Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Featured article candidate)

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.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.

An editor is normally allowed to be the sole nominator of one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. An editor may ask the approval of the coordinators to add a second sole nomination after the first has gained significant support. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache
Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

edit

Commenting, etc

edit
FACs needing feedback
view • edit


Dimitri Mascarenhas Review it now
Laguna Miscanti Review it now

Nominations

edit

Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics

edit


Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven articles in this series: the men's, women's, pairs', ice dance, and team events; plus the qualification article, and this one. It was promoted to GA in February. The women's and team articles have already been promoted to FA, the ice dance article is on its way there now, and the qualification article is currently at FLC. Pinging User:Rhain who did the GA review for this one. This article covers the skating events overall, and as such, includes some of the same prose that was used at the women's and team event articles regarding the Kamila Valieva scandal. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions, and I look forward to your constructive feedback. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguarnik

edit

Hello, I don't know much about figure skating, so my review is just focused on the prose. Hopefully I can be of some help.

  • "After nearly two years of litigation, Valieva's scores were stricken," - this seems like incorrect use of stricken ("suffering severely from the effects of something unpleasant", according to Cambridge Dictionary). I'm not certain either that litigation is used correctly here, unless they took her to a court of law?
  • It should probably be "struck". And yes, they went to court.
  • "and the newly tabulated results awarded the gold medals to the team from the United States." a nitpick, but results can't award anything. The prose says that the ISU awarded gold to the US. Also, this could be shortened to "awarded gold to the US", since by the context it's evident that the US received gold for the team event, no?
  • Reworded.
  • "Valieva's results from the 2022 Winter Olympics were ultimately vacated." - is vacated used in this context? I only found vacated victory, which doesn't fit in this context. The official announcement from the Olympics says "Her results have been disqualified", maybe disqualified would fit better here?
  • That is about a legal decision though. Do sport results fall under legal decisions? I don't know enough about it to say, but it sounds odd.
  • They spent two years in court over the matter.
  • "On 30 January 2024, the ISU, among other actions, subtracted Valieva's points" - what other actions?
  • They cancelled her scores from three events (the 2022 European Championships, the Olympic team event, and the Olympic women's event; they reallocated the medals from the European Championships, as she had originally won the gold medal there; plus a final determination of the Olympic team medals. I'm not sure they were actually reallocated, because they had never been originally awarded.
  • "without changing any other scores, and re-allocated the medals" - spelled just as "reallocate", according to Cambridge
  • I think my spellcheck hates me. Fixed.
  • The ROC flag next to Kolyada and Semenenko's name links to Russia, even though elsewhere athletes with the ROC flag are labelled not under Russia but "Russian Olympic Committee".
  • I could not figure out how to display the flag without the "ROC" after it, so I just deleted it.
  • "The American and Japanese teams finally received their medals" - again a nitpick, but "finally" here does not sound impersonal, I feel it should be removed.
  • The team article goes into some detail about the detrimental effects that two-year delay caused, making "finally" appropriate in that context, but since is just the summary article and doesn't include that, I've removed it from here.

No other comments for now.Jaguarnik (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Cambridge

edit


Nominator(s): MCE89 (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 19th-century Australian author. Ada Cambridge primarily wrote romance fiction and was a massively popular writer in her day. In the decades after her death her work was widely dismissed by literary scholars and critics as formulaic and superficial, but more recently it has attracted greater scholarly interest for its sometimes radical and satirical themes. Many thanks to @Thebiguglyalien for the GA review, and thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to look at the article :) MCE89 (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

―Howard • 🌽33 10:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Howardcorn33! Both issues fixed. MCE89 (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MCE89: I would consider the image review passed but it seems you're still looking for evidence of publication of the family photo prior to 1989. In that case, ping me again if you do indeed find such evidence. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the infobox caption should have the dating of the photo in question, that is, c. 1912. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a clear answer on when the photo was taken — my guess based on her age is that it was likely taken several decades earlier than 1912 (this photograph was verifiably taken sometime between 1913 and 1917 for comparison), but the 1912 newspaper article was the earliest evidence of publication I could find. MCE89 (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

edit
  • She wrote around 25 novels, two memoirs, and five volumes of hymns and poetry Per MOS:NUMNOTES, "Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures"
  • middle-class family in Wiggenhall St Germans, Norfolk I would add the country (I'm not sure if UK or England is correct).
  • Around 1845 or 1846 Is there some reason to believe it's not exactly one of those two years, in which case "In 1845 or 1846" seems better.
  • at least two of Cambridge's siblings died within a few months I'm not sure what the MOS has to say about this, but when talking about a person's family, I tend to shift to using their first name to avoid ambiguity, so "... two of Ada's siblings ...". Likewise for While Cambridge's parents in the next paragraph.
  • largely poorly educated that's an awkward phrase.
  • she received a limited education ... Despite her limited education rephrase to avoid repetition.
  • took an interest ... encouraged her interest avoid repetition
  • She became a district visitor—women in the church Better would be "a woman in the church ..." to avoid the abrupt switch from singular to plural.
  • She published her first volume of hymns I'd drop the "of hymns" here; it's obvious from the context.
  • followed this with a second volume drop "a second volume"
  • She appeared in biographical dictionaries of hymn writers that makes it sound like the appearing happened at the same time as the publishing. Perhaps "She has appeared ... where she is described as ..."?
  • Her works were included in several major hymnals.[17] Same comment about tense. I think you want "have been included"? Not sure about that, but try it.
  • You use kilometers in some places and miles in others. Pick one and be consistent. I'm not sure if the MOS strictly requires it, but you can use {{convert}} to get both.
  • her four-year-old son died of scarlet fever This is Arthur Stewart, right? Best to refer to them by name.
  • George's stipend was reduced from £300 to £250 in 1879 Do we know why?
  • You should use {{inflation}} to convert all these various monetary amounts to current day.
  • Ada had become too frail to write this is kind of an abrupt way to start a paragraph. Perhaps tie it back to the previous events with "By this time, Ada had become ..."?
  • In 1919 she offered a volume of short stories to the publisher Angus & Robertson since you've previous said she was too frail to write, presumably this was some previously written volume which had never been published? Are the details known?
  • She published her last essay, "Nightfall", in 1922 Same issue here. Was Nightfall written despite her frailty, or had it been written earlier? And likewise with the Anzac Day poem?
  • maintained her positive reputation into the 1930s I'd add "after her death, maintained ...". This can reasonably sussed out from the context, but it's better to make it more obvious, I think.
  • Writing for an audience largely composed of women This is a little awkward. Having previously covered what happened after she died, now she's back to writing?
  • Her biographers Margaret Bradstock and Louise Wakeling Bradstock is mentioned in a fair number of wikipedia articles, consider making that a redlink and/or adding her to WP:WOMRED

Overall, this is well written and provided a fun and interesting read. Most of my comments above are just nits. RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metalicat

edit

A pleasure to read, and an author I knew nothing about. Australian literature is well outside my patch, so these are a non-specialist's comments confined to prose, the MoS, and the article's internal consistency.

  • The most substantive point: Hugh and Kenneth are both introduced as the fourth child. Coleraine has Ada gave birth to her fourth child, Hugh Cambridge, on 14 August of the following year, and the next subsection has On 3 January 1880 Ada gave birth to her fourth child, a son named Kenneth Stuart. By the article's own sequence (Arthur, Edith, Vera, Hugh, Kenneth) the 1880 birth should read her fifth child, which also squares with the infobox's five.
  • Related to RoySmith's query about naming the son who died of scarlet fever: when you add the name, the dates may need a second look. The article has him born in March 1871 and dying about two weeks before Vera's birth on 26 April 1876, which would make him five, just past his birthday, rather than her four-year-old son. Does Tate give "four", or does one of the dates need rechecking?
  • The bibliography lists A Black Sheep (1889) and A Marked Man (1890) as separate novels, but the body says the latter was serialised under the title A Black Sheep, so one work appears twice. More generally, could you note what dating convention the list follows? A Little Minx is dated 1885 (its serial year) yet the body counts it among six books published from Williamstown in the mid-1890s, while My Guardian is dated 1878 (its book year) though serialised in 1876. A short headnote, or consistent use of book dates with the duplicate removed, would settle it.
  • Three scholars are quoted by bare surname before (or without) being introduced. Tate regards Materfamilias as one of Cambridge's best works comes two sections before Her biographer Audrey Tate; themes that Roe describes as "quasi-feminist" precedes the Legacy introduction of Jill Roe; and Barton is never given a first name or descriptor in the body at all. Could each get an introduction at first mention?
  • A small lead-versus-body question: the lead has resided in a series of rural parishes until 1893, but Sandhurst is described as a town of 50,000 that was one of the colony's major centres and Beechworth as a large goldfields town. Would a series of parishes in country Victoria or similar fit the body better?


Please ping me once you're done. Metalicat (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dam

edit


Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about dams, important civil engineering structures that many of us depend on every day for our drinking water or electricity. The size is about 9,400 words – 5% larger than the 9,000 goal of WP:SIZERULE – but perhaps warranted since it is a Level 3 Vital Article. Thanks to Pokelego999 for the Good Article review, RoySmith and MSincccc for Peer reviews, ARandomName123 and Jack Frost for help at WP:RX, Anne drew for the Veracity citation management tool, and WikiMedia employee RAdimer-WMF for help obtaining resources. Noleander (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

edit
Etymology
  • The English word dam is found in Middle English, and traces back to the word dam in the Germanic languages Middle Low German, Middle Dutch, and Old Norse.

MSincccc (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Society and culture

"led to international conflicts over sharing transnational rivers"

  • Some analysts have predicted that water supply may be used as a weapon in future conflicts.
    • "Supplies" in place of "supply"?
  • In contrast to these conflicts, Itaipu Dam (1984) on the border of Brazil and Paraguay is an example of international cooperation.
    • Could we move this to the main text for flow?
  • Most of these dams are on the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, which flow downstream into neighboring nations, Syria and Iraq.
    • A suggestion.
  • "The regulations of most nations typically do not specify" →

"The regulations of most nations do not typically specify"

MSincccc (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did all the above except (a) did not add comma here: "neighboring nations,"; (b) did not change "Britain's RAF" → "the RAF" because readers will want to know what country did the bombing (without clicking on the link) and there are several RAFs. Regarding "Were all ~1,600 fatalities civilians?" sources say about 1,600 civilians killed (sources do not say if any military personnel were killed, but the context suggests it was zero or - at most - a few). Noleander (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dam failure
  • A large number of dams failed during the 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly embankment dams.
    • Would "especially embankment dams" read a little more naturally than "particularly embankment dams"?
  • The earliest known dam failure occurred around 2600 BCE, when the Sadd el-Kafara dam in Egypt failed around the time it was completed, due to a flood that severely damaged the dam structure.
    • Two uses of "around" in the same sentence?
  • The movement caused the dam to crack, and the resultant flood killed several hundred people downstream.
    • "resulting flood" instead of "resultant flood"?
  • "Designers failed to fully understand the geology of the valley, and built the dam in 1959—then the tallest dam in the world at 267 m." →

"Designers failed to fully understand the geology of the valley and built the dam in 1959—then the tallest dam in the world at 267 m."

    • It removes the comma before "and".
  • The resulting flood killed over 2,000 people downstream.
    • "more than 2,000 people" in place of "over 2,000 people" for consistency with MOS:NUMERAL wording preferences?
  • Potential factors included: weak foundation soil that subsided, irregular settling of the dam structure, fault lines under the dam, a nearby oil field that was depleted of oil then later re-pressurized, and the act of emptying and filling the reservoir.
    • Could we insert a comma after "depleted of oil" to make the sequence easier to follow?

MSincccc (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Implemented all of the above except: kept "particularly" since it seems more professional than "especially". Noleander (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

edit

Airship

edit

Will comment. On first glance (sorry to toot my own trumpet) can there be any mention of the Iron Gate, the earliest surviving or functioning arch dam in the world? Citations in that article, or mentioned by Britannica: "the forerunner of the modern curved gravity dam was built by Byzantine engineers in 550 CE at a site near the present Turkish-Syrian border." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll add a sentence about the Iron Gate dam. It is mentioned in Schnitter's A History of Dams (page 79) which is sufficient. Noleander (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 - Done. Noleander (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal

edit


Nominator(s): GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal is a country in Southwestern Europe. It is a unitary republic comprising mainland Portugal, located on the southwestern of the Iberian Peninsula and bordered by Spain to the north and east, and the archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores in the Atlantic Ocean. The country has a population of over 10.7 million, and Lisbon, its capital, is the largest city. Portugal's internal waters and territorial sea together account for two-fifths of its territory, and its exclusive economic zone is Europe's largest, while its terrain contains a diverse range of landscapes and regional climates. Thanks to all the editors who have taken the time to review and improve the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, regarding the last part of the introduction, your recent update, in my view, has maintained rather unmeaningful info like "multilateralism, peace, and European integration". Looking at other country pages, I propose the following phrase: "With a stable foreign policy shaped by its colonial and diplomatic history and location, Portugal is part of multiple international organisations and forums." I'll await feedback. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tuesp1985, done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on the First Republic and Estado Novo content, what do you think of adding this image organization? (Don't know how to show it in the discussion, sorry)
{{multiple image
| alt2 = Black-and-white portrait photography of António de Oliveira Salazar
| alt1 = Black-and-white photograph of José Relvas proclaiming the Republic together with several formally dressed men leaning over the balcony railing of Lisbon City Hall and looking down onto a square surrounded with buildings.
| total_width = 390
| caption1 = José Relvas proclaiming the republic on 5 October 1910, at Lisbon City Hall
| caption2 = António de Oliveira Salazar, dictator 1932–1968
| direction = horizontal
| image1 = Proclamação República Portuguesa.jpg
| image2 = Official portrait of Salazar from General Directorate of Security HQ (no watermark).jpg
}}
Tell me what you think. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree per WP:GALLERY: "In articles that have several images, they are typically placed individually near the relevant text. Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article... Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text... Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." GumballNine1Nine (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that because of the size of the Proclamação República Portuguesa image, it becomes rather stretched, but I can't find a way to "cut" the image using image formatting tools, per WP:MONTAGE. I believe that because of Salazar's impact in recent Portuguese history, an image should be added, but, I agree that I cannot find a way to fit the image alongside the current one.Tuesp1985 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article already includes an image (indirectly) related to the Estado Novo and by extension Salazar. The current choice is more representative of Portuguese history as it covers other events beyond that period, and, as the article demonstrates, images depicting a single individual are reserved for Portugal's founders. Apart from this image, I see no need to replace any of the article's images, especially after it has already passed the media review. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's settled then. In another point, this part of the Art and architecture content seems very confusing: "Over time, foreign and native influences, together with developments in manufacturing, have led to the creation and development of a number of crafts that are typical of Portugal, the most notable of which being the azulejo, talha dourada, and Portuguese pavement, which formed the basis of some Portuguese architectural styles, such as the Pombaline style."
I would rephrase it in another way: "Over time, foreign and native influences developed distinctive architectural styles, such as the Manueline and Pombaline styles, but also notable other forms of art typical of Portugal, namely the azulejo, talha dourada, and Portuguese pavement." What do you think? Tuesp1985 (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

edit
  1. File:Flag of Portugal (official).svg: OK
  2. File:Coat of arms of Portugal.svg: OK
  3. File:Hino Nacional da Republica Portuguesa.ogg: copyvio - The performance of this composition dates to 2012 per the Commons page, therefore the claim in the licensing section that "it was first published before 1 March 1989" is incorrect and it is still considered copyrighted. Remember that compositions and performances carry separate copyrights.
  4. File:EU-Portugal_(orthographic_projection).svg: needs alt text
  5. File:EU-Portugal with islands circled.svg: needs alt text
  6. File:Roman Temple Evora Portugal 02.jpg: OK
  7. File:Estatua de Vimara Peres, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 01.JPG: per here, the statue was erected in 1968 and its sculptor died in 1990, but this is not an issue as Portugal has FOP. You will have to add the C:Template:FoP-Portugal template to the Commons page, however.
  8. File:D. Afonso Henriques - Compendio de crónicas de reyes (Biblioteca Nacional de España).png: OK
  9. File:Portuguese Carracks off a Rocky Coast RMG BHC0705.tiff: do not use TIFF files for display in Wikipedia per c:COM:TIFF. Consider using this file or this file instead.
  10. File:Coroação de D. João IV.png: needs alt text
  11. File:Sessão das Cortes de Lisboa.jpg: this was not released under CC0 but is instead a scan of a 1922 painting by Brazilian painter Oscar Pereira da Silva (died 1939). Brazil is life + 70 so it's public domain there, therefore you should replace the license template with {{PD-art|PD-old-70-expired}}
  12. File:Proclamação República Portuguesa.jpg: OK
  13. File:Ondanks een verbod wilden leden van de Portugese Maoïstische beweging MRPP op 31, Bestanddeelnr 927-7289.jpg: OK
  14. File:Portugal topographic map-en.svg: needs alt
  15. File:Koppen-Geiger Map v2 PRT 1991–2020.svg: needs alt
  16. File:Miradouro da Cascata do Arado.jpg: OK
  17. File:António José Seguro 2026-04-21 (cropped).png: needs alt (also I'd personally suggest adding {{Extracted from|21.04.2026 - Reunião privada com o Presidente da República Portuguesa, António José Seguro - 55222243703.png}} to "other versions")
  18. File:Luís Montenegro, 2025.06.26 (01) (cropped).jpg: this is not a work of the European Commission but rather of the European Council, which are separate EU institutions, so the given license template is incorrect. Looking at the copyright page for the source, it is stated that "Reproduction is authorised, provided that the Council of the EU is always acknowledged as the original source of the material, unless otherwise stated and that the original meaning or message of the content is not distorted." Commons requires that all files be freely derivable, but this is vague on whether all derivative works would be permitted. I would recommend you select an image with a clearer permission such as this or this. Also needs alt.
  19. File:Lisbon, Belém Palace.JPG: OK
  20. File:Palácio de São Bento (Assemblée nationale) (9307363528).jpg: OK
  21. File:Regions and Intermunicipal Communities of Portugal.svg: needs alt
  22. File:Portuguese embassy map.png: needs alt
  23. File:NRP Bartolomeu Dias F333 in Hernesaari as seen from Verkkokauppa in Helsinki, Finland, 2023 April.jpg: OK
  24. File:Polícia Judiciária (Portugal) headquarters, Lisbon 04.jpg: OK
  25. File:Lisboa June 2014-14a.jpg: OK
  26. File:Ameixial - cork store (13532168205).jpg: needs alt
  27. File:Vehículos en el puerto de Setúbal, Portugal, 2019-05-24, DD 01.jpg: needs alt
  28. File:Alqueva dam.JPG: needs alt
  29. File:Puente de Don Luis I, Oporto, Portugal, 2019-06-02, DD 29-31 HDR.jpg: needs alt
  30. File:Genísio04.jpg: OK
  31. File:Universidad de Coímbra, Portugal, 2012-05-10, DD 16.JPG: needs alt
  32. File:Hospitais da Universidade de Coimbra em 2025 - Foto 02.jpg: needs alt
  33. File:Feira de Barcelos (05Set) 040.jpg: unclear? Per c:COM:TOYS, small statues or models of animals do indeed receive copyright protection and the Barcelos Cockerels in the photo do seem to fit into that. The FoP of Portugal would furthermore not apply as these aren't permanently fixed to a particular location, so it is possible that one would need the permission of the manufacturer. However, these particular models do not appear especially distinct from other Barcelos Cockerels. If we assume that the design of the specific roosters in the photo do not warrant separate copyright from the general design of the rooster, then we need to know when that general design of the Barcelos rooster model first originated. According to the best source I could find on the matter,[1] the originator of the modern commercial clay Barcelos rooster with decorations is disputed between João Domingos da (Silva) Rocha (a.k.a. Domingos Côto; died 1959) or the pair Emídio do Parral and Francisco do Monte (death dates unknown). Nevertheless, this same source states that these roosters were available at least by September 1931. Given the disputed circumstances of its origin, I am willing to believe c:Template:PD-anon-70-EU applies to the model, but others may disagree.
  34. File:Lagos40 kopie.jpg: OK
  35. File:Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg: OK
  36. File:Camões, por Fernão Gomes.jpg: OK
  37. File:Amalia Rodrigues, Bestanddeelnr 922-1813 (cropped).jpg: OK
  38. File:Entrudo de Vila Boa de Ousilhão 26.jpg: needs alt text
  39. File:Funchal (Madeira, Portugal), Rua Dr. Fernão de Ornelas, Nata 7 - Fernão Ornelas -- 2025 -- 1205.jpg: OK
  40. File:Cristiano Ronaldo Portugal.jpg: needs alt text

―Howard • 🌽33 13:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Great investigative work on the Barcelos Cockerels, Howardcorn33. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GumballNine1Nine additional media review:
Finally, I forgot to mention that Portuguese FoP law still requires attribution to the sculptor, so I believe you should add something along the lines of "1968 statue by Barata Feyo (1899-1990)." as a second sentence to the description. ―Howard • 🌽33 08:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The new photo, from the Senhora da Agonia festivities, seems misplaced as there's the Holidays and festivities content bellow. Don't see any issue regarding maintaining an image of the Galo of Barcelos, maybe this one File:Thornton2012-053 (8114900101).jpg? Tuesp1985 (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the potential copyright pitfalls above, but it's inconclusive. Personally, I wouldn't withhold it from passing FA for having image of the Galo of Barcelos. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Barcelos' city hall owns all commercial rights of the Galo de Barcelos, so this image of a replica of the Galo in a square of the city should have no problem: File:Barcelos L1180558 (25188818226).jpg. What's your view? Tuesp1985 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuesp1985: Where did you receive the idea that Barcelos city hall owns the commercial rights to the Galo of Barcelos?
As for the sculpture itself, given that it appears to be permanently fixed in a public place, I would say FoP-Portugal does indeed allow it (although, we would need to give credit to the author). ―Howard • 🌽33 19:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Found this news from 2021: ""Galo de Barcelos" is already a registered trademark owned by the municipality.", with the report adding "The Barcelos Rooster is now a nationally registered trademark in the name of the municipality and prevents third parties from "using any identical or similar sign on identical products or services"." Tuesp1985 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Trademarks are separate from copyright and are therefore not a limitation for our purposes per c:COM:Trademarks. Given that the article makes no mention of copyright, I believe it's safe to assume that copyright is expired. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am a layperson when it comes to copyright law, but the article appears to attribute the modern design of the Barcelos Cockerel to Manuel Gonçalves Torres, who died in 1987, and to date it to the 1950s. In any case, in response to Tuesp1985's concerns about the new image, it depicts traditional Portuguese clothing and filigree, including the Coração de Viana, another well-known Portuguese symbol. Personally, I think it's a better choice than an image showing a row of similar Barcelos Cockerels. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant about the being a registered trade mark, sorry about the confusion. About the image, maybe this one is better: File:Viana do Castelo, Portugal (4922364383).jpg, and instead add to the caption "Women using traditional clothes from Viana do Castelo region". I'll await feedback. Tuesp1985 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The women in the image are facing to the right, so under MOS:PORTRAIT the image would need to be placed on the left. However, doing so would displace the title of the next subsection. I would make that change if the people in the image were facing to the left. About the caption, I'll keep it unchanged as well per MOS:CAPOBVIOUS. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but on the caption, I would remove the Romaria de Nossa Senhora da Agonia link and put something like this: "In Viana do Castelo, women traditionally wear family heirlooms during festivities." Tuesp1985 (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Howardcorn33, done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GumballNine1Nine: I consider the media review passed. ―Howard • 🌽33 10:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ↑ Ribeiro, Carlo (2025). "O Galo de Barcelos". Património Cultural Imaterial: 20 anos da Convenção para a Salvaguarda do PCI (in Portuguese). Publicações do CIDEHUS. doi:10.4000/14415.

Comments from Noleander

edit
  • Welcome to FAC. It looks like you are relatively new to Wikipedia... Congratulations on improving such a huge and important article, quite the feat! This is this your first nomination here at Featured Articles, correct? I ask because that means the source check needs to be a little bit more detailed than normal.
    Thanks for your kind comments, Noleander! And yes, this is my first nomination of an article at Featured Articles, although I've previously made a successful nomination within Featured Content for a picture. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accessibility: The guideline WP:ACCESSIBILITY says that WP articles should be available to blind or visually impaired readers. Within that, MOS:COLOR says "Color should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information ... Always provide an alternative method—such as an accessible symbol and/or text ..." See also WP:COLORMAP. The Climate map used in the article is not compliant: it uses color-coding as the only way for readers to connect the legend to the regions in the image. Fortunately, the image is SVG format, so it is an easy matter to edit the image with an app like Inkscape and add text labels over the regions in the map. Let me know if you want instructions on how to do that.
Done. (Updated foreign relations map) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text: most images have excellent alt text. The alt text of Amália Rodrigues photo is missing. Sometimes alt text can be omitted if the caption is appropriate. See MOS:ALTINCAPTION but even that says the atl text should be "|alt=Refer to caption" if caption is sufficient.
    I've double checked, and the image of Amália Rodrigues already has alt text. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The template you are using {{CSS image crop}} requires the alt text field "Alt". You are using lowercase "alt". Noleander (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple adjacent citation superscripts: "... in European politics and culture.[56][57][58][59] " Two or three superscripts in a row is pretty common, but if you start getting to four, it is time to look into WP:CITEBUNDLE. Bundling will keep all the cites, but display a single superscript footnote to the readers. Four consecutive superscript numbers is ugly and interrupts the reader. It is easy to convert to bundling if you use the bullet technique described in WP:CITEBUNDLE. Personally I use the {{Multiref}} bundling technique, but that takes a bit more work. Although, now that I look closer, it looks like the article is already set up to use sfn/harvnb/sfnref style cties, so shifting to use {{Multiref}} should be easy.
    Done. Thanks for the advice. Moxy had very kindly demonstrated {{Multiref}} in the article before, but there were no short citations at the time, so I didn't realize that the template was incompatible with {{sfnp}} (an unfortunate mistake, now that the article has almost 400 instances of it.). I've eliminated the rows of four superscripts by distributing the citations throughout the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most cites do not have quotes from sources. But a few do e.g.
    • Reilly (1998), pp. 80-81, Chapter 3: Toward a Concert of Christian Princes: "In October he invited Afonso Henriques to a conference at Zamora. The Leonese monarch wished not ... " and " Casimiro (2020), pp. 1–17, "In the Early Modern age, Portugal was among the first European..."
What is the rationale for including quotes in a few cites? Normally, quotes are not included. I've seen quotes used effectively in a few articles, usually when the material the cite is supporting is controversial, and the quote prevents future edit warring, and helps future editors. Is that why the quotes are used in this article? Quotes in cites are not prohibited, but WP:FA expects very strong consistency throughout the cites, and it seems odd to have quotes in a few.
Yes, you nailed it. I added the quotes to prevent edit warring, which had already happened on the article a few weeks ago. As the article's recent changes concerning the first quotation show, its inclusion was warranted. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher = "Self-published" e.g. " Statistics Portugal (9 August 2024). "Statistics Portugal - Data Base - Indicator 0008856". self-published. ..." The markup is:
          |title=Statistics Portugal - Data Base - Indicator 0012437
         |author=Statistics Portugal
         |author-link=Instituto Nacional de Estatística (Portugal)
         |publisher=self-published
         |url=https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_indicadores&indOcorrCod=0008856&contexto=bd&selTab=tab2&xlang=en
That cite (and others like it) doesn't seem quite right. The "author" field should be empty (meaning unknown/anonymous); and the "publisher" (and/or "website") field should be Instituto Nacional de Estatística (Portugal). There is no need to display "Self-published" ... I've never seen the phrase Self-published" before in WP cites. Maybe the phrase is okay, but to me it means an individual author published a work themselves (with the implication that they could not find a reputable publisher).
  • Continuing the above comment: It looks like there are about 40 cites where the author is unknown/anonymous, and in most of those, the article inappropriately uses the "author" field to hold the publisher name (when "author" should be empty); and uses the "publisher" field to contain "self-published" (when "publisher" should hold the publisher name). If you look at template documenation for {{Cite web}} or {{cite report}} you'll see they are pretty clear that the "author" field is supposed to be a human being. The template documentations says: "To cite a report with no credited author ... [use] ... |author = <!-- not stated --> "
  • Continuing the above: if you are uncertain how to display sources that have an unknown author (that is, the "author" field is empty or missing in the cite template) you can look at example FA articles. One example is Bridge#Unknown_author which uses the {{sfnref}} template to handle anonymous sources.
    Thanks for giving the reference to the article. On the "author" field, perhaps I'm mistaken, and if so, I'll promptly make those changes. However, the documentation for both {{Cite web}} and {{Cite report}} states in the description of that field that it may be used for an organizational author: "author: this parameter is used to hold the name of an organizational author (e.g. a committee) or the complete name (first and last) of a single person; for the latter, prefer the use of 'first' and 'last'..." GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that guidance you quote is not quite applicable. An organization like Statistics Portugal is, I presume, a rather large bureaucracy. That guidance is addressing the situation where Statistics Portugal assembles a team of, say, four people to write a report. Then the name of that (small) team could be placed in the "author" field. Does the source identify an authorship team (or committee) by name? If not, the article should use the anonymous author approach (i.e. leave author field empty) that is used in many Featured Articles. Noleander (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • P vs PP issue p. 12,28. You can run a tool called "Show Ref Check" to find such errors.
FYI: the "Show Ref Check" tool is at User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js Noleander (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to restate chapter name in the short cite: e.g.
    • Short cite: Joor (2016), p. 57, Chapter 4: The Napoleonic Period in Holland from a Dutch Historical Perspective
    • Linked source: Joor, Johan (26 January 2016). "Chapter 4: The Napoleonic Period in Holland from a Dutch Historical Perspective". In Planert, Ute (ed.). Napoleon's empire : European politics in global perspective. War, Culture and Society, 1750–1850. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
The long source contains all the necessary information. In the short cite, you only need the page # 57. The chapter name & number (" Chapter 4: The Napoleonic Period in Holland..") should not be repeated in the short cite. This issue is in several cites.
Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page # typo: pp. p111–p118.
    Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uniform capitalization style of source titles. Cites use a mixutre:
    • Title case: "Epigenetic Effects of Healthy Foods and Lifestyle Habits from the Southern European Atlantic Diet Pattern: A Narrative Review"
    • Sentence case "Ocupação do Litoral do Alentejo, Portugal: passado e presente"
WP:CITEVAR etc say that article should use a uniform capitalization style (and should ignore the cap. style sources use for themselves). It is okay to use one cap style for book titles & another for journal article titles.
FYI: there is a tool that will ensure that all source titles use same capt style: User:ZKang123/TitleCaseConverter. Noleander (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Second pass
edit
  • Wording: " A participant in the Age of Discovery, the kingdom made ... " Is there a better word than "participant"?
  • "Portugal is part of multiple international organisations ... " Member of?
  • "Portugal was used to refer ... " .. was referred to ... ?
  • "Neanderthals roamed the southwestern Iberian peninsula until 37,000 years ago, and a hominin tooth has been found at the Nova ... " Is hominin before or after the Neanderthals? Are Neanderthals part of hominins?
  • "Portugal was devastated by the Black Death, as with the rest of Europe. " maybe "as was the rest of Europe"
  • Caption: "The Portuguese Carracks Off a Rocky Coast painting displays Portuguese vessels of the Discovery Age during the 16th century." It might help readers to add some links into image captions, which is a permitted exception to the "don't duplicate links" rule. E.g. here Age of Discovery.
  • "Portugal was the first and the last colonial power, and by the mid-16th century ... " That is a rather important statement, it is just casually tossed in there as a preface. Consider elaborating, at least with a footnote.
    • Also: was it truly the first global colonial power? I suspect that colonialism has been going on for 1000s of years. Maybe qualify with "European colonial power" or similar.
  • "In 1498, Vasco da Gama reached ... " There are four consecutive sentence that start with a year "In 14xx ..." (or similar). Best to vary wording. Two in a row maybe okay, but not four.
  • Link to Port. wikipedia: 1 December [pt] The red followed by a mysterious "pt" footnote may confuse many readers. Suggest use an alternative technique, there are a few - see H:FOREIGNLINK, that provide a direct blue link to the Port. WP article.
  • ".. with a lot of social and political tension... " phrase "a lot of" is a bit vulgar. Consider a more professional wording.
  • " Portugal comprises a mainland territory located on the... " Two things: (a) "mainland" doesnt need to be stated, I think by default land is presumed to be on the mainland, and only islands need to be qualified. (b) "territory" is not ideal in this context since it also can mean a specific kind of colony/protectorate/province. Consider a synonym.
  • "The country covers a total area of 156,597 km2 (60,462 sq mi), more than two-fifths of which consists of territorial sea and internal waters." I've never seen a country's size stated as including ocean areas. Unless that is a WP convention, I would expect a wording like "The country covers xxxxx km2 and yyyyy km2 of territorial waters."
  • Area: "km2" I'm pretty sure WP:MOSNUM says to use km2 ... that is, km{{sup|2}} .
  • Raises more questions than it answers: "Wildfires remain a serious challenge in Portugal, where 99% of the cases reported by law enforcement in 2024 were of unknown origin." That seems hard to believe. Is it arson? Firebugs? Lightning? Cigarettes? How in the world in 2026 could a country only know how 1% of wild fires start?
  • Citation error on cite "Agência para a Integração, Migrações e Asilo – Direção de Planeamento, Estudos e Estatística (2025), p. 2. " Error message is: "Harv error: link from CITEREFAgência_para_a_Integração,_Migrações_e_Asilo_–_Direção_de_Planeamento,_Estudos_e_Estatística2025 doesn't point to any citation."
  • Using organization/publisher name in "author" field (see details of this issue above in pass 1): "Eurostat (9 April 2026). "Population on 1 January by age, sex and broad group of citizenship". Eurostat. doi:10.2908/MIGR_POP2CTZ. Retrieved 25 April 2026." Error: Missing first name for: Eurostat; Missing archive link;

Horizon Zero Dawn: The Frozen Wilds

edit


Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer 07:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently helped get Horizon Zero Dawn to FA, so I figured it made sense to attempt to do the same with its lone expansion pack. Courtesy pings to @Vacant0 and Nub098765: who both left helpful comments for the peer review. -- ZooBlazer 07:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

edit

Just in case, I'll take another look at the article before voting. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Set concurrently with the main campaign, the narrative follows Aloy" → "Set concurrently with the main campaign, the expansion follows Aloy"
  • "Development of The Frozen Wilds focused on exploring the culture of the enigmatic Banuk tribe, drawing heavy geographical inspiration from Yellowstone." → "Development focused on the culture of the Banuk tribe and drew heavy geographical inspiration from Yellowstone."
  • "The Frozen Wilds was Zero Dawn's only expansion pack and was released for PlayStation 4 on 7 November 2017. It was later released with the base game to Windows in August 2020 as part of Horizon Zero Dawn Complete Edition, and released again in October 2024 for Windows and PlayStation 5 via Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered." → "As the game's sole expansion, The Frozen Wilds launched for PlayStation 4 on 7 November 2017. It was later bundled with the base game for Windows in August 2020 as part of the Complete Edition, followed by a PlayStation 5 and Windows remaster in October 2024."
  • "The expansion adds a fourth branch to the skill tree, which introduces various quality-of-life abilities focused on inventory management and traversal while riding machines as mounts." → "A fourth branch added to the skill tree introduces quality-of-life abilities focused on inventory management and mounted traversal of machines."
  • "Overall, The Frozen Wilds features a difficulty spike compared to the base game, with an encounter design that forces the player to adapt their combat strategies and encourages the heavy use of the new Banuk arsenal." → "Overall, the expansion features a steep difficulty spike, featuring encounters that force players to adapt their strategies and utilise the new Banuk arsenal."
  • "When designing the Banuk's culture and clothing, the team prioritised functionality" → "The team prioritised functionality in the Banuk's culture and clothing, ensuring"
  • "Audio lead Bastian Seelbach and the sound design team focused on ensuring the new Daemonic machine variants possessed distinct auditory cues that differentiated them from the machines in the main campaign, matching their aggressive, fast-paced attack patterns." → "Audio lead Bastian Seelbach's team designed distinct auditory cues for the Daemonic variants to match their aggressive, fast-paced attack patterns and differentiate them from base-game machines."

That's it from me. Seems to be well-written. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional comments @Vacant0! I implemented your suggestions with a few minor changes for some of them mixed in. Let me know if you have any additional issues with the article. -- ZooBlazer 17:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. Support from me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just noticed that the Russian Wikipedia has this article listed as a Good Article. Have you checked that article out? Have you incorporated some elements from that version? Or do you think that this version adequately summarises the entire articl perfectly? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it, and depending how accurate auto translate is, there was not a lot of info to incorporate, but I did add a little more details. -- ZooBlazer 17:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, good to know. My support still stands. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Hi ZooBlazer, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They have alt-texts and captions. Is there a specific reason why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horizon_Zero_Dawn_The_Frozen_Wilds_screenshot.jpg is aligned to the left? According to MOS:IMAGELOC, right-side alignment is the default. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7 Thanks for doing the review! The image is to the left because when it is to the right (at least on my screen), it gets pushed under the infobox and almost out of the gameplay section as well. -- ZooBlazer 08:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. However, in that case the text is stuck in the middle between the image and the infobox, which violates MOS:SANDWICH. Having the image pushed down a little further is probably the lesser evil here. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 Hmm, I figured it was fine since it was a similar situation with Horizon Zero Dawn and no one said anything during that review. Oh well, I moved it. -- ZooBlazer 08:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know it doesn't look great, but yeah it's a MOS:SANDWICH issue. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably the better alternative. That takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody should have said something, so you lucked out. 😉 Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:24, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 Just letting you know I added File:Aerial image of Grand Prismatic Spring (view from the south).jpg into the article. -- ZooBlazer 17:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720

edit
  • I made some copyedits as I was reading: feel free to revert if not helpful
  • Lead check: I couldn't find in the article body where "and an advanced 3D cloud rendering system" was mentioned and cited.
  • Infobox check: most of the people mentioned here are not mentioned in the article and are not cited. These include:
  • Mathijs de Jonge is not mentioned in the article body as the director.
  • Lambert Wolterbeek Muller is not mentioned in the article body as a producer
  • Jan-Bart van Beek and Misja Baas are not mentioned in the article body as artists
  • Joris de Man, The Flight, Niels van der Leest, and Jonathan Williams are not mentioned in the article body as composers
  • There is also no mention that this is a single-player game: in the "Gameplay" section, it might be worth mentioning that the player controls Aloy during this expansion (some expansions cause a player to control a different character). This mention would also imply that it is a single-player game.

Please ping when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Your copyedits looks good. I have addressed your comments, so let me know if there is anything else to clean up. -- ZooBlazer 20:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bgsu98

edit

I feel like I’m an expert on this video game series, so I should probably do this one, too. Keep in mind, the last video game I played was Qbert on my Atari 2600… Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sachertorte

edit


Nominator(s): Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Sachertorte, a famous Austrian chocolate cake from the 19th century that is still very popular today. Improved to Good Article status in April 2025, the article has since been considerably improved, with the addition of more news sources, journals, and books (both English and German ones). The article was peer reviewed by several editors in late 2025 and early 2026. I appreciate the work that @Whonting: has put in to the article by helping me rewrite the article and improve the clunky prose the article previously had. This is my shortest FAC yet (tied with Smash Hit), though I think it's complete.

Some of you might look and see that the Hungarian version is a FA, though there's several problems with it. It heavily relies on low-quality sources that might not even be reliable and there's unsourced content, therefore it would not meet our FA standards. Our version heavily relies on books and reliable news outlets, both English, German, and other. Hopefully you'll enjoy it reading it and maybe I'll make you a bit hungry. :p Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support by ZKang123

edit

Will take a look.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The cakes themselves had the same basic ingredients—butter, chocolate, eggs, flour, and sugar—but exact recipes were kept secret. Shouldn't it be but the exact recipes were kept secret?
  • In 2007, it was reported that Hotel Sacher made approximately 360,000 Sachertorte a year. It sells its cakes worldwide. I must presume "it" in the second paragraph refers to Hotel Sacher? Might combine to In 2007, it was reported that Hotel Sacher made approximately 360,000 Sachertorte a year and sells them worldwide.

Description:

  • Cloake concurs A little essay-like here. Might just say "Cloake adds that: while complaints..."

History:

  • "the memory of the nonagenarian inventor or the promotional efforts of his hotelier son" Might clarify a little in-line who is who (e.g. "the memory of the nonagenarian inventor [Sacher] or the promotional efforts of his hotelier son [Eduard]"
  • By 1888, Sachertorte... In 1894, the definition of ... The following year, the dish... A little WP:PROSELIST there. Suggest shifting the date clause a little
  • So began a series of legal disputes over which could be named the original Would say "Hence" instead of "So" and shift this to the next paragraph.

Modern consumption:

  • In 1999, Hotel Sacher opened the Original Sacher Torte Manufactory in Vienna, since the bakery in Hotel Sacher was too small for the demand Slight rewrite to: Hotel Sacher opened the Original Sacher Torte Manufactory in Vienna in 1999 since the bakery in the hotel was too small for the demand

These are all my comments. Quite well-written in fact.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 12:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks for the review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metalicat

edit

I'll come at this as a general reader with no background in Austrian confectionery or the German sources, so treat the below as queries rather than anything authoritative. Enjoyable read, and the geographic-reputation framing is a nice touch. Mostly small things.

Lead and Description

  • the unhyphenated Sacher torte is also common is a little confusing, because Sachertorte is also unhyphenated. The three forms seem to be hyphenated (Sacher-Torte), closed (Sachertorte) and spaced (Sacher torte), so the spaced form Sacher torte is also common would read more clearly.
    • Done.
  • "Elisabeth Gürtler, the director of Hotel Sacher" is present tense but cited to a 2007 source. Is she still in post, or should this be dated or past tense?
    • It seems like she is no longer the director.

Taste and texture

  • This section leans fairly heavily on direct quotation (Die Welt, Maier-Bruck, Grigson, Cloake and Krondl in quick succession). It reads well, but paraphrasing one or two might vary the texture, with an eye on 1a.
    • I've tried to paraphrase what I was able to.
  • Two small prose nudges: Several explanations have been put forth reads slightly oddly to me (put forward or "offered"), and the author Rick Rodgers reports German recipes are often mistranslated would sit better with a "that": reports that German recipes are often mistranslated.
    • Done.

