See this image: [56]. You see the normal, polygonal scales that Lund et al. call "pavement tubercles", as well as large, circular scales in-between. Maybe just write "There is also no evidence in Nasutoceratops of single circular scales much larger than the scales surrounding them, as seen in Chasmosaurus and Centrosaurus"? Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Jens Lallensack, implemented your wording now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd consider this fixed then. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Classification

• “(including one that was previously considered an adult Avaceratops)” - Is this the same specimen as MOR 692, which you mentioned above? If so this second mention could probably be removed.

Yes, seems this happened when I copied an earlier deleted sentence in again. Removed that part. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “Dalman colleagues accompanying” - Should be Dalman and colleagues.

You're noticing a lot of bizarre mistakes everyone else missed... FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Surprisingly, yeah. Happens to the best of us! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “Judith River Formation close to Nasutoceratops” - I’d change this towards ‘to be close to’ or ‘to be closely related to’, just for extra clarity.

Went with the former. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “of north and south of Laramidia” - Change this to either ‘of the north and south of Laramidia’ or ‘of northern and southern Laramidia’.

Took the latter. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “the northern centroaurines” - Fix typo.

Oof, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “north and south Laramidia” (x2) - I’d once again change these to northern and southern. It’s up to preference but I think it reads nicer.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “latitutudinally distributed” - Fix typo.

Ugh, done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “found that this genus and other basal centrosaurines [...] to have lived” - Remove ‘that’ to fix sentence structure.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “fossil evidence indicated” - Should this not be present? ‘fossil evidence indicates’.

Changed, though since it is a past occurrence, I think past tense could work. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Paleobiology

• “suggested that the may” - Fix typo.

I'm not seeing this, perhaps sopmething that has been fixed since? FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed in another edit, yeah. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “(rarest of the three groups)” - Should there be an extra ‘the’ in front of rarest?

Added for good measure. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Paleoenvironment

• “were dominated by up to 30 m (98 ft) cypress trees” - Maybe change to ‘were dominated by cypress trees of up to 30 m (98 ft) tall’.

Went with "dominated by cypress trees up to 30 m (98 ft) tall" for this and the below. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Works fine! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “up to 10–20 m (33–66 ft) dicot trees” - Same as for the above comment. Maybe swap height around to the back and add ‘tall’.

As above. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “by conifers up to 30 m (98 ft)” - Again, same as previous two comments.

Added "tall", but the rest of the sentence is what you suggested to change the others to already, no? FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “comprising cycads” - Change to ‘comprising of cycads’?

Changed, but note it will probably be changed back by a notorious editor:[57] FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh this one's new for me. Of all the crusades to go on... The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of sorting the comments per section for ease of navigation. If you have any questions, you know how to find me! The Morrison Man (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing a lot of weird stuff, everything addressed, though I pinged Jens for the scale issue I'm uncertain about... Seems there are a lot of different ways to describe the same things... FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It's probably best to wait for Jens to see if he has any comments on that. If that's addressed, I think everything has been taken care of from my point of view. As an aside, it would probably be good to get some kind of article up about dinosaur scale types, or maybe even include them in the Glossary of dinosaur anatomy. Should probably be discussed at WP:DINO. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Everything has been adressed. I will support. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2024 [58].

---

270 Park Avenue (1960–2021)

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a former skyscraper in New York City, known for its main tenants: the chemical company Union Carbide, and the financial firm Manufacturers Hanover (now JPMorgan Chase). It was never the tallest or most famous, but it became the tallest building to be demolished by its owners in 2019. Aside from that, it was once the world's tallest building that was mainly designed by a woman. The tower may not have looked unusual, but it was built above the tracks leading into Grand Central Terminal, requiring some interesting modifications to its structure.

This page became a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by Mike Christie, for which I am very grateful. I now think the page is now up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Support from PMC

Putting myself down here to comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

All these done

No gripes through the lead and Site sections Architecture to Form & facade 2nd paragraph: I wish I knew the formal term for this, but it's written in a way that feels a bit like it starts at the end. First we learn that observers attributed the design to de Blois, then we learn that this is relevant because actually Bunshaft (side note, great name, I keep picturing bunnies in a mine shaft) took the credit. I might revise to start with Bunshaft presenting himself as the main designer, then give us the reveal about de Blois being the real brains That mental picture is hilarious. But yeah, I've moved the second paragraph up to the first paragraph. I also moved the sentence about "Bunshaft claiming credit" to just after the first sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) As a side note, I'm not sure we need to attribute this to "several publications", as it appears to be fairly accepted Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) It might be nice to have another photo of the building in the Form and facade section, if there are any unused in the commons cat (or maybe move the one up from Structural features? It feels weirdly placed there) I moved that image up. Unfortunately there are no free images of the interior or even the structural arrangement on Commons. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) "It was also one of the last skyscrapers" not sure "also" is needed here Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) "There were 6,824 spandrels and glass panels on the facade" it's possible that I'm just writing this at 330 am but this reads ambiguously as to whether it's 6,824 spandrels and a corresponding 6,824 glass panels, or 6,824 items total, in some unknown combination. Actually, that is the number of glass panels alone. Good catch - I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Arbitrary break at Plazas Para 1 under plazas goes from the sidewalk to the plaza size and flagpole then back to the sidewalk. I might rearrange somewhat - Plaza 44% of lot, containing a flagpole. It was paved with pink terrazo, similar to other bldg. Then go into the rest of what you have about the sidewalk stuff. I've rearranged that paragraph to put the area first. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Link terrazzo? I added a link. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Who's Jack G. Dunbar? Was he also with SOM? Yes, he was. Every part of the building was designed by SOM's team. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) "The entrance to the building was from two entrance halls" "entrance" twice here. Maybe just "the building had two entrance halls at ground level"? Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) File:Hirschl and Adler, business at 270 Park Ave., New York City. LOC gsc.5a21885.jpg might be of interest for the offices section I've added it; thanks for linking this. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Do we know why Union wanted the offices to be rearrangeable that fast? Seems like a weird requirement I have no idea (the sources don't say). I assume that in case an employee left Union Carbide (or was fired), the company wanted a new hire to be able to use the office as soon as possible. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

History to Sale

• Threatening is such a fun word here! Why did they threaten this, and why did they change their minds?
  • The company wanted to provide additional space for its staff, and they felt a suburban headquarters was the best way to do this; at the time, many companies were moving their HQs outside NYC. I'm not exactly sure why this plan was abandoned, though, as the sources don't say. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Since you later mentioned in the article that this was part of a trend, maybe you could include that in this sentence to contextualize? Support not contingent on this, just a thought. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• I might flip the order of "Train service was..." and the following sentence.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• "Union Carbide had initially planned" and then later in the sentence you have "planned" again
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• "moved from the building" maybe "moved out of" or "left the building"?
  • I went with the former. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• "into the former magazine offices" I might go with "the magazine's former offices", right now "magazine" sounds like it's an adjective modifying offices, which made me briefly wonder "what is a magazine office" before I realized
  • Oops, I didn't even realize that this phrase could be confusing. I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Any idea why the Puerto Rican nationalists bombed this building specifically?
  • They wanted the US government to free political prisoners and recognize PR as an independent country. FALN was responsible for dozens of bombings in NYC around that time; they sought to attract attention to their cause by bombing banks and large corporations' headquarters. This was one of five buildings they targeted on that date. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Ah okay so not really specific. Maybe mention it was one of five targeted? Right now it kind of implies they picked on 270 Park specifically for some reason
• "quality-of-life concerns" relating to the building specifically or NYC in general?
  • In NYC in general. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    • May want to clarify that but I won't fight if you like it as is

Manufacturers Hanover & Demolition

• Not mandatory, but as 383 Madison was first linked way up under "Site", I think you could squeeze in a duplicate link here
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• "SL Green Realty proposed that JPMorgan Chase swap" why?
  • The source doesn't say, but I suspect it might have something to do with SL Green wanting the air rights, as that company has previously proposed the same thing with other buildings. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• "had denied a request" should just be "denied a request" I think
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• "declined to consider protecting" this reads like there's two stages to this process. 1) accepting buildings for consideration and 2) actually considering and either protecting or not. Is that correct?
  • Yes, that's correct. The LPC has to first agree to host a public hearing on whether a building should be designated; the process of scheduling a hearing is called "calendaring". After the public hearing, the LPC can vote on whether to designate the building as a landmark. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Gotcha
• "An LPC spokesperson said that several buildings by SOM were already landmarks" is it fairly typical for them to decline for this reason?
  • No. Generally, the LPC doesn't refuse to designate landmarks just because the same architect designed another city landmark. However, this building is part of the Midtown East rezoning district. If I recall correctly, the LPC had previously indicated that it would not designate any more buildings in this district after 2016, as the city wanted to encourage new development in the area. I think the architect explanation was merely an excuse for the LPC's refusal to designate any more buildings in Midtown East. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• "Curbed described..." when
  • Added the date. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Impact

• Might link Seagram Building and Lever House here for similar reasons to 383 Madison
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Link Architectural Forum
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• While most people through the article seem to have false titles, you've got a couple instances in this section where people have the "the", such as "The author Eric Nash" and "The architect Annabelle Selldorf". It should be consistent one way or another, I think.
  • I've added "the" before the false titles for consistency. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

No concerns with sources skimmed for the above points. That's the end of me here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Thanks for the review. I've addressed all of your above points now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Happy to support another fantastic article. Good work! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

SC.

• A marker for now. Will be here shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Site

• a six-building complex": per WP:NUMBERS this should be "6-building", given the use of digits in other references nearby
  • I've changed it, though I'm not quite satisfied with the wording. The guideline says that "integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words", and that might apply here. Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  It also says that you shouldn't mix numerals and written out numbers - that's the bit I'm trying to get right. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Form and facade

• "Measuring 707 ft (215 m) tall,[22][23][24]": Do we need three references for this one figure?
  • No, we do not. I've removed one of them. Emporis and Skyscraper Center sometimes disagree on figures, but since they agree on the height here, I've retained these two. Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Construction

• "it was the highest heavy object to be hoisted": I think the grammar has gone a little awry here – and if we could find away to avoid the alliteration, that would also be better
  • It took me ten minutes to come up with a suitable wording for this one. This particular heavy object was lifted 707 feet, and no other similarly heavy object had been lifted to a higher altitude above ground. I went with "no other heavy object had been hoisted to a higher altitude". Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Completion

• "which were home to over 4,000 employees". No it wasn't: they went home after spending the day here, in the office (plus WP:IDIOM)
  • I have fixed this. I forgot that this was idiomatic (I was writing an article about an apartment building at around the same time, so it slipped my mind). Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Ippantekina

To review soon. Ippantekina (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Sorry but I cannot commit unfortunately; real life schedules hit hard... I think it's best to strike this to avoid mismanagement of expectations. I wish you all the best with this FAC nonetheless! Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the heads up. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Hirschl_and_Adler,_business_at_270_Park_Ave.,_New_York_City._LOC_gsc.5a21885.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the image review. I'll take a look at the alt text shortly. For the second image, I removed it - apparently, this image dates from 1953, which means it wasn't even an image of this building, but one of the Hotel Marguery. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've now added alt text. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request. Is Intelligencer the same as The Intelligencer (Doylestown, Pennsylvania)? Don't think that newspapers usually get an ISSN? Is "Broadcasting, Telecasting" a reliable source? archpaper isn't a website, but a magazine, so it should mention the magazine's name. Who is the publisher of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I'll get to these on Thursday, but the Intelligencer is Intelligencer (website), published by New York magazine. Broadcasting, Telecasting is actually the former name of Broadcasting & Cable magazine, a trade magazine. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed the other issues now:

• I added the publisher of the SOM book.
• I removed the ISSNs, as all three of these newspapers are well known.
• I changed the The Architect's Newspaper cite.

– Epicgenius (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to add, with the caveat that I didn't spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

SC

• Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks SC. Did you mean to review this article a second time? You left some comments a month ago further up - though I don't mind if you have further commentary. Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
    • 🤦‍♂️ sorry! Must be losing the plot! I took a break from FAC for a month and forgot what I had and hadn’t done! No more from me - the support above still stands. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• I see asbestos was used in the construction; is there any mention of how that was handled in the demolition?
  • According to this source, they did some unspecified asbestos abatement. Unfortunately, I could not find sources discussing the nature of the asbestos abatement. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• You have both "black matte finish" and "black-matte finish".
  • I've standardized these now. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• "Between the building and the lot line was a plaza": I think this must be the east side of the lot, facing Park Avenue, but it would help if we made that clear.
  • I clarified that the plaza actually surrounded the building on all sides (even on Madison Avenue where it was about 3-4 feet wide). Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• "The site of the plaza was supposed to be part of a northward extension of Vanderbilt Avenue to 49th Street": perhaps "had originally been intended to be", since presumably this was no longer the case by 1960.
  • I have reworded this to "The site of the plaza had been intended as a northward extension..." to avoid repeating "to be". Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

More later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the initial comments, Mike. I've done these. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

More:

• You mention there were air conditioning units on the roof and in the basement, but then say each office's air conditioning was supplied by a unit beneath each window.
  • My understanding is that both are correct. There were AC units both on the roof and in the basement for the interior offices. However, the offices at the perimeter were served directly by ACs below the windows. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• "Filing cabinets and clustered workstations were also designed around the 5-foot-square module": can you just confirm this is accurate? It would have been quite unusual to take workstation design into account in 1960. This would have had to refer to dumb terminals, which were rare until the 1960s.
  • The source does mention that it was highly unusual: "The typical office floors of Union Carbide accommodated an unprecedented degree of modular design in the ceiling grid, furniture, filing and storage systems, and introduced clustered workstations with low dividers." I have reworded this slightly. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• "Construction was complicated by the fact that there were only six platforms on the upper level that extended to 47th Street." I don't understand this. Is the issue that materials delivery had to come to these platforms?
  • Yes, that is correct. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• "critics regarded Union Carbide to be much more bulky": suggest either "critics regarded Union Carbide as much more bulky" or "critics considered Union Carbide to be much more bulky". And perhaps the more straightforward "bulkier"?
  • I've changed it to "critics regarded Union Carbide as significantly bulkier". Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the further comments. I've addressed these now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Support . Fixes look good; no other issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Either all books should have publisher locations or none. (Schlichting)
  • I've now formatted them consistently. Thanks for the comment. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 April 2024 [59].

---

1921 Centre vs. Harvard football game

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

After surprising many by simply being competitive the year prior, the football team from tiny Centre College returned to Boston for a rematch with football giants Harvard in October 1921. Led by star quarterback Bo McMillin, the "Praying Colonels" shocked the sports world by winning 6–0, a victory considered by many to be one of the greatest in college football history. After the game, a Centre professor remarked that Harvard had been poisoned by the organic compound "C6H0", giving the game a name that has stuck to this day. This article was super fun to rewrite and I look forward to any and all comments it receives. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Wikilink "rushed" and "touchdown" in the lead
• Wikilink American football on the first use in the body
• Wikilink Harvard on the first use in the body
• Wikilink shutout on first use
• Wikilink rushing and passing on first uses in body
  • All links added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• "Centre was [singular] praised for its [singular] resiliency and for their [plural] unwillingness" - some grammatical disagreement here
  • Resolved by removing "for their" PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• "also an umpire for the National League" => "also an umpire for baseball's National League" for clarity
  • Added as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Link all the positions in the sentence starting "The starting offensive line" and the ones thereafter. I personally don't have a clue what any of them mean so links would be beneficial
  • Got a little sloppy here with linking, thank you for pointing this out. Added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• What are a "varsity squad" and a "freshmen team"? Are there suitable links?
  • A varsity team is the school's first-choice team, and a freshman team is just a team composed of first-year college students (since Harvard, at the time, did not allow college freshmen on its top-level football team. Varsity team link has been added and Freshman team redirects to Varsity team#Junior varsity so I've added that, and tweaked a few words here and there. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Daily Messenger image caption does not need a full stop as it isn't a complete sentence
  • Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• "and all around Danville students painted the so-called "impossible formula"," - I think "and Danville students painted the so-called "impossible formula", all around" would read more elegantly
  • the intended meaning was "students painted the formula all around Danville", not "Danville students" - never occurred to me that this was a confusing way to word that. Fixed so it's clear what I'm trying to say here. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• "A third game had been proposed" - a third game between Harvard and Centre? The sentence isn't completely clear
  • Clarified. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• That's what I got Great work! I know basically nothing about American football and I was able to follow the article well -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Thank you for the time and comments as always Chris! Everything above has been taken care of. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Web/newspaper source check support by CactiStaccingCrane

Not so fast! Will review this article tomorrow. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing this version, spot check one citation for every three. Skipping sources that I don't have access, would love to have someone else checking book sources:

• 1: OK
• 4: OK. Even though the source didn't say "Tournament East-West Football Game" explicitly, it is reasonable to assume that it mentions that game because the description in the newspaper largely matches with our Wikipedia article.
• 6: Primary source, in order: a: OK, b: OK, c: cannot verify
  • 6c only covers the portion of the sentence that says Harvard had not been scored on in their first four games, using the scores in the schedule. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• 7: OK
• 12: cannot verify, please give me the quote for the citation
  • I will have access to this source again on Saturday - as soon as I'm back with the book I will give you the quote. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @CactiStaccingCrane: sorry, for some reason I saw it wrong and thought this was the book cite above it. I removed brought the team success since that was a little interpretative on my part; the newspaper source for the remaining bit uses a portion under the header "All-America football teams chosen by Camp", which has "Weaver, Centre" and "McMillin, Centre" listed under "First eleven" and "Roberts, Centre" listed under "Third eleven". I can reproduce the whole table for you if you like but those are the only bits that I used. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
• 14: OK

• Hi CactiStaccingCrane, is there more to come on the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, this week I was very very busy IRL. I will try to complete the source review right after I implemented your comments on my article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

By this point I have to acknowledge that I don't have access to books listed, but a source check on them should be performed to ensure verifiability. PCN02WPS, it would be great if you could ask somebody with access to perform a book source check.

@CactiStaccingCrane: I don't know of anyone specifically that has access - I am more than happy to provide quotes from book sources to any reviewer, however. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• 17: OK, OK
• 20: OK
• 24: OK, but I prefer that the clipping is smaller.
• 28: Primary source. OK. The source said "At Harvard the cage-men evened up the defeat suffered on the gridiron last fall by gaining a 41-36 victory over the Crimson". The sentence should be a bit less ambiguous though.
  • Where does the ambiguity come in? Perhaps I'm blind to it but I'm having a hard time seeing it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• 32: Seemingly OK, but limited access to the excerpt only
  • Yeah, I don't have NYT access so there's not much I can do about that (unless an editor that does have a subscription wants to lend a hand)
• 36: Is "heaped 40 points" here in the first or second half?
  • I'm fairly confident it's the first half - I think all it's saying is Centre scored 40 before they took out their starters, and they got to 60 (a mistake on my part that I have fixed) before halftime. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• 37: OK, OK, OK
• 40: OK
• 45: OK, OK, OK, OK. I prefer that you use {{rp}} to give more specific page number citations. It's not really vital in this case but it is a healthy habit to use it.
• 58: Uh... with this huge clipping I have no idea where to verify the information. This seems to be a recurring problem with this article. You should either make the clipping smaller or use |at= template parameter to denote the sub-section names.
  • Sorry, for some reason I had it in my head that I had to clip the entire story instead of just the relevant parts. Fixed that; the relevant information here is near the bottom. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• 61: OK
• 66 (huge source): OK, OK, OK, suggest removal in favor of the other source, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, cannot verify, OK, OK, OK in footnote.
  • Removed fourth use as recommended; the bit about Covington uses this quote: Centre lost five yards and Covington replaced Captain Armstrong at left half back for Centre. It's in the last paragraph of the "Third Quarter" section. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• 75: Again, the clipping is way too large. I literally cannot find the info on the page. See above
  • Fixed as above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• 78: OK
• 84: OK
• 91: OK

(skipping similar contemporary sources, moving to modern sources)

• 99: Primary source. I prefer to see the original source of the news.
  • I think the ESPN list itself is offline but I replaced the Centre source with a clipping of the newspaper story that's quoted in the Centre source. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• 101: OK, OK
• 104: OK, OK
• 106: OK, OK
• 110: OK
• 113: OK

I would say that the references need work on being more specific. Other than that, I see that there is only minor issues with source-text integrity. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane Thank you for taking the time to look through these - everything above has been fixed or responded to! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright. This FAC receives a support in web/newspaper source check. Another book source check would be ideal but unfortunately I am very busy so I won't be the one that do it. If you want, you can help perform a source check at my Mars Society nomination. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Btw, I first knew about Centre College from this match 2 years ago :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

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) 20:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I vaguely remember reading about this game as a kid, what stands out in my memory is declining the game ball after the first loss, pledging to be back the following year.

• Wouldn't you refer to the location of the stadium as "Boston" rather than "Allston"?
  • Fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• I'd like to see your view on notability of this as an individual game per WP:SPORTSEVENT. \
  • I believe this game falls qualifies as extraordinary with a lasting impact on the sport; even into the twenty-first century, it still receives coverage as one of the greatest upsets in football/sporting history. The news coverage it received spanned from days/weeks before the game to days/weeks afterwards in papers around the country, and it was detailed in publications and books for the following 150 years. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Could we get a little more info on how it was that a small place like Centre College was a major football powerhouse at the time.
  • I tried to add a bit of emphasis that it was mainly the players that Myers was able to bring over, but if you think this isn't apparent enough I can try something else. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Do we have any article that lists these pre-NCAA national champions?
  • The article linked in the first paragraph of "Recent years" is College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, which has such a list. I can retarget the link to that section in specific if you think that would be better. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• "during which span" I would cut "span"
  • Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• "was a matchup with Penn State, which they played to a 21–21 tie" I would add "in" before "which".
  • Added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Was there press coverage in anticipation of the game? Both in Kentucky and Boston? Game predictions?
  • I have in the first paragraph of "Game summary" that Harvard was favored to win with 3-to-1 odds; I have added some more about this and some about the press coverage in the buildup to the game. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• "followed the blocking of Roberts" I imagine from context that Roberts blocked ahead of the ball carrier on this play but it could be made clearer.
  • Reworded to clarify this. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Did the MIT students root for Centre, as I'd expect them too?
  • Indeed they did. Clarified this. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Game analysis: I see some indication in the papers that the Harvard starters who did not play were injured, is that so?
  • Added some about this. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Fair Park Stadium. Consider a link to Cotton Bowl (stadium)#History which at least mentions the previous stadium.
  • Replaced Fair Park link with this, I think it fits better. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Thank you for the review! Everything has been addressed/responded to. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good then. Support Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review from Dylan620

• All images used in the article are categorically PD because they were published in the United States over 95 years ago.
• All images add encyclopedic value to the article. I like the final image of "C6H0" spray-painted on the side of a building - having been taken earlier this year, it demonstrates the lasting legacy of this game.
• Suitably descriptive alt text is present throughout, solely excepting the lack of alt text for the poster in the infobox; however, this is a case where any alt text would probably be redundant to the caption.
• Support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I note with some embarrassment that I had missed the lack of page numbers on some of these images, but I've taken it upon myself to fix this issue over at Commons (see my recent edits there), so this should still be good to go on the image front. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Dylan620 Thanks for the review! Thank you for adding the page numbers, I appreciate it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Support by RecycledPixels

I will review this article. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing this version of the article. I'm familiar with American Football, but don't have much knowledge of College Football, so I'm approaching this as a typical reader unfamiliar with the sport would view it.

Lead

• I'm a heavy user of the mouseover-the-bluelink method on Wikipedia to get a quick glance of what a wikilinked article is about when I encounter an unfamiliar term. The hover only shows the first few sentences of the linked article, which makes it super important to pack in the most important parts of the summary in the first few sentences. In this article, I'm happy with the first two sentences of the lead paragraph, but then it veers off into a discussion about the previous year's contest without answering the question of why this game matters. I'd like to see statements from the second paragraph like "Centre's defeat of Harvard is widely considered one of the greatest upsets in college football history" and "The game is often referred to by the shorthand C6H0; this originated shortly after the game when a Centre professor remarked that Harvard had been poisoned by this "impossible" chemical formula." appear much earlier in the lead as part of an overall summary before getting into specifics of the previous year's game and the details of this year's game, hopefully close enough to the beginning to get those two facts, or shortened versions of them, into the hover-text.
  • Reworked the lead into three paragraphs, keeping the first paragraph to more relevant information for the whole of the article as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    • The revised lead is a big improvement. It introduced a couple of issues. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    • The teams had played for the first time the year prior; Centre, led by Charley Moran, shocked many by taking a tie into halftime but ultimately Bob Fisher's Harvard squad took control in the second half and won the game. Change the semicolon to a period.
    • The conversion failed but the Centre defense held for the remainder of the game; Harvard threatened and even reached the Centre 3-yard line at one point but were unable to score. Change the semicolon to a period.
    • Their lone defeat came on January 2, 1922, to Texas A&M in the Dixie Classic, leaving them with a 10–1 record to finish the season. It's fairly clear that "Their" is referring to Centre, but since Centre and Arizona were both mentioned in the previous sentence, change "Their" to "Centre's".
      • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Background:Recent years

• Harvard finished their 1919 season with an undefeated record; they did not allow a point to be scored against them for the first six games of the season, until a 10–10 tie with Princeton. "Undefeated record" links (via redirect) to perfect season, with a hover-text that says "A perfect season is a sports season, including any requisite playoff portion, in which a team remains and finishes undefeated and untied." but then the rest of the sentence mentions the 10-10 tie with Princeton, so that's probably not a good wikilink to use.
  • Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• and were retroactively named outright national champions by two selectors. I don't know what selectors are. Can you briefly explain the term in the article, or at least provide a wikilink? The term is used again in the next sentence about how only one selector chose them and the majority chose California instead. I don't understand what that means.
  • Added a bit explaining the selector system as best I can (it's tough, as well, because the NCAA didn't exist back then, nor did a real concept of a "national champion") PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    • They went on to win the Tournament East-West Football Game against Oregon, 7–6, and were retroactively named outright national champions by two selectors; since there has never been an entity which has awarded a single definitive national championship in college football, the NCAA recognizes the retroactive picks of numerous national championship "selectors", who use different methods to determine their choice for a national champion. That ended up becoming quite a long sentence. But I still don't know what a "selector" is. Is it an individual, a publication, an elected body of representatives of various schools, sanctioning bodies, a poll of the general public, or what? How many of these selectors were there? RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
      • Put the selectors explanation bit in parentheses since it's not directly relevant but good background information, and added a bit to make this a little more clear. Selector is a blanket term for "entity (either a person, or a publication, or a computer rankings system, etc.) which is recognized by the NCAA to pick a national champion which is then recognized by the NCAA as a national champion in FBS football for that season". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
        • I'm still finding it confusingly worded, but less confusing now that I have read through the College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS article, which is already linked in the sentence. So when you write that the team was retroactively named outright national champions (it seems the word "outright" is inappropriate here, since there are multiple opinions), that might have included something like Parke H. Davis, who, in 1934, published a list of who he considered the national champions were for each year going back to 1869? If that's the case, it seems like it might be just clearer and easier to replace that who part by saying something along the lines of "In 19XX, so-and-so named the 1919 Harvard football team as the national champion in their publication Things I came up with one day" or something like that. My slowly growing understanding of the selector system then makes me question why the wording "a share of the national championship" is appropriate. In the paragraph about Centre, it looks like you've mostly done that with Jeff Sagarin, but it's not mentioned when Sagarin made that selection, and seeing that he wasn't even born until 1948 makes me understand that he didn't show up at the team's last game of the season and hand them a trophy, which is the impression that I had been under. Am I making sense about why I'm finding the current wording of the article confusing, and what might make it less muddied for me? I don't think we're that far off. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

          @RecycledPixels It's not the most intuitive system to say the least. The whole selector system is a byproduct of the fact that football is unique in that the NCAA does not recognize a single national champion at the highest level (Division I FBS) and instead recognizes the winner of the FCS Playoffs (whose participants are picked by a NCAA selection committee) as the Division I football national champion. The concept of a "national champion" has not been in place for a good chunk of college football history (and the concept of a single definitive national champion, it could be argued, has only existed since the 1998 founding of the Bowl Championship Series). In 1919, Harvard was recognized as national champions by five selectors in total (CFRA, Helms, Houlgate, NCF, Davis) but was the only team selected as 1919 national champion (outright champion) by only two of the five (CFRA picked Illinois as co-champ, NCF and Davis chose Notre Dame as co-champ, Helms and Houlgate only chose Harvard). A "share" of the national championship just denotes that they were not the only team picked to be national champions by a given selector; in the case of 1920, the Boand System retroactively recognized Harvard and Notre Dame as co-champions.

          Your interpretation of a team being retroactively named champions is correct; all that means is that at least one of the NCAA-recognized selectors who picked champions after the fact chose them (some selectors' national championship picks are recognized retroactively, while some were contemporary). Are you recommending I replace the information about selectors in parentheses with the names of the specific selectors (like I did with Sagarin and Centre)? I'm happy to do that if so - in my mind the new wordings would look something like this: ...and were retroactively named outright national champions by two selectors, the Helms Athletic Foundation and the Houlgate System. and ...share of the national championship, though this time only by one selector, the Boand System as the majority chose... If those are clear enough I think that's a good solution. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

          I think that would be a good solution to the problem without getting super wordy and taking the article completely off the rails (this information is just background information setting up the game that is the subject of the article, after all) but when I come across that unfamiliar concept, I can click through to those articles to find out what all that meant. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

          @RecycledPixels: sounds good, that's been changed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• The team rebounded with a 7–1 campaign in 1917, earning shutouts in every win, Can you simply the wording of that, perhaps replacing shutout with a more understandable description of not allowing any of their opponents to score any points against them?
  • Maybe this is just from my perspective as a sports fan, but I think "shutout" is easy enough to understand as is, especially since it's a fairly simple concept and the explanation is given in the first sentence of its article, which is easily visible in its hover-text. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    • It's not a sticking point for me, it's just that I think that the tone of writing of an encyclopedia entry would be different from the tone you'd find in a sports publication or news report, which is probably what a lot of the sources for this article end up being. After you spend so much time focusing on those sources, they become second nature to you and people who regularly read those reports. Some of what I do in real life involves translating highly technical jargon into something that somebody's 85-year-old grandmother could understand, so I realize that the process is challenging. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• All three players were named All-Americans by Walter Camp. I'm unfamiliar with who Walter Camp was, and the article hover-text didn't mention anything about his publishing a list of All-American teams until I eventually clicked through to that article and found it in the second paragraph of the lead. Can you rephrase the sentence, either to explain that Walter Camp was a widely respected sports writer who was recognized as the official selector in the early years of the 20th century (from the College Football All-America Team article) or something like that?
  • Gave some background on Camp. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    • That's perfect. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Centre finished the 1919 season undefeated and untied and were retroactively recognized by one selector, Jeff Sagarin, as the season's national champions. In the previous paragraph, Harvard was named national champions of the 1919 season by two selectors. Again, I'm confused about what these selectors are, and why there are multiple teams who are national champions.
  • Hoping this is cleared up by the earlier bit about selectors; if not, I'll see what I can do to make it easier to understand. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• They attracted attention with their win over West Virginia in November 1919; the Mountaineers had defeated Princeton in a shutout the week before and went on to finish the season 8–2 I had to hover over the West Virginia wikilink to find out who the Mountaineers were, but I don't know why defeating Princeton the week before was important. I'm assuming Princeton was a good team at the time, but this can use some clarification. Another use of shutout which could possibly be rephrased to make the article easier to understand by non-sports fans.
  • Added a note about Princeton being a Big Three school and one of the better CFB programs of the day. See above regarding the use of "shutout". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Centre won a further eight games in 1920, capping the season with a 56-point win over TCU in the Fort Worth Classic MOS:CLICHE for "capping the season".
  • Changed to "and ended the season". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• he went with former Harvard halfback Eddie Mahan to scout the Colonels. Earlier, the team was identified as the "Centre Praying Colonels". The article on the team seems to shorten the team name to the "Praying Colonels" as well as "Colonels" but when I was reading this article I had to go back and figure out what team was being scouted because the article had generally been referring to the football team as "Centre" up to this point.
  • The use of a team's nickname alone to refer to the team is very commonplace in college athletics, including football; I used "the Crimson" to refer to Harvard in the (now) second paragraph of the lead. I tend to use both the name and nickname when talking about a team to avoid letting the article get too repetitive in that aspect. I am very open to suggestions, of course, in the way of making the article more easily understood but I am hesitant to change uses of "Colonels" to "Centre", if that is what you suggest. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Being unfamiliar enough with College Football, I tend to prefer that a team's name remain constant throughout the article because it's easier to keep track. Whether it's Centre, the Colonels, or the Praying Colonels. I glanced at 1998 NFC Championship Game, another featured article about American Football, and I note that each time a team was mentioned the first time, the city and the team name were used together ("Minnesota Vikings", "Atlanta Falcons", etc.) and each subsequent mention consistently only used the team name ("Vikings", "Falcons") and never mentioned any team by the name of the city alone. However, 2005 Sugar Bowl, another football article, switches back and forth between referring to the teams by their team name and their college name. So there does not appear to have an MOS standard, just editor preference. I think the 1998 NFC Championship Game is easier to follow. I also tried to look for general style guidelines on the Internet and did not find anything to help, but the SABR Style guide appeared to have the most complete guidance. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
      • I think the difference in the NFC championship and Sugar Bowl articles is a byproduct of the fact that one is NFL and one is college. In the NFL, teams are primarily known by their nicknames, while the name of the team itself is secondary, whereas in college the team name is most known and the nickname is secondary. From what I've seen, switching back and forth is sort of the norm for college, since the team is easily identifiable by both and introduced with both, and all college football articles I've written switch back and forth since it's super helpful to avoid repetition. This does create problems when both teams have the same or similar nicknames (e.g. Clemson Tigers vs. Missouri Tigers or Harvard Crimson vs. Alabama Crimson Tide), but I don't think that sort of issue presents itself here. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Out of time for today, I'll continue tomorrow. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@RecycledPixels: Everything above has been taken care of or responded to! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Still using the same revision as above, although by the time I finished this, additional edits had been made to the article which I have not yet seen.

Background: 1920 meeting

• "the scoring machine of the football universe" by The Dayton Herald after totaling 241 points in their first three games combined less clunky to phrase it as something like "scored a total of 241 points" rather than using "total" as a verb.
  • I used "totaling" to avoid repetition of the word "scoring" - if you think use of "totaling" detracts from the reader's ability to understand, I can figure out another wording to use. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    • I still like my suggestion, but it's not going to hold anything up if you disagree with me. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Attendance was estimated to have been at least 37,000 people (and was reported to have been closer to 40,000 or even 45,000); ticket sales were stopped the night before when the contest sold out and as many as 10,000 potential attendees were turned away at the gates. I'm confused by this sentence for a few reasons. The first, is a minor nitpick about the use of the passive voice "was estimated to have been" which doesn't say who was making the estimation. If it was the ticket office that made the estimate, I would assume they knew how many tickets were sold, but if it was a reporter in the stands trying to eyeball the crowd, I'd want to know who was making that estimation, especially since there were so many wildly varying estimates. Next, the Harvard Stadium article's infobox stated that between 1904 and 1928, the stadium had a capacity of 42,000, so I don't understand how there could have been estimates of 45,000 spectators, or how 10,000 people would have been turned away if there were 37,000 spectators. Finally, it doesn't really make clear if the people who were turned away were people who were just trying to buy tickets, or if they were people who had been sold tickets but refused entry, and if it was the latter, why was the stadium so oversold?
  • The 37,000 figure comes from The Dayton Herald, which uses a similar wording: "it was conservatively estimated that no less than 37,000 persons would witness the game." Added them into the sentence, removed the 40k figure, split the sentence in two, and added "as a result" to clarify that the people were turned away because they couldn't get tix after the game sold out. As for the capacity of the stadium, I don't know whether they sold general admission tickets or standing room or what their solution was, but then again I have no idea what it was like to buy a football ticket and attend a game in 1921 (as cool as that would be). It is not unheard of, though, for the attendance of a game to exceed the stadium's seating capacity, so I assume that's what happened. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Ticket sales were stopped the night before when the contest sold out[21] and as many as 10,000 potential attendees were turned away at the gates as a result. Move reference from the middle of the sentence to the end. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
      • Oops, fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Minor, and totally optional nitpick, not limited to this section but I just noticed it. I like how nearly every sentence is cited. It makes keeping the attribution easier when editors come along later and add uncited material in the middle of cited material. To keep the visual appearance of the article cleaner without repeating footnotes appearing all over the place, consider the advice given at WP:OVERCITE: "If consecutive sentences are supported by the same reference, and that reference's inline citation is placed at the end of the paragraph as described at WP:CITETYPE, an editor may want to consider using Wikipedia's hidden text syntax <!-- --> to place hidden ref name tags at the end of each sentence. Doing so may benefit others adding material to that paragraph in the future. If that happens, they can uncomment the hidden citations and switch to citing references after every sentence. Having hidden citations could cause confusion, especially among inexperienced editors, so the approach is strictly optional and should be used cautiously."
• The Praying Colonels surprised many simply by taking a 14–14 tie into halftime. Why "simply"?
  • I have removed this; I think my intention was to stress that the very fact that they were tied was the surprising part, rather than the score or something else, but I think that meaning still comes through without the extra word. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Harvard scored one touchdown in each quarter, adding a field goal in the third quarter, and held Centre scoreless in the second half to finish 31–14 winners.. Awkwardly worded, how about "... to win the game 31-14" instead?
  • Changed as recommended, though without "the game". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• McMillin finished the game having tallied 151 rushing yards and 131 passing. Needs "yards" after passing. McMillin needs to be identified further, since he was only introduced in the previous section, and only by name, and what position he plays was never identified. In this sentence, it is not clear which team he was playing for.
  • Added a bit indicating he was the QB for Centre. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• During the game, Harvard used nine of its substitutes while Centre used three. That needs explaining, since when I watch football, I see substitutions happening all the time. Were there rule differences back then that limited the number of substitutes in a game, like soccer, or was it just not done, or what. Were those substitutions due to injury, fatigue, or a change in strategy?
  • Football is fundamentally different today than it was 100 years ago, so any modern-day game will be a poor standard of comparison (both with regard to rules and athletic ability) for any game in this era. Your question is a good one that I cannot answer unfortunately - the source only lists the names of the substitutes but doesn't give any reasons as to why they were brought on. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• The Boston Globe described the game as the most interesting to watch as had ever been played in Harvard Stadium The wording isn't identified as a quote from the source, but the way it's worded sounds like that early-20th century style of twisted writing that seemed to be so popular. Since it's not a direct quote, can you make its meaning easier to understand by changing it to something simpler like "described the game as one of the most interesting games ever played in Harvard Stadium" or something like that?
  • Good catch, I guess that's what happens when you read too much 1920s sports journalism. Simplified the wording a bit. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Centre was praised for its resiliency and unwillingness to give up; after the game, the Harvard team hosted Centre's team, coaches, and president for dinner. Another minor nitpick about the passive voice and not identifying who was praising Centre. The sentence seems to be made up of two fairly unrelated items, is a semicolon really appropriate here, or should it just be broken into two sentences?
  • Broke sentence, attributed the first bit. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Despite this loss, Centre was still seen as a strong team; the southern football historian Fuzzy Woodruff said that they entered their next game against Georgia Tech as an "unbeatable team",[26] though Centre ultimately lost this game 24–0. More passive voice. The use of "the southern football historian Fuzzy Woodruff" tripped me up, perhaps because of "the". Wikilink Fuzzy Woodruff, maybe simplify his title as "football historian Fuzzy Woodruff" since I'm not sure southern is really relevant. Who was calling Centre an unbeatable team? Was it Woodruff as a sportswriter, or was it someone else? If it was Woodruff, he should be identified as a sportswriter instead of a historian, but if it was someone else, then Woodruff isn't really relevant here and who wrote it should be mentioned instead.
  • Somehow never thought to see if he had his own article; modified southern football historian to sportswriter, though I am choosing to leave in "the" to avoid a false title. I tried to express that Woodruff's opinion was being presented without making it sound like WP's voice. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• McMillin and captain Norris Armstrong played basketball for Centre in the offseason, during which the Colonels defeated Harvard by five points. How relevant is this?
  • I included it because it was another Centre–Harvard game including some of the same players as the football games, which in my mind shows that the Centre vs. Harvard "rivalry" of the early '20s was not limited to football exclusively. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• McMillin was made a Kentucky Colonel by governor Edwin P. Morrow around the same time. The timeframe is vague here, can it be more specific? I assume it refers to the basketball game, but it doesn't mention if the honor was bestowed upon him as a result of the football game, or as an athlete in general. If it's not specific to the football game, I'd question its relevance in this article.
  • The source says that the honor was given to him in "Spring 1921", which I would use in the article if I could. Instead, I tried to express that it was early-ish in the year, closer to basketball season than football season for sure. The source doesn't give a specific reason why he was given the award. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Background: Starting the 1921 season

• Centre defeated VPI at home by the same score the following week[34] before traveling to Cincinnati to take on St. Xavier College, a 28–6 Centre win.[35] The placement of reference 34 in the middle of the sentence is awkward and disrupts the flow, move to the end of the sentence.
  • Moved. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• The Harvard game was their third consecutive road game and Centre entered with a 4–0 record "their" as a pronoun is not immediately clear since the previous sentence mentions both Centre and The Transylvania Crimsons and this sentence also mentions Harvard. It's probably technically ok, but I had to reread it a few times to understand the meaning.
  • Clarified. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    • The Harvard game was Centre's third consecutive road game and Centre entered with a 4–0 record. How about replacing the second use of "Centre" in the sentence with "the team" or something like that? RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
      • Good thought, changed as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• The last of Harvard's four consecutive shutout victories came against Indiana by a nineteen-point margin, though they continued their winning ways against Georgia the following week by a score of 10–7. I'm not sure why "though" is used here, which generally means "but". Maybe drop the "though" and break it into two sentences.
  • Changed "though" to "and". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• The Centre–Harvard matchup captivated media attention in the weeks leading up to the game; on October 21, Boston Post reporter Howard Reynolds arrived in Danville. Probably better to split this into two sentences rather than use a semicolon.
  • Split. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• During the buildup numerous publications assigned reporters to Boston, including the... needs a comma after buildup.
  • Added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Players and personnel

• Harvard started two halfbacks: Francis Rouillard was on the left, and Vinton Chapin on the right. Grammatically correct, but would flow better as "Harvard started two halfbacks; Francis Rouillard on the left, and Vinton Chapin on the right"
  • I removed the comma and "was" to try to make it flow better. I feel like the colon works because I'm listing the halfbacks, rather than talking about some kinda-related other thing. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Game Summary

• He was assisted by a crew of three other officials: umpire W. R. Crowley, linesman J. J. Tigert, and field judge W. G. Crowell; Maxwell and Crowell, both from Swarthmore College, had also been part of the officiating crew for the Centre–Harvard game the year prior. Replace the semicolon with a period to break this long sentence into two sentences.
  • Changed as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Entering the contest, sportswriters and pundits gave Harvard 3-to-1 odds to win, though some felt that Centre had a better chance to win than they had the year prior, especially given their improved line play. Explain what "improved line play" is to the reader.
  • Clarified. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Tickets sold for $2 apiece (equivalent to $34 in 2023); the game was sold out and attendance was expected to be around 45,000 people. Replace the semicolon with a period and break this into two sentences.
  • Changed as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    • The game was sold out and attendance was expected to be around 45,000 people. The game began at 2:30 p.m. ET. The second use of "the game" could be changed to something else, like "the match", or similar synonym. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Don't forget this. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

      Whoops, thank you for the reminder. I changed the first use to read "The stadium was sold out..." since I think that is technically more correct anyway, if that works for you. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Centre won the coin toss and chose to defend the north goal. Coin toss is wikilinked to coin flipping which would not adequately explain the context of why football teams are flipping coins to someone unfamiliar with the sport, including the fact that they elected to receive the opening kickoff as a result.
  • I don't know that there is an appropriate link to replace it, unfortunately. I'm not really willing to explain that a football game starts with a coin toss and what consequences of said toss are on this article since that seems a little off-topic and very specific about something not specifically related to this game. If you have suggestions for how to remedy this I'm open to them. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    • The 2005 Sugar Bowl article phrases it as "Following the ceremonial pre-game coin toss, Auburn elected to kick off to Virginia Tech to begin the game, ensuring the Tigers would have possession to begin the second half." 1998 NFC Championship Game uses "The Falcons won the coin toss before the game and elected to receive the opening kickoff." 2000 Sugar Bowl uses "Actor John Goodman performed the ceremonial pre-game coin toss to determine first possession of the ball. Florida State won the coin toss and elected to kick off to Virginia Tech to begin the game." 2006 Gator Bowl uses "Virginia Tech won the ceremonial pre-game coin toss to select first possession and deferred its option to the second half; Louisville elected to receive the opening kick." RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
      • Added "ceremonial pre-game coin toss" and clarified that Harvard got the ball first. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Harvard was unable to capitalize on the miscue and punted; Centre reached the Harvard 11-yard line by the end of the third quarter. Eliminate the semicolon and split into two sentences.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Centre's ensuing drive ended with a turnover after McMillin's pass fell incomplete in the end zone; under the rules in place at the time, this resulted in a touchback rather than a simple incomplete pass, and Harvard took the ball on its own 20-yard line. Eliminate the semicolon and split into two sentences.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• General comment about the game; There seemed to be a lot of missed kicks in this game but that might have just been how games were played, or it could have been a result of bad weather or bad field conditions, for example. Was that normal at the time?
  • From reading recaps of the game, the weather and field seemed to be good, so it likely was not a result of either. I'm guessing it was just a byproduct of the fact that kickers then weren't as good as they are now, so comparing 1921 kickers to 2023 kickers gives the impression that the former must have had something preventing him from performing better when in reality the comparison isn't really fair. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Around ten thousand fans descended from the stands and gathered on the field after the game, including students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in support of Centre, who tore down the goal posts. A long sentence that could probably be broken up to improve readability. A reader unfamiliar with the sport would probably be confused about why the Centre team tore down the stadium's goal posts.
  • Broke this sentence up and clarified that the MIT students (who were attending the game to support Centre) were the ones that tore the goalposts down. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath:Game analysis

• Centre surprised sportswriters with its own offensive plan, involving far more rushing and fewer passes than were expected, in spite of their fewer numbers and smaller size, though this was intentional as Centre had intended to conceal some of the more elaborate parts of their gameplan until the second half so as to avoid giving Harvard the opportunity to make adjustments at halftime. This is a very long sentence that should be split up.
  • Holy crap that's about six commas too many PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• McMillin, in his own analysis of the game, complemented the performance of his offense; he praised the offensive lineman as "heroes" and said that "no better blockers ever played football". Eliminate the semicolon and split into two sentences.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath:Immediate impact and reactions

• Once the game ended, McMillin was carried off of the field on the shoulders of fans. I understand the context here, and this is another nitpick, but this should probably be clarified that this was a celebration, and that he wasn't carried off because he was injured or unable to walk due to exhausion or other issues.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• the Centre team was met by large crowds, as they had during much of both of their visits to Harvard Reword to eliminate clunkiness.
  • Changed "much of both of their visits" to "their previous visit". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• After the game, Harvard coach Bob Fisher said "In Bo McMillin Centre has a man who is probably the hardest in the country to stop." Needs a comma before the quote. Needs a comma after "McMillin" within the quote as well.
  • Added first comma. I am more hesitant about adding punctuation to a direct quote however. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    • It's an Associated Press wire article, and the ommission of the comma from the quote was a mistake on the part of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which was used as the source in this case. Look at other newspapers that use that article, such as the Hartford Courant (page 6Z, or page 42 on Newspapers.com for Sun Oct. 30, 1921). They include the comma. It was likely a quote of a spoken statement by Fisher, so it should have the comma. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
      • Added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• The Centre team returned to Danville on October 31 and were greeted by a homecoming party which included Governor Morrow, the Danville chamber of commerce,[81] the superintendent of education,[29] and 10,000 citizens. Citizens is an unusual word to use in this context, perhaps "local residents", "fans", or something like that? Chamber of Commerce should be capitalized. per MOS:PEOPLETITLES, Superintendent of Education should be capitalized.
  • Caps done, changed citizens to local residents. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Upon exiting their train, the team was paraded down Main Street. Passive voice not necessary here. Identify who paraded the team down main street, or say that the team paraded down Main Street, or that they participated in a victory parade.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Classes were cancelled at Centre and the local school district on the day of the team's return[83] and "Victory Day" was observed in nearby Harrodsburg on November 6, where another parade was held for the team. Move the citation to the end of the sentence so it does not disrupt the flow. I'm not that bothered by the two instances of passive voice here since it's pretty obvious who the actors were.
  • Cite moved. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• The phrase by which the game is most commonly known, "C6H0", originated from a comment made by a Centre professor shortly following the game: that Harvard had been "poisoned" by the organic compound with that formula. The colon seems inappropriate here, and since the sentence is already pretty long it's probably best to split into separate sentences.
  • I'm hesitant to split this because the bit before the colon introduces the bit after the colon. Starting a sentence with "Harvard had been 'poisoned' by..." risks misinterpretation since you don't have the reference back to the professor and his comment within that sentence. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• It stuck, and students painted the so-called "impossible formula" all around Danville,[30] including on various buildings around campus[29] and on the flank of a cow. The citation after the word "campus" should be moved to the end of the sentence.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath:Concluding the season...

• The Centre victory was a shock, but perhaps not a fluke; the team finished the 1921 regular season 9–0, with shutout defeats of Kentucky, Auburn, Washington and Lee, and Tulane; this last game was scheduled as a replacement for their original opponent, Georgetown College, who backed out prior to the season after determining they would be too outmatched. Run-on sentence that should be broken up, ideally eliminating the multiple unnecessary semicolons.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• McMillin was married on the morning of the game; the wedding was attended by members of the Centre team who afterwards went to the stadium to play. Be a bit clearer which game that refers to. I don't love the semicolon.
  • Changed "the game" to "that game" to point the reader to the most-recently mentioned game. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Legacy

• No concerns

Overall

• The article has several sections where there is a heavy use of the semicolon to join smaller sentences into longer, more complicated sentences. This decreases the readability of the prose and in many of the instances I've called them out above. There are others that I chose not to nitpick about, but in general, I'm not a fan of the use. There are other segments of the article that don't use any semicolons, probably a reflection of some of the different editors and writing styles that have come through the article. There aren't any "deal-breaker" objections that I have, most of the comments relate to needed clarifications and improvements to the prose and I've tried to highlight each issue without being overly bossy about "you much change it to this wording".
• There's a decent amount of sports jargon present in the article that will be familiar to readers who are used to reading sports recaps, but in many cases the jargon can be simply be reworded to be more easily understood by someone unfamiliar with the jargon, keeping in mind that the target readership of Wikipedia is a general audience. Examples like "suited up", "shutout", "took the field", etc. Technically accurate and definitely not deal breakers, but areas that I think could be polished. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @RecycledPixels: I believe everything has been taken care of or responded to. Thank you again for such a detailed review! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    • @PCN02WPS: I responded with a few other issues that cropped up. If I didn't make any comment to your earlier responses, it means that I am satisfied with either the changes you made or with your response. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

      @RecycledPixels Sorry for the delay - I believe I have addressed everything! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

      @PCN02WPS: Pinging because I forgot to. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Summary, using WP:WIAFA as a guideline.

  It is:

  well-written: Yes

  comprehensive: Yes

  well-researched: I have not performed a source check and verification, a different reviewer has, above.

  neutral: Yes

  stable: Yes

  compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy: Source check not performed, search for close paraphrasing not performed.

  It follows the style guidelines, including:

  lead: Yes

  appropriate structure: Yes

  consistently formatted citations: Not checked

  Media: Image check not performed, a different reviewer has, above.

  Appropriate length: Yes

  Conclusion: I support this nomination. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I don't think that Harvard University and Texas A&M University are a website, but rather the publisher. Ditto "College Football at Sports-Reference.com" which isn't the website. While less certain, I am not sure that "Grace Doherty Library." should be referred to in the website parameter, either. Otherwise I see no issue with the sources, but qualify that local US newspapers aren't my area of expertise. I kinda wonder about the reliability of "The Wonder Team: The Story of the Centre College Praying Colonels and their Rise to the Top of the Football World", given this review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus All four website parameter issues have been acted on; first two switched to "publisher" and last two removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

One question about "The Wonder Team: The Story of the Centre College Praying Colonels and their Rise to the Top of the Football World" still outstanding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus I believe the book to be reliable with respect to the information I used from it. The book was independently published by Butler Books out of Louisville - they publish plenty of history-related stuff (at a glance, a good number of biographies) - and it is cited by the Register of the Kentucky Historical Society journal article, which is peer-reviewed. The review you linked does raise some good points, though I recognized when writing the article that the quotes were likely not entirely genuine and as a result did not include any quotes or information derived from the quotes. I also did not echo the viewpoints Robertson made about Centre's 1919 team as the greatest in football history (I placed information about that team in context and mentioned their undefeated record, the one selector who recognized them as national champions, and highlighted one win from that season which multiple sources - not Robertson - mentioned as being among their best), nor did I reproduce his rather grandiose opinions about the Centre-Harvard three-game series being the best in the sport's history. I agree that the book is a little long but when using it I did my very best to use only the information that would not be reasonably challenged, were devoid of the opinion of the author in any way, and did not place either team or the games they played on any sort of pedestal using a superlative of any kind, so far as I can tell/remember. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess that's all, unless folks want a spotcheck too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 8 April 2024 [60].

---

Tufted jay

Nominator(s): grungaloo (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The tufted jay is an member of the crow family and is endemic to a small region of the Sierra Madre Occidental in Mexico. It has been of particular interest to some in regards to its origin due to it's limited range and distance from other members of its genus. There is limited literature on it, but I have made the best use of what is available. grungaloo (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Jens

First comments now, more later.

• was first described by Robert Thomas Moore in 1935 based on a type locality – Descriptions are based on type specimens, not localities
  • Fixed
• Moore gave them – you switch from singular to plural here. Also elsewhere in the article.
  • Switched all to singular (I think)
• binomial name – since we are writing for a general readership (and especially with birds, we want that as many folks as possible can appreciate them, right?), we should avoid technical terms whenever possible. Here, you could use "scientific name" instead, and link that to Binomial nomenclature.
  • Fixed
• Cyanocorax dickeyi, with the species name being in honour of – The species name is the whole binomen. What you mean is the specific name.
  • Fixed
• The tufted jay is monotypic. – Again, avoid technical terms; just write that no subspecies are recognized.
  • Fixed
• For the first paragraph of "Taxonomy and systematics", the first description has some interesting details that could be added; e.g. that this species was not encountered in extensive collection efforts not far away, demonstrating its limited range. Maybe such info would make the article a bit more interesting to read, instead of just listing the standard information point by point. But this is just an idea, it is up to you.
  • I like it! I tried adding it in, I'm not convinced I worded it well so if you have suggestions on rewording I'm happy to hear.
• Other members of the genus occur as far north as Costa Rica, over 2,000 km (1,200 mi) away from the tufted jays' range.[1] In 1944, it was proposed that they were most closely related to the white-tailed jay – this is saying that other members were most closely related to the white-tailed jay, which does not make sense.
  • Fixed, called out tufted jay
• Several theories were proposed for why this was, – "hypotheses", not "theories"? Also, "why this was" is very unspecific; why what was, exactly?
  • Changed, and swapped it to "for why this relation might exist despite the geographical separation"
• link cladogram
  • Done
• The IUCN page has much more details on threats that could be added (click there on "threats in detail")
  • Expanded
• State the size (length, weight); you say "medium sized bird" but that is relative.
  • Added
• It seems that the article could be even more comprehensive; for example, I see several aspects in the Birds of the World page that are not mentioned here (e.g., flight; that the young are fed cooperatively; how long do the juveniles remain in the group, and more). I would suggest to have another close look at the sources to improve coverage. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I've done another pass. I'll admit this is a bit of a blind spot for me—I'm realizing I tend to lean too much into a summary and miss out on details, so if there's anything obviously missing please let me know! Also, I'm not sure where to put flight without it standing out odd, any suggestions? grungaloo (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Maybe an introductory paragraph in Behaviour and ecology? That's usually what I've done so far and I think it works okay. AryKun (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
      • I agree, that would work well. Another option is to put it into the "Description", since flight is often a useful feature to distinguish species. This is what we did for our current FAC, Markham's storm petrel. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I've added it there. grungaloo (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• also known as the painted jay – information does not appear in the cited source?
  • Added source to Haemig who uses that name. It's the Spanish translation of the name "Urraca Pinta".

• The tufted jay, also known as the painted jay – according to Avibase [61], there is another synonym (Dickey's Jay). No need to bold any of them in the lead imo.
  • Added and de-bolded

• based on a type specimen from Mexico – the wording is still not good. A type specimen was not found somewhere, it was selected when erecting the species. Actually, the description used 7 specimens?
  • Tried a rewrite, let me know what you think

• A more commonly held theory – hypothesis
  • Change, dropped "more commonly" too.

• was relict of a common ancestor – What does "relict" mean here precisely? Is the tufted jay identical with this ancestral taxon?
  • Rewrote, it's presumed to have descended from a common ancestor so not identical.

• A more commonly held theory was – With past tense, you are implying that this (and the other) hypothesis is now outdated, but you do not state what the current hypothesis is.
  • I've changed these tenses. There's no meta-discussion I could find on which is right, so presumably they're all still open. No source seems to expressly deny any other too. The closest is Haemig who introduced the pre-Columbian trade theory, but even that doesn't go as far as to outright deny the others.

• Other members of the genus occur as far north as Costa Rica, over 2,000 km (1,200 mi) away from the tufted jay's range – This does not seem to be the case. What about the Purplish-backed jay, for example?
  • I've changed this to reference Amadon, who specifies that the tufted and white-tailed jay are 3000 miles apart. The other cite was from Haemig who was comparing it to the northern-most range of "South American" cyanocoraxes, which I think confused things.