History

  • The one I'd most want your eye on. Several citations are to Krondl 2015 at pages 36, 287 and 405 (the line on Sacher's age and apprenticeship, and the Linzer torte sentence), but the source list defines Krondl 2015 as the Oxford Companion entry at pp. 588–589. Those pages fall well outside that span. They may belong to Krondl 2011 (Sweet Invention), or be other Companion entries needing their own short-cite anchors; either way the short citations don't resolve cleanly as they stand.
    • It seems like this error was on me when I was creating {{sfnm}} templates. I'll fix it now.
  • In Hotel Sacher v. Demel, the dispute over ownership remained complicated as Eduard had connections to both: which Eduard, the founder or Eduard Jr.? A clarifying word would help, as both appear.
    • The source says Eduard, not Eduard Jr., so I've specified that.

Modern consumption

  • The McDonald's Japan material (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018–2021, each separately cited) is quite granular. I wonder whether it could be condensed to a sentence, partly on weight against the rest of the section.
    • Done.
  • Minor consistency: the article alternates between "Sachertorte" and "the Sachertorte".
    • Done.

Sources

  • The Becker 1992 journal citation is missing a page range.
    • Done.
  • A few web and news citations lack archive links (the 2007 Sydney Morning Herald, and a couple of the Japanese McDonald's sources); worth archiving before this closes.
    • SMH and Gigazine for some reason cannot be archived with IA. I've archived Entabe.

I can't speak to the German-language sourcing. The cake looks delicious! Metalicat (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks for the review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. All my points are fixed. Support. Metalicat (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whonting

edit

I have spent a fair amount of time with this article and its sources and I am confident in the article's writing and research. As far as I can offer a support in that capacity I will. I'll note for anyone wondering why the article doesn't have an image of Sacher, this will be able next March when Template:PD-old-assumed becomes available. Whonting (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reconrabbit

edit
  • Why not "Apricot jam [...] sponge, and also between the layers in multi-layer versions"?
  • Konditorwaren 2013 doesn't mention non-Apricot spreads, so I assume this is in Rodgers 2002
  • "Nicola Humble, who credits perceptions to the cake being served without whipped cream" - maybe "dry perceptions" or perceptions of dryness, as Humble decribes the cake w/o cream?... even though dry is stated over and over before this, which might be a reason to assume the adjective is unnecessary

That's all I have to remark on. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Yes, non-Apricot spreads are in Rodger 2002. Thanks for the review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination has my support. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering (prose)

edit

Made some simple changes right in-article, feel free to revert/alter any you dislike.

  • early-to-mid 19th century is mentioned a few times but I don't see any early-19th dates. Just say mid?
  • which defines Sachertorte as made from a batter of butter, flour, eggs, sugar, and at least 15% chocolate by weight what about the apricot?
  • attributed the reputation to a lack of appreciation a lack of appreciation of what?
  • In general, I think you're over-attributing comments. Naming everyone like this makes it sound like there is some kind of major dispute that necessitates being so specific. If there is such a dispute, the article does not really get that across. So which is it? For example, you could have a line like "Defenders of the Sachertorte have suggested that its poor reputation among its critics may be a result of poorly translated recipes[fn] or of the cake being served without whipped cream[fn]." This maintains appropriate attribution without implying there's some kind of Sachertorte-based pamphlet war going on.
  • training under the prince's chef Chambellier this name is either important enough to wikilink (redlink if you have to) or it's not important enough to include.
  • in another, legendary account rephrase - not clear whether you mean "legendary" as in "apocryphal" or "famous, and positively so"
  • By the 1930s, the cake had become globally known this doesn't make any sense, given that the previous sentence says it was already globally known in 1895.
  • By 2022, Demel had switched to making its Sachertorte in two layers. lol.
  • Sachertorte is popular in Vienna and other regions of Austria by this point this goes without saying.

In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All done. What do you think about the reception now? I've tried rewriting it as best as I could. I'm happy to hearing more suggestions regarding that part. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: ? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Music Box (Mariah Carey album)

edit


Nominator(s): 750h+ 14:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Songbird Supreme released her third album, Music Box, in late 1993. While it was released to mixed reviews from critics, it eventually became Mariah's bestseller and one of the best-selling albums in history, with over 28 million copies sold worldwide. It included global chart-topping hits such as "Dreamlover", "Hero" and "Without You". Retrospective reviews of the album have been much more optimistic of the album, with some critics regarding Music Box as the album that made Carey the legend she is today. Enjoy the read! 750h+ 14:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

edit

Comment by RD

edit

I have a question, there is a gigantic list of links to reviews (mostly contemporary ones) in the article's talk page. Have you gone through them to see if there's anything worth mentioning? They all seem reliable sources at first glance. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've used a few, but they're largely biased reviews, which I can't really use anywhere but the Critical reception section. I used some in that and the Composition sections. 750h+ 09:56, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Hi 750h+, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They have alt-texts and captions. Some fields of the non-free use rationale of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Music_Box_Mariah_Carey.png say only "n.a.". They should have some text. This use seems to be a standard case, so you can probably just copy-paste the fields from a standard non-free use rationale template. Is there a specific reason why https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Whitney_Houston_(cropped3).JPEG is aligned to the left? According to MOS:IMAGELOC, right-side alignment is the default. I can't access the source of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whitney_Houston_(cropped3).JPEG . Is there an archived version we could add as a secondary source? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: much thanks for these comments, and I've applied all of these, but the Whitney one. Annoyingly the source doesn't work (even when archived) so I've replaced the image. Hopefully the licensing is fine here. 750h+ 11:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The new image is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Whitney_Houston_2000.jpg (CC BY-SA 2.0 from Flickr). I'm not sure about how to handle cases where the original image is not available anymore, but the new image avoids that problem. That takes care of the remaining concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lacy (song)

edit


Nominator(s): NØ 07:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Pride Month, which is also the month that a new Olivia Rodrigo album will be unraveled. This time I would like to present you "Lacy"; equal parts jealousy and adulation, Rodrigo wrote this song while craving an espresso... I mean, puff pastry. Though it began as a poem that Rodrigo eventually converted into a full piece, this folksy song is widely considered a standout on 2023's Guts by critics. It also has a pretty celebrated cover version by Noah Kahan. Should be a fun read. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 07:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "It became available as the album's fourth track on September 8, 2023, when it was released by Geffen Records." - I think "It became available on September 8, 2023, when the album was released by Geffen Records." is fine. The fact that it's track four is super trivial.
  • "A folk-pop and indie folk song with influences of theatrical folk" - is there a link for "theatrical folk"? I've never heard that term.
  • Theatre music might be the closest thing? Although it contains a very limited mention of folk music itself, and I am a bit hesitant to link it due to the author not referring explicitly to what is described there
  • ""Lacy" originated from a poem she wrote for a class assignment. The song chronicles Rodrigo's obsession over the beauty of a female figure of the same name and her envy and self-hatred." => ""Lacy" originated from a poem that Rodrigo wrote for a class assignment. The song chronicles her obsession with the beauty of a female figure of the same name and her envy and self-hatred."
  • Also, "of the same name" could be taken to mean that the female in question is also called Olivia, which is clearly not what you mean
  • "Upon liking the poem, Rodrigo transformed it" => "Liking the poem, Rodrigo transformed it"
  • "Nigro provided production and vocal production, and he engineered the song with Dani Perez and Chris Kasych. He plays drums, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, bass, and synthesizer." - the tenses should be consistent here
  • That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

zzz plant

edit

Hi, I really enjoyed reading this article, puff pastry and all! I have some comments from a prose review, organized by subsection below. Please feel free to disregard those that you don't agree with or have already been discussed elsewhere. Zzz plant (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review, Zzz plant. Since this seemed quite thoughtful and thorough, I was wondering if you had a view with respect to supporting or opposing promotion. But no pressure either way. Hope all is well.--NØ 03:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! And sorry to leave you hanging, I will look over it again and get back to you within the next day or two. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
edit
  • "A folk-pop and indie folk song with influences of theatrical folk..." would try to reduce the number of "folk"s here, three feels like a lot for one clause
  • the detail about it originating from a class assignment feels like it belongs with the info about her writing it with Dan Nigro
  • "The song chronicles her obsession over the beauty of a female figure named Lacy and Rodrigo's envy and self-hatred." I feel there's too many "and"s here. suggest something like "The song explores Rodrigo's envy and self-hatred as she becomes obsessed with the beauty of a female figure named Lacy."
  • "They perceived potential LGBT implications in the song's lyrics." I'd soften this to "some", unless all critics felt this way
  • I'd swap LGBT for LGBTQ throughout the article- to be consistent with Wikipedia's own nomenclature + sources (Out.com refers to LGBTQ+ themes and pride.com talks about queer readings)
Background and promotion
edit
  • I wouldn't mind a smidge of background about Rodrigo before getting into her first album release
  • I would say that would fall slightly out of the scope of this article, in keeping with FACR #4. I do think Rodrigo's biography and Sour being wikilinked in the very first sentence should help curious people.
  • "Sour's producer, Dan Nigro, returned to produce every track on it." the specificity of "every track" feels weird to me, I would just say he returned to produce the album
  • "...because they received stronger reactions from her audience during live performances." suggest "...because they received stronger audience reactions during live performances."
  • Nothing technically wrong, but I would be inclined to leave in the current wording.
  • "She was required to write a poem during a homework assignment." this feels slightly overexplainy of what hw is, I would condense the first + second sentence into something like "While attending poetry classes at the University of Southern California in 2022, Rodrigo conceived "Lacy" as a class assignment." before then going into the charming kitchen counter anecdote
  • While I see where you are coming from, I think there is some use in mentioning it is a homework assignment, lest someone think there was a kitchen counter in the classroom...
  • "...during a Tiny Desk concert in December 2023." maybe worth glossing that this a NPR thing?
  • "She sang it while wriggling on an upraised dais before several dancers emerged from under it to perform choreography..." "wriggling" and "emerged" makes the text feel like it comes from a biology textbook imo. and dais feels a bit jargony, would platform make do?
  • I am not sure I agree. "Wriggling" and "emerged", based on the online dictionaries I have consulted, seem appropriate in this case and are also not informal. I am comfortable with the amount of information the dais article provides for understanding the concept, and thus lean towards retaining the source wording with the wikilink.
Composition
edit
  • "Mikael Wood of the Los Angeles Times believed the song has an indie folk sound reminiscent of the work of Abrams." I know you mentioned Gracie earlier in background but I would consider including her first name; I thought initially because of the context that this was saying it was reminiscent of the work of one of the song's producers/mixers/etc.
  • "Rodrigo initially sings in a sarcastic tone and delivers her vocals with a contemptuous whisper." I would soften slightly out of wikivoice. I also find the organization here a bit off- I would perhaps put the "reminiscent of (xyz singer)" commentary together. right now it goes similar to Gracie Abrams, analysis of vocal tone, similar to Lana del Ray
  • I have followed the typical organization of Genres -> Instrumentation -> Vocals (vocal layering in this case). The Abrams and Lana comparisons do not appear conjoined as the former is of the genre and the latter is of vocal layering. Regarding softening the phrasing, contemptuous feels like an already softer paraphrase of "scornful". Are you asking to attribute it to Billboard?
  • "Later in the song, she changes almost every line from the first hook ..." heh? I'm a bit lost here
  • All the hooks differ in lyrics - verse 1: Skin like puff pastry, verse 2: I'm losin' it lately, outro: It's like you're out to get me
  • "Mendez II..." including the generational suffix with the surname by itself sounds very weird to me. I wouldn't refer to Martin Luther King Jr. as "King Jr."
Critical reception
edit
  • "Nylon included the same line in its list of Guts's impeccable lyrics..." this reads to me as saying in wikivoice that the lyrics are impeccable
  • "Some critics praised the intensity of Rodrigo's performance and the production of "Lacy". The Independent's Helen Brown believed she sang with vigor, similarly to Tori Amos, and Wood thought her "breath [sounded] almost uncomfortably hot on the microphone"." for me there is kind of a mismatch between the topic sentence and the critic opinions that follow- I don't instinctively know that Brown or Amos are praising her; you can think someone performs with vigor or their voice sounds uncomfortably hot but have a negative opinion overall
  • organization-wise, the third para's reason for being separate isn't super intuitive to me - I feel like we talked about critics' ranking of the song/its lyrics already at the end of the first para
  • It works to me. The lyrical praise from Nylon and GQ works to drive home the summary statement of para 1 about the lyricism. Both surfaced on album release day. The third para is retrospective-esque (not really but you get the point); the citings there surfaced in an interview, in an all-time discography ranking, and a year-end list. It works as a coherent narrative and can be a growing paragraph as more Rodrigo discography rankings surface in the future.
Commercial performance
edit
  • I'd rework one of the first two sentences to avoid two sentences with "issued" verbiage in a row
  • "...the Official Charts Company declared it her 19th-biggest song in the country in February 2024." if this is saying it was Rodrigo's 19th biggest song just for that month, this seems trivial to the point of maybe would consider cutting it.
  • Nope, they are saying it was her 19th biggest song of all-time as of that month.
Noah Kahan cover
edit
  • "On the other hand, Eli Ordonez of NME thought the cover had influences of country music." I'm not sure I get why this is "on the other hand", it feels like a complementary opinion to the previous or at least not a disagreement
Credits and personnel
edit
  • Chappell Roan doing background vocals for this song is quite a fun fact, is that discussed at any more length in the sources? I could see a mention in composition if yes
Thanks a lot for the review, Zzz plant. I have either made the changes or left a comment explaining wherever I have a difference of opinion.--NØ 16:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Camilasdandelions

edit
  • I just found that most of magazine citations are cited by {{cite web}}; you should change them to {{cite magazine}}. This also applies to {{cite news}} (|newspaper=) as well.
  • Hope I have done this correctly...
  • Just a time sink since it displays the same thing to the reader. Anyways, every source cited here is an online url and not offline so there is no factual inaccuracy in saying website.
  • MOS:OL, it is a commonly known everyday word.
  • States and entered ➡️ States, entering
  • Should pictured in 2021 be italicized? (I've seen plenty of people opposing at this)
  • It should be, as it is a way of emphasizing the part in the parenthesis isn't necessary for understanding the rest of the sentence.
  • envy that I was feeling" ➡️ envy that [she] was feeling"
  • the album title ➡️ the album's title
  • The current wording seems ok in both cases to me.
  • On August 1, 2023, she revealed Guts's tracklist ➡️ On August 1, she revealed tracklist of Guts
  • The current wording seems ok in both cases to me.
  • It is not redundant. Just "August" following "June 2023" could be referring to August of any subsequent year.
  • released on September 8, 2023. ➡️ released on September 8.
  • It's the first mention of the month in this section so I don't see why this change would be beneficial.
  • It was recorded at Amusement Studios in Los Angeles and Electric Lady Studios in New York City.: Does this belong to the song's "Composition"?
  • It is relevant to introduce the following sentences, which do belong
  • bass and synthesizer can be wikilinked imo (drum is common and idk abt electric guitar, it's up to you; also synthesizer is wikilinked in end of the paragraph so you should unlink this)
  • according to Beats Per Minute ➡️ according to Beats per Minute
  • Rodrigo describes her through comparisons as someone who possesses "skin like puff pastry" and "eyes white as daisies": You should attribute who wrote this quote
  • These are song lyrics so the "Rodrigo describes" at the beginning of the sentence functions as the attribution
  • Ref 64: |url-access=limited
  • Sputnikmusic should not be italicized
  • puff pastry: "since ➡️ puff pastry: "Since
  • Wikilink puff pastry
  • 2020 album Folklore ➡️ 2020 album, Folklore
  • Swift released two albums in 2020, so the comma would not be correct
  • Yup, due to the existence of Folklore and Evermore, "2020 album" is not enough to convey what is meant.
  • I still don't think "adding comma" means that Folklore was her "only" album released in 2020. Commas in appositive constructions don't automatically carry that meaning. If the concern is that "2020 album" is not specific enough because she released both Folklore and Evermore that year, then that's a separate issue from whether a comma is grammatically acceptable. Could you point to MOS that says a comma here would imply uniqueness or be incorrect in this context? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 01:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Billboard Global 200 . ➡️ the Billboard Global 200.
  • Section name, "Personnel", seems enough.
  • Credits and personnel is apt. We don't just list the crew of a studio but also lyricists who are credited with writing the words.
  • No, as I have already mentioned, the "songwriter" credits do not belong to the crew of a studio and are just credits for people who wrote the lyrics without any affiliation with the personnel.
  • I am aware of your interpretation of this but the general guidance at MOS:HEADER does not mandate specifically removing the song title from captions. Looking at existing FAs and all precedent, it is unpopular to do this. This article also discusses multiple versions of the song, adding further utility to noting which version's charting is being tabulated.
  • No, almost everyone just seems to disagree this is something helpful to readers and that is fine. I have gone through the last five song FAs promoted and am inclined to keep the song title in the caption in line with that soft consensus over one outdated sentence in a guideline. These captions exist for accessibility purposes so we want to be thorough. With discussion of several live performances and a cover, the mention that it's the original studio track charting is relevant.--NØ 00:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that some FAs keep the song title does not override MOS:HEADER. Unless there's a specific accessibility concern that requires repeating the title, the guideline still advises not to put redundant wording in headers and captions. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 01:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These are all addressed. Regards.--NØ 15:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andranik

edit


Nominator(s): frankiethey/them (t • c) 02:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

this article is about Andranik Ozanian, or just Andranik. he was an Armenian military commander and statesman whose legacy had a very profound impact on the Armenian national liberation movement. frankiethey/them (t • c) 02:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Image review from Nikkimaria

edit
  • Don't use fixed px size Done
  • Suggest adding alt text Done
  • Avoid sandwiching text between images - there are likely too many images overall for the length of the article Done
  • File:Antranik.jpg needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Done Ditto File:Andranik_fedayee.jpg, File:Andranik_on_a_horse.jpg, File:Armenia_delegation_United_States_1919.jpg, File:Andranik_Military_Council_of_Goris_1918.png, File:Andranik_Ozanian_Jaques_Bagratuni_Hovhannes_Katchaznouni_United_States_1919.png Done
  • File:1904_Map_of_Mush_and_Sasun.png: what is the author's date of death? Done
  • File:Zoravar_Andranik_in_Sophia_1912.jpg needs a US tag, and what is the author's date of death? Done
  • File:Antranik_volunteers_during_Balkan_War.jpg: what is the status of this work in its country of origin? Done Ditto File:Andranik_Ozanian_1918.jpg Done
  • File:Andranik_Caucasian_Campaign_circa_1914-1916.png: source link is dead, missing a US tag Done
  • File:Andranik_Ozanian_Zoravar_Hayots.jpg needs a US tag and a source Done
  • File:Andranik_wedding_paris_1922.jpg needs a US tag, and which of the French rationales is believed to apply? Done
  • File:Cimetière_du_Père-Lachaise_-_General_Antranik_Toros_Ozanian.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, this needs a tag for the original work Done
  • File:Andranik_L'Image_1919.png: source link is dead Done
  • File:Andranik_Ozanian_poster.jpg is mistagged. Done Ditto File:Legion_dHonneur.jpg Done

Oppose pending significant cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: these issues have been solved. frankiethey/them (t • c) 15:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text still missing from lead image
  • File:Andranik_on_a_horse.jpg needs author date of death, and per the UK tag, "If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was" Done
  • File:Map_of_Sasun_by_Alexander_Kalantar.pdf needs an author date of death Done
  • File:Zoravar_Andranik_in_Sophia_1912.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death Done
  • File:Andranik_Ozanian_Caucasian_Front_1916.ogv: when and where was this first published? Done
  • File:Andranik_in_America_1919.jpg: when and where was this first published? Done

Comments from Jon698

edit
  • Looks like an interesting figure. I will make some comments soon. Jon698 (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping: Jon698 hi Jon, thanks for stopping by. i appreciate your interest in the article. i have fixed all of the formatting issues (and removed some images, due to there being too many) in my ability. since you mentioned you'll be reviewing, would you be willing to help apply the fixes to commons? (i'm blocked there) they are listed above. frankiethey/them (t • c) 16:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, can you list what specific edits you want? Jon698 (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks! i listed a bunch of issues that im currently unable to change (due to a commons block), but i have laid out how to fix them. these are commons-related image tagging and licensing stuff. here they are:

    File:Antranik.jpg was replaced with File:Andranik Ozanyan.jpg, which can be tagged with PD-Bain (it's part of the Grantham Bain Collection) and US-expired, because it was published/created "between ca. 1915 and ca. 1920".
    Done here - Jon698
    File:Legion dHonneur.jpg is a 2d scan of a certificate from the early 1900s. therefore, the US expired and 100-old tags can be added to it
    The bigger issue is that there is no source for this document. You will need to find one or else it can't be in the article. - Jon698
    File:Andranik_wedding_paris_1922.jpg: the first French rationale applies. the author is identified as the studio photographer Abel Minassian, whose career spans the first four decades of the 20th century (making him deceased well over 70 years). since the photo was taken and published in Paris in 1922 (b4 1931), it is automatically public domain in the US under US-expired, too.
    Done here - Jon698
    File:Andranik on a horse.jpg this file was published in London in the 1914/1915 volume of the periodical Ararat: A Searchlight on Armenia (via HathiTrust). the work is automatically in the public domain in the US under US-expired (international, b4 1931). UK-unknown (as it was published anonymously over 70 years ago in the UK) alongside US-expired can be added to it.
    Done here - Jon698
    File:Zoravar Andranik in Sophia 1912.jpg: this image was published in the US in 1919 in John G. Moskoffian's book Independence for Armenia: An Appeal to the Congress and the People of the United States of America. it was published prior to January 1, 1931; it is automatically in the public domain in the US under US-expired, which provides the missing US tag. since the photographer is anonymous and it was published over 70 years ago, it is also in the public domain in its country of origin, so Bulgaria-anonymous applies too, and old-70-anonymous. frankiethey/them (t • c) 16:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no special tags for Bulgaria in those categories so no edit is required. - Jon698
  • 1. I'm fine with "commonly known as General Andranik" being kept in, but I don't see why "or simply Andranik" is there. We don't do that for Julius Caesar for example.
  • 2. Remove wikilink in "an Armenian military"
  • 3. Wikilink Bulgarian Armed Forces for "Bulgarian army" in lede
  • 4. Change "under" in "Armenian volunteer battalion under the Russian Imperial Army" to "within"
  • 5. "withdrawal left Armenian forces critically isolated" -> remove critically
  • 6. "Despite a resolute defense of Erzurum" -> remove resolute
  • 7. "Today, he is venerated as a national hero" -> Remove today or change to "In modern Armenia"
  • 8. "His paternal ancestors had migrated" -> Remove had
  • 9. "Andranik lost his mother when he was just one year old and was raised by his elder sister, Nazeli." -> Does the source only state that his lost his mother? If it says that she died then you should use the phrase "His mother died" which is more clear
  • 10. " worsened under the reign of Abdul Hamid II" -> Wikilink to Abdul Hamid II as it is his first mention in the body
  • 11. "are named after Sultan Abdul Hamid II" -> Remove wikilink to Abdul Hamid II as his first mention was earlier in this section
  • 12. "then the largest city of the Caucasus and a major center of Armenian culture at the time" -> Remove "at the time" as that is already implied by "then the" at the beginning
  • 13. "upon him by Sultan Abdul Hamid II" -> Remove wikilink to Abdul Hamid II for same reason as #11
  • 14. "in the Mush-Sasun region of Western Armenia" -> Wikilink to Western Armenia as this is the first mention in the body
  • 15. "the geopolitical situation in Western Armenia continued to deteriorate" -> Remove wikilink to Western Armenia
  • 16. "The Great Powers remained largely indifferent" -> Wikilink to Great power
nice catches, i fixed these, except "simply Andranik", because Andranik falls into the rare category of historical figures who is actually more commonly known by a single name, unlike Julius Caesar. in Armenian culture and historiography, he is universally referred to by just his first name, "Andranik". Caesar is a family cognomen, not a first name, whereas Andranik achieved mononymous status where the first name alone instantly identifies him uniquely. and the article does say andranik a lot, which "simply Andranik" helps explain. frankiethey/them (t • c) 18:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Peachy1621: I have done all but one of the Commons edits you requested. Please see my response to the image relating to his Legion of Honour certificate. Jon698 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
thanks :) i will move forward with the suggestions you brought up. frankiethey/them (t • c) 15:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17. Remove ultimately from "The council ultimately adopted Hrayr's conservative"
  • 18. Remove meager from "irregulars against a meager force"
  • 19. "Leon Trotsky noted that the conflict" -> Remove Leon as his full name has already been used
  • 20. "Following his departure from Persia, Andranik traveled to the Caucasus" -> Swap his and Andranik as his proper name should be used first before pronouns when starting a paragraph
  • 21. All mentions of Abdul Hamid II after the first wikilink should call him "Abdul Hamid" and also not include his title
all done frankiethey/them (t • c) 15:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 22. "With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, Andranik left his quiet life in Bulgaria to return to Russia" -> Remove "quiet life" or change it to "retirement"
  • 23. "he spearheaded this unit of approximately" -> Replace "spearheaded" with "led"
  • 24. "The subsequent Armistice of Erzincan" -> Remove "subsequent" as that is already implied by coming after the previous sentence
  • 25. "Following a desperate attempt to defend Erzurum against" -> Remove "desperate"
  • 26. "in San Francisco in an unsuccessful attempt to regain his health" -> Replace "regain" with "improve"
  • 27. "In early 2000" -> Remove "early" and have "In early 2000" be the start of a new paragraph
  • 28. "In 1965, Andranik's 100th anniversary " -> Change to "In 1965, the 100th anniversary of Andranik's birth"
  • These are my last comments. I will wait for others to express their opinions before I give my support or opposition. Jon698 (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    all done. many thanks for your help frankiethey/them (t • c) 07:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping: Jon698 as a (hopefully) final request, could you add Alexander Kalantar's death (October 20, 1913) to File:Map of Sasun by Alexander Kalantar.pdf? on his armenian wikipedia entry, his date death is sourced with the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, as you can see here. here's the citation for it[1] and thanks for your help again :) frankiethey/them (t • c) 02:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Moore (1973)

edit


Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of nuts to think that, just two years after the war on drugs began, the United States came one vote away from near-completely stopping it in its tracks. But that's exactly what this case was. Raymond Moore was, as heroin addicts go, not the most remarkable of guys. Police found him in a hotel with fifty capsules coming out to less than a gram of pure heroin in a few grams of mixture. He was convicted of possession of narcotics and sentenced to six years. On appeal to the highly influential United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, he argued that he was an addict, and so he had no choice; because there was no voluntary act behind it, he argued, he should not be punished. The Court of Appeals ruled against him 5–4; although there was no majority, the five judges against generally doubted that he had no choice and doubting that future courts could reliably tell addicts from fakers.

Despite a fierce split in that court and in academia, the five judges won the war resoundingly; the holding of Moore is the holding of basically every court in America and a couple other countries, too. The Ninth Circuit tried to reopen that door for homeless people and got smacked down by the Supreme Court. This case was a wild ride, one that I didn't initially think could be a GA, much less an FA; but the research rabbit hole kept on giving more and more fascinating debate, and I'm really happy with how this article's turned out, in the end. I welcome your feedback :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
@Nikkimaria: Added alt text; Peachy1621 fixed the px sizes (thanks!). Is this good as a source? I tracked down what I think was the document referenced at upload and it didn't seem to have the image. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that works. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MCE89

edit

A few suggestions from me:

  • the narrow view of Robinson was adopted by the Supreme Court — possibly worth adding the year that this was adopted and/or a link to the relevant case here?
  • ...connects the debate to the American public's attitudes on whether criminal punishment should reflect utilitarian or retributive values — I think this could possibly use another sentence of explanation. At the moment it feels like this relies on the reader doing a fair bit of work to fill in what "utilitarian" and "retributive" are referring to, and how they link to differing views of addiction and criminal responsibility
  • withdrawal symptoms if they stop using — Given that the sentence is about alcoholism, I think "drinking" would probably fit better than "using" here
  • present and work similarly — "Present and work" feels a little redundant, I think you could simplify this to something like "are also present" without losing meaning
  • Judge J. Skelly Wright, dissenting in this case... — This sentence seems a bit out of place in the legal background section, possibly worth moving to the section about the appeal?
  • Since the act makes no mention of whether or not the law... — The article goes from talking about "acts" in general to a specific act here, but it's not totally clear to me which act is being referred to
  • drug addicts are most often not charged with possession — Is the intended meaning here that most charges against drug addicts are for crimes other than possession? I think this phrasing could be interpreted in a few different ways (e.g. you could also read this as saying that the majority of drug addicts are never charged with possession, or that drug addicts are usually not charged with possession after they've been caught with drugs)
  • Suggest adding a link to Necessity (criminal law) over necessity defenses in state courts
  • I think you could drop the clause rather than clarifying it, since it probably goes without saying that their failure to reach a consensus wouldn't have clarified the debate
  • The sentence beginning Unlike most courts after Powell... is quite long and a little difficult to parse, you might want to consider splitting it into two
  • Is the link to the dab page rehabilitate at the beginning of the section "District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals" intentional? I don't know whether Rehabilitation (penology) or Drug rehabilitation would be the better link in this context, but I'm not sure linking to the dab page is the best solution
  • Not really an issue, but I don't think you need both ref 35 (Barrick 1974, p. 224; Sankin 1974, pp. 397–398.) and ref 36 (Barrick 1974, p. 224; Sankin 1974, p. 398.) in the same sentence
  • I'm not usually a stickler for avoiding stranded prepositions, but I think that was the only issue the Court formed a clear majority on would read a little more smoothly as "that was the only issue on which the Court formed a clear majority"
  • "was still closer the narrow view" -> "was still closer to the narrow view"
  • This is a purely aesthetic suggestion that you are completely free to ignore, but the framed and unframed pictures of Wilkey and Leventhal side-by-side look a little mismatched. Possibly worth swapping the image of Wilkey for a cropped version like File:Malcolm Richard Wilkey (cropped) 2.jpg that doesn't include the frame?
  • Is it worth adding a mention of what happened after the sentence was remanded to the trial court?
  • "as much evidence as need to decide" -> "as much evidence as needed to decide"
  • no deterring effect — I think deterrent effect is the more common form
  • affirming the narrow view of Robinson for good — Is "for good" needed here? I'm also not sure it's something that can be stated with certainty — while it's obviously highly unlikely, I assume that the Supreme Court could theoretically reverse itself at any time and adopt a broad view of Robinson
  • ...but still make a willing choice in addition to use drugs — Should this just be "...but still make a willing choice to use drugs"?
  • Boldt also criticizes Wilkey's "strength of character" argument as vague, writing that it does not sufficiently define the term, and criticizes it as inconsistent — Suggest changing the first part of this sentence to "Boldt also criticizes Wilkey's "strength of character" argument as vague and inconsistent..." to avoid the repetition of "criticizes"
  • ...writing in a chapter of a 2016 book called Addiction and Choice... — Suggest simplifying this to "in the 2016 book Addiction and Choice"
  • It looks like footnote f is missing a citation

Overall a very interesting article, and these are all pretty minor points. Just ping me when you've had a chance to look through these suggestions :) MCE89 (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here Will I Nest

edit


Nominator(s): Jon698 (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1942 Canadian film Here Will I Nest based on a play written by Hilda Mary Hooke. It is a rather obscure film that is mostly lost, but it holds a momentous status in Canadian cinema as it was the first dramatic feature-length film shot in colour. The film was never given a theatrical release and was only shown in private showings, including one attended by Premier Mitchell Hepburn. Melburn Turner would later direct Canada's first feature-length colour film in French. A fire destroyed the film, but it was partially recovered without audio; a restoration used lip readers to dub the footage. Jon698 (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

edit
  • I don't know if it has anything beyond what you already have, but Claude suggested Peter Morris, Embattled Shadows: A History of Canadian Cinema 1895–1939 (McGill–Queen's University Press, 1978, p 187) as a source.
@RoySmith: That is already included in the article as source 8. Jon698 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gallagher 2003 has Doty comparing this film to Gone With the Wind and also remarking that "It was the first time any one in our movie industry attempted to tell a canadian story of national importance". He also goes into more details about the lip-reading process. These seem like significant omissions.
  • Turner 1987 talks about the film being shown using two synchronized projectors, which seems like a much more significant fact that the soundbite about the projectionist working in his underwear.
  • Smith 1989 talks about technical problems with the original audio recording (and also the "two interlocked Victor projectors, one with sound, the other with picture"). And additional technical problems during the first showing where the film jumped a sprocket, and gives a different take on the "Talbot of Canada" title.
  • Reid 1992 echos Smith's claim that the "Talbot of Canada" title only came along after the initial screening. He also says that the recoved portion consisted of the first reel.
  • Turner says the film is 90 minutes, not 130 as stated in the article.
  • In the same PDF as Gallagher, there's a clip from the Wallacetown United Church Newsletter which explains the meaning of the "Here Will I Nest" title.
  • It may be unavoidable, but the text in the synopsis section is edging towards WP:CLOP territory compared to the cited source.
  • https://www.elgincounty.ca/ElginCounty/CulturalServices/Archives/TalbotTract/talbot.html has a map; if you can verify that it is PD, it would make a good addition to this article, illustrating the location where the action occurred in a historical context.
  • According to Google's AI snippet, the cast were "members from the London Little Theatre in Ontario." I have not found any RS which verifies that, but you should work on running it down; if it can be verified, it would make a good addition.
  • I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose based on WP:FACR 1b (comprehensive) and 1c (well-researched). It may indeed be true that there's very little available in the literature, but given that, it seems especially important to make the most of what you've got. Based on the items I found above, I don't think you've done that. RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see https://dotydocs.theatreinlondon.ca/Archives/yesterday/nest.htm. In addition to some additional details about the two-projector setup, there's some photos. If these could be verified to be stills from the movie, I think a good WP:NFU argument could be made to use one or both of them. RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I have done all of your comments in edits starting here. I hope it will change your opinion on the article. I will look into adding the map that you showed me and try to find sourcing for the cast being members of the London Little Theatre, which I believe is in on the books currently referenced in the article. (Edit: Here is a revision history showing the page before and after I made the edits you suggested.) Jon698 (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested a copy of Frederick C. Hamil's Lake Erie Baron: The Story of Colonel Thomas Talbot through my library. I should be able to determine if that map is public domain or not within one to two weeks. Jon698 (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: No copyright information is given about the map in the book. It is used on the binding of the book. However, if we simply follow the copyright notice of the book then the map is in the public domain. Fred Coyne Hamil was Canadian and his book was published by a Canadian company. He died on December 24, 1968, which is 4 years before the public domain cut off in Canada Jon698 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

edit
  • The prior FA nomination was archived because there was only one reviewer that supplied comments, and they did not offer a support/oppose opinion. If I'm reading the edit history correctly, no substantial changes have been made to the article since that nomination a few months ago, correct? Of course, enhancements to an article are not required prior to re-nominating. But can you tell us if an effort was made to find additional material or sources for the article? Knowing about that might encourage more reviewers this time around. Noleander (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Over the course of May I conducted additional research through sources that I have access through the Wikipedia Library using the search parameters of "Here Will I Nest" and "Talbot of Canada". I found no new information through Cambridge University Press, De Gruyter, JSTOR, and Project Muse. Jon698 (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Talbot_of_Canada.png: is the source given an authorized publication?

Downtown Line

edit


Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when you try to combine three rail projects together? Well, you get an odd rail line that intersects itself without an interchange. The Downtown Line is one of the most complex projects in Singapore, which involved requiring to divert the Singapore River, digging to a depth of 43 metres, while also dealing with the bankruptcy of a major contractor. The project ended up costing S$21 billion. Still, it remains one of the more reliable lines on the network compared to the Circle Line (Singapore). ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Icepinner

edit

Marking my spot. Really glad to see this on FAC! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 08:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

History
edit
  • "The BTL and the northern half of the ERL were subsequently incorporated into the Downtown Line (DTL)" I'm aware that the development of the DTL is incredibly murky, but is there a reason why the merger took place?
  • "fully underground line serving Bukit Panjang, Upper Bukit Timah, and Bukit Timah" I think you should wikilinks for those places
  • "the Downtown at Marina Bay" do we have a specific wikilink for this? Possibly Downtown Core?
  • "would serve Jalan Besar, Bedok" add wikilinks for them?
  • "minister Raymond Lim announced that LTA" should be "the LTA"
    • Fixed.
  • "would run 16.6 kilometres (10.3 mi) from Bukit Panjang" would link Bukit Panjang to the MRT/LRT station page; the LRT part of Bukit Panjang existed before the DTL was conceptualised
    • Done.
  • I hate to bring this up, but you have multiple paragraphs that start with "on date X, Y event"; I was told for Bartley MRT station's GAN that doing so would limit engagement with the reader. I'm aware that it's an inherent limitation with using newspapers or a mix of sources in general, but I would try to rearrange the beginning sentences of some paragraphs.
    • I understand.
  • Any information on when the LTA announced the number of stations for DTL1?
    • It's in 2007, but would be too complicated to clarify.
  • "the New Rail Financing Framework" perhaps provide a brief explanation of what the NRFF is?
  • "Businesses along the line interviewed by Today" would link Today (website) here
    • Done
  • "by Channel NewsAsia" would add a link here
    • Done
  • "Ridership on the DTL increased to 470,000" is this for weekdays only?
    • Seems to be weekday
  • "Slated to begin operations in 2035, DTL2e" "DTL2e" is used, but never defined
    • Fixed.
Network and operations
edit
  • "Sengkang and Punggol LRT lines" LRT is used, but never defined
    • Added as footnote.
  • The "interchange" column in the stations table has uncited information (ex: Tampines station's transport connections) that did not appear previously within the article
Infrastructure
edit
  • "The DTL's rolling stock consists of 92 three-car trains with four doors on each side of the carriage. An initial order for 73 Bombardier Movia C951 trains was placed for S$570.7 million (US$392.4 million). In March 2013, the LTA ordered an additional 15 trainsets from Bombardier for S$119.2 million (US$95.3 million)" where did the extra six trains come from?
  • Footnote f: "A joint venture between Bombardier and CNR Changchun Railway Vehicle Company." link CRRC Changchun Railway Vehicles for CNR Changchun Railway Vehicle Company?
    • Fixed.
  • "The trains are also equipped with regenerative braking" perhaps link Regenerative braking here?
    • Done.
  • "from CSR Zhuzhou Electric Locomotive Co. Ltd" we seem to have a link at CRRC Zhuzhou Locomotive
    • Done.
  • "Gemac Engineering Machinery" we seem to have an ILL at zh:中国国家铁路集团
    • Done.
  • "providing stabling, maintenance, operational and support facilities" other lists in this article has an Oxford comma, but this one doesn't; this should be consistent
    • Fixed.
  • "for maintenance materials, equipment and spare parts" same as above
    • Fixed
  • "originally awarded to Westinghouse Brake and Signal Holdings" would link Westinghouse Brake and Signal Company here
    • Fixed.
Culture
edit
  • " Stevens station, which has a depth of 34.22 metres (112.3 ft), has a stacked platform arrangement" would link Split platform here
    • Fixed.
  • "To reflect its location near Fort Canning Park" would add a link here
    • Fixed.
  • "as part of the Art-in-Transit programme" would link here
    • Done.
Lead
edit
  • "the line serves 35 stations, all of which are underground" this is repeated in the body, so I'm not sure why there is a citation here...
    • Fixed.
  • "At 41.9 kilometres (26.0 mi), the DTL is the longest fully underground and automated MRT line in Singapore" any way to include this in the body per WP:LEADCITE?
    • Fixed.

Finished initial review. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metalicat

edit

A few prose and consistency points. Had the pleasure of using this line to get around Singapore last month!

Lead
History — Planning
  • "The 40 km (25 mi) line would be built in three stages with 33 stations and was expected to be completed by 2018.": the operational figure given in the infobox is 41.9 km. If 40 km was the early planning estimate, "The line was planned at approximately 40 km" would make that clear.
  • "as accommodating higher-capacity trains was found to increase project costs by 30 per cent": found by whom? If LTA studies, "as LTA studies found that accommodating higher-capacity trains would increase project costs by 30 per cent".
History — Construction
  • "the 400 workers affected were reassigned or deported": could you confirm the source uses "deported" rather than "repatriated"? The two carry different meanings in Singaporean labour-law context.
    • The source says: More than 400 workers had been stranded by Alpine’s sudden collapse. The LTA worked with the Ministry of Manpower to help them too, by finding

new jobs for them or making arrangements to send them home. I think "repatriated" is the more accurate term.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alpine Bau paragraph: was DTL2's completion delayed only by the bankruptcy, or were there other contributing factors? The current phrasing implies the bankruptcy was the cause but doesn't quite say so.
History — Opening
  • "In interviews with Today, some businesses along the line expressed hopes of increased footfall but anticipated that the bulk of their patronage would continue to come from weekday office workers and regular weekend customers.": recommend trim to "Businesses along the line interviewed by Today expressed hopes of increased footfall."?
  • "Nevertheless, commuters interviewed by Channel NewsAsia praised the added convenience brought by DTL3.": "Commuters interviewed by Channel NewsAsia welcomed the added convenience of DTL3." avoids the editorial "nevertheless".
History — Extensions and new stations
  • "Following petitions from nearby residents advocating for the station's opening": the three citations are letters and opinion pieces. Were there formal petitions, or published calls? If the latter, "Following published calls from nearby residents for the station's opening".
Network and operations — Service
  • The MKBF paragraph gives figures of 8.15 million, 4.12 million, 2.787 million, and 8.131 million train-km across different periods and measures. Leading with the 12-month moving average (8.131 million in 2024 down to 2.787 million in 2025) and giving the quarterly figures as illustration would read more cleanly.
  • "the line's total travel time is 69 minutes": end-to-end Bukit Panjang to Expo?
Infrastructure — Rolling stock
  • "with features such as an ergonomic curved seat design and perch seats in the gangway for wider standing space": does the source describe the seats as "ergonomic", or is that the article's word? If the latter, "with features such as curved seats and perch seats in the gangway" is safer.
    All of my points have been addressed. Support. Metalicat (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reducing overall weight and electricity consumption by about 2,000 MWh per year": does the 2,000 MWh figure refer to electricity consumption only, or to both? A small rephrase would resolve it.
    • Source states: The train also has regenerative brakes that recover energy, and lightweight converters that make it lighter than other trains in Singapore. This means that it uses less electricity. Fleet-wide, this results in about 2,000 megawatt hours of electricity savings each year, which is enough to power about 430 four-room Housing Board flats for a year.

Metalicat (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Don't use fixed px size

Vacant0

edit

Will leave a review tomorrow. 09:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Is there a reason why there are citations in the lede? Are those claims disputed?
    • I thought claims like "longest" would need citations in the lead.
  • 56 citations are categorised as "reliable", while 77 are categorised as being "government". 45 unknown. Most articles seem to have a a mix of reliable secondary sources and primary government sources so we should follow the precedent that have been applied to other GAs/FAs in this category.
  • "Coloured blue on the rail map, the line serves 35 stations, all of which are underground." → "Coloured blue on the rail map, the line serves 35 underground stations".
    • Fixed.
  • "The BTL was planned to be a fully underground line serving Bukit Panjang, Upper Bukit Timah, and Bukit Timah to alleviate traffic congestion along the Bukit Timah and Dunearn Road corridor." Bukit Timah seems to repeat a lot in this sentence. Is it possible to cut it down, like: "The BTL was planned to be a fully underground line serving Bukit Panjang and the Upper Bukit Timah district to alleviate traffic congestion along the Dunearn Road corridor"? Tell me what do you think.
    • Rather leave it as such for now because these are place and road names.
  • "studying further extensions to the DTE, including an eastward extension to Kim Chuan Depot and a westward extension linking the line to the BTL." extension, extension, extension → "studying further additions to the DTE, including an eastward branch to Kim Chuan Depot and a westward link to the BTL."
    • Fixed.
  • "To construct Telok Ayer station, a temporary viaduct was built along Cross Street to replace the lanes closed for the station's construction." tautology → "To facilitate work on Telok Ayer station, a temporary viaduct was built along Cross Street to bypass closed traffic lanes."
    • Fixed.

I'm going to take another look later, even though I do not see any other major issues within the article. Most of my concerns are related to the History section. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the article another look and did not spot any other issues besides those from yesterday. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0: Did the above fixes.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

edit
  • I made some edits to the article. Feel free to revert if not helpful.
  • There are some sentences that, as a general interest reader with no knowledge of this before reading the article, I think might be too much detail for an article like this; some of these sentences made me think "Why should I care about this?". I've listed these sentences below, and perhaps can be considered for deletion:
  • "The DTL was hit by a 15-minute disruption on its opening day." Why is this significant to mention? Did this have something to do with the operations, or create some sort of backlash? If not, maybe delete it.
  • "A public preview for DTL2 was held on 5 December." I feel like this is routine of a station rail line opening and not significant to the article: in 100 years, will the reader care that there was a public preview of the station rail line?
  • "Those interviewed by The Straits Times said that the new extension had significantly reduced their travel times." Why should the reader care about what random people think? I think statistics about travel times are more important (and quantitative).
  • "In September 2017, religious leaders from the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) visited the DTL3 stations and offered prayers for workers and commuters." Why is this significant?
  • "The DTL3 open house was held on 15 October." Same as the above open house.
  • "On 30 December 2016, fares on the DTL were lowered to match the other lines with a "purely distance-based approach"." Per MOS:ATTRIBUTION, the person/organisation providing the quote needs to be stated in the article prose.
  • "Bridget Tracy Tan, June Yap, Patrick Chia, and Hanson Ho.": Is this June Yap? If so, wikilink.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I was the first reviewer at Talk:Downtown Line/GA1; though I do not intend to participate in the FA process, I'd like to point you to the GAN as at least one of your queries (that of including the delay on opening day) was read and rejected by the nominator over there ("not all openings are smooth sailing") Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:12, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Whyiseverythingalreadyused: Delays of a couple minutes on a mass transit line are pretty routine, so I am still unsure as to why this is significant for the reader to know that this happened on opening day. Either this should be removed, or its significance explained in the article (were officials worried about this delay? Was this the first of a regular pattern that emerged later?) Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720
    Done: rm'd interviews on reduced travel times, interfaith prayers, wikilinked June Yap
    Partly done: rewrote fare decrease, though attribution appears to have already existed in the following sentence
    Not done: opening day disruption, open houses
    Note: For the "not done" parts, I disclose that I perhaps had a COI towards retention as the first of two GA reviewers (the other is Epicgenius); feel free to implement them yourself if you find that I was giving undue weight Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: If I omit about the disruption, other reviewers might say everything was too perfect and smooth sailing. And the MRT network also has its fair share of breakdowns, much to everyone's chagrin, especially a few times on the DTL. As for the open houses, I still consider them part of the line's history. People in hundred years might wonder actually if we actually did open houses. (also why does Wikipedia have an article on wedding cakes?) And the IRO bit might be trivial, but still interesting as it highlights Singapore's racial and religious diversity.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ZKang123: When this sentence was omitted, did other reviewers say everything was too perfect? If not, then I would suggest that we have that discussion if it comes up. Unless something of significance happened at the open house, I do not think it should be included as it is a pretty routine thing to do. I don't think readers are going to wonder about it if it is not included, as why would they even think about an open house taking place? If the IRO is in the article to highlight Singapore's racial and religious diversity, then the article needs to explain how this event showcased that and why this IRO visit was significant. Most readers for this article want to know information about the Downtown Line, and the racial/religous implications will need to be explained if the sentence is included: readers will not pick up the implication that it highlights Singapore's diversity from this sentence alone. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I won't let the open house comment above hold up the FAC: happy to give additional thoughts if another reviewer comments on it. Editors may also consider adding additional images to sections that have the space to add them. Possible images could include: a map of planned extensions in "Extensions and new stations", a picture of Gali Batu Depot in "Depot", an image of an aspect of the signalling system in "Signalling" (like the control panel for the GoA4 automation, the CBTC moving block system, or a diagram of how it works. I wasn't able to find an image, so this might be harder to fulfil), and an image of the tactile system used in the stations for "Station facilities". Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

I shall take a look later this week. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell's Soup Cans

edit


Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the art history's most important painting series (Campbell's Soup Cans ◎ 4) by one of the history's most important painters (Andy Warhol ◎ 4). This is a WP:FFA (demoted in 2021) that I am trying to get reinstated. My goal is to shoot for a WP:TFA for Warhol's 100th birthday which is a little over 26 months away. In 2023 and 2025, I took shots at getting it reinstated. This time I have a co-nominator User:Twixister, who jumped into the article in February with a massive overhaul of the article removing 32,294 out of 111,823 bytes (28.9% reduction), which cut the article from 55030 to 30708 (44.2% reduction) characters of readable prose (9044 words to 4873 words, 46.1% reduction), leading to a huge back-and-forth. Now the article is stable at 45085 characters (7108 words).

Since the last FAC, the article has undergone the following reviews and discussions:

In addition, I did a bunch of research showing that WP:WPVA has not had much good fortune here at FAC and hoping that that the project could come together to restore this gold star: User:TonyTheTiger/Sandbox/Campbell's Soup Cans FAC issues. At some point thereafter Twixister jumped into the article. The project seems to think it is a good time to pursue this restoration. According to pageview stats User:Twixister is the number one editor by authorship and I am the number one editor by text added (P.S. I am not sure what the difference is). So I have dragged Twixister into this co-nomination.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

During the Feb revamp, User:Noleander volunteered to perform a PR, which was recently archived.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whonting

edit

Thanks Tony & Twixister for getting this here, plus all who helped this on the way. A few comments to get the ball rolling:

  • The infobox gives the year as 1961-1962, while MoMA gives it just as 1962.
  • the works marked a breakthrough for pop art can you tell me plainly what the breakthrough here is? I am skeptical that such a claim should be going in wikivoice: a breakthrough is necessarily positive, and it is not appropriate for wikivoice to be describing a development as good or bad under WP:VOICE and particularly :WP:AESTHETIC.
  • Warhol transformed everyday packaging into high art, prompting initial controversy but eventual acclaim This is opinion, and unclear: is it saying that the high art was the work, or the cans that you could buy in the supermarket became high art? Part of the confusion is that later you say "image of a commonplace supermarket product displayed as high art".
    • Warhol's works are high art that is presented in a gallery exhibition. You could take cans off of the shelf and put them in a display that makes them sculptural in a sense which would generally be a sort of high art. Whatever subject an artist presents in the painting medium is high art. This has always been the case. Before Warhol people bought fruit from a grocer or picked it off the tree and painted it as "still life" high art. It does not make fruit bought at a grocery high art. The presentation in any visual arts medium makes it high art. It was unusual prior to Warhol to make art out of items in commercial packaging. Fruit might have been a common still life subject, but it would have been less common to see high art presenting fruit in binding or packaging marked Chiquita, Del Monte Foods, or Dole plc. Warhol decided that commercial packaging was fair game for high art.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • complicating the work's legacy this is somewhat vague, against the guidance at MOS:DONTTEASE. In what way has it complicated the legacy?
  • The scope in the lead is well laid out. I am a bit ambivalent around the article apparently being about the original 32 works as well as variations, but the infobox only covering the former, but it's probably acceptable.
  • I don't like when the production process is put in background. It would be inappropriate for a film article to have filming and editing in a section titled "Background". inSomehow the works being exhibited today are in background.
  • "Warhol once said" I understand we are limited to the sourcing, but it would be really helpful here if we understood whether this was prospective or retrospective.
    I have now specified that the comment Warhol made was in 1961 as noted in the source to make the context explicit. I agree with that concern about framing in the Background section. I've addressed this by creating a dedicated Production section to cover the creation, and moved the retrospective and interpretive material into a Legacy section, where it better fits discussions of reception and longer-term influence. Twixister (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good work, happy with this. - Whonting 06:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • "Warhol was also influenced by" who are we saying before this he was influenced by?
  • "British painter Max Arthur Cohn" considering Cohn migrated to the US when he was two and our article describes him as British-American, I don't quite think "British" is accurate.
  • "As Warhol refined his serial methods" reads as somewhat repetitive given previous sentence
  • What in the source is supporting "which has since displayed them in various configurations, often as a grid arranged by the historical introduction dates of the soup flavors"? and "In June 1962, Warhol sent Irving Blum thirty-two 20-by-16-inch canvases"
  • The caption calls 1342 Lexington "Warhol's former home" -- because he moved or because he died? I think we can do better.
  • We say in background "Contrary to later confusion, the original works were not silkscreens but traced and painted canvases incorporating stamped details" and then in exhibitions "Though later often described as silkscreened, the original works were hand-painted". Several aspects, such as Warhol's absence from the Ferus Gallery exhibition are being repeated.
  • "Rather than immediate praise" this framing is heavyhanded; we get it, it later was well-received.
  • I wonder if we can reword that the paintings were indeed sold: you later only say people had a "claim" to them which appears less than ownership.
    • Sales in art galleries are a bit unusual in the sense that galleries like to show off that they have sold the latest really cool stuff. Thus, you might have paid for a work and not be able to take possession because the gallery wants to put a red dot (indicating it has sold the item) next to it on the walls of its gallery. People don't just put expensive art in a grocery bag and take it home. Often, they have to wait for the gallery to arrange for white glove packing and shipping. I have only purchased one piece of art from a gallery in my life, but it took 62 days for delivery to occur. I bought from Miami Art Week and I live in Chicago. In my case, the dealer removed the work from the art fair to be hung elsewhere for show for several weeks. My guess is that during the Ferus show, some people purchased works for in excess of modern day $1000 prices, but they hung in the gallery marked as sold during the run of the exhibition. Claim is probably a good word for the work that you have paid for in a gallery and await a time when it is convenient for the gallery dealer to arrange to give up possession of the work.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further reflection, to be fair, I should not assume that delivery took so long because they just wanted to show of the sale of my purchase. In all likelihood, there was surge pricing on white glove shipping and packing for several weeks following Miami Art Week. There could be legitimate business reasons for not shipping right away, although I don't think such reasons would have affected Campbell's Soup Cans.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The day after, actress Marilyn Monroe died" she died that day.
    • I also corrected the chronology to note that the exhibition ended on the day Marilyn Monroe died and that Warhol began working on her portraits shortly afterward, as stated in the source. In addition, I changed "initiating his shift toward celebrity imagery" to "further expanding his exploration of celebrity imagery," since Warhol wrote in Popism that he had already experimented with portrait of Troy Donahue and Warren Beatty before Monroe's death.Twixister (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "initiating his shift toward celebrity imagery" not supported by the source
  • Not required for FA, but a number of sources in "Book sources" aren't used (visible with User:Ucucha/HarvErrors) or could be linked at the Internet Archive (e.g. About modern art : critical essays, 1948-1997 and The films of Andy Warhol : catalogue raisonné, many more are possible). Particularly convenient for reviewers at FAC.
  • "The show had a seismic impact on the New York art world and helped cement Pop art's national prominence." The tone here is a bit too literary, and shouldn't be nicking the "seismic" imagery from the NYT.
    • I also revised "The show had a seismic impact on the New York art world and helped cement Pop art's national prominence" to "The exhibition had a major impact on the New York art world and helped establish Pop art as a nationally recognized movement." Twixister (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • What source is being used to verify "the show quickly generated debate about art, commerce, and mass production"?
    • The two subsequent sentences both have supporting facts with WP:ICs from Jack Smith (columnist) dated 2 weeks after the show opened.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • Imo the Jack Smith quotes don't support there being debate, rather than the gallery proprietor giving comments defending the works as serious. - Whonting 06:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
        • Jack Smith was a journalist for the Los Angeles Times, not a gallery proprietor. I also added the citation from Artforum by Henry Hopkins along with an additional contemporary news article. I removed the reference to mass production, although the sources do discuss the relationship between art and commerce in the works.Twixister (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leading to the famous label's origin in 1898" is confusing. Label as brand or label as packaging design? "The original label was inspired by the Cornell Big Red football team uniforms." was a later design rather than original.
  • "the Campbell's soup can label had not changed in the previous 50 years" reads like it had changed 50 years before, which is untrue. Whonting (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATTN User:Twixister, please split out your responses to respond to each item so that we can figure out what has been addressed and what has not.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATTN User:Whonting, please sign with time stamp.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not required under the FACR, but the archiving on sources like Choi 2012 and Liptak 2022 should be removed as they add nothing. In general, having convenience links point to ProQuest records is poor – they are less accessible than linking straight to a source, and lose aspects present in the original such as images, formatting, and corrections.
  • "Tensions resurfaced in 1967" were there tensions beforehand?
  • Meyer 2023 is an op-ed and shouldn't be cited for facts.
    • In the op-ed he identifies himself "As an art historian and Warhol scholar, I was asked to write an amicus brief on behalf of the Foundation." Anyone that the Warhol Foundation would request a Supreme Court Amicus Brief from is qualified to summarize either of the parties' positions, which is what this IC supports.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of Inspiration seems out of place, not referring to inspiration but production / variations
    • I have split the paragraph and WP:PRESERVEd the content in three separate locations
  • Campbell's tomato soup evoked both routine and memory, blending autobiography with mass production. This kind of analysis is inappropriate for wikivoice, as is the tone. Moreover, I don't really see it as directly supported by the source, or at least the Guardian one.
  • "Warhol later recalled a personal connection to Campbell's tomato soup" Warhol, who often lied about his biography, should have MOS:SAID applied more stringently here around "recalled". Indeed, on his reminiscence that "Many an afternoon at lunchtime Mom would open a can of Campbell's for me", Gopnik says "His actual childhood didn't involve... cans of Campbell's Soup". I see this is being used to support "At times, the family could not even afford to splurge on Campbell's soup" -- Gopnik makes clear that when they didn't have watered-down ketchup, they were having homemade rather than canned soup. The same in the next line "regarded as doubtful that his family had Campbell's soup often" -- the source is essentially saying never.
  • "Julia was a soupmaker" homemaker?
  • In general this section appears quite credulous. Reviewing the sources, a more detached approach would be more accurate, reporting what was said, what the evidence for it was so on. Closer adherence to MOS:SAID would help. I can elaborate if needed.
  • "Despite speculation" doesn't appear to be in the source
  • We are again duplicating content found in other sections as we discuss the Campbell's later commercial relationship.
  • Can you provide a quote from the source supporting "intimate reference point", and explain what we are trying to say with it?
    • One of the two sources is behind a paywall. It may be that the adoption of the brand identity on personal fashion makes it intimate. I think both in the 60s and around the 50th anniversary there were several personal fashion elements (dress, Vans, and Chuck Taylors), that make this point relevant. Would a quote or a rephrasing be more relevant, if either is necessary?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I would need to see the quote to make that assessment. It appears to be accessible via Proquest, although I don't have access to the Wikipedia Library so I can't say that particular Proquest archive is accessible. Whonting (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        "intimate reference point" has a public WP:IC and a private one. I am not sure what is supporting the phrase. Possibly 1. "Before the end of the year Campbell’s Soup Cans was so on-trend that Manhattan socialites were wearing soup can-printed dresses to high-society events.", 2. "By the time the 1964 exhibition The American Supermaket came around, he was selling individual Soup Cans for $1500. The American Supermarket even sold real cans of Campbells Soup, signed by Warhol, and sold them for $6.50 each." both from Sothebys Otherwise, I don't know how to access the WWD article. That is a post-revamp source. User:Twixister must have access.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • De Kooning does use soup as a metaphor, but when we say this, we immediately justify it with him using it as a simile. "imagery" would cover both.
  • "there is scholarly opinion" in the source, this appears to be one notable scholar.
  • The treatment in Interpretation and analysis is troubling. To begin, I don't know what is intended by distinguishing interpretation and analysis. The first sentence opens on "Warhol embraced ordinary consumer culture", which is contradicted directly by Bourdon 1989, who reacts to audiences asking "was he for or against mass production, consumerism, and advertising" with "it was not Warhol's style to take positions". The sentence itself, saying that Warhol "believed Abstract expressionism had deliberately ignored the vitality of modern life" does not appear to be in the source.
  • Pausing as I am seeing a few issues with WP:TSI. Have a go at ensuring text-source integrity is achieved and I'll continue looking over. And again, well done on this article as it stands. Whonting (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Noleander

edit
  • I'm thinking of reviewing this, since I reviewed it twice before: the prior FAC, and a PR. I see that the reviewer above, User:Whonting, has paused their review, pending resolution of some text-to-source issues. And nominator User:TonyTheTiger posted a note above about additional sources (such as book Art and Appetite: American Painting, Culture, and Cuisine). Can the nominators provide a status update that might help potential reviewers decide whether to proceed or not? Any assessment of the magnitude of changes that might be made to the article in the near future? Of course, edits to an article are permitted, even encouraged, during FAC, but at some point the magnitude of the changes may indicate that reviewers should be notified. For example, a couple of years ago, one of my nominations was in the middle of FAC, and I posted a note telling reviewers: "Please wait seven days while I integrate these two new sources into the article". Then I posted a note when I was done. Noleander (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is that I had thought User:Twixister would be responding to issues. As I think you may be aware, Twixister revamped the article. So I feel that certain issues would be best addressed by the revamp editor, but Twixister last stated on June 1 an intent to return to the article, but seems to have checked out of this nomination. I believe that the text-source integrity issues are artifacts of the revamp. I have fully integrated Art and Appetite content as symbolized by my 22:25, 2 June 2026 edit. I have addressed most issues above but left a few that Twixister should best address. Should I or User:Whonting highlight the remaining issues? Maybe Twixister would rather revisit the TSI one-on-one with me like we went through the revamp previously.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
@TonyTheTiger: If there are two co-nominators, they both need to be cooperating and responsive. If co-nominator Twixister is no longer interested in participating in the the FAC, they should come out and say that; then you need to decide if you want to take 100% responsibility for the nomination. That would entail reading all the sources that Twixister relied on, and validating 100% of the facts that Twixister added into the article. Until that is ironed-out, it is a bit unfair to ask reviewers to spend time reviewing the article, would you agree? Noleander (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my responsiveness has not met expectations during this FAC. To be candid, I have found the process somewhat overwhelming. With multiple reviewers commenting in different sections, it is not always clear which issues require my attention unless I am directly pinged.
Regarding my role, I undertook the major reorganization of the article because I felt the previous structure made it difficult for readers to follow. The article contained valuable information, but it was scattered across sections, difficult to navigate, and contained a number of inaccuracies and redundancies. My goal was to create a clearer, more coherent article that would allow readers to better understand the significance of the series. I believe the result is a substantial improvement, and other editors have expressed similar views.
That said, I approached this project as an enthusiast interested in improving the article. I did not anticipate becoming a principal participant in a Featured Article nomination, nor do I consider myself the lead nominator. The FAC was initiated by TonyTheTiger, who expressed the goal of bringing the article to Featured Article status in advance of Warhol's centennial in 2028. Given that, I think it is reasonable for TonyTheTiger to determine how he wishes to proceed with the nomination and whether he wishes to assume primary responsibility for it.
As for source verification, every substantive addition I made was supported by citations. I have not introduced uncited material, and any editor reviewing my contributions can readily consult the sources I provided. I am happy to continue assisting with questions about my edits and helping to address issues as they arise. However, I do not believe the FAC should be paused solely because I have not responded to every comment immediately, particularly when the information needed to verify my contributions is already available in the article's sourcing.
I remain supportive of efforts to improve the article and of its eventual promotion to Featured Article status. I will continue to help where I can, but I do not think it is necessary for the nomination to hinge on my becoming the primary point of contact for every aspect of the article. Twixister (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I am understanding correctly
    1. User talk:Whonting believes that issues remain unresolved, especially some WP:TSI
    2. User:Twixister is a bit overwhelmed by the FAC process but isn't clear on what needs to be addressed thinking that their editorial contributions are not the issue as TSI goes
    3. User:TonyTheTiger thinks TSI issues from Twixister's revamp are the only remaining issue
    4. User:Noleander is not sure if stepping in while TSI issues exist is worthwhile.
  • How about Whonting strike all resolved issues or highlight all unresolved issues, paying special attention to TSI issues.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • TonyTheTiger I have replied to some comments which I would like follow-up on. Apart from those, I would like to hear back on the comments which haven't been replied to, and I would like the rest of the article to be checked over for TSI issues before I go through as I don't want to waste my time. Noleander, I'm happy for you to start reviewing if you feel inclined, and especially if you don't think the issues I see with TSI are serious enough to justify a pause. It would probably be good to do a review of unused journal articles anyway, which I can have a look over as well with you, my lack of access to TWL notwithstanding. Whonting (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that would be helpful. I did a quick scan of the article and it appears that every sentence is cited, so I'm not seeing the TSI issue. Twixister (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @Twixister, just confirming we're on the same page. When I say TSI issues, I am saying that every sentence has a citation at the end ([1] etc) but that the contents of the citation don't necessarily support the sentence they are attached to. Is this also your understanding? Whonting (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a WP:IC is required for every sentence, but every fact needs to have a supporting IC nearby.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest J. King

edit


Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Fleet Admiral Ernest King, the second most senior US Navy officer in World War II. This nomination is the result of the recent drive to upgrade vital articles and this is a level 5 vital article. Unfortunately, I was unable to nominate it in time owing to other commitments. I already worked on Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, the most senior naval officer, but this article was more difficult. King has three biographies, all fairly good, but coming to grips with King requires an understanding of the United States Navy. I hope I have been able to do it and King justice. The article had passed an A-class review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

edit

Metalicat

edit

Reviewing as a non-specialist; the points below are general observations and questions rather than specialist objections, so please push back where I have misunderstood.

Lead

  • The final sentence of paragraph 3 was hard for me to follow: On the Combined Chiefs, King advocated means to attain speedy victory in Europe First in order to execute the final reconstruction strategy for global stabilization through the central Pacific War maritime offensive in Asia. I struggled to parse "final reconstruction strategy for global stabilization" as a non-specialist. Would something like On the Combined Chiefs, King supported the "Europe first" strategy as a means to swift victory in Europe, with the central Pacific maritime offensive to follow as the path to victory over Japan work? Open to a different formulation if I have misread the underlying claim.
    I think is is too easy to misread. I have changed it to "On the Combined Chiefs, King advocated a speedy victory in Europe under the "Europe first" strategy, a maritime offensive in the Central Pacific, and assistance to China in Asia" which I think is clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Europe First" appears in the lead and the War in Europe section but is not wikilinked, and the capitalisation differs from the Wikipedia article at Europe first (lowercase). I would suggest wikilinking on first mention and matching the lowercase form with quotation marks: the "Europe first" strategy. - If this is indeed the correct way.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never preoccupied with land operations, King stood out as the paramount voice in advancing the naval view of global strategy. "Paramount" reads strong in Wikipedia's voice; if this is paraphrasing a specific historian, in-text attribution might help.
    Deleted "paramount". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • King hoped to find adventure, seeking orders to the cruiser Cincinnati: the participial structure was slightly awkward to me; King hoped to find adventure and sought orders to the cruiser Cincinnati would split it cleanly.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, he upset many superiors by being cocky, perhaps excessively confident, and certainly uninterested in fitting in...: the "perhaps excessively confident" parenthetical reads as an authorial hedge rather than source-attributed characterisation. Is this Buell's or Kohnen's own qualifier, or is it Wikipedia's?
    Buell: "In addition to his drinking, King's tempestuous behavior repeatedly provoked his senior officers. What King regarded as forthrightness, they regarded as stubbornness, belligerence and arrogant insubordination." Two examples follow, including the one with Rodman.
    Kohnen: "Drunk and missing his cap upon appearing at the quarterdeck with his collar undone, the executive officer on Cincinatti, Lt. Cmdr. Hugh Rodman, threatened to see King Dismissed from the service. Rodman barked a series of insults, which prompted King to respond impertinently"
    I had originally wrote: "Bouts of heavy drinking led to King being put under hatches, and a forthright and arrogant attitude bordering on insubordination led to adverse comments in his fitness reports" but another editor changed it to the text above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

World War I

  • King was the last to continue this tradition.: last what? Last serving officer? Last to do so in the US Navy? A couple of extra words would help.
    The source says: "paradoxically, a very junior officer who was a fervent Anglophobe -- was the only one of them who persisted all his life in wearing that affrontive jacket pocket hankie memento." Re-worded. (The hands in packets stance in the image is also in emulation of Beatty.)Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the infobox portrait with that of David Beatty, 1st Earl Beatty. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet

  • Legend has it that King said: "When they get into trouble, they call for the sons-of-bitches.": "Legend has it" is informal; An often-repeated story holds that King said... or similar might fit Wikipedia voice better.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dauntless cost paragraph: the Roosevelt quotation about "Saint George" needed a footnote or aside for me to realise this referred to Marshall. A non-specialist might miss it.
    Added name in brackets. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Chiefs of Staff

  • King had thirty-two official meetings with Roosevelt at the White House in 1942, but only eight in 1943, nine in 1944 and just one in 1945.: striking statistic, but the article doesn't tell the reader what to make of it. Was this a function of the JCS structure, of changing presidential attention, of King falling out of favour, or of wartime travel patterns? Even one sentence of interpretation would help.

Relations with the British

  • Such a characterization failed to reflect the historical understanding and deeper commitment King demonstrated as a strategist...: this reads as Wikipedia voice doing rebuttal work; attributing it explicitly to Kohnen would strengthen the framing.

That is what I have. Happy to be corrected on any of these. A very interesting article. Metalicat (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

edit
  • Image caption "King stands behind Roosevelt at the Octagon Conference in Quebec in September 1944." Some readers may not know what Roosevelt looks like; and even those that do have to pick 1 of 2 people who are kinda behind Roosevelt . Consider "Standing 3rd (4th?) from left" or similar.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When he examined the war plan in the safe, he found it was for a war with Mexico." - Some may read "the war plan" to mean the ship's current, valid plan. Consider rewording to "When he examined the safe, he found an old plan for a war with Mexico." or similar.
    I was the current, valid war plan. Just not for the right war. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... had Willson retired in August 1942 due to heart conduction " Is that supposed to be "a heart condition"? Even if the source says "conduction" (meaning an electrical issue with the heart) no reader will know that, so consider a wikilink or more understandable term.
    Changed to "due to a heart condition". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source details? Patterson, William H. Mr. Science. p. 365. Can more details be added (e.g. publisher name? external link?) so curious readers can track-down the book?
    I cannot find this book. Removed the quote, replaced with something I can source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this big quote essential for the article?
    He expounded on the theory that America's weakness was representative democracy: "Historically, despite Washington's (and others') experienced and cogent advice to make due preparations for war, it is traditional and habitual for us to be inadequately prepared. This is the combined result of a number of factors, the character of which is only indicated: democracy, which tends to make everyone believe that he knows it all; the preponderance (inherent in democracy) of people whose real interest is in their own welfare as individuals; the glorification of our own victories in war and the corresponding ignorance of our defeats (and disgraces) and of their basic causes; the inability of the average individual (the man in the street) to understand the cause and effect not only in foreign but domestic affairs, as well as his lack of interest in such matters. Added to these elements is the manner in which our representative (republican) form of government has developed as to put a premium on mediocrity and to emphasize the defects of the electorate already mentioned."
    That's a large paragraph. It looks like the source is a primary source: a work by King, correct? Meaning a biographer did not quote that passage? (1) The article should be in encyclopedia's voice, quote only if it is super important; (2) if no 2ndary source emphasiszes that quote, it is sorta OR for a WP editor to select it for special emphasis; (3) the article is rather large, so any quotes should be small, unless there is a compelling reason. Consider replacing the quote with a paraphrase in encyclopedia's voice.
    The quote is from King's essay. It is the subject of commentary in the secondary sources. Rather than quote them or editorialise in Wikipedia's voice, I chose to use King's own words. The problem is that what critics regarded as shocking twenty years ago now sounds more like common sense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing: "Stories of and about the popular image of King often obscured the remarkable history underlying the pivotal events, which later shaped his command persona within the context of the U.S. Naval services in his era. Fidelity to the service also required fidelity within the context of the service monoculture. King's wife and seven children usually accompanied him to his various assignments ashore. King purchased several homes, along the way."
    1. I'm not sure what this is trying to tell me: "Stories of and about the popular image of King often obscured the remarkable history underlying the pivotal events" It's as if a key sentence after this have been deleted. Can some words be added to explain what was so "remarkable" and what "obscured" what?
    2. I have no idea what this is telling me: "Fidelity to the service also required fidelity within the context of the service monoculture." Can it be re-worded in plainer terms so lay reader can understand?
    3. So what? "King purchased several homes, along the way." Isn't that common for military personnel, at least ones that can afford it? Is the article trying to tell the reader that King kept ownership of all the home and accumulated a lot of real estate wealth? In any case, consider adding words to explain why this sentence is significant.
    Deleted this paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... In progress ... Noleander (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A.Cython

edit

Overall an excellent written biography of an important navy officer in WWII. I have some minor comments from a casual reader.

A.Cython(talk) 04:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I found King a difficult subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

John Cecil Russell

edit


Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A late-Victorian British cavalry officer who rose to prominence in the Third Anglo-Ashanti War. During the Anglo-Zulu War he was badly affected by the British defeat at Isandlwana and was removed from active duty. He went on to command his regiment and retired as major-general. I previously nominated this in January but it unfortunately timed out so trying again, I've added a couple of details to the article since but nothing major - Dumelow (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging HJ Mitchell, SchroCat, Peacemaker67 and Hawkeye7 who were kind enough to review (and support) the last nomination - Dumelow (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

edit

Agree that article is in good shape and source and image reviews are still current. I went looking to find if Evening Despatch (fn 80) should pipe to Birmingham Mail and found the article in question in question at , so you can link to it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley

edit

Booking my place. More tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 20:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a handful of exceedingly minor drafting points:

  • "Equerry in Waiting … an Extra Equerry" – not sure why these job titles are capitalised when, e.g., "aide-de-camp" and "pages of honour" are not.
I get tripped up by WP:JOBTITLE quite a bit, decapitalised all these.
  • "Prince Edward acceded to the throne … Prince Edward's accession" – I can't remember seeing the future Edward VII referred to as "Prince Edward" anywhere else. It is accurate, of course, but it looks decidedly odd. One might expect "the Prince of Wales".
Changed both of these to "Prince of Wales"
  • "benefitted from the general's patronage" – "benefitted" is not wrong but "benefited" is preferable: see the current edition of Fowler, p. 104: benefited is the recommended spelling of the past tense and past participle of the verb benefit. The Oxford English Dictionary admits only "benefited", although Chambers admits both forms.
Changed to benefited
  • "mentioned in despatches" – isn't the normal form "mentioned in dispatches"? It is certainly how the phrase is spelled in our Wikipedia article.
The British military (and the London Gazette in which mentions are published) continues to use "Mentioned in Despatches" , I presume a carry over from an old spelling
  • "Sekhukhune had refused to accept British rule following their annexation" – "their" referring to whom? Grammatically it doesn't belong with "British rule".
I removed "following their annexation" and added "recently-annexed" before the first mention of Transvaal which I think should resolve this
  • "no obligation to serve outside of Natal" – is the "of" needed?
Removed
  • "invaluable to him as an advisor" – curious Americanism: one might expect the traditional BrE "adviser"
I'm British but for some reason always use "advisor", but not particular preference. Have switched to "adviser".
  • "daughter of Reverend Charles Thornhill" – needs a definite article before "Reverend".
Added

That's all from me. I'll look in again and hope to be able to add my support. Tim riley talk 09:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim riley. Thanks for your review and correction of a couple of typos in the article, I've responded to your comments above - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It is a good read, of suitable length, balanced, widely referenced from sources old and new and decently illustrated (though the miracle-workers at the Graphics Lab may be able to improve both the photographs if you ask). Meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I have posted a request over at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop - Dumelow (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. File:The_Zulu_War;_The_Intrenched_Position_at_Rorke's_Drift_(1_%26_2)_merged_and_cropped.jpg has a template error that should be corrected. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I think. The Graphics Lab also came back to my request and retouched the two portraits - Dumelow (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

27th Vanier Cup

edit


Nominator(s): TBJ (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After a long break, I've returned to work my best to get this article into featured status. As previously stated in the original archived review, the article is about the 27th Vanier Cup, which was setted between two university teams from Canada, Wilfrid Laurier and Mount Allison, to determine the 1991 edition of the Vanier Cup It took place in the Skydome (Now Rogers Centre), in Toronto, Ontario, on November 30th, 1991. The plan is to turn this page, which was once a stub, into a featured status and put it on TFA for 11/30/26, for the game's 35th anniversary. This was originally peer reviewed by two individuals, Arconning and Z1720, who helped a lot in the process of the page. Every response will be directed with sincerity because I want to work hard to get this passed. Let's do this! TBJ (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RandomEdits

edit

Hi TBJ, I see you're in a similar boat as me in that we've both submitted a FAC about a week ago and not got any responses yet. If you could have a look at mine that'd be greatly appreciated, but either way I'll be reviewing this over the next few days to see if we can get the ball rolling here. :) RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the late response, I had a lot of work and since I didn't get much traction, I didn't go on Wikipedia for a bit. I will be reading all responses now! @RandomEditsForWhenIRemember TBJ (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ref check
edit
  • Initial comments: It is nice to see you've taken snippets of the Newspapers refs so anyone can view these. I know a few reviewers take a little umbridge with the "via" attribute in the cite templates, but I think in this case it's fine since you've consistently used them.
  • www.communitystories.ca looked out of place for a website attribute, I've changed it to Digitial Museums Canada: Community Stories
  • I'm afraid you need to be consistent in wikilinking (or not doing so) the newspaper for each ref.
  • Could refs 1-3 be added to the body of text rather than the lede? I didn't spot anything there that felt like it couldn't be referenced later.
  • Refs 2 and 33 are the same I believe?

On to the actual refs check; this table lists 21 random passages from throughout the article (32.8% of 64 total passages). These passages contain 22 inline citations (32.4% of 68 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #LetterSourceArchiveStatusNotes
The game kicked off at 3 p.m. EST, with Mount Allison receiving the opening kickoff from placekicker Pat O'Leary. Wilfrid Laurier scored first with a punt single by O'Leary and a 36-yard field goal by Spiros Anastasakis, before running back Andy Cecchini capped a drive with a touchdown run to give the Golden Hawks an 11-point lead. Mount Allison answered with a 38-yard field goal by Eric Deegan, but trailed by seven points at halftime. In the third quarter, Laurier capitalized on a Mounties fumble when Cecchini scored his second touchdown of the game, then caught a 20-yard pass from quarterback Bill Kubas for another, extending the lead by twenty points. The Mounties responded with a trick play as running back Grant Kearney rushed for a touchdown, cutting the deficit to 24–11 after three quarters. In the fourth quarter, quarterback Sean Hickey connected with running back Mark Huys on a 38-yard touchdown pass, and Deegan's conversion narrowed the margin to 24–18. Laurier's offense stalled late, but O'Leary added a single in the final minute to secure a 25–18 victory for the Golden Hawks.
3newspapers.comweb.archive.org Yes
and the Vanier Cup itself eventually began rotating host cities instead of being fixated in Toronto. In 2003, the 40th Vanier Cup was hosted by Hamilton at Ivor Wynne Stadium.
7newspapers.comweb.archive.org Yes
The loss was the fourth of the season for Laurier, ending their season at a .500 winning percentage. Laurier players and coaches entered the off-season to improve from the year before, and were voted the No. 7 team in the country in the annual CIAU preseason poll.
9newspapers.comweb.archive.org ?I don't see anything there covering their previous season's winning percentage.
which was the 40th win in Rich Newbrough's tenure at WLU, and the Toronto Varsity Blues, 18–0.
13newspapers.comweb.archive.org ?I don't see anything for Newbrough's 40th win
After a dominant 42–9 victory over the York Yeomen,
15newspapers.comweb.archive.org Yes
upsetting No. 1 ranked Western, 13–12,
18newspapers.comweb.archive.org Yes
After the win against the Mustangs, the polls awarded Wilfrid Laurier No. 1 in the CIAU rankings heading into the championship game.
20newspapers.comweb.archive.org Yes
In 1990, the Mounties had a bounce-back season, winning 5 contests in 6 games, tying themselves with the Saint Mary's Huskies for first place in the conference.
23newspapers.comweb.archive.org Yes
The following week, the two teams played each other for the AUAA conference championship game, with the Huskies defeating the Mounties, yet again, by a score of 43–8, ending Mount Allison's season.
25newspapers.comweb.archive.org Yes
On November 2, the Mounties defeated Saint Mary's, 24–21, clinching the #1 seed of the AUAA.
30newspapers.comweb.archive.org Yes
The 1991 Vanier Cup kicked off at 3 p.m. EST on November 30, 1991, at the SkyDome, in Toronto. A crowd of 30,191 people attended the game in person,
33anewspapers.comweb.archive.org Yes
Mount Allison won the coin toss and elected to receive. Wilfrid Laurier kicked off to the Mounties to begin the game.
36bd2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.netweb.archive.org ?See below - might be struggling with the pdf's format but I don't see the coin toss mentioned?
During the third quarter, the Mounties squandered a fumble on their own 21-yard line, as Wilfrid Laurier's linebacker Marty Robinson pounced on the ball at the Laurier's 98 yard-line. The next play after, Kubas handed the ball off to Cecchini again for their second touchdown of the game. Wide receiver Ralph Spoltore of the Golden Hawks attempted to do a fake field goal however were stopped by the 1-yard line, keeping the score at 17–4. Later on in the quarter, on the 8th play of the drive, while 2nd and 12, Kubas completes a 20-yard pass to Cecchini once more for their third touchdown of the game. Anastasakis drilled an extra point conversion the play after, extending the Golden Hawks' lead to 24–4. However, near the end of the quarter, at the Allison's 35-yard line, quarterback Sean Hickey throws a bullet to wide receiver Sonny LaCroix who gains 37 yards on the drive. On the last play of the quarter, Hickey fakes themselves holding on to the football while running back Grant Keaney takes it from Mounties' offensive lineman Mike Jardine and takes it all the way down the field for a touchdown. Deegan converted on the extra point soon after to put Allison 24–11 after 3 quarters.
36ed2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.netweb.archive.org Yes
The fourth quarter began with Laurier's defensive back Lonny Taylor advancing the ball from the 15-yard line to the 43. However, the Golden Hawks were unable to convert on that drive. On a 2nd and 10 drive, Kubas threw an interception to Mounties' linebacker Dave Luna, allowing Mount Allison to drive the ball down the field, with Hickey gaining many yards from running. A few plays later, Hickey finds running back Mark Huys wide open on the right side of the field for a 38-yard touchdown, with Deegan converting once more on the extra point. This made the score 24–18 in favour of the Golden Hawks. Later in the quarter, Kubas handed it off to Cecchini who drove the ball for 40 yards. After a few more running attempts from Cecchini and Brenner, O'Leary punts the football 24 yards out on, once again, another failed play by the Golden Hawks. On the next possession, 2nd and 9, at the Mounties' 18-yard line, Sean Hickey dodges a sack and throws a 32-yard completed pass to running back Guy Messervier. However, a blunder on communication by Hickey costed them as they were sacked on 3rd down, turning possession around to Laurier. After multiple attempts to run down the field, the Golden Hawks settled on a single by O'Leary for a 25–18 lead with 50 seconds to play in the quarter. Driving up the field, Mount Allison had one last chance to tie the game. However, after a sack on Hickey, the Mounties produced another fake play up to Keaney but fails to reach the 1st down line, falling 6 yards short. The possession was turned over on downs, allowing Laurier to kneel the football and win the Vanier Cup.
36fd2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.netweb.archive.org Yes
It was later surpassed by Don Blair in the 31st Vanier Cup.
40newspapers.comweb.archive.org Yes
At a statistic standpoint, the Golden Hawks surpassed or tied most outcomes against the Mounties, scoring more first downs, touchdowns, rushing yards, total offense and committed less fumbles.
41cnewspapers.comweb.archive.org Yes
Despite Mount Allison losing the game, quarterback Sean Hickey won Offensive Player of the Game honors while linebacker George Wright wins the Defensive Player of the Game award.
42newspapers.comweb.archive.org Yes
With the next pick, Calgary also selected Laurier's defensive back Tim Bisci.
43bnewspapers.comweb.archive.org Yes
Wilfrid Laurier entered the 1992 season with hopes of following up its victory in the 27th Vanier Cup with another national championship. The Laurier's regular-season performance improved slightly from 1991, as they won an extra regular-season game against York.
47newspapers.comweb.archive.org Yes
However, Laurier's dream to repeat falls short as they were upset in the OUA Semifinals by Western, 34–31, at Seagram Stadium.
49newspapers.comweb.archive.org Yes
No text found: citation may be in an infobox or table
36gd2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.netweb.archive.org ?Nearly all good - I couldn't find anything about the coin toss though? Might just be me struggling with the pdf
41dnewspapers.comweb.archive.org Yes

Mostly looking good, just a few questions RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Point #1: Thank you boss.
  • Point #2: Thank you boss for making the change.
  • Point #3: I was informed that you could link the first-use of links then keep it non-linked as long as it was mentioned once and it was the most recent citation, if that is what you're referring to.
  • Point #4: Questioning the Point; Would you much rather prefer that I place it during the fourth quarter section for Ref 1 and 3? Ref 2 looks to be mildly fine since it was mentioning the ratings.
  • Point #5: Thank you for pointing that boss.
I will make a separate comment on the box you mentioned above, thank you.
@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember TBJ (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will be looking forward for making sure the references match your concerns. I am currently finishing an assignment for work that is due by the end of the week so I should be done hopefully by this weekend. TBJ (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TBJ! These look fine to me now. I'll start adding comments on the prose tomorrow. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

edit

Lede

  • 'and deciding game' -> and the deciding game.
  • I think the game's score is well covered by the rest of the article and so the ref can be removed.
  • "With the win, Wilfrid Laurier clinched the 1991 national championship, the team's first in its history." I think "clinched the 1991 national championship," since this is redundant with the knowledge they won the match. So something like "This was the first national championship Wilfrid Laurier won in their team history." is sufficient.
  • "For his performance in the game, Wilfrid Laurier wide receiver Andy Cecchini was named a recipient of the Teddy Morris Memorial Trophy," If someone had to win the trophy, "named the year's recipient" probably works better.
  • I think the overview of the match is fine here, though I will admit I don't read many FA match articles. It seems to match what I've seen on pages like 2003 Insight Bowl though, perhaps one for a later reviewer to weigh in on.
  • Like ref 1, ref 3 can probably be referenced elsewhere in the page.