• caption: A juvenile tufted jay with a smaller crest and lacking the white spot above the eye. – But the shown bird has a small white spot above the eye?
  • Yeah on second look I can't explain that, and I'm not convinced it's a juvenile. I've replaced the image with another available one from Flickr that shows and adult. I also found an image of a flock of them and added it to the socialization section.

• The inside of their beak is flesh-coloured, but this fades after a few months. – I don't understand this. You mean the color when looking into their open mouth? Fading to what color? A few months after what? After hatching?
  • Crossin says "the basal portions of the mandibles are flesh color", I've tried to make it more clear in the article what it refers to without using that technical language. I also added the timing and what it fades to.

• This call can be heard when feeding, by nesting females – This literally means "Nesting females can hear the call", which makes no sense.
  • Rewrote, hopefully clearer

• endemic – link
  • Added

• In the breeding season, they can be found in ravines and nearer water sources. – "near water sources"?
  • Changed

• During the breeding season, flocks will work cooperatively to feed the nesting female. – Does this mean there is only one breeding female per flock? (the nesting female seems to imply that).
  • Added a line to clarify this, but yes there's a single breeding pair per flock.

• I am not completely through yet, but this should be most of it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • All addressed so far, thanks!grungaloo (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• The tufted jay is possibly descended from a population of white-tailed jays which were brought Mexico by trade between pre-Columbian societies. – I think that, this hypothesis as you describe it cannot be true, alone for the reason that speciation does not work that fast. Are you possibly misreading the source?

• If you are looking for modern discussions on the old hypothesis, it might be worth a try to 1) search for the article that proposed the hypothesis in Google Scholar, 2) click on "cited by", 3) and see through the list of papers cites (and possibly discusses) it. This way, the book "Avian invasions" turned up, which briefly describes Haemig's hypothesis and suggested that a genetic analysis would prove or disprove him. We now have this analysis (your cladogram). So I think the most sensible way to do it would be to present these different hypotheses in a historical context, making clear that they were based on the assumption that the tufted and the white-tailed were closely related, which is now questioned by the genetic analyses (I mean, give the genetic analysis more room, it is the by far most solid evidence available to date; but I wouldn't go as far as to state that the old hypothesis is now disproved, for this we would need another source that makes this interpretation).

• a study of the morphological characteristics of the tufted jay and white-tailed jay demonstrated – "demonstrated" is a bit strong a word, no? "Suggested" would be more suitable; you cannot have certainty with morphological characters.

• I am still not quite through, but we have to sort out the taxonomy section first, as I am not convinced here yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I've done a rewrite of this section based on your three suggestions above. I've also rewritten a portion of the lead to better reflect this. Let me know what you think! grungaloo (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks. But I think there is a mistake. You write In 1979, Paul Haemig proposed that the white-tailed jay had been brought to Mexico by trade between pre-Columbian societies, and that the tufted jay was derived from that population, although this theory was problematic because it implied that the two had only been diverging for a few hundred years. – This suggests that Haemig proposed that the white-tailed jay and the tufted jay are sister species. However, he did not say this as far as I can see. Instead, he seems to be of the opinion that the white-tailed and the tufted are the same species (even though he is not sure whether they can still interbreed or not). The book "avian invasions" also states that Haemig (1979) proposes that these two are actually the same species. In this light, your addition although this theory was problematic because it implied that the two had only been diverging for a few hundred years does not make sense; if we assume that they are the same species, it is not problematic at all. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

    I've reworded it to call out the same-species theory. I was using the BotW source which doesn't say that expressly. grungaloo (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

    I wanted to check your source "Bonaccorso et al. (2010), p. 27." to understand this a bit better, but that source does not have a page 27? Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

    Fixed grungaloo (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Taxonomy looks much better now, but I think some more minor tweaks to the writing should be done:

• The tufted jay's relation to other members of the Cyanocorax genus has been a subject of interest since its initial description – I am not sure what the information here is; is there any bird whose relationships have not been a subject of interest? Maybe cut this part.
  • Removed
• In 1935, Moore noted some difficulties with its placement in Cyanocorax, – again not well-enough written imo. You have "difficulties" in plural but only mention one difficulty later. Also, it is not clear what "its placement" refers to. That it belongs to Cyanocorax should not be fraught with difficulties; it rather seems you are hinting at its close affinities to the white-tailed jay that is problematic, but this has not been mentioned yet. Maybe cut this part, too.
  • Removed
• due to a widely distributed ancestor that had gone extinct. – Since the Tufted jay still lives, its ancestor didn't really went extinct.
  • Removed, I think I was misreading what it meant. Now it just mentions the ancestor.

For the remainder of the article:

• although a tufted jay may dive at a Steller's jay if it approaches a nest site or during foraging. – The "during foraging" is a bit unclear to me. When tufted jays are foraging, they will dive on the Steller's jays?
  • Rewrote, called out that its the tufted jay that's foraging.
• and each flock contains only a single breeding pair. – Already mentioned earlier (sorry for my earlier comment where I asked to add this information, I was not aware that it was already mentioned).
  • Actually I think I rewrote after your mention to make it clearer, so no worries!
• That's all from me now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks, addressed! grungaloo (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Two more regarding the taxonomy, after a last check there:

• and that tufted jay was more closely related to other South American jays – not sure if this is correct. The paper instead says that it is sister to a clade formed by the white-naped, Cayenne, plush-crested, azure-naped, and black-chested jays. I recommend to replace with a sentence like this.
  • Added
• elaborated on a hypothesis by Jean Théodore Delacour – can you add the year when this hypothesis was published?
  • Added
• I did some more smaller changes myself, feel free to revert if you disagree. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I appreciate all the help.grungaloo (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support – looks good to me now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Funk

• Wow, this must be the first time in years we have a constant stream of bird FACs! Marking my spot until Jens' review is done so I don't thread the same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• White-tailed jay is WP:duplinked (not counting the cladigram).
  • Removed grungaloo (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• The images are kind of samey, especially since the one in the taxobox is the same that is used in the compilation image right below it. Can anything be done to avoid this repetition? There are other free photos of the bird on Flickr that might replace one of the duplicates.
• Likewise, all photos show similar poses, and while not a great image, this one shows a flying individual and how the wings look when spread:[62] FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've done what I can to bring in different looking pictures, and done another search for any public domain ones that I've missed. Unfortunately there's just not much out there. Let me know what you think of the changes. grungaloo (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks better! FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• People mentioned could be presented by occupation, for example it seems odd to state who it was named for with no context at all.
  • Added. I saw this come up at the Markham's storm petrel FAC so wasn't sure which was correct. They're all ornithologists so it might be a bit repetitive.
• "with the specific name being named after" Name named sounds clunky.
  • Reworded - "being in honour of". I also saw this come up at the Markham's storm petrel FAC, but in this case I think it's ok because Moore explicitly says that the naming is in "tribute" to Dickey's work.
• Link Cyanocorax at first mention.
  • Done
• Link white-tailed jay at first mention under taxonomy. Now it is linked first time under description (not counting the cladogram).
  • Done
• "white-tailed jay (Cyanocorax mysticalis)" You give the scientific name in parenthesis for this species at first mention, but not others, should be consistent.
  • Dropped the scientific name
• "The white-tailed jay (pictured) is visually similar to the tufted jay" Could add to the caption that the two have incorrectly been considered the same species?
  • Tried a different caption, thoughts?
• Seems odd they were considered the same species when the other doesn't seem to have a crest? What was the rationale behind that?
  • I've added a footnote explaining Haemig's rational, but basically he figures the colouration is due to Gloger's rule, and the crest is something he considers a "very plastic" characteristic in jays. grungaloo (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Considering how much text is devoted to the issue in the main text, I think it would even be worth to incorporate the footnote into it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Done grungaloo (talk) 23:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Link molt.
  • Done

• Also, since this appears to be UK English (you say "colour"), it should be "moult". There may be other UK/US English inconsistencies, which should be checked throughout.
  • Canadian English actually, which afaik doesn't have a preference, but I changed it to moult anyway.

I think that's more or less the same as UK spelling? FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Link mobbing.
  • Done

• Modern countries are usually not linked, so links to Mexico should probably be removed.
  • Removed. Removed one to Ecuador too. grungaloo (talk) 23:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• You link flock only long after its first mention.
  • Moved up

• "Juvenile males who do disperse from the flock do so at around 13–18 months of age." I don't think the first "do" is necessary.
  • Removed

• "namely the Steller's jay" The is unnecessary.
  • Removed

• Breeding pairs is also only linked long aftr first mention.
  • Moved up

• Altricial could be explained in parenthesis.
  • Added

• Missing "is".
  • I'm not sure where?

Oops, fixed it myself. FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• "notably by those involved in the narcotic cultivation" Why?
  • Reworded

• An article this length probably only needs a three paragraph intro. I think you could merge the two last short paragraphs.
  • Combined the last two

• Usually the intro should have the same order of info as the article body, but now you describe the bird before talking about its relationships. Perhaps not a big deal, but I've seen others bring it up.
  • Personally I think having description first makes sense even if it doesn't match the order. In my experience a lot of people looking up birds are most interested in what they look like, so makes sense to open with that to me. I'll change it though if it's a sticking point.

• Breeding pair and other terms not linked in the intro should be linked if they are linked in the article body.
  • Added links grungaloo (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support - changes look good, I fixed the last issue I hadn't reported properly myself. FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Aa77zz

• The article heavily cites a 1965 master's thesis by Richard Crossin. Theses are not considered as reliable sources. The cites should be replaced by peer reviewed articles.

One possible source is the Birds of the World which is available from the Internet Archive (registration required) here: https://archive.org/details/handbookofbirdso0014unse/page/582/mode/1up

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:Reliable sources, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. According to Google Scholar, this thesis has been cited 44 times, including by major bird resources such as handbooks. Given how narrow this topic is, I would argue this counts as "significant scholarly influence" (in fact, it seems to be the most cited publication that is specifically dealing with this species). Another point to consider is whether or not the cited information is uncontroversial; mere observations (for which this source seems to be used for) are generally uncontroversial. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This was basically my reasoning (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Crossin is the go-to for any detailed description on this bird. Other sources also cite Crossin quite a bit, including Birds of the World. My usage of it mostly reflects what other sources were already citing to it, but I used Crossin in these cases so I could pull more detail. Excising Crossin would be possible, but the article would lose some detail. If that's what's needed though I'll give it a go! grungaloo (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Volcanoguy

• Also known as the painted jay and Dickey's jay. Painted jay and Dickey's jay should probably be bold in introduction per WP:BOLDTITLE since they are alternative names for this bird. Other than that I don't see any issues. Comments welcomed FAC here. Volcanoguy 16:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, Jens Lallensack pointed out that these shouldn't be bolded actually. "And significant alternative names" - the argument is that these are not significant names at all. In fact, I only found one source each that uses each of these names. They definitely quality as alternative names, but probably not significant. grungaloo (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  I just see that the WP:WikiProject Birds has this guideline: Alternative common names should be mentioned where appropriate; with bold type in the opening line of the article if they are in wide use, elsewhere in the article (with or without the bold type) if they are less-used. This is usually a matter for individual judgement. So I guess it is up to you if you like to bold or not. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'd prefer to not bold here. From what I've seen they're not in wide use. grungaloo (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "A mtDNA study". When did this happen?
  • Added year (2010)
• "A mtDNA study". Could we have this in full at first mention? mitochondrial DNA. And in the main article.
  • Changed for both mentions

"The following cladogram (simplified from the 2010 mtDNA study)". Either this also needs to be in full or the abbreviation needs to be in brackets after the first mention a little earlier in the paragraph.

Oops, changed to be in full

• "It is likely descended from an ancestral jay which ranged throughout Central and South America." Perhaps "It" → 'they'?
  • Fixed
• Link canopy, range
  • Linked
• "This indicated that the tufted jay and white-tailed jay descended from a common ancestor that once lived throughout Central and South America, and that the visual similarities were the result of convergent evolution." I don't understand. If they "descended from a common ancestor", then that would explain "the visual similarities" and there is no need to assume convergent evolution".
  • I've removed the line about convergent evolution since yeah, it doesn't make sense. I think the author meant that all Central/South American Cyanocorax's descended from a common ancestor, and the tufted and white-tailed jay converged, but that's not expressly stated so I've opted to remove it instead.
• "This is a commonly held hypothesis by others who have studied the tufted jay." "is" or was?
  • Is, and the mtDNA study supports it so I've left it as is. I did change hypothesis to theory though since it is an official theory, especially with the dna study.
• "Because of the visual similarities between the tufted jay and the white-tailed jay, some researchers thought that the two must be more closely related than their ranges would suggest." Is this not repeating much of the previous paragraph?
  • I've cut it down: "These similarities led some researchers to hypothesize that the two must be more closely related than their ranges would suggest."
• "that the tufted jay had descended from a flock that had accidentally been brought to Mexico by a storm". Would that be a flock of white-tailed jays?
  • Added white-tailed jay to the sentence to make it clear
• "the tufted jay is sister to a clade formed by ..." Define clade in line.
  • Added
• "due to a widely distributed ancestor." Optional: → 'due to a widely distributed common ancestor.'
  • Changed.

• "The tufted jay has several calls, with the most common call being a rapid ..." This may flow better without the repetition of "call".
  • Changed, dropped the second "call"
• "woodland forests". Are there non-woodland forests?
  • Removed "woodland"
• "they can be found in ravines near water sources." Commonly, rarely, exclusively?
  • Added - commonly
• Do we have any idea of their life expectancy?
  • Nothing concrete. Birds of the World says "There is no information related to topics such as age at first breeding, life span and survivorship, dispersal, or population regulation for Tufted Jay.", and I couldn't find anything from another source.

I find that information on the lack of information on "age at first breeding, life span and survivorship" interesting. Perhaps include it in the article?

I've added it, I put breeding age in the breeding section, and lifespan in the description

• "and are 41 cm (16 in) in diameter and 6 cm (2.4 in) deep." Should there be am 'approximately' in there?
  • Added
• "measure between roughly 36–38 mm (1.4–1.5 in) long and 24–25.4 mm (0.94–1.00 in) wide"; "with between 10,000–20,000 mature individuals." See MOS:RANGES "Do not mix en dashes with between or from."
  • Removed "between" and "roughly"
• "the primary threats to its survival are habitat destruction through agricultural expansion, deforestation due to logging and narcotic cultivation, or through forest fires." There needs to be an 'and' somewhere in that list.
  • Reworded
• "Climate change is likely to result in future prolonged droughts, which could result in a significant decrease in the tufted jay's population." Is it possible to avoid having "result" twice in a single sentence?
  • Reworded
• Lammertink et al needs an OCLC. (906999994)
  • Added
• Like wise Miller et al. (4638340178)
  • Added

Nice work. I enjoyed reading that. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I enjoyed writing it! grungaloo (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Great stuff. A couple of minor come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Addressed! grungaloo (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

A cracking article, especially impressive for a first-time FAC nomination. Have you done this before? Either on or off Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that means a lot! I did some writing in university but nothing since. I appreciate the feedback. grungaloo (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Source and prose review by AK

• Doesn't look like there'll be much for me to say here, but I'll leave this placeholder here nonetheless. AryKun (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• This initial description of the nest seems like it has some interesting details (specifically the author's observations of other species driving out the jays).
  • Added to the Socialization and territoriality section
• Personal preference, but "genus Cyanocorax" reads better to me than "Cyanocorax genus".
  • Changed
• Hardy does not propose that it's descended from a vagrant flock. He says "C. dickeyi, a sedentary species not given even to accidental occurrence outside of its small known range seems to represent a relict rather than a population derived from a single flock of birds lost or blown by storm far from a native home", so he thinks that the species is a relict of a more wide-ranging ancestor elsewhere displaced by other Cyanocorax. He only mentions the vagrant flock theory and says it cannot be easily dismissed.
  • I've changed it to say that he "discussed the theory" - I believe you're right, this seems like it was a theory that was already out there, but his is the earliest paper I could find that talk about it.
• Amadon's argument that the two species might be the result of convergent evolution seems worth mentioning.
  • Added
• "This study...distributed common ancestor" But wouldn't all the other species that the tufjay is more closely related to also be descended from said common ancestor?
  • I would think so. Sorry, but I'm not sure what change you're looking to make?
• "simplified from the 2010 mitochondrial DNA study" You don't need to mention that it's a mtDNA study again.
  • Done
• BritEng would be Vocalisations.
  • It's Canadian English, Vocalization is correct (as is Socialization)
• Shouldn't the ovivory link be at "eating eggs" instead of "stolen"?
  • Fixed
• "10,000–20,000 mature individuals" Why round it off from the IUCN estimate?
  • Fixed - that came up at GA, I prefer the exact number.
    • I have to disagree here; the IUCN number of "19999 individuals" is not an estimate. They state placed in the band for 10,000-19,999 mature individuals, which means that they have some pre-defined categories, and 20000 would already be the next category. As you formulate it ("with an estimated 10,000–19,999 mature individuals"), without any mention of these categories, it is just wrong (false precision). It has to be 20000 instead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Gotcha, I've changed it back to 10,000-20,000. grungaloo (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• "the narcotic cultivation" to "the cultivation of narcotics"?
  • Fixed
• What about habitat fragmentation due to roads and the loss of springs mentioned in BirdLife?
  • Added
• BOW mentions a ejido in Sinaloa that has a community conservation plan for the species.
  • Added
• Scientific names should be italicized in ref titles.
  • Fixed
• The publisher for the Avibase ref should just be Avibase, not the whole website url.
  • Fixed
• Partners in Flight ref has a typo (Vision)
  • Fixed
• That's all I got. AryKun (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Thansk! All addressed. grungaloo (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support and pass source review from me. AryKun (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

File:Cyanocorax dickeyi map.svg should probably give the base map. File:Sierra.madre.occidental.volcanics.JPG does not seem as dense to me as the ALT claims. All else seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "give the base map", could you elaborate please? I've replaced the Sierra Madre picture with one of a pine-oak forest in Durango. Thanks! grungaloo (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry; The underlying map, the grey bits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not 100% on what exactly you mean, but I've updated the caption to hopefully be clearer what the map represents. Is your suggestion to specify that this is a map of Mexico? grungaloo (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Cyanocorax dickeyi map.svg looks like someone had a file showing a map of Mexico and painted the species distribution on top of it. I'd like to know which "file showing a map of Mexico" it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe it is based off of this File:Mexico template.svg but I've pinged the author of the range map to confirm. grungaloo (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed, that's the base map that was used. grungaloo (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Coord note

As Grungaloo is a first-time nominator this will require a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. I'll list it a the top of WT:FAC but if any extant reviewers would like to have a go, pls feel free. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• 5 Doesn't have the distance to Costa Rica.
  • Dropped the distance to Costa Rica
• 7 That seems to argue that this theory is not widely held.
  • First sentence under "Past Theories", "The first theory to explain the painted jay's presence in western Mexico was proposed by Moore (1935). He, and others who followed him (Amadon 1944, Crossin 1967, Hardy 1969, Haffer 1975), assumed that the painted jay was a relict species because of its tiny range." He then only mentions one alternate theory (the storm theory), and then his. Overall that's 5 of 7 who support the relict theory.
• 8 OK
• 12 Can I have a copy of this article?
  • Ref 12
    • OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• 16 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • Ref 16 - I had the wrong page number so this is page 277. The first section is where I've pulled from.
    • OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• 17 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • Ref 17
    • Hmm, does it specify "second year moult" anywhere? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
      • "The Formative Plumage ('immature' in Detailed Description) is retained until the prebasic molt in the second calendar year (Crossin 1967)." Second line under "Molts". I've reworded slightly to be "molt in their second year" since I think calling it a "second year molt" isn't technically correct, or at least implies there were previous molts.
• 18 OK; thesis seems to be adequately cited.
• 20 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • Ref 20
    • The social parts might require some rewrite; as they stand their formulation are uncomfortably similar to the source. Also, 13-18 months? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
      • I've tried a rewrite, let me know your thoughts. The 13-18 months was missing a ref - I've added it, ref 36 covers that claim.
• 23 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • Ref 23
    • Ok, might want to say that "ca" is also a sound. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
      • Added
• 24 Where's "whisper"?
  • Last sentence of page 35, "These 'whisper' duets were usually accompanied by 'billing'"
• 26 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • Ref 26
    • OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• 30 Can't find blackberries and nuts.
  • Yeah, my bad. Added ref to this source which does include it.
    • OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• 31 OK
• 33 I presume the cache thing is in the other source?
  • Yes - ref 20.
• 36 OK
• 39 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • Ref 39
    • OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• 41 OKish interpretation.
  • Any specific issues I should fix?
    • Calling them "altricial" might be too much interpretation, but it's not that bad. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• 42 OK
• 43 OK
• 45 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • Ref 45
    • OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the spot check! grungaloo (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, should all be addressed. grungaloo (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 April 2024 [63].

---

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006

Nominator(s): Edge3 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 is a legal opinion of the Illinois Attorney General concerning the state's public records law. In the aftermath of the murder of Laquan McDonald by a Chicago police officer, several officers discussed the incident through their private email accounts, and CNN asked for copies of those emails. The police department denied that request, prompting the Attorney General to issue a binding ruling that required their disclosure. The opinion came several years after City of Champaign v. Madigan (recently promoted to FA), an Illinois appellate court case that addressed a similar issue involving elected officials sending private communications during a city council meeting. Edge3 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk, Gog the Mild, Elli, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and ZKang123: Thank you for your participation at the previous FAC for City of Champaign v. Madigan. Since this article covers similar subject matter and uses many of the same sources, I invite you to participate in this FAC as well. Thank you! Edge3 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see the relevance of the photo of the cop checking his phone. Note WP:IMAGERELEVANCE: 'Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding'. I don't see how a cop on a phone is particularly relevant to a FOIR regarding emails, so how does it aid our understanding of the topic, which is primarily a legal judgment? I think this falls into the 'decorative' department. Is there a shortage of images? I see the article on the original murder is also pretty sparse, unfortunately. ——Serial 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129 Thanks for your comment. I don't think this photo is purely decorative because it illustrates a widespread phenomenon of public employees using their personal devices while carrying out their official duties. See also City of Champaign v. Madigan and Illinois Freedom of Information Act#Records on private electronic devices, where we show a photo of Mayor Rahm Emanuel using his cell phone, even though that specific phone call was unlikely to be the subject of any relevant FOIA requests.

  Indeed, there is a shortage of images relating to the murder of Laquan McDonald. But this article is notable not just for its relevance to the murder, but also for its significance as a legal opinion and its effects on the boundaries between personal and work lives. So the images don't have to be directly relevant to Laquan McDonald. Edge3 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk - Source review

Happy to review! Also, are you aware that you're eligible for another Four Awards for City of Champaign? Anyway, the review:

Thanks for the reminder! I've just nominated Champaign for the Four Award. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no concerns about the prose, so I'll do a source review

• Ref 5 is missing a website/publisher

  Added. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 7 is missing volume/issue parameters

  Added. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Put dead in ref 14's active parameter

  Done. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Also ref 14: looking at the archive url, Associated Press isn't the author, it's the wire agency. There's a separate parameter for that, the author parameter should be empty

  Fixed. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Is the Illinois Policy Institute reliable? Not sure what the standards are regarding think tank sources

  The Illinois Policy Institute leans conservative, but such a source is permitted under WP:PARTISAN so long as it's reliable for the context in which it is used. In this case, the Illinois Policy Institute is merely recounting arguments made by CPD and the decision of the Attorney General, and this reporting is easily verifiable by reading the opinion itself. If you'd like, I can add a citation to the opinion (as the primary source) to go alongside the secondary source citation. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's all good here, thanks for clarifying MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck:

• Ref 1: I don't see anything here about "Preliminary reports by the Chicago Police Department (CPD) suggested that McDonald was behaving erratically, and that the shooting was justifiable, leading to Van Dyke not being charged at the time." though this is a long article and I may have missed something

  Ah, good catch. Long ago, I copied and paraphrased text from Murder of Laquan McDonald without checking source-to-text integrity. I've revised that sentence now. Edge3 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 2: all three uses good
• Ref 5: good
• Ref 10: good
• Ref 14: all three uses good
• Ref 17: good

Edge3, all done- great work on this and on getting the last article promoted! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Support and pass source review- wonderful job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Support from Elli

Claiming a spot here to do a review later (sometime this week hopefully). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Elli Just pinging you for a quick reminder. :-) Edge3 (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks -- will try to get to it soon. Sorry for the wait. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries! Edge3 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Background

• First paragraph is fine and supported by source.
• "Off-duty police officers reportedly discussed the incident on personal devices and accounts." not sure what part of the source is supporting this but I'm probably missing something. I don't like "reportedly" as it's a bit of a weasel word so I'd rather be clear about who was stating this and why they thought it was the case.

  The source says: "police officers who were off duty reportedly were sending and receiving messages via personal accounts on personal devices". The information is attributed to Ben Schuster, an attorney who had been interviewed for that article, but I'm not sure if he should be cited directly. Happy to hear your thoughts. Edge3 (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  I see you've removed this now so considering it resolved. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "CPD provided a large number of emails from the police officers' CPD-issued email accounts, but CPD failed to search for the officers' private emails, despite CNN's request." Page 2 of the report doesn't explicitly say this.

  I've updated the citation to include pages 2–4. Edge3 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Would be ideal to use a secondary source for the parts currently only backed by the opinion itself, though I'd understand if no such sources exist.

  I'm mainly using the opinion as a primary source for the procedural history of the case, and also key dates. (e.g. the dates of the FOIA request, the request for review, the AG's decision, etc.) Since I'm using the opinion only to support basic facts rather than interpretation, it's appropriate under WP:PRIMARY. Edge3 (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's fair. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Those are my only concerns in this section. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Elli Thanks for your comments! I responded above, so please do let me know if you have other feedback. Edge3 (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Elli, nudge. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I am really sorry to both of you for my lack of haste here. I got pretty run-down with IRL stuff the past few weeks and didn't have much time or energy to spend here. I should be able to finish reviewing the rest of this article in detail today though. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No need to apologize! I totally understand that things happen IRL, and we all have our own priorities to attend to.

@Gog the Mild: I'm actually traveling internationally for two weeks starting today, so I'm happy to put this FAC on hold for two weeks, or at least move along a bit more slowly. Let me know if you have concerns about the speed of progress. Edge3 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I am afraid FACs can't be paused. Moving slowly but making progress is a different but not well defined issue. In order to try and avoid it timing out I have poked HF, and added it to Urgents to try and get more reviewers. I think you have had my standard advice on how to get additional reviewers. Elli, relax. If you get a full or partial review done, great. If not, RL is priority: Wikipedia is what we do for fun; we shall all no doubt somehow survive without it. ;) Take care of yourself. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

What you've said makes sense. I still have my laptop with me so can respond to queries and do light editing, albeit at a slower pace than I usually do. And as you say, RL takes priority anyhow. :-) Edge3 (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your kind words -- I took them to heart and took a week off. Finished review is below:

All good! I'm glad you took some time off, and I hope you feel better rested now. I'm currently on vacation anyhow, so it'll take me some time to respond to everything. Edge3 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Case law

• Maybe link public records?

  Done. Edge3 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thinking the wording could be clearer about the quote; something like "records open to disclosure, including all emails..."

  I'm reluctant to combine those sentences because it would be very long. ("Public bodies in Illinois, including CPD, are required under FOIA to make all public records open to disclosure, including all emails 'pertaining to the transaction of public business, regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been prepared by or for, or having been or being used by, received by, in the possession of, or under the control of any public body'.") Happy to consider a different version that's cleaner. Edge3 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph, moving the first sentence to the end might be clearer (with a slight rephrase: "This ruling, by the Illinois Appellate Court, was the first decision in Illinois to find that..."

  Rearranged in this edit. Edge3 (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Opinion

• Is there some reason in particular this one was binding? Was it something Madigan chose, or something CPD requested, etc?

  Madigan would have made that decision herself. The AG's office issues binding opinions only in very rare circumstances. You can see more info about the process at Illinois Public Access Counselor. Edge3 (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Appeal

• Per the source, the final result, with CNN not getting the emails, involved them going back to court again, maybe mention that?

  Added. Edge3 (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Reactions

• Source also mentions the laws were in response to PAC Opinion 11-006 -- is that at all noteworthy?

  PAC Opinion 11-006 was the underlying opinion that was appealed in court and decided as City of Champaign v. Madigan. I don't think Opinion 11-006 needs to be mentioned separately. Edge3 (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Overall

Feel comfortable supporting this as I only have a few minor questions/nitpicks that aren't very important. Would like to see your thoughts though. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll take a look at this. Not familiar with Illinois municipal law, but I do have some familiarity with one state over (Missouri). Hog Farm _Talk 03:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

For starters - is Huffington Post really going to be a high-quality source as required by the FA criteria for the material that it is citing, in light of the cautions found at WP:HUFFPOLITICS? Hog Farm _Talk 03:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I've switched to sources that are hopefully more reliable. Let me know what you think! Edge3 (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks better now. Hog Farm _Talk 21:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Off-duty police officers reportedly discussed the incident on personal devices and accounts" - this is a bit weaselly worded. There needs to be some sort of attribution as to who is making this claim, if possible

  Elli actually brought up the same concern above. The attribution is to Ben Schuster, but as I stated above, I'm not sure if I should directly attribute this to someone who wasn't even involved in the incident. Edge3 (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  I guess the problem is that the article is written in a way that assumes the emails existed, although it doesn't seem like that can be proven beyond a doubt. All we get is a shadowy hand wave about unspecified people believing they existed for unspecified reasons. CNN evidently had reason to believe the emails existed. Is there really no other source that addresses this more directly than the one currently being used? Hog Farm _Talk 21:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  I might have found something written by AP. Take a look at this edit and let me know if you think it's better. I removed the sentence that sounded weaselly, per your and Elli's suggestion. Edge3 (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• "On January 28, 2016, Courtney Yager, a producer for CNN, submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to CPD" - if this is through the state act, I'd indicate that within the article text, as I (and presumably other readers as well) assumed that this was referring to the better-known federal Freedom of Information Act (United States) before I saw where the link was going

  I've clarified that it's the "Illinois" FOIA. Edge3 (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• " but CPD failed to search for the officers' private emails, despite CNN's request" - my instinct is that something about the Champaign case needs mentioned before this, as without that previous ruling would there really have been any expectation for CNN to be able to receive this information?

  To me it feels like synthesis to link the Champaign case to CNN's FOIA request. CNN is a national publication, and Yager (the producer) and Shenkman (the legal counsel) are not from Illinois. I doubt that they specifically had Champaign in mind when filing the FOIA request. In the Attorney General's opinion, Champaign isn't even mentioned until page 6, and it appears that CPD didn't consider Champaign as authoritative until it filed its supplemental (i.e. second) response to the Public Access Counselor. Edge3 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  That makes sense. Hog Farm _Talk 21:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hog Farm _Talk 00:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Hog Farm, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  • leaning support for now. Hog Farm _Talk 23:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Mike Christie

A very concise and clearly written article. Just two minor points, neither of which affect my support.

• It was interesting to discover halfway through the article that the opinion did not lead to the provision of any of the personal emails covered by the opinion. The officers refused to comply, and the opinion only says the officers could be ordered to do their own search, not to give others access to their accounts. You cite a comment to the effect that the opinion should have made it clearer how access could be enforced. It's apparent that the opinion has limited effectiveness, and I wonder if it would be possible to make that point in the lead. If the sources don't discuss it in a way that lets you draw that conclusion, that's fine, but it seems a relevant point that the reader only gradually understands as they read the article. If not, could we at least mention in the lead that the officers did not comply?

  The sources tend to characterize the opinion more as a "victory" for public access advocates, despite the fact that CNN never received the emails it had requested. You're correct that this point would only be apparent to the astute reader. I've added an extra sentence to the lead. Edge3 (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• "expired", in the last sentence of the article, is a slightly technical term that some readers may not be familiar with. Could we get a link that explains it?

  I did a quick search on Google, and most guides explain how a bill becomes law in Illinois, but very few talk about how a bill doesn't become law. Basically the idea is that the General Assembly sits for two-year sessions, and at the end of each session all bills automatically die if they were not already passed. I'll try to do some more digging and find a more detailed reference, such as a book or law reference on Illinois legislative procedure. Edge3 (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• "Issued in 2016 in the aftermath of the murder of Laquan McDonald by a police officer". Perhaps 'Issued in 2016 in the aftermath of the murder by a police officer of Laquan McDonald'? When I first read this, I couldn't work out why a police officer would be issuing the opinion.
• CNN should be in full at first mention. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  I changed the phrasing to "police murder of Laquan McDonald". Does that work? I've also expanded CNN to its full name at first mention. Edge3 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Empire of the Sultans

Nominator(s): MartinPoulter (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

After a successful FAC last year for an article about an art exhibition, I invite review of this article about another exhibition: one that visited sixteen venues. As with Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam, this article results from my role as Wikimedian In Residence at the Khalili Collections. I make extensive use of paywalled news archives, so of course I am happy to answer any requests for detailed quotes from those sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Ghosts of Europa

Hello! I don't have much feedback for the Venues or Reception sections. However, I think the Background and Content sections are under-developed and would benefit from expansion. I also think the focus of the Background section is unclear; it doesn't seem to properly set up the rest of the article.

For the Background section:

• You cite four sources to cover the history of the Ottoman Empire: Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Deseret News, BYU, and the Salt Lake Tribune. The Encyclopedia makes sense, but otherwise this seems like a strange choice of sources. Is Deseret News really the best source for what the Ottomans did in 1516? Why cite newspapers at all instead of peer reviewed history books?
  • Can't do this straight away, but I'll find better sources. The newspaper sources are already used in the article and were written specifically to give context to the exhibition, but their statements can indeed be backed up by scholarly sources. Done: newspaper sources removed, academic books used instead, paragraph re-worded to fit those sources.
• I think you should explain Islam's views on idolatry and its preference for non-representational art. Without that context, it's surprising that an exhibition covering 600 years of art is so focused on calligraphy and doesn't include e.g. sculptures.
  • This is a good idea; as with the above, I'll have to dig into scholarly sources.
• In 1516, the empire took over the holy places of Islam in Arabia - What were these places? Everything on this list?
  • Yes, the part of that list that relates to Arabia. I could insert "Mecca and Medina" to make it explicit? Sentence now replaced based on academic source.
• Although officially an Islamic state, the empire promoted a religious tolerance that was unusual for medieval Europe - Is this relevant to the exhibition? It sounds like it specifically focused on Islamic art.
  • I think this is useful context because the sultans did not fully embrace the restrictions of Islam, for instance commissioning portrait paintings. The exhibition combined Islamic art with art made for people who were unbelievably wealthy — maybe the richest family in the world at that time — and liked to show off their wealth.
• The empire's rulers, the sultans, were keen patrons of the arts, especially calligraphy - This feels overly simplified. Was every single sultan for 600 years a "keen patron"?
  • I don't think "every single sultan" is implied. Sources use "the sultans" as the subject of the statement. I agree it's a breezy generalisation but not sure more is needed to explain why someone would be interested in the sultans' art.

FAC doesn't do "breezy generalistion[s]". Perhaps "Many of the empire's rulers, the sultans, were ..."? Assuming that the sources will support this. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion: now done. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Suleiman and the later sultans used this wealth to build large, domed mosque complexes that included schools and hospitals - It's not clear how this connects to the article. Did some of the art in this exhibit come from those mosques?
  • This was included just to underline that the sultans were very rich, but you're right that it doesn't illuminate the exhibition. Now removed. Removed mention of schools and hospitals, and added clause about inscriptions.
• other objects with secular or religious purposes - This is pretty vague (isn't everything either secular or religious?). I don't have a clear sense of what's in this collection. More detail or examples would be helpful.
  • Many objects were religious in purpose but many were not. Rephrased to make this more clear. The scope of the collection is art from Islamic countries, whether or not that art has a religious purpose or function.

Then why does this, not relevant, split need mentioning? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: It's mentioned to head off the misconception that the a collection named "... Collection of Islamic Art" is exclusively of art with a religious purpose/ origin. This exhibition combines art from a religious tradition with luxury items whose purpose was to show off the wealth of a ruling family. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Oops. Fair enough then. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

For Content:

• The exhibition's curators were J. M. Rogers, the collection's honorary curator; and Nahla Nassar, its acting curator and registrar - This wording is awkward. Its curators were curators?
  • The curators of the exhibition were the curators of the collection, which isn't always true of exhibitions. I agree the repetition of "curator" is jarring. How about "The exhibition was assembled by..."?
• More than 200 objects were on display, covering 600 years of the Ottoman Empire - This is also a bit awkward. The article on the Ottoman Empire says it lasted from 1299 to 1922, or 623 years. Were 23 of those years not covered by the exhibition?
  • 600 years is the number used by sources, but it's almost certainly false precision. Changed to "six centuries".
• These exhibits fell into four sections. "In the service of God" displayed texts including the Quran as well as furniture and ornaments for decorating mosques. - The subsection about this exhibit doesn't mention furniture, which makes it feel incomplete after this overview.
  • Well spotted. I've added a sentence under "In the service of God" about mosque furniture.
• Architectural inscriptions were a feature of Ottoman mosque interiors - This seems like it belongs in the Background section.
  • Seems like I need a new background sentence combining the fact that the sultans built mosques and they decorated them in a particular way. I'll think more about this. Rephrased and moved to background section.
• The armour, forged from iron or steel, included helmets, chain mail shirts, and a 15th century war mask - This is an abrupt start to this subsection; I needed to reread the overview to orient myself. Consider re-introducing the topic: "This exhibit featured armour, which..."
  • You're right; I got sick of repeating "The exhibition included...". Now rephrased.
• Other pottery on display came from Syria, among which were a set of twelve fritware bowls from 1860, each inscribed in Arabic with "Imperial Chamber" and "a gift for his excellency Abraham Lincoln". - I feel like I'm missing huge chunks of this story. Why was a gift for Abraham Lincoln in Syria? Did they never send it? Did Lincoln give it back?
  • I have the same feeling, and frustratingly the questions are not answered by the sources! So it's known that they bear Lincoln's name but I don't think anybody knows why these gifts were made for him but did not end up in the USA. I've added a sentence to explain that the curators don't know.
• In the 19th century it was routine for sultans to be trained in calligraphy - This also feels like it belongs in the background.
  • Moved.

Ghosts of Europa (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• • Very grateful for your feedback and happy to give the article more useful context. I've made some changes straight away; others require more thought and poring through sources. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a note to apologise for delay with the last remaining point. I've had a celebratory last few days. Also, my search for references about Aniconism in Islam led to discovering problems with the sourcing of that article and Muslim world that I have spent some time digging into. I will come back to the background section of this article this week. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Ghosts of Europa, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think I understand the FA standards well enough to have an opinion. This is my first time participating in the process. I’ll defer to you and SchroCat. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Ghosts of Europa are you satisfied with my responses to the points you've raised in your review? I think the last one that needs work is the use of newspaper sources in the Background section. I have spent some time on this and you'll see that I have provided some scholarly sources, but there are still a couple of newspaper sources supporting general statements about Ottoman art. I've had less time than anticipated for wiki editing over the last week but I still intend to improve the Background section. If, looking at what I've done since your review, you feel any suggestion has not been answered satisfactorily, I can work on that too. The article is much better thanks to your involvement, so thanks. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ghosts of Europa (and anyone else who wants to review) I've now made substantial changes to the Background section to remove a couple of inadequate sources and to make some points about Islamic art in general. I've had to change and rearrange some statements, but this let me wiki-link a few relevant articles. Is that section now good enough for its role giving context to the exhibition? All feedback welcome, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the current version looks great! It provides good context for the prominence of calligraphy, and the wikilinks make it easy to learn more. I haven't checked source-text integrity, but the general quality of the sources looks good. Two somewhat nitpicky things:

• Referring to "Istanbul" seems anachronistic, especially underneath a map that calls the city Constantinople.
• The New York Times seems like a weird source for Calligraphy was as central to Ottoman culture as painting was to Europe during the Renaissance. I wouldn't expect NYT journalists to be experts in comparative art history. Is there a more academic source we can use?

Ghosts of Europa (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Martin, have you addressed these last two comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Ghosts of Europa for the feedback and @Gog the Mild for the nudge. That damn catchy song had me reflexively avoiding "Constantinople" even when it is the historically correct name. Now I have replaced the two references to Istanbul. I've also deleted the sentence sourced to the NY Times and instead used a statement sourced to an encyclopaedia article by Fikret Sarıcaoğlu, a professor of Ottoman history. I hope this makes the Background section fit for purpose. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Ghosts of Europa, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

SC

• I thoroughly enjoyed your Hajj article, so I'm looking forward to this one too. Comments to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• "from 2000 to 2004: a period" A colon is wrong here – a comma would suffice

Content

• Image caption: link horse chestnut? (Only a mild suggestion – your call entirely)

Venues

• Image caption: "c. 1560-80" should be "c. 1560–1580", per the MOS

Books, paintings

• "some following a standard pattern": is it possible to explain what the "standard pattern" is, or is that too complex to achieve in a few words?

Venues

• I'm not sure we need a whole subsection for the US tour, do we? Just making it part of the wider section would be better (and doesn't give excess weight to one of the four countries)

That's my lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat Thanks for your suggestions, all of which I've implemented. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Since the additions suggested by Ghosts of Europa, this article is now much stronger than it was and up to FAC standards. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I saw this FAC posted in WP:Museums and came to take a look since I've been meaning to get more familiar with the FAC process. I've read the article carefully and I think my only contribution is to wonder whether the lead should be a bit further expanded to perhaps say what objects some of the critics praised were? I really enjoyed reading the comments above too Lajmmoore (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Nice surprise to see one of my wiki-heroes at FAC. Thanks for the support! Looking again at the summary of reviews, three of them specifically praise the calligraphy. So I've added a clause in the lead to reflect this. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment by a455bcd9

File:OttomanEmpire1566.png is unsourced. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing: that'll teach me that I've focused too much on what I've written/added rather than others' work! I've removed the image and replaced it with commons:File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png which does cite sources. Are you happy with this substitution? I also note that there is commons:File:OttomanEmpire1590.png which is extensively sourced, but may not be ideal because the text labels are small. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Martin,

Thanks. Unfortunately, the new map cite sources but not all of them are RS: "Self drawn, mainly based on Robert Mantran (ed.), Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman, Paris: Fayard (1989), also en:List of Ottoman Empire dominated territories, Image:Ottoman 1683.png, [1], and [2]." 1st (Mantran) is OK, 2nd is Wikipedia => not OK, 3rd is an unsourced image as well, 4th: what's the original source?, same issue with the 5th one.

So I would use File:OttomanEmpire1590.png. If you want to improve it (SVG + larger labels) you can ask the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've substituted the image in the article. If required by the review, I could paint out the tiny text labels but I agree it would be ideal to have an SVG version of this map, so will make a request. Thanks again, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Note to reviewers: if we have trouble getting a map of suitable quality, we can swap out that image from the Background section. The information that the Ottoman Empire had territory in three continents is given in the text. Instead of the map, we could have a calligraphic work such as commons:File:Khalili Collection Islamic Art cal 0007.jpg or commons:File:Khalili Collection Islamic Art mss 0239.15.jpg to back up the text's discussion of the importance of calligraphy. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I've created an SVG version of the properly-sourced map, and placed it in the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

More than a month in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I've just put out calls to the article's four Wikiprojects. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Airship

Just here to note that I think the "reception and legacy" section could use significant improvement: see WP:RECEPTION for the kind of changes I'd like to see. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Thanks for the input. There are a lot of principles at WP:RECEPTION and they are usually of the form "don't do X too much". Happy to improve the section, but can you be more specific about what changes from that list apply to the current article? One of the principles there is about summary sentences for paragraphs; this is an area where I'm very cautious of summarising what the reviewers said because it's especially important that this section is neutral. All clarification welcome, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course MartinPoulter. From the lead, I can see that you have already identified three prominent themes—the highly positive reception for the calligraphy, the feeling that the exhibition presented a different view of the Middle East, and a general appreciation for the beauty of the exhibits. However, in the reception section itself, these themes are haphazardly scattered through the section: for the calligraphy you have the NYT in the first paragraph, the AP and The Oklahoman in the second, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in the third; while for the "alternative viewpoint" you have the New Statesman in the first paragraph, the Salt Lake Tribune in the second, and both John Edwards (with a perhaps too-lengthy quote?) and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in the third. A similar situation is for the last theme. As you have already identified these areas as worthy of summarizing in the lead, I do not think there is any neutrality-related issue with providing "topic sentences" if so required. Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I see your point that the John Edwards quote isn't needed in its entirety; I've cut an unnecessary clause. I'll work on reorganising the paragraphs thematically rather than chronologically. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It's turned out to be really helpful to look at the reviews thematically rather than chronologically! I realise now that the positive reception breaks into two themes: praise of the exhibition as a diverse collection ("wide-ranging", "impressive sweep") and praise of individual art works ("gorgeous", "gems of real art") so I've separated those into two paragraphs (for four paragraphs total) and added a counterpart sentence in the lead. I've also replaced a couple of colourful verbs as WP:RECEPTION recommends. Does the new Reception section meet all your concerns, @AirshipJungleman29 ? MartinPoulter (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The rest of the article is excellent (aside from Islam being linked twice in the lead). Support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review

Image placement is somewhat random but not too bad. I am not sure if we are meant to be strict with tagging photos of historical objects with a copyright tag for the historical object. ([[Jo-Jo - we are.) The galleries could also use some ALT text. Spot-check upon request. It seems like there are differences between the various citation informations - I guess because they don't all have the same information available? Although #14 has a link that seems to encompass a lot of information that's not usually in a piped link. What makes Factiva a reliable source, or more generally, what is it being used for? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus: and thanks for taking an interest in this review. I'll answer in reverse order, if I may. Factiva is not itself claimed here to be a reliable source. Factiva is a subscription database through which one can retrieve old published news stories, similar to Lexis Plus, Westlaw, or Gale OneFile. I've used it to get stories originally published in newspapers and magazines that are too old to be on those publications' websites. The reliable source in each case is the publication in which the news story originally appeared: The Times, The Columbian, The Salt Lake Tribune, and so on.

Ref #14 is a page on the Khalili Collections official site; there isn't a byline or date, so I've used the full title from the web page (same for Refs #66 and #67). Should I be abbreviating the title, or using the exact title given by the web page? I'm not seeing why you mention piped links, so maybe I've misunderstood. Gale Onefile and Factiva give different metadata about the news stories they retrieve, and it's less than what I would get from retrieving an article from the publication's website; that might account for the variation in citations. I've used the same citation templates but not all the citations have the same information.

Apologies about ALT text: I thought I'd sorted that out before nominating the article. I'll fix that now. All the exhibited objects are from before the 20th century, so I'm happy to put the relevant copyright tags on the Commons files (probably tomorrow rather than today). I could put the images in galleries next to the relevant part of the description, but that would leave large stretches of the article without illustrations, so I thought it better to vary the images and dot them throughout the article. I think that's an interesting visual journey for the reader. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

ALT text now added for those images that were missing it, and copyright tags for objects added to all exhibit photographs in Commons. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

What I am saying about piped links is that the text with the link underneath is a bit too long. "This is a piped link" is more text compared to "This is a piped link". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what change you want made, but I'm looking at the documentation for Template:Cite_web and I don't see how to implement it. There doesn't seem to be a way to display "Empire of the Sultans. Ottoman Art from the Collection of Nasser D. Khalili, Musée Rath, Geneva, Switzerland" but not have all of it linked. If I truncate that title, then the link can be confused with other web pages whose title begins the same way, such as refs #66 and #67. Do you want me to do that anyway? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that cite web is the best format here - it's a website, yes, but the citation is a physical collection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not understanding. The things being cited in refs #14, #66 and #67 are web pages published by the collection, not the physical collection of objects. I'm not sure how a physical collection would work as a citation in Wikipedia. To help me get the concept, can you give me an example of a citation template or citation format that should be used for one of these long-titled web pages? MartinPoulter (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually, upon rethinking, the title does contain the correct information. So nevermind on my link question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

So the only thing missing are copyright tags for the objects in the images, per Gog's (somewhat misplaced; pings require a signature) comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. See my message above, dated 17:08, 9 April 2024. I've just checked again that I didn't miss any objects. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus Are your concerns met? Are you okay to do the source spot-check? Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, spotchecking this version:

• 14 Source says 15th century, not 700, it doesn't discuss non-Ottoman objects at all.
  • The site says 700-2000 in lots of places, but you're right that the earliest date mentioned on that specific page is the 15th century. That's careless on my part, and I've rectified it by adding two third-party sources to cover those broad statements about the collection.
• 16 OK with the Webarchive version
• 21 OK
• 23 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • Of course. I will send a private email with the contents of the requested articles.
    • Seems to check out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• 24 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • Checks out, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• 28 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • Checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• 30 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • Afraid that I can't tell where to find this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Looking at this again (second page of the document REFS_28_30_32.pdf), the source on its own isn't quite adequate for the exact statement referring to "textiles made for the holy sites of Mecca and Medina" since we have just one holy site for sure. The Tiraz from the Burqu (right-hand side of the image) is from the cloth decorating the Kaaba in Mecca, but while the cenotaph cover is described as being of a type used at a cenotaph in Medina, it's not stated in that source where that cover is from. A separate, later source (J. M. Rogers, The Arts of Islam. Masterpieces from the Khalili Collection, 2010, pp.344–5.) describes this object as "Section from the Curtain of the Prophet’s Tomb" which implies it is from Medina. Relying on that other source (which isn't about the Empire of the Sultans exhibition) might count as synthesis. Instead, I've rephrased that sentence to remove mention of Medina. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• 32 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • Checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• 35 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • I think this one's a bit too definitive in establishing the purpose of the talismanic shirt based solely on Hürrem Sultan's letter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is a good point. There are more talismanic shirts in this collection and I think they are described as "spiritual armour", and the reason this shirt was included among metal armour in the exhibition was the possibility it was used as "spiritual armour". However, it's not known for sure what this shirt's purpose was. So I've rephrased the sentence to avoid reference to spiritual armour. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• 37 Can't see the part about multiple visits.
  • "the show may require more than one trip to appreciate its wonders."
• 38 Moot
• 39 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • Checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• 44 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • Checks out, save for the 16th-17th century bit where the photo is cut off. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  In the REF_44.pdf file I sent you, the dates on the second and third pages are "16th century". On the fourth page, there are two entries where the date is given as "17th century". So "from the 16th and 17th centuries" is my summary of those pages. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• 46 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• 48 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• 55 I presume that we did check that non-North American parts of the USA weren't visited.
  • Yes (the Khalili Collections publish a list of locations of all past exhibitions), but that could involve a complicated inference, so to make it simpler I've reworded the statement to be more specifically in line with the source.
• 57 Can I have a copy of this page? Also, don't think that newspapers get ISSNs
  • ISSN removed
    • Checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• 63 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • Checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• 64 OK
• 67 If the fourth and fifth editions things are supported by the other source...
  • The fifth edition is described by the other source and, so as not to rely on inference, I've added a similar link for the fourth edition.

One general observation is that a lot of the article relies on Rogers 2000; are there any other sources comprehensively discussing this collection? Like, more academic analyses? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciate your quick and thoughtful reply! Yes, I've relied on the published catalogue of the exhibition for the exhibition's content. Some of the individual exhibits are mentioned or photographed in newspaper coverage, but this is redundant to what is in the catalogue. I haven't found academic analyses specifically of this exhibition's content, though the collection from which it is drawn is discussed in a lot of third-party literature. Though it's not unheard of, it's not often that an art exhibition itself gets academic analysis; the third-party coverage is usually the art columns of broadsheet newspapers, which we have a lot of in this case. Scholarly journals have reviewed some of the published catalogues of the collection, but those are not sources which are specific to this particular exhibition. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like stuff mostly checks out - left some comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this spotcheck passes muster. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2024 [64].

---

Cross Temple, Fangshan

Nominator(s): Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the only surviving site of the Church of the East in China. I think I have exhausted the research material I can find to ensure it is comprehensive and well-researched, and I am pretty sure the images involved are in the public domain, either because they are user contributions from the Commons, or because they were published before 1928. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I might be able to borrow Qianzhi Zhu's 中国景教 [Nestorianism in China] next week. Might add tiny bits and pieces to the text. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Borrowed, checked and reviewed. Nothing much to add–can confirm that it is very much comprehensive on the subject matter (yippee!) Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

A heads-up for all reviewers @Kusma @AirshipJungleman29 @Remsense: I have something from Mar 21 to Mar 25; can at most devote 30 mins per day for Wiki stuff. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima's comments

Reserving my spot for a prose review! Love more Chinese history FACs. :3 Generalissima (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima, this is into time out warning territory, so if you are still intending to review the next day or two would be a good time to start. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, Generalissima is currently blocked (on her own request). It seems unlikely that she will return before 19 March. —Kusma (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima pinging again to see if you're free. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Kusma

Planning to review. —Kusma (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• An interesting article about an exciting topic, thank you for this. Unfortunately I am not totally convinced by the present organisation of the article. As I understand it, it is about a historical site in Beijing (the modern municipality, not the historical city proper) that has been Buddhist and Christian at unclear points in its history. The article body currently starts with a description of two steles instead of setting out the historical background and explaining where we are and what is going on there. I understand that this is difficult to sort out because there are differing theories, but I don't think the current "try to be as chronological as possible" is working well. I think I'd prefer to read some background on the history of the Church of the East in China separately from the history of the site instead of interweaving it. As I understand it, there was a Tang dynasty Nestorian Church, but we do not know for sure that the Cross Temple site was connected to it. Then the description of the Buddhist history of the site could be done without interspersing it with notes about the more general history of Nestorianism.
• It is not fully clear to me when and how the article uses Chinese characters. Most of the time it is when there is no link to an article so it helps future researchers for disambiguation, but it is not always done (Tang Li, Niu Ruiji). But 寶相花紋 seems unnecessary?
• Most of the characters are traditional Chinese (no problem with that), with some reasonable exceptions like the modern day location 车厂村. It may be good to mark the simplified ones that need to be used. Why is 古刹十字禅林 in simplified, when it is a pre-simplification inscription? The quote from Xu 1992, p. 185 (a book with a title in simplified) is written at least partially in traditional Chinese.

I may look in more detail later, but I think it is worth discussing the organisational issues first (maybe you can convince me that I'm wrong). —Kusma (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I see your comments. I am having a hectic week. Will reply in more detail later next week, probably after Wednesday.

• My defense for the current structure of the article is that I am going to inform the reader about the history of the site anyways, and if I supply them with the history of the Church of the East in China, they are more prepared, and it is more cohesive.
• The Chinese characters–will fix when I have time. My rule of thumb is to provide Chinese characters when the word is a proper noun and the reader would benefit much more if they look up the Chinese word on Google.

Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I see. But let's have a look at one paragraph, perhaps I can explain better what I mean.

"Nestorian Christianity was first recorded in Tang China during the 7th century, and some scholars suggested that the temple may have belonged to the Church of the East in China around this time."

What is "Nestorian Christianity"? Is it the same as "Church of the East in China"?

"The Japanese scholar P. Y. Saeki speculated that believers fleeing from Chang'an to Youzhou and Liaodong during the 9th-century Huichang persecution of Buddhism, which also affected the Church of the East, began using the temple."

I am not sure we need the nationalities of the scholars here. Where are Chang'an, Youzhou and Liaodong in relation to Beijing? How does the persecution of Buddhism affect non-Buddhists?

"Tang Xiaofeng additionally points to inscriptions on the Liao stele as an indication that Christian crosses were present at the temple prior to the Liao dynasty. In addition, Tang claims that another text written by Li Zhongxuan [zh] in 987 indicated a Nestorian presence in Youzhou."

You are changing tense. I prefer present tense for what the experts say, but you should be consistent. Where is Youzhou, and what does the presence of Nestorians in Youzhou have to do with the Cross Temple?

"However, British sinologist Arthur Christopher Moule believed that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Church of the East existed in Beijing before the 13th century."

So they might not have reached Beijing, but are we sure there was a presence of the Church of the East somewhere in China? Where?

I think it would be easier to explain separately what Nestorians are and what "Church of the East in China" means, when they came to China, what is known for sure about their spread, and then explain how the Cross Temple fits into the picture as part of the theory that there were Tang Dynasty Nestorians in Beijing. After reading your paragraph, I am no longer sure whether there were any Nestorians in China at all during the Tang dynasty. —Kusma (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Right. Here we go.

• What is "Nestorian Christianity"? Is it the same as "Church of the East in China"? Sorry I didn't make this clear enough. To me "Nestorian Church" is basically another way to say the "Church of the East"–I use the two terms interchangeably, though there are scholars advocating only using the term "Church of the East" due to the negative connotations of the word "Nestorian" (as in, the Nestorian "heresy"). What is your opinion–should I stick to one usage ("Church of the East in China") throughout the entire article? It might be a bit too wordy and might affect the prose, but I can sure try.

  I don't mind having both terms, but it needs to be much more clear that they mean the same thing. But if the term "Nestorians" is out of fashion with recent sources (I have no idea and did not check) you may wish to avoid it. —Kusma (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Chang'an, Youzhou and Liaodong: I will update these this weekend. Basically Chang'an is modern day Xi'an, which is 900 km to the south-west of Beijing. Youzhou is the province / state that Beijing is located in, and Liaodong refers to the Liaodong Peninsula, which is 500 km to the east of Beijing. I will indicate their relations to Beijing.

Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think it would be easier to explain separately what Nestorians are and what "Church of the East in China" means, when they came to China, what is known for sure about their spread, and then explain how the Cross Temple fits into the picture as part of the theory that there were Tang Dynasty Nestorians in Beijing. My only concern to this is that the temple was used by Christians and Buddhists. If I provide too much background information to its Christian history, will the article still be balanced? But from another perspective, almost all scholarship on the temple focuses on its Christian history, so I guess I could put up some more context.

Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi TheLonelyPather, have you finished addressing Kusma's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Gog the Mild and thanks for the reminder. I have not addressed Kusma's comments in detail yet. Kusma is welcome to respond to these thoughts of mine, but I am not demanding an immediate response from them in any sense. I am still busy and I Will reply in more detail later next week, probably after Wednesday. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild Actually since this is in time-out warning territory, I am going to address Kusma's comments in detail right now. Thanks for sending out the warning. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma Chinese characters fixed. The usage of Chinese characters is now limited to

• Lesser-known Chinese place names (e.g. 车厂村);
• Names of individuals and institutions who do not have an en-wiki article (e.g. 德景, 崇福司). "吴梦麟" is in simplified characters because he was active during the PRC;
• Proper names of the temple (e.g. 崇聖院).

Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma I also wrote a separate paragraph to provide general context on Christianity during the Tang Dynasty. I put it before the academic speculations. Hope this is clearer now. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, that makes it a bit easier to follow. It would still be good to have the identification of Nestorian Church = Church of the East also in the body (you added a paragraph about Nestorianism in China, which is then followed by a mention of the Church of the East that makes it look like that is a different thing), and to prominently link to Church of the East (and perhaps not link to Nestorianism). —Kusma (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I will think about it in more detail. I will think about it really hard. The situation might demand one small paragraph after the lede and before everything to clarify that "Nestorianism" = "Church of the East" (in the scope of this article) and acknowledge some people would prefer CotE over Nestorianism. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Continuing prose/content review.

• Early history: Who is Tang Li? Do you know his name in characters?
• 10th century: do any of the historians offer theories which of 丙子 and "tenth year of the reign of Emperor Yuan" is correct or what kind of mistakes were made while recording the stele?
• Translate 崇聖院?
• 13th–14th centuries: "Nestorian Christianity began spreading throughout the area" it may have spread before, so it is not clear this is the beginning. A few hundred years have passed; is this the same Nestorian Christianity as a few hundred years before?
• "During the Yuan" please make this comprehensible to readers who do not know that Mongols=Yuan dynasty.
• Translate 崇福司? ("Department of Supreme Blessing"?? I don't have a Classical Chinese dictionary with me right now).
• Is Rabban Sauma the same as Bar Sauma?
• Tense is mixed between past and present for what the various scholars say or said.
• 15th–16th centuries: it would be more important to know when Matteo Ricci was in China than when he lived. Do we know this from Ricci's own writings?
• I think the fact that the inscriptions were altered during this time should be mentioned in the opening paragraph about the stone steles: while the steles are from the Liao and the Yuan dynasty, the inscriptions were altered during the Ming dynasty.
• 20th–21st centuries: I find it hard to believe that there are zero records of the site during the Qing dynasty. If that is true, I would expect someone to have remarked on it so you could state it explicitly.
• "Around 1911, the Buddhist monks sold the temple and the surrounding lands." do we know who they sold it to?
• "Reginald Johnston first rediscovered the site during the summer of 1919" drop "first" I think. Did he "rediscover" the Buddhist site or the Nestorian connection?
• Current state: "The Cross Temple is the only surviving Nestorian site in China" wow, I wouldn't expect that this counts as "surviving". So of all other sites there is not even a trace?
• Chechang Village (车厂村), Fangshan: maybe mention again where this is in relation to modern Beijing?
• Stone steles: "The Yuan stele features a cross at its top, but it is not likely made by the Nestorians" is this clear enough from the sources to be stated in wikivoice instead of attributed as research opinion?
• Generally it is a bit duplicative to discuss the steles here again, and I think the details about Ming dynasty changes might be more useful to the reader earlier on.
• Give a quick intro to the Xi'an Stele so we understand why somebody would copy it and put the copy in this particular location.
• Carved stone blocks: I wonder whether it is worth mentioning that Peiping is Beijing.
• Description: not sure this is a great subheader, or that it is needed
• "F. C. Burkitt found the same text, with the addition of the phrase "the living cross", in one of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum" so what? If it is a quote from the Bible, wouldn't we expect to find this in a lot of places?
• Are Erkehün Mongols? Previous Nestorians were all Han?
• See also section: Mentioning the Daqin Pagoda here as a possible Nestorian site contradicts the article's unqualified statement of "only surviving Nestorian site in China".
• Not convinced that the "Other West Asian religious sites in China" are worth the space here; generally, consider how much it is worth duplicating parts of Template:Christianity in China.
• Footnotes: a) How widely used are the alternate English names? If they are reasonably common, they should be in the body.
• e) Romanization of Syriac: what romanization is this, and what is the code for the pronunciation? (It isn't IPA so it isn't clear).
• g) better explain Erkehün in body, or just not use that word.
• Citations: I would suggest to translate the Chinese quotes; they are of little use to most readers otherwise.
• Qian 2021, Qiu 2002, Halbertsma 2007 are not used.
• Neither is the Chinese translation of Moule, and there is no obvious reason to do so?
• Further reading: why do you not cite this book if you recommend it? Publisher 文物出版社 should be transliterated.

Done reading. It looks like pretty good research and well written overall, but some explanations here and there would help a lot, and some other clarifications may be necessary. —Kusma (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Message received. Will reply soon. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Tang Li: done. (Please note Tang Li is a "she".)
• theory on the mistake of the Liao stele: done.
• 崇聖院: translated. I didn't find an official English translation.
• 13th–14th centuries: "Nestorian Christianity began spreading throughout the area" it may have spread before, so it is not clear this is the beginning. A few hundred years have passed; is this the same Nestorian Christianity as a few hundred years before? Yes.
• Mongols is Yuan dynasty: clarified.
• 崇福司: translated.
• Is Rabban Sauma the same as Bar Sauma? Yes. This article will use Rabban Sauma.

That's it for the day. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Kusma: before I proceed to work on the smaller details of the article, can we please decide on its structure? I took your advice and made a draft (please see User:TheLonelyPather/sandbox).

Basically, this draft adds a substantial "Historical terminology and context" that talks about the terminology of "Nestorian" vs "Church of the East" and supplies general historical facts about Nestorian Christianity in China (when did they come / thrive / go). I reserve the specific history of Nestorian Christianity near Beijing to the body of the article.

I also removed the paragraph about the two steles. I agree that it overlaps with stuff later. If we can agree on this new structure it would be great. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheLonelyPather, I think the new structure is a lot better. Your terminology and context section is perhaps a bit too long while the lead section is a bit too short, but generally I think the right way forward is to get the terminology and context clear from the start. —Kusma (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Just moved the new structure to the main article. I also shortened the terminology & context section for a bit. I wish to leave the lede to be the last thing to fix–after we figure everything out in the body. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• 15th–16th centuries: it would be more important to know when Matteo Ricci was in China than when he lived. Do we know this from Ricci's own writings? Gotcha, now it says "Matteo Ricci (1552–1610, active in China 1582–1610)". The information in the article comes from Ricci's own writings, but I don't have access to the original text. I cited a journal which quoted Ricci.
• I think the fact that the inscriptions were altered during this time should be mentioned in the opening paragraph about the stone steles This opinion differs from what AJ says down there: If all we know of the history of the site derives from the steles, perhaps it would be best to discuss them before discussing the history? Let's give more thoughts to it.
• 20th–21st centuries: I find it hard to believe that there are zero records of the site during the Qing dynasty. If that is true, I would expect someone to have remarked on it so you could state it explicitly. Information added.
• "Around 1911, the Buddhist monks sold the temple and the surrounding lands." do we know who they sold it to? No.
• "Reginald Johnston first rediscovered the site during the summer of 1919" drop "first" I think. Did he "rediscover" the Buddhist site or the Nestorian connection? "first" dropped. He rediscovered the site after it was sold and likely fell into oblivion.

I also restructured the history part even further and renamed the sections. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Current state: "The Cross Temple is the only surviving Nestorian site in China" wow, I wouldn't expect that this counts as "surviving". So of all other sites there is not even a trace? Fixed wording. Also added a footnote concerning the Daqin Pagoda (there is controversy on whether it is a Church of the East site and it is inconclusive).

Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Chechang Village (车厂村), Fangshan: maybe mention again where this is in relation to modern Beijing? Done.
• Stone steles: "The Yuan stele features a cross at its top, but it is not likely made by the Nestorians" is this clear enough from the sources to be stated in wikivoice instead of attributed as research opinion? Checked sources, this view comes from Wang Xiaojing -- other sources didn't venture to think about the origin of the cross on the Yuan stele.
• Generally it is a bit duplicative to discuss the steles here again, and I think the details about Ming dynasty changes might be more useful to the reader earlier on. The initial stele paragraph was removed.
• Give a quick intro to the Xi'an Stele so we understand why somebody would copy it and put the copy in this particular location. Done.
• Carved stone blocks: I wonder whether it is worth mentioning that Peiping is Beijing. It's trivial in my opinion.
• Description: not sure this is a great subheader, or that it is needed Done.
• "F. C. Burkitt found the same text, with the addition of the phrase "the living cross", in one of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum" so what? If it is a quote from the Bible, wouldn't we expect to find this in a lot of places? The point I'm trying to convey here is that, by showing this connection, we find that the Nestorian Christians in China were doing similar things and reading similar stuff with the Nestorian Christians in the Middle East. The paragraph that that sentence comes from talks about the general connections of the stone blocks with other Christian artifacts in the world.

Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

About the Syriac manuscripts: I don't think your point really comes across. Can you cite someone who makes a similar observation? —Kusma (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Are Erkehün Mongols? Previous Nestorians were all Han? Erkehün / Yelikewen (in Pinyin romanisation) is what the Mongols called the Christians. I agree that it is unnecessary to put it there and I reworded it.
• See also section: reworked.
• Not convinced that the "Other West Asian religious sites in China" are worth the space here; generally, consider how much it is worth duplicating parts of Template:Christianity in China. I would say it's needed–Template:Christianity in China doesn't cover Islam, Manichaeism, and Zoroastrianism.
• Footnotes: a) How widely used are the alternate English names? If they are reasonably common, they should be in the body. These alternate English names are not reasonably common. "Cross Temple" is prevalent in English literature and is a direct translation of the Chinese name "十字寺".
• e) Romanization of Syriac: what romanization is this, and what is the code for the pronunciation? (It isn't IPA so it isn't clear). I honestly have no idea. It is supplied by the author of the journal article. The only thing that is certain is that it's syriac, so I use the code "syc".
• g) better explain Erkehün in body, or just not use that word. Erkehün is no longer used in the body.
• Citations: I would suggest to translate the Chinese quotes Done.
• Removed some unused books and sources.
• Further reading: why do you not cite this book if you recommend it? Publisher 文物出版社 should be transliterated. I don't have access to this book, but this book is on the Christian sites in Beijing, and so it greatly relates to our subject.

@Kusma Those are some great suggestions! Looking forward to your input. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

A few further comments:

• Do not use "&" in subsection headings, replace by "and".
• I am on the fence about the parenthetical (Christian use) and (Buddhist use) in headings; can this be made nicer?
• I don't think "Han-Chinese" or "Ming-era" should be hyphenated.
• Qian 2021 and Halbertsma 2007 are still not cited.

—Kusma (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

"&" corrected to and. "Qian 2021" and "Halbertsma 2007" are removed from citations. "Han-Chinese" and "Ming-era" corrected.

If you feel not so sure about "(Christian use)" or "(Buddhist use)", may I suggest something like "Buddhist use during the Liao dynasty"? My concern is that it would be too long. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma alternate suggestion: maybe I can drop the parentheses and just use "Liao dynasty", "Yuan dynasty", etc.? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think "Buddhist use during the Liao dynasty" is better than "Liao dynasty (Buddhist use)". "Liao dynasty: Buddhist use" would also be an improvement. Further comments:

• There are still a few places where the tense feels off, but I am not a native speaker so I will suggest you find someone else to read it :)
• The Shanmen building should be described in "Modern rediscovery and development", not in "Current state".
• The description of the carved stone blocks could perhaps be moved earlier. It is only in the third paragraph that we learn how large they are.
• Peiping Commission for the Preservation of Antiquities has characters inline, while Peiping Museum of History has them in a footnote. The identity Peiping=Beijing is not made explicitly, although this is no more obvious than Chang'an=Xi'an.

Lots of things look nice now, but I am still unconvinced about the Syriac manuscripts (see above). —Kusma (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Shanmen moved, description of the carved stone blocks moved, Peiping and Chang'an clarified. As for the Syriac manuscripts, I clarified it a bit more: Burkitt did not just find the same text, but found the same text surrounding the cross, i.e. the same pattern. I added some more information on "Ps 34:6 + cross" combination appearing in different places. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support, my points about organisation and necessary background knowledge have been addressed. I will leave issues like tense to the native speakers among the reviewers. —Kusma (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Airship

Will leave comments by next week. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Airship, this is into time out warning territory, so if you are still intending to review the next day or two would be a good time to start. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

will do. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• The Church of the East was not Nestorian; that was an accusation levelled by its enemies. Whether the name "Nestorian" should be described to use the Church of the East at all is up for debate, but to say explicitly in the lead "the Church of the East, a Nestorian branch of Christianity" is factually wrong.
• The lead needs some work. I recommend two paragraphs of roughly equal length: the first clearly establishing what, where, and when, and then discussing major aspects of the history, current state, and relics. At the moment it is rather vague ("During different periods" what/when? "Originally built" when? Yuan dynasty touched on before the Tang is odd. etc.) and the relics are not discussed in proportion to the attention given to them in the article (WP:LEADWEIGHT).
• I may be an idiot, but I can't see the cross carved into the top of the infobox stele.
• If all we know of the history of the site derives from the steles, perhaps it would be best to discuss them before discussing the history?
• I would make the "Current state" section a subsection of "History".

I would prefer to get structural changes out of the way before making detailed comments on prose; I see Kusma has made some comments as well on the organisation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @AirshipJungleman29!

• The Church of the East was not Nestorian; that was an accusation levelled by its enemies. You are right, and that is a nuance that I missed. I hope that the new "Context and terminology" section explains the nuance better.
• The lead needs some work... As mentioned above (replying to Kusma), I wish to leave the lede to the last. I hope to solidify the body paragraphs, so I will have a better idea how to write the lede.
• I can't see the cross carved into the top of the infobox stele. It's hard to see without zooming into the image. I have removed the related words in the caption. If you look at the picture in the "Stone steles" section it is more visible.
• If all we know of the history of the site derives from the steles, perhaps it would be best to discuss them before discussing the history? This is something that I will deliberate more upon. On one hand I need to let the reader know that the history is mostly derived from the (slightly erroneous) steles, on the other hand if I put it in the front it will overlap with the description of the steles later.
• I would make the "Current state" section a subsection of "History". Not so sure about it. This section goes over the arrangement / content of the site, i.e. what's there and where are the things placed. I think it's quite independent from the history of the site.

I am also mindful of Netley Abbey#Present day–another FA article of church ruins has a similar section, although that section is not ideal.

That's it for the day. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, I wrote a draft lede:

The Cross Temple (Chinese: 十字寺; pinyin: Shízì sì) is a former place of worship in Fangshan, Beijing. It is the only discovered site of the Church of the East (sometimes known as Nestorian Christians) in China. There is no current academic consensus on whether Christians used the temple during the Tang dynasty: it was used by Buddhists during the Liao dynasty, by Christians during the Yuan dynasty, and it returned to Buddhist use since the Ming dynasty, before being sold in 1911. It was rediscovered in 1919, destructed in the 1950s, and re-established as a national-level protected site in 2006.

Today, the site features two ancient steles, as well as groundwork and the bases of several pillars. The steles are from the Liao and Yuan dynasties, but their inscriptions are tampered during the Ming dynasty. During the early 20th century, two stone blocks featuring carved crosses were also discovered at the site, with one of them containing a syriac inscription. They are now on display at the Nanjing Museum.

Kindly let me know what you think. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi AirshipJungleman29, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for reminding me Gog. More comments to follow shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead/infobox

• looks better. Couple of things:

• "Scholars debate the periodisation of when the Cross Temple was used by Nestorians." is a bit of a nothingburger, considering you immediately explain the debate. You could easily remove the sentence and add a "scholars" after the "some" in the next line.

• This sentence has been scrapped. Now it reads Some scholars suggested that the Cross Temple may have belonged to the Church of the East in China during the Tang dynasty (618–907).

• "Possibly 317" is a bit odd considering 317 isn't mentioned in the lead at all. Would suggest adding it after "as a Buddhist temple".

• Done.

• "The site's buildings were demolished during the late 1950s" you could mention the Cultural Revolution.

• Double-checked sources. Changed to Cultural Revolution.

History

• Again, "There are some controversies on the usage of "Nestorian" to refer to the Church of the East." is a nothingburger sentence, and could be removed.

• Right. I moved that entire section into a footnote. Now it begins with The use of the term "Nestorian" to refer to the Church of the East is controversial. I need an "opening sentence" to convey the purpose of the paragraph.

• No need to specify e pluribus unum in "Certain scholars, such as Peter Hofrichter [de], refuse"; just say "Some scholars refuse..."

• Done.

• Not entirely convinced that a modern priest of a CotE denomination is the best citation for using "Nestorian"; one of the many independent academic sources who continue to use the term is preferable.

• I think there is a differentiation between "academic sources using the term" vs "sources advocating for the use of the term". Some academic sources use the term without batting an eye. The CotE article is published on a reliable journal and gives an argument on why the term may be used.

• You may want to expand a little on the Xi'an Stele.

• Expanded, in the "Context of early Chinese Christianity" section.

• "The missionaries" Are these are the ones that came with Alopen?

• Yes, but no longer important. Newest version doesn't mention them.

• "The Church of the East in China survived until 845... Nestorian Christianity in Tang China fell into decline afterwards. 1) unnecessary WP:ELEGVAR 2) there sems to be a contradiction here.

• I have reworded the entire history section.

• You use both Yelikewen and "Yelikewen". Both are incorrect: the {{transl}} template should be used, per MOS:LANG ({{lang}} can also be used, but {{transl}} is easier. Same for "Jingjiao" and other words.

• Right. Just updated the article. I feel like "Jingjiao" and "Yelikewen" does not fall into the scope of the article–ended up not using either of them.

• "no longer proclaimed themselves to be" "proclaimed" is too grandiose, methinks

• Corrected.

• "during Jin and Tang periods" is a definite article needed here?

• Yes, added.

• "around the Tang dynasty" do you mean during?

• Yes, corrected.

• "Huichang persecution, began using the temple" unnecessary comma

• Fixed.

• The "Early history of the Cross Temple" subsection could be combined with the "Liao dynasty: Buddhist use" as they both largely derive from the Liao stele, with its lack of clarity. In any case, the "of the Cross Temple" is unnecessary.

• Changed to "Early history: Buddhist use". I would disagree to combine it with the Liao section (will break the timeline-ness).

• I think "capture" is more suitable for a city than "conquer"; you can link to Battle of Zhongdu.

• Changed.

• "the retreat of Sauma" retreat? not sure that's the correct word.

• Merriam-Webster gives one of the definitions of "retreat" as a period of group withdrawal for prayer, meditation, study, or instruction under a director. I think it's a good use describing a place where Rabban Sauma likely hid and practiced his faith. Changed to "hermitage".

• "In her 2011 book East Syriac Christianity in Mongol-Yuan China" why is the book name relevant here?

• Not relevant, fixed.

• "During the reign of Emperor Yingzong of Ming (1436–1449), some Nestorians were still present in Fangshan: a record shows that some Nestorian monks visited the Yunju Temple, which is also in Fangshan, around the year 1437." Is "some Nestorians were still present in Fangshan" supported by anything else than the second half of the sentence? if not, it can be removed, as it adds nothing.

• Right, removed.

• There's no need to link "Jewish person".

• Removed link.

• "there was a Shanmen entry. The Shanmen entry was followed by" the duplication is unnecessary

• Reworded.

• "To the right of the courtyard, there was a kitchen and a dormitory for the monks. To the left of the courtyard, there was another dormitory building." sentences can easily be combined for simplicity.

• Combined.

• "three statues of Buddha" it's conventional to use a "the" before "Buddha".

• Fixed.

• "the walls around the Cross Temple site" could just be "the site's walls".

• Reworded.

Current state

• "The Cross Temple is the only discovered site of the Church of the East in China" considering note e, would it be best to say "the only undisputed site"?

• I reworded it to Some scholars consider the Cross Temple to be the only discovered site of the Church of the East in China. Most other sources don't mention if it is the only discovered site, or the only site in existence. I have modified the related information from the lede.

• "there are some hardly noticeable marks of the Shanmen building" I don't think this is grammatically correct, but I can't put my finger on what's wrong.

• Any new ideas on how to make it ... less wrong? I can reword it to the marks of the Shanmen building are hardly noticeable.

Relics

• "During the early 21st century, both were repaired and re-raised." do we have precise years?

• No. Wang 2018 gave that the steles were repaired and re-raised "several years ago".

• I see that you have expanded on the Xi'an Stele in this section; this seems like the wrong place, as this subsection should only be for the relics of the Cross Temple, and related context can go in the "Context and terminology" section.

• Right. Moved to the "context" section.

• " Tang and Zhang claimed it is on display at the Beijing Stone Carving Art Museum." "claimed" why past tense? Similarly for "The scholar Niu Ruiji claimed that".

• As discussed with Kusma above, I decided to stick with past tense for this article when it comes to scholarly opinions. @AirshipJungleman29: Is that correct or acceptable? This is a genuine question–I did not major in history or English. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• "H. I. Harding, second secretary of the English mission in Beijing" when?

• I'll get the book and double check. The time when Harding was the 2nd secretary in Beijing is irrelevant to this article–I believe you're more interested in when Harding published the fact that Johnston rediscovered the site? I am not positive that the original The New China Review article (in 1919) would say anything about it.

• I got the book and double-checked. It is 1919.

• "often showed an adoration of the cross and images" "showed an adoration" is ungrammatical.

• Fixed.

Nice work. Please respond to the above comments using WP:THREADed discussion, TheLonelyPather; it makes it much easier to cross-reference previous suggestions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Received, thank you. Tomorrow will be a busy day. Will get through the bulk of this in the next few days, but not ruling out the possibility of early April. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

All comments responded to. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I do think there is a slight bit of MOS:OVERSECTION in the history section, but that does not prevent me from giving my Support. Excellent work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It's good to have a Mongol expert on a borderline Mongolian topic. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Remsense

I've just re-reconfirmed it's not a priori improper to participate in FAC for an article I did the GA review for, so I am reserving my spot here, will write up my thoughts ASAP. Remsense诉 19:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for joining! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Remsense you still intending to review? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Within 24 hours, apologies. Remsense诉 01:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Changes since my GA review:

• Generally, there is a significant improvement in the friendliness of prose for a general audience, specifically regarding technical and historiographic aspects.
• The elaboration on the historical context for the Church of the East in China is also well done.

Further nits for me to pick:

• Some copy-editing and language tagging I hope no one minds that I've taken the initiative in doing myself among the new material.

More in a little bit, but I wanted to post something following my initial sesh. Remsense诉 16:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Remsense, just checking to see if there will indeed me more to follow. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Tonight, my bad. Remsense诉 18:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think, regardless of what decision is made for Chinese text inline or footnoted, after my several waves of tweaks and deliberation I'm ready to say this article meets the featured article criteria. Remsense诉 20:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review

File:十字寺遗址内石碑.jpg, File:十字寺遗址内石碑 (cropped).jpg and File:十字寺遗址文保碑 (cropped).jpg need a copyright tag to indicate the status of the statue/plate. File:Yuan dynasty stone with cross and Syriac inscription from Church of the East site in Fangshan District near Beijing (then called Khanbaliq or Dadu).jpg maybe too but I figure it's kinda obvious that the stone isn't in copyright. File:Rubbing of a Nestorian Cross at the Shih-tzu-ssu 2.jpg and the other rubbing seem to have broken source links.

Source-wise, reviewing this version: Why do some sources have quotes? Is "China Culture Daily" a reliable source for cultural/historical information? Is "The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China" and "Research on Chinese Christianity, Book I: Chinese Christianity during the Tang and Song dynasties" a reliable source? Are "Saeki, P. Y. " and "Saeki, Yoshiro" the same person? In light of this I am not sure that " A study of the history of Nestorian Christianity in China and its literature in Chinese: together with a new English translation of the Dunhuang Nestorian documents" is very reliable.

1. 2 First mention needs a bit of rephrasing as it's quite similar to the source. Second mention it seems like the source says that it doesn't mean "temple of the cross" I have rephrased this part. Also I believe the source intends to mean "temple of the cross", as Marsone puts it:the present author defends that the correct meaning of the name of the temple should be the "Temple of the Cross". Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
2. 4 Can I have a copy of this page?

   Got it, where does it translate "luminous religion"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

   It does not. I must have been mistaken from some other sources, but I have removed references to the "luminous religion" in the latest version. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

3. 6 OK
4. 12 Can I have a copy of this page?

   Don't think I got this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

   Are we talking about Tang 2004, p. 98? I am not using Tang 2004 anymore–please see the comment below. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

5. 13 Can I have a copy of this page? 12, 13 are from Tang Li's A study of the history of Nestorian Christianity in China and its literature in Chinese, which I swapped for Standaert's Handbook of Christianity in China. I take that I won't need to send you anything from Tang, but please let me know if you need anything from Standaert. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
6. 14 Can I have a copy of this page? Similar to Tang 2004 above, I have updated the article and removed Zhu 1993 from the the sources. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
7. 18 OK
8. 21 Can I have a copy of this page?

   Going by the DeepL translation, fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

9. 22 Can I have a copy of this page?

   At least some of this is supported by the DeepL translation, but I am not really sure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

   pp. 317, 318 are the transcriptions of the stele inscriptions. p. 319 is Wang's analysis. The part regarding the sexagenary cycle is 其二，落款“辽应历十年丙子岁四月”，应历十年（960）应为庚申年，非丙子年，距应历十年最近的丙子年为保宁八年（976）。碑文中提及辽应历二年（952 年，应为壬子）戊辰岁（应为968 年）、应历八年（958 年，应为戊午）甲戌岁（应为974 年），应历十年丙子岁（应为保宁八年）三个年份的干支虽误，但年号和干支纪年的相隔年数相一致。 Anyone who knows Chinese is free to confirm this bit. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

   OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

10. 33 Can I have a copy of this page?

    Going by the DeepL translation, fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

11. 40 Can I have a copy of this page?

    Going by the DeepL translation, fine for at least part of the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

12. 48 Can I have a copy of this page?

    Afraid I can't find "gingko" here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

    Please see the 10th line of Tang 2011a: 平台前左右通道两侧各植一颗直径超过18 尺的银杏树，枝繁叶茂，右雌左雄. "银杏" is the Chinese word for gingko. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

13. 49 Can I have a copy of this page?

    Assuming that "recently" means "21st century", OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

14. 50 Can I have a copy of this page? I have swapped out Cao 2000. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
15. 59 Can I have a copy of this page?

    I am not sure if I can find the part about "stele-making". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

    See Wang 2018 p. 441, at the bottom: 由于景教在汉人中缺乏群众基础，这些景教徒不懂汉文，也不在汉人中传教，对汉人的立碑传统应当是隔膜的，因此不太可能采用汉人的碑刻形式。 Here "汉人的立碑传统" means "the stele-making tradition of Han Chinese". Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

16. 64 Can I have a copy of this page? Tang has been swapped out.Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
17. 66 OK, but is it Tang Li or Li Tang? It is always "Tang Li" in the "family name + first name" order. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
18. 71 Can I have a copy of this page?

    Can't find the measures. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

    Please see Xu 1992 p. 481, at the center-right of the page: 先介紹這兩塊石刻 [...] 兩石高寬尺寸相同，高68.5厘米，兩端面刻十字架，寬58.5厘米，厚14厘米，兩石相接全長116厘米。 These are the measurements. The OCD of the pdf isn't great, and your translation software might have not caught the characters. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

19. 72 Can I have a copy of this page?

    I corrected Niu 2007 to Niu 2006. I hope you are all right with it? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

20. 78 It says "hope" not "trust". Changed. The "hope" translation is quoted from Moule, who quoted from Burkitt. I am happy to change it to Borbone's translation ("trust") which is much newer. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Received, thank you. I will get to you around the end of the month. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus How can I best send you a copy of a page? Through private email? I'm pretty sure I cannot upload screenshots / photos of pages to en-wiki or Commons. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, by email. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I tried to attach files to the Wiki email interface but it won't let me. I just sent you an email. @Jo-Jo Eumerus it will be greatly appreciated if you can reply to that email, so I could reply to your address and send things as attachments. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus Sources sent. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus All comments responded to. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• File:十字寺遗址内石碑.jpg, File:十字寺遗址内石碑 (cropped).jpg and File:十字寺遗址文保碑 (cropped).jpg need a copyright tag to indicate the status of the statue/plate.

I tagged File:十字寺遗址内石碑.jpg and its derived image with PD-old-assumed. File:十字寺遗址文保碑 (cropped).jpg depicts a plate made by the Chinese government (it marks a decree to make the Cross Temple a site protected at the national level), so tagged with PD-PRC-exempt. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Rubbing of a Nestorian Cross at the Shih-tzu-ssu 2.jpg and the other rubbing seem to have broken source links. Rubbing links updated to original Smithsonian links. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• @Jo-Jo Eumerus A little more on Tang Li's A study of the history of Nestorian Christianity in China and its literature in Chinese, which you questioned whether it is a RS. You said In light of this I am not sure that [the book] is very reliable. I looked into the book review you cited a bit further today. To quote:

On pp. 33–101, a useful survey of the history of the Church of the East from its origin in West Asia to its existence in China during the Yuan dynasty is given. The history of the Church in Persia up to the seventh century is described in some detail. The final section on the Nestorian expansion in Central Asia, however, is too brief, taking up a mere page and a half (pp. 75–76). The importance of the area to the mission to China and of the discoveries made near Turfan (especially at Bulayïq) of fragments of Nestorian texts in Old Turkish (Uighur) and Sogdian, including a version of the Gloria in Excelsis Deo, should in my opinion have been emphasized.

I agree with you that Tang's translations are not perfect. What I quoted in the Cross Temple article is mostly from the range pp. 33–101, to supplement a review of the history of the Church of the East in the article. The rest (pp. 18, 19, 29) are on the history of the Nestorian Stele.

The bottom line is, I think Tang is reliable when it comes to the general history of the Church of the East in China. I think I will be fine as long as I don't quote Tang's translations (and I have no need to do so in this article). Would love to hear what you think. Also, I will send you the relevant pages either in the next few days, or in the first week of April. Hope this timing is all right. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Mm, not entirely sure myself if that addresses the reliability question. Anyone else? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

If you are still not satisfied by Tang, may I suggest N. Staedart's Handbook of Christianity in China (Vol. 1)? I have some favourable book reviews:

• Review by R. Dunch on International Bulletin of Missionary Research
• Review by W. J. Peterson on The Catholic Historical Review

I can get this book in the next few days and update the citations. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus If you're not opposed to it, I am going to swap Tang with Standaert :) Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Swapped for the main "context" part. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Now to the "China Culture Daily". To quote from the official description, it is run by China's Ministry of Culture and Tourism. I think that it is a RS when it comes to facts about historical sites in China (without any ideological bits). Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• "The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China" and "Research on Chinese Christianity, Book I: Chinese Christianity during the Tang and Song dynasties" a reliable source? Are "Saeki, P. Y. " and "Saeki, Yoshiro" the same person? I do apologise-- I did not directly access "The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China" or "Research on Chinese Christianity, Book I: Chinese Christianity during the Tang and Song dynasties" in my research. They are cited by the papers that I read. Now I have reformatted the citations and removed these two from the references list. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Why do some sources have quotes? I put quotes so readers and reviewers can have an easier time checking. I am happy to remove them if you want to. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus Is there anything else you would like me to provide? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

File:十字寺遗址文保碑 (cropped).jpg still needs a copyright tag for the plaque. Otherwise, it should be it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha! Just added "PD-PRC-exempt". Thank you very much. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

That's probably all of it, unless you can provide the new sources you installed too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, just sent you pages from Standaert 2001. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a typo on "Moule 2001, p. 96." as it's throwing a harv error. Checking Standaert 2001: #9 N/A #10 OKish although I wonder what "foreign support" means #11 I wonder if this can be rewritten so that it resembles the source text less #12 OK #13 OK #14 OK #15 OK but I wonder if this can be rewritten so that it resembles the source text less Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Moule 2001 corrected to Moule 2011.

#9 is from the quote This leads to the conclusion that Nestorian settlements were relatively numerous during the Tang, [...] Nevertheless, Christian settlements were probably not extremely important.

#11, #15 reworded. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus added pp. 12–15 to #11 and sent you the pages. I think that's all of it. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like this is all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, should I take that to be a pass for both? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Aye. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "During different periods, it was used by either Buddhists or the Church of the East (sometimes known as Nestorian Christianity)." This is confusing. "either/or" implies doubt who was using the temple, which does not appear to be what you mean. Maybe "It was a Buddhist temple and a Church of the East (sometimes called a Nestorian Church) at different periods."

Lede fixed. Now it says Buddhists and early Chinese Christians used the temple independently during different periods in history.

• This is verbose. How about "Buddhists and early Chinese Christians used the temple during different periods." Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• That is good. Changed accordingly. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think it is better to avoid the use of foreign scripts in English Wikipedia (except in quotations). It is not helpful to readers.

I use foreign (Chinese, mostly) scripts for proper nouns of names of people, places and organisations. My defense is that due to the particular nature of the Chinese language (using character as basic units; multiple characters have the same pronunciation), it is not sufficient to provide the romanisation (pinyin) alone. For example, Yang Wei leads to almost a dozen Chinese names, each with different characters.

• I do not agree but it is not a major issue. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Scholars debate the periodisation of when the Cross Temple was used by Nestorians." This is out of chronological order and superfluous as you mention queries on periodisation later in the paragraph. I suggest starting the paragraph "Originally built as a Buddhist temple in 317".

This sentence is gone in the current version.

• Starting the history section with a sub-section headed 'Context and terminology' which is solely on Christian use relegates the early Buddhist use as unimportant. You should start the history at the beginning with the early Buddhist phase and could then have a heading for the next sub-section of "Context and terminology of Christian use".
• "During its history, the Cross Temple was used by either Chinese Buddhists or Nestorian Christians in China". "During its history" is meaningless word salad. As above, "either/or" implies doubt rather than sequence. A less wordy alternative is "After the Buddhist period, the Cross Temple was a Nestorian church."

I will address the two points above as a whole. I tried placing the "Context and terminology" section after a few paragraphs early history. I find it difficult, in particular because there is not a clear-cut time that we can say "here the temple turned Christian for the first time". Another source of difficulty is that I need to state my reason of using the words "Nestorian" and "Church of the East" interchangeably in the article, and I think it is best to do it early.

Perhaps you could have a look at my attempt (in moving the "Context and terminology" subsection) in my sandbox? Happy to correct the wording "During its history, the Cross Temple was used by either Chinese Buddhists or Nestorian Christians in China" after we sort out the placement.

• After some thoughts I decided to change the ordering. Please see the current version. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• "refuse to refer to the historical Church of the East in China as "Nestorian", as the word implies a heretical connection to Nestorius". The word "heretical" implies the hostile view of an 'orthodox' Christian. Maybe "a connection to Nestorius, who they regard as a heretical thinker".

Wording changed.

• "[...]" Why the square brackets?

To quote from MOS:Original Wording, Where there is good reason to change the wording, bracket the changed text; for example, "Ocyrhoe told him his fate" might be quoted as "Ocyrhoe told [her father] his fate". I feel like omission by ellipses would apply too, at least that's what I was taught.

• Square brackets are only used with extra text. I do not remember seeing them used with ellipses and I think it is incorrect. Tim riley what do you say? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Different publishers have different house styles, and I have certainly seen [...] on many occasions. I don't know if our MoS addresses the point, but in general terms the practice doesn't strike me as erroneous. Tim riley talk 15:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• "thriving China-Persia relations". Why did this help Christianity? This should be explained.

• You have not replied to this point. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reminder. I will explain this part once I swap out Tang (2004) for a more reliable source. Will be done in the next few days. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Just swapped out Tang for a more reliable source. This issue does not exist in the current version. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• " built Nestorian monasteries in every province" You should specify every Tang province as their empire only covered part of modern China.

Done.

• "enacted the Huichang persecution of Buddhism, which also affected the Christians". "enacted" is an odd word here. How about "[[Huichang persecution of Buddhism|persecuted foreign religions]]?

I agree that "enacted" could be changed–changed to "initiated". I am not sure about linking "Huichang persecution of Buddhism" under the guise of "persecuted foreign religions": the disappearance of the Church of the East in China was a by-product of a greater movement clearly targeted at Buddhism.

• "leading to the annihilation of Nestorian Christianity in China". "annihilation" implies violent destruction. Maybe "disappearance".

Done.

• "According to a Liao-era stele". Liao refers to several different periods. You should clarify the date.

Done.

• "The scholar Wang Xiaojing proposed that the author of the Liao stele conflated the Jin with the Later Jin dynasty (936–947)." I do not know what you mean here.

Reworded.

• "Names for the monastery during Jin and Tang periods is not known." This is ungrammatical and assumes that there were several names. Is this known?

We do not actually know the name (or names). Wording changed to singular.

• "Tang Xiaofeng additionally pointed". Why "additionally"? You have not mentioned anything pointed to before.

Removed "additionally".

• "However, the exact date of rebuilding was unclear". Presumably "is unclear. The date is still unknown?

Yes, still unknown. Changed to present tense.

• "However, British sinologist Arthur Christopher Moule believed that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Church of the East existed in Beijing before the 13th century." You say above that it reached China in 635. Do you mean that it is questioned whether it reached Beijing before 13C? If so, you should clarify.

Clarified.

• Done to Early history. More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Comments received. Will do a bit of work at the moment. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

(There was a point-by-point response here. This bit is reorganised by TLP into Dudley's comments above.)

Regarding the information of early Christianity in China, I need to sort out whether a book I cited (namely, Tang 2004) is RS. If not, I shall find an RS soon, and that means I will need to change bits that give general context. Therefore I intend to keep those bits untouched at the moment until I get out of this little pseudo Wikibreak and return to my good ole' library. Thanks for the helpful suggestions! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles All comments responded to. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• "During the Liao dynasty (916–1125), The Cross Temple was called "Chongsheng Yuan" (崇聖院; 'Hall of the Honoured Saint'), when Buddhists rebuilt it during the reign of Emperor Muzong of Liao." This is a confusing wording and I am not sure how to clarify it. Also, the second "The" should not be capitalised.

• Clarified and reworded. Thanks for pointing this out.

• "Many scholars have considered that the Nestorian monk Rabban Sauma, a Uyghur born in Beijing during the Yuan,[27][28] may have some connection to the Cross Temple. Moule conjectured that the site was probably near Sauma's hermitage.[29] Shi Mingpei argues that the description of Rabban Sauma's hermitage is "extremely similar" to the Cross Temple and its surrounding terrain.[30] Tang Li asserted that Rabban Sauma came from the site in a 2011 book." This paragraph is confusing. You seem to be saying that the site of the hermitage is not known and that it may have been Cross Temple, but if so this should be spelled out.

• Good point. Now spelled out and I think it flows better.

• "inscriptions by Yifengtang')" Closing bracket but not opening bracket.

• Resolved.

• "According to P. Y. Saeki, the Scottish diplomat Reginald Johnston rediscovered the site during the summer of 1919." What does rediscovered mean here? Presumably the local people never lost it.

• The Buddhist monks sold the temple in 1911, so no one used temple for a short period of time, and it was presumably in desolation. Thus Johnston "rediscovered" the site. How can I better phrase this point?

• I think "discovered" would be fine in the context. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Understood. Changed. -TLP

• "there was a Shanmen entry" A few words of explanation of "Shanmen" as well as the link would be helpful.

• Done.

• "The Cross Temple is the only discovered site of the Church of the East in China." "discovered" is an odd word here. Do you mean only known site?

• I have reworded it to Some scholars consider the Cross Temple to be the only place of worship of the Church of the East discovered in China.

• "It is located near Chechang Village (车厂村), Fangshan District, to the southwest of Beijing City." The 'Current state' section is not the right place for stating the temple's location. Perhaps you could add a short section at the beginning of the main text covering location, surrounding area and which kingdom it was in at different periods.

• This might be among the very few objections I have. I think that the "Current state" section could be a place to state the temple's location (see St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao#Description). Maybe the "Current state" section can be renamed to "Description" or some sort–I am open to that.

I don't think the location is something to be worried about–it is near a small village, which is near a major city, and that should be enough. I added the surrounding area / township. The history section talks about "which kingdom it was in at different periods."

• "A replica of the Xi'an Stele was added to the site during the early 21st century". The wording implies that you have mentioned this stele before. Maybe "A replica of a stele discovered near Xi'an was added to the site during the early 21st century"

• I supplied the context of the Xi'an Stele in the "context" section. I think I will keep this wording (although I moved it to a different area)

• "in one of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum". Manuscripts have been transferred to the British Library.

• Thanks for catching this bit. I think either "British Museum" or "British Library" is irrelevant here, so now it reads with the addition of the phrase "the living cross", in one of the Add. 14459 Syriac gospel manuscripts. Moule in his original text explicitly spells out Add. 14459.

• See also section. I would delete as not really relevant, but that is up to you.

• I intend to make the see also section go "horizontal" across similar topics, not "vertical" as in staying the relevant subject (Church of the East in China). I think I'll keep it.

• "It is notable that, according to records". "It is notable that" is verbiage. I would delete. "according to records" is vague verbiage. What records?

• This is a verbatim translation of what is stated in the paper. I don't have the liberty to change wording.

• If it is a quotation, you should put it in quotes and cite the source inline. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Changed. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think that it would be better to have separate main headings for citations and sources.

• Sure!

• There is an error message on the Nicolini-Zani, Matteo source saying that it is not used.

• Fixed.

• Putting the sources in columns looks clumsy. I think they would look better and be easier to read if they were in text without columns, but that is a personal preference.

• Fixed.

• In general, this is a good article, but there is far too much Chinese text for English Wikipedia. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding this point: will you find it more acceptable if I put most Chinese text into footnotes, rather than parentheses? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comments received. I am busy this weekend (bank holiday, Easter, you name it). Will get to work next week. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Dudley Miles All comments addressed. I think we just need to sort out the Chinese text issue (maybe footnotes?). Many thanks for your careful comments. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  While each of your individual points is very much worthwhile, I do not really agree on your summary—there's simply not a lot of English-language "turf" for a lot of these terms, and inclusion of Chinese-language text is necessary for disambiguation when there's not an article for a given topic. Remsense诉 15:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dudley, anything to add here? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I am on holiday until 11 April. I hope it will be OK if I comment further when I get back. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• "before being sold in 1911. It was rediscovered in 1919, damaged during the Cultural Revolution, and re-established". "rediscovered in 1919" is odd and superfluous. I would delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  How about "It entered modern scholarship in 1919 and received international attention" instead of "IT was rediscovered in 1919"? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Or "it was first recorded in modern scholarship"? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds great! Changed accordingly. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I would personally cut the Chinese characters as not helpful to readers of English Wikipedia, but that is a personal opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 4 April 2024 [65].

---

Edict of Expulsion

Nominator(s): Jim Killock (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the 1290 edict of expulsion that led to the departure of the Jews from England, and the reasons why it was issued; and the consequences and importance of the edict since then. It would be good for it to be featured as it is an important facet of English and Jewish social history, with an international significance. Jim Killock (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

I'll take a look at this one over the weekend...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Edward told the sheriffs of all counties he wanted" => "Edward told the sheriffs of all counties that he wanted"
• "then adopted in England at the Synod of Oxford in 1222." - this doesn't work grammatically with the rest of the sentence. I would separate it into a separate sentence
• "King Henry III backed allegations" - link him
• "this was however an unrealistic expectation" - this either needs to be a separate sentence of else the comma before it needs to be a semi-colon
• "Edward also attempted" - who's Edward? This is the first mention in the body of him
• "Edward broke his collarbone in an 80 foot fall" => "Edward broke his collarbone in an 80-foot fall"
• "Wardens at the Cinque Ports were to told" => "Wardens at the Cinque Ports were told"
• "Perhaps more dangerous than the risk of piracy was the condition of the sea in Autumn" - autumn doesn't need a capital A
• "the most valuable of which was houses in London" - while probably grammatically correct, this reads a little oddly, so I would suggest maybe "the most valuable of which consisted of houses in London"
• "Some of the property was given away to courtiers, the church and family" - whose family?
• "Sales were mostly completed by spring 1291, and around £2,000 was raised. £100 of this was used to glaze windows and decorate the tomb of Henry III in Westminster Abbey" => "Sales were mostly completed by spring 1291, and around £2,000 was raised, £100 of which was used to glaze windows and decorate the tomb of Henry III in Westminster Abbey"
• Check for overlinking. Queen Eleanor is certainly linked multiple times in the body of the article.
• "it appears to be a deliberate attempt to associate himself and Eleanor with the cult." - this should be its own sentence
• "for instance in the canonization evidence" => "for instance in the canonisation evidence" (British English spelling)
• There's quite a bit of sandwiching going on with images, especially in the significance section. Maybe lose a couple of images
• If kept, the Edward I image caption needs a full stop
• Note c - "See Hillaby & Hillaby 2013, pp. 364–5" - this could just be a reference in the same format as all the others
• Note d needs a full stop
• Note f - "See Morris 2009, p. 226" - same as with note c
• Same with notes j and h
• Note l does not need a full stop
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Great - those look very sensible. I'll work through them probably tomorrow. Jim Killock (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you very much @ChrisTheDude. Those are all done, bar removing an image. I've cut the image captions down, but left them for now, until I've had a think. On overlinking I checked Edward I, Queen Eleanor and Little St Hugh as the most likely candidates for overlinking with several mentions.Jim Killock (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

FM

• Marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• I wonder if the first image should be moved above the first series template? Looks a little awkward now, and it would provide a more relevant start illustration for the article.
  • Hopefully done I don't fully understand this. I've put at the page top but let me know if I have misunderstood --Jim Killock (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

What you did is exactly what I had in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The first Jewish communities are recorded in England after 1066." Probably relevant to mention from where and under which circumstances for context?
  • Done good spot. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Link terms and names in image captions?
  • Can I ask what (where?) the rules are on links in captions vs overlinking? --Jim Killock (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:captions and WP:duplinks is what we have. The latter says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence in a major section." That's of course vague, but personally I just link a term in the first caption it occurs, and consider the captions a separate text from the article body, just like the intro section is. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Jim Killock (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• As I'm not exactly an expert on this subject, I'm wary to continue the review until the issues below are resolved, also so I don't tread the same ground. I'll return if Gog gives it a go. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, thank you, that makes sense. I've addressed everything specific raised bar one cite I need to add; I've also given the copy another once over for anything I can spot myself. Jim Killock (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

• Note 1: I would strongly recommend recasting this as 'Modern historian Cecil Roth notes that contemporary Jewish writers {{sfn|Roth|1964|p=90, p. 90 note 2}}.
  • Done--Jim Killock (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Sources: if a work referred to is not the first edition, the date of publication of the original should also be given.
  • Done for Roth, should be the only case (it was extensively rewritten) --Jim Killock (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Also corrected on Edward I of England for Prestwich's Edward I. --Jim Killock (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Brookes & Pevsner is not used.
  • Done--Jim Killock (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Several works are missing publisher locations.
  • I think these are done now. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Cite 57 should be p., not pp. Cite 19 has the reverse.
  • Done --Jim Killock (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Cite 63 should use an en dash, not a hyphen. Ditto cite 19.
  • Done --Jim Killock (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Also done: I've made a quick visual check for any other p vs pp errors in the citation list; I couldn't spot any. --Jim Killock (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• ISBNs need their hyphenisation standardising.
  • Clarification requested: can I remove these entirely as the standardisation? Or do I need to add in ISBN format hyphenisation? --Jim Killock (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  (Unsolicited comment: most reviewers will expect some sort of third-party ID for sources, particularly books: where an ISBN exists, it should be given. Whether you use hyphenated or unhyphenated ISBNs is up to you: those with strong opinions generally go for unhyphenated, as it helps when using them in online searches and so on. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks very much, that would be my preference as it is less fiddly and is less distracting on the page (at least in my view). Will do that now. Jim Killock (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done Jim Killock (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• As the article is about England, USvar usage - such as "likely" instead of 'probably' - are best avoided.
  • Done: changed to "most likely"; I am surprised to be using something that sounds US English. Had it down as clipped English. --Jim Killock (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• "selected individuals given grants of property". Perhaps 'selected individuals were given grants of property'
  • Done --Jim Killock (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• "The expulsion had a lasting negative impact". This does not seem WP:NPOV. Does the consensus of the HQ sources support it. Might be easier to remove "negative".
  • Done, see discussion below --Jim Killock (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• "Jews were viewed as the direct jurisdiction and property of the king". "property": as in slaves? And the first bit is bad grammar, try 'Jews were viewed as being under the direct jurisdiction ... of the king'.
  • Done the grammar edit. See discussion below re "property". --Jim Killock (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done I've added to the explanatory note: The Church held that Jews were condemned to servitude for the crime of crucifying Christ, while they did not convert. This carried over into legal formulations. I have added source for this. Jim Killock (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• "making them subject to the whims of the king". No need repeat "the king". Maybe something like 'making them subject to his whims'?
  • Done. --Jim Killock (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• "A very small number of Jews were wealthy, as they were allowed to lend money at interest". This reads as if only a small number were allowed to lend money.
  • Done. --Jim Killock (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• "as this constituted the sin of usury." The presentation of this as a fact begs the question of why lending at interest is permitted now. Maybe 'as this was considered the sin of usury' or similar?
  • Done. --Jim Killock (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• "As capital was in short supply and necessary for development, Jewish loans played an important economic role in England's development." Would it be possible to avoid using "development" twice in the sentence? It may be helpful to specify economic development. Could a brief example be given? (I am more familiar with loans of the period being for ostentation and/or warfare.)
  • Will check: I think the main example is monastic construction, but also castle building (which is explained as necessary for security to create markets, towns and economic development, rather than being just a "warfare" expense) --Jim Killock (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Done: add a couple of examples and additional cite. --Jim Killock (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Explain in line what "The Holy See" is.
  • Done. --Jim Killock (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• "had placed restrictions on Jews from mixing with Christians" This doesn't make sense. Do you mean 'had placed restrictions on Jews mixing with Christians,'? Or perhaps 'had placed restrictions on Jews preventing them from mixing with Christians'?
  • Done. The restrictions ran both ways (were imposed on both groups). --Jim Killock (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• "ideas of conspiracy". Conspiracy to what?
  • Harder: in this case, conspiracy to murder and mock Christians, but this goes very wide; writers drawing on antisemitic tropes have Jews conspiring to do whatever fantasy might come into their antisemitic minds. The idea is that Jews conspire, not that they are after something specific. The English innovation here is to fantasise about secret Jewish conspiracies. --Jim Killock (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Amended: to "and the accusations began to develop themes of conspiracy and occult practices". Let me know if this is clearer. --Jim Killock (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• "after the death of a boy Hugh". 'after the death of a boy named Hugh'.
  • Done. --Jim Killock (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• "Such stories coincided with the rise of hostility within the Church to the Jews." This s not cited.
  • Done. --Jim Killock (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not far in and am picking up a lot of things which should have largely been sorted before FAC. I can see that it has had two relatively recent visits to PR and I am aware that the waiting list at GoCER - it badly needs a copy edit - is three months, so there is a limit to what you can do. I think not going with a FAC mentor - the bit in bold in the second paragraph of the FAC instructions - is unfortunate, but I can guess that they are thin on the ground in practice. Nevertheless, IMO the article is not yet ready for FAC. It needs a fair bit of work, which FAC is not equipped to provide. I am, therefore, leaning oppose. I shall sleep on it and then probably pick a random paragraph or two from further down the article tomorrow to see if I have so far just had a run of bad luck. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these so far, I will find time to fix them ASAP. They are really useful.

On process, I asked for a FAC mentor, but I was advised by User:Dudley Miles that this was not needed and I should just get the text peer reviewed; he then gave me very helpful comments there. I'm new to this but my experience of Peer Review has been that it is slow to get much helpful response. GA was much more helpful. (And of course, I have done PRs myself for others to ensure that I am giving as well as asking.) I think Dudley's very helpful review was the first time out of three or so goes I have had to get anything substantial from it. Of course it may be that I am just being a bit impatient in these cases and rather than a few weeks, I should be waiting longer for responses, but I get the impression that people looking seem to regard the job as done once one person has responded.

Extended content

Now dealt with: On the two factual matters (Jews as "property") this is well cited and mentioned also in Edward I of England in the same manner ("The Jews were the King's personal property, and he was free to tax them at will."); the same point was raised and discussion took place at its FAR. The reasons are complex, rather hazy and rarely expanded upon except in discussions of the theological background; as church opinion against Jews hardened, it was regarded that they were in permanent slavery for their sins of obstinacy in the face of the message of Christ's salvation, doomed to permanent servitude as punishment while they refused to convert. From another perspective, as Jews were outside of the Church and "Christian" society, the King had to take direct responsibility for them. From a third, the Crown after Crusader violence in 1190 tended to push this line in part to define the relationship as protection in return for unlimited taxation. However the position seems to be more theology and legal theory than practical reality and daily experience, excepting that the Crown would periodically mass arrest Jews to extract taxation in return for their release, for instance. As with many things in this article, information on this can be added but there is a question how much is needed to understand the expulsion itself; ie sufficient context vs a full history; points like this tend to be skipped in most other short accounts beyond the bare statement of the situation. On the "The expulsion had a lasting negative impact" - the impact cited extensively was that it helped make the English national identity actively anti-Semitic. The sources don't necessarily explicitly say that anti-Semitism in the national identity was a "negative" impact, it is more taken as read: they say that anti-Semitism was and is negative, and that the impact was to include it into English identity. So I have taken out "negative", in case this implies a NNPOV, but you may wish to re-read this to see if it may read as if this "impact" could in fact have been a good one, or that WP takes a "neutral" view on racial prejudice. If I am honest that paragraph now does read in rather a cold and clinical manner, and might be read as if Edward's actions could be seen as a cause for celebration. Jim Killock (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Quick update that I made some light copyediting to the main text. The copy is where help is most likely to be needed IMHO, the source formatting now being hopefully sorted and source checking regarding scope and accuracy ought to be pretty decent although of course I do not rule out quibbles. Jim Killock (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Additional tidy-ups made to

• include OL refs throughout books where they exist;
• add sources from those in reading list to reinforce the refs in the body;
• remove further reading section as now redundant;
• remove duplicate and irrelevant links in external links section.

Jim Killock (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with Gog and I'm not sure "English identity" is the right word to use. My understanding is that most historians date the formation of national identity to the 18th and 19th centuries. How does this apply to the average serf who might not have even known about the expulsion happening? (t · c) buidhe 05:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

(I'm assuming this agreement relates to the dropping of "negative" from "lasting negative impact on English identity"). It is a fair question re; identity; I will check what the texts say. In short, tho, it is discussed in these kind of terms; culture is experienced and projected through many activities, and even serfs were certainly made aware of key religious topics, of which, the "dangers" and "perfidy" of Jews was frequently one, before and after the expulsion. What alternatives could we consider? "English culture"? Open to suggestions. Jim Killock (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Shapiro: p45 has "between 1290 and 1656 the English came to see their country defined in part by the fact that Jews had been banished from it" and talks of "impulses in English culture" p46
• Strickland talks of "the Anglo-Jewish dimension of the the current debate on the formation of English national identity during the Edwardian period" (p420)
• Glassman talks of "the image of the Jew in the mind of the English people" (preface) and says "anti-Jewish sentiment was deeply ingrained in the fabric of English life throughout the next several centuries" (chapter one end)

We can settle on "culture" as a less controversial and more widely used term. I've changed to that. It does somewhat obscure the point that "we are this because we are not" but it avoids debates about whether a national identity did or did not exist, or what it consisted of. Jim Killock (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Title/capitalization

Probably not the feedback you were expecting, but the first thing I noticed is that the capitalization of the title seems to be wrong: on Google Scholar [66] it seems to be 50/50 or even lean in favor of no capitalization in running text, so per WP:NCCAPS the title should be "edict of expulsion" or "edict of expulsion (1290)". This should wait until the FAC is closed to avoid administrative burden. (t · c) buidhe 08:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I've no strong opinion on this; I'll go with whatever the norm / consensus is. I note some of the differences relates to whether it is "the specific" EoE or "an" eoe, ie whether it is a "proper name" per the WP policy; some is stylistic preference I guess. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• The other comment I have is regarding the notes. In general, if the content is essential enough to belong in the article at all, it shouldn't be hidden in a note; whereas, if it does not contribute to reader understanding of the subject, it should not be included at all.
  • An example of a note that I don't think is done correctly is the one for archa. Especially in mobile devices, it is not always possible to access the note and so a reader may be left confused by this term (the only wiki link is in the note, not the text). Instead, I would give a brief explanation in text on first mention and remove the note. Alternatively, it seems to be a notable topic so it might also be helpful to stub it and put in a blue link.

    Is there policy guidance on this as I'm getting it a bit wrong? I've understood notes to be "background, which might help clarify if the reader is in doubt about what is being asserted, where the detail isn't essential for an understanding of the topic at hand", but let me know if that is wrong. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

    I've moved the main explanation of archa into the text and left the background in a note; this could be deleted if preferred. I'll have a think about a stub, but WP has got very difficult about doing short articles in recent years, even when referenced, I'm not sure I want to engage with that; I suspect many would feel it is a borderline on "notability". --Jim Killock (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Another example is the footnote saying the text was lost. This also seems better to incorporate into the article text.

    Done --Jim Killock (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  • For the first footnote, I don't understand what point this is trying to get across, so I would just cut it. (t · c) buidhe 08:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

    People have a hard time with the idea that England might have been the first place to make a permanent expulsion of the Jews and editors frequently query or contest it; there is some greyness in that expulsions took place but were not permanent; the note is trying to explain that this permanence was not least the contemporary perception found in Jewish sources. Will try to make the note more understandable, but not the end of the world if it is cut. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

    Edited but feel free to check. Jim Killock (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The permanent expulsion of Jews from England and tactics employed before it, such as attempts at forced conversion, are widely seen as setting a significant precedent, foreshadowing the 1492 expulsion in Spain, for example" rewrite, too many commas in this sentence. Foreshadowing is a literary device, so it's not a word I would use when referring to historical events. Was Ferdinand inspired by this expulsion? Or else, what is the supposed historical connection between these two events? It's quite vague.