Road to the Vanier Cup

  • The intro is somewhat clunky to read through in my eyes, I would look to tighten this up a bit more. For example, combining the first two sentences to something like "Under the 1991 playoff format, the two finalists reached the Vanier Cup by winning the national semifinals, which at the time consisted of the Churchill Bowl and Atlantic Bowl."
  • Likewise, I think you can remove "At the time".
  • Everything beyond 1991 doesn't need to be included either since the events of the 27th Cup don't care about them.
  • All the text before we jump to 2002 doesn't appear to be sourced?

Wilfrid Laurier

  • There's a lot of informal phrasing here. "greatly surpassed its expectations", "finding themselves", "were hammered by their rivals," "blowing out", "cinderella run" etc. Phrases like 'dominate' are fine.
  • "The following three weeks saw explosion of as Laurier routed the McMaster Marauders, 37–14," I'm not sure what this means. In general so far there's been a fair few sentences where it looks like words are missing.
  • "Wilfrid Laurier had greatly surpassed its expectation as the No. 7 ranked team in the country, winning their first four games of the 1991 season, starting with them defeating Guelph, 27–23 at Seagram Stadium, where wide receiver Andy Cecchini sets the OUAA's career rushing record" This sentence should be split up if possible. "sets" is also the wrong tense.
  • "In Week 5, Wilfrid Laurier faced off against the Western Mustangs, who were undefeated as well, losing 56–37 at J. W. Little Memorial Stadium" -> In Week 5, Wilfrid Laurier lost to the undefeated Western Mustangs 56–37 at J. W. Little Memorial Stadium. There's a few sentences here that could likewise be trimmed.
  • "Newbrough, was named CIAU Coach of the Year, the second coach in team history to be honoured up to that point, after Tuffy Knight." No need for a comma after Newbrough. Tuffy isn't mentioned in the ref.

Mount Allison

  • The talk about Allison's 1990 could be summed up more succinctly since that doesn't directly effect the 1991 run. A few tense issues appear again (eg "They both play a tiebreaker")
  • It would be nice if possible to include some insight from either the players or coaches. Are there any comments or quotes that could be included here?
  • Best to swap that #1 seed to number 1.
  • To summarise for both teams' sections, this bit currently reads more informally than I'd like and uses a lot of promotional language that probably isn't the best fit for an encyclopaedia page; the tone is more similar to a sports article at the moment. I would suggest trimming some of the game-by-game detail and replacing the more informal parts with more neutral prose.

Game summary

  • A crowd of 30,191 people attended the game in person,[2] and was estimated to have over 600 thousand people watched the game's television broadcast on TSN.[2] This is nearly the same phrasing as the lede at the moment (also you can remove the lede's ref for this as well since you reference the audience count here).
  • "a play that they scored a touchdown on by running back Andy Cecchini from Laurier's 99-yard line on 3rd and goal including a point conversion," I'm not a football expert but I can't follow this. Laurier scored from a run from their own line?
  • "The second quarter was promising for Mount Allison." Remove. Let the reader decide this since you're citing a primary source.
  • "who recovered a fumble off of Laurier's slotback Craig Brenner who ran into their team's first down line as Mounties' defensive back John Kosempei returned the football 32 yards." I can't follow this.
  • This proved to be crucial. This is also editorial.
  • converts on a -> converted on a
  • "squandered a fumble" Teams don't "squander" fumbles; they commit or lose them
  • "Wide receiver Ralph Spoltore of the Golden Hawks attempted to do a fake field goal however were stopped by the 1-yard line," "he was stopped" perhaps?
  • "Hickey fakes themselves holding on to the football while running back Grant Keaney takes it from Mounties' offensive lineman Mike Jardine and takes it all the way down the field for a touchdown" This is a really big run on sentence. At the very least a few commas are needed.
  • "A few plays later, Hickey finds running back Mark Huys wide open on the right side of the field for a 38-yard touchdown, with Deegan converting once more on the extra point." Tense
  • "costed them"
  • "one last chance to tie the game" again, journalistic
  • "a blunder on communication by Hickey" I can't see in the ref where this is attributed to a communication fail?
  • There are more issues here, but to summarise: To me, this feels like a very long play-by-play summary of the match, which I could already get from the source you provided. It reads fairly repetitively, and in my opinion focuses too much on the details that aren't too important. This isn't helped by the tense issues and other grammar issues, and similar to the above sections I think another audit is required to make the text less informal. As it stands, I was struggling to find this part engaging unfortunately. That being said, I quite like the scoring summary table you include below it.

I'm very sorry, but while there's another section I don't think I'm able to support this being approved to FA at this time. There's quite a lot of issues I found during one read through here, with I think the main one is that it comes off as more journalistic than encyclopaedic currently. This by itself isn't a criticism, but is a problem when aiming for FA status.

Have you considered taking this page through the GA process? I noticed in your peer review Z1720 suggested you take it down that route first; with some brush-up work this should be able to reach that, and they might be able to give you some pointers from there (or suggest a suitable sports FA mentor to help).

No offense taken if you'd like to ping one of the more sports-oriented FA reviewers for a second opinion on this. Best of luck with future work on this page.

Reviewed version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=27th_Vanier_Cup&oldid=1358446187

Oppose RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... TBJ (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mairzy Doates

edit


Nominator(s): RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, after my work on the Japan Cup, I return with an article focused on the first winner of that race, a "second-rate mare" that briefly stood on top of the horseracing world and caused a lot of embarrassment for the JRA. Compared to that article, this one is a 'breezy' 1500ish words. I'd originally been focusing on another JC winner but as it turns out there was a few sources to read through on Mairzy Doates, and the article kept growing. This is my first major attempt at a biographic article, so hopefully it all passes muster.

Sadly as you can imagine, this isn't a horse that exactly has the same level as coverage as Secretariat. For example the trail after her retirement is stone cold, not unsurprising for a broodmare that didn't perform exceptionally well. It's only by good luck I recently managed to find a death date for the poor horse, every source and archivist I'd consulted/spoke to turned up blank until then, so questions like why Mairzy Doates ended up in France when she died don't appear to have ever been recorded (presumably a private sale). As such, I'm afraid the answer to reviewers' questions like "Do we know why Z did X" or "Can you expand on Y" is likely to get a "no"!

Still, we can at least follow her life from beginning to end, and I do think there's an interesting narrative surrounding her. From a horse with weak legs that did so badly in her graded race she was stopped early, to being taken in by one of the best trainers in the US and slowly beginning to rack up graded wins, to racing well enough to be a contender in G1 races but never quite pulling it off, to her final race where she both finally beat a long-time rival and surprised an entire nation to win the biggest payout of her career; it'd certainly has the right storybeats for a book. Hopefully you enjoy her tale too. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metalicat

edit

I should say up front that I am not a horse-racing specialist, so I am commenting on prose, the MoS, citation consistency and the general criteria rather than on the sport itself, and I will leave the form-specific judgements to reviewers who know it.

A pass through by section.

Early life

  • Two years later in 1978, Arno D. Schefler ... purchased Mairzy Doates as a weanling: a weanling is a foal of its birth year, which would put the purchase in 1976 rather than 1978. Is the year right, or the term? Worth reconciling so the timeline reads cleanly.

Racing history

  • the Grade 3 Ruthless Stakes on 18 February: the article runs on {{Use mdy dates}}, so this is the odd one out; on February 18 would match, per MOS:DATEUNIFY.
  • raced once as a two year old: hyphenate as two-year-old when used as a noun (MOS:HYPHEN).
  • The Gamely Handicap citation (ref "GH80") is dated 5 May 1990, but the race was 4 May 1980; I take the year to be a typo for 1980.
  • making up for her withdrawal from the previous year's race with through a 1+1⁄4 length victory: with through looks like a stray word; perhaps just through.

Running in the Japan Cup

  • the Japanese Racing Association (JRA): elsewhere, including the lead, it is the Japan Racing Association, which is the body's actual name; the two should agree.
  • placating Schefler and Frankel: who is Frankel? The pair acting in this passage is Schefler and Fulton, so this may be a slip. In the same sentence, the races' organizers reads better as the race's organizers.
  • Her time was 2.25.3: times elsewhere use colons, and the race-record table gives 2:25 3/10; I would render this 2:25.3 to match.

Retirement

  • The block quote is attributed to Schelger, which I take to be a typo for Schefler.
  • before being transferring to stand in France: reads as before being transferred (or before transferring).
  • Hurstland Farm in Midway, Kentucky to stand: a comma after Kentucky, per MOS:GEOCOMMA.

Infobox and tables

  • The {{death date and age}} parameters give the birth as 25 May 1976, but the |foaled= field is 1 April 1976. The age of 22 comes out the same either way, but the two dates should match.
  • Date formats are mixed in the tables. The first row of the Honors table is mdy (July 17, 1982) while the rest are dmy, and the race-record table displays dmy (22 Dec, 1978). For an mdy article these all read as month-last; worth bringing into line.

An enjoyable read, and the narrative arc you set out in the nomination comes through. Metalicat (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review Metalicat, glad you enjoyed the read! I should be able to take care of the above in a day or so. Your comments all look fine to me - just goes to show how easily your eyes start to skim over these sort of things after you reread the same text over and over! Happy to fix-up the dates too - I'd thought the use of the 'use mdy' template automatically converted the displayed dates for all readers as it does on my screens, but if that's not the case I'll alter those. I'll ping you when I'm done. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for waiting @Metalicat, I've made all the suggested changes! Nothing to shout out in the above bar changing 'weanling' to 'filly', and Frankel just being a typo for Fulton (I'm working on another horse's page where Frankel was that horse's trainer). Let me know if the dates still don't look right your end or if there's anything else, I should be able to get back to your more quickly this time! RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After enough re-reads of your own work, the eye stops reading the words and starts reading what it expects to be there. I call it snow blindness!
Support on prose and the MoS. Metalicat (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Metalicat, much appreciated! RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bgsu98

edit

I will come back to this. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations

edit

In Memory of Theo Faiss

edit


Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In Memory of Theo Faiss is a curious piece, about a curious series of events. In 1914, seven-year-old Faiss was discovered crushed to death under an unattended horse cart. Anthroposophical Society leader Rudolf Steiner, with whom Faiss's parents were connected, saw this not as an accident, but as a karmic sacrifice that would provide a spiritual sheath over the society's headquarters, the Goetheanum. Seven years later, Steiner's collaborator Edith Maryon created two versions of this relief. And, the following year, the Goetheanum burned down, possibly due to arson. The relief was then nearly forgotten: The first version was smashed into 13 pieces and only later reassembled, and Maryon's biographer was not even aware of the second version until 1991. The relief begets a number of questions: Why did Maryon wait seven years to make it? Why did she create two versions? Is it a backwards-looking commemoration, or a forwards-looking expression of uncertainty? For many of these, we have only educated guesses.

I created this article late late year—around the same as The Dance of Anitra, which recently appeared here. It was given a good-article review by Kusma in February; I've since given it a further tidying and secured a photograph of the first version of the sculpture, making the article ready for nomination here. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Lead images are missing alts
  • What is the copyright status of the reliefs themselves?
  • File:Edith_Maryon.jpg: when and where was this first published, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?

MSincccc

edit
Background
  • Could we drop {{main article|Edith Maryon}} and link her in the article prose?
  • Added the link. I prefer to keep the hat note along with it, which signals that there's a full article on the topic. (Well, it'll be truly full when I finally get around to expanding the one on Maryon.) --Usernameunique (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is overlinking to have a section begin with "Main article: Theo Faiss Theo Faiss was..." The link in prose – here as the very first words of the section – indicates there's a full article on the topic. Both links are also in the first two sentences of the lead. Please just use one or the other. — Reywas92Talk 14:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, how about introducing a link to Works of Edith Maryon in running prose, even though the "See also" works just as well?
  • Maryon was interested in the esoteric
    • Any links or footnotes which might explain "esoteric" in this context?
  • After a brief return in April to London due to health and finances,
    • Do we intend to say she was ill and ran out of money?
      • Yeah, though I'm not sure it's really needed here. The stint in London is (as discussed in the last paragraph of the section "Theo Faiss", her locations in 1914 are important given what happened with Theo and Albert Faiss that year), but I've removed the reasons for the return. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parents had lived in Stuttgart in 1904
    • How about "His parents..."?
      • "The" is used because the prior sentence refers to two people, two of whom are male. Though I think "His" would be grammatically sound, "The" avoids any confusion as to whether Theo's or Albert's parents are the subject of the sentence. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could link to pneumonia.
  • "was interested in the esoteric at least as early as 1909" → "was interested in the esoteric by 1909"
  • "came back to Dornach" → "returned to Dornach"
  • "among other contributions while there," → "among other contributions,"
  • "rather than an accident of coincidence" → "rather than a coincidence"
  • I think both parts are important. Steiner expressly disclaimed the idea that Faiss died due to accident or coincidence; he claimed that the number of coincidences required to make the death an accident were too numerous and implausible, and that the only logical explanation was that Faiss was drawn to that spot as part of a voluntary/karmic sacrifice. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during which time he offered protection to the Goetheanum" →"during which he offered protection to the Goetheanum"

MSincccc (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always, MSincccc. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • Raab suggests that the second version is the later of the two.
  • "suggested to be either Faiss and his parents, or Faiss, his mother, and Steiner" → "suggested to depict either Faiss and his parents, or Faiss, his mother, and Steiner"
  • depicts is already used in the sentence's first clause (The bottom third depicts three individuals), so changing be to depict would be a bit clunky and (I think) technically change the meaning (from depicts people who are X, to depicts people who in turn depict Y). --Usernameunique (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggested to be either Faiss and his parents, or Faiss, his mother, and Steiner.
    • Do we need the commas here?
      • Not sure we can do away with all three—the first indicates a separation between two interpretations, and the second and third are dost separators. But I'm open to any suggested recordings you have. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The second version of the relief is a variant of the first" → "The second version is a variant of the first"
  • "the guardian spirit lifting up the spiritual form of Faiss" → "the guardian spirit lifting the spiritual form of Faiss"

MSincccc (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, MSincccc. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Themes
  • Could we avoid beginning multiple sentences with "To Von Halle"?
  • The lack of continued protection, however, is to von Halle why the Goetheanum was able to burn as it did at the end of 1922.
Provenance
  • At this point he became aware of a bronze version located in the Netherlands, although the owners (Dr. F. I. Steffelaar-Moulijn and Dr. W Steffelaar) did not know how it ended up there.
Bottom line

Crystal Drawers

edit

Review to come soon. Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 15:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay, I’ve been busy with some personal issues for the past week, which has slowed down my editing altogether. I will try to do my review of the article tomorrow. Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 01:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Crystal Drawers, hope things are okay on your end. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • “to commemorate Theo Faiss, a seven-year-old boy who” — Consider "to commemorate the seven-year-old Theo Faiss, a boy who" to streamline the sentence a bit
  • What do you mean by “which are seen in bronze and plaster”? Seen where? Also, I feel “two versions of the relief, one in bronze and one in plaster” would make more sense
  • Is the bottom being blank in the second version relevant enough to include in the Lead?
  • Could you combine any two of the paragraphs to make it only 3? Right now, they’re all quite short and I feel a combination of two would make it more readable

Background

  • "and in Geneva, and" — Could you change the second "and" to avoid repetition?
  • I feel like stuff about how old she was from 1899 to 1912 makes this Background section feel bloated, could you try to go back and ensure there aren’t any other unnecessary details included here? This is my main issue with the section as a whole, where the prose is good but the amount of context feels unnecessary
  • "and came across an overturned furniture wagon.[14][24] Righting the wagon revealed the body of Faiss underneath." — Consider "and came across an overturned furniture wagon, with the body of Faiss underneath.[14]"

Sorry again for making you wait so long. Above are my comments for the Lead and Background section. When I get home later, I’ll review the remaining sections :) Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 16:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92

edit
  • Similar to points raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Dance of Anitra/archive1, the Background section is excessively long and makes up more than half of the article – ~1177 words vs. ~985 words in the following three sections. The WP:FACR criterion #4 says the article must "stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate". I see you also recently created Theo Faiss, which is almost entirely a copy-paste of this section. If that is going to exist as its own article, this one needs to be trimmed substantially, making proper use of summary style instead of being a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE. This article does not need the full text of the eulogy's mantram or most of the details, and/or the Theo article should be merged back.
  • The genesis of the article on Theo Faiss is no secret; the edit history reads "text largely copied from In Memory of Theo Faiss", and it was done due to Kusma's comment during the good-article review that there is too much detail about Theo Faiss here. I'm open to, and have thought about, cutting down the mantram, given the amount of real estate it takes up. At the same time, we have to remember its importance to the relief, which Raab suggests is the sculptural embodiment of the mantram (note the guardian angel in both, and the beseeching figures in the first version, which echo the mantram's mention of imploring love and entreaties). Perhaps for that reason, the mantram it was specifically identified as an item to keep in that good-article review. If you have specific suggestions about what could stand cutting here, however, please feel free to make them. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general matter, "The best distance between the material and the citation is a matter of judgment." This is also mentioned in the WP:When to cite essay, two sentences before the portion that you quote. Just because a cite per sentence is not required does not mean that it is not permitted, and there are good reasons to go the extra mile. Among other reasons, doing so makes clear which sources/pages support which information, and helps protect text–source integrity as additional edits are made. It's worth noting that in some professional settings (including my own) citing every sentence is routine; it is no big outlier, and it is my practice in every article that I write here.
To take your specific example (Raab pp. 250–253 is cited eleven times in eleven sentences in the Description section), this isn't strictly correct; six different different pages or ranges are used (e.g., 249–251, or 249 and 251, or just 253). Too, not all of the information in this section is uncontested; Raab and von Halle have different interpretations of who the bottom figures in the first version are, making precise citing important. At the end of the day, however, having one or two cites at the end of each sentence is hardly out of the ordinary, and nothing like the extreme examples (such as fifteen cites) used in the essay WP:OVERCITE. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Description, Themes, and Provenance section contains dozens of footnotes, numbers 50–84 used 73 times. But these are all simply Raab pp. 249–254; von Halle 2010 and 2011a, b, c (which are the same piece, translated and split/duplicated into multiple issues); Sam 2007 p. 10 (which I can't access online); and Steiner. Except von Halle 2010/11a and 2011b do not mention Maryon's artwork, nor does Steiner, being a primary source that predates the artwork. The only sources that discuss the article's subject are a few pages of Raab's biography of Edith Maryon, a portion of von Halle's essay, and one page by Sam 2007! This page feels more like a ref bomb bloated by background and heavily reliant on one source (Raab) rather than a notable topic and featured article.
  • Stating that von Halle 2010/11a ... do not mention Maryon's artwork overlooks the rather glaring fact that Maryon's artwork literally provides the cover art for the book. von Halle includes a long discussion of the relief and its meaning, which should be obvious from the fact that her books are cited throughout the "Description" and "Themes" sections. You've also truncated the page range for Raab, who spends a substantial portion of a chapter on the relief. Put simply, the only reason to question notability would appear to be by misreading of the sources (or by not reading them; Raab and von Halle 2010 are not available online, and only a chapter of von Halle 2011a is). --Usernameunique (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies, I did not realize that the 2011a link was only one chapter of 2010. I'd recommend linking the 2010 book here in the citation even if the text is not available online. The relevant chapter in Raab appears to be at 249-254 based on the citations, and other pages appear to reference other material. In the Description section von Halle is only cited in conjunction with Raab, but I did read the discussion of its themes in 2011c with the help of Google Translate. I obviously don't think the page should be deleted, but it does seem unusual for an FA to really only have two sources go into depth on the subject while the numerous other sources only provide background, largely by or about Rudolf Steiner (another interesting read). — Reywas92Talk 19:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries. I'm not sure what the link you're suggesting is; the ISBN is already provided. As for the number of sources, I don't see it as that unusual to have only a few treating the subject of the article in depth. Guilden Morden boar (two two-page articles; my own nomination) comes to mind, and I suspect there are many FAs on flora/fauna that rely on one main article describing them. In any event, there is no FA standard of "extra notability". --Usernameunique (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As for Raab, the relevant discussion begins in a subsection that opens page 246. The first few pages provide background on Faiss, but literally the only reason they're included is because Maryon created a memorial to him. (If you want any of the sources, just email me and I'd be happy to send them over.) --Usernameunique (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Reywas92. I'll respond in kind above, but, given your invocation of The Dance of Anitra, it's worth noting here that you have also spent the day deleting sources and cites from serpent labret with articulated tongue (which I recently nominated here), and dropping a long note on the talk page about its citations; seeing your username attached to this review on my watchlist, I was therefore pretty sure what tenor it would strike even before taking a look. Not quite sure what inspired this survey of my recent nominations (let alone ones that have passed), but I'm happy to have a good-faith discussion over the points you raised above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't "spend the day" doing that, it only took a few minutes. It was on the main page and although I found the topic and the article very interesting, it thought it was odd that so much was sourced to the Met's page on the piece and that the footnote was unnecessarily repeated consecutively. I deleted unnecessary redundant footnotes of the same citation to no detriment to verifiability, not sourcing generally. I was curious about Aztec art – I've been to Templo Mayor mentioned in the article – and saw these other pieces in your edits. These are fascinating topics to learn about and I come in good faith, but some of the style and sourcing here is unorthodox. — Reywas92Talk 18:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds good, thanks Reywas92. Look forward to discussing above. You're luckier (or a better planner) than me—when I tried to visit Tepmlo Mayor last year I was dumb enough to not look at the closing time beforehand, and was met with locked gates. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of Yugoslavia

edit


Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (subsequently renamed Yugoslavia), providing an overview of processes and persons leading and/or contributing to creation of the state and the initial period of state-building such as establishment of interim government and parliament, establishment of borders, diplomatic recognition, the initial stage of economic integration etc. Tomobe03 (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

edit

Will review this next week. Btw, Djukanović (2023) is unused but is listed in the sources section. It should either be incorporated into the article or removed from the list. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. -- Tomobe03 (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose atm. Sadly, I don't think that it meets the 1a criteria. It's prose isn't "brilliant" or "professional", there's repetitive syntax, timeline trailing, and pleonasms. I'll give some examples:

  • "The creation of Yugoslavia refers to the events resulting in the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later renamed Yugoslavia) as a political union of the South Slavs in 1918." there's a repetition of a defining word twice in the same sentence, doesn't sound polished. Suggestion: "The creation of Yugoslavia refers to the political and military events that culminated in the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1918."
  • "Those events, which occurred in the dissolution of Austria-Hungary at the end of the First World War, were based on Yugoslavism." events do not occur "in" a dissolution. Change "occurred in" to "unfolded during".
  • "The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was pressured by the loss of territory to an Italian advance across Istria and in Dalmatia, the threatened establishment of Greater Serbia amid violence by the Green Cadres, social unrest and rumours about a coup conspiracy." too much for one sentence, should be split in two.
  • "This state was intended through the realisation of Yugoslavism and unification with the Kingdom of Serbia." → "Proponents envisioned achieving this state by realising the ideals of Yugoslavism and unifying with the Kingdom of Serbia".
  • "The concept ... was considered neutral about the possibility of centralised or decentralised government in a common state." not neutral about "was considered agnostic toward the choice between a centralised or decentralised government"
  • "The council declared itself the central organ of the newly-proclaimed State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, encompassing the Slovene Lands, Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, on 18 October" on 18 October should be at the start.
  • "The declaration left unresolved the choice between a unitary state (advocated by Pašić) or a federation, supported by Trumbić." → "the choice between a unitary state (advocated by Pašić) and a federation (advocated by Trumbić).
  • "might be divided among Italy and Serbia" divided between Italy and Serbia
  • "Social disorder associated with the Green Cadres and the widespread belief, especially prevalent in northern Croatia..." widespread and prevalent mean the same thing, drop one of the modifiers.

I'll stop right there. Others have also left good examples. IMO, the best route would be to go through GOCE -> GA -> PR and then come back to FAC. You can ping me at PR for more comments. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments above. I have tried to address the issues you raised in order to improve the article. I'm looking forward to any further comments. Tomobe03 (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vacant0, any further thoughts or comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Gog. I'll take another look tomorrow. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bgsu98

edit

I find this topic very interesting, especially as I am currently working on Yugoslav Figure Skating Championships. I hope to find some time over the next few days to examine your article and provide feedback. If I have not by the end of the weekend, please feel free to remind me! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • I’m going to be honest: I don’t like the first paragraph. Perhaps something along the lines of: ”The creation of Yugoslavia occurred in 1918, after the dissolution of Austria-Hungary at the end of World War I, when the South Slavs formed the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which was later renamed Yugoslavia.” If you want to mention that this was based on the idea of Yugoslavism, I recommend a brief explanation so a reader doesn’t have to navigate to another article to understand the basic concept. Since this is a very short paragraph, you could connect it with the second paragraph.
  • “encompassing South Slavic parts of disintegrating Austria-Hungary” —> I would get rid of the “disintegrating”.
  • “…on the degree of centralisation of the future state.” —> I don’t understand what this even means.
  • I would join the last two paragraphs of the lead together.
Yugoslavism
  • I believe “empire” should be capitalized.
  • “This state was intended through the realisation of Yugoslavism and unification with the Kingdom of Serbia.[2] The concept, expressing the idea that the South Slavs belonged to a single "race", were of "one blood" and had one shared language, was considered neutral about the possibility of centralised or decentralised government in a common state.” —> I would move the definition of Yugoslavism (the idea that the South Slavs belonged to a single "race", were of "one blood" and had one shared language) to immediately after “Yugoslavism” and before “unification”, perhaps separated with dashes. Then, “The concept was considered neutral about the possibility of a centralised or decentralised government in a common state.”
National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs
  • “as a representative body aiming to achieve independence from the empire.” —> recommend “seeking (or advocating for) independence” rather than “aiming to achieve”.
Yugoslav Committee
  • “and produced the Corfu Declaration about the shared objective of South Slav unification in a constitutional monarchy.” —> replace “about” with something, perhaps “which addressed”.
  • “ The declaration left unresolved the choice between a unitary state (advocated by Pašić) or a federation, supported by Trumbić.” —> One aside is offset by parentheses; the other by a comma. Pick one for consistency.
  • Recommend wikilinking Ante Trumbić in the image caption.
  • “ It learned about the Treaty of London, where the Allies offered Italy substantial Austro-Hungarian territories with sizeable Croat and Slovene populations…” —> The past perfect (“It had learned…” and “the Allies had offered…”) is needed here.
  • “ This led its leaders to conclude that Croatian lands, known as the Triune Kingdom, might be divided among Italy and Serbia…” —> If they had genuinely concluded, then the phrasing should be “would be divided” and not “might be divided”.
Kingdom of Serbia
  • Is Prince Regent a title where both words are capitalized, because it is not when you use it earlier in the lead.
  • “across the Danube and Sava rivers (Serbia's pre-war border with Austria-Hungary).” —> Recommend replacing the parentheses with a colon.

User:Tomobe03: I am only through the first section, and there are already more substantive issues with the prose than I would normally expect in an article at FAC. I will come back to examine the next section, but this should give you something to work with. Please let me know once you have had a chance to examine my comments or if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to provide feedback. I have tried to address the issues you raised above and I'm looking forward to any further comments you might provide. Tomobe03 (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will take a look at what you've done with this section, and then examine the next one. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up comments from sections already reviewed
  • I would still condense the three paragraphs in the lead to two. You could really join the last two together, since the third paragraph is relatively short and is a continuation of the second.
  • "produced the Corfu Declaration addressing the shared objective..." --> recommend slight rewording to "...and produced the Corfu Declaration, which addressed the shared objective..."
State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs
  • "In order to attend the conerence, Korošec left running of the National Council and the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to Pavelić and Pribićević." --> The section in italics reads awkwardly; I recommend a different wording.
  • "Pribićević's brother Valerijan, and Dragutin Perko to Belgrade with instructions to request that Serbian army..." --> unneeded phrase
Geneva conference
  • "Lorković or Pavelić (sources disagree) described the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs as an entity independent of Serbia" --> Recommend rewording as "Either Lorković or Pavelić described the State of Slovenes..." with an {{efn|note}} explaining that historians disagree on which one.

User:Tomobe03: The prose is stronger than when I first reviewed this. I have read up through the end of Geneva conference and have only those few comments above. I'm not ready to give up on this FAC yet, so I will come back to it in a little bit. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Kralj_aleksandar1.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Stojan_protic.jpg
  • File:NikolaPasic--balkancockpitpol00pric_0191.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:Velika-narodna-skupstina-1918.jpg, File:Spiridon_Špiro_Bocarić_-_Atanasije_Šola.jpg, File:Borbe_kod_Podgorice_između_crnogorskih_pobunjenika_i_srpske_vojske_1918..jpg
  • File:Liposcak2.JPG needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I believe I have fixed the Lipošćak image, and will get to others shortly. Tomobe03 (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all the image licencing issues are addressed now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

edit
  • 1st sentence is a bit clunky. "The creation of Yugoslavia refers to the events resulting in ..." . See MOS:REFERS which says "Avoid constructions like "[Subject] refers to ..." or "... is a word for ..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject."
  • This topic is rather complex, in the sense that there are many, many events, individuals, groups, factions, motivations, and countries. I'm not sure yet how to simplify the body ... but the lead must be simplified: the number of nouns/people/places introduced in the Lead is overwhelming. No lay reader will be able to grasp it. Consider re-writing entire lead to give more of a big-picture overview; resist the temptation to name individuals and events in the lead. Strive to paint an overview that a 17 year old can read and understand. Then, save the gory details for the body. See MOS:INTRO which says "It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article."
  • I note that the article has not been through the WP:GA process. Is it also correct that it has not been through the WP:PEER REVIEW process? Neither of those are required before nominating for FA, but are recommended.
  • I'm finding the body text to be rather hard to follow: so many things are introduced without context. FA criterion 1a says " [article is] well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". Tentatively, I'd say the article does not satisfy that criterion.
  • P vs PP errors in cites:
    • Ramet 2006, pp. 43. P/PP error? pp. 43.;
    • Banac 1984, p. 134-135. P/PP error? p. 134-135.; Hyphen in pg. range;
  • Alphabetize sources: The source "Karaula, Željko (2008)" is not in the correct alphabetical order.
  • Oppose for now. The article's material contains a solid basis of facts, but it is not screaming "Wikipedia's best content!" at me. The prose is overly dense and many paragraphs/sections jump immediately into detail without transitioning and/or giving context. The article does not give a narrative that lay readers can follow ... yet this is an important story, so it could and should. A GA or PR review might be helpful. Or, if you make significant changes in response to FAC comments from Bgsu98 above, ping me and I'll take another look. Noleander (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Noleander thank you for commenting on the article. I have tried to address the issues you and others raised and I'm looking forward to any further comments you may have. Tomobe03 (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pass 2
edit
  • Continuing the review, in response to nominator's note above about recent revisions.
  • Lead is looking better than before. More introductory.
  • Clunky wording: I'm still seeing clunky, hard-to-digest wording. As early as the 1st sentence of the Background section: "In the first two decades of the 20th century, various Croat, Serb, and Slovene national programmes and political parties in Austria-Hungary and the Kingdom of Serbia adopted Yugoslavism in various forms." That sentence lists five (5) groups of people before it even gets to the point of the sentence: "... [they] adopted Yugoslavism .."!
  • Scare quotes: "All of them promoted the idea that the South Slavs belonged to a single "race", were of "one blood" and had one shared language. " I understand that the article should not present potentially racist concepts in the encyclopedia's voice, but there must be a better way to word this. See MOS:SCAREQUOTES. If quotes marks are used, the quotes should be attributed to an individual (or publication) that said the quotes. Better might be to eliminate the quotes and instead write it in the encyclopedia's voice e.g. something like "Many of those promoting Yugoslavism emphasized that all Southern Slavs belonged to a single ethnic group, and they intended to create a single nation that would serve as homeland for that group" Note: I have no idea if that blue text is historically accurate or not; I present it as an example of how to word these complex ideas neutrally & accurately without quotes.
  • Lots of terminology that is not necessary & burdens the reader:
    • Example 1: Unnecessary term "trialism"? "During the First World War, pressure developed in the parts of Austria-Hungary, especially those inhabited by Croats and the Slovenes in support of trialism: the establishment of a South Slavic constituent element of the Empire. When trialism was rejected by the imperial government..." The term "trialism" is used only twice in the article, both in the above fragment. I understand that it may technically accurate term, but why burden the lay reader with it? The word is just extra baggage imposed on the reader. Most readers would be happy to see it replaced with plain words: "... creating a South Slavic autonomous region within the A-H empire..."
    • I bring up the term "trialism" as an example of a bigger issue: Can the article be made more understandable and more digestible by eliminating other words? Other individuals? Not eliminating the material, but replacing obscure terms/people with plain words that convey the same info.
    • Example 2: "Proponents of the political union pursued either unitarist (or integral) Yugoslavism or federalist Yugoslavism: Unitarists denied the existence of separate nations, or sought to supersede them by introducing a single Yugoslav nation. Federalists acknowledged the ..." Here, three terms are introduced (unitarist, federalist, integral) and never used again in the article. The readers do not know if they will need to recall the words later in the article. Therefore, readers must store those three words in their brain ... yet none of those three words are used again. Query: Can that fragment be re-written to say the same thing without burdening the reader with those three terms?
    • Of course, if a particular term is important, and is used several times at various points in the article, by all means keep it.
    • If a particular term like "trialism" is important to historians, then consider moving it into a footnote (attached to the sentence) and removing it from the body text. That way, curious readers can visit the footnote and learn that the term "trialism" exists.
  • Narrative thread almost non-existent: Transitions would help. This article should tell a story. Stories have a beginning, middle and end. This particular story is perhaps one of the most convoluted ones in Wikipedia. Fair enough ... not a bar to FA status. But the article needs to work hard, really hard, to help readers follow the story. A key piece still missing is transitions between the major sections.
    • The sections are Background, Prelude, Final Preparations, November Annexations, Proclamation, and Aftermath
    • As I read down thru the article I get confused. Fine, I'm slow, and not a Historian. But you can help me: at the start of each major section, the very first sentence should remind me where I am in the story: tell me (again) what happened before, and what is about to happen next.
    • Example: "Final preparations" section. The very first few sentence should tell me: Preparations for what? Why were preparations needed? What happened immediately before that makes preparations necessary?
      • Instead, I'm greeted with a 1st sentence "The urgency of unification increased for the National Council due to the advance of the Italian forces that captured Rijeka and were advancing through Carniola, reaching the vicinity of Ljubljana." A bit discouraging :-)
    • It is okay to repeat some material from the prior section. It is okay to start with something like (I'm making this up): "In spite of the achievements made in the October conference, Yugoslovian activists were disappointed at the rate of progress, and felt that additional preparations were required before formal statehood could be declared" In this fictional introductory sentence I'm telling the reader what happened in the prior section (an unsatisfactory conference in October) and also telling the reader what is about to happen in this section: they are getting ready to declare statehood.
    • Consider beginning every single top-level section in the article with 2 to 3 sentences that transition from prior section to current section. In those sentences, tell the reader what happened before (don't be shy about repeating facts), and what is about to happen next, and how they are connected.
  • In summary: the article is in pretty decent shape. It is apparent that it covers one of the most complicated historical events in the annals of mankind :-) The nature of the topic, unfortunately, requires some rather challenging editorial work. I'm confident that we can get this article across the finish line!!

LivelyRatification

edit

Hello, I'm going to do a review of the article prose. As this is still one of my first contributions to FAC I will refrain from supporting or opposing explicitly until I am more confident in my understanding of the criteria.

Background
edit
  • This state was intended through the realisation of Yugoslavism and unification with the Kingdom of Serbia. -- This is a bit of a clunky sentence. "The realisation of Yugoslavism" -- is Yugoslavism the political ideology of uniting Serbia with the proposed South Slavic state? What does it mean to realise Yugoslavism? What is Yugoslavism? It doesn't seem to me like it's properly or clearly explained.
  • was considered neutral about the possibility of centralised or decentralised government in a common state. -- Considered neutral by whom?
  • Federalists acknowledged the existence of separate nations and wanted to accommodate them in a new political union through a federation (or other system) giving South Slavic nations political and cultural autonomy. -- This is a fine sentence but could probably afford to be broken up a little bit.
  • On 5–6 October, in the final weeks of the First World War... -- The context makes it obvious this is October 1918, but it couldn't hurt to explicitly mention that, especially considering no year has previously been mentioned in the article body.
  • Perhaps this is too niche, but how big was the National Council of Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes? Why was it necessary to organise the Yugoslav Committee to speak on their behalf? My assumption is that the Council was a large, unwieldy body, and the Committee smaller, but that may be wrong.
  • In the 'Kingdom of Serbia' subsection, Serbia is spoken of as an independent nation with its own war objectives, but 'liberation of Serbian territory' is mentioned, and the 'liberation of Serbia' is referred to in the final sentence. Was Serbia occupied by the Central Powers during World War One? Were these liberated Serbian lands referred to part of Austria-Hungary prior to the war? This is not immediately obvious to me, and I think could stand to be made a little clearer.
Prelude
edit
  • The Croatian Sabor is referred to, but its establishment is not previously mentioned, nor is its context in the State of Croats, Slovenes, and Serbs previously mentioned. Was it a separate body from that, as the declaration that it would join the State suggests? Was it an already-existing body? Was it a new body established by nationalists?
  • ...noting that the country would claim territory from the Soča River to the city of Thessaloniki on the Aegean coast. -- This may well be a suggestion of the sources also, but this suggests to me that a the State of Croats, Slovenes, and Serbs would stretch from the Soča to Thessaloniki, which if my memory is correct, was part of independent Greece at this time. Did the state lay claim to Greek Macedonia?
    • It appears so from that declaration. Yugoslavia certainly was hoping to expand into the Aegean Macedonia in late 1940s supporting the DSE guerillas there, but that support collapsed in the context of the Tito–Stalin split. There seems no further support for official Yugoslav claim over the region (of an allied nation) in 1918 or shortly afterwards, so it appears to have been "shelved" if it was ever seriously entertained at the official level.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • He spent most of November 1918 abroad, delegating the running of the National Council and governing the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to Pavelić and Pribićević. -- Bit of a clunky sentence, could afford to be reworded.
  • Social disorder associated with the Green Cadres and the widespread belief, especially prevalent in northern Croatia, that the dissolution of Austria-Hungary would bring the end of bureaucracy and redistribution of wealth developed characteristics of a revolution. -- This sentence could do with some breaking up and rephrasing. I take it to mean "social disorder developed characteristics of a revolution", but what exactly does this mean? In this context, you may do best to explain political demands, riots, etc, or the fears that the social disorder could lead to, say, demands of Marxism-Leninism.
  • ...did not guarantee the House of Karađorđević the right to rule the entire country. -- Obvious by context, but may be worth mentioning that the House of Karađorđević is Serbia's ruling monarchy.
Final preparations
edit
  • security deteriorated reads to me like one of those great euphemisms of history, where it's sort of obvious what it means but the actual words are a bit of a vaguery. If the urgency for unification was increased because of Italian advances, I reckon just say that and cut out the "security deteriorated" bit.
  • ...designated the regent a provisional ruler until the constitution was in place... -- I assume this is Prince/Regent Alexander of Serbia, but not stated, unless the regent position was later to be determined.
November annexations
edit
  • The annexation of Vojvodina, meant to affirm the roles of the Royal Serbian Army and Regent Alexander, were the only relevant factors in the unification of the South Slavs. -- I'm a bit confused by what this sentence means. The annexation of Vojvodina was meant to affirm the roles of the Serbian army and the regent, yes, but how is it the only relevant factor in the unifications of the South Slavs? I assume this is a typo.
  • King Nikola and most of the government left Montenegro in early 1916, fleeing an Austro-Hungarian offensive. -- If not too complicated, it may be worth saying where the Montenegrin government fled to, I assume they set up a sort of government-in-exile. You later mention he was exiled in the French locale of Neuilly-sur-Seine, so perhaps you could bring this up here instead of there.
  • ...due to Italy's demand for the establishment of an Italian condominium in Montenegro which excluded Serbia. -- Again, I have no doubt the author has a desire to keep the article succinct, but was the proposed condominium between Italy and King Nikola? A third country altogether? It may be worth adding if not overly complicated.
  • ...were tasked by the regent with preventing Nikola's return. -- Again, I assume this is Regent Alexander, but I don't think the article can just refer to "the regent" offhandedly when Italian and Montenegrins are being spoken about. It could plausibly be Nikola's regent, or an Italian regent.
  • Wikilink Berane when speaking of its mayor.
  • "Was tasked" should be "were tasked", I believe.
  • ...Podgorica was chosen because its capital, Cetinje... -- The language here implies you are speaking of the capital of Podgorica, not Montenegro as a whole, or the royal capital or what have you.
  • The Royal Serbian Army allegedly prevented the Greens from returning from abroad and interfering with the electoral process. -- Who alleges this?
Proclamation of unification
edit

Mainly only minor issues here, but:

  • The proclamation marked the birth of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which would later be renamed Yugoslavia. -- Not only does the article not mention when it will be renamed to Yugoslavia, but it uses the term Yugoslavia to refer to this state after this, even though seemingly it would not have been known as Yugoslavia for a good while. Is this the term consistent in scholarship and sources, or is it done here because "Yugoslavia" is less unwieldy than "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes"?
Aftermath
edit
  • ...Allied occupation of the Adriatic coast (established immediately after the armistice) continued. -- I would state what armistice this is. It could be one of the armistices previously mentioned, or the armistice that ended World War One. Not clear by my reading.
  • The frontier with the Republic of German-Austria through the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye was established in September 1919. -- I think this is ordered oddly, shouldn't it be that the frontier was established in September 1919 through the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye?
  • Just under 39 percent of its population were Serbs or Montenegrins... -- Did the census ask about Montenegrins separately, or was the option "Serb/Montenegrin"? I would avoid lumping them together if the data is available separately.
    • The official position at the time was that Montenegrins are Serbs. Overall population of Montenegro is relatively small so the bulk of the 39 percent were Serbs - but no official data exists for the two separately.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The literacy rate varied by province from nearly 100 percent in Slovenia to 35 percent in Serbia, and the country's literacy rate was among Europe's lowest. -- Again, I would swap this around -- the literacy rate was among Europe's lowest, and varied to 100 per cent in Slovenia to 35 per cent in Serbia.
  • Immediately after political unification, the government faced problems of economic integration; some provinces had a greater trade volume with other markets than with each other, due to political divisions. I would break up this whole sentence, and maybe elaborate a bit on what political divisions were. Was Croatia like to trade more with Italy than Serbia?