Will go back and check the texts. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Edited: the texts I have cite the events as an "example" or "model" for later permanent French and Spanish expulsions or forced conversions. I've used "example", what Spanish or other sources say on the point I don't know. It seems a fair enough point tho. Jim Killock (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• " formal equality was achieved by 1858" maybe link Jewish emancipation?

Done: Have linked to this and the UK-specific article. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• "However English antisemitism persisted as an outlook into the twentieth century, leaving a legacy of neglect of this topic in general history books as late as the 1980s" needs a rephrase. I would write instead, "According to historian Colin Richmond, the topic was neglected in general history books as late as the 1980s due to lingering antisemitism in English society". Wikipedia can't really say what is an appropriate amount of coverage; that seems like an opinion based statement. Furthermore, your sentence almost makes it seem like there is no antisemitism in the UK in the 21st century. (t · c) buidhe 08:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this all seems sensible and very helpful, will work on these. Jim Killock (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:BritLibCottonNeroDiiFol183vPersecutedJews.jpg: source link is dead
  • Amended to https://blogs.bl.uk/asian-and-african/2020/07/anglo-jewish-deeds-from-medieval-england-a-treasure-trove-for-historians.html which marks it as PD. Jim Killock (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
• File:Drawing_of_the_Shrine_of_Little_St_Hugh,_Lincoln_Cathedral,_William_Dugdale,_1641_crop.png: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Nikkimaria this appears to be a scan that was only recently published from a manuscript collection, 1994. The immediate source is File:Drawing of the Shrine of Little St Hugh, Lincoln Cathedral, William Dugdale, 1641.png; and that takes us to Hillaby 1994; see p97, plate 3. It also appears as plate XXIIID for Stocker 1986. I would hope that, since copyright never affixed to any UK works before the 1700s, and for images rather later, that a scan of an unpublished 1643 work would be considered a verbatim copy of a work never in copyright. But I stand prepared to be contradicted!

  If we can't use the original, there is a copy published in 1773 which can be used: Shrine of Little St Hugh of Lincoln redrawn by William Stukely from William Dugdale. Jim Killock (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Update: I've emailed the British Library to see if they claim copyright in their archival material. --Jim Killock (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@JimKillock: Round objects to the BL; they claim copyright over everything they hold even though they created little of it. In these cases, the PD scan template is your friend; I am known to use it liberally  :) ——Serial Number 54129 18:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yuk to that, especially as UK law is now clear they are in the wrong; however, the issue is that it was only published in 1986, so for WP the copyright may apply. I note for such works published 1989 to present, they are in copyright until 2039 in the UK. I don't quite understand what this means for previously unpublished works that were published before 1989 as in this case. Obviously life plus 70 wouldn't apply. Jim Killock (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

yuk indeed! Apologies, I was talking about the Dugdale version, which as you say, is well and truly PD. ——Serial Number 54129 19:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

gotcha, thanks! Jim Killock (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

So BL have replied to say it's OK and the original is public domain. I'm not sure if there is a process at WP to retain records of these kinds of conversation but I can forward the emails if I know where they should go. Jim Killock (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note: this has been open for more than seven weeks now and has picked up one support and has an unresolved oppose. It does not look like there will be a consensus for promotion anytime soon so I'm archiving this. Perhaps seek the help of a mentor who specializes in this area of topic to have it better prepared for a possible renomination. In any case, the usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 April 2024 [67].

---

Raynald of Châtillon

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a 12th-century French aristocrat who ruled first the Principality of Antioch, then the Lordship of Oultrejourdain, both by right of one of his two wives, in the Frankish East. Notorious for plundering raids and attacks against caravans, he is often held responsible for the fall of the first Kingdom of Jerusalem. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll have a look soonish. At first glance, the usual script[68] reveals a good deal of duplinks, not sure if they're all needed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for starting the review. A quick cheque shows that all duplinks are connected to individuals who are mentioned in section "Family" in addition to one reference to them in other sections of the article and in the lead. I think this approach is quite user friendly. Borsoka (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• "but in 1989 Jean Richard demonstrated Raynald's kinship with the lords of Donzy." How? Could warrant at least a footnote, as it pertains directly to the subject of the article?

• I do not have access to Richard's work.

Seems like it could be worth tracking it down, what is the citation? WP:RX usually works. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your suggestion. I reqested assistance at WP:RX.

• "Raynald was born around 1123 or 1125." Do we know where?

• None of the two cited sources name the place of his birth. Britannica indicates that Raynald was born in Châtillon-sur-Loing but I am not sure that this claim could be verified by a reference to a secondary source. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Link Palestine (region)?

• Done.

• William of Tyre probably only needs to be linked in the first caption he's mentioned in, but now he's linked all three times.

• Yes, he is linked in each caption of the pictures. I think this is the usual approach.

But in three different captions, one should be enough in the first. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Done. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Link Venetian?

• Linked.

• "The crusader states around 1165" State the colour of the area he ruled in caption.

• Added.

• Link excommunicated.

• Linked.

• Link Genoa.

• Linked.

• "Raynald made an alliance with Thoros II of Cilicia." Probably worth mentioning he was Armenian ("the Armenian lord"?) to show shifting alliances, since the previous paragraph tells of him fighting Armenians.

• Added.

• "orgy of violence" This sounds a little, err, loaded.

• Reworded. I am curious how I could create this expression.

• "Shaizar was held by Assassins, but it had been ruled by the Muslim Munqidhites who paid an annual tribute to Raynald." This seemingly implies that the Assassins weren't Muslims. Perhaps be more specific about what kind of Muslims the two groups were?

• Reworded.

• "On Manuel's demand, he and his retainers walked barefoot" I think you could name him instead of the confusing "he".

• Modified.

• Link Latakia.

• Linked.

• "horses and camels from the local peasants" State if they were Muslims for context.

• None of the cited sources refers to their religion. I assume they were more likely local Christians.

• A shame many of the old illustrations are so low res, I wonder if some of them can be updated with higher res scans?

• Sorry, I do not understand your reference to "res".

Image resolution/size. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• I changed the size of most images. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I meant their sizes on Commons, as in the original resolution of the files themselves. But probably not much you can do about it without access to larger versions. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• This[69] image has a copyright warning tag that is probably invalid.

• I think the tag is obviously baseless but I cannot delete it.

Hmmm, that's an extremely annoying template, I'll ask around how to fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I brought it up here[70], and seems to have been fixed for at least this image. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Link leprosy?

• Linked.

• "but he protested when Baldwin confirmed Raynald's position as "regent of the kingdom and of the armies"." Why?

• Explained.

• Link Beirut.

• Linked.

• Link Arabian desert.

• Linked.

• Link Medina.

• I am not sure it is necessary.

• Link Holy Roman Emperor.

• Linked.

• It seems Saladin needs a proper introduction in the article body, now he's just mentioned without any context, unlike for example "a talented Turkic military leader Imad al-Din Zengi".

• Introduced.

• The long quote under Kingmaker seems kind of isolated, but could benefit from some commentary, if available, or introduction for context.

• "Saladin sent blaming him" Not sure what this means, something missing?

• This is a quote. I checked, and the quoted text contains the same wording. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• "against ships delivering pilgrims" Specify Muslim.

• Added.

• Perhaps link Saracen, though it is only used in quotes.

• Linked. Borsoka (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• You spell out Bernard Hamilton many times, when his full name would only be needed at first mention in the article body. This may possibly also be an issue with other names.

• Modified.

• "of French origin... a French noble family" Should be stated in the article body as well.

• Added.

• "he was the only Christian leader to pursue an offensive policy against Saladin" This does not seem to be explicitly stated in the article body.

• The first sentence in section "Fights against Saladin" verifies the statement.

• Link Red Sea in intro.

• Linked.

• Have to say it's fun to read these real accounts of characters I mainly know from the film Kingdom of Heaven hehe... Hope to see more!

Thank you very much for your comprehensive review and for your suggestion. I think I addressed most of the problems you mentioned above but I need some days to deal with the pending issues. Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, left some further replies about last issues. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support - looking good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• FunkMonk thank you for your support. I added an explanatory footnote about Raynald's ancestry ([71]). Please let me know if further explanation is needed. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Jens

• He was released for a large ransom in 1176 but he did – maybe you can drop the second "he" for better flow.

• Done.

• He even refused to pay a subsidy to Raynald. In retaliation, he captured and tortured – the second "he" here does not refer to Raynald, but it should, right? Write "Raynald" instead?

• Done.

• Aimery excommunicated Raynald as a consequence between Antioch and Genoa – What does this mean, "between Antioch and Genoa"? I cannot follow.

• Fixed.

• and all other Christians prisoners – "Christian"

• Fixed.

• Manuel I Komnenos – Before, you referred to him as "Manuel" or "Emperor Manuel". I suggest to stick with one name, it makes it much easier for the reader to follow. There are already enough names that a reader need to keep in mind here.

• Changed (now he is referred to as either Emperor Manuel or Manuel).

• Hamilton proposes, these words suggest that Raynald led – "Hamilton proposes that"?

• Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• More to follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and comments. Borsoka (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Raynald whose stepfather, Balian of Ibelin was Guy of Lusignan's opponent – needs a comma behind "Ibelin"?

• Done.

• Regarding the quotations, note that WP:QUOTE states Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. Readers should not have to follow a footnote to find out the quotation's source.

• Done.

• Saladin tried to seize Aleppo after As-Salih Ismail al-Malik, the Zengid emir of the town, died on 18 November 1181.[85] Raynald stormed into Saladin's territory, – a bit hard to understand how these actions are connected. Was Saladin's attack of Aleppo the cause of Raynald storming the territory? Or did those happen at the same time, independently?

• Modified.

• That's all I have. Very good work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your suggestions. Please let me know if any further modification is needed. Borsoka (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support, and also for your thorough review. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi, some minor comments on source formatting:

• Sources #73, #121 and #156 will have to be formatted using sfn.

• Reference style is consequent: primary sources are not cited by using sfn, whereas when citing other sources sfn is used.

• Primary sources subsection: Consider linking to Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad, Al-Kamil Fi'l-Ta'rikh, Ashgate Publishing? Also, wouldn't the second source be listed first in the alphabetical order, which you have followed for the secondary sources subsection?

• Alphabetical order introduced and the publisher is linked. I would not link names in the title of books.

Secondary sources subsection:

• Why do some of the ISBN numbers use different formats? You should use just one, ideally the one you intend to use in the Primary Sources subsection and the Firther Reading section.

• I converted all ISBN (10) to ISBN (13).

• You should sort out the ISBN for Baldwin 1969. It leads to to another work, Setton 1969, in some catalogues.

• The same works: Setton is the general edition of the series A History of the Crusades, whereas Baldwin is the editor of its first volume.

• Could we have a translation for this chapter title from Makk 1994, Anna (1.); Béla III? Also, consider linking to Gyula Kristó and Pál Engel?

• The translation would be the same because these are two names. The two editors linked.

• The Jean Richard link leads to a disambig page. I gather you meant to link to Jean Richard (historian)?

• Fixed.

• Further reading section: Consider using the standard ISBN format you decide to use in the previous section. Also consider linking to Chase F. Robinson, Amin Maalouf, John Man (author), Random House, Gustave Schlumberger. As you have specified in the previous section if a work is in another language, you should also do thjs for Schlumberger 1898, translate the title and add the publisher name (Librairie Plon).

• I converted all ISBN (10) to ISBN (13). Wikilinks and publisher name added. Title translated.

• Consider linking to Donzy in notes, on first mention and in infobox?

• I linked it in the main text, but I would not link it when it is part of a person's name. For instance, we would not link "Habsburg" or "Bourbon" when mentioning a member of the Habsburg or Bourbon family.

More comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your source review and comments. Borsoka (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi, made some minor source formatting edits, hope those are OK. Will post more comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your edits. Borsoka (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, some new comments. Made a few grammatical and sequential edits, hope those are alright.

• Consider moving to the right the images you have oriented to the left, per MOS:IMAGELOC.

• The pictures' orientation depends on the content: pictures depicting people looking to the right are placed on the left side. I moved the two exceptions accordingly.

• Consider adding context to the mercy petition to Emperor Manuel? How was he captured? This is important to include in the lead.

• Expanded in the lead.

• "the only crusader leader who tried to prevent Saladin from unifying the nearby Muslim states": Consider adding the meaning of this, in that it prevented all out war and annnihilation of the crusader states?

• I am not sure that any of the two statements could be verified: the crusader states had been warring against the neighboring Muslim states before they were united by Saladin, and we could hardly state that the crusader states would have survived if Saladin had not united Egypt and Syria.

• Moved the Komnenos Emperors' and other links a little bit to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE. Hope that is alright?

• Thank you for your edits.

• Will you be creating pages for Lord of Donzy, Rainald II Masoir and Garenton of Saone? Otherwise I would suggest removing the redlinks.

• I am not sure that I want to create pages for them, but red links may provoke other editors into creating the articles.

• Consider linking to Saint-Valery-sur-Somme for Reynald of Saint-Valery?

• I think linking settlements in an individual's name is not helpful.

• For Raynald's seal, can we put the text on it in the caption? From what I can make out, the front says "EGAL DNS RENALDUS MONTI", the back says "CIVITAS + PETPACENSIS". But this seems flimsy, you might be better placed to read the text on there.

• I have no access to reliable sources explaining the inscription on the seal.

• When did Roupen marry Isabella? Do we have the date, as we do for the other other marriages mentioned?

• Year added.

• Link to Medina.

• Medina and Mecca linked.

• Link to prelates.

• Added.

• Is the Ashtara mentioned here the same as Ashtarak? If so, consider linking to it.

• No, the two settlements are not identical, but expanded the sentence to help Ashtara's localisation.

• Link to Ernoul on first use. You have added the link in the notes but not in the body.

• Linked.

That is all for now. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comprehensive review and also for your edits. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Matarisvan, is there any more to come on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Srnec

Invited by Borsoka. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not reviewing the 'Background' section. I will note, however, that it is required reading to understand the rest of the article, which refers to figures mentioned there. I'm not sure I like this approach, since I think many readers will tend to skip the background.

• The section was added during the article's peer review because the article needed some context for potential readers (billions of people). I think there are two approaches for providing our readers with a context: 1. distributing the information in other sections and footnotes; 2. expanding the article with a "Background" section. I preferred the second approach because it makes possible a more coherent summary.

• Are the Palladii an actual Roman family? Or just a part of the Donzy's claimed genealogy?

• Expanded.

• Did he receive the lordship of Châtillon-sur-Loire from his father?

• No information in the cited sources.

• The last paragraph of 'Early years' is confusing. Did Raynald leave the siege of Ascalon to visit Antioch? Or are we certain that he had visited it before the siege? Why are we attributing the date 1151 to Runciman? The idea that Raynald settled in Antioch in 1151 seems in tension with Buck's theory that he was still in Baldwin's service in 1153.

• I rephrased the paragraph.

• Buck argues that William's report is obviously biased since ... according to Buck. These clauses could be removed without loss.

• Rephrased and shortened.

• duke of Antioch. It would be nice to know more about this office, which is not mentioned at Officers of the Principality of Antioch.

• I am thinking of creating a new article about the office, but I need some time.

• I do not have enough source to create an article about the office. What is clear, the duke was one of the eleven highest ranking officers of state in Antioch. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• that the Armenians had recently captured. From whom?

• Modified.

• Sorry, I think it should be clarified that the Syrian Gates had belonged to Byzantium. I assume that's the case?

• It is unclear from the sources. I rather guess they belonged to Antioch. Borsoka (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• In context, the Armenians have risen against the Byzantines, who are asking Raynald for help.

• Yes, but the territory seems to belonged to the principality. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• We should say so explicitly.

• The cited sources do not say it explicitly, and I have not found further details in other sources either. Borsoka (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Shaizar was held by the Shi'ite Assassins, but it had been ruled by the Sunnite Munqidhites who paid an annual tribute to Raynald. So it was held by the Assassins at the time, but had previously been held by the Munqidhites?

• Modified.

More later. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• I am grateful for answering my invitation. Thank you for your suggestions and edits. Borsoka (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Continuing...

• Unlinked Majd al-Din was the governor of Aleppo and two paragraphs later it's Gümüshtekin, who is described as "independent". This leaves me with questions. I think some explanation of who Majd al-Din was and what was going on with Aleppo may be needed.

• Context added.

• Do we have a date, even approximate, for Baldwin IV's embassy?

• Added.

• Raynald married Stephanie of Milly, the lady of Oultrejordain, and Baldwin IV also granted him Hebron. I'd break this up into two sentences. And do we have date(s)?

• Date added, but I would leave the sentence united.

• Raynald's name was the first among the witnesses who signed most royal charters between 1177 and 1180 Hard to parse. Should probably say something like "Raynald signed a majority of royal charters between 1177 and 1180, with his name always first among signatories".

• Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I'll be doing this in short bursts. Srnec (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Continuing...

• Perhaps a link to Caravan (travellers) should be added somewhere, although that's not the most informative article.

• Linked.

• I notice inconsistent treatment of sun and moon letters. Should be consistent within the article, probably in favour of al-. Also, the Arabic definite article should only be capitalized where English 'the' would be.

• I think inconsistency in article reflects inconsistency in the cited books. I would prefer scholarly usage to consistency.

• But I think scholars will be internally consistent (unless they are Lawrence of Arabia). I would be surprised to see a scholar switch back and forth between "al-Din" and "ad-Din".

• No, scholars are not consistent either (see Buck) :), but I changed the text. Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• When Saladin tried to seize Aleppo after As-Salih died on 18 November 1181 Constructions like this are always ambiguous between whether al-Salih died on that date or Saladin tried to seize Aleppo on that date. Consider rewording.

• Changed.

• His defiance annoyed the king, enabling Raymond III of Tripoli's partisans to reconcile him with the monarch. Raymond's return to the royal court put an end to Raynald's paramount position. Raymond III comes out of nowhere here. These two sentences need to be reworked to make more sense to the uninitiated.

• Context added.

• Saladin revived the Egyptian naval force No article for the Ayyubid navy, but we do have Fatimid navy. I leave it up to you if you think a link could be worked in here.

• Linked.

• We need a link to Hajj to explain Muslim pilgrims. Could go in the lead, where they are first mentioned or elsewhere.

• Linked.

• Baldwin IV, who had become seriously ill, made Guy of Lusignan bailli (or regent) in October 1183. Is this different from the office of regent previously mentioned? The whole concept of "regent" during the reign of Baldwin IV may need some explaining.

• I deleted bailli because not the title but the position is relevant in the article's context.

• Baldwin V, crowned king Should be "co-king", I think, or perhaps add "in association with himself".

• Modified.

• The bailli, Raymond III When did he become bailli?

• Deleted the reference to his office because it is not highly relevant.

• Ali ibn al-Athir and other Muslim historians record that Raynald made a truce with Saladin in 1186. This "seems unlikely to be true", according to Hamilton, because the truce between the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Saladin covered Raynald's domains. . . possibly because he regarded the presence of soldiers as a breach of the truce ... stating in the words of the Estoire d'Eracles that "... he had no truces with the Saracens". Saladin [took] an oath that he would personally kill Raynald for breaking the truce. Seems like a lot of confusion then and now over whether Raynald was covered by a truce! Not sure there is much that can be done to fix this, but I can certainly imagine a reader scratching his head.

• Rephrased. I think now it is much clearer. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, moving that Barber quotation was a good idea.

More later. Srnec (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Finally,

• The reliability of the reports of Saladin's offer to Raynald is subject to scholarly debate, because the Muslim authors who recorded them may have only wanted to improve Saladin's image. I find this sentence odd. Is there a reason for scholarly debate on what seems to me a minor point?

• The story about Saladin's offer to conversion to Raynald has been frequently deleted by editors. To avoid further edit wars, I added this sentence.

• She followed her husband to Hungary, where she gave birth to seven children before she died around 1184. Raynald and Constance's second daughter, Alice, became the third wife of Azzo VI of Este in 1204. Do these sentences imply that Raynald is the ancestor of much European royalty? If so, it might be worth stating so explicitly.

• Yes, he is obviously the ancestor of much of European royalty, but this statement is not verified in the sources cited in the article.

• Spelling is inconsistent between Oultrejourdain and Oultrejordain.

• Fixed.

• Saladin compared Raynald with the king of Ethiopia who had tried to destroy Mecca in 570 The Year of the Elephant article ascribes the attack to Abraha, an Ethiopian king but not a king of Ethiopia.

• Hamilton writes of the "Christian king of Ethiopia".

• I'm going to assume that the primary source says the same.

• Peter of Blois dedicated a book (entitled Passion of Prince Raynald of Antioch) to him shortly after his death. I found this intriguing and wanted to know more.

• Expanded. Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I have now done a first pass of the whole article and will read it over once more before making some final remarks and assessing the lead. Srnec (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Srnec, just checking to see if there will be more to come. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I do still intend to. I was waiting to see what changes result from Dudley's review. Srnec (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi, Srnec, do you think the article has a chance for promotion? Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

A second pass...

• Antioch was a crusader state in the Near East, Oultrejordain a large fiefdom in the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, and he ruled both territories by right of one of his two wives. I do not agree with the addition of this sentence. It is highly unusual to place this kind of background information in the second sentence of the lead.

• Rewritten and shortened.

• In fact, I find the entire background section excessive. It would be absurd to repeat it at ever crusader lord's article, so why Raynald's? For me, wikilinks is how to provide background beyond basic definitions. I'm not sure why the peer reviewers thought this necessary in a biographical article. It seems unusual to me.

• Transformed into footnotes. I still need to check the wikilinks.

• He received the lordship of Châtillon-sur-Loire, but a part of his patrimony was "violently and unjustly confiscated", according to one of his letters. I think you should lead with his claim and then identify his lordship. As it is, this sentence still reads awkwardly to me. It might require more research to flesh out.

• Rewritten.

• The paragraph beginning Raymond of Poitiers, the Prince of Antioch does not mention Raynald. The information should perhaps be moved elsewhere or its relevance made clearer.

• Rewritten.

• The historian Steven Runciman says that Raynald had already settled in Antioch, and was engaged to Constance before the siege began. In contrast, the historian Malcolm Barber says that their betrothal took place during a visit by Raynald to the principality before the end of the siege. This makes too much of a minor distinction between being betrothed before or during a siege. I'd combine it into a single sentence and leave out inline attribution. The sources seem to agree that he was betrothed before the end of the siege.

• Rewritten.

• duke of Antioch. Unless and until an article on the office is created, I think we need an explanation of this title. Could go in a note. I did find this.

• I cannot open the link. Could you tell me the title?
  • I added a footnote. Borsoka (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Raynald captured and tortured him. I think "arrested" or "imprisoned" is the better word here.

• Done.

• Emperor Manuel sent his envoys to Antioch. This would be a good place for background.

• Done.

• According to Pharaoh's Island, "Ile de Graye" is a misnomer. We should probably avoid it.

• Indeed. Done.

• The title Kaisar needs some explanation (or wikilink).

• I deleted because his title is irrelevant in context.

• I notice inconsistent use of {{lang}} tags, although this is hardly a dealbreaker.

• I think I fixed all.

• I see no need to mention the opinion of a blogger associated with Breitbart. If this is the proper description of Delingpole—and his Wiki page suggests it is not—then he needn't be here.

• Delingpole's opinion is verified by a reference to Cotts, the author of the sole monography about modern perceptions of Raynald. As Delingpole is a representative of a extremist view, I think we should mention his PoV.

In terms of comprehensiveness, sourcing and neutrality, the article is fine, although I would have sought out some academic papers. Compared to Henry IV, it is not as readable. I suspect it is hard to follow for the average reader. Srnec (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Could you propose some academic papers? I would list them in section "Further reading". Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I think I understand most of your concerns. I will be trying to address them through structural changes, mainly by the most intensive use of notes. Borsoka (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Srnec, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review

All images are OK except possibly File:IIIBelaFotoThalerTamas.JPG. According to Wikipedia, the reburial of the Hungarian king was in 1898 which means if the artworks in the picture date to then, we are probably OK for copyright status per the commons PD-old-assumed. However, I cannot confirm that the artwork in the photo also dates to 1898—if the artist died after 1953 it is still likely copyrighted. I would be inclined to remove the image as it is not crucial to the reader's understanding of the article topic. (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Picture removed. Thank you for the image review. Borsoka (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I added a new image ([72]). I would be grateful for your review. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not PD-scan because three-dimensional elements of the book are captured. The photograph could be copyrightable in some jurisdictions, so I cropped it. As long as it isn't reverted you should be good. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• The first paragraph could give more context with a few words. I suggest adding that Antioch was one of the Crusader states, and that Raynald's marriage made him rule of Antioch.

• Expanded.

• "he married Constance, Princess of Antioch, in spite of her subjects' opposition". This is not supported in the main text, which gives the impression that they only found out about it and complained afterwards.

• Modified.

• "Always in need of funds, Raynald tortured Aimery of Limoges, Latin Patriarch of Antioch who had refused to pay a subsidy to him." Attributing the torture to shortage of funds is also not supported below. You give the immpression that it was retaliation for Aimery's insult in refusing the subsidy in protest at the marriage.

• I think the main text verifies the statement.

• You say "Aimery of Limoges, the wealthy Latin patriarch of Antioch, did not hide his dismay at Constance's second marriage. He even refused to pay a subsidy to Raynald. In retaliation, Raynald captured and tortured Aimery in the summer of 1154,[33] forcing him to sit naked and covered with honey in the sun, before imprisoning him. Aimery was only released on Baldwin III's demand, but he soon left his see for Jerusalem." I do not see how this verifies the statement. You say below in a different context that Raynald was always short of funds, but not in relation to his treatment of Aimery. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• I expanded the main text to make it clearer, and less ambiguous. Borsoka (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• "claiming that the truce between Saladin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem was not binding upon him". You have not said that there was a truce.

• Modified.

• "born around 1123 or 1125". This sounds odd to me. I would say around 1124 or between 1123 and 1125.

• Modified.

• "The 12th-century historian William of Tyre, who was Raynald's opponent". This reads to me as if he was an opponent in single combat. Maybe "was an enemy of Raynald".

• Modified.

• "and engaged to Constance before the siege began". "and was engaged" or "and became engaged".

• Modified.

• You several times use "propose that" to mean "argue that". Dictionaries do not give that meaning of "propose" and I think it would be better to use another word.

• Modified.

• "Buck proposes that Aimery's previous debates with the papacy over the Archbishopric of Tyre explain why Raynald was not excommunicated for his abuse of Aimery. Instead, Aimery excommunicated Raynald as a consequence of a conflict between Antioch and Genoa on the demand of the papacy." This is unclear. Are you saying that the pope forbade Aimery to excommunicate Raynald for his abuse but permitted it as a result of a conflict? What was the conflict and what was Raynald's part in it? Was the excommunication later lifted or did it become void when Aimery left Antioch? In view of the great seriousness of excommunication this needs much fuller explanation.

• Rephrased, but there is little information about the excommunication and its circumstances.

• "Before the capitulation of the garrison, Baldwin decided to grant the fortress to Thierry of Flanders, but Raynald demanded that the count should pay homage to him for the town. After Thierry sharply refused to swear fealty to an upstart, the crusaders abandoned the siege. "You imply at the beginning that the garrison surrendered and at the end that it did not.

• Rephrased.

• "Raynald hurried to Mamistra to voluntarily make his submission to the emperor." Presumably Raynald did not have the soldiers to fight Manuel, but it would be helpful to clarify this - or what other reason Raynald had to surrender.

• Expanded.

• Done to Captivity and release. More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comprehensive review and suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Ali ibn al-Athir and other Muslim historians record that Raynald made a separate truce with Saladin in 1186.[108] This "seems unlikely to be true"". "record" implies a true statement. As it is disputed, I suggest "stated".

• Done.

• "Saladin's mamluks". You show "mamluk" as an Arabic word, perhaps because it has a different meaning in English. It is not helpful to readers of English Wikipedia to have an untranslated word in a foreign language.

• Changed to "soldiers".

• "She was given in marriage to Raymond of Poitiers in 1136.[144] The widowed Constance's marriage to Raynald". It would be helpful to mention Raymond's death date for clarity.

• Done.

• "Their daughter, Agnes". You need to clarify that she was the daughter of Raynald and Constance.

• Done.

• 'Assessment'. From what I remember, historians also blame Raynald (and the Knights Templar) for the suicidal attack which led to Hattin. Should this be covered?

• Mentioned in section "Capture and execution".

• The last paragraph covers historians who argue on historical grounds and anti-Islam culture warriors such as Delingpole who glorify Raynald as an enemy of Islam. I think the use of Raynald in culture wars should be in a spearate section.

• Title changed to "In historiography and popular culture". I think section should not be splitted because historians' views influence popular perceptions, and historians express their views about popular perceptions. Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• I do not think it is correct to refer to popular culture and popular perceptions. Out of the two people you refer to, Jeffrey Lee has a first class degree in Islamic history and he is the author of a guide to the Prayer Book published by the Society of St John the Evangelist. Delingpole is, as I said above, an anti-Islamic culture warrior. I do not have access to Cotts' essay which you cite as the source, but if it covers Raynald's role in the culture wars (which you hint at) I think it should be covered as a separate topic. "Historiography" and "popular culture" are both misleading headings for this aspect. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Dudley Miles (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• What do you think if I delete the reference to Delingpole? I would not split the section. Borsoka (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have just seen that Lee's book was a biography, not a novel as you say. I think that makes the historiography heading (without popular culture) valid, but I think Raynald's role as a bogy to Moslems and a hero to anti-Moslems is important and worth spelling out in a separate paragraph. I would not delete Delingpole as his view is relevant to this aspect of the article. In the end it is your call. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Seeing its cover and title, I was convinced that it is a novel. After reading some sentences from the first chapters, I came to the conclusion that I was not fully wrong. Of course, I will change the the sentence. I would prefer the present structure: modern Muslim terrorists' view is based on medieval Muslim historians' narration, and independent of modern anti-Islamic culture warriors' opinion, whereas anti-Islamic culture warriors repeat or exaggerate views expressed by western historians who regarded Raynald as a heroe of Christianity or anti-Muslim warfare. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2024 (UT

• The last paragraph looks OK to me now, except for the description of Delingpole as a blogger, which does not tell us anything about him. Maybe quote his own self-description as a "libertarian conservative".

• I would not use his self-assessment, so I added an alternative introduction.

• "Historians such as Matthew Gabriele sharply criticised his approach". Gabriele is not listed in the sources. If you only have access to a quotation of his view, you could state the original source in a footnote.

• I have no access to Gabriele's work.

• It is very dangerous to state what an author says without checking the original source. There are many examples of academics copying misinterpretations of authors without checking the source. You could say "The scholar John Cotts states that historians such as Matthew Gabriele..." and add a footnote "Cotts cites Gabriele, his book, p. 00". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• I do not remember that our policy requires us to evaluate scholars' interpretation about primary sources. Why do you think a scholar's statement about an other scholar's work is more dangerous? Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Because sometimes they make obvious errors. I've seen articles by reputable sources using source X to argue that volcano Y was active when X was actually talking about volcano Z. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Exactly. Wikipedia should be a summary of reliable secondary sources, not primary sources, so there is a reasonable expectation that we have checked what reliable sources actually say. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Well, more like "reliable sources" - this kind of error happens more commonly to secondary sources and is the reason why for some kinds of information, primary ones are preferred. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• That would apply to articles about volcanoes. I was thinking of medieval history, where is does apply. I have never seen a primary medieval source which does not have errors, which is why they need interpretation by historians. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• The section heading "In historiography and popular culture" is misleading as popular culture is not a significant part of it. Maybe "In historiography and culture wars".

• I would rather return to "Historiography and perceptions".

• Hamilton, "Elephant of Christ", in sources should show that it is a chapter in Religious Motivation Biographical and Sociological Problems for the Church Historian, edited by Derek Baker.

• Added.

• It seems odd to list the only biography of Raynald in further reading and just quote a second-hand opinion of it. Lee is not a professional historian but as he has a First Class degree in Arabic and Islamic History from Oxford he is not simply a popular writer. (I wrote above that he is author of a guide to the Prayer Book but that seems to be a different Jeffrey Lee.) Dudley Miles (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• It is not a peer-reviewed book. Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Then it should not be in further reading. If you mention a book, you have to provide publication details in the sources. See how I have dealt with this issue in note 2 and references of Edmund Ætheling. If you disagree with my approach, I would be interested to hear what you think I should have done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• I deleted Lee's work from section "Further reading". Publication details of each book and article that are cited in the article are provided in section "Sources". Would you clarify what is your concern? Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• On reflection I agree that the sources section should only include ones that are reliable, but publication details should be provided of any work discussed in the article. What do you think of my revised note 2 in Edmund Ætheling? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your suggestion. Added both Gabriele (in a note), and Delingpole. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have got a copy of Gabriele which I can send to you if you email me. The journal is The Historian, not The History. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• I would be grateful. You can send me an email from now because I changed my profile to allow correspondence. Sorry, I do not know how I could send an email.

• If you go to my user page you will see an option 'Email this user' on the left. If I email you, Wikipedia will not allow me to attach a document, but if you email me I can attach to my reply. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• I sent you an email. Thank you for your offer. I changed the journal's title.

• Thank you for the copy. I slightly expanded the article basedon on Gabriele's review. Borsoka (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• I do not see why you list Delingpole and not Lee in sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I am now totally confused. You suggested that Gabriele's work should be mentioned in the article, because his PoV is verified only by a reference to an other scholar's work. What is the difference between the two cases (namely, Gabriele and Delingpole)? A quote from Delingpole was earlier verified only by a reference to an other scholar's work, so I added a direct reference to his work. Lee's PoV is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Why should I cite him? Borsoka (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• The cases are different. Gabriele is an RS and the issue was that you cite his view but did not provide a reference. Delingpole is not an RS but you cite him. You said that you have not cited Lee because he is not an RS, so I was asking why you cite one non-RS but not the other. Personally, I think that they are both RSs for the use of Raynald in culture wars even though they are not for his life, but other editors disagree and you have to be consistent. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think the three authors can be divided into two group: (1) Gabriele's and Delingpole's PoV are mentioned in the article, so - in accordance with your logic - their works containing their PoV should also be mentioned; (2) Lee's PoV is not mentioned anywhere in the article, so his book is not relevant. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• I do not understand what you mean by saying that Lee's PoV (point of view) is not mentioned. You say "In 2017, the journalist Jeffrey Lee published a biography about Raynald, entitled God's Wolf, presenting him in a nearly hagiographic style as a loyal, valiant, and talented warrior." This is a summary of his POV. It is presumably another writer's description, so you should attribute it inline and provide a citation immediately afterwards. You also need to give full publication details of Lee's book in a footnote.

• Done.
• No, it is a summary of Cobbs' critic of Lee's work. I made it clear in the article.

• You do not cite Cobb for this. You should add a citation at the end of the sentence. You also need to give the details of Lee's book in a footnote as you comment on it. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• I am not clear why you do not quote Lee as a source directly, particularly as his book is the only biography of Raynald. You said that it reads like a novel so you have access to it. He is not an RS, but neither is Dellingpole, and you do quote him. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Because Lee's book "does violence to the study of the past", according to a historian's review of his book (cited in the article). No, I do not have full access to it.

Hi, Dudley Miles, did I miss something, do you suggest any more edit? Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I am just back from holiday and will look again in the next few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• "Among modern historians, Hamilton "attempts to dispel" Raynald's "bad press" (Cobb).[167] He describes Raynald as "an experienced and responsible crusader leader" who made several attempts to prevent Saladin from uniting the Muslim realms along the borders of the crusader states." This is confusing. You first appear to quote Hamilton, and then add (Cobb), implying it was not him you are quoting. For clarity, I suggest "Hamilton describes Raynald as "an experienced and responsible crusader leader" who made several attempts to prevent Saladin from uniting the Muslim realms along the borders of the crusader states." Cobb describes Hamilton's comments as "attempts to dispel" Raynald's "bad press". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Done.

• "historians such as Matthew Gabriele sharply criticised Lee's approach." You cite this to Cotts, but you should cite to Gabriele himself as you now have access to it - or cite the comment inline to Cotts. You should always cite inline when describing one historian's description of another historian's views, not make it a bald statement of fact. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Gabriele is directly quoted in the following sentence. The quote verifies that he indeed sharply criticise Lee's approach. Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Citing Cotts for Gabriele's view is wrong and unncecessary. You can move the Delingpole citation to the end of the sentence about his view, delete the Cotts citation and cite all Gabriele's comments to himself. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Cotts write of more than one historian's opinion about Lee's book, so I would not delete the citation. I moved the Delingpole citation. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with moving the Delingpole citation, but it appears to make him the citation for "In 2017, the journalist Jeffrey Lee published a biography about Raynald, entitled God's Wolf, presenting him, according to a fellow historian, in a nearly hagiographic style as a loyal, valiant, and talented warrior." I suggest changing "a fellow historian" to "the historian John Cotts" and citing the comment to him. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Done.

• No change needed unless historian has commented on the point, but it seems very unlikely that Baldwin of Antioch was Raynald's son. He would have to be born after 1153, which would make him very young to move to Constantinople in the early 1160s, become a senior adviser to the emperor and die in 1176. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Interestingly, authors publishing recently came to the conclusion that Baldwin was Raynald's son. Even if he was born in 1153, he died at the age of 22. Perhaps, the elderly Manuel did not trust his Greek relatives, and he needed a loyal commander who would protect his young son by Baldwin's elder sister Maria, so he (or she) promoted Baldwin's career. Borsoka (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request. Is Paul Cobb unused? Looks like source format is consistentish and we are using university books and reputable historians as sources. I wonder if there are academic papers, too. Does this character have any presence in popular culture? I kinda wonder if basing Raynald's assessment mostly on a 1978 author is correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your source review and comments. I expanded the article, so Cobb is now cited several times. I have not searched for academic papers because I think the article summarizes relevant scholarly literature. I added two sentences about Raynald's presentation in the film Kingdom of Heaven, and also about a historic novel dedicated to him. In the article, Raynald's assessment was based on three historians' PoV, now a further historian is added. Hamilton's positive assessment from 1987 is still regularly mentioned in scholarly works. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, just checking if this is a pass. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, with the caveat that I didn't spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2 April 2024 [73].

---

Knowledge

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Knowledge is one of those everyday phenomena that seems relatively straightforward to grasp but is very difficult to precisely define. It is the main topic of epistemology and plays a key role in many fields, including the sciences. Thanks a lot to Thebiguglyalien for their detailed GA review, to Z1720, GuineaPigC77, and Tom B for their peer reviews, and to Biogeographist for all the improvement ideas and talk-page discussions. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Generalissima

Reserving a spot to review this later! Generalissima (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh gosh dang it I have been slow to get back to this. Dearest apologies! I will try my hardest to do a prose review over the next few days. Generalissima (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima 750h+ (talk) 14:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

This looks an impressive article, but as I am to abstract concepts what walruses are to needlework I can't venture to comment on its balance or comprehensiveness. I have only three comments on the prose:

• "Sources of knowledge are ways how people come to know things" – "ways how" is awkward. Something like "ways in which" or "ways by which", perhaps?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• "an infinite amount of reasons" – can one have an amount of reasons? One might expect "number of reasons" here.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• "Johanes Gutenburg" – forename and surname both misspelled.

  I fixed the image alt-text and the description on the image page. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Good luck with the FAC, and I hope someone better equipped than I am to comment meaningfully shows up soon. – Tim riley talk 15:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a leap to venture into this difficult territory and for the helpful comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I would really love to add my support for promoting the article to FA, which I am fairly sure it deserves, and I shall watch this page to see if editors more competent than I on such topics give it the thumbs-up, in which case I'll be happy to add my support. Bonne chance! Tim riley talk 19:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Image review (pass)

• File:Saraswati - Raja Ravi Varma.jpg has a dead link as a source. I've gone ahead and added a archived version of the url.
• Everything else looks good.

Pass Sohom (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review and for taking care of the source link. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Pass for a prose review. Rather like Tim, above, I have limited knowledge (both in the subject and more generally), so I'll hold off a full support until someone more qualified than me comes along to support, at which point I will happily follow suit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing the prose review! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Support from Jens

This is an excellently written article. I like the many examples that really help with understanding. Only a few nitpicks, and questions that came to me while reading the article:

• Introspection allows people to learn about their internal mental states and processes. Other sources of knowledge include memory, rational intuition, inference, and testimony. – What about the knowledge how to ride a bicycle? Where does this knowledge come from? Is it perception?

  Experience is required to learn how to ride a bicycle but I'm not sure about the details. I would assume that various different sources are involved with perception probably playing a key part in that experience to get familiar with all the sensory information involved in the process. Generally speaking, knowledge-how can depend on various sources, including testimony. For example, if someone gives you an accurate description of how to walk from A to B then you know how to walk from A to B based on that testimony. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Testimony – In the lead, maybe add examples, to make clear that this includes books etc.

  I added an explanatory footnote to clarify this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Is knowledge restricted to humans? Can plants have knowledge? Is genetic information knowledge? Can we say that anything that is able to learn has knowledge?

  That depends on whom you ask and how they define knowledge. The example with the ant knowing how to walk in the subsection "Non-propositional" is taken from Pritchard 2013. This source also suggests that some sophisticated creatures other than humans may have propositional knowledge. I don't think the term "know" is usually applied to plants. For example, saying that a plant "knows how to grow" sounds strange. The overview sources that I'm aware of give very little attention to animal knowledge and do not mention plant knowledge. Genetic information could be responsible for some forms of a priori knowledge, for example, by structuring our brains in a way that we automatically know basic arithmetic truths. I'm not sure about whether being able to learn implies knowledge. Computer programs and websites can learn things about users by gathering information. Is storing this information in a databank sufficient to say that they know things? The answer to that question probably depends mostly on how one defines learn and know. Some epistemologists hold that there is innate knowledge, that is, knowledge that is inborn and does not need to be learned. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, in some way trees can learn from mistakes, so I would say they "know" things [74]; that's where I am coming from. I am not asking to add that to the article, of course. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• The article states that knowledge is a justified belief, and that knowing how to ride a bicycle is knowledge. What exactly is the belief when riding a bicycle?

  There are different views on the details. According to one view, the belief concerns the procedure of riding a bicycle, i.e., the different steps involved in the process. But not everyone accepts the traditional characterization of knowledge as justified belief and it is controversial to what extent this characterization fits knowledge-how. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• For example, an ant knows how to walk – I am not sure about this example. It is like saying that humans know how to breath – but this is a reflex and not learned, so it it really knowledge?

  The example is taken from Pritchard 2013 and a similar example involving ants is found in Pavese 2022. I added a footnote to include this concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Some types of knowledge-how do not require a highly developed mind, in contrast to propositional knowledge, and are more common in the animal kingdom. – Why restricting this to the animal kingdom and not life in general?

  I answered this in part in the earlier response: this is how the academic sources deal with the issue and it also seems to reflect how ordinary language mostly uses the term know. A more interesting answer might be that knowledge is related to mind or higher cognition and that animals have it while plants don't. But it is controversial where mind starts and ends so we would have to be careful about including this type of claim in the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• to understand the claim in which the term is expressed – I don't understand this wording. Wouldn't just "to understand the claim" enough? What is the "in which the term is expressed" adding?

  You are right, the original formulation was unclear so I reformulated it. If we wanted to have a shorter version, your suggestion would also work. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Some conscious phenomena are excluded in this context, like rational insight into the solution of a mathematical problem – I first thought that "this context" refers to a priori/a posteriori, i.e., that some claims are neither a posteriori nor a priori. Maybe replace "this context" with "relevant experience" for clarity. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Jens Lallensack: Thanks for the review and the thought-provoking questions. I tried to answer them as best as I could. I fear that at least some responses raise more questions than they answer, which is often the case with philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

PJW

To begin, it must be acknowledged that this is an article of extraordinary generality. Knowledge as such cannot be adequately covered in a monograph, much less an encyclopedia article. This, as far as I can see, makes it almost impossible to assess with respect to FAC criterion 1.b on comprehensiveness—and also, at least for me, with respect to 2.b on appropriate structure. If there exist any policies or previous discussions directly relevant on this point, it would be appropriate to link out to them here.

That said, I nevertheless have serious reservations about supporting this promotion. These reservations are, on my reading, a consequence of the intrinsic difficulty of covering such a broad topic for a general audience. But I am not sure how best to treat this. An obvious possibility would to commit, instead, to summary style. This, however, would be a massive project for which no one is volunteering—and which would outright obviate this entire discussion. So, let not the best (should it be even that!) be the enemy of the better.

Hello PatrickJWelsh and thanks for your detailed comments. I've pushed back on several of them and we'll have to explore where the middle ground lies. You are right that the topic of knowledge is vast, which makes comprehensiveness a key challenge. As I understand it, the FA criteria should not be applied to the topic in general, like its intrinsic difficulty, but to the article. The main reason is that, as Wikipedia editors, we can't do much about the topic itself. We can only try to properly cover it. This is also implied by the FA instructions: Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

HI @Phlsph7, thanks for your point-by-point responses! I welcome the push-back. I've responded to some in turn, and there is at least one more that I intend to address. I also have a few other notes on "In various disciplines" to contribute to this process.

I should add that I understand and support the policy point you cite. My standard of comprehensiveness for an article like this is probably unreasonably high (my own emphasis here on myself). I would request other editors assess my comments accordingly.

Although I doubt that I will support promotion, I do not oppose it. If this were not a good article, that would be immediately apparent to me, and I would not be shy in actively speaking out against promotion. My comments are presented for the consideration of others and, most importantly, as a possible impetus to further improvements. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

General comment 1: It is too long. (And I would submit that I probably have a longer attention span than most readers.) If it is possible without compromising the content, this article would benefit from an aggressive round of cuts.

The article has a readable prose size of 8152 words. According to the rules of thumb explained at WP:SIZERULE, starting for articles with over 8000 words, they May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size.. If you feel strongly about this rule of thumb, I could try to shave of those 152 words. But this length is not uncommon for articles on topics with this kind of scope and an aggressive round of cuts would impact comprehensiveness negatively. So I think there is a strong case for why the length of the article itself is not a problem. I had a look but I didn't feel that any of the sections should be spun off into a new child article so it seems to me that the article follows WP:Summary style. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If it's not of concern to other referees, y'all should please just disregard this comment. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

General comment 2: I am concerned that it is overly biased towards the concerns of philosophical epistemology. Point 2.1: some of the details in this area seem unlikely to be of general interest. And, more importantly, – point 2.2: — Is there not also an underrepresented literature on this topic grounded in the cognitive sciences? My own background is in philosophy, but we do not have a monopoly on what counts as knowledge, as this article might be taken to imply.

I wouldn't say "biased" but I agree that the epistemological perspective plays a central role in the article. The main reason is that epistemology is the main field of inquiry studying knowledge, similar to how biology is the main field of inquiry studying life. The article includes perspectives from many other fields, like history, religion, anthropology, and sociology. But the inquiry into the characteristics of knowledge is not the key concern of these fields. The cognitive sciences study cognitive processes, information, and the like, but, as far as I'm aware, the specific topic of knowledge in contrast to these related concepts is not a central research topic in this field. It would be possible to include a short explanation of Goldman's epistemics but my impression is that research under this label has not received that much attention so far. Some topics relevant to the cognitive sciences are discussed in the subsection "In various disciplines#Others". I'm open to more topic suggestions in regard to the cognitive sciences if you have expertize in this area. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

My objection here – and it is my central objection – is that this article reads to me too much like an excellent article written from the highly relevant, but nevertheless quite specific, perspective of Anglo-American analytic epistemology.

It is my strong impression that there is a lot of empirical work being done by scientists who take themselves to be studying knowledge (for instance, its acquisition and reliability) that is not adequately represented by this – once again, in so many respects, excellent – article.

The source of this "strong impression", however, is many years of listening to long-form interviews and reading the sorts of publication that profile such scientists. That is to say that I cannot point you in the direction of anything that would be useful, should I even be correct in my assessment that this is, indeed, a genuine shortcoming with respect to the FAC criterion of comprehensiveness. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, this just occurs to me. I am here because of a second request for participation on the WikiProject Philosophy noticeboard. Have you checked whether there are any active boards in the relevant empirical sciences? If so, have you posted there as well? Someone attesting (see that!) even just to being an undergrad research assistant, or something like that, signing off on the comprehensiveness of the article would considerably assuage my concerns. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for being slow to comprehend but I'm struggling with how to make sense of your central objection. You say that the article lacks comprehensiveness but it's not clear what concrete topics this concerns besides the vague suggestion that they belong to the cognitive sciences.

In trying to better understand your concern, I did some digging and I had a look at the 8-volume APA Encyclopedia of Psychology: it does not have an entry on the topic Knowledge. I also had a look at the 4-volume Wiley Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science: it does not contain an article on the topic Knowledge but it does contain an article on the topic Knowledge representation, which focuses on the field of artificial intelligence. In our article, this is discussed in the 3rd paragraph of the subsection "In various disciplines#Others". Do you feel that this long paragraph is not sufficient to deal with the topic? Would the situation be improved by adding a second paragraph on that topic? (By the way, I now posted an FA notice to WikiProject Cognitive science.) Phlsph7 (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

General comment 3: A major topic that this article does not address is the limits of knowledge. Because the nominating editor knows my own philosophical background and interests, I should say that I would support, at most, a short paragraph on Kant. Gödel's incompleteness theorems, however, as well as theories of quantum indeterminacy, present serious challenges to some of the most basic assumptions about the possibilities of knowledge. This is a matter of interest to a general audience that deserves to be addressed under its own heading.

The sections "Sources", "Philosophical skepticism", and "Religion" address various limits of knowledge but there is surely more to be said on this topic. As I understand it, Gödel's incompleteness theorems are about the relation between completeness and provability in formal systems of logic and belong to the field of metalogic. Given some additional assumptions, maybe some interesting conclusion about the characteristics of knowledge can be drawn from them but the theorems themselves are not about knowledge. The reliable overview sources on knowledge that I'm aware of don't discuss how quantum indeterminacy limits the possibility of knowledge. If you know of a high-quality source that present these issues as topics of vital importance to knowledge in general then I would be happy to include them. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

General comment 4: The disciplinary sections filed under "Others" introduces massive issues entirely unaddressed by the article. Our computers "know" more than would ever even be possible for a human to know. This complaint predates even the Internet and, in this context, should be acknowledged—even if we are not in any position to draw any kind of conclusions. Technological advances and media coverage have been been exponentially exploding in even just the past few years. What computers can or do "know" – especially when it is beyond human possibility – is a topic that seems to me deserves to be acknowledged in this article.

Do computer "know" anything? This depends very much on your definition of knowledge. The claim that they store knowledge is less controversial, similar to how books store knowledge, as discussed in the subsection "In various disciplines#Others". The historical topic of the influence of the development of computers and the Internet on knowledge is covered in the last paragraph of the section "History". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

My point here is just that I would have liked to see the article more directly address the opening interrogative of your response. My own intuitions are strongly opposed to this, but I do find them challenged by recent innovations in AI. I am afraid, however, that my primary source on this is regularly listening to the NYT Hard Fork podcast. So I do not have any good sources to which I can point you on this issue. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would assume this question belongs to the field of the philosophy of artificial intelligence. I don't think it's one of the key questions in this field but there are various related questions, for example, whether machines can have a mind and/or consciousness. I could try to do some digging here but the fact that digging is required gives me the impression that this is not a central topic. The overview sources on knowledge that I'm aware of do not address this specific problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Specific comment i: Self-knowledge and its limits seem to me to deserve more detailed treatment than they are given as one "Type" among the "Others" and also, in more detail, as a general "Source". In contemporary philosophy, Nietzsche and Freud are probably the dominant figures on this point. It is, however, in no way an original insight on their behalves; they just happen to be prominent for pressing back against the excesses of the Enlightenment in recent history. Plato knew this, Augustine knew this, and it is abundantly supported by recent empirical research in psychology: we are not the authorities on ourselves that we so often take ourselves to be. And this seems to me to be the kind of thing that is likely to be of interest to the average reader of Wikipedia.

The term self-knowledge is used in various different senses. If we take self-knowledge as knowledge of the self then you can get self-knowledge from various sources. They even include testimony, for example, when someone tells you something about your character that you did not know before. As far as I'm aware, self-knowledge is not generally treated as a source of knowledge besides the other sources already mentioned in the section "Sources" but rather as a type of knowledge. For example, Steup & Neta 2020 discusses the sources of knowledge mentioned in our section "Sources" and does not mention "self-knowledge". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The work I had in mind writing this comment is Timothy Wilson's 2002 Strangers to Ourselves.

More generally, while I consider it obvious that our (seemingly privileged) claims to knowledge of ourselves are massively fallible, I have found, just in the ordinary course of conversation, that there are highly intelligent people who do not recognize this.

Maybe it is outside the scope of the article to say anything more about this, but it still seems relevant to me. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, the book looks interesting and I'll see what can be used. However, there is the danger of overemphasizing the importance of this topic. For example, right at the beginning of the preface, the book states that ...self-knowledge has not been a mainstream topic in academic psychology. There are few college courses on self-knowledge and few books devoted to the topic.... I don't think a much more detailed treatment of this topic is justified in our article. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I found a way to use Wilson's book in short footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This comment also ties into the concerns of another reviewer about know-how vs. knowledge-that, which I agree might be expanded with benefit to the article. We are strangers to ourselves, yet unthinkingly we rely upon proprioceptive self-knowledge, which rarely fails us—except when it fails us reliably due to head trauma. The kind of knowledge, however you describe it, that allows us to move through the world – so often, so effortlessly – seems to me to deserve more attention. Many in the phenomenological tradition of philosophy argue that propositional knowledge is parasitic on this more basic sort of pre-understanding upon the basis of which we are able to move through the world in a way that makes possible the sort of knowledge with which this article is primarily occupied. Not at all suggesting article-wide revisions in support of this point, which is not universally accepted, just that the article would benefit from better coverage in some appropriate section.

Do you have a specific source in mind in regard to the importance of the role of proprioceptive self-knowledge? I'm not opposed to covering this in more detail as long as we avoid giving too much emphasis to the phenomenological perspective. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do! Shaun Gallagher's How the Body Shapes the Mind. I've not read it since it came out in 2005, but "proprioception" has multiple entries in the index. So probably it should be possible to add this without reading the whole thing? If you want to look at it but can't find a copy, email me and I'll see what I can do. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, I already have access to the book. I'll have a look through it but, form a first look, I don't think that self-knowledge is a central topic in it. According to this google book search, the term only comes up 3 times. All these matches are from the bibliography rather then the text of the book itself. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Specific comment ii: Almost nothing in the section "Philosophical skepticism" is anything that anyone, per even just this article, takes seriously—or even pretends to take seriously in the seminar room. If my other related suggestions are found to have merit, I suggest that anything here that cannot be incorporated into a discussion of legitimate limits to knowledge should be removed entirely.

I have more notes, but this is more than enough for now. Please, anyone reading this, do not be shy about pressing back or expressing any other sort of view, supportive, contrary, or otherwise.

Cheers, all best, et cetera —

Philosophical skepticism is a central topic in the literature on knowledge and many overview sources on knowledge cover it in detail. Removing the section entirely would hurt comprehensiveness. Its influence is not so much from philosophers who explicity defended philosophical skepticism but from everyone else who felt the need to defend their own non-skeptical position against its central arguments. This is explained right at the beginning of the section. If you feel that the discussion is too detailed then I'm open to removing some details. Which claims would you remove or trim? Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Chipping in to deal with "Knowledge as such cannot be adequately covered in a monograph, much less an encyclopedia article". That's certainly not true. It's a topic covered in most encyclopaedias, including from the first editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi there, @SchroCat! I went to the version of Britannica currently online to see how its entry reads. I was expecting that this would allow me to go on the record saying that it was riddled with problems and that I would have opposed its promotion, were it to have been nominated here (although I was also very ready to be surprised!). However, it seems the editors reversed course: there no longer appears to be any such article. (Also, apparently Britannica is so unreliable that links to search queries there have been blacklisted.) Is "knowledge" just the wrong search term? I don't think it's relevant in either direction, but, if they had something and then proactively removed it, that would seem to support my general contention that it is stupidly difficult to write anything encyclopedic on a topic as general as knowledge. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  The online version of the EB is a joke that should be ignored. Use a library and the printed word - see here.

  I reject your view completely (even though you are now saying "intelligence", on which is it also possible to write an encyclopaedic article (Please don't change your comment after someone has replied to it - see WP:TALK#REVISE for the better course)). Not only is it possible to write an encyclopaedic article on any subject, the printed version of the EB did it a couple of centuries ago, and I'll certainly stick to their opinion on the subject. I think the best advice you can take right now is to focus any comments onto the FA criteria. That is what this nomination is being judged on, not any single individual's personal beliefs about whether a subject matter is valid. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, and yikes! If I had realized anyone had responded to my comment, I would not have edited it. Sorry.

  If, per your username, you have any sort of expert knowledge pertaining to quantum indeterminacy, that would be very welcome above.

  To your general concern, all of my comments here are predicated on the general assumption of assessment by other editors according to any and all relevant policies. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would submit that the fact this appears as a central topic in the relevant literature is evidence that the literature under consideration is too narrowly field-specific. Do we seriously need to be addressing imaginary demons or The Matrix?

I strongly suspect that any argument that relies upon this sort of extreme skepticism (to arrive at any conclusion beyond that such skepticism is self-defeating) is probably a rubbish argument. If you have an example to the contrary, I would review it with interest, independently of what might be the best version of this article.

If you want to keep this as its own section, I would be happy to make cuts myself in a piecemeal way so that you could easily revert any with which you disagree. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Both the dream argument and the brain in a vat thought experiment are widely cited and discussed, they are not restricted to some esoteric fringe circles. If the point is to shorten the section, then one option would be to remove one of them (or maybe put it as footnote rather than as part of the main text). If you edit this section, please be careful to not impose your personal view on which argument is a rubbish argument. The better approach might be to first get familiar with the relevant sources, like the ones cited, and then make adjustment to better reflect those sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The wikilink on the dream argument supports its inclusion. I was too quick to associate this extremely general sort of skepticism just with Descartes. The brain-in-a-vat stuff, however, I still think ought to go—just on the basis of "what does this add?" Plus there is a huge literature of far more compelling skeptical arguments, ancient and contemporary, that could be included instead. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Continuation

I'm going to be more brief here because otherwise I am afraid I will not get to it at all. The new header is just because the above is already long—and it still awaits my own further response. Most of these comments are specific to "In various disciplines". I continue with my numbering system just on the chance it might be helpful for discussion.

Specific comment iii: I agree that science is taken to be an exemplary source of knowledge (and for excellent reasons!). I must confess, however, that I find the treatment here quite unsatisfying. It is indeed often worthwhile to really take apart basic concepts, and in this context it is entirely appropriate. But all we get here is three paragraphs that read as if addressed to a highly literate person who somehow has no concept of experimental science. And then the article just moves on to the next topic of history (very nice work on that one, by the way). How is this not its own higher-level section with sub-sections on, for instance, the natural and social sciences?

Most people, I believe, think that most of the best knowledge comes from science. The philosophy of science (as you of course know, perhaps even better than me) is its own field. It is considered separate from epistemology, not because it is not extremely relevant to the study of knowledge, but because it is so important and enormous and because it also touches other major branches of philosophy. (And this is even just setting aside the question of the relevance to this article of the work of scientists themselves.)

I agree, there is a lot to be said about science and there are many ways how this section could be expanded. The difficulty here is just to get the balance right while not trying to fit too much into the article. I could imagine making it a main section, maybe not with subsections, but adding one paragraph each on natural and social sciences. I'll wait a little to see if other people have an opinion on that before I get started. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I expanded the subsection "Science" to make it a main section. I added a discussion of the natural and the social sciences. I also managed to mention Gadamer's outlook on truth/knowledge beyond the scientific method as discussed in his Truth and Method, which I assume is one of the concerns you had about including a hermeneutic perspective. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

General comment 5: This is another one that is just genuinely hard, but which I need to raise even though I do not have a solution. My question is, Who is this written for? Apparently almost 2,000 people visit this article every day. Yet, unlike with other articles I've worked on, I do not have a sense of who they are or what they are looking for. This makes it quite difficult to comment upon—and I can only imagine how much more difficult it must have made it to write. Unfortunately, it also makes it sometimes hard to read.

For instance, we are told (with three supporting sources!) that "Knowledge contrasts with ignorance", which is just a massive "duh!", and then we are provided with an admirably concise and informative paragraph on the etymology of "knowledge" that is pitched at a completely different reader.

Everything is clearly written and fully grammatical, but the article seems to me to not know where it is rhetorically in a way that sometimes makes it hard to read. I suspect that this is the main reason that it feels too long to me—even as I am at the same time requesting the addition of a considerable amount of material. The "Science" section is an example of this.

I'm not sure who the typical reader is. Chances are that there is no one typical reader and people from all walks of life somehow find their way to the article. I usually write less with a specific reader in mind and focus more on certain criteria that the article should fulfill. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

(I apologize, by the way, for my in places ungenerous characterization of your hard work on this article. However, you nominated it for promotion to FA-"the best Wikipedia has to offer" status, and you requested input from everyone on the WikiProject Philosophy board. So I am not pulling punches. As you know, I think your work is incredible, and I would not be commenting here at all if I did not think you could roll with those punches, or if I thought that it would discourage you from continuing to contribute to this project and other areas of Wikipedia. If you think that I am running up against the boundaries of civility, please tell me.)

We may not always be of the same opinion and it may take us a while to get on the same page but I appreciate your in-depth and candid feedback. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Glad to hear! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Specific comment iv: Is there any reason to discuss specific religions in a general article on knowledge? It is great that the person writing this has this background, but I would cut the last two paragraphs.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

For better or worse, religion is still an important part of the lives of many people and discussing the role of knowledge at least in the main religions helps make the text more concrete. I don't think the last 2 paragraphs are absolutely necessary but I also don't think that this subsection is overly long. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Round two

I gave the article another read this morning and have a few more notes to share. Again, some are specific and probably easy to address, whereas others would require further research and would lengthen the article. I'll look again at your responses above, but, as much as I can, I will pursue my main points here at the bottom instead. If at any point something that I have neglected would benefit from my direct response, please just call it to my attention directly. (I find it very difficult to keep track of all the different threads in this unstructured format...)

• The section lead of "Definitions" acknowledges several not necessarily incompatible definitions. Its subsections, however, focus upon one specific debate about just one of those definitions. My ideal article would expand in a similar manner upon some of the non-propositional definitions (or, actually, it would redirect out to child articles to this effect). The structural issue, however, could be addressed just by readjusting the levels of section headings.

  This focus is intentional since there is just so much more discussion of these definitions. This is reflected, for example, in the fact that there is a whole area of epistemology, the analysis of knowledge, dedicated to this topic. I'm not aware of many in-depth debates about how to define knowledge-how. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• I very much like the article's presentation of the Gettier problem, which is highly relevant and of likely interest to even the majority of readers who have never heard of it. The second two paragraphs on responses, however, get too much into the weeds for readers who have not, in fact, heard of it until just having read the first two paragraphs. I suspect you might here lose a lot of the very few readers who actually began the article with the intention of reading the whole thing through. Consider cutting back?

  I tried to simplify that part, I hope I didn't overdo it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• The a priori—a posteriori distinction is presented as if a matter of uncontroversial fact when, in fact, it has been directly challenged by philosophers as diverse as Hegel and Quine. There should be at least a sentence or qualifying clause to acknowledge this.

  As I understand it, Quine's main challenge was directed at the analytic-synthetic distinction. Are you sure that he also challenged the a prior-a posteriori distinction? There is a close connection between the two distinctions but there are also some differences. As a naturalist, Quine may hold that there is no a priori knowledge but I don't think he denies the very distinction. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was probably confused about Quine, who I have not read since undergrad, and I withdraw this objection. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Is metaknowledge really its own type of knowledge at all? Much less deserving mention in this context?

  I don't think that there are strict criteria on what counts as a "type" of knowledge. In one sense, knowledge about cats is a type of knowledge. It's difficult to say whether metaknowledge is important enough to be mentioned. One of the cited articles is exclusively on this topic and metaknowledge is important in formal epistemology. Since we only have 3 sentences, I would tend to leave them as they are. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't feel strongly about it, but I don't think you want to lean to heavily on there's a whole article devoted to this highly specific, but still relevant issue! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• I would like to see more on situated knowledge. I suspect that I am not alone in finding it intrinsically interesting. This would also help to correct against what I perceive as a perhaps undo emphasis upon propositional knowledge. Further, I find the article's specific association of this kind of knowledge with feminism and postmodernism to be extremely weird. Is this not phenomenology 101? Probably also pretty basic to developmental psychology? (More on the political dimension to follow.)

  Do you have specific claims or ideas associated with situated knowledge that you think should be mentioned? It's an important term in some feminist circles, specifically surrounding the work of Donna Haraway, and more could be said on that. The terms situated cognition and embodied cognition are associated with phenomenology but I'm not sure about situated knowledge. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was thinking about the issues denoted by the phenomenological terms, although I would also be happy to see Haraway covered. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• The article to me seems to understate the unreliability of memory in even perfectly healthy and "normal" individuals. For instance, I believe there is good empirical evidence that we unwittingly fabricate memories upon the basis of photos or stories we have heard about ourselves—especially in childhood or the otherwise more distant past, and also that we become increasingly confident in them the more times we recount them. This can be an issue of considerable importance in legal contexts, among, I am sure, many others.

  I added a short mention of confabulation. I don't want to overemphasize this point since memory is usually considered a reliable source despite its lapses. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  That probably makes sense for an epistemology article. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Do we really need the paragraph on knowledge management? Or, at minimum, could it be cut back? Unless it's directly building towards something, no one needs to be told that knowledge we wish to be retained should be stored in a reliable medium, of which there are several.

  I shortened the passage in question. It might be good to keep the paragraph to ensure a variety of views from different disciplines. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm fine with this. It's probably what some people are here looking for, which makes its lack of philosophical interest (at least, to me) irrelevant. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That is pretty much it in terms of minor edits. I exempt only a few quibbles with the lead that are best left until the body is, at least per this process, provisionally settled.

I'm going to follow up with a second post under this header on potentially larger issues, but I'm not sure I'll finish it tonight. (I call these issues "larger" just because, if they have merit, it would probably take a lot of work to address them. But they might not have merit!)

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm probably not going to be able to get to this for a few days. Since I promised "potentially larger issues", however, I owe it to you to at least say what they are—even if I don't have time to make my case.

Basically, I think that an appropriately general philosophical article about knowledge needs full sections addressing the concerns of hermeneutics and those of critical theory (and various area studies: think, e.g., "feminist epistemology"). The SEP article[75] is a solid source on the first. Not sure about the second.

If you have access to Habermas's Knowledge and Human Interests, take a look at section V of the Appendix (pp. 308–11). He distinguishes three types of knowledge according to three basic human interests. This article focuses almost entirely on the first (hence my earlier allegation of bias towards the concerns of Anglo-American analytic epistemology). Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

From his SEP article[76]: "According to Habermas, there are three knowledge-constitutive interests. The empirical and natural sciences are governed by the cognitive interest in the technical control of objectified processes. The historical-hermeneutical sciences are shaped by a practical interest in orienting action and reaching understanding, while self-reflection (and Erkenntniskritik) are determined by a cognitive interest in emancipation and in Mündigkeit—autonomy and responsibility (1968b [1971a: 313–314])." Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm also interested in these fields and I know that you are closely associated with them. However, based on the high-quality overview sources that I'm aware of, they seem to be minor topics in regard to the subject of knowledge in general and dedicating a full section to each of them would be a violation of WP:PROPORTION. For example, I checked several sources (the IEP article on knowledge, the Oxford short introduction, and the SEP article on epistemology): none of them contains a section dedicated to these fields. I also searched for the terms "hermeneutics", "critical theory", "Habermas", and "feminism" (and their related forms): I got no hits in any of these sources, except for 2 mentions of feminist epistemology in the SEP article. I could look at more sources, like the article in the Routledge Encyclopedia article, but I assume the result would be similar. I'll see where it makes sense to mention these topics without going into a detailed discussion.

You seem to suggest that the article is biased because it "focuses almost entirely on" how "The empirical and natural sciences are governed by the cognitive interest in the technical control of objectified processes". I read through our main sections but I had a very hard time making sense of this objection. The only subsection explicitly focused on science is the subsection called "Science", which you thought should be expanded. Do you think that this potential bias of most of the article is obvious or is this the kind of bias that only becomes visible to readers who adopt a very particular interpretative perspective? Does this alleged bias affect only our article or does it affect most of the high-quality overview sources as well, like the ones mentioned above? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi again,

Apologies in advance for the curmudgeonly tone. I've come down with something and am writing through a headache, as I also was yesterday.

I'm sorry to hear that you are unwell and I hope you get better soon. Apologies for adding to your malady by causing you exasperation. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the well-wishes. It was definitely just a cold virus, from which I am now recovered. If I seemed to in any way be blaming you, that most certainly was not my intent. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Where I spoke of "bias" I should have spoke of an artificially "narrow" or "limited" perspective. Most certainly I am not accusing you of advancing any kind of agenda. My objection is just that I don't see how this passes the comprehensiveness criterion.
• I did not mean to suggest that you were pushing some kind of instrumental conception of knowledge, as you understandably took my invocation of Habermas to suggest. My intention was only to point to kinds of knowledge (the second two) that respond to what are perhaps quite fundamental human interests (and so of likely interest to readers!), but that this article treats at most in passing.

  I was thinking about including something about Habermas's theory of knowledge-constitutive interests in the article. But as I started doing the research, I got more and more the impression that this may not be a good idea. According to [77] and [78], this theory mainly belongs to his early philosophy. It was criticized from various angles and Habermas himself did not defend it and saw it instead as illicitly relying on assumptions in the philosophy of consciousness and Kantian transcendentalism. Maybe you know something that I don't but, to me, this does not seem to be a good topic for this type of overview article. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think it would be appropriate, but I do not think that it is necessary. My point was just that the article ignores two fields of philosophical inquiry into dimensions of knowledge barely addressed in the current version. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think you don't realize how exasperating it is to be told, in response to a content-based objection (e.g., self-knowledge, which I still think deserves its own section), to please just go review the high-quality sources and report back on those terms. If there is a problem with the content, that is a problem with the sourcing. Displacing the problem to sources only creates an unreasonably high barrier to participation. Are we all supposed to do literature reviews? Even if we were to do this, how would we demonstrate that we have? Stacking up citations against one another? Comparing author CVs? I think this should only be invoked as a last resort when a conversation is just obviously unproductive, but a decision still must be made. (Although I am not, of course, in any position to decide if that is not in fact here the case!)

Again, however, so far from alleging that you intend to short-circuit discussion, I gladly volunteer that I in fact commend your collaborative spirit and willingness to make sometimes serious revisions to your own quite recent hard work, which is just out-and-out hard for anyone do to. Just, please, be aware.

• Since, however, you have pointed me to three specific overview sources (from the impressively long list of high-quality sources supporting this article), I can in fact respond on these terms. My central objection is that this article on the general topic of knowledge is written too much from the specific discipline of analytic epistemology. In defense, you directed me to three articles with four authors, all of whom are epistemologists trained in the analytic tradition and three of whom launched their (genuinely impressive) academic careers from the same highly ranked PhD program. I do not think too much should be read into the latter happenstance; nevertheless, this exacerbates rather than ameliorates my concern.

So, to your question of whether my complaint here extends to those sources, the answer is almost certainly yes. ("Almost" certainly only because I have not properly reviewed them and am operating on the entirely confident assumption that you present them accurately. Otherwise, just "yes".)

• To your quite reasonable question, I do not think that this article would appear biased to readers who do not already have what I would default to regarding as an unjustifiable bias in favor of "Continental" philosophy. But to the extent that it just reflects back, for instance, the IEP article, I am concerned that a lot of readers will check out on the grounds that philosophy seems unnecessarily technical, self-absorbed, or irrelevant. Because I am operating on the assumption that folks who want an article on epistemology will find themselves at that page; folks who find themselves here want something more general.
• Some of the philosophical issues that I have found to be best addressed in the literature on hermeneutics and critical theory include, just for example, the following:
  • To what extent is knowledge just a matter of interpretation?
  • If it's interpretation – as it almost certainly is, at least when it comes to individual (psychological) or collective (sociological) self-knowledge – does this not lead to epistemological relativism? If so (although I think not), what are the implications?
  • Is there such a thing as a "view from nowhere", even in the natural sciences?
  • Since the answer to the immediately above is almost certainly "no", at least in the social/human sciences, what are the social/ethical/political implications of that? How much of what we think is natural is actually a matter of historically contingent power-relations, and how can we tell the difference?

Obviously the article is not going to answer these questions, but they are just as directly related to knowledge – and they are of at least as much general interest — as, for instance, the Gettier problem.

• I have not reviewed the edits, but I am quite glad to see you have expanded the article's treatment of the philosophy of science in response to feedback here. In this context, I would definitely place that above "How is there no Foucault!?" (per the immediately above) in terms of overall importance.
• The reason that I call attention to these two sub-disciplines (hermeneutics and critical theory), which I perceive as omitted, is indeed my own interest in them, together with my considered view that they address a lot of stuff that is important and of general interest. They pertain directly to knowledge and – unlike with the empirical stuff that I really think has got to be out there and that I think would boost the article, but upon which point I can cite only my own individual conviction that "how could they not exist?" – I actually know the literature here. So if the question is, "has this been covered by reliable secondary sources?", I can not just confidently say "yes", but I can also cite sources that I believe to be representative and potentially of use in improving the article. On self-knowledge, for instance, I would rely heavily on the work of Charles Taylor. But there is also a SEP article[79] entirely devoted to this topic that does not even mention him (although he does somehow appear anyway in the bibliography).
• Earlier you leaned on an analogy between the field of biology and the topic of life, and the field of epistemology and the topic of knowledge. The life article, however, is quite broad and it is, in my decidedly non-expert opinion, a legit GA article—in no small part because it relies heavily on summary style to keep it at a readable length, and because it does not restrict itself to just what appears in introductory-level handbooks on biology. Speaking as someone fully aware that he has done basically zero work on this article, that is a lot more what my ideal version of it would look like.

Stepping back, I want to acknowledge that I have cycled back to where I started. Also, I am veering away from the content of the article into matters of general editorial philosophy. For these reasons, I am going to do my best to refrain from further editorial interventions. I am satisfied that I have quite abundantly had my say—to be assessed on its merits. I will, however, most gladly continue to respond to any direct requests for clarification or comment.

Oh, and also, since I am at least half-way checking out, I cannot resist adding that – as you, @Phlsph7, should very well know! –: Without at least a dash of Hegel, this article will never be absolute!

(But no, more seriously, my actual expert opinion is that mention of Kant is easily justified, but the article does not need Hegel.)

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I probably should have explained better how mentioning the high-quality overview sources is related to the Wikipedia policies to avoid some of the exasperation on your side. My intention was not to steer attention away from the content of the article but to justify the selection of this content. According to WP:PROPORTION, An article should ... treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject and according to WP:TERTIARY, Reliable tertiary sources ... may help evaluate due weight. The point about looking to reliable sources is built into these policies so I'm not sure if there is a good way to avoid that. This requirement has the advantage that we don't have to rely on our personal interests and individual convictions for crucial decisions on what should be covered. Two of the three sources I mentioned are directly available online and if you have questions about the other one then I'm happy to help.

As I see it, a Wikipedia article on subject X should provide an accessible summary of the academic discourse or the reliable sources on subject X. If topic Y gets a of lot of coverage in the academic discourse on subject X then the article should address topic Y in detail. If not then the article should not address it in detail. The point of my argument was to show that the latter point is the case for the topics you suggested. That means we don't need to worry about whether the majority of the high-quality overview sources are biased against topic Y. The encyclopedias and the book from the Oxford book series I mentioned are not explicitly associated with a particular school of philosophy. So we should not assume that they introduce some kind of bias. It's not our responsibility to fix what we think is wrong with the academic discourse as a whole. I guess you could call that an inherent limitation on the side of Wikipedia.

Thanks for breaking down the important points of what you think should be included from hermeneutics and critical theory. I managed to mention some of them without creating new main sections. Given the growing length of this discussion and the change in mood, I'm not sure that we will get to a point where we see eye to eye on these issues anytime soon. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe that I understand the policy you describe. It served us well here, for instance, and I've since used it here. The problem that I see with applying it to this article, however, is that it is not clear that there is any high-level authority on knowledge. Or, if it really is the discipline of analytic epistemology, then we need to merge the articles. I've read both quite carefully in just the past few days, and the amount of direct overlap is massive. This is, in effect, the objection with which I began, and which was echoed by Shapeyness and Biogeographist, who I believe both also acknowledged the huge amount of work that would be required to address it. I was honestly surprised you didn't withdraw the nomination at that time. Nevertheless, I do consider the process so far a success in the most important respect: it has improved the article. But I still don't see how it can pass FAC criterion 1.b (is comprehensive) or 1.c. (built on representative survey of the relevant literature).

Other referees need to weigh in on this however. It was not my intention to so dominate this review process. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Two minor items in closing:

• If you are going to mention other languages having multiple words for knowledge (which I fully support), you should explain the distinctions they trace that are obscured in the English "knowledge"; otherwise I don't see how they inform the discussion and so should be simply deleted.

  I'm not sure that there is an easy explanation and correct usage may be context dependent. The source mentions the difference but does not explain it. This was already mentioned below by Biogeographist. If you feel the claim should be removed then I would ping them. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• The mention of hermeneutics in Structure should clarify that the hermeneutic circle is virtuous, and this approach claims to show that knowledge does not need a metaphysical foundation. I'm pretty sure that is supported by the fourth source you provide, but I'd be happy to find another if it is not. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I implemented the second part. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the SEP can assume knowledge of Latin and French (although I think they shouldn't); Wikipedia, however, cannot. I'm happy to ping @Biogeographist, but I think they were sufficiently clear above. If these terms are to be mentioned, they should be defined in English. No one is going to accuse you of synth for just referencing a dual-language dictionary.

The primary point, however, as I take it (although perhaps because it is an explicit endorsement of my own point) is that Barry Allen's purpose in the cited source is precisely to widen the scope of discussion of knowledge beyond epistemology, as PatrickJWelsh discussed above, starting with the different kinds of (what we call) knowledge that were named in ancient Greece.

Two of the four Greek terms from Allen's article have fallen by the wayside. I would be happy to see them restored (wherever we land on the Latin and French).

Also, the Barry Allen [80] entry [81] provides tertiary cover/justification for engaging with the secondary philosophical literature along some of the lines I have suggested above: feminism, Habermas, Foucault, and – although I didn't mention it – the role of language.

Allen's conclusion that "the only kind of knowledge there is" is "a human capacity for superlative artifactual performance" is obviously his own theory, rather than a report on the academic consensus. It's an attractive theory, however, and I'd also be happy to see this or something like it given some attention in the article.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh: Thanks for the ping. I made sure that Allen's view is covered at Definitions of knowledge § Other definitions, which is a subsection of Definitions of knowledge § Responses and alternative definitions. Allen's view is far enough from the mainstream that I don't think it needs to be mentioned in this article. The last sentence of the section Knowledge § Definitions is: "There is still very little consensus in the academic discourse as to which of the proposed modifications or reconceptualizations is correct, and there are various alternative definitions of knowledge", with a link to that section with the views of Allen and others. I liked mentioning the Greek words, for reasons I gave elsewhere on this page, but I can live without them. At least there's a reference to Allen's article. Biogeographist (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a preference for the sentence on the ancient Greek terms so I used it to replace the sentence on the Latin and French terms. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Another minor item I just noticed: I think the article should acknowledge that Kuhn's incommensurability thesis has been widely criticized and that his latter work has been interpreted as backing away from some of its more radical implications. This is supported at §6 here.[82]

Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a footnote to address this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Another suggestion:

• Should the section on science include a paragraph on medical knowledge? This is probably the specialized knowledge of the most interest to the general public. This would also be an opportunity to make a point about the sometimes false claims to universality in an uncomplicated way: medicine has history of conducting its studies on white male subjects, who are wrongly assumed to be generic human beings. This sometimes has adverse effects on the care of non-white, non-male patients. You could find sources for this in either of the first two volumes of IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics [83], among many other places. You could instead add a sentence about this after the mention of Foucault if you don't think a medicine paragraph is worth adding.

Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

While the information is indeed interesting, it seems to me a little too specific to include in this overview article. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, I would strongly prefer an entire section be devoted to the societal/social justice implications of what officially counts as knowledge and its sometimes adverse implications. But since you rejected that request, this seemed like at least a small way to help make this important point by way of a specific example. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'll make an effort to see what can be done about your suggestion of discussing the exclusion of non-white, non-male patients as subjects of medical research in the section "Sociology". I took some time to have a look at the first paper of the journal you mentioned. Its main focus seems to be feminist bioethics. I was unable to find much that could be used to directly support a connection between the example you mentioned and the sociology of knowledge. I assume you saw something there that I missed so I look forward to learning which passage you had in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have a specific passage in mind, and IJFAB is just one of many perfectly good secondary sources that make this general point, which I submit is relevant to the sociological dimension of knowledge in that it is an instance of a pattern of study-design that produces "bad knowledge" (i.e., error presented as scientifically verified fact) as a result of including only subjects of a non-representative segment of society. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Even if you are right, I can't add this to the article as an example of the sociology of knowledge based on your personal conclusion without a source. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• There is also disagreement about whether knowledge is a rare phenomenon that requires high standards or a common phenomenon found in many everyday situations. — You're already set up for a subsection on pragmatism!

  See my response at #Shapeyness. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Declarative knowledge can be expressed using declarative sentences stored in books. – Perhaps more simply, "Declarative knowledge can be stored in books."?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• One difficulty for a priori knowledge is to explain how it is possible and some empiricists deny that there is a priori knowledge. – Maybe: "It is difficult to explain how a priori knowledge is possible. Some empiricists even deny it exists." (Or else at least a comma between the two independent clauses.)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Individuals may lack a deeper understanding of their character and feelings and attaining self-knowledge is one step in the psychoanalysis. – no definite article, and maybe better to use the more general psychotherapy? (Also: I would still like to see way more than a footnote on this.)

  Done. I left "psychoanalysis" since this is what the source says and it's not clear whether this is true for psychotherapy in general. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• The term is often used in feminism and postmodernism to argue that many forms of knowledge are not absolute but depend on the concrete historical, cultural, and linguistic context. If the source defines "postmodernism", that should be included. Otherwise I would consider cutting on the grounds of its being basically meaningless, but still somehow slightly pejorative.

  The source is the APA Dictionary of Psychology and provides a link to its entry on postmodernism. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Okay, now I'm genuinely curious. What is the psychological definition of "postmodernism"? I'm only asking for a footnote here. (For, in my experience, as someone who has actively sought clarification, this term becomes only more blurry and problematic the more you dig. If no specific meaning can be specified, it should not be used—however sloppy otherwise good sources may be.)

  I'm not sure whether this is particularly relevant since our article does not cite the entry "Postmodernism" of the APA Dictionary of Psychology. But if that satisfies your curiosity, I'm happy to help: the entry is found here. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, that's a somewhat disappointingly boilerplate entry. I'd hoped for something from a specifically psychological point of view. Oh well!

  In any case, however, the fact that the article does not currently cite the "postmodernism" entry is besides the point. If you think it's sufficiently clear and that the Wikilink is provides anything further that might be needed, then please say so. Otherwise, just add the missing source.

  Also, separate point: I still think it is weird to pair feminism with postmodernism in this way, and the fact that a tertiary source on psychology did so is, in my view, quite a weak justification. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Testimony can happen in numerous ways, like regular speech, a letter, a newspaper, or an online blog. — cut "online", maybe also change blog to podcast or vlog? (or just cut)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Some people may lack the cognitive ability to understand highly abstract mathematical truths — this is not merely an issue of limited cognitive capacity: Gödel's first incompleteness theorem proves that in a consistent formal system containing a certain amount of arithmetic there must exist some true sentence not provable (and so, I would submit, not understood) in that system. Maybe worth at least a footnote or something? (I'm looking, here, at Stewart Shapiro's Thinking about Mathematics, pp. 165–66.)

  Do you have a suggestions of how this footnote should be worded and sourced? I'm not sure how to relate the connection between the metalogical properties of completeness and provability in certain types of formal systems of logic to the limits of knowledge in a way that is both accessible, concise, and directly supported by reliable sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• If this doesn't speak for itself, then I am probably misconstruing the result of the proof, in which event, please disregard. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• According to Duncan Pritchard, this applies to forms of knowledge linked to wisdom. — descriptor and wikilink on Duncan Pritchard

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• found in Plato's Meno – I've seen it both ways, but I believe Plato's dialogues are usually given italics as titles

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• They argue that knowledge has additional value due to its association with virtue. This is based on the idea that cognitive success in the form of the manifestation of virtues is inherently valuable independent of whether the resulting states are instrumentally useful. – I'm not seeing the argument. If this is more than just an assertion, a little bit more would be nice. Otherwise maybe don't call it an argument?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• A common critique of scientism, made by philosophers such as Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Feyerabend, is that the fixed requirement of following the scientific method is too rigid and results in a misleading picture of reality by excluding various relevant phenomena from the scope of knowledge – I haven't looked at the sources, but it is odd to associate Gadamer in particular with critics of scientism; he would have opposed it (and maybe did), but this is not what he is known for. Also, he and Feyerabend are an unlikely couple, based just on my very limited knowledge of the latter. If this mention is just a concession to me, please go ahead and take him out.

  From Mahadevan 2007, p. 91: Hans-Georg Gadamer propounds hermeneutics as an alternative to the hegemony of scientism/technology. Gadamer and Feyerabend have their criticism of scientism and the scientific method in common. Our sentence does not state that their philosophy in general is similar. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Doesn't state it, but does suggest it. I have not surveyed the work of either philosopher. If you have good reason to believe that this is not just a high-quality source in general, but a high-quality source with respect to these two thinkers, then definitely leave as is. If, however, it is maybe a tertiary source with respect to this specific point, then perhaps consider nixing the mention of Gadamer (whose work I know and admire, but on whom I am by no means an expert).

• are commonly rejected by religious skeptics and atheists – "by people who are either religious skeptics or atheists" — or something like that. Otherwise it's tautological. (I would just cut except for the possible value of the wikilinks.)

  I think it's a good idea to have those wikilinks in the text. Your suggestion makes the text longer but I don't see what it adds that is not already there. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Such a view is reflected in a famous saying by Immanuel Kant where he claims that he "had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith." – It's a famous quote, but this context muddles the role the claim plays in his philosophical program. Leave it if you want, but I would cut.

  It is used in the source in this context. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not questioning your fidelity to your cited sources. I am asking whether it is really your considered position that the benefits of citing Kant in this way are worth the costs of inviting misinterpretation of his intended meaning by placing the quote in this foreign context. What to include from a source is an editorial decision to which you, as I understand the process, invite challenge by nominated the article to FA status. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• societies tend to interpret knowledge claims found – Doesn't "knowledge claims" need a hyphen?

  I don't think so. See, for example, [84] and [85].

• A related issue concerns the link between knowledge and power, in particular, the extent to which knowledge is power. The philosopher Michel Foucault explored this issue and examined how knowledge and the institutions responsible for it control people through what he termed biopower by shaping societal norms, values, and regulatory mechanisms in fields like psychiatry, medicine, and the penal system. — What Bacon meant by "Scientia potentia est" is very different from Foucault's project at any stage of his career. It would be entirely appropriate to mention Bacon at any number of places up above, but here it is out-of-place. I would cut the first sentence and change the second to read instead, "The philosopher Michel Foucault explored the interconnection of knowledge and power in his studies of how knowledge and the institutions responsible for it control people through..."

Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Our passage does not state that there is a link between Bacon and Foucault. Foucault is not the only one to investigate the relation between knowledge and power. Bacon is only one of the philosophers covered in the linked article. But if you feel strongly about this, we could removed the wikilink. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Using the same word to refer to two extremely different concepts without in some way signaling this can hardly result in anything other than misunderstanding. It's very possible that you know Bacon better than me, but this claim seems to me to belong in any of the sections Science, Value, or History rather than in Sociology. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I removed the wikilink and added a sources discussing how knowledge is power for Foucault. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Summation

At this stage, I am mostly (if not completely) satisfied that the article does everything that it accepts as within its scope at the FA level. I am entirely unsatisfied, however, with respect to what I take to be the arbitrary and artificial restriction of this scope to (for the most part) the concerns of analytic epistemology. To elaborate:

• In a response yesterday, with reference to R. J. Bernstein's presentation of pragmatism, I made the case that analytic philosophy cannot be accepted as the philosophical authority on knowledge; there is another family of theories that must also be covered. I believe, at minimum, that this requires its own subsection as a definition.

• I think that, in addition to a section addressing my concerns in the prior bullet, the Definitions section should have as its first subsection something about the "knowledge-how" to, for instance, walk and converse in a natural language. Way more people (basically everyone who has had a baby) care way more about this than they do about anything professional philosophers have to say about anything. I am sure that developmental psychologists, pediatricians, and other researchers in this area use a different terminology than philosophers, but this should still be included with relevant wikilinks if for no other reason than this sort of knowledge is the precondition for all of the other more sophisticated sorts of knowledge discussed in the body of the article.

• I am embarrassed to have missed this until now, but how is there no discussion of knowledge of what is right, what is moral, what is just, how best to live, et cetera? Someone writing an overview of analytic epistemology can excuse themselves from addressing such issues on the ground that these issues are better discussed under the separate heading of metaethics. A general article on knowledge, however, cannot take recourse to such an artificial excuse.

• I continue to believe that individual self-knowledge deserves its own section. Even if this is not reflected in the indices of non-philosophical sources in the terms a philosopher would prefer, this is a huge issue in the psychotheraputic project. A section on this would also provide an opportunity to briefly discuss knowledge of others. It is a not uncommon theme in modern and contemporary literature and film that a protagonist discovers that they don't "really" know their spouse, or that they never "truly" knew a deceased friend or relative. So this could also be a nice occasion to mention the knowledge afforded by narrative art (even though I do not believe that this should be required for FA status).

• I still think that a FA on knowledge needs a section on the various ways that apparently neutral or objective knowledge is sometimes anything but. I concede, however, that I have not made a knock-down case for the inclusion of anything specific. I'm not going to make any non-minor edits to the article while it is under FAC review. If, however, you would like me to edit what little is included about Foucault, I would be happy to do so—subject (of course!) to reversion, should anything be deemed for any reason not an improvement to the article.

In my first post to this discussion, I expressed considerable reservations (or, if you prefer, outright confusion) over what might constitute a "comprehensive" treatment of such a general issue. It has come to my attention, however, that there is an emerging consensus to replace this language with what is already policy elsewhere in terms of being unlikely to benefit from further additions.

I believe, however, that this article would benefit a great deal from the attention of editors approaching it from the perspectives of developmental psychology, speech or physical therapy, or pedagogy—among, I am sure, many other relevant disciplines. This is actually what I would most like to see.

Since, as far as I can tell, an expression of support for FA status is an endorsement of the completeness of the article, I regret that I must oppose its promotion for the reasons listed immediately above. I do apologize for taking an official stance on this when I initially said that I would not. At that time, however, I did not expect that I would spend as much time with this article as I since have. (Also, in my view, the nomination should have been withdrawn or otherwise suspended in response to much earlier objections. As I have directly said.)

Should the FA coordinator deem my objections to be in excess of the guidelines, I will withdraw it from consideration and, depending upon instruction, perhaps even change it to support. Or, should other editors reviewing have reason to reject my arguments, I am entirely happy to be overridden by a considered consensus against. I will probably move some of my objections to the talk page for the consideration of future editors, but I will not contest any promotion that proceeds along normal channels.

What is here is very good, and the nominating editor deserves nothing but the support and appreciation of the community—even if, as I contend, nominating this article to FA status was premature.

Cheers,
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 00:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all the effort you have poured into this review and I'm happy that you changed your mind about the FA criteria. This article includes perspectives from many fields and traditions and does not restrict itself to any one. I didn't fully implement several of your suggestions because because I was unable to verify that they were supported by high-quality sources both concerning specific claims and the relative prominence of topics in the academic discourse which you want to see as main sections. I tried to stick to how high-quality sources present the subject rather than rely on personal conclusions. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Phlsph7,

You are most welcome! I am genuinely sorry to be requesting such large changes so late in the process and, in the end (at least so far!), to have to oppose the nomination.

As an aside, I would submit for your consideration that you might be a bit too quick to categorize considered objections as "personal" opinions or conclusions. I do not see how it is problematically personal or subjective to point to a large tradition of thought that explicitly addresses the topic of the article, and which also has a sizable secondary academic literature accepting the premise that it does. Otherwise the premise of the theoretical part of this article would also be just a personal opinion, to be accordingly disregarded, i.e., that a tradition of thought overwhelmingly limited to departments of philosophy in the English-speaking world in the period subsequent to WWII is somehow the philosophical authority on what counts as knowledge.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Shapeyness

Hi Phlsph7, sorry took me a while to get to this! I have to say, I have a similar worry to PatrickJWelsh above - the article does seem very philosophy-centric. It's hard to know where to go from here in terms of reviewing because (i) this is a very vague complaint (even worse, knowledge is such a broad concept that it's perhaps not explicitly covered as a central concern in many fields, so it's hard to know which other disciplines to point to as counterweights to the heavy focus on epistemology), but (ii) it would feel dishonest from my point of view to continue on with a normal review knowing that I had this reservation in the back of my mind. These are quite general ideas, but I'll try to give as solid suggestions as possible:

• Shift weight away from philosophy by merging sections / cutting down content, while expanding on some of the themes from the In various disciplines section to create new top-level sections (new content could draw from e.g. sociology / anthropology / psychology / cognitive science / pedagogy and education / history)
• Provide more of an interdisciplinary perspective throughout each section of the article (where possible!) so there is not such a strict cutoff between philosophy (which makes up the main body of the article) and everything else (which is left to the end) - this may require re-focusing some of the sections

I'm interested in what others think because if there is a general consensus against this (because epistemology is the main topic studying knowledge so it should have a special place in the article for example) then I'm happy to drop this and continue on with a more in-depth, granular review. Not sure this is the best place to discuss, could possibly take to the article talk page if there is a lot of discussion on this. Sorry, I know this has the potential to delay / complicate the nomination, but thought it's better to voice it here so an explicit consensus can at least be pointed to in future. Shapeyness (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I should probably have put into words why I think the article being "philosophy-centric" is a problem! The two main issues I have are that this prevents the article from giving a truly balanced coverage on the topic (problematic for criteria 1b and 1d) and that it means this article has a lot of overlap with what I think an ideal epistemology article would look like (which creates more possibilities for there to be contradictory or unmatching coverage across articles and falls short of the goal of a single source of truth, see WP:CONTENTFORK). Shapeyness (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Shapeyness and thanks for doing this review. I've already responded to this concern above. One of the points is that epistemology is the main discipline studying knowledge. In order not to repeat everything here, it would be helpful if you could take a look at the discussion there.

I tried to find an overview source that is not directly associated with philosophy to assess your point. For example, the Oxford series A Very Short Introduction is a general series not specifically focused on philosophy. The book Knowledge: A Very Short Introduction seems to discuss the topic mostly from a philosophical perspective and focuses on issues like skepticism, rationalism and empiricism, internalism and externalism, and the analysis of knowledge. It acknowledges epistemology as the main discipline studying knowledge. It does not mention fields like anthropology and sociology.

Concerning your two reasons why it is a problem:

• Giving a truly balanced coverage does not mean that every discipline gets the same weight. I think it means following WP:PROPORTION: An article ... should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, giving the anthropology of knowledge the same weight as epistemology would be a violation of this principle. If we wanted to add a main section for every discipline that discusses knowledge somewhere then we would need to add main sections for all kinds of fields, maybe even including architecture, geography, biology, quantum physics, and linguistics.
• The relation between epistemology and knowledge is similar to the relation between biology and life, psychology and mind, and anthropology and human. There is bound to be some overlap in all these cases but I don't think there is a serious argument for WP:CONTENTFORK#Unacceptable types of content forks for any of them. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I'm not opposed to including more information from other fields as long as we don't overdo it. One approach that could work as a middle ground would be to identify which additional information should be included and I could try to expand the sections in question. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies Phlsph7! I am still not 100% convinced, but it's probably not helpful to go back and forth here. More useful would be either (i) establish a solid consensus for status quo in which case no broader changes needed, or (ii) for me to give some more specific suggestions to discuss about this. I'm quite busy atm but will try to look over some sources and suggest possible changes soon. Shapeyness (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As I see it, we are in agreement that epistemology is the main field studying knowledge and that other fields to which knowledge is relevant should be included. The disagreement is in the details about how much weight the different fields should receive. I've tried to link my arguments to reliable sources but arguing about relative weight is not a trivial enterprise. Given that the issue about which fields and how much weight is still rather vague, it will probably be difficult to establish consensus one way or another. My suggestion in the conversation with Jens below about giving more prominence to knowledge representation might be one step in the direction you are envisioning. I'll keep your concern in mind as I work on the article and I look forward to your more specific suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok a few quick unrelated pieces. Shapeyness (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Knowledge is closely related to intelligence, but intelligence is more about the ability to acquire, process, and apply information, while knowledge concerns information and skills that a person already possesses. Knowledge contrasts with ignorance, which is linked to a lack of understanding, education, and true beliefs. Are these necessary for the definitions section? Perhaps move to See also

  I moved ignorance to the see also section. Some people prefer to have links in the article rather than the see also section so let's see if someone complains. I left the part about intelligence since this was explicitly requested in the peer review. I can ping the reviewer if you feel strongly about this to get their view. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• The English word includes various meanings that some other languages distinguish using several words. For example, Latin uses the words cognitio and scientia for "knowledge" while French uses the words connaitre and savoir for "to know". In ancient Greek, four important terms for knowledge were used: epistēmē (unchanging theoretical knowledge), technē (expert technical knowledge), mētis (strategic knowledge), and gnōsis (personal intellectual knowledge). Are all these examples needed? Maybe replace part of this with more detail on etymology (if available)

  Before I do something, I'll ping @Biogeographist: since there was a disagreement earlier about whether to include this part. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't watching this discussion before the ping from Phlsph7 (thanks), so I haven't read everything above. I'm the one who added this sentence, and I reinserted it after it was removed once. The info is from a tertiary source, Allen, Barry (2005). "Knowledge". In Horowitz, Maryanne Cline (ed.). New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Vol. 3. Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 1199–1204. ISBN 978-0-684-31377-1. OCLC 55800981. Archived from the original on 22 August 2017. My interest in this sentence is not primarily etymological. I'm not interested in etymological trivia, but in what these different words can tell us about the nature of knowledge. My primary reason for thinking that this info is important is similar to concerns voiced above: PatrickJWelsh's I am concerned that [the article] is overly biased towards the concerns of philosophical epistemology and this article reads to me too much like an excellent article written from the highly relevant, but nevertheless quite specific, perspective of Anglo-American analytic epistemology, and Shapeyness's I have to say, I have a similar worry to PatrickJWelsh above – the article does seem very philosophy-centric. Barry Allen's purpose in the cited source is precisely to widen the scope of discussion of knowledge beyond epistemology, as PatrickJWelsh discussed above, starting with the different kinds of (what we call) knowledge that were named in ancient Greece. Now, it may be that without the extended philosophical discussion present in the cited source, this sentence comes across as irrelevant trivia. If that is what everyone else thinks, then I have no defense. But if anyone agrees that there is value in giving a nod to these ancient conceptions of knowledge, then there may be a way of editing the sentence to make it more clearly relevant. Biogeographist (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks biogeographist, the main issue I have is that there are lots of examples here without analysis / commentary - I would prefer to replace some of the examples with either more information on etymological history or analysis on the significance of different languages having multiple words corresponding to different types of knowledge. Shapeyness (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  The most concise way to indicate the greater significance of the terms may be to connect them to related discussions later in Knowledge § Types. Allen said: "Where ancient philosophy distinguished a scientific epistēmē from the technē of art and craft, twentieth-century analysts discovered a "semantic" or "conceptual" distinction between knowing how and knowing that." Thus, the sentence in question could be followed by another sentence such as: "The distinction between epistēmē and technē has been called analogous to the distinction made by modern philosophers between knowledge-that and knowledge-how" (with reference to Allen). Likewise, connaitre and savoir may correspond in some contexts to some distinction between types of knowledge, but we would need a source for that claim since it's not in the SEP article by Steup & Neta. Biogeographist (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  When I first added the sentence in question (and the sentence preceding it) in Special:Diff/1092863946, I added it at the start of Knowledge § Types, not at its present location, and I conceived of it as historical and multilingual background about types of knowledge, and also as a broader-scope replacement for the more restricted statement that had previously introduced that section: "Propositional knowledge is the paradigmatic type of knowledge and most academic discussions of knowledge focus exclusively on it." Biogeographist (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  I tried to implement a compromise by moving part of the discussion of the Greek terms to the section types. The point of the examples remaining in the section "Definitions" is mainly to illustrate that knowledge is a wide term in the English language so I don't think more analysis is required for that part. Feel free to revert if you have the impression that this does not help solve the disagreement. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• The main discipline studying knowledge is called epistemology or theory of knowledge should it be "the theory of knowledge"?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Some social sciences understand knowledge as a broad social phenomenon that is similar to culture. I think this would make more sense as part of the second paragraph

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Methodological differences also cause disagreements... This paragraph is getting into the weeds a bit for a general overview, I would suggest cutting it out

  I shortened it and merged it into the preceding paragraph. Please have a look whether this is sufficient or whether more cutting is required. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Phlsph7, that looks good. Can you point me to where the sources say some (infallibilists) think knowledge is a rare phenomenon? Descartes certainly thought knowledge was infallible, but my understanding was that he thought common everyday knowledge could be built up from indubitable foundations. In general, I'm not sure there is a connection between infallibilism and rarity of knowledge (apart from increased likelihood of radical scepticism, but that is quite a rare position even paired with infallibilism I believe). Shapeyness (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  From Hetherington 2022a, § 6. Standards for Knowing: The spectre of a sceptical conclusion is the most obvious philosophical concern about requiring knowledge to satisfy an infallibilist standard. If knowledge is like that, then how often will anyone succeed in actually having some knowledge? Rarely, if ever (is the usual reply). To me, the connection seems to be quite intuitive. For example, make a list of all the things you know. Then make a list of all the things you know infallibly. Now compare the lists. For me, the claim "the Eiffel tower is in Paris" is on the first list and not the second, just like the great majority of other things I know. I've seen this connection in several sources so I could do some more digging if there are serious concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  By the way, I adjusted the caption since the source does not explicitly ascribe the part about the rarity to Descartes. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, maybe it's worth removing the image now Descartes isn't explicitly mentioned in the prose there? Shapeyness (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Phlsph7 FYI, just realised you used the template tq above - I'm not sure about the technical details why but it is mentioned not to use that at the top of WP:FAC. I use {{green}} if that is useful. Shapeyness (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reminder. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'll try to get back to some of my broader points later on. For now, I think it would help to condense down the sections "Justified true belief" and "Gettier problem and alternatives" as much as possible. For example, the paragraph on internalism/externalism is once again getting into the weeds and is more about justification than knowledge - I think this is part of why I think the article reads like an epistemology article sometimes, it seems as if it feels the need to expand on areas that are not as directly important to knowledge itself. In terms of the Gettier problem and alternatives section, I think there are areas where this can be simplified down further and some redundancies can be removed without losing too much substance. Let me know if any more detailed comments would be useful on that. Shapeyness (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing this out, I simplified this paragraph and merged into into the preceding paragraph. I cut some information but I didn't want to remove the explanation altogether since this is discussed in many sources. You are probably right that those two subsections are more technical than the rest. We can't skip this topic but I'm open to more ideas on how to simplify the presentation. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  By the way, I simplified part the subsection "Gettier problem and alternatives" in response Patrick's comment above. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Phlsph7, I think this can be condensed down a little more still.

  • For example, a person who is convinced that a coin flip will land heads usually does not know that even if their belief turns out to be true Unrelated to cutting down, I think this needs rewording for clarity, perhaps simply by replacing "is convinced that" with "guesses that"

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  • I still think the extra detail on justification is unneeded and prevents a nice flow into Gettier - it seems natural to me to move directly from "justification is in the definition of knowledge to prevent cases of epistemic luck" to "Gettier showed justification doesn't prevent cases of epistemic luck". This also keeps the focus on the concept of knowledge itself throughout the whole section. But I won't push on this one. However, perhaps these two subsections can be combined into one "Analysis of knowledge" as this explicitly tells the reader that this is all these parts are concerned about (and prevents the discussion from being sliced in half).

    I merge the two subsections. I shortened the explanation of justification. I didn't want to remove it altogether since this point is often presented as important and I hope a single sentence on it is acceptable. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  • I think most of the potential for pruning are the last two paragraphs, which I think can be slimmed down and combined - I would focus on cutting down on preparatory sentences and leaving it just to concise, substantive claims that stand on their own.

  —Shapeyness (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I managed to bring it down to one paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I second this. (Alarm bells went off for me as soon as I saw an acronym introduced to such a general article. But this is an acknowledged pet peeve, and there was only one acronym; so I kept my mouth shut—so to speak.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I removed the acronym. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, finding it hard to find time to properly look through sources etc. so I'll just continue on through the article as it's currently written for now (instead of broader, more large-scale comments). Few bits below. Shapeyness (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

While I would be interested to hear your take on how the article's comprehensiveness measures up to the presentation of the topic in high-quality overview sources, please don't feel obliged to that and your more specific comments are also helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• The Gettier problem is motivated by the idea that some justified true beliefs do not amount to knowledge I think this is the wrong way round - the Gettier problem provides motivation / justification for the idea that some justified true beliefs do not amount to knowledge

  I reworded it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• ... since they can be paraphrased using a that-clause Maybe an explanatory footnote spelling this out more (Knowing that X,Y people are coming, knowing that they are coming because...) would be useful - it is probably very obvious to everyone who will read this but can't hurt

  Good idea. I slightly changed the example given in the source. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• ... and general laws, like that the color of leaves of some trees changes in autumn Not really sure if anyone would call this an example of an empirical law - maybe reword as "generalities"/"general rules" or replace the example

  I used generalities since this is the term used in the source. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• is exclusive to relatively sophisticated creatures, such as humans I thought that this was a hotly debated issue in philosophy of mind/philosophy of psychology - aren't there quite a few philosophers who think many animals have the ability to have beliefs (and thus knowledge), although obviously still a minority?

  That is a difficult issue and depends on various factors, include the question of whether beliefs are representations. My hope was to avoid these problems by using the vague term "relatively sophisticated creatures", which is taken directly from the source and does not automatically exclude animals. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• For example, by eating chocolate, one becomes acquainted with the taste of chocolate what do you think of this rewording?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Knowledge by acquaintance plays a central role in Bertrand Russell's epistemology Ok, but why are we getting into this here?

  Mainly because he is at the center of many discussion on knowledge by acquaintance. For example the SEP article has its first section dedicated to him. We could shorten or remove that part of you see it differently. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, can we mention that he originated the concept? Just an easy way to highlight why his viewpoint is important to the reader. Also not sure if the reference to particulars vs universals is useful here. Shapeyness (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Mathematical knowledge ... belongs to a priori knowledge Maybe "is traditionally taken to be" instead

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Some conscious phenomena are excluded from the relevant experience, like rational insight into the solution of a mathematical problem This might need another sentence to explain, just like the "all bachelors are unmarried" example does.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• One difficulty for a priori knowledge is to explain how it is possible It might be worth adding a brief mention in this paragraph that some philosophers deny the existence of a priori knowledge (or later on when rationalism/empiricism is brought up)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Plato and Descartes both need links here

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• The Others subsection doesn't flow very well but I'm not sure what to suggest - I might come back to that later.

  The difficulty here is that we should cover these different types to be comprehensive but I'm not aware of many essential connections between them that could be used to tell a connected story. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• On the discussion of direct/indirect realism, this is important to epistemology, but I'm not sure it's worth delving into in this article, it is a bit of a distraction into metaphysics and philosophy of mind - also, it's my impression that the idea that this has any relevance to the reliability of sense perception is a bit outdated (and isn't mentioned in the cited article as far as I can see), but I might be wrong about that

  I managed to shorten it to one sentence. I didn't want to remove it altogether since this is a disagreement about what people perceive. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry to come back to this one, but I'm struggling to see the relevance to a broad overview article. There may be disagreement about whether external objects are perceived directly or indirectly, but how does this help to illuminate the subject of knowledge to the reader? Shapeyness (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I removed the sentence and added instead a discussion of psychological aspects. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses so far. A few more comments below. Shapeyness (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• There is also disagreement about whether knowledge is a rare phenomenon that requires absolute certainty This idea is repeated quite soon again Another view states that beliefs have to be infallible to amount to knowledge ... It is then repeated again in the limits section. I would remove at least one of these and ideally keep it to just a single occurrence (removing one and placing another in a footnote would also work).

  I removed the critical comment in the subsection "Analysis of knowledge". I kept the other two since they make the claim from different angles (knowledge being rare vs cognitive capacities being fallible). Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Analysis of knowledge section still has Another view states that beliefs have to be infallible to amount to knowledge. Shapeyness (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I reformulated the earlier sentence to mention high standards instead of absolute certainty, which is the more general term and the infallibility mentioned later would be just one type of high standards. Let me know if you think otherwise then I'll remove the remaining sentence in the subsection "Analysis of knowledge". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Similarly, there is some repetition between 'A priori and a posteriori' and the sources of knowledge section.

  I removed the part about the different explanations of pure reason from the section "Sources of knowledge". I kept the part about the mental faculty of rational intuition to establish the link which not all readers may be aware of. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Still seems a bit repetitive, would this reframing be acceptable Some rationalists argue for rational intuition as a further source of knowledge that does not rely on observation and introspection. They hold for example that some beliefs, like the mathematical belief that 2 + 2 = 4, are justified through pure reason alone. Shapeyness (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• A weaker form of philosophical skepticism advocates the suspension of judgment as a form of attaining tranquility while remaining humble and open-minded Is Pyrrhonian scepticism (which I assume this is referring to) weaker than academic scepticism? Both call into question all knowledge.

  That's correct, I changed the wikilink. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, is "weaker" right here? Shapeyness (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's weaker in the sense that it does not generally claim that knowledge is impossible. But I guess you could argue that it's position is different rather then weaker. I reformulated the expression. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• The three most common theories are foundationalism, coherentism, and infinitism. I don't think this is true. I might be wrong but my guess would be that there are more philosophers accept a mixed position such as foundherentism, or other more complicated positions, than philosophers who accept infinitism.

  Our sources on this one are Klein 1998, Steup & Neta 2020, and Lehrer 2015. Klein has a separate section called "Foundationalism and coherentism", in which infinitism is also discussed. Steup & Neta 2020 have a section on the structure of knowledge, which has only subsections on foundationalism and coherentism but also discuss infinitism. Neither Klein 1998 nor Steup & Neta 2020 mention foundherentism. I could also look through Lehrer 2015 if there are further doubts. I reformulated the passage though I'm not sure that this is necessary. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry I wasn't clear enough. I don't think foundherentism should be included, or even that infinitism should be excluded. I just think infinitism should not be described as one of the most common theories. Indeed Klein states Foundationalism and coherentism have both been developed and defended, and there are well-known objections to each view. In contrast, the prima facie objections to infinitism have seemed so overwhelming that it has not been investigated carefully. Infinitism really has not had much literature produced on it outside of a few defenders as far as I know. Shapeyness (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I reworded - hopefully that is ok. Shapeyness (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  You are right about infinitism not being on par with the other two. Your suggestion works fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Epistemologists who agree about the existence of basic reasons may disagree about which reasons constitute basic reasons This is redundant as differing views have already been discussed

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• I haven't read many sources on this but do you think it is worth giving a little more discussion to the idea that knowledge has intrinsic value (major views, arguments for/against, something like that) - only a little bit extra so it doesn't become unwieldly?

  Good idea, I added a short passage. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Great that's just the right level I think Shapeyness (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• The value of knowledge is relevant to the field of education... This feels slightly shoehorned in, but I think it is valuable to keep this here - are there any other fields/areas where the value of knowledge is important? Perhaps this is an opportunity to increase the coverage of disciplines outside philosophy with a short-ish paragraph (although let me know if there aren't the sources for it)

  I'm working on something. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• One very simple change which could help make the article seem less like "philosophy, then everything else covered in a single section at the end" would be to make the history section a top-level section (even if it is not expanded at all)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• OK, I think I've got through the main sections now, I will look through the Others section next and then try to make suggestions on comprehensiveness. I like the science section, it already feels more multidisciplinary and has all the details from philosophy of science I would expect. I would also maybe include info on the sociology of scientific knowledge, which is an important development itself stemming from history & philosophy of science. Shapeyness (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good. I'm open to including more information regarding the sociology of scientific knowledge. However, we also have a subsection on the sociology of knowledge below so I'll wait for your comments before I get started. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry meant to get back to this sooner - a few more comments below. Shapeyness (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Sociology of scientific knowledge would work in the science section or the sociology section I guess

  Done. I added a short paragraph to the subsection "Sociology". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe the science section should be called "Scientific knowledge"?

  I personally don't feels strongly about this either way but I fear that someone may complaint that a section called "Scientific knowledge" should be moved to the section "Types" as a subsection. This would go against the request in another review to have it as a main section. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think we need to cover every "X knowledge" - I would consider moving common / general knowledge to see also

  In the GA review, it was request that the coverage of common knowledge and general knowledge be expanded. Should we ping the reviewer to get their view? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• In some cases, it is possible to convert tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge into one another. seems slightly redundant to me

  I removed the claim. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• It's possible that some of the other types of knowledge here could possibly be moved to other sections as well - the bit on spirituality would fit in to the religion section and situated knowledge could fall under sociology of knowledge

  There are different ways to organize the topics into different sections and they usually have their advantages and disadvantages. Moving the part about higher knowledge to the subsection "Religion" might cause an unbalance by giving more emphasis to some religious traditions than to others. Regarding situated knowledge, I would have to check the sources whether this is seen as a major topic in the sociology of knowledge. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  If merely moving the text from one place to another would cause balance concerns, doesn't that indicate that there is already a due weight problem? Shapeyness (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not necessarily since due weight depends not just on what is said but also on where it is said. For example, moving the paragraph on skepticism in the section "Limits" to the lead as the second paragraph would cause undue weight even though nothing was added to or removed from the article. One of the advantages of mentioning the contrast between higher and lower knowledge in the types section is to underscore the diversity of relevant fields. Do you think the paragraph should be removed? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• states that knowing something implies the second-order knowledge that one knows it Not very clear, would probably be better worded as "states that it is impossible for someone to know something without knowing that they know it". This then removes the need for the clarifying sentence afterwards.

  I implemented your suggestion and moved the example to a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• There is pretty much no mention of transferal/reproduction of knowledge in the form of teaching or anything about pedagogy - this seems like quite a major gap.
  • I agree that this is a major gap.

    The transfer of knowledge is covered in several sections, including the sections "Sources" (as testimony) and "History", the subsection "Anthropology", and the paragraph on knowledge management in the subsection "Others". But you are right that while they cover the transfer of knowledge from a variety of perspectives, they do not provide a systematical explanation of the pedagogical perspective since the history section only contains a few remarks on that. I'll see what I can do about that. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• "APA Dictionary of Psychology: Situated Knowledge" - should APA Dictionary of Psychology be the work and Situated Knowledge be the entry here

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ashraf 2023 - Archway Publishing appears to be a self-publishing company, is that right?