Overall, this article was an interesting read. It seems tailored to a reader with a specific knowledge on this topic at times, and while I have more knowledge than a lay(wo)man might, I was confused at times. I hope my comments do not seem too nitpicky. I think some work is required to get this article to FA status, but I certainly found it engaging and intriguing, and was amused by the thought of a Bolshevik tasked with reinstating the Habsburgs. It is clear that the nominator has put a lot of effort and thought to this article, and I would advise him to try and make sure this article is approachable to a global audience. Niche detail is expected, and not every term can or should be explained, but some greater context in areas would be appreciated. Best of luck with the FA nomination. --LivelyRatification (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LivelyRatification thank you for the comments above. I have tried to address the issues you raised and I provided feedback on the potential claim to the Aegean Macedonia and the 1921 census data above. I'm looking forward to any further comments you might provide. Tomobe03 (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna Miscanti

edit


Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an extant lake in the Central Andes, and a major tourist destination. This is also a bit of an experiment of how well ChatGPT can suggest copyedits, since I took its suggestions for a last copyedit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • What is the benefit of the gallery?
  • Suggest adding alt text
Illustrating the landscape of Laguna Miscanti - many (even if informal) sources note its beautiful landscape, part of the reason why it's a tourist destination. What the images show exactly is not so important for the gallery, hence. Added ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need a gallery to do that? If we have three pictures of just "hey this looks pretty", what additional benefit is gained from throwing in five more? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I cut back the gallery a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FM

edit
  • Some preliminary comments. There are some WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:
  • As noted above, the gallery seems puzzling. WP:galleries states images should be incorporated into the text where possible, and in this case the article body is almost free of images, so I don't see the need of having a gallery when there is plenty of room across the article.
    Did the duplicate links. I don't think any of these images conveys a lot of section specific information, plus their purpose means that a gallery is the most suitable place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

Will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 22:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • "(4.9228 ± 0.0077 sq mi)" - this degree of precision seems excessive and almost certainly implies a degree of exactness in the original measurement that isn't present
  • "enter Laguna Miscanti from the north, east and south[15] (Quebrada de Chaquisoqui[1])" - is this trying to indicate that the southern dry valley is Quebrada de Chaquisoqui? This isn't clear
  • "The water[d] is clear[20] and brackish,[e],[19]" - is there a reason for the comma between the [e] and [19]?
  • " Some water drains underground into to the 10 metres (33 ft) lower Miñiques" - I don't think this is grammatical ("into to the") and reads very stilted as well. Something like "Some water drains underground into Laguna Miñiques, which is 10 metres (33 ft) lower in elevation" might be better.
  • I think the number of endnotes (27!) is a touch excessive, and I don't think all of these are even needed. For instance -
  • "W.E.Rudolph in 1963 postulated that Miscanti and Miñiques were merely at an early stage of a process of salt lake formation. Salt accumulation increases the surface over which evaporation takes place, until the waterbodies dry up." (current note [f]) - do any more recent sources follow this? If this is just a theory from 60+ years ago that turned out to be wrong, I don't think it really warrants inclusion in the article. Sometimes sources just end up being wrong
  • "Charophytes and diatoms.[31]" (current note [g]) seems like something to just move into the article body as the body's phrasing of "organism remnants" is unclear to the lay reader and make more sense with linked referenced to show what type of stuff this is
  • "At the fault, ignimbrites are pushed over Tertiary rocks of the Quepe Formation." (current note [k]) - this is getting quite far from the actual topic of the article and I don't think is necessary for an article about the lake.
  • "and volcanic tephra layers[i].[33]" - isn't the practice to have punctuation before the notes and references?
  • "In the past, Laguna Miscanti more than twice as large as it is today" - missing a word?

I don't think the prose is quite there yet - it's choppy, with grammatical issues, and problems with punctuation and syntax placement. Part of the problem is honestly related to the sometimes-awkward placement of the large number of references and endnotes. A lot of this seems driven by a tendency to include every scrap of information, no matter how minute - for instance the endnote for the apparently isolated prediction by Rudolph from the 1960s. The FA criteria are "it no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and " It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate".

For instance, what about some of the following things to reduce the citation density?

  • "of Chile's[6] Antofagasta Region,[7]" - ref [7] shows an inset map showing the Antofagasta Region as part of Chile (and Laguna Miscanti as part of the Antofagasta Region), so is having an additional reference [6] to support it being in Chile necessary?
  • "which is accessible by a rough[13] unpaved road and numerous footpaths[14] leading to Laguna Miñiques.[15]" - is the existence of ref [13] just to support that the unpaved road is rough? I don't think that is a necessary level of detail, it's pretty much implied by the idea of an unpaved mountain road, and has a source from 20 years ago so even if it were no longer accurate (the local government improved the road so that it were less rough) we wouldn't be able to update that information, anyway.
  • "A road departing from the Paso Sico international road[b] goes to Miscanti,[11][12] which is accessible by a rough[13] unpaved road and numerous footpaths[14] leading to Laguna Miñiques.[15]" - and the more I think about this, the less I'm sure what this is trying to say. The first half of the basic sentence is saying that Miscanti is accessible by the road department from the Paso Sico road, but then we're told in the second half of the sentence that there's a rough unpaved road and numerous footpaths which are what get you to Miscanti. The phrasing of the second half of the sentence also is unclear if the "rough unpaved road" leads to Miniques, or just the footpaths. Running the relevant part of [14] through Google Translate seems to be saying that the "rough unpaved road" is the same road that branches off of the Paso Sico road, but in the article we're presenting these roads as if they were separate things.

I'm going to have to enter into an oppose for now based on the prose. I think the issue with the (not readily apparent) repitition of the road information is a pretty good indication of the sort of issues which are here. Hog Farm Talk 23:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did resolve the issues here and several more, but I guess that this requires more than that? As usual, the problem is that while FAC isn't the place for extensive prose discussion, there isn't really any other (other than the ChatGPT advice) than actually works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding a comment, but ChatGPT and many LLM tools aren't really best judges for evaluating quality of prose, especially for isolated passages when the context is lacking.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 05:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is however better than nothing; also, I used ChatGPT to review the entire article text en bloc using a prompt that Esculenta wrote and which I put a copy on my talk page on, not isolated passages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Striking oppose for now as there have been significant improvements regarding the handling of the endnotes ... There are other things ahead of this on my to-review list but I will get back to this when I can. Hog Farm Talk 06:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miscanti is one of the largest water bodies of the Atacama Altiplano" - link to Altiplano as this is the first usage in the body?
    OK, although it's also linked in the first few sentences of the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Cordon de Puntas Negras is the main source of Laguna Miscanti's water" - to most readers, I think this would imply that runoff from these mountains into the lake is the main source, but we've already been told earlier in the article that there are no streams into Miscanti and that most of the lake's inflow is from groundwater. So this sentence is rather confusing, unless it's a very roundabout way of saying that the Cordon de Puntas Negras water ends up as groundwater and then flows/seeps into Miscanti?
    Yeah, moved this up and recast it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "separating the Western Cordillera from the Cordillera Domeyko,[22][14] Volcanoes[22] including Lascar[51]" - should the comma after Domeyko be a period?
    Done and recast this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lakes Laguna Lejia,[22] Laguna Miscanti and Laguna Miñiques occupy basins formed by[23][13][22] the Pliocene and Pleistocene[18] reactivation[22] of the 100 km (62 mi) long[44] Quebrada Nacimiento[18] or Miscanti fault[45] west of Laguna Miscanti.[29]" - 10 citations associated with a single sentence is so dense that it affects readability. There is surely some citation placement optimization and/or rephrasing that can be done. For instance - is the [22] after Laune Lejia necessary if the following citation cluster also includes [22]?
    Merged them a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Depending on the season, it is brought by the summer monsoon, weather fronts or cutoff lows" - the link at cutoff lows is currently a redlink, is Cut-off low the link you are looking for?
    Yes, changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 18,000 years ago[14] during the Last Glacial Maximum, conditions became colder[63] and drier than present-day[64] and colder, leading to a total disappearance of vegetation[63] and a drying of the lake between 22,000 and 14,000 years ago.[65]" - I don't think we need to say twice within this single sentence that it was getting colder
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that you're later using CAPE I and CAPE II as abbreviations, is it worth noting when you mention the Central Andean Pluvial Event that this pluvial event is abbreviated CAPE, so that it's clear what CAPE I and CAPE II are?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and human resettlement at Laguna Miscanti took place about 3,400 years ago" - we were told earlier that Miscanti remained inhabited during the drought?
    Apparently population increased again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sparser[d] vegetation[40][14] known as "tolar" grows on the surrounding terrain. " - the link you currently have at tolar points to a Bohemian silver coin?
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two lakes are important breeding sites for flamingos[106] and horned coot.[107] Other birds found in the region include Anarhynchus alticola (Puna plover), Chloephaga melanoptera (Andean goose; aquatic), Fulica ardesiaca (Andean coot), Fulica cornuta (Horned coot)," - since we've listed the horned coot in the initial sentence, then it shouldn't be listed as one of the "other birds" that also lives there in addition to the birds of the initial sentence
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know that we can call a landscape "spectacular" in wikivoice
    On two minds, since it's hard to recast this one and the landscape value is quite important to Miscanti being a tourist destination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One report claims that the city of Antofagasta also draws from Laguna Miscanti.[129]" - is there any reason to think that this claim isn't just a simple error in a source, given that if I'm using Google Maps correctly, Miscanti and Antofagasta are hundreds of kilometers away from each other?
    Yes, the fact that long-distance water transport by pipeline is a thing in Chile and in arid regions more generally. Although there might be more direct government sources, but none on a quick glance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "remote vegetation"? A quick Google search does not enlighten me with anything that appears to refer to anything that would fit the context here
    Recast. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the second pass. Hog Farm Talk 00:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

edit

I'm probably not going to do a full review, but I've taken the liberty of doing a bunch of copyediting for style, which I'll probably continue to work on. I'm trying my best to make sure I keep the right citations with the right bits of text, but I recommend you take a look to make sure I haven't inadvertently lost any. RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A few specific questions:

  • Why do you spell out meter, millimetre, kilometre, etc? Not to mention "square kilometres"? It seems like it adds a lot of extra bulk for no good reason vs the conventional abbreviations.
  • 1 millimetre per year (0.0012 in/Ms) Inches per mega-second? Seriously?
  • Why in some places do you have "/a", some places "per year" and in other places "/year"?
  • dropping to −10 – −20 °C (14 – −4 °F) I don't know what the right way to do this is, but what you've got now is hard to read. Maybe ask the folks at WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers for suggestions?
    Looks like between me and other users some of these convert artifacts are fixed now. Also did two small fixes of your fixes. Asked as recommended since I couldn't figure out a better way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Found an alternative option. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some places you put a comma in 4-digit numbers (3400 years ago the lake reformed) in some places not (13,800–9,700 years before present). Either is OK, but pick one style and use it everywhere.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • During former lake highstands We have a highstand which redirects to Raised shoreline, so possibly link this. On the other hand, I'm not sure that's really the same meaning, but take a look and see if it makes sense to do so.
    It's kinda sorta related, but raised shoreline is more for the tectonically induced seashore uplift rather than the water level drop. Is "highstand" clear enough for laypeople even w/o a link? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

This has been open for over four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so I am afraid that it is going to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to revisit soon. Hog Farm Talk 17:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Slide (FBG Duck song)

edit


Nominator(s): TheArchitectOfYe (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a drill song. I feel like this article has potential and which I think this article does and passes FA criteria TheArchitectOfYe (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Non-coordinator comment

edit

This has been open for more than three weeks and has received no feedback. Unless it shows significant signs of moving towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days, I am afraid that it may be archived. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC) Just what I was about to say. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alone (The Cure song)

edit


Nominator(s): Leafy46 (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In 2024, the Cure released their first new song in sixteen years. This is that song. Robert Smith said that he was merely searching for the "right opening line for the right opening song," and he found the inspiration he needed in the Ernest Dowson poem "Dregs" to write one of the bleakest, most electric songs of the band's career. Needless to say, it was a hit with fans and critics alike.

I would like to thank Arconning for their review of this article over at GA, and RedShellMomentum, Camilasdandelions, and Ippantekina for their comments at PR. This is my first ever FA nomination, and I'm hoping to beat the 15% with this article. By no means is this a plea for sympathy when it comes to getting this article across that finish line, though, and I eagerly await any comments which come up :) Leafy46 (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Media review - pass

edit

Hi Leafy46 and welcome to FAC! I'll review the media files. The article contains the following:

Both are non-free files with valid use rationales and sufficiently low quality. They are placed in appropriate locations, are relevant, and the image has an alt-text. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: Hey, thanks a dozen for the media review! I wish you well for your own open FAC right now :) Leafy46 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Here'll be a source review from me! RedShellMomentum 04:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This table lists 3 random passages from throughout the article (4.9% of 61 total passages). These passages contain 3 inline citations (3.2% of 95 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 04:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Leafy46: Source review is all good, support. I also have a peer review for "Dick in a Box" up, you may leave comments there if you wish. RedShellMomentum 04:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RedShellMomentum: Thanks for your help on this article's peer review, and for your support here :) Leafy46 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reference #LetterSourceArchiveStatusNotes
"Alone" has a length of six minutes and forty-eight seconds.
7amusic.apple.com ✅
and The Skinny's Lewis Wade listed "Alone" as a standout on the record, alongside "And Nothing is Forever".
20btheskinny.co.ukweb.archive.org ✅
In his ranking of Songs of a Lost World, Al Shipley of Billboard placed "Alone" at No. five (out of eight); he wrote that the track did not sound like a lead single, yet proved the record as a whole would appeal to fans over chasing radio success.
4cbillboard.comweb.archive.org ✅

Camilasdandelions

edit

Thanks so much for reviewing this article! I have made changes to all your points above, except for the places in which I've left comments. Please feel free to respond at your convenience, and let me know if you have any other comments regarding this article. Leafy46 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above issues are all that I could find, as you wrote the article very well! Let me know if all of them are addressed. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that should about do it (removing the 'Credits' from 'Credits and personnel'). Everything should be addressed, thank you again for taking the time to complete this review :) Leafy46 (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you eiter, now I support the article. Also if you don't mind, I'd like to receive your comments for my recent FAC, since there's no prose review provided yet. Best luck with your FAC! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 01:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

edit
  • Optionally, have you considered reuploading the artwork in the PNG format? There seems to be a soft consensus/preference for that among users who generally upload artworks
  • I took a look over at WP:IUP#FORMAT for guidance on this, and it says that for images in the wrong format, one should only reupload it in a converted format if it decreased the file size. In this case, the PNG seems to be a larger file than the existing JPEG file at the same size, and I don't want to decrease the image size too much more since it's already 300x300. This might just have to stay as is. Leafy46 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the lead is kind of small but is "three minutes and twenty-one seconds" still slightly excessive detail for it?
  • You could move the last sentence of the first lead para before its preceding sentence. Production cannot chronologically follow the surfacing of critical opinions and ought to have occurred before it. I would also suggest a sentence split instead of the use of semicolon there: ""Alone" begins with several minutes of instrumentals before Smith sings. Music critics opined that the song's lyrical themes include mortality and environmentalism."
  • Done. The reason I used a semicolon was the connect the facts that Smith began singing and the song's lyrics, but it makes a good amount of sense to leave them separated too. Leafy46 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was released as the lead single for Songs of a Lost World on 26 September 2024, being the first new material that the band released since ..." - "Material" is a bit odd-sounding, so how about "It was released as the lead single for Songs of a Lost World on 26 September 2024, the band's first new musical release since"
  • ""Alone" received strong reviews from critics" - I prefer "positive reviews" over "strong" and have generally seen more common usage of the former. I mean a review that is negative is not "weak", right?
  • Link the Cure's article in the first line of the Background section
  • I am pretty sure the use of Musicnotes.com used to be discouraged in FAs. I would suggest removing it, but if you insist to keep it we can defer this to the eventual source reviewer.
  • I mentioned this above with Camilasdandelions, but I'm following the advice over at WP:MUSICNOTES which suggests that Musicnotes should be acceptable for basic information about the song so long as it is directly mentioned in the prose. I'm alright deleting it if you insist on it (or if there is some more-modern discussion somewhere which shows this consensus?), but I feel like it adds a good amount of information to the article. Leafy46 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is worth introducing Disintegration as "their eighth studio album" upon the first mention
  • "Critics added that the song resembled tracks on Pornography (1982) and Bloodflowers (2000)." - Again, I would say something like "on their previous albums Pornography (1982) and Bloodflowers (2000)". The layperson coming to the article from Wikipedia's main page is not going to know these are previous albums from the Cure
  • "Three days later, the full track premiered at noon" - "Three days later, the full track was premiered at noon" - It didn't premiere itself
  • It is not clear why the April release of the Four Tet Remix appears after the June remixes. Usually this would be in chronological order?
  • Why not just say "number" instead of "no." everywhere in the Release section's second para? Also, "Release and commercial performance" seems like a more apt section title given the pretty even split here
  • "McCormick similarly described the song as "gripping" despite its sorrowful mood" - A little confused by the use of "despite", as I don't see any reason a sorrowful song cannot be gripping.
  • I've swapped the order of it to "sorrowful yet 'deeply gripping'", reflecting the "yet" used in the source itself. It still *kinda* has the meaning of 'despite', but it's a lot softer here and matches the source. Leafy46 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have a similar comment about "no." instead of "number" everywhere in the third paragraph of Critical Reception as I did for the Release section
This is actually really well done. Was fun for me to read through while watching the performance of Olivia Rodrigo and Smith's new song, lol. Ping me once my review is addressed and would be happy to support.--NØ 17:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MaranoFan: Hey, thanks so much for signing on to a review here! I loved the Olivia Rodrigo/Robert Smith duets when the two did "Friday I'm in Love" and "Just Like Heaven", but I haven't yet had a chance to listen to their new collaboration and am super stoked. I've addressed all the changes above, with some notes where necessary; thanks again for the review :) Leafy46 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good.--NØ 02:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NegativeMP1

edit

Non-coordinator comment

edit

This has been open for more than three weeks and has by my count picked up only one support. Unless it shows significant signs of moving towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days, I am afraid that it may be archived. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... pardon? I've received supports from both Camilasdandelions and MaranoFan (not to mention the successful image/source reviews), which is at least two. There is also an active note from Negative above to review the article soon. Don't you think it's a bit preemptive to go around threatening to close the FAC for inactivity? Leafy46 (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not a coordinator, then don't comment threatening to close the FAC for a reason that makes no sense. There absolutely is some movement towards wanting to promote here and there will definitely be so if I end up supporting. λ NegativeMP1 17:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good to Know

edit


Nominator(s): Camilasdandelions (✉️) 23:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about American singer JoJo's fourth studio album. She is well known for her songs like "Leave (Get Out)" or "Too Little Too Late". However, due to disputes with her former label Blackground Records, JoJo was unable to release music for nearly a decade. After filing a lawsuit against the label, she returned with several EPs and mixtapes, followed by her third studio album, Mad Love (2016). Her fourth album, Good to Know, focuses largely on themes of self-reflection and personal growth. I also hope this article can become JoJo's first Featured Article, since I cannot find her good/featured articles listed here. Thank you to everyone who will take their time at reviewing this article. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 23:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

edit

As of this writing, the media review gets an 80% pass from me, just tweak the audio and it'll reach a full 100%! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS Thank you for the media review. I just revised its caption to "The opening track 'So Bad' incorporates distorted piano and 808-driven production.", since I couldn't find the sources directly citing its lyrics. I hope this is better than previous. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 04:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, and you get a full pass on media use now :). I might review the prose later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm looking forward to your comments. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Here'll be a source review from me! RedShellMomentum 08:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This table lists 5 random passages from throughout the article (5.6% of 90 total passages). These passages contain 5 inline citations (4.3% of 117 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 08:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Camilasdandelions: Source review is all good, just one small fix is needed for a support. RedShellMomentum 23:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @RedShellMomentum, I fixed the grammar issue. The source states: "The mid-tempo track sees Jojo letting potential suitors know she's perfectly fulfilled without them.", and I just directly quoted "mid-tempo" there. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 23:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Camilasdandelions Thanks, support. I also have a peer review for "Dick in a Box" up, you may leave comments there if you wish. RedShellMomentum 23:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reference #LetterSourceArchiveStatusNotes
In 2018, she re-recorded her two previous albums, JoJo and The High Road,
1brefinery29.comweb.archive.org ✅
"Man" is a self-love track,
36businessinsider.comweb.archive.org ✅
JoJo subsequently released three additional music videos: "Lonely Hearts" on April 28, directed by Zelda Williams,
44ratedrnb.comweb.archive.org ✅
However, she stated that it had been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
56billboard.comweb.archive.org ✅
and Sajae Elder of The Fader called it "mid-tempo" song.
35thefader.comweb.archive.org ✅Grammar error here (should be "called it a "mid-tempo" song"), but it's nonetheless supported by the source.

750h

edit

Will review. Remind me if i don’t get to this soon 750h+ 16:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+ Nudge. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 22:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Camilasdandelions: that's i got, nice work on the article! 750h+ 10:13, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: Thank you so much! I mostly addressed your comments, except few things. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support 750h+ 12:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leafy46

edit

All comments are based on this current revision of the article. Let me know when you finish address all these comments, and I'll go over a second pass. Leafy46 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other than this, I'd say that the article is in pretty decent shape right now. Let me know when you've finished addressing all these changes! Leafy46 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments from SNUGGUMS

edit

I just made a minor tweak here, and now support this for FA! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS Much thanks :)! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 22:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

edit

Comments to come...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

edit
  • I have a clarification question about the following part, after they had been removed from streaming services. From my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, but Blackground Records are responsible for JoJo's albums being removed from streaming service. If that is true (and if it can be supported by sources), then I would clarify that in the prose, as this would be helpful context to provide for readers.
  • I would clarify in the prose that Thundercat is also JoJo's friend. I would keep the part about him being a musician as that is also important, but I think that adding that they are friends would also be necessary. Without that piece of information, the Thundercat reference felt a bit random to me. And the citation for that particular sentence already supports the friendship.
  • This may just be a matter of personal preference, but I do have a comment for the following sentence: Good to Know draws from her "inspirations, [her] patterns, [her] fantasies and what makes [her] feel good"; its writing process helped her "find [her] voice" and regain a sense of control, according to JoJo. I think that it would be better to start the sentence with According to JoJo, ... to more immediately let readers know who is saying these quotes. Again, this could simply be a matter of personal preference, but I think that would be better in this specific context, rather than having it at the end of the sentence.
  • I have a comment for the following sentence: Good to Know is a pop and R&B album influenced by the hip-hop styles of Canadian artists such as the Weeknd, Tory Lanez, and Drake. I wonder if a link to the Canadian hip-hop article could be helpful. This might not be necessary, so feel free to ignore this. This is more of a suggestion or an idea than a requirement.
  • Apologies in advance for bringing this up again, but I am not fully convinced by the argument for the audio sample (File:JoJo - So Bad.ogg). The caption is about the specific song and its specific production, not about how the audio sample represents anything about the album. The audio sample and the caption feel better suited for a song article, rather than an album article.
    • Yes, that's why I put the sample in "Songs" subsection. You also pointed me out for this before, as I added the sample in album's "Composition" section. However, I feel this case is somehow different, and also this featured article adopts its songs' samples like this. Recently, I reviewed The Emancipation of Mimi article's FAC, and the nominator told me he also put the samples since they "[saw] this included in FA album articles". I also believe the individual samples can be helpful at explaining the song's overall sounds. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 04:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • JoJo has done an anniversary performance of Good to Know on July 12, 2021. She uploaded the performance as a video on her YouTube channel. I would look into this further, and this would seem relevant to bring up in the article.
  • On a somewhat related note, it may be beneficial to add the JoJo Tour 2022 to this article, as that seems to be related to this album as well.
  • I am seeing that some sources represent the album title as good to know. Would that be relevant enough to add as a note in the article? Is that something done officially or is that just how some publications stylized it?
  • I have a suggestion for this sentence: He compared its sound to an updated take on Control (1986) by Janet Jackson. I think that it would be beneficial to say something along the lines of Janet Jackson's 1986 album Control instead. I just think that it would be helpful to clarify that Control is an album. It might be obvious though already, so feel free to disagree with this.
  • I would revise this part he suggested that, while the genre is "not her genre per se", she could effectively cross over into hip hop through collaborations with rappers and producers to the following instead, he suggested that while hip hop is "not her genre per se", she could effectively cross over into it through collaborations with rappers and producers. I am just not sure about the "the genre is not her genre" wording in particular. I get what you mean, but I would avoid that repetition and opt instead for something more direct and clearer.
  • Just out of curiosity, was there any commentary or coverage on the hidden track "Take Me"? Either way, I would add a link to the hidden track article.
  • For Citation 14 (i.e. 'Good To Know': JoJo On Coming Out Of Hardship With First New Album Since 2016), I would recommend that you use Template:Cite interview as that feels like a better match for the source. That and you can fill out further information (like the interviewer's name), which would be good for readers to know (pun fully intended lol).

I hope that this review is helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions about any of comments, and feel free to disagree or push back on anything. I enjoyed reading this article. The album has a solid vibe that I do enjoy. JoJo really did deserve better in her career, but I am glad that she is finding success with her own label. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times, just to make sure that I have not missed anything. I hope that you are doing well and that you are having a wonderful week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you very much for your review. I've mostly addressed your comments. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 04:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chimacum Creek

edit


Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a number of articles on Pacific Northwest streams and rivers recently, and this is the first I've brought to FAC. This is a fairly large creek in western Washington, running through a rural farming region on the Olympic Peninsula. Like many PNW streams, it was dredged and channelized in the early 20th century, threatening the ever-important salmon population. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PMC

edit

I am being so good and doing my review right away and not letting the ADHD win

  • "the East Fork Chimacum near the community of Chimacum" I think you need a comma here between Chimacum and near
    • Added.-G
  • "In 2024–2025, a monitoring station near the mouth of the creek reported..." this is nitpicky but right now you're saying that the reporting was done in 2024–2025. I might revise to something like "For the 2024–2025 water year". Dealer's choice idk
    • Done.-G
  • Suggest embiggening the Geology lead image as the text is very tiny and unreadable at current size, even with 10% zoom to account for my ancient eyes
    • Done.-G
  • "such as hummocky terrain and kettles" comma after kettles to close the clause
    • Done.-G
  • Maybe throw in an image of one of the fish for the biology section, just to be fun?
    • I wouldn't want to include a picture of a fish that's not actually from the creek.-G
  • "Forest restoration projects were made" idk if "made" is the word. "carried out"?
    • Done.-G
  • Do any sources discuss why beavers were removed? Also, I might swap "formerly" to "once", it just sounds nicer
    • Clarified.-G
  • I might suggest adding at least one more subsection to History; having just one near the bottom makes it feel oddly balanced
    • Done.-G
  • "before briefly reopening" "before" is unnecessary here
    • Done.-G
  • "entered a period of decline" could probably be trimmed to "declined"
    • Done.-G
  • "Reed canarygrass was introduced" do we know why/how?
    • Clarified.-G
  • "By the 1950s, a USDA report" since the report is dated to 1955 by the source, I'd just say that
    • Done.-G
  • "The previously prevalent livestock farming" since you haven't previously established livestock farming as prevalent, might reword to "Livestock farming, once prevalent, has declined..."
    • Done.-G

That's all I got, a nice tidy little article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

edit

I've just written a few creek articles, admittedly on the other side of the country, so might have something to add here. WIll do my best not to duplicate PMC's comments above.

  • In the infobox you list the basin as 37 sqmi, but in the article it's 33-37. Why the discrepancy?
    • Fixed it. Sources disagree on the size.-G
  • Washington Department of Ecology mentions and East Fork and West Fork, while I think you refer to what here we call the West Fork as the Main stem (which, by the way, I think is worth linking). Do other sources call it a/the West Fork? Here we also have the east fork attributed with about 1/3 of the stream's flow, while in our article we say "a little under a fifth"
    • More to the point, I think you can do a bit more with the source. We have 20 years of data for the creek's flow in this source, including mean flow rates for different months. Maybe it's worth including some broader trends, as opposed to just the one year?
      • Sources call it different things: Gatley et al. 2015 calls it the main stem (see p. 6), Bahls and Rubin 1996 say 'West Fork' (see p. 2), Jones et al. 2013 says the basin consists of Chimacum Creek and its tributary East Fork Chimacum Creek (see p. 2), while the 2024 Drainage District Analysis says West Chimacum Creek (CHI) and East Chimacum Creek (ECH) comprising the primary waterways. (see p. 4). I brought discussions of flow to the Flow section and expanded it a little, including the discrepancy between sources. But to your second point, I'm unsure how to present that. I feel like averaging out many years would veer to far into OR, but I don't know how much raw data would be helpful here. Could you give more specifics about what you think we should add? -G
        • I think it would be worth clarifying the different names, maybe in an explanatory footnote. I guess you're right on the mean flow, I suppose I misread the yearly mean as a 20 year mean. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we cite in the article that the agricultural land is particularly fertile, as you mention in the lede? (I don't think that land being used for agriculture necessarily establishes that by itself
    • You're right; removed that.-G
  • "Much of the land in this area was purchased by the Fish and Wildlife Service and Washington Recreation and Conservation Office" I would say something like "Federal/US Fish and Wildlife Service" - my impression based on rest of article wa that we are talking about a Washington FWS
    • Clarified.-G
  • Surprised to see no mention of pesticides/fertilizers/pollution- often a concern on water quality in agricultural areas. Anything on this?
    • Milked a bunch of stuff on water quality from the 2024 Jefferson County Conservation District, realized I completely forgot to add that.-G
  • Is the creek still stocked? You mention some historical instances, but nothing today.
    • I can't seem to find mention of it. -G
  • "The mainstem discharges out of the small Delanty Lake" Source doesn't seem to speak to the lake's size, to my eyes
    • Good point, removed the adjective.-G

Just some preliminary comments, will give the article a proper read through over the next couple of days. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still think it would be worth linking main stem
    • Done.-G
  • You say "The mainstem creek (also known as West Chimacum Creek) originates from a series of springs and ponds in the forested hills" and then say "The mainstem discharges out of Delanty Lake" which, to me, contradict each other somewhat. Does it originate at the lake or from a series of springs and ponds? If the series of springs and ponds mentioned in the first para here are the creeks and lakes mentioned in the second para, why is the first part even necessary?
    • Rephrased this.-G
  • Odd to me that we get the elevation of the East Fork's origins, but not the West
    • Been trying to find that statistic to little luck.-G
  • "draining the broad Chimacum Valley" What is 'broad' supposed to mean in this context?
    • Removed.-G
  • " decreasing annual precipitation" relative to what?
    • Clarified.-G
  • you say "The valleys of both creeks have thick, poorly-drained soils", but this source says "much of the agricultural land is along the relatively flat areas of the Chimacum Creek valley and the Leland Creek valley where soils are typically quite permeable" (3-61), which to me contradicts the idea of poor drainage
    • I'm just repeating what the USGS says: The valleys of Chimacum Creek and East Fork of Chimacum Creek, portions of the Tarboo Valley, and other glacial depressions are characterized by thick sequences of poorly drained soils rich in organic material. Poor drainage doesn't necessarily mean the soil isn't very permeable; it could just be very saturated with water. Nevertheless, the word sequences might be the key here; added that.-G
  • "with less than an inch of rain per month during July and August." is this an average? A record low?
    • Clarified.-G
  • "Concentrations in downstream areas has declined over time, but continues to violate safety standards." This feels like something worth having an "as of" at the end, especially if there hasn't been testing in the past decade, as seems to be the case?
    • Fair, clarified.-G
  • "During this period, many testing stations on the main stem showed temperature levels that violated the state guideline of 60.8 °F (16.0 °C) during the summer,." Stray comma, but I also don't get what this means. What is the guideline for?
    • Water temperature; clarified.-G
  • I think I read something in a source about the flow of the river varying widely, to the point that in the summer no water flows into the west fork from Delaney Lake () that I think would be worth adding.
    • Oh, good catch; added.-G
  • "and an unidentified species of minnow" I am a bit confused why you include this, if "are also known to inhabit the creek" already leaves room open for potential other fish that we don't know about.
    • Fair, removed.-G
  • I get the sense that the decline of chum was in the 1980s, rather than 1990s based on this source?
  • I generally don't think that "expatriated" extends to non-human subjects; particularly when not in the context of countries

Some more Eddie891 Talk Work 16:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    • Huh, I've seen it papers, but you're right it seems uncommon. Reworded.-G
  • I still would suggest putting the alternate names of the beginning of the mainstem (west fork etc) in a note (ie: "Also known as X, Y, Z") - Unless you think there's a good reason not to?
    • I feel an EFN is unnecessary and hard to source (as no source specifically discusses the name of the creek) but I just added a parenthetical 'also known as'. - G
  • The report on water quality goes into some more depth about the trend of water temperature than we do ("The temperature trend from 1998 to 2013 showed a decrease of 1oC (1.8 oF) on Chimacum Creek's main stem and a decrease of 2oC (3.6oF) on the east fork" from the abstract. Not sure we need to go into the actual temp numbers, but the trend seems relevant
    • added.-G
  • The sentence beginning "Efforts to restore riparian forest conditions began in the 1980s and 1990s." feels like it should now sequentially come after we talk about the end of the summer chum? That's certainly how the cited source treats the history
    • Fixed.-G
  • I still don't understand the "guideline" for water temperature. The cited source seems to put it in the context of salmonid habitat, but we don't mention anything about that, so I'm not sure what to make of it from our article.
    • I feel it might be unnecessary, esp. as the source expresses doubt whether its actually a good gauge on salmon suitability. Removed that.-G
  • I am generally a bit unhappy with the Biology/Hydrology sections. I think, this is because what we are talking about is largely the *current* Biology/Hydrology of the creek (in part because there just isn't much information about the historic conditions), but we keep doubling back and qualifying the history of parts and it ends up feeling like there's a bunch of history in these other sections (but inconsistent, and imo somewhat duplicative, history). And the history section itself covers a lot of the biological/hydrological history (ie restoration projects)! I'd vote to move what isn't in the history section already there, and cut the rest. For example: In the biology section, "Driven from the area by forest clearing and trapping during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, beavers were reintroduced to the watershed in the 1960s, and became prevalent as trees spread along the creek." -> "Beavers are prevalent along [portions of?] the creek", and in history mention the reintroduction/driving out. So, the question here is whether you have considered doing this. Perhaps you have and decided that it did not make sense, but I'm curious to hear why, if that is the case.

Eddie891 Talk Work 15:43, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. (Hopefully) Final comments. I think the article flows much better now!

  • "The group was devastated by diseases and massacres before Euro-American settlement" In the lead you say that this devastation came from "surrounding groups" - I don't really see that reflected in the article. I do see Gibbs attributing many deaths to attacks "many years prior" but can we explicitly tie these to their devastation (there's a difference between many deaths and total devastation, if that makes sense)? And what about the disease? Did that come via the other tribes, or Europeans? Any sense of what that looked like? Not sure that you can say it explicitly, but I worry the current phrasing opens us up to interpretations along the lines of "oh, the Europeans came and nobody was left so... nothing to see here". Again, if the sourcing doesn't offer more, no worries, just wanted to raise the point.
    • Changes seem fine. The Chimacum were devastated right at the line between the protohistorical and historical periods for the region, so there's a lot that's unclear about them. The source does mention it in the context of broader disease epidemics so I reworded it there to note that it was specifically part of the epidemics of Old World disease. That spread without direct European contact, but they may have been contacted anyway due to the fur trade; I don't think we can say for certain how it got there. As for the massacres, I reworded to note that the groups that attacked them were indeed surrounding indigenous groups such as the Makah, Snohomish, and Suquamish. -G
  • In the after colonization section- I think there's some duplication that is unnecessary. For instance "The Irondale ironworks and adjacent industry deposited large amounts of fill material over the creek's estuary, resulting in the loss of the creek's lagoon and spit...The creek's delta historically featured a spit and a small lagoon. These were covered by several acres of infill in the 19th and early 20th centuries." These are referencing the same thing, no?

Pretty much it from me! I made a few minor changes that I think would be uncontroversial, but of course feel free to revert them if you disagree. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
    • Done.-G
  • File:Chimacum_Creek_in_Port_Hadlock,_Washington,_ca_1898-1899_(WASTATE_2549).jpeg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Mouth_of_Chimacum_Creek_in_Port_Hadlock,_Washington,_ca_1898-1899_(WASTATE_2548).jpeg, File:Klallam_people_near_canoe.jpg, File:Man_in_horse-drawn_carriage_on_bridge_over_Chimacum_Creek_in_Port_Hadlock,_Washington,_ca_1898-1899_(WASTATE_2550).jpeg
    • Oops, the Washington State Archives ones should have been PD-US-Unpublished; fixed this. The description states that "Klallam people near canoe.jpg" was published by a local postcard company c. 1914.
  • File:Map_missoula_floods.gif: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FM

edit
  • Some preliminary comments. There seem to be some WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script: FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.-G
  • "The main stem creek (also known as West Chimacum Creek) originates the forested hills" originates in?
    • Fixed.-G
  • Link unincorporated community. As a non-American, I have no idea what this means.
    • Done.-G
  • "filled in by several acres of added material in the 19th and early 20th centuries, although habitat restoration in 2006 cleared most of this fill material" what is "added material"? And doesn't "added" go without saying since you begin with "filled"?
      • Fixed.-G
  • Link basic.
    • Done.-G
  • Link salmon.
    • Done.-G

@FunkMonk: Thank you; got to all these. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I'm not sure if the fill sentence had to be completely removed (seems relevant), I see you later down say "deposited large amounts of fill material", so maybe it could just be reworded and restored? FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That was in response to Eddie's request that things be rearranged to be more chronological. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Fraser Glaciation in the caption.
    • Done.-G
  • Could explain what alluvial means in parenthesis.
    • Done.-G
  • "Western settlement" Earlier you say " Euro-American settlement", which would seem more appropriate? Technically, the settlers came from the east of there, also...
    • Fair, done.-G
  • "derives from the name" Do we know what the name itself means?
    • Sadly, the sources don't seem to say. It may be unknown.-G
  • "a faulty hydrant released" and "a culvert failure" what were these associated with? A faulty hydrant where?

Source review - support

edit

Sour review incoming either later this evening or sometime tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 00:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are the credentials of Daryl McClary? See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sounder commuter rail/archive1
    • While HistoryLink is a tertiary source, it has editorial review and cites its own sources. I consider it appropriate when used to cite something like dates; it seems analogous to citing a local newspaper. For his credit, McClary seems to be an otherwise obscure local historian and journalist.-G
  • Other sourcing is almost entirely governmental reports of a type which look acceptable for what they are being cited for
  • The link for the Polenz file is a direct link to a .zip file which doesn't do anything? In fact, I'm a bit confused of what the nature of this source is in general. It looks like this has the same publication information as what we're citing, but then there's a bunch of stuff cited to different pages within "Geologic Map of the Center 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Jefferson County, Washington" which not only sounds like it matches the linked file but would surely be a map that doesn't have discrete page numbers?
    • Geologic survey maps are usually a two part thing; they have both a map (cited as 'map' in the sfn) and a corresponding report which explains each section of the map and gives it sources. I couldn't just link to the map .pdf itself, so I had to link to a download with both the map and its corresponding report.-G

Spot checks:

  • " By the early 2000s, much of the land surrounding the last mile of the river's course before its mouth was public ownership, managed by community-owned easements such as the Jefferson Land Trust." - source indicates "While much of the habitat in the lower mile is public ownership or protected by conservation easements through the Jefferson Land Trust." I don't think the current phrasing is quite right - an easement isn't an ownership right, it's just usage rights or restrictions and the source doesn't indicate the relative amounts of public ownership vs easements so we don't know the relative proportions to say that "much" is specifically publicly owned, rather than a mix of both
    • Fair; reworded.-G
  • "Euro-American settlement in the area began during the 1850s" - OK
  • "The riparian (riverside) areas of the watershed were covered by conifer forest, with trees such as spruce, cedar, hemlock, and fir." - OK
  • "Prior to colonization, the lower reach of the creek and the Chimacum Valley was a network of forested swamps with many beaver ponds, meandering river channels, and crabapple shrubs" - OK
  • "Chimacum Creek has the largest watershed of the Quimper Peninsula, approximately 33 to 37 square miles (85 to 96 km2)" - mostly OK, but neither source provides a range. One says 33 sqm and the other 37; would it be more accurate to present this as an or statement (or even relgate the varying sizes to a footnote)?
    • Fair enough.-G
  • "There are five small lakes in the basin—Anderson, Beausite, Delanty, Gibbs, and Peterson" - OK
  • "with less than an inch of rain per month on average during July and August" - OK
  • "A small area of estuary and intertidal wetland is located at the river's embayment into the ocean, on the last 0.2 miles (0.32 km) of its course" - is "estuary and intertidal wetland" equivalent to "salt marsh and lagoon" from the source?
    • A salt marsh is a type of intertidal wetland, and a lagoon in this case is a form of estuary, but you're right those are more specific, so I reworded.-G
  • "Many of these are salmonids who spawn in the creek, including coho and chum salmon, as well as steelhead trout and cutthroat trout" - OK
  • "The plant closed in 1911, briefly reopening in 1917–1919 due to heavy demand for steel during World War I" - OK
  • "with about 3,000 acres (1,200 ha) of farmland in the watershed" - OK
  • "The last dairy in the valley closed in 2015" - source says 2016'
    • Oops, fixed.-G
  • "As the climate warmed during the end of the Vashon Stade" - close paraphrasing; the only difference from the source is the substitution of "during" for "at". I'm not convinced that it is not possible to rephrase this in a way that avoids the issue
    • Rephrased.-G

Some issues on the spotchecks noted; questions on formatting for one source and potentially reliability on another. I searched for major sources ommitted on Google Scholar and a couple of academic databases - is this USGS document about groundwater in the creek's basin of any use? Hog Farm Talk 00:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Who Knew Too Much (collection)

edit


Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the slow march of McQueen towards FT, I present to you a shorter article on one of his lesser collections. Hot on the heels of the theatrically beautiful runway show for It's Only a Game, here McQueen confused his critics with a hard turn towards commercial appeal and obvious referentiality. The collection was not without hits: critics appreciated the sleekly tailored retro designs and youthful knits, but in the face of, well, everything else he ever did, it simply pales in comparison. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

edit
  • Please add alternative text for the images so that the article is more easily accessible for readers.
    • Done!
  • Would a link for secondary education in France be helpful for secondary school? I know that education systems can vary from country to country, so I was not sure if a link would be beneficial for readers who may be unfamiliar with a secondary school, particularly in the context of Paris.
  • Apologies as I know that I bring this up often in FAC reviews, but I would be mindful of using the following sentence construction, with disagreements mainly centering around the benefits and drawbacks of McQueen's more commercial turn. In FAC reviews, I often see editors discourage the sue of the "with X verb-ing" wording. I do not have a strong opinion about it either way, but I point this out just because the frequency in which this comment in raised in the FAC space.
    • Have tweaked
  • I have a question about this sentence: It was called the "Novak" after actress Kim Novak, who frequently appeared in Hitchcock films. Did Novak really frequently appear in Hitchcock's films? I know that she is in Vertigo, which is objectively iconic, but I am struggling to think of other Hitchcock films with Novak. I could just blanking on the obvious ones though. That is why I get for starting a review right after a day of work lol.
    • No, you're right, I'll tweak it
  • Did McQueen ever give a reason for why he left the show without greeting the audience? I doubt that he did, since I would imagine that this would be in the article if it was known, but I thought that I should ask to double-check anyway.
    • Unfortunately no; I think he was just in an extra snitty mood for this collection.
  • I have a comment for the following sentence: Despite the lack of McQueen's usual theatrics, many reviewers were pleased with the 1950s-inspired tailored silhouettes and glamourous evening wear. This sentence uses five citations, and I would recommend doing something like citation bundling to avoid any concerns with citation overkill. I believe that this is the only case of this in the article, but I would mindful of this if there are any other instances.
    • Whoops, I meant to slap these into a bundle and forgot, thanks for the reminder.
      • You are all good. It is easy to miss something like this. I believe that this is the only instance of this in the article. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this review is helpful. I will be focusing primarily on the prose, aside from the stray image comment that I had at the start. I have only done a quick skim through the article so far, and I will read through everything more thoroughly when I have the time. I did watch the fashion show on YouTube, and I actually really enjoyed the staging and the clothing, but that probably shows how basic I am lol. Please let me know if you have any questions about anything, and best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the collection is actually quite elegant, and there's nothing wrong with the staging in and of itself. I think had it been presented at Dior or Chanel or another classy kind of fashion house, nobody would have questioned it. It's just that the whole thing lacked the nasty edge McQueen was known for. Anyway, not germane here; I've made your suggested changes and look forward to any others. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I agree. If it was a Dior of Chanel show, I think that this would been more praised and well-remembered. I do like the Rear Window comparison in particular. I would be interesting if a show ever dialed that up, like having models walking through windowed areas and positioning the audience more as voyeurs. But, then again, that is not a particularly great way to showcase the actual fashion lol. I will look through the article tomorrow if that is okay with you. I hope that you are having a wonderful weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the sexually reserved wording for this part, a stereotype of the attractive but sexually reserved women who led Hitchcock's films. While the Hitchcock Blonde is more reserved, sexuality is still a key component to her character, and Hitchcock has said that he believes that female characters with this more reserved quality are actually more sexual and erotic. Maybe replace "sexually reserved" with just "reserved" or a different word entirely, like "aloof", to be more accurate? Obviously, this would need to be supported in the citation.
    • Hmm. I've swapped to "romantically aloof".

This is my only remaining comment. Once this has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. I hope that you are doing well and that you are having an excellent end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I do have one outstanding comment, but it is admittedly more on the minor side, so I do not want this to hold up the FAC in any way, shape, or form (that and I am stepping away from Wikipedia). Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba, I know you've mentioned on your talk page that you're retiring, but I hope you know that I have always (and will always) appreciate your comments and your time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSK

edit

Saving a spot, will do a prose review soon. msk 19:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Man Who Knew Too Much (Autumn/Winter 2005) is the twenty-sixth collection by McQueen for his eponymous fashion house. Should this be linked as eponymous fashion house instead?
    • Nobody can ever decide. I'm something like 20 FACs in and I keep getting told put it in, take it out, put it in, etc etc. So I'm sticking with what I've got, lol.
  • including a red one with a voluminous mermaid skirt that evoked the designs of Charles James. Is this elaborated upon in any sources? Same for the following sentence.
    • Unfortunately no to both. Bethune and Watt are fashion writers who I think are assuming the viewer knows James' work, which is basically big lovely classy 1950s ball gowns. I tweaked to say "a designer from the period" so the connection is more obvious, how's that? As for the Monroe dress comparison, there's not much more to say other than to point out that McQueen was doing a copycat version of a famous 1960s glam dress in a collection based on 50s/60s glam.
  • McQueen earned praise for successfully updating classic styles with modern details while avoiding overwrought retro fashion clichés like flicked hair and cat eye glasses. "overwrought retro fashion clichés" comes off a bit strange in wikivoice, though I'm not entirely sure how to change it.
    • I'll admit I suffered on this one a bit so I'm happy to take suggestions. This is the cleanest phrasing I got to without pulling direct quotes or sounding even less formal (at one point I had "throwback" in there instead of "retro").
      • @Premeditated Chaos: There seems to be a source-text mismatch here, Menkes says "it was to his credit as a brilliant stage manager that his Hitchcock theme never got out of hand i give or take those flicked up hairstyles and eye glasses suggesting secretary as a career summit." I read it as "The Hitchcock theme never got out of hand, *except* for those flicked up hairstyles and eye glasses".msk 17:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huh, yeah, you're right. I went back to double check that it wasn't an OCR issue with Gale (the same source is also on ProQuest) and nope, it's my error. I've changed it to "or successfully updating classic Hitchcock-esque styles with modern details, avoiding an overly referential approach", drawing on Menkes' statement that the theme never got out of hand and Ings-Chambers saying that the modern details "ensured you were never merely treading a time warp".
  • Hair was bouffant or backcombed. make-up was restrained, ... "Make-up" isn't properly capitalized; additionally, what does "backcombed" or "bouffant" mean?
    • Fixed the caps. I've clarified that "bouffant" is a very period style, and "backcombed" adds volume. How's that?

Thanks for the review, hopefully that all seems reasonable. I did re-add the second Charles James link per WP:DUPELINK as it's two sections down so a reasonable dupe in my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now, support msk 23:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zzz plant

edit

Hi! I found this very engaging to read and would like to offer some comments from a prose review standpoint. Please feel free to disregard those that you don't agree with or have already been discussed elsewhere. Zzz plant (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
edit
  • I must say the lede feels a tad thin- I get there's not as much commentary on this collection, but I think with just a few more sentences it could provide a more robust roadmap for the reader. for ex, the lede for La Dame Bleue did a lovely job giving me a taste for what imagery to expect ("Draped gowns contrasted the tailored designs, drawing on McQueen's time at Givenchy...). besides the # of day/evening looks I don't get a sense for of general aesthetic before I read the body.
  • "It took inspiration from the fashion of the 1950s and 1960s, as well as the films of Alfred Hitchcock; its namesake is Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)." is there a way to get rid of the Hitchcock repeat? Maybe like "Named for Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), the collection drew inspiration from his films and the fashion of the 1950s and 1960s." or "It took inspiration from the fashion of the 1950s and 1960s, as well as the films of Alfred Hitchcock, taking its name from the director's 1956 film The Man Who Knew Too Much."
  • would suggest rephrasing to avoid two sentences starting with "Critical" in close proximity
Reception
edit
  • "Although she admired the skilled tailoring, The Wall Street Journal fashion editor Robin Givhan felt the tightly tailored clothes were too restrictive to be worth the trouble of wearing." suggest removing/replacing or attributing "skilled", and trying to remove the repeat of "tailor-"
  • "Susie Rushton at The Independent called McQueen's decision to send out glamorous evening gowns in lieu of a theatrical ending a "commercially savvy move"." - this feels oddly placed to me: the reception section moves from critics complaining about commerciality into Rushton saying the evening gowns were commercially savvy, but the relationship between those ideas could be clearer. is it agreement? contrast? a partial defense? I also don't instinctively know why it would be commercially savvy.
  • "In her 2015 book Gods and Kings, Dana Thomas called it a "soulless exercise" indicative of McQueen's late-career malaise, and mentioned it only to opine that it was a "far more literal" interpretation of Hitchcock than The Birds had been." there's a few too many "it"s going on here in my view, suggest replacing the first one with "the collection"
  • I would combine all the retrospective reception into one larger para. right now the topic sentence "The mixed reception persists in retrospect." feels off- two fairly harsh takes and one faint praise doesn't feel like mixed reception, but once you read the next para it comes together.
Analysis
edit
  • I would consider glossing "diffusion line"
  • “Film theorist Alistair O'Neill focused on the collection as it related to Hitchcock. McQueen referenced several of the director's films throughout his career, exploring what O'Neill called "representations of femininity and how they are challenged through transformation scenes" - I wonder whether this quote could be paraphrased unless the wording itself is important. The following sentences seem to give the more collection-specific analysis.
  • "In an essay discussing fashion and mental health, Isabel Formica Jakob described the collection..." this mini para feels quite out of left field to me; it doesn't feel integrated with the rest of the prose.
Legacy
edit
  • I think the Novak handbag deserves a bit more space in the legacy section given its stated significance in the lede. this mini para just feels a bit orphaned, like an after(or before?)thought compared to the detailed info that follows about editorial shoots and auction prices.

Well-being

edit


Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well-being is what is ultimately good for a person. It is a measure of how well life is going for someone and serves as a central goal of many individual and societal endeavors. This is a level-5 vital article with over 100,000 page views last year. Thanks to Urchincrawler for the GA review and to AdaCiccone for the peer review! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

edit
General
Definition

MSincccc (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Types

MSincccc (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Theories of well-being

Well, they postponed the final exam to the 31st. Apologies for the delay. MSincccc (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your exams went well. I think we are still on schedule, but once a nomination reaches the three-week mark, the coordinates start getting a little impatient. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Components and contributing factors
  • "contributing factors independent of whether they are integral parts or external causes" → "contributing factors, independent of whether they are integral parts or external causes"
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "despite academic disagreements about their precise roles" → "despite academic disagreement about their precise roles"
    Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Feelings, emotions, and life satisfaction
Achievements and meaning
Friendship and other relationships
Health and disabilities
Thought patterns and knowledge
  • "the identification and reframing of automatic negative thoughts" → "identifying and reframing automatic negative thoughts"
    I used a slightly different reformulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: Do you have more comments? It seems time is slowly running out for this nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I might leave a few more comments, but I don't see any substantive issues remaining, only possible stylistic tweaks. Hence, I will support the nomination. Good luck, and apologies for the delay (you know, with results...). Best, MSincccc (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! I hope your exams went well. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Thanks for the image review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

750h

edit

will review! Ping me if i don’t get to this soon 750h+ 01:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 750h+ and thanks for reviewing this nomination! Have you had the time to take a first look? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for the reminder; I'll look into this soon today. 750h+ 01:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
lead

No problems here.

definition
types
  • Others combine both perspectives in their investigation to provide a more comprehensive picture and counterbalance their shortcomings. i think "in their investigation" is a bit ambiguous, and could be removed
    I agree: it's neither essential nor particularly helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • community well-being is central for understanding how ==> "community well-being is central to understanding how"
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Physical well-being concerns the domain of the body as the capacity to engage in physical activities and the absence of illness and bodily pain. ==> "Physical well-being concerns the domain of the body, including the capacity to engage in physical activities and the absence of illness and bodily pain."
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
theories of well-being
  • They focus on the intrinsic nature of well-being, contrasting with external causes or conventional indicators used to measure it. I think something like "They focus on the intrinsic nature of well-being, rather than on external causes or conventional indicators used to measure it." flows better.
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • It states that how well a life goes for a person depends entirely on how it feels to live this life i think the repetition could be reduced. Maybe something like "It states that how well a person's life goes depends entirely on how it feels to live it".
    Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • These factors can include subjective components, like pleasure and desire-satisfaction, but also encompass objective factors should "encompass" be "encompasses"?
    I think "encompass" is fine because it is plural relative to "factors": "These factors can include..., but also encompass..." Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
components and contributing factors
  • is more complex since they influence experience ==> "is more complex because they influence experience"
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Life satisfaction is the subjective judgment of a person about how well their life is going ==> "Life satisfaction is a person's subjective judgment about how well their life is going."
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Researchers also examine how achievements and accomplishments promote well-being i think here "achievements and accomplishments" are synonymous, and can removed
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • an organism functions as it should ==> "an organism functions properly"
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related mental factors of well-being include tendencies through which people act against ==> "Related mental factors of well-being include tendencies that lead people to act against", this might flow a bit better
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
in various fields
history

That's all I got @Phlsph7:! Thanks for this article ! 750h+ 15:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the helpful suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support! 750h+ 13:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ErnestKrause

edit

Some short comments to get this started:

(1) It seems that there should be some comment about the best choice of perspective to start this article. On the one hand you give your opening sentence about what is "ultimately good for a person" with two citations in the main text, but then you state that there is a substantial difference between subjective and objective perspectives on the topic of defining well-being with 5 references for it in the main text. I'm going to suggest that the citation evidence pulls the argument the other way around. It might be better to do the lede from this viewpoint: state that the question of 'well-being' has substantial support for either subjective or objective interpretations in the first paragraph in the lede, and the make your case for 'ultimately good for a person' as what looks like a somewhat objective format.

I don't think that there is a conflict here since the definition remains neutral: two people can agree that well-being is defined as what is ultimately good for a person and disagree about whether subjective or objective factors are ultimately responsible. This formulation is presented as a standard definition in the first sentence of Crisp 2021. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that is consistent with Guy Fletcher in either the first or second edition of his book on the philosophy of well-being. He is fairly committed to defining well-being as its related to its roots in philosophical hedonism. He seems as much an authority, perhaps moreso, than Crisp 2021. Its not a standard definition which Crisp uses. The new edition of Fletcher's book is due out in about a month as well . I'm going to side with Fletcher on this as a long standing opinion to define well-being. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fletcher's definition aligns with our definition. From Fletcher 2015: What is distinctive about the philosophy of well-being is its focus on the question of which things in and of themselves make someone’s life go better or worse for them. It thus seeks an account of what is fundamentally, or non-instrumentally, good or bad for us and why. From Fletcher 2016: The relevant kind of evaluation I am making is in terms of well-being, about how well lives go for the person who lives them. For a similar outlook, see Hooker 2015: When I refer to contributions to well-being, I mean non-instrumental contributions, that is, things that are good for us in their own right as opposed to good only because they are means to other things.
By the way, Fletcher 2016 does not endorse hedonism as far as I'm aware. It just discusses it as one of several theories but not as a general definition: In the first chapter we examine hedonism about well-being. Roughly, the view claims that only pleasure is ultimately good for us ... Nonetheless, hedonism faces a significant set of challenges, challenges that suggest that pleasure and pain alone are not the only things that are good and bad for us. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hedonism is the subject of Fletcher's chapter one in which he sets the stage for his viewpoint and takes on the subject of defining well-being; that seems like a fairly strong endorsement of his taking 'hedonism' as his starting point for understanding well-being. I'm not sure that Fletcher would agree with your opening sentence defining well-being; it might be nice to see something closer to Fletcher's views. For example, stating that the definition of well-being starts from the perspective of philosophical hedonism and is refined by concepts in... (You can fill in the ellipses), which would be much closer to Fletcher's definition than the one you are currently using. He supports this approach in the second edition as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In Fletcher 2016, the definition of the term well-being is presented in the introduction chapter, which comes before the hedonism chapter. Fletcher explicitly presents hedonism as one of several competing theories. There is also overwhelming support from other reliable sources that hedonism is one of several competing theories, so trying to start our article with a hedonism-biased definition is a bad idea. If you want something closer to Fletcher's wording, we could replace the expression "ultimately good" with "non-instrumentally good" if you think that this is an improvement. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's generous of you to offer though I might prefer to see how you would quote Fletcher directly for his definition of Well-being. In quotes if possible. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the formulation and added a footnote with a quote by Fletcher. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a useful change and should be reflected in the lede opening sentence as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(2) History is covered at the end of the article rather than at the start. I'm certain that well-being can be argued to go back to Plato and Socrates all the way to the present day; shouldn't readers be told about the long history of philosophical debates about this topic at the beginning of the article? Your History section is also quite long and might need a subsection division or two for clarity of presentation.

I subdivided the history section. There are different ways to organize an article and a history section often fits in either at the beginning or at the end. I put it at the end because it does not get as much weight in overview sources as other topics. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Positive psychology is attributed to one main source, however, are Freud and Jung completely excluded from this discussion as primary sources? Both Freud and Jung spend great a great deal of time discussing aberrations from normal behavior as detrimental to well-being, and dealing with these aberrations is significant to them for attaining well-being. Is it worth covering in this article?

Freud is already mentioned in the history section. I added a sentence on Jung. Not many overview sources discuss them, so it might be better to leave further details to child articles. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Positive psychology in the viewpoint of one scholar still seems to be the center of your approach; does it represent the extent of viewpoints from other psychologists who assert the conditions for well-being and mental health in individuals. Often such individuals seeking help for related mental health issues with their sense of well-being, claim to suffer from a lack of well-being which they seek to remedy using various psychological schools and treatments. Its not clear why you are giving one scholar pride of place and centrality in your section about this topic. ErnestKrause (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Positive psychology is the branch of psychology dedicated to the study of well-being and related phenomena. It is not the view of one individual scholar. Our section discusses various types of interventions. It is not limited to one specific school or treatment. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason you single out one and only one positive psychologist with the words: "Martin Seligman is one of the founding fathers of positive psychology". That seems to single him out, which I'm not sure is justified. I'm not really seeing why Seligman and positive psychology is more important than Jung and Freud for understanding well-being. It seems the other way around would make more sense. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The section is about a branch of psychology, not about Seligman, who is not mentioned in the section text. The image is not essential and I'm open to using a different one without Seligman if you know of something better that is relevant to the section. Regarding relative weight, overview sources on well-being give very little weight to Freud and Jung. One reason may be that their theories are controversial since they are often based on anecdotal impressions rather than controlled, evidence-based research. For this reason, I think Freud and Jung fit better into the history section, where they are currently discussed. If you have a specific fact about them that you think should be included, we can look into it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is going to be a little different; if the Seligman image is important for you, then the main body needs to have some supportive prose to be included to justify the image use. Otherwise, I'm going to suggest that the image doesn't really belong and that it might therefore be dropped. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Sections of 'Other fields' and 'Other components' in this article are really fairly long; possibly add some subsections for clarity. Otherwise they might lean towards being seen as a potpourri or catch-all sections.

I found a way to subdivide the subsection "Other components". Generally speaking, those two subsections are basically catch-all sections for topics in a certain area that should be mentioned but do not fit well into existing subsections and are not important enough to merit separate subsections. I hope their length is acceptable now. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(5) Is it possible to discuss 'well-being' without any mention of the effect which 'world-view' would have on an individual or cultural assessment of whether well-being is being attained or not. World-view it seems ought to be covered in the article as a significant topic.

I added a footnote, but this is not one of the main research topics. Our article covers several related factors that are more commonly discussed in the academic discourse, such as thought patterns. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Its difficult for many readers to see their world-views as being separated or divorced from the discussion of their well-being; I mean if your world-view is inconsistent with your experience in life then its fairly plain that there will be problems for ones sense of well-being. Could you double check the link to world-view for matching and useful comparisons? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Worldviews typically mold experience. I guess it's possible to have inconsistencies, but the relation between these inconsistencies and well-being seems to be a very narrow topic better left to discussions in child articles. I don't think our article Worldview discusses this. According to WP:PROPORTION, the weight given to subjects should reflect reliable sources, not personal opinions. I checked the following overview sources, they don't have any substantial discussions of worldviews and most don't even mention the term: Crisp 2021; Bradley 2015; Fletcher 2015; Fletcher 2016; Hooker 2015; Huppert, Baylis & Keverne 2005; and Layard & Neve 2023. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That should start things off. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ErnestKrause and thanks for your comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some follow-up points. Guy Fletcher's second edition of his well-being book is due out in about one month; see comments above. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are some preprints and advanced pages from the second edition if you might want to look at them before the formal publication date in early July. ErnestKrause (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why should be cite an unpublished edition when a published edition is available? Phlsph7 (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can read his own explanation in the Preview tab on the Amazon book page I linked for the 2nd edition; he seems to make the case that he made extensive changes with good reasons for updating the old edition. Could you read the preview pages available on the linked page at Amazon? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Changes along these lines, such as updating further reading sections or adjusting discussion questions at the end of chapters, are common for new editions. Content changes seem to be in chapters that are not relevant to our discussion so far. There are countless books on well-being, many with several editions. I fail to understand why you place so much importance on the 2nd edition of this particular book and try to focus our whole discussion around it, especially given that it hasn't even been published yet. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the case that you presently have two supporters and that images have been signed-off by reviewers? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Non-coordinator comment

edit

This has been open for more than three weeks and has by my count picked up only one support. Unless it shows significant signs of moving towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days, I am afraid that it may be archived. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I already reached out to some editors who plan to review this nomination. For this type of broad-concept article, finding reviewers and writing reviews can be time-intensive, so some leniency regarding the timeframe would be appreciated. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Crestfalling

edit

I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 23:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First few comments left below. This is my first time reviewing such a broad article, so please feel free to decline any suggestions that don't work so well. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 03:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • For the overall structure, does egoism/altruism have to be in the first paragraph? I'm wondering if it might be better to instead include more details about its definition and importance in context (per MOS:OPEN), and move egoism/altruism to the discussion of theories behind it.
  • "According to objective list theories, a combination of diverse elements is responsible." - the syntax of this is a bit ambiguous, since it abruptly trails off, and it's slightly out-of-place compared to the previous two sentences. Perhaps it be rephrased to "Objective list theories hold that a combination of diverse elements is responsible for well-being", or the like.
  • "finding meaning" -> "a sense of meaning" (or similar), to avoid mixing in a verb clause into the list
  • "has only intensified" -> "has intensified", feels more encyclopedic in tone

Heard Island and McDonald Islands

edit


Nominator(s): MCE89 (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an uninhabited Australian territory in the southern Indian Ocean. Home to a 2745-metre volcano and some of the world's largest penguin colonies, it has often been described as one of the most remote places on Earth. I've recently rewritten the article as part of The Core Contest, and it has received a GA review from Marshelec. Many thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to review. MCE89 (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Would it be okay for me to nominate another article? This one has three prose supports and has passed a source review. MCE89 (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FM

edit
  • Kerguelen Islands and mackerel icefish are WP:duplinked.
    Fixed. --MCE
  • "Heard claimed the island for the United States" was he American himself then?
    Yes, now specified. -- MCE
  • "one was led by the Swiss geologist Edgar Aubert de la Rüe" since you mention his nationality, you could mention it for the few other people mentioned throughout the article. And perhaps even nationalities of the ships for context.
    Done. --MCE
  • "In 1854 Captain William McDonald sighted the McDonald Islands aboard the ship Samarang. A party of sealers led by Captain Erasmus Darwin Rogers" As above.
    Also done. --MCE
  • Link sealers and perhaps whaling.
    I think both of these are already linked on first mention. --MCE
  • "19th century drawing of Heard Island" why not use the exact year, as present on the file page?
    Good point, done. --MCE
  • "After Britain's transfer of the Australian Antarctic Territory to Australia in 1933, the Australian government began preparing to take possession of Heard Island and the McDonald Islands" perhaps too far off the scope, but why did the UK willingly transfer possession?
    Added a sentence on this. The reasons are somewhat complex, but a high level it was because Australia's geographic position made the claim to its sector of Antarctica more defensible, and because Australia was better placed to manage the territories logistically. --MCE
  • "Four species of breeding penguin on Heard Island" perhaps add "the" at the beginning to make clear there aren't others?
    Done. --MCE
  • The McDonald Islands article is short and pretty much unsourced, holding little unique info. Any reason why it doesn't just redirect here, like Heard Island does?
    I think I agree that it should just redirect here, but oddly enough it's a level 5 VA so I can't really try a bold BLAR. I might open a discussion to see if anyone’s opposed to redirecting it. --MCE
I think that would be worthwhile, now that article is just a dead-end WP:content fork to unsourced information. So it shouldn't be a too controversial proposal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it might go without saying, I wonder if the article should explicitly state the islands are named after the respective persons mentioned in the article who saw them first.
    Good idea, done. --MCE
  • First you say "Various non-native species have been present on Heard Island in the past, including dogs, sheep, and a rat, but none have established a presence on the island." but later you say "A non-native grass, Poa annua, has significantly expanded its presence on the island" and "Three of the invertebrate species found on Heard Island are not native to the island", so what is meant here? They introduced themselves?
    It's a fair question, I realise now I've explained this a bit clumsily throughout the section. I've clarified that first bit to "non-native animal species have been brought onto Heard Island by humans in the past". I've also tried to make the language on this point a bit more specific throughout the section. --MCE
  • I think the caption of the Heard Island cormorant image could specify it's unique to the island, as that's a pretty significant fact.
    Done. --MCE
  • You start the mammals section with "There are 26 species of marine mammals in the Heard Island and McDonald Islands region, including the southern right whale and the pygmy blue whale", and then after some text about various other species, you return to "Seventeen species of cetacean have been observed". Why are cetaceans not listed together?
    Grouped these together. --MCE
  • "Southern elephant seals are the most common mammal species on Heard Island.[84] A 1999 study estimated that the population of elephant seals on Heard Island declined" I don't think you need to repeat Heard Island in the second sentence.
    Removed. --MCE
  • "its largest fish is the southern sleeper shark, Somniosus antarcticus" why give both common and scientific names for some species but not most others?
    Removed the scientific name here. --MCE
  • "Some of these, including several species of beetle and a species of weevil, are found only on Heard Island" I think it would be relevant to name some or all endemic species in the text.
    On second thought I've removed this sentence, since it doesn't seem to be mentioned by any of the higher-quality sources about the invertebrate fauna and I suspect Valentine is using some outdated studies here. --MCE
  • "The island is home to very few winged insects" technically all the beetles you mentioned just before that have wings as well, so perhaps "flying" or such is meant?
    Yep, changed to "flying". --MCE
  • "The islands are home to one non-native plant species, Poa annua, which is believed to have been naturally introduced from the Kerguelen Islands by seabirds." Isn't that a natural introduction then, like most other non-endemic (or any species) there?
    It is, but the sources all describe it as a naturally introduced but non-native species. My understanding is that this is because it was naturally introduced from the Kerguelen Islands where it's an invasive introduced species. --MCE

Image review

CMD

edit

This is interesting work, my immediate thought when thinking about what this article might need to be at an FA level is comprehensiveness. There's some high-level sentences that tantalise that further information is out there (eg. "Brief scientific expeditions to Heard Island took place in 1874, 1902, and 1929, with their observations limited to the north-western side of the island"), and the article is not facing space constraints. There's no explicit mention of territorial waters, which at the least partially inform the reserve boundaries (I think this is what is implied by "fishing is prohibited within the waters nearest to the island", although the actual shape of the reserve is not so simple). I don't see an explicit mention that the Australian EEZ abuts the French one here, although the close location of the two territories is mentioned. The article also doesn't mention the massive continental shelf claim (2004 proposal, 2012 proclamation). It may be worth grouping Structures under Governance, and perhaps add current research and keep fisheries there, to create a consolidated Human activity section. CMD (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this @Chipmunkdavis! With regards to your first point about the 1874, 1902, and 1929 expeditions, I'm not sure there's too much else to be said on those — I've added a sentence saying that one of the expeditions was forced to stay a few days longer than planned due to the weather, but beyond that my sources don't have much to say about them. If there's anywhere else you noticed that you feel may be lacking detail, definitely happy to work on filling in any gaps. It's a good point regarding the maritime territorial claim — I've added a paragraph going over that more explicitly, including a mention of the extended continental shelf. I've also reshuffled the sections to create a "Human activity" section per your suggestions. MCE89 (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

edit

MSincccc

edit
History
  • Could we link to "British government"?
    Added. --MCE
  • The first confirmed sighting of Heard Island took place in 1853 when the island was sighted
    • Could we avoid the use of "sighting...sighted"?
      Done. --MCE
  • Could we drop "ship" when we use "aboard"?
    Done. --MCE
  • "conducted a range of research" → "conducted research"
    Done. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Human activity
  • "The islands and the surrounding waters are a strict nature reserve" → "The islands and the surrounding waters form a strict nature reserve"
    Done --MCE
  • The territory is uninhabited by humans.
    • Could we drop "by humans"?
      Dropped and integrated "uninhabited" into the previous sentence. --MCE
  • The Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 acts as the main legislative framework for the environmental conservation of the territory.
    • How about "serves as" in place of "acts as"?
      Yep, swapped. --MCE
  • There are typically about 1–3 vessels harvesting Patagonian toothfish, primarily using longlines, and about 2–5 vessels harvesting mackerel icefish,
    • Could we avoid repeating "harvesting"?
      Done. --MCE
  • Australian civilian and military vessels have conducted patrols in the waters surrounding the islands to deter and respond to this illegal fishing.
    • Drop "this"?
      Done. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Geography
  • are located in the southern Indian Ocean
    • Drop "located"?
      Done. --MCE
  • A 2021 study estimated that the age of two samples of lava taken from the volcano sat at around 11,100 and 23,900 years.
    • How about "was around" in place of "sat at around"?
      Done. --MCE
  • A 2025 glacier mapping study identified around 30 glaciers in total.
    • Drop "in total"?
      Done. --MCE
  • "Another of the island's glaciers" → "Another glacier"
    Done. --MCE
  • Flows of lava with lengths of 250–2000 metres (820–6560 ft) have occurred an average of roughly once per year since 2008.
    • Could we drop either "average" or "roughly"?
      Yep, dropped average. --MCE
  • terminate in moraines; these moraines are primarily composed of
    • Could we avoid repeating "moraines"?
      Dropped the second. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiversity
  • although it is likely that there are others present that have not yet been recorded.
    • Drop "present"?
      Done. --MCE
  • Due to their harsh climate and conditions, the islands have relatively low species diversity.
    • Could we do without"conditions" here?
      Dropped the clause. --MCE
  • The majority of the flora species on Heard Island are non-flowering plants
    • How about "The majority of the flora on Heard Island" or "The majority of the plant species on Heard Island"?
      Went with the second. --MCE
  • Due to the harsh climate, the insect population declines by more than 95 percent from its summer peak during the winter each year.
    • "Each winter" in place of "winter each year"?
      Done. --MCE
  • Fur seals were likely eradicated or nearly eradicated
    • Could we avoid repeating "eradicated"?
      Done. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and everything I had missed out till now
  • Could we link to "Australian government" and "Nature reserve"?
    Done. --MCE
  • It is located about 4000 kilometres
    • Could we drop "located" here?
      Done. --MCE
  • the territory is composed of a group of sub-Antarctic volcanic islands that lie on the Kerguelen Plateau
    • Do we need "group" with "composed of"?
      Done. --MCE
  • Heard Island and the McDonald Islands are known for their harsh climate and conditions,
    • Drop "conditions"?
      Done. --MCE
Bottom line

Michael Aurel: source review (passed)

edit

Nice to see another Australia-related article here. I'll swing by soon and do the source review. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following is one content-related matter I wondered about when going through the sources. I'm not doing a prose review, so I've put it at the top:

  • Do we discuss the individual islands which make up the McDonald Islands? As far as I can tell, we only mention McDonald Island and Flat Island in this sentence: Between 1994 and 2004, McDonald Island grew from about 1 square kilometre (0.39 sq mi) to 2.5 square kilometres (0.97 sq mi) and became joined to the nearby Flat Island by an isthmus. We don't seem to mention Meyer Rock, nor do we seem to mention Needle Island or South Island (although judging by this source the last two might not actually be islands?). There may well be good reasons for this, but it did surprise me a little, given that the McDonald Islands seemingly comprise a small number of islands.
    Good point, added the names of the three islands explicitly. --MCE

Survey

I've looked over the sources cited in the article, and all of them seem to be reliable. The bulk of the sources are articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, with some books and scholary reports mixed in. There are a handful of websites and online articles, all of which seem to come from reputable organisations. Four news articles are included, but they are only used in one sentence about contemporary politics and the newspapers are reliable. Just one query:

  • Who is the Alan Kerr cited in the article? The source appears to be a government report of some kind; the contents don't look unreliable, but I wasn't able to verify that the author is a qualified scholar.
    Kerr was a public servant for the Department of External Territories who wrote the book as what seems to have been a quasi-official history of Australia's territorial acquisitions. He wasn't a scholar per se, but the book is reasonably well-cited by scholars, and the one scholarly review I can access is positive (Alan Kerr’s monumental work unearths a fascinating story of little-known aspects of Australian history. It is not intended as light bedside reading, although the snippets of parliamentary debate will amuse many. Rather, it is a most valuable reference work, a significant contribution to our constitutional history and an indispensable resource to those researching the constitutional background to the external territories.). --MCE
    Wonderful. That works for me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to have much of the important scholarship: the roughly 900-page Springer book is present, and probably a majority of the articles I came across were already cited. I did find a non-trivial number of sources that weren't, though. Unfortunately, I don't have the requisite knowledge of the article's subject or of the relevant fields to provide any hugely insightful commentary. As such, I'll need your assessment of how much of an omission the below represents, if indeed you think it represents an omission at all.

These are the sources I found which seemed most useful. Let me know what you think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this, this is great! I've replied to a couple of points, and I'll have a read through the rest of the additional sources you've suggested and see what might be worth adding from them over the next couple of days. MCE89 (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Most of the above seems as though it's been churned through, so I'll take a look at the bibliography and formatting:

  • In general, the citation scheme is consistent. Books, scholarly articles and the like are in the bibliography, whereas websites and news articles are given amongst the citations. Some full citations for scholarship are included in the "Citations" section, though. Is a particular standard being followed? My guess is that we give the full citation in the "Citations" if we only cite one page or page range from the work, but we include it in the bibliography if we cite multiple? But Slip & Burton seems only to be cited once (Slip & Burton 1999, p. 38), for example, so is this standard only being applied to books?
    My approach was that any paginated source longer than 2 pages went in the bibliography, and anything shorter got a long citation. There are a couple of scholarly sources (e.g. Greenslade 1998) that were only a page or two, so I just went with long citations for those. --MCE
    Ah, makes sense. You're consistent, so that's perfectly fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whinam, Jennifer; Shaw, Justine D. (2018) would normally go after Whinam, Jennifer (1989), as the latter has the earlier date and a co-author.
    Fixed the ordering here. --MCE
  • We exclude the location in most of the citations for books, but we seem to include it for Hughes, Janet; Lazer, Estelle (1998) and Greenslade, Penelope (1998).
    Removed. --MCE
  • As far as I know, the general recommendation is to use the ISBN found in the book itself. For books published before 2007, this will be a 10-digit ISBN unless you're viewing a reprint. Citations for which this might be relevant are Mills, William James (2003), Hughes, Janet; Lazer, Estelle (1998), Greenslade, Penelope (1998), Carney, Gerard (2006), Scott, J. J. (1990), Shaughnessy, P. D.; Shaughnessy, G. L.; Keage, P. L. (1988).
    Switched all of these to 10-digit ISBNs. --MCE
  • "Heard Island and McDonald Islands". The World Factbook (2025 ed.). Central Intelligence Agency. – Are we treating the CIA World Factbook as an online source or a print source? If the former, I'd probably include a retrieval date; if the latter, I'd probably include an ISBN or something along those lines.
    Expanded to a full web citation. --MCE
  • Regarding doi:10.1657/1523-0430(06-084)[THOST]2.0.CO;2 (inactive 12 May 2026) for Thost, Douglas E.; Truffer, Martin (2008): you could simply include a direct link to Taylor & Francis's website (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1657/1523-0430%2806-084%29%5BTHOST%5D2.0.CO%3B2), as the whole thing seems to be free to access there.
    Added the URL. I'm not sure what's going on with the broken/inactive DOI, but it seems to possibly be something to do with the punctuation inside the DOI? I've removed it again for now, but it seems to keep getting added back during citation bot runs. --MCE
    For what it's worth, I think you can vanquish the bot using "{{bots|deny=Citation bot}}". – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few places where title case should probably be used, as it's used elsewhere: "Australian Antarctic Program completes landmark Heard Island and McDonald Islands Campaign", "Australian Antarctic Program heads to Heard Island", "Protection and management – Heard Island and McDonald Islands", "Human activities – Heard Island and McDonald Islands", "Location and geography – Heard Island and McDonald Islands", "Climate and weather – Heard Island and McDonald Islands".
    All fixed. --MCE
  • Hughes, Janet; Lazer, Estelle (1998). "The Importance of "Historic Sites" on Heard Island for Protection of Scientific Resources and Environmental Management of a World Heritage Site". Single quotes for quotes in quotes, I think.
    Done. --MCE
  • Hughes, Janet; Lazer, Estelle (2000). "Importance of "Historic Sites" on Heard Island for Protection of Scientific Resources and Environmental Management of a World Heritage Site". – Same as above.
    Done. --MCE
  • Whinam, Jennifer (1989). "Structure and Oristic Composition of the Heard Island "Pool Complex" Community" – Same as above.
    Done. --MCE
  • We seem to link "Commonwealth of Australia" in most places, but not in Kerr, Alan (2009).
    Linked. --MCE
  • Shaughnessy, P. D.; Shaughnessy, G. L.; Keage, P. L. (1988). "Fur-seals at Heard Island: Recovery from Past Exploitation?". In Augee, Michael L. (ed.). Marine Mammals of Australasia: Field Biology and Captive Management. CSIRO Publishing. doi:10.7882/RZSNSW.1988.014. ISBN 978-0-9599951-4-5. – Seems to be missing page numbers.
    Added the page range. --MCE
  • Just noting that we have Hughes, Janet; Lazer, Estelle (1998). "The Importance of "Historic Sites" on Heard Island for Protection of Scientific Resources and Environmental Management of a World Heritage Site". from the book Heard Island Wilderness Reserve: Reports on Natural Science and Cultural Heritage Research in the citations, and an identically named article by the same authors from Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania. Are these the same article, or are there some differences between the two?
    The first is a shorter version/abstract of the latter, but it turns out the claim that I was citing the 1998 paper for is also in the 2000 article so it probably makes sense to just cite that instead. Removed the 1998 one. --MCE
  • If you don't combine the two citations mentioned in the previous comment, note that Estelle Lazer can be linked in the 1998 work.
  • You could link Europa World Year Book.
    Linked. --MCE
  • Link Richard Arculus.
    Linked. --MCE

All in all, the bibliography and citations are fairly immaculate for an article with this number of sources. I'll round off the review with the spot checks soon, hopefully tomorrow. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

As of this version of the article.