  I think you are right. I was initially under the impression that it should be fine since it is associated with Simon & Schuster but that alone is not sufficient. I replaced the source. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Attie-Picker needs publisher info

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Bosančić 2018 contains publisher location, other books don't

  I removed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Bouquet 1962 - why CUP archive and not Cambridge University Press? Also this is a relatively old source, is it being used to source something not covered by anything else?

  I replaced it with a newer source. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Chaudhary 2017 - is this missing a chapter title?

  The chapter titles were given in the short citations. I moved them into the main citation template. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delahunty & Dignen 2012 - "OUP Oxford" change to "Oxford University Press"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Dodd, Zambetti & Deneve - is this a high quality source for philosophy of science? (semi-relatedly, should there be a footnote mentioning that the existince of a unified and distinctly scientific method for gaining knowledge is controversial?)

  Elsevier is a high-quality academic publisher and the chapter targets specifically the "scientific method" and not the philosophy of science in general. Given that it is published in a book that primarily covers a field of clinical research, it would probably be not sufficient on its own, but there are two more sources that are directly associated with the philosophical perspective. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Is this source acting as a citation for anything not covered by the other sources, or just used as an additional supporting source? Shapeyness (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's quite representative of the mainstream story of what the scientific method is. It's a longer version of the following from the SEP source: Often, ‘the scientific method’ is presented in textbooks and educational web pages as a fixed four or five step procedure starting from observations and description of a phenomenon and progressing over formulation of a hypothesis which explains the phenomenon, designing and conducting experiments to test the hypothesis, analyzing the results, and ending with drawing a conclusion. If there are serious concerns then it could be removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  • I second the parenthetical Lewis Wolpert criticizes this in his The Unnatural Nature of Science. It is also a hobby horse of Mario Bunge, although I'm sure where to direct you in his enormous body of work. By I'm don't think this needs anything more than a footnote or slight rewording. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

    I added a corresponding footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hatfield 1998 is missing an ISBN

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Lanzer 2018 - is this a high quality source for history and philosophy of science?

  It seems the source was missing the second author, Tim Thornton, who is a professor of philosophy. It's published by Springer Nature, an academic publisher. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Magee & Popper - what is the purpose of this source?

  It's a supporting source about knowledge stored in libraries. It was added by Biogeographist. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Mahadevan 2007 - citation error as page number is in the wrong place

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• McGeer 2001 - does this need a publisher?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Meirmans et al. - change "August 2019" to just "2019"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Mishra 2021 - is K. K. Publications reliable? Just checking as I've never heard of it. The same goes for Vost 2016 and Sophia Institute Press. And also for Wilson & Cattell 2005 and Kogan Page Publishers.

  I'm not sure about Vost 2016 and Wilson & Cattell 2005. I removed Wilson & Cattell 2005 since the passage is supported by the remaining sources. I replaced Vost 2016 since this is probably faster than making an in-depth reliability-research.

  As for K. K. Publications: I added that one to cover a few non-Western publisher, which was criticized in some of my earlier nominations. The problem is that non-Western publishers are not as well-known so assessing their credentials can be more of a challenge. I'll ping @Jo-Jo Eumerus: since they may know more about this. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's pretty hard to tell, really. This publisher seems to have several major publications, so I guess it's reliable, but it's hard to tell. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Moore 1959 - this is quite an old source, are there more up-to-date sources that can be used?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Olsson 2011 - Change "The Value of Knowledge: The Value of Knowledge" to "The Value of Knowledge"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ronald, Barnett (1990) - first and last name are switched here, also should it just be "McGraw-Hill" rather than "McGraw-Hill Education (UK)"?

  Fixed. I changed the publisher to McGraw-Hill's subsidary "Open University Press". Phlsph7 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Steinberg 1995 - is this a high quality reliable source, or are there better sources that could replace it?

  This source was used at the FA for Communication with no objections. This also ties into the problem mentioned earlier about covering non-Western publishers. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, wasn't sure what level the book was aimed at from the title, but looks like it is a university course textbook which is fine. Shapeyness (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• The Hindu article - would it be better to use an academic source instead?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Walton 2005 - why is there a long excerpt?

  I removed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Wilson 2002 - inconsistent capitalisation

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Shapeyness: Just checking whether you feel that your review is close to the finishing line. If not, I may have to ask Gog to archive the nomination. They allowed it some extra time but we probably shouldn't push it too far. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Phlsph7: Sorry, I don't think I'll have the time to go through any sources in depth before the FAC is over. In terms of all of the specific comments I've already made, I'm happy that they've all been addressed.

  Hopefully it's been clear that the only reason I have tried to aggressively push for cuts to content is to keep things focused and get the article as lean and light-weight as philosophy I don't think this article is quite as economical or succinct as that one, but I don't think it currently goes into excessive detail, so I'd say that it passes the FA criteria on length and prose.

  On the focus and comprehensiveness of the article, it seems like there are quite a lot of views about what the article should focus on. I don't think there is any one right answer to that question, and I disagree that it is locked down by coverage in summary sources. Generally summary sources will have different goals to us and many will have more of a specialist focus than a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia.

  Summary sources are a useful shorthand for assessing due weight, but can never be a substitute for assessing the literature at large. But with a topic as massive as knowledge, it is also pretty much impossible to even cover every area of study in the literature, never mind assess weight in the totality of high-quality reliable sources. For that reason, I think that the coverage of the article is (more than most other Wikipedia articles) a matter of editorial judgement and editor agreement.

  That being said—while I would be more comfortable if I saw a greater consensus on the current focus of the article (and would personally like a more interdisciplinary approach)—the article is certainly comprehensive with regards to analytic epistemology (I can't speak to continental philosophy as I don't know much about it). It also does throw in aspects of other fields and a few of the sections are now more interdisciplinary than they were when the FAC began.

  Therefore, I'm going to stay neutral but with the proviso that I would be happy to support the article in its current state if I had more confidence on wider consensus on the focus of the article. Sadly that is quite a hard thing to come to agreement on because it is quite a broad/vague question, but it is my only hangup at the moment, and hard to sharpen into a more specific question. Sorry it's not a support, but hopefully the comments have been useful nonetheless. Shapeyness (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for all your in-depth comments and helpful suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments by others

• footnote c: "This view is rejected by relativism about truth, which argues that what is true depends on one's perspective and that there is no view from nowhere" without added context, probably best to remove reference to the view from nowhere
  • On this one, I would be in favor or providing context rather than removing the mention. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps a link to view from nowhere, sad there isn't a standalone article dedicated to this. Shapeyness (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, there is an entry on The View from Nowhere, but it is not informative in its present state.

  Another point about this footnote: it suggests relativism is the only alternative to objectivism. However there are lots of truth claims that are intersubjectively true. For instance, claims about the law–which, moreover, introduces a gray area of conflicting interpretations among experts.

  Does the article need this note at all? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I removed the reference to the view from nowhere. The footnote was initially added in response to a request by Patrick that the article should cover the problem of relativism and the view from nowhere. The current formulation leaves it open whether there are other views besides relativism that reject the objectivity of knowledge. It's probably true that relativism is the most prominent of these views. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Further thought: this brought to mind Richard J. Bernstein's 1983 Beyond Objectivity and Relativism. Against these extremes, he contends, "The dominant temper of our age is fallibilistic" (p. 12). According to the IEP entry "Almost all contemporary epistemologists will say that they are fallibilists".[86] The term comes from Charles Sanders Peirce. (Bernstein gives a nice definition at pp. 36–37 of The Pragmatic Turn.) I think fallibilism might belong in the body of the article. A paragraph could be placed at the end of Structure. Or, what I would much prefer, a two or three paragraph subsection following Analysis of Knowledge in the Definitions section with a title maybe something along the lines of A Pragmatic Approach. The SEP article on Pragmatism has an entire section devoted to Pragmatist Epistemology.[87] This would considerably help to ameliorate my concern that the article sets too analytic of a tone from the beginning. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

    I added a paragraph on fallibilism and pragmatism to the section "Limits". There was a talkpage discussion with the conclusion that the article should not have subsections on the different schools in the history of epistemology. Having only a subsection for pragmatism and not for the others might be odd. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

    Is it your position (or, more to the point, the position of the article) that the section "Analysis of knowledge" presents anything more than an episode in the (actually very short) history of epistemology? For this is a position that has been actively contested by a hardly insignificant number of philosophers—to say nothing of folks working in empirical disciplines who could not care less about anything we philosophers have to say. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

    The talkpage discussion linked above is about schools of thought that defend a particular position. I don't think that the analysis of knowledge is considered a specific position in this sense. It's probably better characterized as a field of inquiry encompassing various positions, many of which are opposed to each other. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

    Okay, this might be helpful. Because what I have been asking for with reference to specific schools of thought is actually something more general. That is to say, I am in agreement with you and Biogeographist, and I believe my objection still stands.

    Near the beginning of this process, I questioned the comprehensiveness of the article with an allegation of Anglo-American analytic bias. In response, you cited the eminently sensible policy that Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. In response to this, I may have over-corrected by presenting, as it were, a number of specific trees—without explaining how they all belong to one forest.

    Speaking quite broadly, one can distinguish two major traditions in Western philosophy. One has its roots in Plato (esp. the theory of forms) and emerges in the modern period as Cartesianism (among other things). The other has its roots in Aristotle and emerges in the modern period as Hegelianism (among other things). What I submit is that the justified-true-belief theory of knowledge and its problems are situated very much in the former, and that this article does not adequately cover the mainstream alternatives stemming from or otherwise developing the latter.

    If I were writing this article, I would address this issue by including a treatment of philosophical hermeneutics, but that is mostly just because this is just what I know. It could likewise be addressed (although with greater difficulty) by way of phenomenology. It's not why I brought him up, but it could also be addressed with reference to the work of Habermas. Although I don't know American pragmatism very well, I happen to be reading R. J. Bernstein's 2010 The Pragmatic Turn, and I am struck by how clearly and directly this tradition (at least on Bernstein's reading), not only confronts the shortcomings of the Platonic-Cartesian tradition, but also strives to provide a positive alternative position. (On Peirce's theory, for instance, falliablism is not a limit of knowledge, but a characteristic of knowledge, i.e., a part of its definition.)

    If you'll indulge a blockquote:

    Pragmatism begins with a radical critique of what Peirce called “the spirit of Cartesianism.” By this Peirce meant a framework of thinking that had come to dominate much of modern philosophy – where sharp dichotomies are drawn between what is mental and physical, as well as subject and object; where “genuine” knowledge presumably rests upon indubitable foundations; and where we can bracket all prejudices by methodical doubt. This way of thinking introduces a whole series of interrelated problems that preoccupied philosophers: the problem of the external world, the problem of our knowledge of other minds, and the problem of how to correctly represent reality. The pragmatic thinkers called into question the framework in which these traditional problems had been formulated. They rejected what Dewey called the “quest for certainty” and the “spectator theory of knowledge.” They sought to develop a comprehensive alternative to Cartesianism – a nonfoundational self-corrective conception of human inquiry based upon an understanding of how human agents are formed by, and actively participate in shaping, normative social practices. (pp. ix–x)

    Bernstein goes on to link this impulse to Heidegger and Wittgenstein, who he claims were independently responding to the same deficiencies in the Cartesian tradition. He also mentions Quine, Davidson, and Sellars (among others, elsewhere in the book) as pursing this project from within the analytic tradition, as well as various philosophers developing these sorts of insights in Germany.

    It doesn't matter to me how, or with reference to what specific schools or figures, this tradition is represented, but it does matter that it is given due coverage vis-à-vis the tradition of analytic epistemology, which currently dominates the first section of the article—in spite of being a quite technical inquiry into an artificially narrow conception of knowledge. For this second tradition is also, in your words, a field of inquiry encompassing various positions, many of which are opposed to each other. Or so I submit and am willing to defend with reference to additional sources as appropriate.

    (Not sure it's necessary here, but in disclosure, but I knew Dick Bernstein. He allowed me to audit one of his seminars at the NSSR, and he served as the external reader for my dissertation. In referencing his work here I do not intend to advocate for the inclusion of any of his specific theses.)

    Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks for clarifying your position. While I have doubts about your reductive division of Western philosophy into exactly two traditions and your claim that our article is focused on infallibilism and foundationalism associated with Cartesianism, I understand that you would like to see pragmatism also represented in the section "Definitions" so I added a short characterization. The pragmatist critique of infallibilism is explicitly discussed in the section "Limits" and various critiques of foundationalism are found in the section "Structure", including the critique by hermeneutics you requested. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Fly-by comment: It seems like the article of the German Wikipedia [88] makes the attempt of a very broad coverage of the topic. The quality looks good to me. It can be easily translated with browser plugin, and might provide some ideas. For example, it has a long section on "knowledge presentation", which it claims is a central term in pychology, artificial intelligence, linguistics and cognitive neurosciences. It has also a long section on limits of knowledge (similar to the reviewer above, I also would like to see at least a mention of quantum physics). Maybe this helps. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That's an interesting find and the page may contain some useful ideas. We just have to be careful in regard to the language barrier and the accuracy of statements on Wikipedia articles. For example, the English sources mainly use knowledge representation as a technical term and may mean something different with knowledge presentation so we would have to check whether the same thing is meant. I'm open to mentioning quantum physics somewhere but I'm not sure what exactly you have in mind. I did I short google search but most of the results discuss knowledge about quantum physics, which I assume is not what you meant. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of for QM is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but tbh not sure if that's worth more than a mention (if that). There are other things related to the epistemology of physics and the wavefunction in particular, but those are almost certainly not useful for a high level overview like this. Shapeyness (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the comment of Patrick J. Welsh above on Quantum indeterminacy in the context of limits of knowledge.

Yes, knowledge "representation", my mistake. But this confuses me a bit: You explicitly restrict "knowledge representation" to the field of artificial intelligence. The German Wikipedia states the concept is actually much broader, and not limited to artificial intelligence. The article semantic network, for example (to which you link) has substantial content on linguistics. And wouldn't simple means of knowledge organization (e.g., classification such as taxonomy; things such as glossaries) also be some form of knowledge representation? Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, knowledge representation as a technical term is primarily associated with artificial intelligence. Since we currently only have one paragraph on it, I thought it best to focus on this aspect, which is also how the sources cited present it. As you stated, in a more general sense, anything that represents knowledge is knowledge representation. If we want to have a more interdisciplinary perspective, this would be one expansion idea. There a different formalisms for structuring a knowledge base used in automatic reasoning and semantic networks are one approach. Since semantic networks rely on natural language, there is an overlap with linguistics. I think they are also used in some psychological models. I would have to go through some more sources to figure out the details of how to best present the topic from this wider lens if we want to have this kind of expansion. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

For the paragraph on representation, maybe an introductory sentence might be good introducing the term in the broad sense, before going into the artificial intelligence? Not sure if it needs more than that. However, I still agree with Patrick that a section "Limits of knowledge" would be good. Again, see German Wikipedia article for ideas. I think the quantum mechanics bit is relevant here, too; in science, it was long assumed that the universe can be precisely modeled (and predicted) if we only have enough knowledge/data about it. But this does not seem to be the case. To me, this seems to be a point of general interest. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I added an introductory sentence to the paragraph on knowledge representation. As for limits of knowledge, there may be a way to address several concerns at the same time. My current idea is to convert the section "Philosophical skepticism" into a section on the limits of knowledge, which fits together since skepticism is one position about the limits of knowledge. This would imply that the text on skepticism is reduced, as Patrick requested, and the focus is shifted in the process. Quantum indeterminacy is one way how knowledge may be limited so it could be included there as well. I would like to hear what your thoughts are and I'll also ping @PatrickJWelsh:. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think owe a bunch of responses here (the price of my own long-windedness!), but let me just say that I support the proposal to give this topic its own section. @Jens Lallensack captures my intention in mentioning quantum indeterminacy. Also, I do not oppose covering skepticism, which I consider extremely relevant. I just oppose focusing too much on a version of it that is too silly for anyone to take seriously. What I'm asking here is just to cut back on dreams and sci-fi thought-experiments to put in maybe a paragraph on Hume or something—unless brains in vats goes someplace interesting, in which case, don't leave that part out!

I will do my best to catch up with the rest tomorrow.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack and PatrickJWelsh: I made a first attempt to implement this idea, please let me know if this is roughly what you had in mind. The section includes an explanation of Kant's position and addresses the problem of Quantum indeterminacy via the uncertainty principle, which is probably more familiar to the reader. At the same time, the discussion of radical skepticism is shortened and moved to the end. I put the vat-example in a footnote so it's still there for readers who would like to learn more on this. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Quick comment on the uncertainty principle part: which states that it is impossible to know the exact position and momentum of a particle at the same time - true, but it's not just position and momentum, other pairs of properties such as energy and time are also subject to the principle. Uncertainty principle words it better: "there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known". Shapeyness (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I had thought that this more general principle was what the principle of complementarity was about but this is not my field of expertise. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this looks good. I like the inclusion of chaos theory. That hadn't occurred to me, but it fits nicely. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This has been running for a while now, with a lot of comment but little movement towards a consensus to promote. It more resembles a PR; which happens, especially with complex subjects. That said, I am inclined to archive it to let the various issues be sorted out off FAC, unless the reviewers to date feel that a consensus can swiftly be reached? @PatrickJWelsh, Jens Lallensack, Shapeyness, Generalissima, Tim riley, SchroCat, and Jens Lallensack: Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been watching this FAC from the start, and would like to see the discussions pursued to the end, and so I hope we don't have to archive this FAC yet, if at all. Tim riley talk 21:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The decisive issue, as I see it, is whether analytic epistemology provides an appropriately comprehensive account of knowledge. To me, it seems quite obvious that it does not. I have tried to be more specific about this above.

If, however, there were to emerge a consensus against me on this point, I would not put up a fuss beyond (maybe) a brief restatement of what I have already said. In such event, the nomination could close out fairly swiftly. Absent such a consensus, however, I don't see a timely path to promotion.

It's just an incredibly difficult topic to cover at a level consistent with the FA criteria. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I personally think that the article meets the FA criteria. The discussions above improved it significantly, especially with the new section on "limits". But I am not sure if much more is needed; I do think that the current focus on epistemology makes sense, and the coverage of other fields is reasonably extensive. This does not mean that the article should not be expanded further to be more comprehensive. For example, the observation that "knowledge is power" (scientia potestas est) could be mentioned (e.g., biopower), and the discussion about "freedom of knowledge" (e.g., open content) does not seem to be mentioned, too? That being said, I personally believe that such potential gaps can be filled within this FAC, but I acknowledge that the other reviewers have a much stronger background on the topic than I do. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas, I added a short passage about knowledge and power to the subsection "Sociology" and I added a footnote on free information to the section "History". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

We are on day 42 of this nomination. As far as I can tell, there is one full support, one support on prose, a passed image review, two tending to full support conditional on how the other reviews go, one ongoing review, and one quasi-oppose (with two editors questioning whether the quasi-oppose is based on a misinterpretation of the FA criteria). My suggestion would be to wait for the ongoing review to finish before making a final call but I won't insist. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

By all means let us give the discussion a little more rope. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the extension. Unfortunately, there hasn't been much progress towards a consensus so it might be best to archive this nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Will action. I agree with Gog that this has become more of a peer review. I know you did try PR before FAC, but didn't attract much commentary there. It might be worth another go, involving the reviewers here and anyone else who shows up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Marshlink line

Nominator(s): Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I love travelling on the Marshlink line; it's an interesting idiosyncrasy on the rail network in South East England. Instead of high speed, high volume, electric commuter services, it's a picturesque run through rural Kent and East Sussex that still fills an important gap in the local rail network. We're lucky the line exists at all; in the late 60s it was almost certainly going to be closed, but it never quite happened. And there's always the hope of running high speed rail along it at some point.

I've been working on this article for years now, and combed through a large collection of sources that talk about the line in depth. I think it's finally ready to ask the community if it's good enough to meet the FA criteria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• I'll definitely do a full review of this one, but in the meantime as a placeholder I will drop in that there is some grammar disagreement in "this once allowed [....] but were removed for safety reasons"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Good point, I was wondering how to write that better, I've given it another go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Couple of iterations of 'political importance' / 'significance' in the lead. Definitely investing in popcorn futures though  ;) ——Serial 14:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The mid-19th century fights between railway companies is something incredible to behold. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

HF

I intend to review this over the coming week. Hog Farm _Talk 21:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Since it's mentioned the origin of the name "Marshlink", is it known how the railway came up with this name?

It took me some time to find a source explaining the name, and I've not seen any source that mentions why the specific name was chosen. I can only assume it was some random marketing department somewhere that has been lost to the midsts of time

• I'm struggling to see how we get to "The nearest equivalent is the A259 from Hastings to Folkestone via Rye" in the article from "In his speech, the Honourable Member for Rye referred to: the inadequacy of the roads (including the Folkestone to Honiton A259 trunk road) in the South East" in the source

This is one of those awkward things that I think needs to be fixed, but simply removing the text probably isn't the answer. We could mention the vehicle road from Ashford to Hastings, and cite any local Ordnance Survey map, but saying it's "closest" just from a map is going to invite criticism and accusations of original research. I'll have to think about this one some more.

• From what I can tell, the Marshlink line is contiguous with the East Coastway line - shouldn't the connection between the two be mentioned in the route section unless I'm wrong?

I think it wasn't mentioned because it wasn't in the source given. I've dropped a source in now

• Any information on how the difficulties in the Romney Marsh soil were mitigated

I've gone back to look at Gray's "The South Eastern Railway" and rewritten this. The principal problem was bad weather, and the specific term used in the source is "heel over", which is not the same as "tip over".

• "and funded with a £2,800 capital." - this would not be grammatically correct in American English - is it okay in British English?

Copy edited

• I don't think "The line is strategically important, as electrification and junction improvements would allow High Speed 1 trains direct from St Pancras International to Hastings." and "Despite its relative unimportance in the national rail network, electrification could allow High Speed 1 services to be extended to Hastings and Eastbourne." are entirely saying the same thing. It seems that the lead is saying that the line is unimportant but would still allow for the expansion of High Speed 1 services, while the body seems to be saying that the line is important because it would allow for expansion of High Speed 1

I've rewritten all this (both by addressing the comments here and other later on).

I think that's it from me for the first read-through. Hog Farm _Talk 00:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick holding reply, most of these issues would benefit from a review of the original source material, most of which is held in reference-only books in my local library. Unfortunately, while I've got time to visit it today, Wednesday is early closing. I'll get back to you! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

As implied above, I did pop into the library today and checked a book source, that allowed me to address the comments you've made so far. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Ping me when this has passed the source review and I'll take another look. Hog Farm _Talk 18:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I did that, and it completely screwed up the infobox formatting, rendering the article completely unreadable. (See history) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that is that type was not set. This works fine, although you could use another type if you prefer. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

That seems to work well. I remember wrestling with the images on the table for listed structures some time ago. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "the line is then double-track" vs "After the tunnel, the line is double track" - inconsistent hyphen use
• Doleham image caption needs a full stop
• Ore station is linked in multiple places. Check for overlinking generally.
• "On 5 August 1873, the SER were authorized" => "On 5 August 1873, the SER were authorised" (UK spelling)
• "Work began on 8 April 1881 and opened to Dungeness on 7 December that year" => "Work began on 8 April 1881 and the line opened to Dungeness on 7 December that year" (it wasn't the work that opened)
• "following in the Railways Act 1921" => "following the Railways Act 1921"
• Winchelsea image caption needs a full stop
• "The local member of parliament for Rye, Bryant Godman Irvine made" => "The local member of parliament for Rye, Bryant Godman Irvine, made"
• "In 1969, Railway Magazine announced the remainder " => "In 1969, Railway Magazine announced that the remainder "
• "and the figures did not consider" => "and that the figures did not consider"

That's what I got as far as "announced plans for British Rail to start electrification by 1995" - will pop back and do the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I've addressed these issues as reported so far, though in some cases I've gone back and copyedited the original sentence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• "In 2015, Amber Rudd, Member of Parliament for Hastings [....] The aim is [...] This requires" - verbs are in the present tense, but 2015 was nine years ago.
• "In May 2018, the Department of Transport allocated £200,000 for further electrification design, with the possibility of completion in 2022 when the existing track life-expires." - 2022 was two years ago, has anything actually happened?
• "In October, a proposal was chaired" - October of which year (2019, I think.....?). Again, has anything actually happened? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  "Again, has anything actually happened?" No, but more frustratingly, nothing's been reported in high-quality sources. Electrification and improvements have been talked about for decades, and I'm pretty sure we'll see parliamentary candidates campaigning about it at the next election, but like many things, the COVID pandemic slammed the brakes on everything and it got so far down the priority list, everyone (apart from a few local campaign groups) has forgotten about it. The only recent bit of news I can find is regular hourly services to Winchelsea and Three Oaks, which is covered in the article. We can only report what reliable sources talk about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333, have all of Chris's comments been addressed? If not, could you. If so, could you ping them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, they've been addressed (either by fixing the article or expanding on the issue - in this case, that sources have dried up for the future of the line since Covid). ChrisTheDude Can you check your comments to see if there's anything else that needs doing? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Chris ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I'll definitely re-visit this one tonight. The wife is going to be out and I don't think there's anything good on the telly so I should have plenty of time :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Considering the nominator wasn't even here for a month, I don't think anyone should rush themselves... Thursday night telly or otherwise! ——Serial Number 54129 16:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've given it another review and made a few little tweaks which it was easier to just make than to raise here but I have one remaining question. In May 2018, the Department for Transport allocated £200,000 for further electrification design, with the possibility of completion in 2022 when the existing track life-expires. - 2022 was two years ago, so has the track by now "life-expired"? If so, what did this lead to.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Harry

Hey Ritchie! My FA reviews are mostly prose/grammar and style pedantry. I do review most criteria but 1a tends to account for the majority of comments. These are usually nice and easy to fix though so a long list is not necessarily a reflection on your writing!

• East Coastway line towards Eastbourne Surely Brighton is the primary destination in that direction?

Good question. The line is described in sources such as Mitchell / Smith to Brighton, but official network timetables and other documentation only extend to Eastbourne. As sources aren't consistent, I've gone with "Eastbourne and Brighton".

• Services are provided by Southern. I wonder about the wisdom of including something as ephemeral as a TOC so prominently in the lead. But I suppose it should be mentioned and I can't think of a better way of doing it.

I had a look at some related articles, such as Hastings line, South Eastern Main Line, Chatham Main Line and Ashford–Ramsgate line, and while none of them are GA, let alone FA standard, they don't mention the service operator in the opening paragraph of the lead, so I've taken it out. (The inconsistency with caps in the titles might want sorting out at some point....)

• and was considered strategically important how? To say it and not elaborate arguably makes it a peacock term.

Changed to "as a priority for military traffic" (as mentioned in the body, cited to Gray 1990)

• painting the name on selected rolling stock It's not clear who the subject of this clause is (Tony1 calls it "noun-plusing") and it doesn't strictly make sense

Changed to "Some trains had the name painted on the side."

• The change was one of several in the region, including the "1066 line" 1066 line was one of several changes in the region?

Changed to "The line from Tunbridge Wells to Hastings was branded the "1066 line" at the same time."

• Services run from Platforms 1 and 2 southwards Would "southwards from Platforms 1 and 2" make more sense or is it just me? And are we confident in "Platform" as a proper noun?

Changed. Regarding caps, looking at a random source, it would appear correct.

• freight-only branch line operated by Direct Rail Services pedantic, but doesn't DRS operate the trains, not the infrastructure?

According to "Who Wrote That", this text was added by Peter Shearan (talk · contribs) on 10 March 2005 (diff). While I don't have the source in front of me (see above comment to Hog Farm), I'm reasonably confident that fails verification, and so I've removed it.

I've now found a source for DRS and added in the "Services" section. Regarding the original point, you're correct, Southern run the trains, not the line and infrastructure which is run by Network Rail.

• On 27 July 1846, the LBR and BLHR amalgamated with several other lines I think the exact date is possibly excess detail considering it's not directly related to the line
• complained about a lack of sufficient progress redundancy? Sufficient progress wouldn't be a lack, a lack is clearly not sufficient.

Removed "sufficient" (sounds like Tony1 exercise)

• was granted on 24 July 1882, with the line opening on 19 June That's not strictly a grammatical use of "with"; you're using it and the comma to connect two clauses (which also forces the tense change). Better to use a semicolon or split it into two sentences.
• numerous Army camps were established since we haven't specified an army, I wouldn't treat it as a proper noun

Removed "Army" as I think it's obvious from context that "World War I" and "camps" is within a military context

• On 23 February 1966, the Ministry of Transport confirmed the branch to New Romney would close to passengers, which it did on 6 March 1967 I think both exact dates is excess detail; suggest culling the announcement date to just the year.

I have to disagree. Closure dates, especially related to the Beeching Axe seem to be well-known in rail enthusiast circles; for example Waverley Route mentions not just the date, but the specific times. So I think these dates need to be there to meet 1b.

• In 1969, Railway Magazine wrote the definite article is part of the RM's name—The Railway Magazine; also suggest linking

Done

• taking a longer journey, buying their tickets same problem as "painting" above

Reworded

• The line was single tracked between You've used the term multiple terms above but this is the first time it's linked; it's also hyphenated on every other use so far that I've spotted

Should be "single-track" with a dash

• However, the Marshlink line continued to attract criticism "However" is a word to watch; I haven't criticised your use use of it so far but I feel this one is editorialising—you're disputing the preceding statement in Wikipedia's voice rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.

In this case, the only sourced information is an opinion from Norman Baker. So this can be easily fixed by removing the entire sentence and just leaving Baker's opinion to sit in a neutral manner.

• Ashford International to Brighton, with Marshlink services only extending same ", with" problem as above

Changed to "Southern announced services to Brighton would terminate instead at Eastbourne".

• The company defended the decision "defended" is editorialising (it implies that the decision was wrong/controversial in Wikipedia's voice without explicitly saying so). You could put the criticism before the defence or just use a more boring verb like "stated".

Changed to "the company said", the aim here is to present the POV of both the rail company and the local council.

• would improve capacity between Eastbourne and Hastings, and removing a 2 carriage diesel service Sorry, several problems here: the numeral should be a word (MOS:NUMERAL), "two carriage" is a compound adjective and needs a hyphen, and you've changed tense for no apparent reason (I'd lose the comma and go with "remove" and you should be fine).

Done

Will be back with more later. Ran out of time before work! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell I've addressed everything so far. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• I like the listed buildings section. Is there anything to say about the buildings on the line (listed or otherwise) as a group? Do we know if the railway employed an in-house architect? Do the buildings follow a consistent architectural style? I have a few books on railway architecture (actually, probably all the books) so if there's nothing in your sources I'll see if mine have anything.

A number of the stations were designed by William Tress as part of a group, so that can be mentioned, though I'd want to go and consult the book sources in the library to double-check if I can. The other buildings date from different time periods and were assessed at different times.

• Spell out diesel multiple unit on first mention.

Done

• Isn't DMU train (in the caption) a bit of a tautology?

Done

• In November 2017, it was suggested

Clarified

• Is Damian Green's statement noteworthy? Don't local politicians endorse any suggestion that plays well in their constituency, regardless of how plausible it is?

No, now that the "Future" section is more developed. (Amusingly, if I google for "Damian Green Marshlink", I get this FA review in one of the top ten hits).

• Suggest moving the link on St Pancras to the first mention (if you keep Green's statement)

Having tidied this up, the first mention of St Pancras in "Future", where it is mentioned

• This required remodelling Ashford would have required? I'm guessing nothing came of it?

What extra context does "would have" add? As I mentioned above, the problem is this is one of several proposed over the last 20 years or so that keeps cropping up with the same detail again and again.

• That October, a proposal was chaired and what does "chair" a proposal mean?

The Marshlink Action Group; however, the information here (new platform at Ashford) can be taken from the Network Rail source, which is a bit more authoritative.

• Both proposals required closing the Ore Tunnel I'm guessing the proposals would require major engineering work on the tunnel but it would be nice to elaborate on what that was if it's supported by the source material.

Unfortunately, the source says "Ore Tunnel closed for 6 months" without any further comment. I'll hunt around to see if any other sources are available, but this is one of the few reliable ones in this decade to say anything on the subject.

• If we're being pedantic, you don't seem to be treating books consistently—some are cited in full in the footnotes but most use sfns linked to the bibliography.

No problems with being pedantic if it makes the article better. Done.

I think that's it it from me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review so far! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I had a thumb through the most comprehensive books. The best is Biddle's Britain's Historic Railway Buildings. The Queen's Road bridge gets a mention (I do like me a railway bridge! I sense my to-do list getting longer!) and there's a good write-up on Rye station. There's a fair few column inches on the Hastings line stations but nothing on the Marshlink ones as a group. If any of it's useful I'm happy to send it over but the picking are slimmer than I'd hoped. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot on Rye railway station (East Sussex), which is a GA like this one currently, though most of that comes from the same sources as this article uses. Still, might be worth adding a sentence or two from Biddle's source if it's not already mentioned here, plus it would be useful for expanding Hastings railway station, which could be improved to GA at some point, having an interesting history as a centre point between the SER and LBSCR's rivalry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd love to see a bit more on the architecture if there are any sources that discuss it but I'm happy to take you at your word that you'll incorporate anything you find. I'll send over what I've got on Hastings and Rye stations in case it's useful for this or other projects. I made one copy edit from above that I assume you missed. I think that resolves everything for me so I'll support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Well over three weeks in and this has received a fair bit of attention, but no indications of support for promotion. 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, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. That would be a shame, as far as I know I have addressed every comment on the review in one way or another. (I was going to comment on the lack of activity somewhere at some point, but wasn't sure how long I should have left it). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll try and get back to this in the next few days with a view to supporting. There are no glaring issues as far as I can see. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the principal issue is there hasn't been an in-depth spot check of the sources. There's been a de-facto one where I spot-checked the sources and made a few corrections, but not from someone independent. I believe that's blocking at least one other support at the moment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Don't know how I have managed to miss this FAC till now. I know this line, as I have a good friend in Rye and use the route a fair bit. I am pleased to support the elevation of the article to FA. I have given the text two slow and careful readings and have found nothing to carp at. I note the comment about the lack of a source review, and will volunteer do one if nobody else steps up, though I am not the world's greatest source reviewer (see under useless and bloody awful). – Tim riley talk 21:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Source reviewish

Reviewing this version, is a spot-check needed? Southern is inconsistently capitalized. I see a fair bit of British local newspapers used, I presume we didn't unintentionally pick up any unreliable outfit? I kind of wonder about the usage of Hansard - using it to cite announcements by ministers seems fine, but I am not sure uses for statements of fact like #94 and #101 are OK. There are a lot of company-affiliated websites, press releases cited, but for technical information so I think it's fine. I confess that I can't tell much about the books cited, not being familiar with British railway literature - nothing jumped out as inappropriate but I wouldn't know any of them from a hole in the ground. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Southern is inconsistently capitalized." - apologies, I can't see where, can you specify?

• 1. 17 and #18 are about the same source but have different capitalization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm being dense - I've double checked all the web citations, and I can't see any obvious difference between the two. Sorry :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hansard is, in my view (and backed up at WP:RSP) okay in moderation, but the risk of straying into original research is significant, so should be taken with care. Taking the Hansard references in turn, using citations numbers from that diff:

• [76] is an opinion of Bryant Godman Irvine, indicated as such (and backed with a secondary source, albeit a local newspaper)
• [78] appears to be redundant and can be removed
• [82] is an opinion of John Morris, Baron Morris of Aberavon
• [83] and [84] are used to cite the general claim "The decision to close was delayed several times and continued for the rest of the decade." I'm going to remove this claim as it doesn't really tell us anything that the text around this section doesn't (and indeed, a large important section of the entire article concentrates on this fact - it was supposed to be closed by Beeching but never was).
• [85] is an opinion of Michael Heseltine
• [94] is an opinion of Charles Kerr, 2nd Baron Teviot, using the text "British Rail has tried to upgrade the railway between Ashford and Hastings, because Ashford is the town where everything is going to happen" to cite "By the 1980s, British Rail had started to modernise the route".
• [95] is a discussion in parliament, citing the text "though electrification was rejected in preference to improving the South Eastern Main Line from Tonbridge to Ashford." This is factually incorrect - electrification of the SEML to Ashford took place in the 1960s, not the 1980s, and reviewing the source gives me the impression the debate was about both lines, and specifying that the Tonbridge - Ashford line was earmarked for improvements, but saying nothing about Ashford - Hastings.
• [97] is an opinion of Roger Freeman, Baron Freeman
• [101] is an opinion of Norman Baker, but I'd like to find another source for "However, the incoming franchisee is taking service improvement seriously, and South Central Ltd is investing £5 million in measures to improve the quality and perception of customer services." which is used to cite "In 2000, Southern took over management, and pledged to invest £5 million in improving customer service across its network."
• [117] is a speech by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport on an accident on the Dungeness goods branch on 26 April 1984.

Of that list:

• Those that are obviously an opinion of a specific MP, and attributed as such are probably okay.
• Those that attempt to synthesise specific opinions into something more general are straying into original research, and going against FA criteria 1c.
• That leaves the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport. As this is a primary source close to a specific event, the chances of novel synthesis are low. It's probably okay, but it would be helpful if a contemporary news source could back this up.

A general note, is the Hansard reports are probably used as citations because the book sources focus on the 19th and early 20th century, and dry up around the 1980s. However, that also implies that the article should talk less about the line from this period, reflecting the general coverage of sources.

I'll go and fix the obvious problems now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind the use of Hansard - I actually think that primary sources often are more reliable than news reports, as the latter often present the same information as the former but secondhand - but for certain claims we need more than "an MP claimed this". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I've gone through and removed or re-sourced the Hansard citations that appear to be used beyond a basic personal view of something. Is there anything else specific that needs addressing? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo, as Ritchie333 is a first-time nominator, both a sources spot check and a plagiarism check will be needed. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

OK; spot-check (with plagiarism check included) on this version:

• 18 Broken URL, and since it's almost eight years old I don't think we can put it in present tense.

I've replaced it with a current timetable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• 20 Can I have a copy of this source?
• 21 This source doesn't seem to add anything, but #22 seems to say "half-hourly" not "hourly". The source also implies that the service may have been reintroduced.

The source appears to have changed. I don't believe half-hour services are possible given the layout of the track, and Southern's official timetable makes no mention of them existing at all. Consequently, I've moved this out of the current services section and into history. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• 33 Can I have a copy of this source?
• 34 Can I have a copy of this source?
• 39 Can I have a copy of this source?
• 40 Can I have a copy of this source?
• 42 Can I have a copy of this source?
• 43 Can I have a copy of this source?
• 45 Can I have a copy of this source?
• 49 Can I have a copy of this source?
• 51 Can I have a copy of this source?
• 55 Can I have a copy of this source?
• 67 Can I have a copy of this source?
• 72 Don't think the "less than 10,000 passengers" thing is on the pages given.

The source says "Maps 1 - 9", which is this one. Map 1 marks the line as "between 5,000 and 10,000 passengers, while map 9 shows it as proposed for closure. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• 86 Peyton does not explicitly say that the policy change was the reason for the review?

This source appears to be dead / unavailable at the moment. Bit worrying for Hansard. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The source is back up. This looks like a difference in interpretation over "in the light of his recent announcement about future railway policy. and whether or not that implies said announcement was directly linked to the line's future. I've rewritten this sentence to stick closer to what the source says, and explicitly attribute it as an opinion (good for Hansard, as previously discussed). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• 111 OK
• 120 Can I have a copy of this source?
• 123 Does "Class 171" (article) mean "diesel train" (source)?

Yes, the paragraph above says "Class 171 "Turbostar" Diesel Multiple Units", so I felt an additional description here was redundant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• 126 Needs an archive

A bit uneasy that almost every accessible source has a discrepancy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, that does not sound good. Anything further since you last looked at it, or is this looking like a SR fail? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the sources I marked as "Can I have a copy of this source?" - for spotchecks, I insist on having a screenshot or photo of the pertinent page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Damn, I could have done all this last Saturday. I'll have to get back to you, the library has reduced its opening hours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

(ec)A general comment about the book sources - they all came out of my local public library. Some can be loaned out, a number are in the "reference only" section. However, unless someone can get access to the same library (or a similar one) to independently get the books, then I can't see any easy way that any of the information can be verified, beyond me having a look myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't know where you live, but if you're in the UK the public libraries offer a service called "inter-library loans". For example, my local public library belongs to Oxfordshire County Council (OCC). and using my OCC library card I can borrow a book from any library in Oxfordshire (and also Reading, Berkshire), but if the book that I want isn't in stock in the libary that I visit, I can request it. OCC will then check their catalogue to see if there is a copy in any OCC library. If so, they'll transfer it to my local public library; if not, they'll check with other county councils until a copy can be located, which will then be sent to OCC and then on to my local public library. All this is done for a fee, and can take a few weeks. But it does mean that if the only copy in the UK happens to be in Ritchie333's local library, I can still request to borrow it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

'Afraid that I live on the continent. Going by Worldcat most of these books don't exist in my country, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The easiest way is probably for Ritchie to take photos of the requested pages and email them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Also noting that that's exactly the same thing that reviewers and responders traditionally do... and are expected to do. It would be odd if a reviewer were able to abrogate responsibility for their use of sources simply by telling the source reviewer they must work it out for themselves! ——Serial Number 54129 12:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ritchie333, how is the source review coming along? Has Jo-Jo received photos of the requested pages yet? FrB.TG (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I was hoping to get to the library and sort all of this out this week, but I haven't been in a position to do so. Hopefully, I will be able to get it sorted at a lunchtime next week. Unfortunately, a whole bunch of circumstances, not least the pandemic and then moving house have meant that I'm no longer in the position to pop down to the library in 5 minutes and get the answers. I hope you can be patient, but if not then the review might have to be closed as "can't verify". Hopefully it doesn't come to that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I can wait. Obviously, the FAC coordinators get a vote too in this regard. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If the source review is successful and the nomination still needs eyes on the prose, let me know and I'll be happy to review. Anarchyte (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus I managed to get into the library and get camera copies of some of the sources used here. Send me an email and I'll reply with them attached. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, the zipped camera copies are too big to send via email, I'll see if I can reduce the size down so they are still visible, but an acceptable size to send. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2024 [89].

---

John Pulman

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

John Pulman was an eight-time world snooker champion in a period when the sport was at a low ebb. He turned professional in 1946 and retired from competition in 1981 after breaking his leg when hit by a London bus. As ever, I am able to provide relevant extracts from sources to reviewers on request, and welcome all comments that help improve the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

As this nomination is not attracting attention, I'm pinging Amakuru and Rodney Baggins, who offered challenges and suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steve Davis/archive2, and HurricaneHiggins and Lee Vilenski who have a current nomination for 2023 World Snooker Championship, to see if any of them would like to contribute here. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:John_Pulman.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks, Nikkimaria. I've expanded the FUR. Let me know if more is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Is it possible to identify the copyright holder and year? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria: I had a look around some sources to see if I could confirm whether it was published, but didn't find an example. The source has "This photograph originates from the International Magazine Services photo archive. IMS was a editorial photo archive in Scandinavia founded in 1948 but evolved from older archives that have images in the collection also .... The images in this archive where distributed in only 10-15 copies around the world at the time". The scan of the back of the photo does not give a date. Let me know if I should search for a diffrent image. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• That's fine, would just suggest adding that context to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay, Nikkimaria; I've added that to the image page. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

ReviewSupport from Hurricane Higgins

I think this article meets all the criteria for a Featured Article. It's comprehensive, meticulously researched, detailed, and yet accessible to a non-specialist audience. The writing is fluid and readable. I learned a lot from reading it, and also enjoyed reading it. It beautifully illuminates an era in snooker that many will know little about.

If I were to revise anything about the writing, I'd rework the final two paragraphs of the "Later career and retirement section", with a focus on chronological order. They skip around confusingly between 1978 and 1998, mentioning his divorce twice, talking about his retirement and then the publication of a book 16 years prior to that.

In terms of content, was there anything notable about Pulman's life between his retirement from professional play in 1981 and his death in 1998? It might be useful, for instance, to know how long he worked as a snooker commentator. This article by Dave Hendon notes that Pulman commentated on the first officially recognized 147 by Steve Davis, which might be something to include. https://www.eurosport.com/snooker/he-can-see-the-pocket-closing-up-re-live-davis-history-making-first-ever-147-break-on-its-anniversar_sto8696729/story.shtml

Not much else of note here. I think this is an excellent article that easily equals or exceeds other snooker articles that have been awarded FA status. So more than happy to support its promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HurricaneHiggins (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Rodney Baggins

I've had a quick look. First comment would be: this is quite a short article, compared with some of the other featured articles we've worked on. Could it be expanded in any way? HurricaneHiggins has already noted some areas for improvement above, and I might suggest some more after I've had chance to read in more detail today.

I'll look forward to any suggestions for improvement. There is scope to expand on career history, but for personal life, playing style etc I think I 've pretty much wrung out the available sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead

I've copyedited this section for you – hope you don't mind. Suggest adding in the following links:

• [[Challenge (competition)|challenges]] → challenges
• [[1964–68 World Snooker Championships|from 1964 to 1968]] → from 1964 to 1968
• [[Single-elimination tournament|knockout event]] → knockout event

• I'm grateful for the copyedits; I see you've also kindly copyedited some of the related tournament articles leads. Links suggested above have been added. 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Early life

• Can we source his full name Herbert John Pulman?

• The Times obituary is the source for this; I could add it directly after his full name. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Change Devonshire to Devon, as in infobox, or vice versa, as long as they're the same. I think Devonshire's just an archaic version of Devon.

• Both the sources cited have "Devon" so I've gone with that. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Second sentence could do with swapping round... "His father was Ernest Charles Pulman, a master baker and confectioner, and his mother was Ernest's wife Gertrude Mary Pulman, née Kent."... or something similar.
• "He was allowed to pick a cue from a selection at the venue," > "He was invited to choose a cue from a selection at the venue,"
• "and used that cue for the rest of his career." > "and he used that particular cue for the rest of his career."
• "In his first match with the cue" > "In his first match at the event" ? Might be trying to imply that it was because of the cue that he did so well in the match!

• Amended per the four suggestions above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• I think we should be calling Barrie Smith by his professional name John Barrie.

• I've added "later known as John Barrie" as he was still known by his original name at the time. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• "a 200-up match" doesn't mean anything to me – could you perhaps explain it in a footnote?

• It means "first to 200 points"; I've added a footnote but there may be a more elegant solution. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• "The cue that Pulman chose" > "The cue that Pulman had chosen" (tense)

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• "included a metal plate mentioning Sidney Smith" – what do you mean by 'mentioning'? Was Smith's name just engraved into the plate cos it had belonged to him? Could just put: "included a metal plate with the name Sidney Smith engraved on it;"

• The source has "The metal plate on the butt bore the name of Sidney Smith, a renowned professional of the day...". I imagine it was something like the examples here. Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• "using a cue with another professional's name on it." > "using a cue inscribed with another professional's name."

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• "making Spitfire wings" > "making wings for Spitfires" ... brings to mind "four candles / handles for forks"!

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Spitfire doesn't need to be piped because it's a redirect – just put [[Spitfire]]s

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Can you say a bit more about the medical grounds on which he was discharged? Was it something that affected his later snooker career?

• "In the Smith piece, Pulman says, referring to his Army service, that he had varicose veins, but not that this was the reason for the discharge; I've added this in. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Transition from billiards to snooker: I have noticed that the Early life section makes no mention of him playing snooker. He only appears to have played billiards before the war. Then the next section kicks off with him winning the 1946 English Amateur (Snooker) Championship, and billiards is not mentioned again, so how/when did he make the transition to playing snooker?

• Added that he played in local leagues when a teenager. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Early professional career (1946–1955)

• "At 20, he was the youngest winner since the event was..." > "Aged 20, Pulman was the youngest player to win the event since it was...""
• "he became a professional player" > "he took the decision to become a professional player"
• "within ten days of each other." sounds a bit awkward. Maybe change to "just ten days apart" or "the second just ten days after the first"?
• "Pulman lived at the house of his patron" > "Pulman was living at the home of his patron" (tense) – was he in fact lodging there? If so, would it be better to put "Pulman was lodging at the home of his patron"? (prefer the word 'home' to 'house')
• What exactly does "patron" mean here? Was Lampard sponsoring him in some way?

• According to Williams & Gadsby, "[Pulman] was lucky enough to receive the backing of a Bristol confectioner and baker named Bill Lampard... [who] let Pulman stay at his house"; Everton 2012 has "[Pulman] lived at the home, with billiard room attached, of his wealthy patron, Bill Lampard, who launched him into the professional game." Lowe says that Lampard "agreed to sponsor" Pulman. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• "a baker from Bristol and..." > "who was a baker from Bristol and..." (without the "who was", it sounds as if we're listing three people: (1) Bill Lampard, (2) a baker from Bristol, and (3) a member of the BACC.
• "Lampard built a billiard room" > "Lampard built a billiard room in his house" – or did he just "set up" a billiard room in his house?

• added "at his house" - Lowe has "set up a billiards room"; Williams & Gadsby have "built a special billiards room"; Everton says the room was "attached" but doesn't mention it being made for Pulman BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• "Clive Everton claims" > "alleges" might be a more fitting word here?
• "seeking a level of consistency" > "in pursuit of a level of consistency" or just "pursuing"?
• "due to influenza" – did he just have bad cold symptoms or was it a full-blown case of the flu?

• The Scotsman has "due to influenza". Birmingham Daily Post for 27 January 1951 has "suffering from influenza"

• The round-robin-with-points-handicaps format for the News of the World tournament had already been used for the Sunday Empire News Tournament the previous year, so the format description should perhaps be moved up to that previous event. Having said that, I can't see an easy way of doing it, so maybe leave it alone for now...

I've either commented above, or addressed the points about Early professional career. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

World snooker championship contests (1955–1968)

• Shouldn't Jack Rea be Jackie Rea? Or was he referred to as Jack back in the day?

• Newspapers.com has 114 matches for "'Jack Rea' snooker" in 1957, and none for "'Jackie Rea' snooker". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest changing "along with Williams, Fred Davis, and Jack Rea," to "along with Fred Davis, Rea and Williams," (surnames in alphabetical order)
• Should Blackheath be linked to distinguish it from the ones in London or Surrey? (there's even one in Australia!)
• Is it necessary to mention that he took Harold Phillips out to lunch? Could just say "after talks with..." or "after an approach to..." the BA&CC chairman Harold Phillips.
• "on a challenge basis" – might it be useful to link to [[Challenge (competition)|challenge]]
• Is it accurate to say they "spun a coin"? – coins are usually "tossed" or "flipped". Pls check source.

• Everton (2012) has "At one rural venue, no spectators showed up. Instead of playing, the players spun a coin." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• I notice that in the whole of this section, there's no link through to 1964–68 World Snooker Championships – that could do with working in somehow. One option might be to link it through "The championship was reinstated", i.e. [[1964–68 World Snooker Championships|The championship was reinstated]]...?
• "between Pulman, the winner of the 1957 Championship, and Fred Davis" – it almost looks here as if we are listing three people: (1) Pulman, (2) the winner of the 1957 Championship, and (3) Fred Davis! Suggest changing to "between Pulman, who had won the most recent championship in 1957, and the challenger Fred Davis."
• "Pulman defeated Davis 19–16 at Burroughes Hall in April 1964." – suggest appending: "to retain the title that he had claimed seven years earlier."
• "in the deciding frame" – might be more impactful to change this to "in a final-frame decider"?
• "where Pulman won by 25 matches to 22" – would it be ok to say "where Pulman won 25 of their 47 matches"?

• Yes, Everton (2012) mentions it was a "47-match series". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• "by seeing off the challenge of Eddie Charlton." – not sure about the phrase 'seeing off' – could this be changed to something like "by fending off a challenge from Eddie Charlton"? Or maybe that's not an improvement.

Amended the World snooker championship contests (1955–1968) section as suggested, apart from where comments above indicate otherwise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Later career and retirement (1968–1998)

• Suggest changing: "In 1967, Pulman had toured snooker clubs as promotional work for..." to "In 1967, Pulman had spent time touring snooker clubs doing promotional work for..." and where were the clubs? All over the UK, or just England, or the London area?

• Amended. I've added "across the Midlands" as it's consistent with Everton's article and I didn't find any mentions of venues outside that area. (Meanwhile, Jack Karnehm undertook a 27-venue Engish billiards tour in Guyana, and Fred Davis and Rex Williams were using tubular metal cues "for all their tournaments and exhibitions"). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• "The good attendances for the championship match" > "The good attendances for the Pulman/Charlton match" (possible alternative way of referring to it?)
• "This championship is generally regarded as..." > "The 1969 event, with its updated format, is generally regarded as..."
• "recovered in time" – might this be characterised as fully or sufficiently recovered in time?

• I've added a clipping that says he was "fully recovered". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• The Park Drive 2000 was a series of tournaments, so it might be more accurate to put "the Park Drive 2000 series, which began less than two weeks later."
• "an invitational event for four world champions." > "an invitational event with four world champions in competition." ?
• First two sentences of 2nd paragraph appear to be unsourced. Are they both covered by Everton 1985, pp. 53–55? If so, maybe need to put ref tags at end of each sentence? I was actually thinking the 1st sentence ("Unable to defend his title, ...") might be best placed at end of 1st paragraph anyway.

• I added the extra instances for the ref, and moved that sentence. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• "After 1977, he was unable to win another World Championship match." – Would it be possible to work in that he entered the championship up to and including 1981, but didn't win any matches? e.g. "After 1977, he was unable to win another World Championship match, although he continued to enter until 1982 when he had to withdraw..." + reason? + source?
• I think it's more usual to say "declared bankrupt" rather than "adjudged bankrupt".
• "with debts of £5,916" > "with personal debts of £5,916" (assuming he didn't have any failed business ventures?)

• Amended per the two points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Do you want to put any equivalences in this article (using the inflation template)? Debts of £5,916 are equivalent to almost 32 grand in today's money, and his £400 prize money for the 1948 Sunday Empire News Tournament is equivalent to over 15 grand these days.

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Pulman and his wife Frances divorced around 1978..." – should really be placed before the bit about his bankruptcy in 1979. Then you could change the sentence "By this time he was recently divorced, suffering from severe motivational problems and living in a hotel in Bromley" to just "By this time, he was living in a hotel in Bromley and suffering from severe motivational problems."
• "He retired from professional play in 1981..." – could you add something to this sentence about him having to pull out of the 1981 world championship (which turned out to be his last one) and why?
• Why was he hospitalised for six months? Surely not just for breaking his leg. The London bus incident must have been quite serious, so it might be worth explaining a bit more here if you can.

• Amended here and in the next para - not sure where the "six months" came from, so I removed it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• "to work as a television commentator" – do you mean snooker commentator?
• Suggest moving sentence about his book to start of 4th paragraph, so it fits in chronologically: "His book... was revised and published as Tackle Snooker in 1974." followed by "Pulman and his wife Frances divorced around 1978; they had three children." followed by "On 7 February 1979, he was declared bankrupt with personal debts of £5,916. By this time, he was living in a hotel in Bromley and suffering from severe motivational problems." Then the chronology's right.
• I agree with HurricaneHiggins, I'd like to know more about the length of his commentating career, and what he got up to in the later years before his death, but I see that you've noted above that there's not much more you can squeeze out of the sources. It would be nice to see the last couple of paragraphs expanded slightly if possible.

• I added a little on this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Amended the Later career and retirement (1968–1998) section as suggested, apart from where comments above indicate otherwise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Playing style and influence

• I sometimes think it's best to write out simple conversions without using the convert template, because you can put non-breaking spaces in then (not provided by the template). {{convert|6|ft|2|in|cm}} > 6{nbsp here}feet 2{nbsp here}inches (188{nbsp here}cm) ... the template has already done the conversion, so you know the cm figure is accurate.
• The clause starting "and adapted a stance..." needs to be broken up a bit, e.g. "and adapted a stance ... close together, meaning that more weight..."
• "This enabled him to use his height and reach to his advantage while playing." > "This enabled him to take full advantage of his height and his reach while playing shots."
• "In their 2005 book about world snooker champions," > "In their 2005 book, Masters of the Baize," (sounds more formal?)
• ...wrote of Pulman that "If I ever > ...wrote of Pulman: "If I ever
• "and a long-time snooker commentator" > "and was a long-time snooker commentator"
• I tend to think it's best to give players' names in full when first mentioned in any new section: "Alex Higgins, the world champion in 1972 and 1982"; "praised by Ray Reardon"; "John Spencer admired"
• Is it necessary to give the details of the Davis/Pulman match? You could just say something like "Steve Davis, who met Pulman in a *first-round* match at the 1977 Pontins Open, observed how..." (or whatever round it was!)

• It was the last-32, which Davis refers to as the "first round proper", but even Snooker Scene doesn't say which round that was, so I've used "who met Pulman in a match at" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Why were the conditions imperfect? Is there anything you could add that might clarify what Pulman and Reardon adapted to there?

• Amended, as David ony talks about the quality of the tables. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Don't need semi-colon before end clause, just put "...rather than bemoaning them, and he found this to be a valuable lesson."

Amended the Playing style and influence section as suggested, apart from where comments above indicate otherwise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Career finals

• Note [m] should surely read: "Pulman won the match at 37–28."

• Yes, I checked the source. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• The 1955 match-play championship was won when the score reached 37–34, but this is not noted.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• You forgot to note that the winning score for the October 1964 match was 37–23.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• You also forgot to note that the winning score for the 1968 challenge match was 37–28.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to expand the notes to read: "?? won the match when the score reached ??–??." but I don't really mind either way!

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• At first sight, it's weird that there are two entries for 1964 and three for 1965. Might benefit from adding a note for the two 1964 WSC matches: "These were two separate challenge matches played in London in April 1964 and October 1964." and for the three 1965 WSC matches: "These were three separate challenge matches played in South Africa in 1965."

• Amended. I've gone for a simpler note about challenges, with longer notes for those that were a series of matches. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Were there any dead frames played in the 1970 final that should be noted?