  • 2a & 3a: All good.
  • 1b: Unfortunately, I don't have access to Mills' book. Would you be able to supply a quote? Thanks.
    The quote from Mills is: During the next twenty-five years, more than 100,000 barrels of elephant seal oil were obtained by American sealers, who also compiled a fine map of the island. It looks like I mixed up some citation placement here though — the first sentence of the paragraph is actually supported by McIvor 2007: The first landing at Heard Island was by a sealing expedition in February 1855, and over 40 vessels made more than 100 voyages to the island in the following three decades seeking oil from Southern Elephant Seals Mirounga leonina. Now fixed. --MCE
  • 8a: Fine, I think.
  • 1c, 10a, & 11: Schmieder and Budd verify the first part. I'm guessing that their observations limited to the north-western side of the island is coming from Mills?
    That's coming from Budd: Scientific observations were made—at the northwestern end of the island only—by the Challenger expedition in 1874, by the Gauss expedition in 1902, and by Aubert de la Rue and the British, Australian and New Zealand Antarctic Research Expedition (BANZARE) in 1929 --MCE
    Yup, no problem. Not sure how I missed it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 & 14: Beck more or less covers it. I've read through the relevant pages from Dodds and it's not clear to me where the relevant part is. Australia is mentioned a few times on p. 47, where Dodds is saying something a bit different to the article, and the only other mention is on p. 49, where it's part of a quote. Let me know if I'm missing something.
    Removed Dodds, agree that it's not really needed. --MCE
  • 10d & 17b: The first part's all good. Regarding the second: the article has seven ANARE parties, each of which spent 12–14 months on the island and the source has The wintering parties usually left Australia in late December or early January, and returned some 15 months later. Is our claim in some way factoring the time taken to get there and back?
    That's coming from the table on Schmieder p.85, which has Continuous occupation by 7 wintering parties, each of 9 - 14 men for 12 - 14 months. --MCE
  • 24 & 25a: All good.
  • 35: All good.
  • 43b & 46a: No problems with the EEZ part, but I'm struggling to find the Reserve's area. Constable et al. say that The Reserve now covers 71,200 km2 of the Australian EEZ, but they were writing in 2024, so perhaps that figure's out of date? I wasn't able to find the 381,000 figure on IUCN's website, though I'm not entirely confident that I'm looking in the right spot.
    The IUCN source has The site forms part of the Heard Island and McDonald Islands (HIMI) Commonwealth Marine Reserve that was declared in October 2002 and extended in 2014 to 71,000 km2 to incorporate additional marine areas of high conservation value. This Reserve is being managed pursuant to the Heard Island and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan 2014-2024. In January 2025 the Australian Government expanded the Reserve to include additional 310,000km2, so I was using this for the 71,000 + 310,000 = 381,000 sqkm claim per WP:CALC. I see now that says explicitly that the area is about 380,000 sqkm though, so I've swapped that in instead. --MCE
    I was Ctrl+F-ing for "381", which explains it. This is all good, then. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 47: All good.
  • 56: Assuming I'm reading the source correctly, this is fine.
  • 69, 70, & 71: All good.
  • 73: All good.
  • 81: A bit picky, but the source only says that the artefacts were brought to Australia, mentioning that the blubber press is in a museum, whereas the article says that the artefacts removed from the island were taken to museums in Australia.
    Tweaked the wording to specify that the blubber press is what's in the museum. --MCE
  • 4d, 82c, & 87a: All good.
  • 94: All good.
  • 101 & 100b: They're definitely talking about relevant information, but it's not clear to me what the exact parts are that verify the information in the article. Could you perhaps quote those bits?
    Quilty p.4 has Throughout the history of the Plateau (fig. 4), over 115 million years, it is likely that vegetated islands have stood above sea level. Volcanism probably was active through all this time somewhere on the Plateau. and Fox p.36 has The Kerguelen Plateau is a Cretaceous large igneous province (LIP) produced by voluminous basaltic eruptions in response to the formation of the Kerguelen hotspot during the separation of the Indian, Australian, and Antarctic Plates and the subsequent formation of the modern Indian Ocean. The Kerguelen hotspot is understood to be the key driver of volcanism on Heard Island. I think together those support the overall claim that volcanic activity on the plateau has created various islands, which include Heard Island. --MCE
    Yep, those were the parts I thought we were referencing. I'm still not completely certain about this one, but I'm happy to attribute my lingering uncertainty to a lack of knowledge in the field. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 83f, 98b, 111: All good.
  • 98d, 114: No problem regarding the website. For Tielidze, Mackintosh & Yang, I think we should be citing p. 2685 rather than pp. 2677–2679? Tielidze, Mackintosh & Yang give a slightly different number and slightly different years than the website; personally, I'd follow the former source.
    Fixed the page number and changed the claim to match what's given by Tielidze, Mackintosh & Yang. --MCE
  • 115 & 116: All good.
  • 60c & 120: All good.
  • 125: The source says that Glaciation on Heard Island may have occurred as early as the Miocene, whereas the article has Heard Island has been covered by glaciers since the Miocene epoch. I think we need to retain the uncertainty. Otherwise, this one's fine.
    Oops, good point. Fixed. --MCE
  • 43h & 95b: Both sources verify that it has low species diversity, but I don't think (unless I'm missing it on the website?) either specifies that this is Due to their harsh climate and conditions.
    Removed, I think I was reading a bit too much into the source there. --MCE
  • 147: All good.
  • 154 & 155a: No problems, although the cited page of Scott & Kirkpatrick isn't adding much. Not a big deal, but the linked version on Figshare seems to have different pagination (it goes from p. 314 to p. 328) to the version given by Taylor & Francis, which confused me for a moment.
    Removed Scott & Kirkpatrick and the link. --MCE
  • 161 & 162: Fine, I think.
  • 164b: I don't have access to Valentine, so I might need a quote.
    Here's the quote: The petrels dominate, with 7 breeding species and another 15 or so species recorded in the area. The wandering albatros — the world’s largest, with a three-metre wingspan—has been recorded breeding on the island, but numbers are low. The much smaller and more abundant black-browed albatross also breeds on the island. As with most remote subantarctic islands, the coastal shelf provides extensive breeding areas for the seabirds. --MCE
    Thanks. No problems here, then. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 39d & 169: Schmieder mostly covers the sentence, though he doesn't seem to say that it's the world's largest colony (even though this wouldn't be surprising!). He's also talking about Heard Island and McDonald Island; the article only specifies the former, unless we're treating the latter as implicitly included? As far as I can tell, the UNESCO website doesn't mention Macaroni penguins.
    Changed "Heard Island" to "Heard Island and McDonald Islands". I'm not sure how the "world's largest colony" claim got in there - I definitely remember reading it somewhere, but I must have cited the wrong source and you're right that it's not in the UNESCO one. Removed for now, but I'll have another look through my sources and see if I can track down where I got it from. --MCE
  • 171: All good.
  • 178: All good.
  • 183: All good.

That's all from me. There are a few quibbles and queries about verification, but most are pretty minor and there's clearly nothing major to be concerned about. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MCE89: I'm happy to sign off on this one. There are a few sources left over in the "Survey" section which you can use if you please, but I think by now the article well and truly has all the important scholarship. I have ample evidence to say that this one's good to go, so I'll let others jump in and provide their comments on what is clearly a high-quality piece of work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review, appreciate it! And apologies my slowness in getting to the rest of those suggested sources - I've finished going through them now and have incorporated most of the remainder. MCE89 (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson

edit

It's good to see a vital article getting this attention. I'll make points as they occur to me.

1. The map in the infobox is primarily a map of Australia. Naive readers might suppose that the big red islands (Australia and Tasmania) are the islands in question. I shall try replacing it with a map that is better focussed on the H&M islands, being specifically designed to show their location on the globe. Note that there are multiple versions of that with different coloration. See Maps of Heard Island and McDonald Islands for the full selection. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good call, that map looks much better! Thanks for making that swap. MCE89 (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment: I agree that the map should be focused on the islands, and a globe is the best way to show its position. But I think it should also highlight Australia in a different color, as the position relative to the mainland is relevant information. Following a color scheme used for other articles, it could have H&M in red and Australia in beige. Perhaps we also add an inset? I can create this map image if others support it. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: That sounds great to me. I definitely don't have the skill to make something like that, but would be very happy with swapping it in if you're willing to make a new image :) MCE89 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

zzz plant

edit

Hi! Very nice work, and happy to see attention on a vital article. I have some comments organized by section below. Please feel free to disregard anything you don't agree with or has already been discussed elsewhere. Zzz plant (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
edit
  • "The islands are uninhabited and have been described as one of the most remote places on Earth." - the number agreement sounds off to me (plural subject are one of the?), suggest something like "The territory is uninhabited and has been described as one of the most remote places on Earth."
    Good idea, done. --MCE
  • the second para feels a bit date-heavy to me for a lede
    Trimmed out a few of these dates. --MCE
  • "About 70 percent of the island is permanently covered by glaciers, while just 5 percent is covered by vegetation." I'm extra sensitive to repetition bc I use a read-aloud software, but I would suggest something like "About 70 percent of the island is permanently covered by glaciers, while vegetation occupies just 5 percent." I also wonder about "permanent", given the stated effect of climate change later in lede.
    Oh I like that much better, done. Also changed "permanent" to "year-round". --MCE
History
edit
  • I'm surprised the narrative starts as late as 1853- have these islands never been inhabited or visited before European the stated trips? if sources allow, I would consider adding a sentence affirmatively stating that there was no known human activity prior to this point.
    Made it more explicit that there is no evidence of human visitation prior to the 1850s. --MCE
  • cut between first + second para feels a bit odd to me- we end on sealers arriving in 1855, and then break, and then we're back to sealers being there in 1855
    Changed the first part of the second paragraph to Sealers continued to occupy the island over the following decades to connect it to the previous. --MCE
  • "A British company was allowed to lease the islands in 1926, but by 1930 it was no longer exercising its lease. The British government felt that Australia's proximity to its Antarctic possessions would provide a firmer claim to sovereignty, particularly over sectors of the Antarctic continent, and would reduce the logistical complexity of administering the territories." I got a little lost here, it took me a few reads to get the cause-and-effect of private company's lease vs. sovereignty. I think this could be clearer.
    Reworked this paragraph a little to make this clearer, how does that look now? --MCE
    much better, nicely spells out their motivation without getting too caught up in the weeds - Z
  • the ANARE research station bit is quite interesting. do we know why the government took the initiative to set that up / maintain it?
    Added a sentence on the motivations. --MCE
  • "Beginning in 1950 the ANARE parties on Heard Island..." I get the sled dog thing is new, but weren't they already doing the weather stuff before?
    Switched the order of these sentences. --MCE
  • "On 26 May 1952, two members of the ANARE party were killed during an expedition after one was swept away by the waves and another froze to death during a storm." obviously very sad, but I feel the article does not quite explain the significance of this- did it affect later operations or the station's closure?
    Not really, I think you're right that it's probably not necessary. Cut. --MCE
  • "The island was the site of the 1991 Heard Island feasibility test, which tested whether transmission of acoustic signals through the ocean could be used to study changes in ocean temperatures." suggest replacing "tested" with "investigated" to remove repeat
    Done. --MCE
  • "The Heard Island and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve was established in 2002 and was the world's largest marine protected area at the time." even a smidge of background/significance would help this land with more impact. I feel like we're starting to drift a bit proseline-y in this section
    Added a sentence on the motivations for the establishment of a marine reserve, and tried to rework this paragraph a little for readability. --MCE
  • can anything else be said about the voyages? I'm curious if bird flu confirmation was the sole purpose of their visit
    Added a sentence about the purpose and activities of the voyage. --MCE
Human activity
edit
  • "Despite these restrictions, some unauthorised landings on the islands are known to have taken place." - this feels a bit like a breadcrumb. it leaves me just wanting to know who made these landings and why (lost sailors? poachers?) If these incidents are notable, it would be great to add brief context. if sources don't say or they aren't significant, it might be better to remove to avoid leaving the reader hanging
    I'm very curious about this as well, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find out anything else about them. I've expanded on this a little to say that the frequency of illegal visits is unknown and that they've been identified as a potential biosecurity risk. --MCE
    I searched a bit and couldn't find details either. well, the article can't report what the sources don't say. - Z
  • "At the time of the tariff imposition, there had been no known visits to the islands by humans in approximately ten years." did the bird flu voyage of 2025/2026 happen after this?
    It did, made that clearer. --MCE
  • I'm not sure about "generated" for an exclusive economic zone; to me it sounds like the islands are producing something rather than the zone just spatially surrounding them
    Changed to that surrounds the islands --MCE
  • "Australia signed a treaty with France in 2003 to enable cooperation in surveilling and patrolling the waters around the islands, as well as the nearby Kerguelen Islands." I'd consider adding a duplink for Kerguelen Islands, it's been a bit and lots of things have been mentioned since then. I'd also maybe make clearer that it's a French territory.
    Done. --MCE
Geography
edit
  • "The islands have been described as one of the most isolated places on Earth..." feels a touch weasel wordy, I would attribute opinion
    It's a tough one to attribute because I could add at least a few dozen sources that all use the same descriptor. I've changed this to The islands are considered one of the most isolated places on Earth, which I think the sources support and is a little less weasel-y. --MCE
    yes, that looks good. definitely don't want a list of every single academic who thinks it's one of the most isolated places on Earth! Z
  • worth glossing "spit"?
    Yep, done. --MCE
  • "...volcanic activity resumed on the islands during the 20th century." feels a bit breadcrumby, if there was an explosion or major lava flow(s) I think that's worth mentioning.
    The volcanic activity has been somewhat continuous, but I've added a mention that there were more significant eruptions in 1992 and 1997. --MCE
  • "There have been just two recorded successful human landings on the McDonald Islands, which took place in 1971 and 1980." this feels very out of place to me among all the volcanic info, I think it could fit better in Human activity section
    Done. --MCE
  • I feel like the ordering in this section isn't the most intuitive. we go from volcanoes to weather back to the most important volcano
    Fair point, I've moved the "Climate" subsection to the end right after "Glaciers" so that the geology/volcano information is grouped together. Let me know what you think. --MCE
    that works, I could also maybe see climate being at the beginning of the broader section but since the volcano info is so critical to this topic I think you've made the right call - Z
Biodiversity
edit
  • "Various non-native animal species have been brought onto Heard Island by humans in the past, including dogs, sheep, and a rat..." - one singular rat stands out to me. do the sources mean like a pet rat, or rats generally? a brief clarification may help avoid an unintentionally comic reading.
    Just one rat — the source says that in 1953 a rat escaped from the ship while they were unloading cargo, and that the ANARE party eventually chased it down and killed it. Changed the wording to at least one rat. --MCE
  • "...while the sub-Antarctic fur seal has been seen breeding on the island on occasion." suggest "...while the sub-Antarctic fur seal has been occasionally seen breeding on the island." to avoid the double "on"s
    Done. --MCE
  • second para of mammals subsection feels a little number/date heavy.
    Trimmed out some of these specific numbers/dates to hopefully make it a bit more readable. --MCE

Forget-Me-Now

edit


Nominator(s): Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 17:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a funny episode of television. Nothing wrong with being persistent!

I’m back at FAC with my 6th nomination, and will hopefully be my 2nd promoted one. This is my first ever renomination, and I’m back with one I truly believe fits the criteria more than ever before. Last time around, the article got a good amount of Supports and a passed source review, but a fair Oppose over accessibility was enough to get the nom archived. Since then, I’ve tinkered with the Plot section to remove anything not understandable to a wider audience, and paid a visit to the Guild of Copy Editors, where a few changes were made that I’m satisfied with. That’s really it, courtesy ping to @Cukie Gherkin:, @MSincccc:, @Bgsu98:, and @Olliefant:, all of which left comments and supported the previous nom. Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 17:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Sorry to bother all of you, just wondering if the image and source review from the previous nomination still applies here or if it needs a reevaluation? The images and sources are the exact same since the last time around Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 16:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the original image and source reviewer Arconning and Cukie Gherkin can sign off on it, then yes. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Still holds up. Arconning (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

edit

Comments

edit
  • "so he won't have to introduce them" => "so that he will not have to introduce them"
Done
  • "Michael (Jason Bateman) attempts to destroy all evidence of his family's existence so he won't have to introduce them to Rita (Charlize Theron), and Gob (Will Arnett), after a mishap involving Rita, makes use of his "Forget-Me-Now" pills." - this sentence as a whole doesn't seem to make grammatical sense and I can't figure it out. For starters, I can't work out who "makes use" of the pills......
Split into two and rewrote the Forget-Me-Now pills part
  • "saying that he doesn't have one" => "saying that he does not have one"
Done
  • "and when she wakes up, Gob drugs her with a rohypnol pill" => "and when she wakes up Gob drugs her with a rohypnol pill"
Done
  • "created as a way to replace Barry Zuckerkorn, portrayed by Henry Winkler" - presumably Winkler had left the show? Maybe use a few words to clarify that
Done
  • "This mirrors what happened behind the scenes of Happy Days," => "This mirrors what happened behind the scenes of the earlier sitcom Happy Days,"
Done
  • "Winkler returned as Barry in the series' revival on Netflix." - I would consider moving this to the end of the paragraph
Done
  • That's what I got as far as the end of the Production section. I will come back and do the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "simultaneously differentiating Arrested Development from other sitcoms" - "simultaneously" confused me here, as that suggests multiple things happening at the same time and I can't see that being talked about here. Maybe that word just isn't needed.......?
Changed to "while also"
  • "Ultimately, it would be the second highest-rated episode of the season" => "Ultimately, it was the second highest-rated episode of the season"
Done
  • "felt that the storyline of Michael and Rita doesn't work" => "felt that the storyline of Michael and Rita did not work"
Done
  • "in which he, saying goodbye to Steve, emotionally repeats "I will"" => "in which, while saying goodbye to Steve, he emotionally repeats "I will""
Done

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for the comments, all done Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 14:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Non-coordinator comment

edit

This has been open for more than three weeks and has by my count picked up only one support. Unless it shows significant signs of moving towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days, I am afraid that it may be archived. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Die with a Smile

edit


Nominator(s): MarioSoulTruthFan (talk), CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) and Sricsi (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most popular songs of 2024 by Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars. It was highly praised by critics received several awards, inducing two nominations at the Grammy Awards and one award at the same certainty. Furthermore, the music video was also praised by critics and received various awards nominations. This article received various comments during the first FAC nomination which were included. It was also submitted for a peer review in order to receive more comments and other issues to be addressed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteen Ninety-Four guy

edit
  • "American record producer and songwriter D'Mile recalled that Mars "had the hook, at least the lyrics or theme to the hook, about being next to someone if the world was ending". He was unsure, however, how to develop it further and held the idea for a year before its release." You could merge these statements with a semicolon, and consider revising into "He was, however, unsure"
  • "American record producer Andrew Watt was invited, alongside Gaga and Michael Polansky, American entrepreneur and venture capitalist, to hear the song at Mars's studio." For a parallel structure, consider revising into "American entrepreneur and venture capitalist Michael Polansky"
  • "Regarding their collaboration, Gaga highlighted Mars's skill, musicianship and forward-thinking. Mars described the collaboration as a privilege and said her contribution added a distinctive element to the song." These could be merged with the Oxford comma preceding and
  • Writing and recording section reads dull due to repeated use of stative verbs for attribution, e.g., said and noted. Please vary sentence structure and length to improve flow and provide rhythm. Also, you may have to paraphrase that opening sentence to minimize direct quotations
  • "In June 2024, Mars told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that he hoped to collaborate with Gaga on a song or join her onstage during her Jazz & Piano residency in Las Vegas. On August 8, Hits Daily Double's "Rumor Mill" reported speculation about a possible collaboration between the two artists, allegedly titled "Die with a Smile" and expected to be released later that month." These seem beyond the scope of the Release section
  • "Die with a Smile" is a pop, pop-soul, and soft rock song, that evokes the emotional style of a sentimental ballad. with influences from country music." Please fix erroneous punctuation marks
  • "According to the sheet music published by BMG Rights Management on Musicnotes, "Die with a Smile" was composed in the key of A major with a slow tempo of 52 beats per minute in 6/8 time signature." Since this is a technical fact about the song, in-text attribution is unnecessary.
  • "Lyrically, it is an intense love declaration in which the narrators' feelings for each other against a hypothetical end-of-the-world scenario, Gaga has described as an "apocalyptic love song". Kinda confusing. Please revise so you can also fix a punctuation error.
  • "The chorus emphasizes the desire to be "next to you" if "the world was ending" or "our time on Earth was through", framing the relationship within a sense of urgency." How about, "The chorus conveys a sense of urgency in the relationship with its emphasis on the desire to be "next to you" if "the world was ending" or "our time on Earth was through"?
  • "Capital's Abbie Reynolds described the song as a reminder not to take love for granted, noting lines such as "Nobody's promised tomorrow" and "I'ma love you every night like it's the last night." How about, "Capital's Abbie Reynolds described lines such as "Nobody's promised tomorrow" and "I'ma love you every night like it's the last night" as reminders not to take love for granted"? The verb "noted" should only be used to describe facts, not opinions.
  • "while Billboard Argentina noted its focus on "finding happiness and peace amid adversity" Ditto
  • "Talking about the lyrics, Gaga further added "What has been added before" to begin with?
  • Critical reception needs some work to minimize problems highlighted on WP:RECEPTION regarding the "A said B" structure. Also, "Many reviewers praised the vocal interplay" is MOS:WEASEL, unless ofc you can provide reliable, high-quality sources for this.
  • "In her interview with the Los Angeles Times, Gaga disclosed that..." disclosed is a word-to-watch, and LA Times is neither italicized nor wikilinked
  • ""Die With a Smile" reached the number one spot on the Billboard Hot 100 for the chart dated January 11, 2025, after selling 6,000 copies, reaching a 59.7 million radio audience, and getting 27.1 million streams." How about, "After selling 6,000 copies, "Die With a Smile" reached the number one spot on the Billboard Hot 100 for the chart dated January 11, 2025, garnering 59.7 million radio listeners as well as 27.1 million streams"?
  • "Die With a Smile" not only was the longest-charting song with a female lead but also the longest-charting duet ever in the top 10 of the Billboard Hot 100" is borderline POV. Please revise the statement in a detached tone.
  • "Following the release of Mayhem, various journalists discussed how "Die with a Smile" functions within the album. Gaga has described Mayhem as an intentionally eclectic project that moves between contrasting sounds and moods before ultimately resolving in love, framing the album as a complete experience rather than a strictly cohesive genre piece." Second sentence feels misplaced, as it doesn't support the argument the opening sentence is making. While we're at it, the section where these are placed also suffers from the A said B structure affecting the Critical response section. Please revise to improve flow and readability. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: I have addressed comments to the best of my ability. Please take a second look and thank you so much! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"It was characterized as a romantic, lightly apocalyptic slow dance and positioned within both vintage and modern pop sensibilities, and characterized by polished production and accessibility." The verb characterized is used twice. Please vary. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Thank you for the quick fixes on the article as well. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the changes. I give my support. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Here'll be a source review from me! RedShellMomentum 22:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This table lists 9 random passages from throughout the article (4.8% of 187 total passages). These passages contain 15 inline citations (4.3% of 350 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 22:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on the source review. Since this review concerns source quality, I would appreciate your view on an unresolved sourcing disagreement between me and the co-nominator. The article currently includes a New York Post year-end list entry. My concern is not that the source is formally prohibited: I am aware that WP:RSP says the New York Post is marginally reliable for entertainment coverage. Rather, my concern is that "marginally reliable" is a weak basis for evaluative critical material in a Featured Article candidate.
In this case, the source is being used only for a year-end list entry in a table, not for a substantive point discussed in the prose. I therefore do not think its encyclopedic value outweighs the source-quality concern. The New York Post is also a conservative tabloid with a weaker reputation than the music and entertainment publications normally expected in high-quality music articles. Given that FAC should reflect the best available sources rather than the minimum allowed by RSP, I think it should be removed, especially when stronger and more established music journalism sources are readily available.
The co-nominator's view is that RSP permits the source for entertainment coverage, so it can be used here. Could you please weigh in on whether the New York Post is appropriate for this use in an FA candidate, particularly for evaluative year-end-list material? Thanks! Sricsi (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan, CHr0m4tiko0, and Sricsi: Source review is all good, support. I also have a peer review for "Dick in a Box" up, any of you may leave comments there if you wish. As for the NYP source, if RSP permits the source for entertainment coverage, then it should be somewhat fine. RedShellMomentum 08:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review, left some comments on yours. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reference #LetterSourceArchiveStatusNotes
Gaga and Mars interacted on social media before confirming the collaboration and announcing that the song and its accompanying music video would be released on August 16, 2024.
6bvariety.comweb.archive.org ✅
15billboard.com ✅
16uproxx.comweb.archive.org ✅
"Die with a Smile" opens with Mars taking the first verse and Gaga the second, after which both vocalists play off each other for the remainder of the track.
45usatoday.comweb.archive.org ✅
Jake Viswanath of Bustle compared the song's lyrical perspective to Gaga's 2011 single "The Edge of Glory",
19cbustle.comweb.archive.org ✅
Following the release of Mayhem, critics examined the role of "Die with a Smile" within its structure. The song was frequently regarded as an effective closer, with its cinematic and reflective tone seen as providing a coherent conclusion to the record.
78readdork.comweb.archive.org ✅
79elle.comweb.archive.org ✅
It spent five non-consecutive weeks at the top of the Hot 100, becoming Gaga's first song to spend more than one week at number one since "Born This Way" in 2011, and Mars's third song to top the chart for five weeks or more.
95billboard.comweb.archive.org ✅
Other countries in Europe where it reached number one were Croatia, Greece, and Portugal.
128atophit.com ✅
129aifpi.grweb.archive.org ✅
130aportuguesecharts.com ✅
In its first week, it garnered 75.1 million streams across various platforms and sold 31,000 copies, debuting at number two on the Global 200 chart. It was Gaga's first top ten hit and Mars's third since the chart's inception in September 2020.
148billboard.com ✅
In 2024, Mars performed a solo piano version of "Die with a Smile" as part of a medley. He first sang it during the Brazil leg of his Bruno Mars Live tour (2022–2024).
183cnnbrasil.com.br ✅
184billboard.com.brweb.archive.org ✅
In December 2025, Norwegian musician Sondre Lerche released a version of the song as part of his annual tradition to cover a pop song during the holiday season, in partnership with producer Matias Tellez and the website Stereogum.
208stereogum.com ✅

Camilasdandelions

edit
  • Archive all sources
  • Do not use double quotations in citations |title=
  • Ref 1 is alive btw
  • Ref 19 {{cite magazine}}
  • [[Interscope Records|Interscope]] ➡️ [[Interscope]] (MOS:NOPIPE; also in Release history section)
  • Musically, "Die with a Smile" is a sentimental ballad
  • France by SNEP ➡️ France by National Syndicate of Phonographic Publishing (SNEP)
  • demo can be wikilinked
  • He was, however, unsure: Is he D'Mile? or Mars?
  • pitching an early version of the song for Lady Gaga's Harlequin (2024) or for the film Joker: Folie à Deux (2024), in which Gaga stars. The former project is a companion album to the film. ➡️ pitching an early version of the song for the 2024 film Joker: Folie à Deux in which Lady Gaga stars, or her companion album to the film, Harlequin (2024).
  • chord can be wikilinked
  • American entrepreneur and venture capitalist Michael Polansky: MOS:SOB
  • Should left and right be italicized? I've seen some people are against to this in their reviews
  • Remove blockquote and just use double quotations, or trim it to wikivoice a bit.
  • Gaga and Mars interacted on social media before confirming the collaboration and announcing that the song and its accompanying music video would be released on August 16, 2024.: Too long, split this
  • cover art can be wikilinked
  • platforms by Interscope: Why not Interscope Records
  • streaming: Target music streaming service (also in Release history section)
  • inclusion on Mayhem. ➡️ inclusion on Gaga's seventh solo studio album, Mayhem (2025).
  • song,[35][36][37] that evokes ➡️ song[35][36][37] that evokes
  • Reviewers at Entertainment Weekly and Vulture noticed similarities to 1960s and 1970s pop ballads as well as Gaga's earlier work on Joanne (2016) and her single "Shallow" (2018) from the A Star Is Born soundtrack.[38][52] The Irish Times likened the track to James Bond theme songs and to Gaga's collaborations with Tony Bennett,[a][54] while NME compared its "soaring" chorus to Bruno Mars's Silk Sonic project.[39] The New York Times further connected it to Mars's early material, influenced by wedding songs and reminiscent of Jason Mraz.[37] Clash remarked on the song's slow, echoing guitar chords similar to shoegaze music. It blends Lee Hazlewood's traditional songwriting with dreamy sounds similar to Slowdive.[55]: Why suddenly the authors' names disappeared?
  • It was dubbed as a romantic, lightly apocalyptic slow dance and positioned within both vintage and modern pop sensibilities, and characterized by polished production and accessibility. ➡️ Dubbed as a romantic, lightly apocalyptic slow dance and positioned within both vintage and modern pop sensibilities, the song was characterized by polished production and accessibility.
  • Reviewers highlighted the song's style ➡️ Reviewers highlighted the style of "Die with a Smile"
  • The Critical reception (including Comments on the song's placement within Mayhem) section never mentions the authors nor their publications. Thus there's a lot of same structures like "It was [...]ed ~~", which would make readers little bit bored.
  • The track was included in several ➡️ "Die with a Smile" was included in several
  • Critics' year-end rankings of "Die with a Smile" ➡️ Critics' year-end rankings
  • A lot of use of "it" in Commercial performance, which should be addressed
  • {{Multiple image}} is really needed here?
  • on the Billboard Hot 100 ➡️ on the US Billboard Hot 100
  • after Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson
  • It debuted at number nine on the Canadian Hot 100 ➡️ "Die with a Smile" debuted at number nine on the Canadian Hot 100
  • In the United Kingdom, it entered the UK Singles Chart at number seven ➡️ In the United Kingdom, "Die with a Smile" entered the UK Singles Chart at number seven
  • IFPI Switzerland ➡️ IFPI Switzerland
  • Nordic countries, it reached number ➡️ Nordic countries, "Die with a Smile" reached number
  • performing "California Dreamin'": Use {{-"}}
  • setlist of The Romantic Tour (2026) ➡️ setlist of the Romantic Tour (2026)
  • Cover versions and Accolades are relatively short, so intergrate them.
  • shared a cover of the song ➡️ shared a cover of "Die with a Smile" Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Camilasdandelions I'm still addressing the issues, just to let you know that {{multiple image}} makes the article more engaging and not so dense when reading it. Other comments such as "Remove blockquote and just use double quotations, or trim it to wikivoice a bit" were not fully addressed since it makes the article more interesting and keeps the reader engage when reading it, monotone can become too much at a certain point.
    I will not merge "Cover versions and Accolades" since the latter section is quite "large" on the table and the text is just a summary of its highlights. They are a fresh "break" on the massive text on the entire article. The "critical reception" has been addressed using different stylistic preferences, let me know your opinion after reading it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't feel the multiple image template is really necessary, especially putting the artists' images. Why don't you put Michael and Janet Jackson's photo instead? Also the Accolades part you explained is fair, but I don't agree "Cover versions" to be independent section since it is composed of only one paragraph. I suggest you to expand or merge it to the appropriate section. I'll also leave additional comments soon. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 16:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I should be done with the issues, unless stated other wise, let me know if I missed something. Makes no sense putting Michael and Janet Jackson's photo, since they are only mention because of Gaga's achievement. Nevertheless, I'm willing to remove it keeping the information, if you think that makes the article better.
    We agree on that, so we will keep it the way it is. Merge it to the appropriate section? Which is? I can't expand when there is no info about it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As I multiply stated, I don't think the multiple image template is necessary. And for the Cover versions, just merge to any section then name it "XXX and cover versions" like that. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 23:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think the Cover versions section should be merged solely because it is one paragraph. It is a discrete topic, separate from live performances, reception, chart performance, or accolades, and merging it into another section would create an artificial hybrid section. The paragraph also covers several notable professional covers across 2024–2025, so it is not an empty or trivial section. Unless there is a specific issue with undue weight, sourcing, or organization, keeping it as a standalone subsection is clearer for readers. (And for comparison: "Dance in the Dark", a featured article, has a separate Cover section even though it discusses only one cover, by Rina Sawayama.)
    Regarding the template: what is the specific concern? The images illustrate Gaga's stated inspiration for the song—the Carole King and James Taylor collaborations—so they are connected to the writing and recording discussion, not random decoration. I do not see a policy-based reason why the template itself is inappropriate. Sricsi (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the user meant Gaga and Mars' picture on the commercial performance? There isn't an appropriate section to do so with it, its not just merge because its smaller than the other sections, that's not appropriate reasoning. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Well, for those specific images, I am not strongly attached to keeping them. The caption connects them to the Hot 100 achievement, but the images themselves only show the artists generally, so they may come across as decorative rather than especially informative. I can see arguments for both keeping and removing them, so I would not make the decision here. Sricsi (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Non-coordinator comment

edit

This has been open for more than three weeks and has by my count picked up only one support. Unless it shows significant signs of moving towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days, I am afraid that it may be archived. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Two supports so far. Furthermore, we are waiting for someone to explain to us some of their comments so we can addressed them the best way possible. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

George Krugers

edit


Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a man who dreamed big and died forgotten. George Krugers, whom some of you may know from my previous nomination of one of his films, was a Dutch filmmaker born in the Dutch East Indies who explored film as a new technology. He is responsible for the first sound film in the Indies and the first known documentary on the hajj pilgrimage, and helped produce the first feature film in the Indies. However, he has received little coverage in academia, with recent efforts only emerging from the efforts of his son Jan to rehabilitate him. Please note that, in part because my book was one of the first to provide a biography of Krugers in English, it has been cited a fair bit. Also please note that I no longer have ready access to Biran (2009) due to changes in personal circumstances. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC) edited 19:15, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

edit
Biography
Legacy
Lead
  • None that should affect my understanding of the article.
Bottom line

Image, media, and accessibility review

edit

Here shall be a few comments from me. Arconning (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:G Krugers.jpg - PD-US
  • File:Eulis Atjih p.74.jpg - Public Domain, you could expand on the alt-text for more context stating that it was an advertisement for a film
  • File:Life and times of G Krugers.webm - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • All of the media used in the article are under proper licensing, video has VRT. They are all relevant to the article's subject.
  • The table used in the filmography section needs a title to those who use screenreaders.
    Pass. Arconning (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metalicat

edit

A few comments from a first read. Caveat that this is an unfamiliar subject area for me; happy to be corrected on anything that reflects field-specific conventions I'm not aware of.

Lead

  • cameraman and film director — the body shows him directing, producing, doing sound direction, scriptwriting, cinematography and film processing; "filmmaker" (which the infobox uses) might capture the breadth better.
  • considered the first film about the pilgrimage — slightly ambiguous as worded, since a fictional film about a pilgrim could fit. "Considered the first documentary on the hajj" or similar would be clearer.
  • Most of his films are considered lost — the lead does not mention what survived (Het Groote Mekka-Feest), which the body treats as significant. One sentence noting the surviving film and its later prominence would round out the lead.

Prose

  • He may have been one of its founders, together with the Dutchman L. Heuveldorp. — "He may have been" is hedged without attribution; consider "According to Susanto, he may have been..."
  • the beautiful Eulis Atjih as she falls into poverty after being left by her husband — "the beautiful" may read as the article's own evaluative voice unless it reflects the source or the film's framing. If not needed, I would drop the adjective.
  • Krugers told his backers that the film had recouped its expenses — the sequence "commercial failure" followed by this sentence left me unsure how those two statements relate. Was the latter disputed, or does "commercial failure" mean only that it did not generate profit?
  • likely receiving the support not only of the Islamic scholar Agus Salim but also the Dutch passenger lines — "not only X but also Y" is a structure I'd avoid in encyclopedic prose. Consider: "likely receiving support from the Islamic scholar Agus Salim as well as the Dutch passenger lines that handled the hajj."
  • This encouraged Krugers to make Karnadi Anemer Bangkong — "This" refers back to the screening of imported sound films, but the connection is slightly elliptical. Consider "The arrival of imported sound films encouraged Krugers..."
  • made with a single-system camera that Krugers had obtained with the help of his Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers membership — "with the help of his membership" is slightly awkward. Did the membership give him access to the camera, or contacts who supplied it? Worth clarifying if the source allows.
  • While withstanding these economic pressures, which had led him to declare bankruptcy on 12 October 1932 — "withstanding" sits oddly given that he had in fact declared bankruptcy and later left the Indies. "Facing" or "amidst" might fit better.

Structure

  • The Legacy section is useful, but the chronology jumps between the survival of the film (1988 donation), Indonesian historiography (1986), and Western academia (2015). A brief topic sentence orienting the reader might help.
    • Yes, the chronology jumps around, but thematically it's centred around body of work and literature. I've reworked the second paragraph to have a clearer thesis statement. I could nix the 1988 from the first paragraph for readability if it's a concern. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MOS / minor

Happy to revisit once these are addressed. Metalicat (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for addressing the points raised and fair point on chronology, it reads well to me. Nice article. Support. Metalicat (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MCE89

edit

A few comments from me:

  • "whose family had inhabited the Indies since the 1700s" — "Inhabited" sounds a little awkward to me in this context (i.e. when applied to a family rather than a population), suggest changing this to "lived in" or "resided in"
  • "He was reportedly working on film adaptations of the folktales Roro Mendut and Prono Tjitro" — Does "was... working" suggest that he was already working on these films before he established his company?
  • "and given an introduction" -> "and was given an introduction" (or just "and was introduced"?)
  • "The first sound films shown in the Indies, Fox Movietone Follies of 1929 and The Rainbow Man (both 1929), came from the United States and were screened in late 1929" — It feels like we could probably do with one fewer "1929" in this sentence
  • "This situation was created by the Great Depression, which had led to the Dutch East Indies government..." — You could consider simplifying this to just "The Great Depression had led to the Dutch East Indies government..."
  • "Their finances failing" — I'm not sure I'd describe someone's finances as "failing", would something like "Facing financial hardship" or "With their financial situation worsening" be a little more natural here?
  • "Krugers took up construction" — I can imagine this being slightly ambiguous (i.e. did he work as a construction worker/labourer, or was he a businessman managing construction projects?)
    • Referred to the reference again, which reads "George Edward Albert Krügers, zaak drijvende en handelende als Bouw- en Aannemingsbureau G. Krügers, Leliegracht 54, Amsterdam', arr.-rechtb. Amsterdam, Eerste Kamer, 28 Maart 1945; ". Changed to "In the Netherlands, Krugers operated his own construction and contracting agency". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of Krugers's films are lost" — Possibly worth changing "most" to "all but one"
  • "...with discrepancies remaining into the 2010s" — I'm not sure I follow the meaning of "discrepancies" here
  • "has been little studied" — I think something like "has seen little scholarly attention" or "study of Krugers's work has been limited" might be clearer

That's all from me, just ping me when you've had a chance to look at my suggestions. MCE89 (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Drawers

edit

Comments to come soon! Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 17:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I’ve been busy the past few days. Will do the review tomorrow :) Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 17:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Most of the first paragraph are one short sentence after another, do you think some could be combined, since most are related, anyways? For example, "Born in Banda Neira, he migrated to Java in the 1920s. Working with L. Heuveldorp in Bandung, he made his directorial debut in 1927 with Eulis Atjih" could be "Born in Banda Neira, he migrated to Java in the 1920s, and working with L. Heuveldorp in Bandung, made his directorial debut in 1927 with Eulis Atjih"
  • "considered the first documentary film about the pilgrimage." — Was it considered this in recent retrospectives or at the time? It might be worthwhile to mention this
    • Considered implies "is currently viewed as", whereas "billed" or "advertised" would mean "at the time, but not anymore." I don't think pushing the distinction in the lede here is the best option.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and career

  • "Little is recorded about his childhood. He showed an early interest in technology, and is known to have studied architecture while also familiarizing himself with photography, film, and sound recording" — I feel like these could be combined to make a more concise sentence
  • You say "may have been one of its founders", does the source state that there is a belief he might not have been? If so, this could be worth mentioning
  • "Krugers served as a cameraman for the film, which was based on a Sundanese folktale, and also processed the film in his laboratory.[8] Although the film was criticized for its technical quality, it received a private screening for Governor General Andries Cornelis Dirk de Graeff" — Three uses of "film" so close together, can you change one?
  • "he also served as scriptwriter and cinematographer" — Shouldn’t it be "he also served as its scriptwriter and cinematographer"?
  • "after being left by her husband" — I feel that this kind of makes the sentence end somewhat clunky, consider "after her husband leaves her"
    • Not done, to avoid repetition of "her" and to keep the focus on Eulis Atjih rather than her husband.
  • Is "probably" encyclopedic language? Maybe try "presumably"
    • Presumably feels like a more subjective term. This was changed from "likely" at the recommendation of Tim riley. Tim, would presumably work better in BrE in this instance? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't rush to change "probably" to "presumably". Anything can be presumed, without necessarily being particularly probable. I suggested "probably receiving support" merely as the BrE equivalent of the AmE "likely receiving support", but really it depends on what your source says, I think. Tim riley talk 11:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the source doesn't say it's a certainty. I'd prefer to stick with likely/probably. "Even though my mother never explicitly told me, I am convinced that the Scheepvaartunie [Shipping Union] was really involved in this film. ... Krugers’ 1928 journey to Jeddah happened on board the freighter SS Madioen, a shipping machine of the Koninklijke Rotterdamsche Lloyd. He must have received gratis tickets if his son’s suspicions about Dutch shipping companies partly sponsoring the documentary are true." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These are just my initial comments, I will finish up the remaining sub-section and section later. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns with my comments! Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 02:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sound films and later life

  • "Criticized for having poor technical quality,[21] the film was also controversial for its plot; the contemporary director Joshua Wong suggested that this poor reception was partly owing to the main character eating a frog, something which is forbidden for Muslims.[13]" — Is the semicolon needed? I feel like you could just keep these two as separate sentences since they’re long enough to work on their own
    • Semi colons are not just length-based, but also thematic. In this case, "controversial for its plot" immediately leads into why it was controversial, which is more strongly linked than a period would allow for. A regular colon could also work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Krugers made the documentary Atma de Vischer (1931), which followed Queen Wilhelmina and Prince Hendrik on a trip through The Hague.[13] He then signed with Tan's Film,[22] with which he made two films" — Can one of the uses of "which" be changed to avoid repetition of words so close together?
  • I don’t really understand what you mean by the film being a commercial failure "leading to all rights being acquired by Tan's". Could you elaborate more if possible?
  • "also faced criticism for the quality of his sound films" — Assuming this means the quality was bad, you could add "poor" before "quality" to ensure this point gets across to the reader
  • "wherein he was charged with and acquitted of subverting the film censorship bureau by reinserting excised scenes into Karnadi Anemer Bangkong" — Quite long and choppy, especially since it’s at the end of a sentence, can you make the info relating to this it’s own sentence? So, as an example, it could look like "Krugers also faced other criticism, such as for the quality of his sound films. Along with this, Krugers, in a court case, was charged with and acquitted of subverting the film censorship bureau by reinserting excised scenes into Karnadi Anemer Bangkong", or any other way