• Yes, amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

References

• Refs 1 & 53 are dup cites (Independent obituary); refs 46 & 90 are dup cites (Snooker Scene: Higgins in top gear at Ford tournament); refs 49 & 84 are dup cites (Snooker Scene: Official rankings August 1976)
• Refs. 15, 86, 87,88 lead to a British Newspaper Archive sign-in page so not particularly useful for most readers. Can the articles be found via Newspapers.com instead (like the two Guardian articles, refs. 47 & 52)? Are any of the other articles available to view, e.g. all the Times citations, The Scotsman (ref.18), The Age (ref.78), The Canberra Times (ref.79), etc.
• Refs 15 and 86 (Western Daily Press) are available via British Newspaper Archive, so what about the other Western Daily Press refs (11 and 67a)?
• Ref 88 (Birmingham Daily Post) is available via British Newspaper Archive, so what about the other Birmingham Daily Post refs (30, 41, 68, 75)?
• Suggest unlinking The Glasgow Herald work param in refs 21–34 and 32–35 for consistency (none of the other newspaper work params are linked).
• Is it possible to highlight SNOOKER rather than Swimming in the newspaper snippet for ref.35?
• Is it possible to highlight SNOOKER rather than Weaver's Success in the newspaper snippet for ref.37?
• Of the numerous Snooker Scene citations, only one (ref.51) cites Clive Everton as editor (inconsistent).
• Ref.66: Is this book the same as this? It's compiled (authored) by Reg Perrin and published by BBC, isbn 0-563-20293-9. I can't find an Ian Morrison version.

• No, it's the magazine Pot Black, not associated with the BBC. I've added the ISSN number. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added links wherever I could, including swapping a couple of references. I couldn't find another online source for the winning margin against Williams (17 October 1964 source; other papers report the post-dead-frames score of 38-22); I didn't manage to repoint that link from the Swimming heading, which I think is due to the quality of the scan. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Making progress. Well, you know I find it impossible to not be thorough, right!?... Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Benny, one more section to check and we're done. I've been doing a bit of copyediting along the way too, which seemed easier while noting down my specific comments/queries for your attention, so you can use your own judgement for those. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

All done now – sorry it took me so long. I do hope this helps rather than hinders. Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for the thorough review, Rodney Baggins, I really appreciate it. Please let me have any further feedback once you've had a chance to digest my changes and replies. (Skip to 1:03 here for a glimpse of Pulman that you might not have seen before.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rodney Baggins, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild and BennyOnTheLoose: Hi, I'm just going over it now. Looking good apart from one or two minor tweaks that I will note here later. Yes, it will be a Support from me. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Final comments

• You said The Times obituary is the source for his full name; I would quite like to see that tagged directly after his full name at start of Early life section.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• There are quite a lot of multi-tags that could do with swapping round, unless the first is specifically more useful as a source for the tagged material, e.g. [4][3] > [3][4] in Early life section. Also [7][4]; [10][3]; [47][42]; [53][17][54]; [1][54]; [60][57]; [72][17]; [23][19]; [42][17].

• Pending... BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• I commented above that, while he seemed keen on billiards as a youngster, there's no further mention of it after the Early life section. Maybe amend next section heading from 'Career' to 'Snooker career', to make it clear that there's no billiards included in his main career? Just a thought – purely up to you!

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• You didn't respond to these comments for Later career and retirement (1968–1998):
  • I think it's more usual to say "declared bankrupt" rather than "adjudged bankrupt".
  • "with debts of £5,916" > "with personal debts of £5,916" (assuming he didn't have any failed business ventures?)

• Amended per the two points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• • Do you want to put any equivalences in this article (using the inflation template)? Debts of £5,916 are equivalent to almost 32 grand in today's money, and his £400 prize money for the 1948 Sunday Empire News Tournament is equivalent to over 15 grand these days.
    • Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• I was going to suggest that note [h] needs a citation, but looking back at what it's referring to, I realise that wouldn't be straightforward. It's just there to point out that the QF was his first match because there were only 8 players in those tournaments. I'm not sure if the note needs to be reworded to make that clear, or just removed altogether?

• I've amended the note and added citations. I think that "QF" suggests some progression in the tournament,and so a note is worthwhile. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note [k] might be wrong. It says the winning score was 37–31, but according to wiki article, the winning score was 37–34 (to Fred Davis) and there were two dead frames played, bringing the final score to 38–35. Or maybe the main article has it wrong?

• The source used in the 1955 article does have 37–34, but the source I used here has Davis leading 36-30, losing the first frame of the next session, but then "taking the second... to become champion in the 68th frame of the week." I'll check other sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• I've added to the 1955 article talk page at Talk:1955_World_Professional_Match-play_Championship#Score_in_the_final and invited comments there by posting at the WP:SNOOKER talk page. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note [t] is incorrect. His opponent in the final was Reardon not Davis.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• The page numbers appear to be wrong for refs. 49 and 92.

• The printed page number for ref 49 is 6. I've added an edition parameter but I'm not sure as it seems to be a sports ("Pink Final" Special") sold separately. For 92, the preceding page in the scan in 9, and the fron cover states "Ten Pages". The Newspapers.com scan includes different editions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for adding in all the newspaper clippings – I think they're fascinating! Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Update. I'll have one final look at sources before amending the final score in the 1955 World Professional Match-play Championship final at that article and in other places such as here. I'll also rearrange the citations into numerical order. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose from Amakuru

First of all, I feel bad coming in to oppose here (and particularly since you pinged me into the discussion), as I appreciate a lot of good work has gone into this article, and I certainly applaud the work done by BennyOnTheLoose in bringing it to the state it's in now, which is very solid GA-level. The project is better for this and whether this passes or fails, I appreciate the effort that's gone in. This isn't a judgement on the editor(s) who've written this at all.

But unfortunately I'm going to have to oppose for the exact same reasons as I opposed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steve Davis/archive1. This is an eight-time world champion, presumably one of the greats of the game, similar to Davis or indeed more modern players such as Mark Selby. Yet when I run the page size tool, I find this article weighs in at only 15 kB (2664 words) of readable prose size. That's in comparison to Selby's GA-level article, which has 39 kB (6804 words) of prose and another FA-level snooker bio John Spencer (snooker player), which has 30 kB (5147 words). Ultimately, the main difference seems to be that articles such as Selby's have detailed blow-by-blow coverage of each and every season, with the highs and lows, and certainly a whole paragraph dedicated to each of his world title wins, whereas those for Pulman and Davis seem to only highlight the broad brush and big achievements, many lacking significant detail (for example his first defence of the world title is given one sentence "Pulman defeated Davis 19–16 at Burroughes Hall in April 1964 to retain the title that he had claimed seven years earlier".

Now I fully get the underlying reasons for this - Selby's career has played out int the Wikipedia age, and for better or worse, that means fans constantly updating with events as they happen... whereas for a player from the pre-internet age, we're reliant on bringing it all in from scratch. Hence why one of the all-time great tennis players Pete Sampras has an article that's 25% shorter than the less decorated but more recent player John Isner. I get that it's a lot harder to source the same level of information from sources for a bygone player and would likely require searches of resources that aren't just available online.

But this is FAC, nobody ever pretends it's easy... and I don't think we'd be doing our job properly if we nodded through articles of vastly different length and structure, simply because of how easy it is to find the relevant sourcing. Criteria 1b and 1c tells us that the article must be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and that it is "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". If we are to achieve those, we must delve into the sources of the days when Pulman played, and we must dig out the level of information which we see for Selby. Unless of course you can show conclusively that such sourcing simply doesn't exist, but I'm a bit sceptical on that point. So apologies once again, and I hold out the hope that this one or Davis will one day achieve the comprehensive I know they can!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Amakuru, I invited you to contribute precisely becasue you had opposed at Davis' article - challenge is good! (Pulman might agree). Of course more can be added, but there just wasn't the anywhere near the level of coverage during Pulman's heyday. The result of a world final would typically get one short paragraph in most papers. Due to the dispute between the B&SCC and the PBPA, professional competitions got very little coverage in the 50s and early 60s in The Billiard Player. There were also fewer (albeit often longer) matches in Pulman's day. According to Cuetracker, whch we have to take with a pinch or more of salt, Pulman played 265 matches (5,920 frames) over 36 years, while Selby has played 1,547 matches (11,039 frames) over 26 years. Spencer played 433 matches (4,268 frames) over 29 years; many of which were after the mid-70s when coverage really picked up. Are there any books or other sources that you think are missing from consideration? I'm not sure how I can show that sourcing does't exist; but if you look at results on the British Newspaper Archive or Newspapers.com I think you will find that many of them offer little beyond scores. I'll see if I can add some more about the more important tournaments in Pulman's career. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, looks like Spencer's article is a bit of an outlier in terms of number of words for snooker bio FACs. According to the Page Size tool we have Griffiths (2590 words), Donaldson (2608 words), Thorburn (2854 words), Reardon (3262 words), and Spencer (5147 words). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC) (By the way, I would expect articles on Steve Davis and Alex Higgins to be longer, as there is so much more commentary available on both of them. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC))

Amakuru I added a little on the April 1964 match. Are there any others that you think are noticably lacking coverage, given my comments above? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru, any more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild and BennyOnTheLoose: ooh I'm very sorry, I did get the pings above but was out and about and then it kind of slipped my mind. I'll try to circle back to this in the next couple of days and see if I can marry up the content with how I think an FA ought to look, in the context of what's available about Pulman. My general point is that I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we should have two FAs on similar sorts of subjects with vastly different levels of detail. I guess nothing's perfect and it does happen, particularly if someone's poured what might be considered excessive detail into something (is Spencer's article an example of that?) The sourcing may mitigate that point, but the analysis needs to be thorough... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey Amakuru, have you had a chance to take another look? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs: - what do you recommend me to do? It's true that I don't have a whole plethora of sources to show that the article is definitively not a representative summary of the literature, and it's not easy to access those at present even if I had the time to do so, as the British Library has been effectively out of action for the past six months. But I'm also not particularly minded to withdraw my oppose, as I genuinely don't think this is long or detailed enough to be considered an FA-level summary of this individual and his long career. For me, the career section should have detailed analysis of what he did every year. And if he genuinely didn't play tournaments for large parts of said years, then that should be indicated, with sourcing. It's a nice article and definitely a GA, the nominator has put in good work, but we don't hand out FA badges just because nominators are good editors, it needs to meet all of the criteria I'd have thought? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Amakuru I stand by my earlier comments about precedent with other snooker bio featured articles, and number of matches played, but now that the British Library Catalogue is back online (for most types of source, including books), is there any particular source you feel that has been neglected? I have access to a number of books immediately and can summarise their coverage of Pulman (see my Library). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

From Clive Everton's The Embassy Book of World Snooker (1993): "[In 1954/55] Nobody cared very much what the results were in professional snooker" (p.24); "Little notice was taken of any of Pulman's first five title defences, and not very much more of his sixth ... There was no snooker coverage in the national press and in the snooker world itself the talk tended to be of a new generation of amateur stars" (p.28); "[in 1968] Press coverage remained virtually non-existent" (p.29). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Sammi Brie (Support)

Going to give the copy a bath and provide a non-snooker-literate POV on the article.

• "Pulman became a television commentator towards the end of his playing career, and retired from competitive play in 1981" Classic WP:CINS issue. There is one subject: Pulman. Remove the comma.
• "In 1929, Ernest Pulman sold his bakery and confectionery business and the family moved to Plymouth, where he bought a billiard hall with two tables." Add comma after "business"
• "John Pulman started playing billiards at the age of nine, and made his first billiards century break aged twelve. In his teenage years he also played snooker, and participated in local league competitions." More commas to excise
• "In 1938, Pulman entered the British Boys Billiards Championship, but left his cue on the train on his way to the event at Burroughes Hall." Another CinS
• "He lost his opening match in 1950, and withdrew from the following year's championship due to influenza when trailing 14–22 against Fred Davis in their semi-final match." Another CinS. Are mid-match withdrawls for illness normal?

• Withdrawals for illness are uncommon, perhaps because they tend to lead to a loss of income from prize money (and, in 1950, loss of income from gate receipts). I think it's worth including as occasionally players withdrew for other reasons ("business reasons" is one rather vague one I remember seeing reported.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• "He was runner-up in the 1950/1951 edition, and won in 1953/1954." CinS
• "He defeated Rex Williams 22–15 in the quarter-finals and Alec Brown 37–24 in the semi-finals, before losing 35–38 to Fred Davis in the final, which was played at Blackpool Tower Circus." Remove comma after "semi-finals"
• "In the semi-finals, Pulman was level at 12–12 with Williams before winning the match 19–16. In the final, he trailed Jack Rea at 2–4, 5–8 and 8–11, before equalising at 11–11." Another comma to excise after 8–11
• Is "noticable" a correct British English spelling?

• Another editor has now corrected this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The match was played over 73 frames, and took place from 12 to 17 October at Burroughes Hall." CinS
• "He extended his lead to 31–17 after the fourth day of play, and won the match on the fifth day by taking a 37–23 winning lead." maybe "He extended his lead to 31–17 after the fourth day of play, winning the match on the fifth day by taking a 37–23 lead."
• "Pulman eventually reached a winning lead of 37–28, and finished 39–34 ahead after dead frames"
• "He reached the final of the 1970 World Championship, but lost 33–37 to Ray Reardon" CinS
• "In October 1972, he was retrieved, unconscious, from a road traffic collision, but he had fully recovered in time to play in the Park Drive 2000 tournament that was held less than two weeks later." maybe remove "had"
• "His opponent, Spencer, took a 5–2 lead, before Pulman won five of the next seven frames to level the match at 7–7 and force a deciding frame." Drop last comma
• "After 1977, he was unable to win another World Championship match, although he continued to enter until 1982 when he had to withdraw because he had not sufficiently recovered after his leg was broken in five places when he was hit by a London bus in October 1981." Very long sentence. Consider rewording. Also consider layout with the bus item...which really should be the end of the career.

• Reworked. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Fred Davis reflected that Pulman's impatience and lapses in concentration had probably cost him frames in their world championship finals in the mid-1950s, and that as Pulman became more patient in his play, he became a stronger opponent" Move the comma from after "mid-1950s" back to after "that". You have a CinS error and an incomplete appositive.

• Not sure if I've implemented this properly, please check. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• "11 year" hyphenate
• " humour "did a tremendous salvage job for the game when it needed it most." " logical quote for a sentence fragment demands period out of quotes
• "Alex Higgins, the world champion in 1972 and 1982, whose popularity helped make snooker a growing sport in the 1970s and 1980s, wrote" consider dropping the comma after 1982 to have a longer, unified appositive.

The links to terms of art are good, and I wasn't left wanting. Just a bunch of CinS and a few places that baffle me (bus). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Sammi Brie. Hopefully I've addressed all of your points, but please do check the "Fred Davis reflected.." one in particular. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. All my copy issues are addressed satisfactorily. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Reviewing this version, spotcheck upon request. Kinda think that with a name this generic we need better citations than "John Pulman". The Times. 31 December 1998. p. 25." Why is #74 formatted differently from the others? Are Alex Higgins, Spencer, John and Fred Davis Alex Higgins, John Spencer (snooker player) and Fred Davis (snooker player)? What make "Davis, Steve (2016). Interesting: My Autobiography. London: Ebury. ISBN 978-0-09-195865-7." and "Hayton, Eric; Dee, John (2004). The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker: The Complete Record & History. Rose Villa Publications. ISBN 978-0-9548549-0-4." a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks for taking on the source review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've made some initial replies below which could need some actions after your advice. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• What should be added in the example of The Times John Pulman article? (It is not available via Wikipedia Library or free online sources. I have access to it through a library subsription to The Times Digital Archive.) No author is stated. I suppose one option would be to add in the location as London, to avoid any confusion with other publications listed at The Times (disambiguation).

  Some additional information so that it can be more easily told apart from other newspapers with that name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  Jo-Jo Eumerus I've added locations for The Times, The Independent and The Guardian references. Are there any others that need amending? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  Don't think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• ref 74 - as multiple sources were used (for the different editions of the tournament), I used WP:CITEBUNDLE rather than having something like [74][75][76][77][78][79][80] appear to the reader.
• Yes, Alex Higgins, Spencer, John and Fred Davis are Alex Higgins, John Spencer (snooker player) and Fred Davis (snooker player).
• Steve Davis's Interesting: My Autobiography is only used to support "Steve Davis, who met Pulman in a match at the 1977 Pontins Open, observed how Pulman and Reardon both adapted to the poor quality of the snooker tables rather than complaining, and he found this to be a valuable lesson." The book is published by Ebury, an imprint of Penguin Books.
• The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker (Hayton and Dee) is one of the standard reference works for professional snooker, in my opinion. CueSport was a UK magazine that was published from around 2000 to 2009. John Dee, who wrote the history sections, was the snooker editor of CueSport and a correspondent for The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers. The bulk of the book's 1000+ pages consists of statistics, compiled by Hayton, including player-by-player results histories. The book has been used as a source for featured articles including John Spencer (snooker player) and Ray Reardon.

Hey Jo-Jo Eumerus, do you have any follow-up on the Benny's responses and the source review? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

No, that's all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

SC

Just one comment from me:

• "In October 1972, he was retrieved, unconscious, from a road traffic collision": "retrieved" is an odd word to use in this context - makes him sound like an old pair of gloves! - SchroCat (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose, Any thoughts on a replacement word here? - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat: apologies for the delay, and many thanks for reviewing. The Everton & Silverton (1973) source has "was carried unconscious from a car crash". I've amended it to "rescued, unconscious," in the text but I am, of course, open to better suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Perfect: support. - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 April 2024 [90].

---

The Dark Pictures Anthology: House of Ashes

Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} and -- ZooBlazer 09:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about The Dark Pictures Anthology: House of Ashes, a video game released in October 2021, and the third game in The Dark Pictures Anthology. It's set in 2003 during the Iraq War and involves four members of the US Armed Forces having to work together with a member of the Iraqi Republican Guard in order to survive a monstrous threat that doesn't care about nationalities. Your Power did an amazing job expanding the article in early 2022. I joined in around mid-2023 and we added the finishing touches to get the article promoted to GA in July. After a break, we recently rejoined forces in order to get the article ready for this FAC nomination. This is my first time nominating at FAC, so I look forward to any feedback. -- ZooBlazer 09:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

ready for the comments too :) a departure from my usual music-focused FAC stuff; hope you all enjoy the read! ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 10:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments from the Night Watch

Saving a spot, will have some comments up soon. The Night Watch (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments still forthcoming within the next few days, sorry I'm a bit behind on things. The Night Watch (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Response coming tomorrow or Friday, so sorry for the delay. The Night Watch (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This article looks like it will take some time for me to review, but I don't want to keep you waiting any longer so here is what I found on a first look.

• In the first paragraph of the lead, two sentences in a row start with the term "the game" which is repetitive. Mind changing up the sentences some?

• Fixed -- ZooBlazer

• "Players must make several choices that can have long-term consequences on the narrative's progression"

• Removed -- ZooBlazer

• What are personality traits, and how are they relevant to the game? I see them mentioned in Gamplay, but what is their importance?

• Expanded the info -- ZooBlazer

• "The developers incorporated a wider variety of narrative branches into House of Ashes' story after player feedback from the previous games." How is this relevant to the Gameplay? It seems more pertinent to the development section.

• Moved -- ZooBlazer

• "The multiplayer concept was inspired by live streamers' collaborative manner of playing Until Dawn (2015), another game by Supermassive, which prompted the developers to incorporate such a feature in their following releases." Same as above.

• Moved -- ZooBlazer

• "Rounding out the ensemble cast's four-American tally" This wording seems a bit too informal, could this be changed somehow?

• Reworded -- ZooBlazer

• "With this, he can make Jason empathize with Iraqis, especially Salim's reasons for joining the war, and overcome his prejudices." crossed-out portion seems a little too detailed.

• Removed extra details -- ZooBlazer

• "but his commanding officer, Dar Basri…" I think a comma goes after Dar Basri though I am not certain.

• Added -- ZooBlazer

• Who is Clarice? She is mentioned in the image in gameplay as an ally, but what is her importance to the plot?

• Changed the wording. She's just one of the side characters who gets infected and the image shows the one choice you have regarding her. -- ZooBlazer

• "after which they are promptly assaulted by vampires"

• Removed -- ZooBlazer

The Night Watch (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Now for Round 2.

• "The game's multiplayer concept was inspired by live streamers' collaborative manner of playing Until Dawn (2015), another game by Supermassive, which prompted the developers to incorporate a similar feature in their following releases." Not sure if concept is needed there.
• "Doyle described..." needs introduction to who Will Doyle is as the director of the game.
• "Like the other instalments, House of Ashes was designed to be a standalone story, but Supermassive Games included easter eggs and callbacks to previous and future instalments to create a shared universe within the anthology." Replace the second instalments with "entries"
• "Sara Rechena from the Portuguese edition of IGN said the choice was reminiscent of the anthology TV series American Horror Story." How is it reminiscent? I think some more context may be needed here for this point.
• "David Hirst oversaw the art team's research into Mesopotamian architecture, dress, and headgear for use in the game, "filling in the gaps where necessary" in order to create a memorable, but still realistic look."
• "The soundtrack was composed by Supermassive Games's long-time collaborator Jason Graves, who previously worked with them on music for other games in The Dark Pictures Anthology." How about "The soundtrack was composed by Supermassive Games's long-time collaborator Jason Graves, who previously worked on music for other games in The Dark Pictures Anthology."
• "Before the series' inception, he composed music for Until Dawn." Is that pertinent enough to mention?
• "The monsters' designs were created to be faceless so they would appear incomprehensible and unempathetic, and inhumane enough to "bring out the humanity" in the protagonists" How about "The monsters were designed to be faceless so they would appear incomprehensible and unempathetic, and inhumane enough to "bring out the humanity" in the protagonists"

• @The Night Watch: Everything in round 2 has been cleaned up. -- ZooBlazer 00:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Great, more forthcoming tomorrow. The Night Watch (talk) 01:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I've swept most of the article and it looks quite good. Reception may take some time though, so I will see what I can do. The Night Watch (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I am very busy right now off-wiki, so I don't think I will be able to give a timely response on Reception. I will support based on the prose of the rest of the article though. The Knight Watch (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose by David Fuchs

In progress, look for review by the end of the week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC) The article is a good start, but I'm going to oppose at present with regards to coverage, prose, and sourcing.

• Lead:
  • "Continuing the series' premise, the game features a cast of five playable protagonists and a multilinear narrative influenced by player choices." I don't know if "premise" really is the right word here, given that the narrative is entirely separate; I'd say it's probably more fair to say it continues the same formula. Either way, I don't think it's doing a lot here, especially if you don't know the other games, so I'd cut that introductory phrase and just start with "the game features..."
  • "Its decision-making scenes" Any reason not to just say "decisions"?
  • "House of Ashes is inspired primarily by the novella At the Mountains of Madness (1936) and the films Predator (1987) and The Descent (2005). " For the purposes of the lead, I'd remove these dates, same with the ones in the earlier Anthology explanation. It's just wordy and we don't need that context here.
  • "marking the third time Supermassive Games cast a high-profile actor to portray a character for the series." At first blush I quibble with the descriptor "high-profile actor" here, because Ashley Tisdale isn't Tom Cruise or similar. It also doesn't seem to appear in the body.
  • The structure of the lead is a bit odd to me. It starts with basic information about the game, then talks about the structure of the game and its plot, then has further elaboration, but then jumps back to the game mechanics. I'm not sure this is the clearest way of introducing this versus something more linear of explaining the premise and then the mechanics of gameplay or vice versa. There's also very little about the actual development aside from oblique references to the new features and the composer.

• Gameplay:
  • "Developed on Unreal Engine 4 by Supermassive Games," it seems really weird to me (and undue weight to highlight the game engine here, and for the purposes of explaining the gameplay it's irrelevant (as is repeating the developer here.)
  • "A core element of the gameplay involves the management of relationships between the characters, and their allies and enemies" The allies and enemies here are talking about the characters' interpersonal relationships, right? So then it's extraneous with the details before (otherwise it sounds like you're managing the relationships of the characters and the bat monsters you mentioned previously.)
  • "The camera is no longer fully fixed and has been replaced with a controllable, 360-degree one" without linking away, this is potentially hard for a casual reader to grok.
  • The details here feel like they drift from gameplay into development, such as the feedback leading to the camera system or "Because many scenes involve "spookier" and more spacious areas, Supermassive found it appropriate to give players total control over the camera, which would aid in exploration and allow players to appreciate the cavernous locations."
  • In general, the comparisons to the other game should be minimized, and the gameplay section should focus on the game itself.
  • We briefly mention QTEs but don't explain more of them, and then three paragraphs later we introduce them again. This section's organization feels haphazard.
  • Reading the final paragraph I don't really understand how the game changes in its multiplayer modes.
• Synopsis:
  • I would remove the citations to the plot. It's generally understood the game is the source for all the information that's not interpreted (WP:PLOTCITE)
  • I'm not entirely sold on the length of the synopsis section. It's 1000 words in total, and given that there's a lot of names to juggle, I think trying to pare this down would make it much easier to follow. In particular, while the existence of a prologue set thousands of years earlier seems relevant, the actual characters don't (they only get name checked a single time in the subsequent section.) Details like a character's callsign (which is never mentioned again), specific types of soldiers, etc. bog down the description.
  • As a minor note, do the sources call all five main characters protagonists? By definition the term usually implies a singularly-focused character.
• Development:
  • I would separate out the release info, since it's about marketing and promotion, rather than development.
  • "Its screenplay was written by Khurrum Rahman" - Do sources actually call it a screenplay?
  • "Man of Medan and Little Hope received PS5/Xbox Series X/S upgrades in September 2022, which were free for those who already owned the games." Doesn't seem relevant to this game.
  • In general, I think there's an overuse of quotes throughout, but in particular this bit: "Doyle described House of Ashes as a creature feature and an exploration horror game about an ensemble cast of "trained experts", who are "beyond safety" and unable to get backup for a "critical" mission in a secluded location, where they encounter threats Doyle described as "horrible" and "inhumane"." It's a pain to read when you've essentially got scare quotes popping up every three words.
  • I think there's a general issue going along with this of tone, where the development feels congratulatory and less neutral-sounding than it should, especially deferring to the developer's framing of things.
  • "As observed by Kimberley Wallace from Game Informer, every game in the series follows this trend." The trend of promoting Tisdale and Rachel as the lead?
• Reception:
  • This all feels like it could be tightened up further and better organized. I appreciate that it puts in effort to summarize a bunch of critic reviews, but I don't feel like I get a very good indication of what critics actually felt versus the general consensus because the reception meanders from considering individual points in isolation rather than talking about them more broadly. I don't know if the story was covered so much it deserves the subsection all about that aspect, or it's just less well-collated. Why does a single critic's opinion on the Iraq War aspect of the story get the better part of 200 words uninterrupted and essentially the last word on the game?
• Sales:
  • As a point of organization, traditionally this information often goes along with release; especially since there's not a ton in this section I think it makes more sense to cover it there.
• Sequel:
  • I'm not sure this should exist as a standalone section versus a single line; it feels more appropriate for the series page given that this is an anthology series and it doesn't connect to this game at all; the description of the premise likewise is irrelevant for this game.
• Media and References:
  • VGChartz is an unreliable source; TheGamer is generally considered reliable for the time period, but it's in my opinion used way too much as a lower-quality Valnet source.
  • I have not done a ref spot-check yet to evaluate for source-integrity or attribution issues.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I'll hopefully have more free time this weekend to address things. Hopefully @Your Power will also find some free time soon too. -- ZooBlazer 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs Just a small update. I'm hoping to have everything addressed by Sunday or maybe Monday at the latest since I won't have much editing time on Saturday. -- ZooBlazer 04:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs I think I've made an attempt at addressing everything above. Still need to do edits to the reception, although I think the last part of your reception feedback has been addressed. I was hoping Your Power would have a chance to deal with the reception at some point since they wrote most of it, but they don't have much wiki time at the moment, so it's taking me a bit of time to get through everything. I've cut back on the Gamer refs where I could. The remaining refs I think are ones I couldn't find a better alternative for. -- ZooBlazer 07:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright @David Fuchs:, I've finished my attempt at cleaning up the reception, so I think officially everything has been addressed that you brought up. I hope I can make progress towards you eventually being willing to strike the oppose. Let me know if you still find things unsatisfactory. -- ZooBlazer 07:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take another look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Round 2

In addition to the below comments, I performed line edits throughout—mostly reorganizing content where I thought it made more sense and trying to reduce wordiness in other spots, as well as shrinking the synopsis (it was only trimmed by roughly 50 words.) I'm not a British English native so while I tried to avoid any ENGVAR stuff, double-check.

• Gameplay:
  • "Players take control of five characters, enlisted in the armed forces of their respective countries, who fall and become trapped in an underground Mesopotamian temple."—before and later we say Akkadian, so I would keep it consistent. I would also add something here about the monsters the characters face just because it seems odd to just mention "creatures" later on where it hasn't really be glossed in the body itself.

    Done -- ZooBlazer

  • "House of Ashes is the first game in the series to feature difficulty levels, such as "Forgiving", "Challenging" and "Lethal", "—should this really be 'such as' when the lead said there were only three? I also don't think the actual names are that important.

    Removed the names -- ZooBlazer

  • "He converses with players about the choices they have made and provides clues about what will happen next in the plot." Can the NPC really "converse" with players? Or is he just talking at them?

    Changed -- ZooBlazer

• Synopsis:
  • "The five characters are separated during the fall. " This doesn't seem to particularly jive with the following paragraph which has them almost immediately reunite, and it's weird to mention them getting attacked and then essentially restate similar info in the next paragraph. (Also, you've got aliens, reanimated humans, and vampires, which I don't know if these are all referring to the same thing. Based on the setting section, doesn't seem like you should use aliens at all because they've all mutated into the vampires?)

    I ended up just removing that sentence. I alao removed all the alien mentions except when talking about them early on before they get infected. -- ZooBlazer

  • Clarice gets dropped in without any introduction.

    Fixed -- ZooBlazer

  • The explanatory plot note for the ending is ambiguous and shifts tenses. I presume it's saying the two characters are Rachel and Salim, but this isn't structured clearly. Also, Target LZ isn't mentioned before.

    Cleaned it up and just removed that last part about the LZ as it wasn't needed. -- ZooBlazer

• Development:
  • The development could use a brief introduction to the Dark Pictures Anthology instead of just launching into the differences with the previous games compared to this one. I think the organization of the section is a bit haphazard, since this information is in the article but after everything else is talked about in the section. "Prelude" also doesn't really make sense as a subsection heading.

    I moved a part from the release section to development. Is that good or is further introduction info needed? Also removed prelude. -- ZooBlazer

• References:
  • Source check incoming.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: I think everything has been dealt with from round 2 (so far). -- ZooBlazer 19:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

David ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Source review is still in progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi David, is this still ongoing? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Gog the Mild I've struck my oppose but I don't think I'm going to continue the review and register a support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks David. It was the "Source review is still in progress" I was querying. I'll post it at requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild My comments are sourcing are below. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs Just a heads up, a chunk of refs were removed as parts of the article were changed, leaving them unused. -- ZooBlazer 06:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Spot-checked current refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 15, 19, 24, 29, 32, 33, 38, 40, 50, 53, 61, 69, 73, 77, 80, and 85.

• Ref 4 doesn't call the creatures vampires or vampiric.
• Ref 19 doesn't adequately support the collectibles mention (just seems to cover the exploration.)
• Otherwise didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or other verification issues.

My qualms with the number of TheGamer references remains. It's used less than it was, but it's still the single supporting source for a lot of information, and if it can't be replaced with a better one it implies that it's trivial enough that it probably shouldn't be mentioned (is the specific names for character traits, for instance, so important?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs I fixed the ref 4 and 19 issues. For #4, I swapped in a different ref from the article and for #19 I added a second one to support the original ref.

As for The Gamer, I removed four more. The remaining ones mostly support gameplay related things. -- ZooBlazer 19:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Just re-pinging because I got a server error soon after my message, so I wasn't sure if the ping went through or not. -- ZooBlazer 20:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm striking my oppose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Cukie Gherkin

Saving a spot. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I may be busier the next few days. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin Are you going to be able to finish leaving your comments? Or are you still too busy? -- ZooBlazer 17:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm deepely sorry, I worry that I won't be able to give you an adequate review. I'm currently away from home since my dad is in the hospital. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope things get better for you and your family. -- ZooBlazer 22:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Gameplay

1. This may or may not be an issue, but unless the article was written with British MOS, "collectables" should be "collectibles" when said as a noun.

Fixed -- ZooBlazer

Spotcheck

1. Washington Post

   "The Dark Pictures Anthology: House of Ashes is an interactive drama and survival horror game." - Is there a source that specifies it as a drama?

Added -- ZooBlazer

1. "To further adjust difficulty, players can choose which buttons to press for specific types of QTE" I have a question about this: it says 'certain segments', is that to mean that there are different kinds of QTEs? Also, when it says "all QTEs," is it communicating that all QTEs can be customized, or that one can choose a button for their QTEs, and that choice reflects in all QTEs? Going off that, I was wondering if you can fully customize button choices, or if you pick a single button to serve as your QTE button. Another point I would make is to ask if it wouldn't be beneficial to mention that you can choose to hold instead of mash.

Changed the wording. I don't think you can pick the button, but it is the same button every time with those settings on. -- ZooBlazer

1. When I click on "i" in the Washington Post citation, it brings me to this: "and the multiplayer modes.[i]" However, that seems like it's an error? This error also occurs with 'k'.

[i] is for the note. The WP ref is [1] which is the next sentence. -- ZooBlazer

1. [91] I am not against The Gamer being used in FACs, but are there better sources you could use instead for the things it's cited for?

The Gamer is used for specific story details, so as far as I know, the only other option would be YouTube videos. -- ZooBlazer

• Hi Cukie Gherkin, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hey, I haven't been really able to contribute to this discussion due to life issues, and I'm not in a good state to determine article quality at the moment. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "outmatch the vampiric creatures that infest the area" - I may be wrong but I don't think "outmatch" is the word you are looking for here. According to the dictionary it means "to prove superior to" - are they really trying to prove themselves superior to the vampires? Do you maybe mean to say "outwit the vampiric creatures"?

  I changed it to survive because that probably makes the most sense. Outmatch was definitely wrong. -- ZooBlazer

• That's all I got on the lead, I aim to look at the rest this evening -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• Image caption: "Rachel (right) contemplates on whether" => "Rachel (right) contemplates whether"

  Changed -- ZooBlazer

• "the character's perceptions of each other" => "the characters' perceptions of each other"

  Changed -- ZooBlazer

• What are the sources for the "setting and prologue" section?

  They were removed based on one of the comments above by David I would remove the citations to the plot. It's generally understood the game is the source for all the information that's not interpreted (WP:PLOTCITE) -- ZooBlazer

• "The game's multiplayer was inspired" - is "multiplayer" a noun? Or is there a word ("mode"?) missing?

  Fixed -- ZooBlazer

• "Executive producer Dan McDonald, in an interview with PCGamesN, said Supermassive" => "Executive producer Dan McDonald, in an interview with PCGamesN, said that Supermassive"

  Changed -- ZooBlazer

• "McDonald said while the game" => "McDonald said that while the game"

  Changed -- ZooBlazer

• "Two story trailers provided glimpses on the game's plot" => "Two story trailers provided glimpses of the game's plot"

  Changed -- ZooBlazer

• "teaser trailer at the end of Little Hope" - clarify that this was an earlier game in the same series?

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• "Critics deemed the camera work superior to previous instalments'." - there's no need for that apostrophe at the end

  Oops, removed -- ZooBlazer

• "comprising partly of heartbeats and clicking noises" => "consisting partly of heartbeats and clicking noises"

  Changed -- ZooBlazer

• "and avoided portraying Americans" => "and that it avoided portraying Americans"

  Changed -- ZooBlazer

• There's a mix of British and American English - in consecutive sentences I see "while dehumanising Arabs" and "was appropriately humanized"

  Fixed -- ZooBlazer

• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments! I think everything is cleaned up. -- ZooBlazer 18:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Re: the last point, if the decision is to go with US English then you also need to fix "They wrote that Salim, thrust into the conflict against his own will, was appropriately humanised" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: British English is what is supposed to be used. That's not what I normally use, so sometimes I forget when writing certain words. -- ZooBlazer 21:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. In that case any word which ends in "-ize" should be changed to end in "-ise" because that's how we spell them over here. I think there's only a couple to fix -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: I changed the last 3 that showed up with ctrl+F. -- ZooBlazer 08:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

A very well-written and well-researched article, which I found very interesting as a non-gamer. Since I am not a video game expert, my review focused on general prose, as there have been reviews before mine on comprehensiveness and coverage.

• worth linking vampiric creatures to vampire if they are such

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• To further adjust difficulty -- to further adjust the difficulty

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• but the game does not say how choices will affect the trait. - perhaps we can use how each choices here

  Changed -- ZooBlazer

• In the captions, anything in enclosure such as (pictured 2014), (pictured 2018), (pictured in 1934), and (masked pictured) should be in italics

  I think I got them all, but maybe one. For At the Mountains of Madness (1936) would I italicize the year there too even the title is already italicized? -- ZooBlazer

  @ZooBlazer: Good catch. I think since this is a title of a work (i.e. novel, film, tv series), the year can be dropped from the caption, as the release year of the work is mentioned in the prose.

  Alright, went ahead and removed it. -- ZooBlazer

• I would also add (pictured 2016) for Graves' image caption

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• For nouns ending in "s", your possessive forms are written without adding "s" after the apostrophe, but Supermassive Games's does, worth changing it for consistency.

  Fixed -- ZooBlazer

• myths and folklore the team could incorporate into the story. -- that the team could incorporate

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• motivations, relationships and dynamics -- missing serial comma, as I noticed you used in throughout the article.

  Oops, added -- ZooBlazer

• compelling, sympathetic and complex -- same as above

  Added -- ZooBlazer

• avoid bodily contact with the others -- does this refer to other voice actors? perhaps could be specified.

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• film- and game-music -- may be a typo of an extra space between the dash and "and"

  I ended up just removing the dashes because I don't know if they were necessary. -- ZooBlazer

• The Devil in Me released on 18 November 2022 -- The Devil in Me was released on 18 November 2022

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• Jiang wrote the game remained -- Jiang wrote that the game

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• with some critics opining it provided a balanced portrayal -- with some critic opining that it provided

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• In the accolades table, the abbreviation should be written as Ref(s)

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• That's all I got, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, especially the plot of the game. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Pseud 14: I'm glad you were able to enjoy the article even as a non-gamer. I've gone through and changed everything, but just have one question that I mentioned above in terms of italicizing things enclosure for the images. -- ZooBlazer 17:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Changes look good. I've provided my response to your question above. Overall very minor and won't hinder me from supporting. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Kerbyki

Support for featured article. Thoroughly sourced with a great attention to detail. I can see that it is a bit lengthy for a stand-alone article, but people who are interested in the subject will probably enjoy that. Kerbyki (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:H._P._Lovecraft,_June_1934.jpg: where was this first published?

  The info about it in the source link just says "1934, June – One of the Lucius B. Truesdell portraits, taken in De Land, Florida"

  So do we have any evidence the tagging is accurate? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  The site seems pretty reliable, so I would guess it is accurate.

  But the site doesn't confirm the tag - the site says the image was taken in 1934, but the tagging relies on publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I swapped out the image for the cover of the novel's first publication.

  @Nikkimaria: Is the new image okay?

  Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Ashley_Tisdale_for_Allure_in_2018.png: I don't see a CC license at the given source link?Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is a CC license for YouTube on the image which links to YouTube's CC section. Or is there something else missing?

  There is a CC license on the image, but if you open the actual YouTube link, I don't see that this particular video is tagged as CC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Where would that be located on videos? I've never noticed I guess. I can look to try to find a new image if I can find a video with the license. I just thought the license covered YouTube in general.

  The default YouTube upload license is not CC - CC has to be actively selected by the uploader. For example, if you look at this video, you see "License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria I found the video on the Vogue Taiwan channel, and this version of the video has a CC license. Should I just change the link on commons?

  Yep, that would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Done.

• @Nikkimaria: I've responded to your comments. -- ZooBlazer 02:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: More responses. -- ZooBlazer 03:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria I'll work on trying to find a suitable replacement for the Ashley Tisdale image over the next day or two and ping you once it's either replaced or if I can't find a good replacement. -- ZooBlazer 04:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Has this been done? If so, has Nikkimaria been pinged? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Yeah, that was resolved just above using a video from the Vogue Taiwan YouTube channel and changing the link to that on Commons. It was their same video but it had a CC license this time. Nikkimaria approved the change. -- ZooBlazer 15:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request and reviewing this version. I note that David Fuchs has already reviewed some sources. I'll note that I'll be relying on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources so any limitations that list has will also apply to my review. I believe "The Gamer" by Valnet is actually "TheGamer", and it seems to be an unreliable source - are the authors of these articles somehow prominent? Likewise for VideoGamer.com. Bandai Namco sometimes is in allcaps and sometimes it isn't. Who is Graham Banas? It seems like the source formatting is mostly consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• From David's review, I mentioned that the only remaining refs from TheGamer cover gameplay specific details which don't tend to have a better source to replace them with. Changed them to TheGamer as well.
• Removed VideoGamer.com
• Fixed the all caps Bandai Namco
• Graham Banas is the writer for Push Square who interviewed the game's composer.

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the review! I've addressed and/or responded to everything I think. -- ZooBlazer 16:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus Is there anything else that I need to address? -- ZooBlazer 07:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't think so, but take note of the caveats I mentioned above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for that. As a first-time nomination this could do with a source to text fidelity check and similar for possible plagiarism. Would you be able to oblige? Note that some spot checks took place further up this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Here we go:

• 14 I don't think this says explicitly that the Ancient One is a consequence of player choices in the prologue. Or that Rachel's rescue from the cocoon depends on American characters.

  Changed the wording and source for the first part, and removed American for the second part.

• 17 Where does it say cutscene?

  Changed to to discussions which is closer to what is said in [16] - briefly yanks the player out of the narrative to discuss the choices made

• 24 OK
• 26 OK
• 27 OK
• 35 OK
• 41 I don't see a list of works that it took inspiration from.

  I think during some of the recent FAC changes to the article refs were accidentally removed for the inspirations, but I re-added them.

• 42 OK
• 44 OK
• 48 OK
• 53 OK
• 56 So it was released on the day after this source?

  Game reviews are usually posted before the release date.

• 58 OK
• 59 Don't see "demo" mentioned anywhere.

  Changed it to "preview", but willing to change it again if you have a suggestion of what to do.

• 62 Don't see where it says that it was revealed in House of Ashes

  That part of the sentence is covered by [63] - A video that plays at the end of the recently launched The Dark Pictures: House of Ashes has revealed The Devil in Me

• 65 OK
• 71 OK
• 74 OK
• 77 Can I have a copy of this article?

  Here is the page

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Seems OK to, if "B-movie" is being used figuratively. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus I think it is. -- ZooBlazer 10:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• 81 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus I've responded to everything above. You left [81] blank, so I'm not sure if it was fine or had an issue. -- ZooBlazer 17:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Mended the 81 thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Going to run another spotcheck on this version:

1. 3 Not sure that I'd interpret "if you're the type of person to roll your eyes at QTE segments in games you might not find this to your liking" as praise for the QTE. Where does it say "and superior to performances from the previous games in the anthology" and "likability"?

• Removed it from the QTE part

  For the second point, I swapped "superior" with "improved" since the source says It's a great showcase in how the dialogue, performances and overall presentation of the Dark Pictures Anthology is only getting better with each subsequent instalment - House of Ashes is perhaps one of the strongest entries yet

  Ended up removing the whole sentence regarding the likeability part.

1. 5 Doesn't mention "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" anywhere.

• Removed

1. 15 OK
2. 16 OK
3. 21 OK
4. 25 Not sure what this adds.

• Removed

1. 30 OK
2. 33 Can we cite the release date to a contemporaneous source?

• Added

1. 46 OK
2. 48 N/A
3. 49 Does it refer to House of Ashes anywhere?

• Removed

1. 52 OK
2. 53 OK
3. 56 It says 29 not 30 October

• That's the day the article was published. Towards the top it says RELEASE October 30, 2020

1. 72 OK I think.
2. 77 Don't see the racism bit?

• Removed. I think something got lost when the section was slightly overhauled a couple weeks ago.

1. 78 Can I have a copy of this?

• I think that's formerly ref 77 which I provided the page in your initial review above. Just in case though, here are the pages for [80] which is the only other ref that's from a printed magazine Page 1 and Page 2 -- ZooBlazer

  Seems like, but I am not seeing the formulaic and multi-mode things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Removed it from the multi mode part, but reworded the other part by changing it to supporting systems of the series becoming outdated because they're "creaking with age".

1. 81 The source says "Whether that’s due to shitty budgets for mo-cap or her performance, I leave to the fates to decide"

• Decided to include the full quote.

1. 83 OK, annoying popup aside.
2. 84 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for further spotchecks. I'll address everything tomorrow morning. -- ZooBlazer 08:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Everything has been addressed Jo-Jo Eumerus. -- ZooBlazer 17:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Non-expert review; I've played a few video games but am not a gamer.

• "A game with a multilinear plot, decisions can significantly alter the trajectory of the story and change the relationships between the five playable protagonists; some lead to their permanent deaths." Needs rephrasing; when you start a sentence with an adjectival phrase it appears to apply to the subject of the next clause -- i.e. "decisions", rather than "the game". How about "The game has a multilinear plot in which decisions can significantly alter the trajectory of the story and change the relationships between the five playable protagonists; some lead to their permanent deaths"?
• "Jason Graves, a long-time collaborator with Supermassive for the series, returned to compose the soundtrack, which he did during COVID-19 lockdowns in the United Kingdom." Having said he's a long-time collaborator I think "returned" is redundant; maybe just "Jason Graves, a long-time collaborator with Supermassive for the series, composed the soundtrack during COVID-19 lockdowns in the United Kingdom".
  • Done all three
• "To further adjust the difficulty, players can hold rather than mash buttons": can we use "press" instead of "mash"? Or does "mash" have some meaning to gamers I'm not aware of? And in what way does this change the difficulty -- if you hold the button down when responding to a QTE does that make the event harder? The source doesn't appear to say.
  • the relevant quotations are "players have their pick of three difficulty levels: Forgiving, Challenging and Lethal ... players can tailor how these QTEs play out as well. Instead of button-mashing during certain segments, you can opt to hold down the button instead" . "Pressing" a QTE means you press the button only once and something happens. "Holding" it means you have to press and let your finger stay at the button; "mashing" means you have to repeatedly press in quick succession, which explains the added challenge
• "and they can customise the speed at which the prompts appear." I don't understand this, and I couldn't find the bit in the source that supports it. A prompt's appearance seems like something that is instantaneous no matter how you do it, unless you mean they fade in slowly? This appears to be referring to a QTE prompt that you must now press some button -- is the intended meaning that they may appear more frequently? Or that the player gets more time to respond before the negative effects occur?
• "The game displays a notice whenever players are about to perform a QTE": shouldn't this be "when a QTE occurs"? The game can't know when a player is about to do something; it can only know when the situation occurs in which they are expected to do something.
• "Another type is moving a reticle onto a target to shoot it." The previous sentence says QTEs involve certain actions; this sentence says it *is* the action. I think it would read more naturally to retain the parallel syntax: "Another type requires moving ..."
• "that have consequences on the narrative's progression": I don't think you can have consequences on something: you can have consequences for something, or effects on something. Here "effects on" or "that impact" would probably be the most natural.
  • Done all the above four
• "Their decisions can influence the characters' assigned personality traits, which will sometimes lead to the characters acting in a different way when they are not under player control, but the game does not say how each choice will affect the trait." The source for this is "Each character has different personality traits, such as "Abrasive" or "Commanding," that you can accentuate with your decisions. These traits will sometimes result in characters acting in a specific way when you're not controlling them, but the game never tells you how your choices might affect each trait, so displaying all of this information feels unnecessary when your control over them is a complete crapshoot." It wasn't until I read the source that I realized we were only talking about how an NPC's character and reactions are affected by the player's interactions with them; I read "when you're not controlling them" as saying the changes in their character might persist into the next time that character was selected as the player character. And just checking: the player only plays one of the characters, right? We have "Players take control of five protagonists" but then "the player character", so I assume four of them are NPCs throughout?
  • no, you play every one of the five characters throughout the game. you just play only one person at a time.

    So at any given moment the player is directly controlling the actions of one player, and the others are being handled as NPCs? Does the player choose when they change which character they are controlling, or does the game force the changes on them? Is this a common approach for multi-character games? It's not something I've seen in my limited gaming experience, and I am wondering whether an experienced gamer would immediately understand that this is the way the game works from "Players take control of five protagonists". Or am I missing something elsewhere in the article that makes this clearer? Looking at some of the review sources this isn't explicitly stated, so I suspect it's something a gamer would just know. This source introduces the game by saying "It’s another third-person game where you can assume control of any of five different characters in the game." I would have read this as saying you get to pick one, and the others are NPCs for the duration of the game. At the end of the gameplay section, could we add a sentence that says something like "In single-player mode, each of the five protagonists is under the player's control at different times during the game", or whatever would be accurate if that isn't? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

    to be honest, i do not think mentioning this distinction is relevant at all to fully grok'ing how the game works, but allow me to clarify just in case. House of Ashes decides on what character the player will control at a given moment; as far as I know this is the case with many other non-open world games with multiple PCs, like The Last of Us Part II. contrast with GTA V which is open-world and does allow you to switch between PCs. - E

    Struck -- the article now says that player control switches between the five protagonists, which is what I felt wasn't clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• I didn't understand till I looked at one of the sources that the only actions possible in the game outside QTEs are choices e.g. about direction to go in the environment; the player can't be in any danger outside a QTE. I think that should be clearer.
  • Um, you should probably indicate how to make it clearer

    That wasn't the answer I expected -- again, am I missing something a regular gamer would understand? If a game has QTEs is it always the case that all the action is in QTEs? I will see if I can find the source that mentioned this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

    Here is a review that makes the point: "If you’ve played any of Supermassive Games’ interactive horror stories, then you’re aware that it’s gameplay is primarily made up of quick time events, where the player is prompted to press different buttons, and must do so within a small window of time in order to successfully execute an action. This is the case in House of Ashes as well, and I found myself a bit disappointed that there’s little innovation done to the system." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

    i think it should be clearer now. "the first game in the series to feature difficulty levels, which affect the game's quick time events (QTEs), another core gameplay feature", which I do admit is a bit clunky - E.

    That certainly helps. Would the sources support changing "Several scenes, including combat-heavy ones, make use of QTEs that can lead to penalties like a protagonist's death if an input is not precisely timed" to "All the combat scenes make use of QTEs, and in several scenes, including combat-heavy ones, these can lead to penalties like a protagonist's death if an input is not precisely timed"? Perhaps using the source I quote above? That would address my original point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  At the very least I'd drop the "all".

  I'm not sure if the source posted above would help support the wording, unless I missed it. I feel like this ref (Like its predecessors, House Of Ashes is essentially an interactive drama, with gameplay coming down to making key decisions that can ripple through the game, and quick-time events that test reflexes, where success or failure can have similarly long-lasting ramifications) is alluding to the same idea without saying it though. -- ZooBlazer 16:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've struck this. I can't find the source wording that made me think this was an important point to make. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• "To track the narrative branches in one playthrough, the game's menu has a butterfly effect system called "bearings", which lists all consequential courses of action associated with each branch and their eventual outcomes": I read this as meaning the player could see at the time of a choice what the consequences of that choice would be, but as far as I can tell it only looks backward at how the player got to a given point, given their past choices. I'm also not sure it's a good idea to use "butterfly effect" as an adjective: I assumed this was some sort of game mechanic that appeared in multiple games. I think it could just be dropped -- the source uses the term figuratively but it doesn't explain anything by itself.
  • Hopefully the simpler verbiage removes the ambiguity

    I still think a reader unfamiliar with the game would take it to mean that bearings allow you to foresee the consequences of a current action, rather than understanding the past actions that caused a current situation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

    how do we feel about "lists all retrospective choices and consequences" ? - E

    "Retrospective" is the word I was looking for. Could we do "To track the narrative branches in one playthrough, the game's menu has a system called "bearings", which allows the player to retrospectively view the actions they took that led to the current state of the game"? I still don't think "butterfly effect" tells the reader much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done -- ZooBlazer

That's all I have time for right now; possibly more later or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

i have responded to all the tentative comments. thank you for your input. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 23:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

More:

• 'The eponymous "pictures" mechanic from previous games in the series returns.' I don't think "eponymous" adds anything.

  Removed

• Suggest linking cutscene.

  Done

• "In line with earlier games in the series, 50 "secrets"—items that are scattered throughout House of Ashes—provide background information and context to events that happened in the temple and preceded the main plot. Secrets include journal entries that, when picked up, activate a cutscene where the author's voice recounts a 1940s archaeology mission that occurred in the temple." What does thegamer.com source support here? As far as I can see it just mentions secrets and doesn't add anything not supported by the other source. If it's just the word "secrets" I don't think it's worth it; there's nothing in the WP article that indicates that indicates that "secrets" are a category of event. The WP article only mentions journal entries; are there other "secrets"? I also don't see anything that supports "50". And the second sentence reads as though there is a single cutscene; I gather from the WP source that each journal entry triggers its own cutscene, always about the 1940s archaeological expedition, but that's not clear from the article.

  replaced the TheGamer source; changed to "each trigger its own" - E.

• "the creatures and the Ancient One who succumbed to the parasite inside the temple": are you using "creature", and later "monster", as synonyms for "vampire"? If so, I'd make this "the creatures, among whom is the Ancient One, a character from the prologue who became infected by the parasite". The current wording makes it sound as though there were two Ancient Ones in the prologue, one of whom succumbed to the parasite.

  Done

• "whether to abandon her or continue forward to medicate her illness": suggest "whether to abandon her or stay with her and attempt to [or "in the hope of"] medicating her illness".

  Done

• FN 79 should have "pp.". I'd have fixed this myself but it's in some format VE doesn't like.

  Done

• "incorporating additional features such as the QTE difficulty levels based on fan feedback. Apart from this, because the game featured "spookier" and more spacious areas, the camera is now a controllable, 360-degree one, allowing players to look all around their character to aid in exploration, as opposed to being fully fixed as in previous entries." This doesn't seem to be quite supported by the source, which says the camera was made controllable because of fan feedback, not because of the spookier and more spacious areas -- the ability to see those better is cited as a benefit, not the reason. And the source explicitly lists only the two changes -- camera and QTE difficulty -- whereas the article text implies there are other changes. What does "Apart from this" mean here?
  • "apart from this" was intended to be a transition phrase, but it's clunky in hindsight so i did away with that. and the "more spacious" areas do have something to do with the choice - they opted for a 360-degree camera to further immerse players in the space. added a source to indicate this. - E.
• The Astounding cover, which you show as being in the public domain, is still in copyright -- see here for the renewal. If you want to keep it you'll need a FUR.

  Added, hopefully correctly/the correct FUR.

  I don't think that will do it -- per WP:FUR we have to show that the image is necessary for the reader's understanding: "why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text or using free content media". I can't see what there is about this cover that is necessary to an understanding of this video game. Sorry, should have taken a few seconds longer to look at this when I pointed out it was still under copyright, but I think it would be best to remove the image. Pinging Nikki, who did the image review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Removed image. Chompy Ace 22:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

-- More later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• I addressed all but two things. I'll try to look into those further later today unless Your Power wants to take a crack at them first. -- ZooBlazer 17:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Spotchecks

I decided to do some spotchecks based on seeing a couple of slight misreadings of the sources above:

• "David Hirst oversaw the art team's research into Mesopotamian architecture, dress, and headgear for use in the game. The temple featured in House of Ashes was based on real-life complexes from the Akkadian time period, aged to fit the game's 2003 setting by filling pathways with sand and breaking down the pillars and ceilings." The source has an article signed by "David Hirst, Art Director", which suffices for the first few words, and has "... we extensively studied ancient Mesopotamian architecture, dress, and headgear, filling in the gaps where necessary to create a realistic yet memorable look. Once the temple had been built, we had to age it appropriately for the modern-day sections of the game: shattering pillars, bringing down ceilings, and drowning corridors in sand". I see several problems here:
  • "Mesopotamian architecture, dress, and headgear" is straight from the source.
    • I don't think that would be an issue; alphabetic listings are not copyrightable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

      After thinking about it I agree and have struck it, though I think retaining short sequences like this makes it harder to avoid close paraphrasing issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  • There's nothing to support "real-life complexes" (presumably temple complexes): Hirst doesn't say they looked at any specific real examples -- for all we know they read a few textbooks and cherry-picked architectural components they wanted to use.
  • "aged to fit the game's 2003 setting" -- unless I'm misunderstanding the source, it says this was only done for the modern parts of the game; some of the game shows the original unaged form of the temple. I think this might be what is meant by the wording in the article but it could be clearer.
  • "filling pathways with sand and breaking down the pillars and ceilings" is too close to "shattering pillars, bringing down ceilings, and drowning corridors in sand". See the example section in WP:CLOP; this is clearly a case where you've started with the given sentence and tried to rephrase it, which is not enough.
    • I am minded to disagree here - that's not a rephrase of a sentence, it's a complete recast. Compare (sorry Sandy) Once the temple had been built, we had to age it appropriately for the modern-day sections of the game: shattering pillars, bringing down ceilings, and drowning corridors in sand. (source) with The temple featured in House of Ashes was based on real-life complexes from the Akkadian time period, aged to fit the game's 2003 setting by filling pathways with sand and breaking down the pillars and ceilings (article), it's not that similar other than using the same terminology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

      The whole sentence is not as closely paraphrased as the example in WP:CLOP, I agree, but for the part of the sentence I quoted I think it's too close. I think this is one of those cases where in an attempt to sufficiently change the content the meaning has been slightly changed, meaning you could consider it inaccurate instead. "Pathways" and "corridors" are not the same thing, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I did my best to rewrite this offending sentence and remove the close paraphrasing - E.

  The rewrite is better, but it still mentions temple complexes, which is not in the source, and I think in the attempt to distance the language from the original the vocabulary is getting strained. How about "... was inspired by the look of ancient Mesopotamian architecture. Once the temple was created, the team aged it for the scenes set in 2003, collapsing ceilings and pillars and drifting sand into corridors"? I'm aware that this brings it back closer to the source phrasing, but I think the other changes you made (e.g. eliminating "architecture, dress, and headgear") do enough, and I think "decrepit" and "support structures" are strained, and "all over the place" is not encyclopedic in tone. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I changed it to your suggested wording. -- ZooBlazer

  Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Supermassive Games included easter eggs and callbacks to previous and future entries to create a shared universe within the anthology" is cited to "Each story is therefore a story in its own right. It’s not essential to have played the earlier games to understand and appreciate the later ones. Having said that, they are all set in the same universe, as evidenced by Easter eggs that can be found in each game that reference both earlier and later stories, and there is a parallel plot line." This is better but I think "easter eggs and callbacks" isn't quite supported, since it makes it sound as if there are cross-game references other than Easter eggs, and as far as I can see the source doesn't say that.
  • I tend to think that the parallel plot line is an additional thing that might be considered. Granted, it's a bit syntactically ambiguous in the source whether the "parallel plot" sentence fragment is supposed to depend on "they are all set in the same universe" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I made an attempt to reword/rearrange the sentence. Is it better or are there still issues Mike Christie? -- ZooBlazer

  I see you still have "callbacks"; what does that refer to other than the Easter eggs? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  In this case, one example I was thinking is that a flashback in the game takes place at the diner from the previous game that's just outside of the town from that game. Unless you'd consider that an Easter egg. I was thinking of Easter eggs as mostly, for example, things that players can read in a newspaper article that can be picked up similarly to the collectables. -- ZooBlazer 18:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't call that an Easter egg, but only Easter eggs are mentioned in this context in the source, aren't they? So saying callbacks isn't supported by the source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Changed the wording to remove callbacks. -- ZooBlazer 18:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Struck. I tweaked the wording some more. The "parallel storylines" wasn't the exact phrase used in the source, but that's not why I removed it; I took it out because it's not really clear what it means, and the source doesn't clarify. The other wording change was just to take the structure a little further away from the sentence in the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Supermassive attributed the decision to set the game in Iraq to the country's abundance in myths and folklore that the team could incorporate into the story" is sourced to "Game director Will Doyle’s research led the team at Supermassive Games to set the game in Iraq in 2003, due to a cluster of story potential in real-world legend and myth." This is fine, though I'd make it "abundance of myths ..." in the article.
  • Wording amended - E.
• "so a percussive, Sumerian-style composition was used for the prologue. It progresses to a horror-themed orchestration of other instruments" is sourced to "Its simplicity allowed it to be very versatile, played on instruments synonymous with Sumerian culture, through orchestral instrumentation right through to a synthesized arrangement which implies the technological advancement exposed in the story. We could transpose the technique into different keys and different tempos to give it more kick, more intrigue, more drive, whatever we wanted. This was completely in sync with the broader musical direction and progression of the score as the story unfolds. The game opens in an historical setting some 2000 years ago with a percussive soundtrack to match, and as the horror starts to develop, we move into timeless-horror orchestral instrumentation". I don't think this works. The source doesn't say the prologue was in a Sumerian style; it says "instruments synonymous with Sumerian culture" were used, but it doesn't say the music was Sumerian (how could it be?) and it doesn't say those instruments were used for the prologue. "As the horror starts to develop" is unsourced, and "horror-themed orchestration of other instruments" is too close to "timeless-horror orchestral instrumentation", and "other" doesn't mean anything as we haven't specified any instruments used in the prologue -- though you could perhaps get away with that as "percussive" does imply certain instruments.
  • reworded to "percussive composition inspired by Sumerian music". per the PS Blog "The game opens in a historical setting some 2,000 years ago and as the horror starts to develop we move into timeless orchestral instrumentation", so where the sumer-esque music fits is clear. not sure why the "as the horror starts to develop" comment is here --- how is it an unsourced part of the article (quotation is not even there) when it is right over here? - E.

    My mistake on "As the horror starts to develop"; I was reviewing the article against the source here in the edit window, having copied them in, and misread it; sorry about that. You've fixed the main things I was concerned about -- "Sumerian-style composition" and "other instruments". Quoting "timeless" also helps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Consequently, House of Ashes includes over 60 death scenes" is sourced to "there's at least 60 unique deaths and there's a whole ton of variation on that as well". No issues.

  Struck just to make it clearer at a glance that this is not an outstanding issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The developers believed the 2003–2011 Iraq War would make an "interesting" departure point for the development of the five main characters, allowing them the opportunity for character motivations, relationships, and dynamics the developers found compelling, sympathetic, and complex." This is sourced to two articles: I had a look through and didn't find enough to support all of this, but perhaps I missed some supporting text. I found "It's an interesting point to start off from for character motivations, and it allowed us to build up a team of characters that work together, that know each other,” McDonald says. “You get camaraderie and tension. Everyone doesn't always get on. Not a single one of them is clean and innocent. They've each got their own baggage that they bring with them. We wanted to make [our characters] more complex and nuanced." and "But it's also based on a very real - and very recent - conflict, something Supermassive wanted as a setting to explore various conflicts between its cast, and the need to overcome these together in order to survive. " I see there's a relationship between the source text and what's in the article, and "complex" is certainly supported, but where to you get "compelling" from? "Sympathetic" maybe. And does the source draw the connection directly from the Iraq War to "allowing ... the opportunity for character motivations, relationships, and dynamics"?
  • I think what the sources are trying to say is that the developers wanted, first and foremost, to write a story about peoples' humanity despite their differing backgrounds and characters, believing that soldiers from both sides of the 2003 invasion could make for good characters that demonstrate this theme. This part of the paragraph has been reworded. - E.

    The new version is "Doyle wanted a story about unity between adversaries to highlight their humanity despite their differences, and he believed that the Iraq War was a good setup for writing conflicts and complex characters that convey this theme." Sorry, but I still can't draw a line from the sentences quoted above to this. What in the source supports the first half of this? Unity between adversaries is mentioned in "the need to overcome [internal conflicts] together in order to survive", but what in the source connects this to highlighting their humanity? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

    My best guess is that comes from this article - The important thing for us was that they were enemies, and also that they're human. We wanted to show human aspects of their personality and put those aspects under strain. So, when faced with this absolutely implacable, hostile foe, it naturally brings out the humanity in the characters -- ZooBlazer 15:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, that does it. Thanks; striking this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to pause here and register an oppose based on these. I checked six chunks of text and only two came up clean, and that's in addition to the two minor discrepancies with the sources that I'd already noted in the content review I was doing. If you fix these and another reviewer does a spotcheck and it comes up clean I'd be happy to revisit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Added a few comments myself here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: done with responding to the new comments and the unresolved ones from the first sweep. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 12:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I realized after I posted this that Jo-Jo had already done a spotcheck that came up clean, which makes me think it's probably not an issue throughout the article. I will try to look at your responses this evening but I have a lot going on in RL for a few days and can't say when I can get back to this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries about that for me. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 16:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No rush. Your spotcheck was beneficial, so it was probably good to have you do one as well. -- ZooBlazer 16:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Nah, additional spotchecks are always good. Especially this month, where I am trying to get some arduous work done at Licancabur and Llullaillaco so my attention might be less sufficient than usual. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I've struck the oppose; there are a couple of points still to deal with but the fixes plus the fact that a spotcheck was already done mean I don't think it's likely there are pervasive problems. I'll do another couple of spotchecks once the above are struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless I missed any, I think there has now been an attempt at addressing the remaining unstruck spotchecks. -- ZooBlazer 15:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through again and there's now just one outstanding. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

All points now struck. I will read through again shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

A couple of minor points from a second read through.

• "the synthesizers are added after the game's twist to evoke imagery of highly advanced technology": what is the twist referred to here?

  Reworded. The twist is the reveal of the adavanced technology of the aliens.

• "A trailer for the next game in the anthology, as well as the season one finale, The Devil in Me, was featured at the end of House of Ashes": what does "season one finale" refer to?

  Season one refers to the first four games of the anthology.

• "Two reviewers wrote about the game's branching story and butterfly effect elements, finding them well-executed": as a result of an earlier comment there are now no earlier references to the butterfly effect, so this is opaque. Suggest 'Two reviewers wrote about the game's branching story elements and the "bearings" feature, finding them well-executed'.

  Changed

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: Addressed/responded to your newest comments. -- ZooBlazer 17:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. Feel free to revert my copyedits if you don't approve of any of them. "Season one" surprised me a bit because I don't think there's been a previous reference to the anthology elements being released in seasons, but it's a minor point and it's not worth holding up support for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie Would it help to change the lead to include a mention of the season towards the beginning? Something like "The Dark Pictures Anthology: House of Ashes is a 2021 interactive drama and survival horror video game. Developed by Supermassive Games and published by Bandai Namco Entertainment, it is the third game of the first season and third instalment overall in The Dark Pictures Anthology." -- ZooBlazer 17:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that would help. And if you're going to mention the season in the lead you should change the body to support that, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Added -- ZooBlazer 22:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Your comments have been extremely helpful as always. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 02:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Why are some parts of some of the References in bold? Eg "Will Doyle: We wanted to create something that is … a completely non-human creature ..." Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild Just to easily distinguish between multiple speakers. Should the bold be removed? -- ZooBlazer 20:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It was an open question. Was the bold in the original? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild The source is a YouTube interview, so the text was just transcribed to the ref to make it easier. The video is also time stamped for listening purposes, so the written part isn't absolutely necessary, just more of a convenience for readers. -- ZooBlazer 20:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

And the other instance is a transcription from a scene in the game. -- ZooBlazer 20:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

In which case, no, they shouldn't be in bold. I need to do a last check, but I think we are just waiting for Jo-Jo to come back on the source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild All bold in the references has been removed. -- ZooBlazer 20:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Is there anything else that needs to be done? Multiple supports, no opposes, and image and source reviews completed with everything addressed. -- ZooBlazer 22:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

At the moment only the source review is outstanding. Jo-Jo is, as always, busy, but I am sure that they will get round to either passing it or posting further comments in the next day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

(Technically, I am not so much busy as much as there isn't a lot of work on WP to do for me) Technically, my source review is complete. The only caveat is that I am relying heavily on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and I am not 100% sure that its definition of RS always lines up with the "high-quality reliable sources" requirement of the FA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

Resolved comments

Recusing to review. "The films Aliens, Predator, and The Descent, as well as the H. P. Lovecraft novella At the Mountains of Madness and the myth of the Curse of Akkad, influenced the developers' design for the creatures, which were made using motion capture and hand animation, and the temple, which was inspired by ancient Mesopotamian architecture." Did the inspiration for the temple come only from Mesopotamian architecture or did the aforementioned fiction work also influence its creation? If the latter, should there perhaps be an "also" before "was inspired"? I ended up just separating the influences from the creatures and temple design info. In reference to my previous comment, the text in the main body reads "Inspirations for the story and design included the films Aliens (1986), Predator (1987), and The Descent (2005); the H. P. Lovecraft novella At the Mountains of Madness (1936); and various facets of Mesopotamian culture such as the myth of the Curse of Akkad." and "The House of Ashes temple was inspired by the look of ancient Mesopotamian architecture." It looks like the films and the novella didn't inspire the creation of the template, but the way the sentence in the lead is structured, it reads as if they did. Also, the main body only says that the films and the novella inspired the design whereas the lead says "design for the creatures". The lead is supposed to be a repetition of the rest of the article so if the inspiration was indeed only for the creatures' design, the "Story and design" subsection should reflect that. I think it's okay now as I changed the lead wording based on your previous comment. "The game additional features such as the QTE difficulty levels and a new camera system based on fan feedback" - there is a word missing before "additional features". Fixed "The project expanded Tisdale's career experience beyond her usual roles in comedy, which made Tisdale agree to provide Rachel's voice and likeness,[6] making her debut as a video game actor." The way this sentence is structured, it can be interpreted as suggesting that Rachel is making her debut as a video game actor rather than Tisdale. This ambiguity arises because the phrase "making her debut as a video game actor" directly follows the mention of Rachel's name, creating a possible association between the two. Cleaned up "However, for VentureBeat journalist Dean Takahashi, while House of Ashes introduced many improvements to the anthology, the series started to become formulaic with its release,[7] whereas an unknown Edge critic wrote that some of the systems supporting the series were becoming outdated." Can we divide the sentence into two distinct clauses? I find it unnecessarily complex and confusing due to the simultaneous use of contrasting conjunctions ("while", "whereas", "however") and the placement of the clauses. Reworded "Two reviewers wrote about the game's branching story elements and the "bearings" feature" - only one of the two sources use the word "bearings" but the sentence makes it seem like they both used that exact word (given that it is in quotes). Reworded "Play's Jess Kinghorn called them serviceable but wished some actors had gone bigger" - what does "bigger" mean? Noted that "gone bigger" is a quote from the source and tried to slightly expand to make it clearer hopefully. I understand that you’re quoting the source but it should still make sense to the average encyclopedia reader, and IMO "gone bigger" is a colloquial expression. My assumption is that in this context, "gone bigger" means that the reviewer wished some actors had delivered more exaggerated or intense performances, possibly with more energy or dramatic flair, but I could be wrong. If it indeed means that, you could rephrase it as something like: "Play's Jess Kinghorn described the performances as serviceable but suggested that some actors should have displayed more intensity." or "...displayed more dramatic presence". FrB.TG (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC) @FrB.TG Went ahead and changed it to your first suggestion. -- ZooBlazer 04:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC) "The camera work was deemed superior to that of previous Dark Pictures games,[7][10][12] with praise for its ability to evoke claustrophobia.[11][28][73] Despite this,[14][71]" - sources 14 and 71 seem to be for the praise directed towards the camera work and its "ability to evoke claustrophobia" so they should be accordingly placed in the previous sentence. I don't know why you're introducing new sources here. FrB.TG (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC) I'm not sure what happened there. I moved each to the appropriate sport.

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the review. I think I've addressed all of your comments. -- ZooBlazer 16:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't have anything else to add. I have capped my comments now. FrB.TG (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that FrB.TG, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Not formally voting but I think it is ready for closure now. FrB.TG (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2024 [92].

---

Shovel Knight: Specter of Torment

Nominator(s): The Night Watch (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the second of three downloadable content expansions for Shovel Knight. If you have participated in the video gaming scene since 2014 onwards, you may have heard of Shovel Knight or witnessed his many cameo appearances ranging from independent titles like Katana Zero, to behemoth blockbuster games such as Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. I can affirm that Shovel Knight deserves some of this attention; It has pitch-perfect platforming and is a source of pure nostalgia. Truly the complete package for retrogamers. Specter of Torment would be like the Ninja Gaiden to Shovel Knight's Mega Man, and is an easier but nonetheless fun experience. Inspired by the work done on BioShock 2: Minerva's Den, let's see if I can make a Four Award out of this article. The Night Watch (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Vami

Quid pro quo. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review

Easy pass. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review

All sources reliable. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check - pass

• [1]: Errors detected. All other instances good.
  • This article does not mention the Darkness meter.

Replaced with USgamer

• • GameSpot said that the game replicated much of what made the original Shovel Knight excellent, At no point does the article use the words "replicated" or "excellent", which is itself non-neutral.

Included in the beginning of the third to last paragraph.

• [2]: Ditto.
  • Neither this nor [1] mention that Specter of Torment is a side-scroller.

Replaced with other source

• • Neither this nor [1] mention that killing enemies fills the Darkness meter.

Replaced with USgamer source

• • Shacknews said that some players would dislike the lack of scale The article uses "scope", not "scale".

Changed

• [3]: All good here.
• [4]: Error detected. All other instances good.
  • GameRevolution felt that the platforming was difficult to understand because it relied upon complicated movement, and felt overall inferior to the original Shovel Knight's. Article notes that the platforming may be hard to learn, but does not call it "inferior" to Shovel Knight.

In the third paragraph of the "Phantom Menace" section, the author says that he prefers the original's style of platforming to Specter of Torment's.

• [5]: All good here.
• [6]: Ditto.
• [7]: Ditto.
• [8]: Ditto.
• [9]: Ditto.
• [10]: Ditto.
• [11]: Ditto.
• [12]: Ditto.
• [13]: Ditto.
• [14]: Ditto.
• [15]: Ditto.
• [16]: Ditto.
• [17]: Ditto.
• [18]: All good here but you should disclose that this is written in Polish.
• [19]: All good here.
• [20]: Ditto.
• [21]: Ditto.
• [22]: Ditto.
• [23]: Ditto.

All matters addressed. I am pleased to support now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "his master, the Enchantress" - presumably the Enchantress is female? In which case she is his mistress, not his master
• Screen shot caption needs a full stop
• "permits him to temporarily float while mid-air" => "permits him to temporarily float while in mid-air"
• "memories of his former life: Before dying" - not a new sentence so no need for capital B
• "causing the floor beneath them to collapse and killing Luan" => "causing the floor beneath them to collapse, killing Luan"
• "back in 2013" - just "in 2013" is fine
• "Among the stretch goals were the addition" => "Among the stretch goals was the addition" (addition is a singular noun)
• "whether the player would move in upward or downward" => "whether the player would move upward or downward"
• "made Curios feel like power-ups rather than as new abilities" => "made Curios feel like power-ups rather than new abilities"
• "and designed many of these rooms" => "and designed many of the rooms"
• "what possible movements that the player would take" => "what possible movements the player would take"
• "The team planned and designed the rooms using cyclical formula" - should be either "The team planned and designed the rooms using a cyclical formula" or "The team planned and designed the rooms using cyclical formulae", depending whether more than one formula was involved
• "but said that other were too similar" => "but said that others were too similar"
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you again @ChrisTheDude I believe that I have addressed your comments! The Night Watch (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Elias

Trying to expand my reviewing purview by looking at video game FACs. There is a first-timer whom I am helping and who has their own video game FAC here, so a go at it would be appreciated. of course the "qpq not obligated" caveat applies as always :) will be back with comments ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 00:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Misc

• Tighten the prose by cutting words from the following.
  • "of" from "jump off of them"
    • Some instances of this remain
  • "began" from "began development of" -> using "began ... of" is redundant semantically, so do "developed Specter..." instead
  • "decided to" from "decided to completely overhaul" and "they decided to redesign all of them" -> same logic as above
  • "reviewers" from "though some reviewers"
  • "the original" from "As with the original Shovel Knight, players can..."
  • if Curios are similar to Relics in that both are powered with darkness, cut "and are" from "and are powered using a resource.." this also fixes the ambiguity
    • Yet to be addressed

  The Relics are not powered using darkness, so I kept as-is}

  That clears things up. thanks! - e.

  • "in" from "while in mid-air"
    • Yet to be addressed
  • Rewrite to "Green Skull for regaining health, Judgment Rush for teleporting through walls, and Hover Plume for temporarily floating while mid-air" .
  • The comma from "Ocarina of Time, and Ninja Gaiden Black"
  • comma + second "were" from "were recreated as Curios, and were designed"
  • change "intended for a consistent..." to "wanted a consistent..."
  • "back" from "reverted back to"
  • "all" from "all the gameplay concepts"
  • "to be" from "found the platforming to be challenging", "found the levels to be similar", "found the new levels to be familiar", "the bosses to be easier than in...", and "found the game to be too short"
    • the "found..." phrase structure appears pretty close to each other, so vary it a bit
  • "[comma] and" from "felt that the platforming [...], and felt overall inferior"
    • The relevant sentence still needs some tweaking. see below
  • "into" from "helped make Specter Knight into a complex character"
  • "noting from "it was the best story in the series and demonstrated how Yacht Club Games had improved its writing, despite noting its short length"
    • move the "short length" bit to after the "best story" bit; right now it seems like the "short length" descriptor is referring to YCG's improved writing
• MOS:CONFORMTITLE tells us video game titles and publication names should be italicized in the |title parameter of references

Gameplay

• "Specter Knight features a different moveset than the Shovel Knight character focused on mobility: he can run up walls, jump off of them, and attack enemies with his scythe." this wording is ambiguous. clarify that the character who runs up walls etc. etc. is the spectre knight by rewriting it to "and focuses more on mobility"
• readers would better understand the "shovel knight character" is from the previous game if it were written to "Shovel Knight's protagonist"

Plot

• this one's good

Development

• change "an inventory similar to the original Shovel Knight" to "...similar to the original Shovel Knight's" because you are comparing it to the game's inventory, not the game itself
• any reason why treasure in "treasure, shortcuts, and rewards" is singular unlike the other items on the list ?
• Add a comma after 2016 per MOS:DATEFORMAT
• "...purchased the original game. The game..." there's ambiguity. change "the game" to "Specter of Torment"

Reception

• "saying" is grammatically parallel to "highlighting", so remove the comma before "and saying". the current sentence structure stands as "found the platforming challenging [...] and saying" which implies "found" and "saying" are parallel verbs, which they are not
• "The reviewer said that the game was another entry in a great franchise" whos the reviewer exactly ?

All I got for now . the article is very, very well-written! most of my issues involve concision, which should be pretty easy to address. hope my comments were of help . ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 01:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Your Power! I believe that I have addressed your comments. The Night Watch (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Your Power just a nudge :). The Night Watch (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for not attending to this sooner @The Night Watch! i wrote on my talk page earlier that I had big events happening at my school last weekend, so my editing capacities were limited. now that i am back, allow me to do another sweep

• there is still one instance of "jump off of" in the article
• perhaps pipe the entire phrase "jump off them" to Wall jump instead of just "jump" to avoid an WP:EASTEREGG situation
• some "original Shovel Knight" -s can be simplified to just "original game" or "Shovel Knight", where doing so would not create ambiguity
  • compare w/ "objects not featured in earlier Shovel Knight titles [...] developers considered Plague of Shadows and the original Shovel Knight too similar visually", where i think the phrasing is necessary to disambiguate, vs "As part of the Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign for Shovel Knight in 2013 [...] based around three of the boss characters from the original Shovel Knight", where "the original" can be cut just fine
• I initially had no idea what stretch goal meant, so a link to it would be helpful

  There sadly isn't a good wikilink, but I gave a brief explanation they are "additional features for the game to be added if the funding met a certain target"

  There is one at stretch goals; kudos as well for providing a brief explanation. Weirdly enough, linking stretch goal (singular) redirects to Goal setting#Stretch goals, which does provide helpful explanation, but linking stretch goals (plural) redirects to the Kickstarter article, which is a more relevant article but provides zero mention of the term anywhere. Pick your poison - e.

  I'll do the second one, thanks.

• "whichfeatured a character with unique movement" self-explanatory
• as a casual player of video games, i'm more familiar with "platforms" being used to refer to PC, Nintendo, X/S, PS5, etc., so can we pipe "ports" to Video game#Platform?
• "GameRevolution felt that the platforming was difficult to understand [...], and felt overall inferior" GameRevolution was not the thing that felt inferior, no ? change to "felt that the platforming was difficult ... and was overall inferior"
• A similar ambiguity situation with the Destructoid sentence. "Destructoid said that [Specter of Torment] was the best story in the series despite its short length, and demonstrated how Yacht Club Games" add a comma before "despite" to disambiguate that it was Specter of Torment and not Destructoid that did the demonstrating

That will be all! Thank you so much for your diligence with writing the article, whose prose was just as clean and well-written as when I last read it :) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 03:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again @Your Power, I believe that I have addressed everything. The Night Watch (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

for the unstriked comments, it's good practice to have explanations for why some requests weren't addressed. almost there, @The Night Watch. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 03:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems we have only one more left, @The Night Watch. inching so close to promotion! you got this! ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 06:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@The Night Watch there we go. apologies for procrastinating this, and thanks for reviewing the House of Ashes nom! while I personally feel comfortable with the prose in terms of grammar and flow, I understand the issues raised by MC and GtM below. hence, I am a bit reluctant to support at the moment. when all of the below are resolved, I would be happy to lend it ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 07:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "They completely overhauled the levels of the original Shovel Knight" I can't tell from this whether the new levels are in some sense the same as, or similar to, the old levels, but with a redesign? Or that the new levels are completely new designs? The gameplay section doesn't make it clear either, but from the development section I gather the former is the case. I don't think you need to put all that detail in the gameplay section, but as written it's ambiguous.

I tried clarifying that they are similar. Does this iteration work

• "and reduced the difficulty after receiving criticism regarding it in Plague of Shadows": as written this means they made it easier than the original Shovel Knight, but I think you mean they made it easier than Plague of Shadows.

Removed

• "The team followed a formula for level design based upon Mega Man to avoid disrupting the pacing": I don't know what you mean by "avoid disrupting the pacing". The same phrase is used in the body with more explanation but I don't follow it there either.

  Should I insert a wikilink to pacing to help clarify?

  No, the issue is that I don't see how choosing a level design formula based on Mega Man has an effect on the pacing of the game. Things that disrupt pacing are typically things that slow the player down more than expected. Why would the level design formula's similarity to Mega Man have that effect? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Decided to cut that part about pacing and just said that they followed a formula from Mega Man.

• Suggest adding "moveset" to Glossary of video game terms and linking it.

  Not in the Glossary to my knowledge, may be a good entry

  I know it's not really your problem, but could you add it to the glossary? You could probably write a more accurate definition than I could, and it would allow us to link it here -- it's jargon to non-players and a link would help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done.

• "As with Shovel Knight, players can destroy checkpoints to receive a reward, but must travel through longer portions of the level to progress if they die": how about "As with Shovel Knight, players can destroy checkpoints to receive a reward, but if they do, they must travel further through the level to reach the next checkpoint in order to save their progress if they die".

  The checkpoint does not save their progress, it just allows them to respawn in a later portion of the level if they die

  Understood, but I don't think the sentence you have makes that clear. I think a reader familiar with video games would understand it with no difficulty, but it could be phrased more clearly. Isn't the key point that once you've passed a checkpoint, you'll respawn there if you die? So the cost of destroying a checkpoint is that the player must now reach the next checkpoint in order to move their respawn point further along in the game. How about "As with Shovel Knight, players can destroy checkpoints to receive a reward, but will not then respawn there if they die before reaching the next checkpoint"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done.

• In the plot section, I think just a sentence or two about the plot of Shovel Knight would help set the stage. From the later discussion in the "Development" section, it appears Specter Knight is a boss in the original Shovel Knight; I think that should be mentioned as well.

  The problem is I don't actually know how to explain it very well in a couple of sentences, maybe a "see also" to the Shovel Knight plot may help. I was mostly basing the self-contained nature of the plot on BioShock 2: Minerva's Den which sends the reader towards the original article for context without filling up the plot section too much.

  I think something is needed. As it stands the first reference to Shield Knight doesn't make it clear he was part of the first game. I agree it's not easy to do because this game is a prequel -- normally one summarizes previous episodes to set the stage. But players of this game will generally understand references to Shovel Knight and its plot, so readers who did not play either game need to get a basic idea of the relationship between the plots. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Added a little more.

• "which grows in power as he defeats the knights": we haven't yet said he has to fight them, only that he has to recruit them.

  Changed

  My concern here is that "recruit" is not necessarily a hostile interaction, so the reader doesn't realize that Specter Knight is going to recruit these knights by defeating them. How about "instructs her undead servant Specter Knight to fight eight knights in order to recruit them for the Order ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done.

• "Oblivious to the identity of the Enchantress": does this mean Donovan doesn't realize the Enchantress was Shield Knight? Or that he doesn't realize the Enchantress is evil? From the later plot section I see it's the former but I think that should be clear here.

  Not sure if being evil can be considered an identity, I think it is fine as-is but yes Donovan doesn't realize the Enchantress was Shield Knight.

  I'll have a think about other ways to phrase this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  How about "Unaware that the Enchantress was Shield Knight, Donovan accepted the offer ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Why is Specter Knight enraged when he discovers the Enchantress was Shield Knight?

  Changed to "Enraged that he was working for his enemy"

• "Specter Knight goes after the Enchantress through the hole that Black Knight dug into the tower": but surely this hole takes Specter Knight out of the tower, since Black Knight broke in through it? Isn't the Enchantress inside the Tower somewhere?

Changed.

• "The developers designed Specter Knight's mobility after receiving feedback on the movement of Plague Knight, the protagonist of Plague of Shadows. Players complained that Plague Knight's moveset was chaotic and difficult to control, leading Yacht Club Games to design the new protagonist with simpler controls and mechanics. The team deviated from Specter Knight's original flying movement as featured in his boss battle, believing that it would detract from the platforming." This is a bit back-and-forth -- we start with design, then go back to the complaints, then talk about the design again, then go back to the boss battle (presumably in the original game?). How about "Players of Plague of Shadows had complained that the movement of its protagonist, Plague Knight, was chaotic and difficult to control, so Yacht Club Games simplified the controls and mechanics for Specter Knight. The team also dropped the flying movement Specter Knight used in his boss battle in the original game, believing that it would detract from the platforming."

Done

• "The spacing of levels was a constant concern, as the developers did not always know what possible movements the player would take during platforming": what does "spacing of levels" mean? I have never played platform games so this might be standard terminology. Why didn't the developers know what the possible movements were? Do you just mean they couldn't predict what a player would do? Why would that affect the spacing?

Clarified as the spacing and layout of the level mechanics

• "The developers considered Plague of Shadows and the original Shovel Knight too indistinct visually": I don't think you can use "indistinct" in this way. How about "too similar visually"?

Done

• "The difficulty had to be altered to fit the new hub world": this seems like a non sequitur. Why would the developers have to change the difficulty of the game just because the layout was now a hubworld rather than a large map?

  Explained. Does this work?

  That's clearer, yes; I copyedited it a bit -- I hope I didn't screw up the intended meaning. I'm still not entirely clear what is being said, though. I can see that in a game where you're forced through the levels in a certain order, the developers simply have to make sure the difficulty is gradually increasing. If you have a hub and can go anywhere, why can't you have the same range of difficulties? I've certainly played free movement games (Breath of the Wild comes to mind) where I had to learn fairly quickly that parts of the map needed to stay off limits till I acquired more skills and weapons. What exactly was the problem they foresaw if they didn't even up the difficulty levels? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that works, thank you. Apparently the developers evened out the difficulty across all of the stages to subvert expectations for the difficulty of each level (some stages were expected to be easy like in the first two games, though the developers decided to make them harder) and make gameplay more interesting. Should I add something along these lines?

• "and the developers reduced the overall challenge after receiving criticism for it in Plague of Shadows": suggest "and the developers reduced the overall challenge after Plague of Shadows was criticized for being too difficult".

Removed that section earlier Done

• Specter of Torment was first announced on ..." we're still in the "Level design" subsection here; you might add a subsection at this point titled "Release" for the remaining couple of sentences. Or make it "Release and reception" and add those sentences to the start of what's currently the reception section.

Moved

• "Specter Knight would have to input several moves together to progress": I think this should be "put", not "input"?

Input is the the correct term, it is very common video game speak for "perform" or "do"

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Mike Christie! I'll be addressing your comments sometime tomorrow or on Tuesday The Night Watch (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie I believe that I have addressed most of your comments. The Night Watch (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I've struck or replied to everything above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie Did a second pass. The Night Watch (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I've struck a couple more points. I will read through again and think about the remaining points and see if have any more concerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose. I've been hesitating over this review for a while. I think the prose could use a copyedit, but if that were the only issue I'm not sure I would oppose. I'm more concerned about some slight imprecisions in the way the source material has been used. For example, "Because players could use the hub to access all of the available levels, unlike the previous two games where the stages could only be completed in a certain order, the team was forced to redesign the easier levels of Shovel Knight and Plague of Shadows to be more difficult, while reducing the challenge of the harder stages." The source for this says "Since Specter of Torment allows you to choose the main levels in any order, some of the more difficult stages in Shovel Knight and Plague of Shadows were tailored to be a bit easier, while easier ones were amped up to be more challenging. This was a fun way to subvert returning players' expectations. Traditionally "easy" stages like Pridemoor Keep gained a harder edge in Specter of Torment." The problem here is "forced": the source describes it as an idea the team had, not something that they felt obliged to do. Another example: "The team used a level design formula taken from Mega Man, where a complete stage would feature 26 rooms and 6 secret areas, allowing players to recognize how far they had progressed." The source has "Each level should have about 26 regular rooms and 6 secret optional rooms. This formula was counted roughly from Mega Man (which has 25 rooms) for Shovel of Hope, and used again in Specter of Torment. A consistent length means that every stage will take a similar amount of time and have a similarly digestible amount of content. Any longer or shorter and the level might drag on or feel like it was missing stuff. Players start to develop a sense of their progress, and rely on it too ("I bet I'm near the end")." The source makes it clear these numbers are approximate, and that the approach was used for both the original game and this one, and explains why this is helpful for the players. An earlier version of this article mentioned pacing at this point; when I asked what that meant (before I read the source) the nominator took out the reference, but I think it's the point of the source, and an explanation was needed. Another example: "The team also dropped the flying movement Specter Knight used in his boss battle in the original game, believing that it would detract from the platforming." The source has "Even at the earliest of planning stages, we knew right away that Specter Knight couldn’t just have mobility like his boss battle from Shovel Knight. Floating around freely with a giant scythe doesn’t lend itself to platforming!" This is more of a nitpick, but though I've never played platforming games it seems we don't need to hedge with "believed" -- a free floating protagonist is incompatible with a platforming game. One more example: "They felt that ... players could be challenged if all the mechanics were combined at the end of the level." The source has "Shovel Knight levels share the same general structure for ramping ideas as classic Mega Man levels. Both typically introduce an idea, complicate it, layer it with other ideas, test the player with a really difficult version of the idea, and then cool down from the idea before starting the next idea. And at the end of the level, right before the boss, all the ideas combine for one really tough challenge!" The source says that this was a design approach in which the mechanics were introduced and then combined at the end of the level for a difficult challenge. The wording in the article is vaguer, and doesn't make it clear that this was a conscious strategy on the part of the designers in order to finish each level at a high difficulty. And it's not clear to me that "idea" and "mechanics" can be treated as synonyms in this way -- though I'd defer to a gamer's judgement on whether that's the natural interpretation for someone who knows these games. I'm sorry to oppose, since I think there's a solid basis for a featured article here, but I've found too many of these minor imprecisions to be comfortable with supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the minor imprecisions are a byproduct of how tough it is to craft a Development section using almost exclusively interview sources, but I'll go parsing through the sources to make sure they are as precise as possible. The Night Watch (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• First paragraph of Development looks fine to me, source 8 is used accurately.
• Second paragraph of Development "Development of Specter of Torment began after..." Bit that it began after Plague of Shadows is correct, "ambitious expansion" is also correct, added a little more on how they believed that the movement in Plague of Shadows made the levels fun to revisit, but that the levels would feel repetitive on a third play through even if they changed the movement.
• Third paragraph of Development "darker story centered around Specter Knight" looks correct, the material about Plague Knight being chaotic is elaborated upon in source 10 and the second paragraph effectively says that the team received criticism from some players who found Plague Knight too chaotic. I removed the bit about it being difficult to control as it is not explicitly stated in the sources, just that the movement was chaotic. I implemented your suggestion about the flying movement.
• Fourth paragraph: They did indeed take inspiration from games like Prince of Persia and the other two games for how they designed the platforming and slashing movement. There were ways in which they implemented these inspirations in Specter of Torment, and these ways are not mentioned in the article because I believe that elaborating on exactly how they added these inspirations would be too long and excessively detailed. As such, I believe that it is fine as-is simply to say they took inspiration from these games. I slightly altered the bit about the ninja to clarify that the developers wanted him to act like a "grim reaper ninja", and that they included shrikens in his moveset at one point. I also clarified that the difficulties with the slashing movement was not difficulties with designing the movement, but rather communicating how it worked with players and teaching them how to use it.

I think the hard part is that many of the terms in the Development sources are unfamiliar to people who have not played the game, so it is a difficult balancing act simplifying what they are trying to say while also making the prose precise enough to what the sources are saying. @Mike Christie Let's start with these first four parts and see if I am doing this correctly. If not, I think I might withdraw and work on this outside of FAC. The Night Watch (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• A little further: For the fifth paragraph, first sentence is correct, source says that it took them a year to design, test, and balance each of the levels. Second sentence has been clarified to be a bit closer to the source, tell me if I need to rephrase it somewhat. Third and fourth sources are clarified as approximate. Fifth sentence has been altered to be a bit less vague, sixth and seventh sentences has been rephrased somewhat.

The Night Watch (talk) 02:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

A brief input Gog the Mild

Seeing Mikes comments, I thought I would have a look myself. I have only read the first paragraph of the lead.

• "a downloadable content (DLC) expansion" - I think I know what that is.
• "the 2014 platform game". Whoosh. Is it a video game? I assume not as you don't say so. So what is it? Bearing in mind MOS:FIRST "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English."
• "The expansion is a prequel to the original game, where the player takes the role of Specter Knight". Does the player take this role in the prequel or the original?
• "Gameplay is similar to Shovel Knight". For any reader who has not played Shovel Knight the lead does not describe the gameplay[!]
• "features levels and boss fights that are redesigned from the originals." Similar comment. Never mind what they resemble, could we have a description. And what are "boss fights"?

Sorry, The Night Watch, but this doesn't seem to do what the first paragraph of a lead is supposed to. I can sympathise with Mike's dilemma, which seems to be that you clearly know what you are writing about, but the article is not pitched at a level understandable by a non-specialist audience. It is possible that the curse of knowledge applies. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have formatted the lead similarly to the lead of the FA video game DLC BioShock 2: Minerva's Den. There is a wikilink to downloadable content, there is a link to platform game (yes, a platform game is a video game). I will clarify that the players takes the role of Specter Knight in Specter of Torment, there is a helpful link in Gameplay directing unfamiliar readers to the Shovel Knight article to read about its gameplay (same as Bioshock 2: Minerva's Den). Boss fights are also wikilinked. What else can I do to make the article more understandable without causing redundancy with the other linked articles? I'm a bit confused about your concerns here. The Night Watch (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild follow-up ping on the response I raised above. The Night Watch (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

A Wikilink is not a substitute for an explanation. See MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Either way, I still don't understand what you want me to explain here:

• Dowloadable content is wikilinked and formatted in the lead just the same as BioShock 2: Minerva's Den. That article's lead offers no explanation other than a wikilink to what DLC is since doing so would be redundant and DLC is a common concept with video games.
• "Platform game" is the same terminology used with multiple other video game FAs, including Katana Zero, Donkey Kong Country, Super Mario World, Super Meat Boy etc. Those articles give no detailed explanation for what a platform game is, most likely because the genre is extremely prevalent. Any given Mario game is a platform game so the vast, vast majority of readers are familiar with the concept.
• "Gameplay is similar to Shovel Knight" this is how the sources themselves cover the subject, and nearly all assume familiarity with the original game. This approach is not unusual since Minerva's Den introduces its gameplay in the lead as "Gameplay is similar to that of BioShock 2, with new enemies and weapons."
• Boss fights are an also extremely well-known concept within video games, we even have articles dedicated to some video game boss characters. Again, I don't know why an explanation is needed in the lead.

What I guess I'm trying to say is that the approach of the article is in line with other video game FAs, and including all those explanations in the lead would be very redundant. I see the points raised above by Mike Christie and I'm still looking to see how to make the article less vague without messing up the wording, but I still don't think any explanations are necessary. The Night Watch (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Ok. I was hoping that my points would be rapidly grasped and corrected. Thinking them over, reading your responses above, and rereading the lead I think that I am left in an even less generous position than Mike. Although at the moment I don't intend to look at anything other than the lead I will turn this into a formal review, recuse, work through the comments above and the rest of the lead, and see where we are. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild A problem that I see is that there no precedent for this level of explanation of game mechanics in the lead of any video game FAs so I see a problem. Without a precedent or example of the lead you are looking for, I have no clear idea how to execute your comments to a satisfactory level. Could you give me an example of what you are looking for in the lead? I think you mean that I should explain the gameplay concepts like this: In the lead of First Punic War, there is no explanation for what galleys are. I certainly know what they are but I don't know if the average reader will know.

  The current lead says "The immense effort of building 1,000 galleys during the war laid the foundation for Rome's maritime dominance for 600 years." but with an explanation of what galleys are it would probably read like this: "The immense effort of building 1,000 galleys, warships relying on oars for propulsion which were were a staple of the Roman fleet, laid the foundation for Rome's maritime dominance for 600 years." So I'm guessing you want me to explain each of the gameplay concepts in the lead like how I explained galleys above. So the "features levels and boss fights that are redesigned from the originals" would be reworded to something like "features boss fights, which are battles with difficult enemies and levels that are redesigned from those of the original Shovel Knight game" This just reads poorly and I'm really just confused, sorry, just trying to understand your perspective. I might ask for a third opinion on this one because I feel quite stupid right now. The Night Watch (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from SnowFire

Side comment

On Mike Christie & Gog the Mild's concerns above: The short version is that I don't think making changes to address them is a good idea, and the article is fine as is. This is a larger topic than just this FAC, though (since something similar came up for the Raichu FAC). To be 100% clear, I agree that FAs should be written as accessibly as possible for a broad audience. But, we also shouldn't needlessly repeat broader-topic material. So to go into it some more...

The essence of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is being able to spinoff long sections into separate articles to keep the length of the content down to encyclopedia article length, not full book length. The assumption is that, in a dead-tree book called "Shovel Knight", it can be chopped up where a chapter of the book called "Specter of Torment" (or "Plague of Shadows" or "King of Cards", etc.) is a separate article. The nature of this means that there will be some repetition, but there's a limit. Something like saying "the gameplay is similar to Shovel Knight's" is fine; in a book that would mean "flip back to the previous chapter you apparently skipped", and on Wikipedia that means "click the wikilink." The alternative would be having to repeat the same material on gameplay in 6+ different places, which would defeat the whole point of summary style - of splitting up the book to a separate article per chapter, conceptually.

On the general gaming terms topic, there's basically a certain understanding that if a reader is truly, truly clueless on the overall topic, they're going to need to read up on some basics first. To keep the topic on games, broadly construed, if someone doesn't know anything about a particular sport, but they're reading about a baseball shortstop or a cricket wicket-keeper or whatever, it's understood that they need to click the wikilink on baseball or cricket or shortstop first. In practice, we don't describe what a shortstop is on all 20,000 articles on baseball shortstops we have on-wiki. To me, this is analogous to the "platform game" or "DLC" analogy - if a reader doesn't understand those terms, it's valid to expect them to start with reading up on that first. Again, the alternative is to explain platform game across 20,000 individual platform games, equivalent to explaining shortstop or catcher 20,000 times. Or, as mentioned already, the Roman example. If a reader is truly clueless about the Roman Republic, doesn't know what a legate is, doesn't know what the Senate was, doesn't know what a legion is, etc., then yeah, they're going to need to read at least a little on the broader topic first.

I'm hesitant to "call out" other FA articles because there's many ways to skin a cat and I'm absolutely not trying to start a FAR or anything, but to pick a recent-ish FA I supported and personally reviewed the sources on... Croatian Spring frankly requires a decent amount of background knowledge. It was an imposing review, and I consider myself pretty well-informed compared to the wider public. If a random American reader doesn't know who Tito was, doesn't know about the SFR Yugoslavia, doesn't know about Yugoslavia's Federal structure, doesn't know about Croatian nationalism... they need to do a lot of reading first. But that's okay. Trying to include all of that would swell the "background" section to be larger than the entire rest of the article. But the article is on the "Croatian Spring", not "Yugoslav History 101 catch-up", which is already written elsewhere - it'd blur the identity of the article to include it. If we're okay with trusting the audience to be either somewhat interested in Yugoslav history to begin with (hence being at the article at all), or else being willing to do some catch-up, it's fine and Working As Intended. Analagously, I think it's fine to expect a certain degree of "if this isn't enough background, please click on the Shovel Knight article, and if you're really unfamiliar with video games, click on the video game / platform game / DLC / etc. articles."

I may turn this into a fuller review at a later point, just wanted to drop off my two cents here. And to reiterate again, I wholeheartedly agree that articles should be as accessible to readers as possible, so enforcing this is good for when there truly isn't enough background explanation provided. I just think the standard is met here for sufficient background to get a reader up to speed. SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Review

• Shovel Knight: Specter of Torment is a downloadable content (DLC) expansion for the 2014 platform game Shovel Knight,

I don't see "2017" anywhere in the lede. That seems kind of a strange omission - a casual reader just skimming for dates might think that Torment came out in 2014, too.

Done

• recruiting a group of knights for his mistress

I disagree with Vami IV's (EDIT: ChrisTheDude's) earlier comment on the lede. "Master" is gender-neutral these days, and "mistress" makes it sound like Specter Knight is having an affair and cheating on his wife to a casual reader. Maybe skip the contested word entirely and just say "knights for the Enchantress, the main villain of Shovel Knight"? Up to you.

Done

• features levels and boss fights that are redesigned from the originals.

Is "redesigned" really the best word? I feel like "redesigned" suggests more like Yacht Club edited the original levels, but they're just new levels. Perhaps something like "features new levels and redesigned boss fights"?

Done

• spent four months revisiting and balancing each completed level.

Okay, the lead is fairly short, so I guess there's room, but... is exactly how long the dev team spent on balancing the levels really so important as to be lede-worthy?

Is there anything else that could be lead-worthy? The art design? The character moveset? I agree that it really isn't too vital but I am unsure what else to include

• The team designed Specter Knight to be an easily controllable character after receiving criticism for the movement of Plague Knight

Nitpick: My understanding is that it wasn't the criticism, exactly. It was just that Plague Knight's movement was too hard for a subset of the player base - the devs said that completion stats for PoS were noticeably lower than base Shovel Knight. In other words, it wasn't necessarily the complaints that were instrumental, but rather a "silent minority" sending a danger signal to the devs. Maybe something more like "after feedback that the movement of Plague Knight was too complex?" (EDIT: To expand on this distinction a little, imagine a big MMO developer gets feedback on each patch which always includes a harsh chorus of criticism. However, in this hypothetical, one patch shows player counts drop by 20%, along with the usual criticism, and the dev makes changes in response. While there was criticism here and a change resulted, it wasn't really the criticism that drove the devs, but rather the stats.)

Reworded

• The levels and bosses in Specter of Torment are redesigned versions of their counterparts from the original Shovel Knight

Same feedback here as the lead. Checking the source, GameStop simply says "new level designs". I get that the new levels have similarities (of course they do, they're set in similar regions) but they are genuinely new levels IMO.

Reworded

• The rooms and enemies were often reworked or rearranged, and the team would sometimes consider their plans excessive, abandoning them to focus on creating basic platforming sections.

Optional: As written, this sentence is a bit who-cares. The developers had some ideas that didn't work out, and replaced them? Stop the presses. That sounds like every creative work ever. If there's a more interesting story at the core here or something else that's trying to be communicated, then maybe include that, or rephrase the sentence to get at what was distinctive? But if there's truly nothing to say otherwise, I guess this is fine if uninteresting.

Mike Christie wanted the wording to be closer to the sources, so I tried to make it closer to the source even if it definitely feels uninteresting.

• The initial stages had a high level of difficulty which was gradually reduced as development finished; They attributed the difficulty to skill they gained at playing the game.

Either use a period, or don't capitalize "they". Maybe worth rephrasing some anyway; perhaps: "The developers, after playing the game so much themselves, found it tricky to [[game balance|balance]] the levels. They decided late in development they had made the levels too difficult, and gradually reduced their challenge before release." Or something like that.

Done

• The soundtrack was composed by Jake Kaufman...

Nitpick: Maybe cause for a new paragraph here? I understand the paragraph would only be two sentences long, but it's slightly jarring because the theme of the paragraph is "changes from Plague of Shadows" and suddenly we're talking about a totally separate topic, the soundtrack, for the last two sentences.

Done

• who created most of it while streaming on Twitch.

(Comment, non-actionable) This reads strangely at first, because it makes it sound like Kaufman was creating music on the side while gaming on Twitch, since that's the default assumption of what someone is doing by "streaming on Twitch." Source clears it up though, and I guess it would be too awkward to explain "(and he was just creating music while streaming, Twitch was just the platform, he wasn't also gaming)" or the like.

Reception section for later, perhaps. SnowFire (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Reception section commentary:

• and some felt that it built upon the merits of the original game.

"Some" might be over-qualified. It's understood that not all reviews parrot the exact same line, but as long as other reviews aren't actively contradicting a sentiment found in many reviews, I think it's fine to just bring it up as an example of critical response, and remove the word "some".

Done

• GameSpot said... USgamer felt... Shacknews felt... Nintendo Life said...

Very optional because there's disagreement here, but I will just drop off my usual two cents that I personally prefer the wordier style that includes the human author of the review. Yes, it's in the cite, and yes, it makes the flow slightly worse, but it's also more accurate. Humans write reviews, not magazines. (But as already noted, this is a matter of preference, so a thought if you agree with the above, but it's not blocking if you disagree.)

I prefer to not use the names to make the flow better, but I agree that it makes the article more accurate. I wish there was a way to compromise somehow, but alas it was a choice between flow and accuracy.

• The story was considered a highlight

(non-actionable) Side chatter: This is referenced, but dang, game reviewers have no taste. Specter of Torment is about the tragedy of mind control and evil artifacts that go boom and is played seriously, which is the complete wrong call for Shovel Knight. Plague of Shadows plot was way better by embracing silliness more, which fits with the general tone. But if nobody published agrees with me, oh well.

Yeah I agree, Plague of Shadows was way better story wise even if the levels were just the same old-same old.

• Some critics gave attention to the boss fights

Same issue as above - it's understood that by writing "Critics" it does not mean literally every single critic, so IMO the word "Some" is dispensable.

Done

• GameSpot felt that some of the bosses were fun due to their changes to meet Specter Knight's new movement, but said that others were too similar to their previous incarnations.

I don't think this accurately reflects the source. It's implying that only "some" of the bosses were fun and that these were the bosses that were changed the most, but that isn't what GameStop says. I'd rewrite to be closer to GameStop - that they found the redesigned bosses an "enjoyable surprise" and thought that some of the bosses were too similar (but not imply that they weren't fun).

Done

• USgamer considered the bosses easier than in previous games, and Nintendo World Report said that some of the earlier boss fights were frustrating

Is this really an "and" connector? They're contrasting opinions. I understand that it's OR to directly set them in opposition to each other unless one is referencing the other, but maybe "while" would work instead rather than "and"?

Done

• Shacknews said that some players would dislike the lack of scope

Reverse complaint here as GameStop: I think this is too close to the slightly dopey original wording in Shacknews which uses "scope" in a nonintuitive way. Given the next sentence, maybe "some players would dislike the narrow focus on platforming gameplay", which makes more clear the nature of the complaint?

Done

• and was just as competent as the original Shovel Knight.

"Competent" is an unusual choice here - perhaps "excellent"?

Done

Overall, looks good. SnowFire (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks SnowFire, I believe that I have addressed your comments The Knight Watch (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. Excellent work!

The one remaining nitpick from above (not blocking the support because of this, no hurry, but something to maybe improve regardless): If you agree that the length of time the devs spent tweaking levels isn't really that interesting, then I would recommend removing it from the lede, and replacing with basically any other piece of dev information desired. That the levels were specially designed for Specter Knight's movement style? The balance between platforming, combat, and exploration? Jake Kaufman doing the soundtrack? Or even just the total length of time spent developing the game as a whole? Really anything else from the dev section is more "interesting". SnowFire (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from PMC

Putting myself down for this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, usually I manage comments within a week but I was a bit behind here.

I want to start by addressing Gog's comments. I think it's unreasonable to expect video game articles to be explained in greater detail than any other article just because some readers may not be entirely familiar with the subject matter in general. This level of explanation is not a standard expectation for video game FAs. I have two, Islanders (video game) and Islands: Non-Places, which open with "Islanders is a casual city-building game" and "Islands: Non-Places is a 2016 abstract art game", respectively, a level of detail considered acceptable at FAC. I opened a few other VGFAs at random and none of them had the granularity Gog is asking for here.

Let's compare to other media like films and music. Fearless (Taylor Swift album) has "Fearless is a country pop album" in the lead; The Mummy (1999 film) opens with "The Mummy is a 1999 American action-adventure film". Neither stops to explain what those genres mean, or what a studio album is, or a cursed mummy, and nor should they; that's the job of the articles on those concepts. Straying outside the limited realm of popular media, Night Watch's galley example is a salient comparison. A reader not well-versed in ancient naval warfare may not be entirely certain of what a galley is, but it's a common term in the subject area and we shouldn't have to grind the article to a halt to interject an explanation for them. Same here with common terms like boss fight and platform game.

Okay, enough on that, let's get to the real review. All comments and suggested wordings are open to discussion or disagreement.

Lead, gameplay, plot

• "They created new levels...each completed level" - repetition of level. This may be unresolvable given the limited amount of terms for "level" available, but worth pointing out
• "the evil Enchantress" - lead mentions she's Shovel Knight's villain, but the body doesn't
• "forward through the air, upward or downward" - maybe "move through the air, forward, upward, or downward"? Right now it's odd that one direction comes first
• "Progressing through the game..." I would move this sentence to the first paragraph, as it doesn't make sense tacked on to a paragraph about Curios/Relics
• No gripes with plot summary

Development to Character design

• "character with unique movement" I'm not sure I love this phrasing. "unique movement abilities" maybe or "unique movement skills"? Willing to hear your thoughts.
• "The team felt that the movement of Plague of Shadows" this reads slightly awkwardly to me. "movement in" maybe, or "character's movement in"
• "surmised" feels unnecessarily formal here, IMO "thought" (or similar) would do just as well without being overly formal
• "The wall jumping was inspired by 3D action games such as Prince of Persia" - this link/phrasing is a bit problematic, because you've linked to the entire Prince of Persia franchise, of which several games are not 3D. Unfortunately the source doesn't specify which exact POP game they were taking inspiration from. I might adjust the phrasing to something like "3D action games such as those from the Prince of Persia franchise".
• Also, that source says the wall climbing was also inspired by Ninja Gaiden, but our article only mentions it as inspo for the slash movement
• "The developers wanted Specter Knight to act like a "grim reaper ninja", at one point included shurikens..." grammar's off here. "including shurikens" would be the easiest fix
• "a UI element" this is opaque. If you're going to keep "UI", it should be written out fully as "user interface", and linked. However, I'm not sure that's the best phrasing - it's not really clear what a "user interface element" in this context. I would also simplify the explanation of the results. I might go with something like "adding an icon to objects that could be slashed, indicating the angle the player would move upon attacking".
• "They further allowed Specter Knight to fall slower" - "They slowed Specter Knight's fall speed" or "Specter Knight's fall speed was slowed" might be tighter
• I would split the Curios into their own paragraph
• "allowed them to be" - again, can tighten to just "made them"

Level design

• This is the portion of the article I have the most issues with. It feels disorganized. Each paragraph should contain information about one idea, but you're a bit all over the place.
  • Para 1 discusses balance of level mechanics, difficulty balance, and development time
  • Para 2 discusses level mechanics and difficulty balance
  • Para 3 discusses new objects and new art, and then goes back into difficulty balance
• Some parts of this section are repetitive as a result
• "Mega Man" links to the franchise as a whole but the text sort implies it's a specific game. Since the devs don't specify which Mega Man game they counted from, I would say "the Mega Man franchise" just to be safe.
• It may be hard to write around this, but the phrase "the team" appears in four successive sentences in Level design and it can be a little repetitive
• "The rooms and enemies were often reworked or rearranged, and the team would sometimes consider their plans excessive, abandoning them to focus on creating basic platforming sections." I think you could tighten/clarify this phrasing. Something like "During development, the team often reworked or rearranged rooms and enemies, sometimes abandoning complex ideas in favor of more basic platforming sections." maybe.
• The way you talk about "balance" in the first paragraph is a bit ambiguous. First it's about the balance between different aspects of the game, while later you switch to using "balance" to mean balanced difficulty, without really making that obvious to the reader. The easiest fix is probably to use a different word for the first aspect - a "consistent mix" of elements maybe.
• As for the use of "balance" to mean balanced difficulty, I might slightly expand to say something like "tricky to balance the difficulty of the levels".
• The two paragraphs you have about level design feel like they repeat themselves a bit. You have multiple separate sentences across these two paragraphs talking about how the devs adjusted the difficulty of levels over time. You could probably cut down or merge some.
• "As a result, the team created" - I don't think you need "as a result" here.
• "They used background art to convey information about gameplay mechanics, indicate secret rooms, and further the narrative." this is really interesting but you don't expand on it at all - how is this done?
• Any further info about the 3DS version's new art? What kind of new art?

Release and reception

• This section is largely great. It's thematically-organized, properly summarizes reviewer thoughts, and reserves quotes for only the most significant or interesting statements. I have some organizational complaints, but overall this is quite good.
• Para 3 uses the word "moveset" in 3 successive sentences, which could probably be written around
• Para 4 could probably be split where level design is mentioned, as that's a separate idea
• Also in Para 4, you open with discussing how the platforming received praise, but then finish the idea with a review that complains of it. I might revise the opening sentence to hedge slightly - "The platforming received similar praise from most reviewers" for example
• Again Para 5 could be split. You have story elements and then you swing over into boss fights, and then into game length. Those are separate ideas. Possibly you could get away with combining level design and boss fights, since those are related in the sense that both involve reworked elements of the original game. Then you could probably leave length with story, as the story determines the length.
• Para 5, "liked the narrative" feels like filler. Maybe "praised the narrative for being "surprisingly tragic"", which would tie it together better
• "Critics gave attention to the boss fights" I would say mixed attention, since it seems to be split between praise and complaints.

Okay, done at last. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you PMC! I'll get these comments done sometime tonight. The Night Watch (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Coord note -- This has been open over two months and has yet to gain consensus to promote; I note also that NightWatch has had to step back from WP so resolution of outstanding concerns won't be possible for a while. Wishing NW the best and hoping they'll be back in due course to revisit the article and perhaps bring back to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.