Legacy

  • Why is the fact that one of his films survived stated in the first sentence, but the name of it is not given until the third? I’m sure most people causally visiting the article would expect to see the name immediately thereafter
    • The paragraph is organized "broad -> specific". It delivers the broader statements of fact first, rather than focus on the specific, which I believe better suits an encyclopedic overview of the subject. It explains why most of his oeuvre is lost before going into more detail about the one film that survives. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Notes: These include parenthetical cites rather than cites at the end of each sentence. To my eyes, most (all?) of these could be rewritten to fit the latter convention. For example, This title is based on the recollection of the journalist M. Enoh, writing in 1976 (Filmindonesia.or.id, Karnadi). Based on contemporary reporting, Woodrich (2017) writes that the release title was Roesia Gadis Priangan (Secret of the Girl from Priangan). This title is also paired with Een Moderne Indonesische Don Juan in contemporary advertising (De Indische Courant 1930, Centraal-Theater). could be This title is based on the recollection of the journalist M. Enoh, writing in 1976.[CITE] Based on contemporary reporting, Chris Woodrich writes that the release title was Roesia Gadis Priangan (Secret of the Girl from Priangan).[CITE] This title is also paired with Een Moderne Indonesische Don Juan in contemporary advertising.[CITE] (Although I generally only name people in text if they have their own article, so you might edit your name to be "a researcher" or similar.)
    • The use of parentheticals in end notes is my standard, as it removes an extra click. At Beauty Revealed, we raised the issue at WP:CITE and it resulted in endnotes being specifically excluded as per WP:PAREN. As for naming, I feel like ideas and arguments should be attributed regardless of whether the individual has an article; I have attempted to be consistent in that here and elsewhere. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)edited 00:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I looked at WP:PAREN before my comment. My comment was instead based on the fact that it looks odd and inconsistent. It also doesn't help that the sources with page numbers are link only through the year, making them look cut off. As for authors, when people don't have articles but I want to name them, I like to introduce them in the text (e.g., "according to the Indonesian-film research John Smith, ..." instead of just "according to John Smith"). That way readers aren't stuck wondering who John Smith is and why they should care about what he had to say. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #15: Is there a reason the date isn't included in the short cite?
  • Ref #28: Is the sentence really supported by a single second of that video?
  • Bioscoopnieuws: Cinema Palace: Here and below, you should use the "trans-work" parameter to translate the name of the publictions.
    • I was not familiar with that parameter, and personally I'm not keen on it—I wouldn't translate Kanisius as Canisius, for instance, as it is known by its native language. WP:FA?, criterion 2c only requires consistent citations, which are already present here. If there are policies requiring this, please point me to them. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm unaware of anything requiring that you provide all the information that might be helpful to a reader, but if it's helpful, why not include it? I see you added it for two of the sources. I would think about adding it for the other ones where it might be informative. De Indische Courant is one example, where The Indies Gazette would signal to the reader that it's a newspaper. Ditto Nederlandsche Staatscourant. I'm sure there are others. (Also, Kanisius is the publisher, not the work, so that example doesn't fit.) --Usernameunique (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        • It wouldn't be the exact same, no, but it is still an example of proper nouns that should not be translated. It appears on Wikipedia the general practice is to use the original name for newspapers (note that all of the linked publications with articles are at the native name, and not an English translation). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        • So I've dived into previous FAs... apparently it's quite uncommon to use non-English newspapers, so there doesn't seem to be much precedent either way. That being said, I know personally I feel that the proper noun should not be translated when it is the name of a publication, unless it has an official translation. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Centraal-Theater: Are these sources from De Indische Courant? If so, it can take a link.
  • Een Indisch Filmspel: Inconsistent use of retrieval date. You also don't need it, given that this is printed matter (and thus, unlike a website, won't change day by day).
  • Eulis Atjih: The original isn't dead (although it is differently formatted), so why is the archived version the primary link? Also, did you really last look at this source in 2012?
    • Updated the date; I looked at it most recently when I updated the link, and again today. As for why the archive version is the primary link, it appears to be standard behaviour when "live" is not set. This has not been an issue in previous FACs, which have also consistently not used the URL-status parameter. Again, 2c only requires consistency. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faillissementen: Same point re retrieval date. Also, what is 's-Gravenhage?
  • Filmografi G. Krugers: Same point re archived URL.
  • Karnadi Anemer Bangkong: Same point re archived URL. I think you're forgetting to add the "url-status = live" parameter. I'm going to stop mentioning this as I go through the sources, but you should look at each URL for this.
  • Koolhaas & van de Vooren 2013: A related point, but here the original URL is a redirect. Is it the same article? If so, the URL should be updated. The retrieval date, incidentally, is again more than a decade old. Also, you could add the "name-list-style = amp" parameter. Finally, what makes this a reliable source?
    • I had not updated the the retrieval date as the publication date changed at the time they moved to their new URL. I've replaced with a reference to Het Vaderland for ease of access, which also sidesteps the question of whether Nederland 24 - a consortium of specialist television networks - is reliable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Life and times of G. Krugers: What is this?
    • The video in the article by Jan Krugers. I believe that it meets the guidelines at WP:SPS, as Krugers would be qualified to speak about his family and his experiences, and the other persons involved are academics with an expertise in the field of history. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ray 2023: Is there a publisher/location for this?
  • Reichling 2022: Ditto.
  • Rosidi 2013: The translation of Rasiah nu Goréng Patut-na Joehana is incorrect. Google translate also gives me "The Secret that is Bad" for "Rasiah nu Goréng Patut" rather than "Secret of the Ugly One", but that might just be Google Translate.
As for the specific why, part of it is because translations vary between translator, part of it is because titles carry nuance that doesn't translate (Feng shuangfei, for example, refers specifically to male phoenixes, which does not translate), and part of it is because titles tend to be treated as "mentions" in these circumstances. In any case, a translation of the novel's title follows immediately after the translation of the foreword's title, so for any readers going through the sources a translation is available. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel strongly about this, I do have part of the footnote citable to my book (p. 24). I haven't cited it here because of potential WP:SELFCITE concerns, and because it doesn't go into as much detail (for instance, the possibility of someone named Soekria providing the framework for the story). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Has Rasiah nu Goreng Patut been published in a translated (into English) edition? Also, what is the thinking behind providing translations of the two titles of the film that are based on this novel, but only partially translating the title of the novel?
Part of my confusion here, I think, stems from the fact that the article seems to assume that the reader knows what Rasiah nu Goreng Patut is. In the body, the article says that "Karnadi Anemer Bangkong (Karnadi the Frog Contractor), also known as Een Moderne Indonesische Don Juan (A Modern Indonesian Don Juan)" is "A comedy adapted from the novel by Joehana and Sukria". But the article does not actually say what that novel is; without background knowledge, I would assume that the novel had the same title as the film. Then, the footnote starts off by saying According to Rasiah nu Goreng Patut, but without saying what Rasiah nu Goreng Patut is. Only by clicking on the link Karnadi Anemer Bangkong does the reader finally realize that Rasiah nu Goreng Patut is the book on which that film was based.
Related to this, the footnote's line that According to Rasiah nu Goreng Patut, Soekria wrote the story, and Joehana served only as an editor makes it sound as if Rasiah nu Goreng Patut is a secondary source, such as a scholarly publication that's trying to figure out who Soekria is—not that it's the actual work by Joehana and Soekria (or is it Sukira? or Sukria? Why are three different names used in the article?). It fact, it would appear that the first sentence of the footnote is just describing how the novel itself is attributed. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

* Hi Usernameunique;

No, Rasiah Nu Goreng Patut is an obscure work in a language that is not commonly translated into English. It has not, to the best of my knowledge, received an English-language translation (or much mention in English-language sources). As for "What is the thinking behind providing translations of the two titles of the film that are based on this novel, but only partially translating the title of the novel?", please double check the source we've been discussing. "Rasiah nu Goréng Patut-na Joehana" [Joehana's Rasiah nu Goréng Patut]" is the title of the foreword provided by Ajip Rosidi to Kiblat's reissue of the novel. The title of the book itself is immediately translated in the next field, Rasiah nu Goréng Patut [Secret of the Ugly One]. A translation of the book's title is provided in the reference. The book's title is simply not translated when mentioned in the foreword's title, as per the convention I mentioned above. Edit: I realized you meant in running text, so I have added the translation.
Thank you for clarifying. I have added Rasiah nu Goreng Patut to the running text. I have also noted "according to the original publication", to avoid the possible view that the novel is being treated as a secondary source; it was not, as the source is Ajip Rosidi's foreword to a much later edition. Sukira was a typo. Sukria and Soekria are the same name, in different spelling systems; I've made it consistent with Van Ophuijsen.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC) edit: 23:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The resolver.kb.nl links redirect to delpher.nl; these should be updated.
  • Tan's Film: Both the archived and original URLs are dead. If you go back to the 2010 archived URL, it's still there, but you should first check to see if it's still on the internet with a different URL (is this it?).
    • The Encyclopedia of Jakarta went offline sometime around 2018. The link you provided is the same content, but published by a different organization; the Indonesian Film Center, if memory serves, was the organization handling the digitization of Sinematek Indonesia's film archive. As per WP:SAYWHERE, I feel that retaining the original reference to the encyclopedia is better. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woodrich 2017/2018: Just noting that I see your works are cited here (as you identify in the nomination), but these appear to fall within the permissible boundaries of WP:SELFCITE.
  • What makes filmindonesia.or.id a reliable source?
    • Filmindonesia.or.id originated as a digital edition of J. B. Kristanto's Katalog Film Indonesia, with the biographies drawn from the two editions of Apa Siapa Orang Film Indonesia. It has since been continued by staff who are active in the film community, with updates including both new releases as well as amendments to existing entries (for example, dates of death). The catalogue is regularly cited in academia (example Google search), as is the website). Ariel Heryanto (2014) deems it "currently the most comprehensive and credible reference source available". On Wikipedia, it is used consistently in our Indonesian film FAs. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: The URLs are a bit messy, and one gets the impression that they have not been closely looked at recently. All, however, appear capable of bringing to order. I've also asked about a couple sources where I'm not sure what they are; this isn't to say that they aren't reliable, just that I would like to understand what they are. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Usernameunique, please see my responses above. I have implemented most of the changes, and where I disagree, I have marked above.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the responses. As a general comment, few formatting issues are going to make or break a source review. I'm well aware that the FAC criteria value consistency in citations over any particular method—and have myself made that point when responding in own nominations. The comments above are thus not primarily intended as a list of what needs must be done to pass the source review, but rather as a list of recommendations that would, in my view, make the article better. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. I think the only sticking point right now is the translation of the one source, but I think we made movement on that. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Crisco 1492, our views on how/whether to provide a translation of that work are different, but I understand yours, and the article is now clearer with the title having been worked into the body. The issue regarding the "url-status =" not being set is still remaining (I think you may have missed my last comment there), but that is an easy fix that should take only a few minutes. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. For the sake of consistency with other FAs as well as consistent display in this article, I had not intended to change the URL status to "live". I get where you're coming from, Usernameunique, and while I acknowledge that the formatting in archived pages can be clunky (I rather preferred WebCite for that (example) I feel that the consistency is more important - especially as Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations is a how-to-guide, not a guideline. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

edit

An excellent and interesting article. I confidently expect to be supporting, but first a few quibbles, if I may:

  • "Dutch East Indies" has a blue link in the lead but not in the main text.
  • "whose family had resided in the Indies" – rather a posh word: couldn't they just have lived there?
  • "Krugers performed the pilgrimage himself, likely receiving support" – if, as it appears, we are in BrE, "likely" (an AmE usage in this sense) would be better it changed to "probably".
  • "contemporary director Joshua Wong " – clunky false title: a definite article before "contemporary" would make the prose gentler.
  • "due to rising production costs ... Due to the rapid change in circumstances " – if indeed we are in BrE (and ignore this if we aren't) these could each do with a tweak: in AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
  • "He died in The Hague on 10 August 1964" – two small points here: first, you've already blue-linked the city earlier in the main text; secondly, you capitalise the definite article in "The Hague" here but not at first mention, two paragraphs earlier.
  • "Amsterdam" – WP:OVERLINK
  • "Krugers had kept a copy of the film in Amsterdam, intending to give it to Queen Juliana. [35] In 1988,[36] Elisabeth donated this copy to the EYE Film Institute.[29] – perhaps I'm missing something that's staring me in the face, but I'm blest if I can find any of this in citations 35, 36 and 29. I'm quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
    • [35] had the wrong page; fixed ("Het Groote Mekka-Feest might be the only one of Krugers’ productions that was not lost. Krugers had safely stored it in Amsterdam intending to gift it to the future queen of the Netherlands"). 36 was at 24:17, so fixed the range. [29] was supposed to be at 345 ("This case study is based on the visual and textual content of the film and archival research in the EYE Film Museum, Amsterdam, preserving the original film rolls and related material, ")
  • And further to the above, I'm a bit hazy about the chronology of this: the family sailed for the Netherlands in 1936, when Juliana was not yet queen. Did the idea of presenting it to her come after her accession in 1948? (It wouldn't hurt to give the year of the family's return in your text, too.)
  • "However" – we have five "howevers": I think excising the third and fourth of them would tighten the prose without blurring the meaning: "However, Het Groote Mekka-Feest survived" ... "However, the information provided was inconsistent" would both be fine without the ubiquitous "howevers".

That's all from me: I hope some or all of these comments are of use. Tim riley talk 07:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support promotion to FA. In my view the article meets all the FA criteria. It is a splendid read; as well illustrated as I imagine is possible for an article about an off-the-beaten-track subject of this vintage; widely and I presume – as I don't speak Dutch – well sourced; balanced; and evidently comprehensive. I look forward to seeing it on our front page. Tim riley talk 13:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RandomEdits

edit

I'd wondered if you'd been prepping this one after your work on The Great Mecca Feast. I think there's been a fair few eyes on this already (arguably enough support at this point?) but I thought I'd take a look to see if there was anything I can do to help get it over the line.

Admittedly, after the last few rounds of commentators I believe the prose is in a good state now! As such, I just had a few questions about some points I was curious about; I assume the answer will be "there's no further info on these", but here goes...

  • I'm always intruiged with bios if there's any info on how they got into their area. Did Krugers or anyone else ever say what brought him into filmmaking outside "an early interest in technology"?
    • No, unfortunately. In my correspondence with Jan, I didn't go too much into the "why" (and it wouldn't be citable anyways), and existing sources seem to have focused almost exclusively on specific works.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps falling outside the scope of the article a bit - is Krugers unique in that most of his works are lost, or is that fairly common for the timeperiod of Indonesian cinema? (It's certainly very fortunate he kept that one copy of the Feast!)
  • It looks like Krugers had recurring issues with the films' quality/presentation. Do we have any insight on what was happening here? Was it the same sort of issues in each, or different each time?
    • It does seem to have been a common theme, right? Even on Feast. Not in the sources, unfortunately. I expect that a good part of it was working with unproven technology (early cameras, hand-cameras, early sound cameras) in harsh conditions - having done photography with more modern equipment in the tropics, my quality still tends to be better at higher latitudes.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm reading everything right, I'm getting the impression Krugers spent a good amount of time during his career with Dutch royalty and other nobles. Did we get any contempory commentary from any of them?
    • Unfortunately, no. Aside from Feast, most of his works seem to have been concentrated in the Indies (and then for non-European audiences). For Feast, the media reported more on Snouck Hurgronje rather than Juliana. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know anything more about Krugers' death from other sources?

That's all from me, nice work :) RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Z1720

edit
  • I made some copyedits to the article. Feel free to revert if not helpful.
  • "George Edward Albert Krugers": the article body doesn't mention this as his full name anywhere, so its not verified. It might be necessary to add a citation somewhere for this.
  • Lead check: only concern is the full name above
  • Infobox check: only concern is the full name above

Overall, support (once the above name is cited somewhere). Z1720 (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Ice dance

edit


Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the women's event, the ice dance event at the 2022 Winter Olympics kept the drama on the ice where it belonged. This article was promoted to GA in early April. Pinging User:Rhain who did the GA review. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions, and I look forward to your constructive feedback. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass) and comments from Crisco 1492

edit
  • Not going to lie, I had to see established FAs in this area to have an idea what to look for. Fortunately, this seems to be of similar quality to already passed articles.

Image review:

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

edit
  • The contrast for the 3rd place winners in the Ice dance results table isn't enough. .
  • Despite what I might think (personally, I would go with "tan" as the color choice for 3rd place), that is the standard for all Olympic tables and other athletic events that award gold, silver, and bronze medals. That is not something I can unilaterally change.

Support from Dylan620

edit

Placeholder for now; prose review forthcoming. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 16:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through this article three times and I have no concerns. Great work, Bgsu98. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 15:19, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dylan620: Thank you for taking the time to examine my article! Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ZooBlazer

edit
  • "set new world record scores in both the rhythm dance and overall total" contains a slight redundancy. It would be cleaner to use the standard terminology from the rest of the article: "overall total score" or just "total score"
  • "The ice dance competition at the 2022 Winter Olympics was held on 12 and 14 February at the Capital Indoor Stadium in Beijing, China" is a verbatim copy-paste of the first sentence of the lead. Can it be rewritten to avoid repetition?
  • "Sinitsina and Katsalapov had won the 2021 World Figure Skating Champions" -- Champions should be Championships so no need for a piped link as "2021 World Figure Skating Championships" works fine
  • "The top twenty-four highest scoring teams after the rhythm dance performed their free dances..." -- Am I reading the tables wrong or do only 23 teams competed in total, and only the top 20 advanced to the free dance (teams 21–23 are listed as Did not advance)?
  • "a scale from −5 to +5" and "Each Grade of Execution (GOE) from –5 to +5" -- One of the negative signs seems to be an em dash and the other is not, but they should use the same type of dash.
  • "Their appearance at the 2022 Winter Olympics was the first in nearly three years for Gabriella Papadakis and Guillaume Cizeron of France, having last competed at the 2019 World Figure Skating Championships" -- This doesn't seem to be accurate. It looks like they competed at the 2020 European Championships and 2021–22 Grand Prix events.

The article is in pretty good shape overall so just a few comments from me. -- ZooBlazer 20:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:ZooBlazer: Thank you for taking the time to examine my article! I have made all of your recommended changes. The first five were minor. As for the last, I went back to the source. The author was kind of playing games with how they worded it, making it sound like Papadakis/Cizeron hadn't competed since the 2021 WC. They referred to "global competition", which the European Championships are not, instead of major competition, which the European Championships are. I reworded that paragraph significantly. Let me know what you think. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Happy to support. -- ZooBlazer 23:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RandomEdits

edit

Goodness, another ice skating tournament so soon? You've certainly been busy in this field. I'm hoping this should be fairly straight forward based on the above comments and your previous works, but let's take a look...

  • The transition between Russia and where the event was held is perhaps a little abrupt, but I've been thinking for a while about what can be done to help with that. You could maybe add a subheader between the two points, but that admittedly feels overkill for what is just two paragraphs.
  • Sadly, due to Russia's shenanigans, all of the Olympic articles from 2018, 2022, and 2026 have to have an explanatory paragraph explaining why the Russians aren't technically there even when they actually are there. The 2026 explanation is even more convoluted!
  • "In ice dance, the scores at the Olympics are typically consistent with the scores throughout the season;" This is potentially opening a can of worms, but I'm interested to learn more about this or if a source can be added for further reading here; is there any direct evidence for this or is this too niche?
  • Source no. 7 covers everything in the paragraph up to the citation, including that statement. There's no way I would just drop that statement in there and be like, Trust me bro. 😉 But statistically, it is true. Ice dance is more straightforward without the likelihood for falls or other slip-ups, so scoring tends to track over the course of the season. Also, the placement after the first round is usually pretty consistent with the results after the second round. In regular skating, placements and scoring can fluctuate wildly during the season, or even during an event, but it's usually much more calm with ice dance.
  • Not an issue if there's nothing on it, but was there a specific reason given for "street dance rhythms" being chosen for the theme?
  • Who knows where the ISU got some of their themes for the past few years. Word is they are going back to a straight pattern for the coming season (rhumba, waltz, foxtrot, whatever). The idea is that if every team has to skate the same pattern, it is easier to compare the teams with each other. We'll see. The ISU got a lot of flack from the rhythm dance this last season ("music, dance styles, and feeling of the 1990s").

And that's it really, not much to say here unless I want to get into nitpicking territory. If the above don't raise any issues Bgsu, this should probably be good to go from my perspective. Nice job with this. If you have time for a FA review yourself between working on this and your current FL submission, I have a FA up about a horse at the moment (we all have our niche interests) that could do with a few more reviewers, but this isn't required as part of this review by any means! :) RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

All sources seem reliable and correctly formatted to me - does https://skatingscores.com/about/ have a reputation for reliability? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jo-Jo Eumerus: Skating Scores is on the list of websites vetted by the Figure Skating WikiProject: See its entry here. Please let me know if you need anything else, and thank you for again doing the source review for one of my articles. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: This article has received three support votes, plus the image and source reviews. Am I good to go with submitting another in this series? Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. FrB.TG (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pat O'Keeffe

edit


Nominator(s): Metalicat (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Pat O'Keeffe, a British professional boxer active from 1902 to 1918 who twice held the British middleweight title. He drew with Billy Papke in Philadelphia, toured Australia with Tommy Burns, fought Georges Carpentier for the European heavyweight title, and won the Lonsdale Belt outright during a German air raid on London. The article also covers his military service, his post-ring career as a publican, and his role as a founding member of the British Boxing Board of Control. It was built from contemporary coverage in the British Newspaper Archive, Trove and Newspapers.com, supported where possible by later boxing history sources. It passed GA in February 2026 and has since had further work on prose, sourcing and structure. This is my second FAC nomination after the first was withdrawn for lack of reviews, so all feedback is appreciated. Metalicat (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Pat_O'Keefe_(boxeur)_-_btv1b6904887s.jpg: which of the French rationales is believed to apply? Ditto File:Match_Pat_O'Keefe_-_Allum,_Wagram,_2-3-07_-_btv1b53223005n.jpg
Added notes specifying the applicable French rationale as CPI art. L123-3 (anonymous press agency work by Agence Rol, published more than 70 years ago).
  • File:Pat_o'keeffe_signature.png needs a US tag
Added {{PD-US-1923}}.
The PD-signature tag generally doesn't apply to UK works. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Removed from the article. The signature has decorative flourishes that likely exceed the UK threshold for "extremely simple", so it cannot be considered PD under the precautionary principle. Metalicat (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Signed_picture_of_Pat_O'Keeffe_in_Australia.png: when and where was this first published?
Updated description to note the photograph is unpublished per the NLA catalogue record, with no identified photographer.
Er, so how would this have a pre-1931 publication for the US tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. I cannot demonstrate publication, and as an unpublished work by an unknown author it remains protected in the US until c. 2028.
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the follow up. I have learnt a bit about copyright today! Metalicat (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pat_O'Keeffe_and_Bombardier_Wells_boxing_before_King_George_V,_Illustrated_London_News,_21_March_1914.png: per the UK tag, "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". Ditto File:LCPL_Pat_O'Keeffe_passing_round_fruit_on_a_boat.png.
ILN illustration and boat photo: Documented in both descriptions that the works were published without artist/photographer credits and that searches of the BNA did not identify the creators.

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the image review. I believe I have addressed all five points. please see comments above. Metalicat (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arconning

edit

Here shall be a few comments from me. Arconning (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the Early life section, use his full name of "Pat O'Keeffe" to cite it properly. - Done
  • "the Washington Herald" to "The Washington Herald" Done
  • I suggest clipping the Newspapers.com articles or any other newspaper archive to be more accessible to readers who don't have an account. See User:Sammi Brie/Clipping as my basis. - Done
  • "later recalled that Willie Lewis", you can just state his last name as the full name was mentioned previously. - Done
  • Wikilink the entirety of "The Sydney Morning Herald" to "The Sydney Morning Herald". - Done
  • In the Military service during World War I section, there's an awkward gap caused by the image on the bottom. Could this be moved elsewhere to prevent this? - Done I think, appears better on my desktop using safari.
  • Could add the place of his death in the infobox as his birthplace is present. - Done
@Arconning: Thank you for the review and Newspapers.com tip. I believe I have addressed your points. Metalicat (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Arconning (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Olliefant

edit
As all three citations support either evaluative claims or direct quotes attributed to named authors (Harding, Bettinson), I believe they fall within the case-by-case guidance at MOS:LEADCITE. However happy to be corrected on this if my interpretation is wrong.
I'm not sure, the subject isn't "Complex, current, or controversial" as long as the content is still in the body then it should be fine to cut them
Fair point. I have removed all three citations from the lead; the claims are all sourced in the body. Metalicat (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Personal life", I don't believe the (91) should be included in the name of "HMS Ark Royal (91)", its usually just called the "HMS Ark Royal"
Pennant number removed.
  • Under "Later life and post-boxing career", I think just putting "Queen" and linking it to the relevent article is a boardline WP:EASTEREGG violation, though I think its probably fine if you leave it
Added "Queen Mary" with a link to Mary of Teck as the sentence still flows fine.
  • Is a whole "Boxing terminology" section really standard for this? Usually sports articles have at most a small key or just use links. Also why is it at the end?
This was suggested during peer review to help general readers with terms that don't have clear Wikipedia articles or where the linked article doesn't explain the boxing-specific usage. I placed it at the end as a sort of glossary. I'm content to remove if it is deemed unnecessary.
You could try Wiktonairy links
@Olliefant: Good idea; i have added Wiktionary links for ringcraft and clinch, and removed those plus cornerman (which has a Wikipedia article) from the table. The remaining terms either lack Wiktionary/Wikipedia entries or have entries too broad to be useful in a boxing context. Happy to trim further or remove if needed. Metalicat (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Notable bouts" bold?
On re-evaluation, I've removed the bold caption entirely as the section heading already says: "Selected professional boxing record".
  • Why do two of the matches have no notes?
Context now added to the 2 matches. I must of deleted the text in error.
That's what I found ping me when done Olliefant (she/her) 22:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Olliefant: Thanks for the review. Please see my comments above. Metalicat (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olliefant (she/her) 07:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492

edit
  • In 1914, he challenged Georges Carpentier in a contest billed as the European heavyweight championship but was knocked out in two rounds. - I'm not sure "but" fits here, as it doesn't really contrast with the challenge
  • During World War I - I thought British English preferred First World War? The article isn't consistent in the form used, either.
  • After retiring from the ring, he worked - Neither of the subjects of your previous sentence would fit "he" here; worth saying "O'Keeffe" again?
  • "We were raised in England, but we have no English blood in us." - Per WP:V, this should be followed immediately by a citation
  • He took up boxing as an amateur with the Canning Town Athletic Club in 1901. - Most recent subject was "the paper", in the previous paragraph; probably worth having "O'Keeffe" as the subject.
  • that the boxing historian John Harding identifies as the start of his first reign as champion. - I'd personally use "O'Keeffe" instead of "his"
  • Managed in America by Charley Harvey, he was previewed in The Buffalo Enquirer as "a tall slim lad of six feet" whose erect stance gave him "the appearance of a giraffe" and whose long arms "resemble telegraph poles". - More direct quotes that should have a ref at the end of the sentence
  • A profile in the Illustrated Police Budget - Somewhere in this sentence, I'd use "O'Keeffe" again.
  • cornerman - Worth wikilinking?
  • was rough and at times "unscientific"; - What is "unscientific" in this context?
    • Added a brief gloss attributed to The Age. The source contrasts the contest with Queensberry-rules boxing and explicitly compares it to Greco-Roman wrestling, so I have written: "the Age describing it as 'unscientific' and at times closer to wrestling than to Queensberry-rules boxing". Metalicat (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While training Tommy Burns for his fights I have not been able to do myself justice. I have felt that I have had a tendency to go stale." - Another direct quote needing a citation
  • Before sailing, a committee of Sydney boxing figures had organised a farewell testimonial at the Royal Edward Hotel in Redfern, - I'd assume O'Keeffe was sailing and not the committee. This should be refactored, perhaps "Before O'Keeffe sailed"
  • R.M.S. Mooltan -> R.M.S. Mooltan (ship names are in italics, per MOS:NAT)
  • These inflation numbers are overly specific to the point of inaccuracy (equivalent to £80,311.11 or US$102,645.21 in 2024). The "r" feature in the template will allow you to round to three digits (or four) to keep things ballpark.
    • Added r=-2 to all three GBPConvert templates. The "r=3" parameter rendered the dollar conversion to three decimal places rather than three significant figures, so I switched to "r=-2" which rounds to the nearest hundred. Metalicat (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the historian Kasia Boddy has observed, the National Sporting Club (NSC) - You have already defined NSC above, and indeed used the abbreviation in the previous sentence.
  • Harding later noted that the scale of some wartime purses attracted concern in the Army and that General Haig issued a ban on big-money fights involving serving soldiers.[67] - Not sure this segues with the previous sentence, as no purse is specified for this fight.
    • Moved to the Military service section as background context, where it sits with the wider material on wartime sport and recruitment rather than interrupting a specific bout narrative. Metalicat (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "never-failing left hand". - Another direct quote for citation.
  • O'Keeffe enlisted in the British Army and joined the 1st Surrey Rifles, - Do the sources say when?
    • The earliest contemporary reference I have found is in Boxing World and Mirror of Life on 19 September 1914, which records that O'Keeffe and Dick Smith had "joined the colours". I have therefore written "By 19 September 1914, O'Keeffe had joined the British Army, enlisting with the 1st Surrey Rifles" with that source. The 14 October Bradford Daily Telegraph citation remains as supporting context. Metalicat (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the writer Guy Deghy noted, wartime bills at the NSC commonly used service ranks, and O'Keeffe was typically announced as "Sergeant O'Keeffe" - This is a single sentence and should be worked into another paragraph... I'd probably go with the wartime boxing film, since both deal with credits.
  • Is the boxing terminology section necessary? (As an aside, I'm surprised we don't have a glossary of boxing article!)
  • I question the value of the smaller paragraphs (two sentences). Are they perhaps worth massaging into other paragraphs?
    • Merged a couple of the most obvious cases (Beckett/Blake/Wells; Camberwell/sparring) and left others where they read naturally. Happy to re-work the others if you think they need it. Metalicat (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, looks pretty solid. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: Thank you for the detailed review. I have worked through all the points above. it has improved the article considerably. Metalicat (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

I wonder about 4-6 (census results); the titles of the sources do not imply one would find information about one specific person in them. With the respect of the numerous UK newspapers cited, do they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? My understanding is that it is somewhat debatable much of the time. Some books are cited in both the references and further reading sections - if the ref section is for the short version and the further reading the long version of the citation, OK, but I see "Corri, Eugene (1915). Thirty Years a Boxing Referee. New York: Longmans, Green & Co. p. 189 – via HathiTrust." and "Corri, Eugene (2008) [1915]. Refereeing 1,000 Fights: Reminiscences of Boxing. Read Books. ISBN 978-1443736435. " too? http://www.boxingmonthly.com/heavyweight-countdown/ranking-the-heavyweight-champions-no-23-tommy-burns/ is apparently broken. BoxRec#Criticism of the website gives me pause about BoxRec. Some sources are pretty old, but if this person's career ended after World War I I guess that is right. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Many thanks for the source review, all points are addressed below.
  • Census records (refs 4–6): These cite specific individual entries within each census. The form of citation differs by year because the surviving records themselves are organised differently. For the 1841–1901 censuses, the original household schedules were destroyed after the enumerators had copied them into enumeration books, and the National Archives reference format is Class / Piece / Folio / Page (referring to the surviving enumeration books). For the 1911 census, the original household schedules were preserved for the first time, and references take the form Class / Piece / Schedule. So ref 4 (1891) and ref 5 (1901) follow the folio-and-page convention, while the 1911 reference correctly gives the schedule number (105). Each URL resolves to the individual record on Ancestry. I have also expanded the 1939 Register citation to give the full reference (RG 101/3B, Enumeration District Aabb, Schedule 84, Sub-schedule 1, Line 5).
  • newspapers: The contemporary newspaper citations do three jobs. The first is routine bout reporting (date, venue, result, rounds), where the period sporting press is reliable and where the major contests are cross-checked across multiple papers: for example the 1913 Wells contest is cited to both Sporting Life and the Dundee Courier; the 1914 Carpentier defeat to the Yorkshire Post and the Sheffield Daily Telegraph; the May 1916 Blake fight to both the Sheffield Independent and The People; and the 1918 final to The Sportsman, Bettinson and Harding. Australian results are corroborated across Trove papers where possible. The second job is attributed contemporary opinion and quoted speech: the Buffalo Enquirer previewing him, The Age describing the Williams contest as "unscientific", Jimmy Wilde's reaction to the Sullivan rematch. These claims are not in Wikipedia's voice but are explicitly framed as period reporting, and the citation supports who said what rather than the underlying evaluation. The third job is recruiting and military life, where the contemporary press sits alongside Mason & Riedi (2010) and Harding (2016), which carry the analytical weight. Claims made in the article's own voice are anchored to secondary scholarship where they are evaluative or interpretive.
  • Corri duplication: These are in fact two different versions of the book with overlapping subject matter but distinct content. Thirty Years a Boxing Referee (1915) is cited for the Belgian Fund / Wells sparring anecdote at p. 189; Refereeing 1,000 Fights: Reminiscences of Boxing (1915, reprinted 2008) is cited for the Willie Lewis dressing-room story at p. 134. I have confirmed that the Willie Lewis anecdote does not appear in Thirty Years a Boxing Referee, which is why the second volume was needed. The 2008 reprint has already been removed from Further reading, where it was listed in error.
  • Boxing Monthly link: Replaced with the International Boxing Hall of Fame entry on Burns, which directly supports the 5 ft 7 in stature.
  • BoxRec: Used here only for the bout-record table and the career totals in the infobox. The mitigation in the article as written is that each contest discussed in the body is supported by at least one contemporary newspaper source, with major bouts cross-referenced across multiple papers as set out above. BoxRec is used as the spine for the totals and the bout list, not as the sole authority on any individual result. If it would help, I am happy to add an explanatory footnote to the record section flagging the limitation explicitly. Let me know if that would address the concern or if you would prefer a different approach.
Thanks again for the careful read; let me know if any of this needs more work. Metalicat (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is OK but for census records can I have a quote or screenshot? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus:Sure. Would I put the screenshot here? Metalicat (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per email or link it here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you. Screenshots of all three census records, the indexed panel and the original schedule for each, are here:
The 1911 reference was wrong: I had given the household schedule as 105 (probably a typo), but the form actually shows it as 1021, and I have corrected the citation.
On the name: the surname is recorded in different forms across the returns. Variation like this is routine for an Irish surname in this period; spelling wasn't standardised, enumerators often recorded names by ear, and the modern index adds further variants on top of the original hand. The form settled as "O'Keeffe" in adulthood, which is how he is known throughout his boxing career and how he appears in the 1939 Register (also in the folder) Metalicat (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Got them, I must admit that their writing is borderline illegible for me. Might have to AGF here after all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Agreed, the handwriting is difficult to make out. Happy to help if you want to look at anything else. Metalicat (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Idea Right?

edit


Nominator(s): NØ 18:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another high quality Olivia Rodrigo article getting the bronze star, it's not a bad idea right? This time, I would like to present you "Bad Idea Right?"; one of the more brazenly rock-influenced offerings from Rodrigo's catalog, the song still went on to fare well commercially and was a multi-week top 10 hit. It enjoyed Pitchfork's coveted "Best New Track" title and went on to become a favorite on critics' 2023 year-end lists. Probably a good way to celebrate Rodrigo's comeback (and mine? lol). Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 18:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment from Metalicat

edit

Not my usual subject area, so I am commenting as a lay reader, mainly focusing on prose and a couple of spot-checks.

Prose

  • Live performances and other usage: who added layered harmonies afront red stage lights — "afront" does not look right here. Should this be "in front of red stage lights" or "against red stage lights"?
  • Composition: Rodrigo sing-speaks parts of the song — "sing-speaks" reads awkwardly as a hyphenated verb. Would something like "uses Sprechgesang" or "uses a spoken-sung delivery" be more natural?
  • Background and release: enthusiastic to show people the "more sarcastic side" of Rodrigo — "enthusiastic to show" sounds slightly off. "Eager to show" or "enthusiastic about showing" would read more naturally.
  • Lead: rekindle with her ex-boyfriend — I think this needs an object. "Rekindle a relationship with her ex-boyfriend" or "reconnect with her ex-boyfriend" would be clearer.
  • Composition: repeatedly questions that it is "a bad idea, right?" — "questions whether it is" may read more naturally.

Spot-checks

  • Verified the Variety (Willman) source for the claim that Nigro pushed for "Bad Idea Right?" as the lead single. The source supports the article's paraphrase.
  • The Billboard source supports the August 11, 2023 release as the next Guts single, and Apple Music supports the 3:04 runtime.

No major concerns from my prose pass, an interesting read. Metalicat (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt review, Metalicat. The suggestions make sense to me; done on all points.--NØ 03:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support.
Metalicat (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Camilasdandelions

edit

Going to review citations and small issues for now, with this revision.

Overview

Citations

  • Ref 7: Why her record label is listed in |author=? As I know, label should be listed in |publisher= parameter; correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't think you're "wrong" necessarily, but I have listed these in the author parameter for all of my previous FACs so I prefer to be consistent.--NØ 05:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 25: Singers are not an author of streaming services.
  • Ref 29-31, 34, 55, 87, 92, 94, 97, 104-105, 108-110, 120, 122, 164: |archive-url=
Covered all, hopefully? The certification templates ignore attempts to add |archive-url= so it wasn't possible for the references automatically generated by those.--NØ 05:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30-31, 34: Change GUTS to Guts in |title=, per MOS:CONFORMTITLE
  • Ref 40: |url-status=live
  • Ref 62: |url-access=subscription
  • Ref 31, 74: Same references?
  • Ref 97: Remove |work=RIAS
  • Re≠ 115: Not sure with this, but I would put BBC Radio in author field, but I'm not forcing you to follow this.

I'll support the nomitation after those issues are addressed. Great work! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 05:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments and source review, Camilasdandelions. All addressed.--NØ 05:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I support the nomination. Glad you're back, again. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 05:54, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Olliefant

edit
  • "A pop-punk, pop rock, grunge, indie pop, new wave, power pop, and synth-pop song influenced by several other genres" can this be trimmed at all? Like what were the most commonly used labels?
  • Well, we have already excluded alt-pop and jangle rock from here. I think the ones currently left in the lead are disparate enough to warrant separate mentions.
  • "Courting and Kelly Clarkson performed cover versions of it" can this be expanded on?
  • Still its a bit excessive, could you do something like "various pop subgeneres"?
  • You mean in the lead? I can't think of any meaningful expansion that is due and significantly enhances the understanding of this sentence
  • "at the age of 19," relevence?
  • "influenced by riot grrrl" whats that?
  • "Riot grrrl is an underground feminist punk movement that began during the early 1990s within the United States in Olympia, Washington" - from the Wikipedia article. Have retained a link to this on first mention of the term for anyone else who might have the same confusion.
  • Arguablly an WP:EASTEREGG violation as someone could reasonably mistake it for a band name
  • [B movie] [horror-comedy] is an MOS:SOB violation, i'd suggest something like "1990s B movie and horror-comedy inspired"
  • "It was nominated for Best Art Direction at the 2024 MTV Video Music Awards" did it win?
  • No, just nominated. If you are suggesting adding something like ", but lost to Megan Thee Stallion's 'Boa'", I usually find that to be an WP:UNDUE inclusion given no secondary sources actually write a statement like "Olivia Rodrigo's 'Bad Idea Right?' lost to Megan Thee Stallion's 'Boa'". Since Wikipedia summarizes this literature of secondary sources, it comes across as odd for us to produce a sentence not actually appearing in them.
  • I disagree, without clarifiying that something else one the article just seems out of date
  • While I respect your opinion, there is a precedent to be followed here. Prior FAs for songs like "Shake It Off", "All About That Bass", or "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" also do not give shoutouts to winners of accolades the songs were nominated for. "[Song A] was nominated for [XYZ award]" remains a true and correct statement even when another wins the prize, and a statement like "'Bad Idea Right?' lost [award] to [song that won]" might be OR as no secondary source states Rodrigo "lost" anything. There doesn't seem to be any obvious reason to stray from the norm.--NØ 07:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the music video reviews should be moved to "Critical Reception"
  • That wouldn't flow. The way it is currently structured is people go from reading about the song's composition to information about how that was received and later the music video's composition/synopsis to information about how that was received.
That's what I found ping me when done Olliefant (she/her) 21:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Olliefant, thank you for your review! Replies above.--NØ 05:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Olliefant: Nudge.--NØ 09:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Octave

edit

Reviewed this while listening to my Guts CD! Comments below :)

Lead:

  • Rodrigo co-wrote it with its producer, Dan Nigro. – presumably this refers to the song, and since we've just mentioned the album this is quite ambiguous.
  • "Bad Idea Right?" features Rodrigo contemplating whether or not it is a good idea to reconnect with her ex-boyfriend and weighing its pros and cons. – "and weighing its" sounds wrong here to me. Would "by weighing the" have the same effect? If so, I think this would improve flow.
  • describing it – describing what? We've just named two things: I'd either say "the former" or "the latter".
  • crowd-surfing in a house party – crowd-surfing at a house party?
  • riding a pickup truck and bus – I think we should include an article for the second as well ("a bus").

Composition:

  • It features guest appearances by Madison Hu, Iris Apatow, and Tate McRae and references – comma after McRae, MeThinks.
  • My Grammar checker is catching the comma as redundant to this construction and recommending to go without.
  • Courting and Kelly Clarkson performed cover versions of it. – "have performed"?

Background and release:

  • Rodrigo conceived the follow-up album, Guts (2023) – missing comma after brackets.
  • They wrote over 100 songs and included the more rock-oriented tracks on the album because they drew a bigger reaction from her audiences during live shows. – This feels a bit off. Suggest a rephrase to something like "After writing over 100 songs, they chose the more rock-oriented tracks for the album because they received stronger reactions from her audience during live performances."
  • "a joke" – I don't think we need the quote marks.
  • They liked it so much that it was converted into a full song. – converted is an odd turn of phrase here. I'd just say "made", honestly.
  • the most unconventional ideas on it – what exactly is the source saying here? Is this meant to be "their most unconventional ideas"?

Composition:

  • Spike Stent mixed – MOS:WINGSUIT.
  • call and response hooks – same issue.
  • riot grrrl – I feel like the movement could be given a brief explanation for unfamiliar readers.
  • rises into a crescendo – odd construction (a crescendo is a "rise" in dynamic): am I missing something here?

Critical reception:

  • Pitchfork named the song as the "Best New Track" – I'd specify when.
  • Billboard's Jason Lipshutz ranked the song as the fifth-best track on Guts and believed it sounded fresher with repeated listens as he better understood the gradations of her vocal performance, and Sputnikmusic's Sowing thought it was finer in the context of Guts than upon its release as a single. – consider splitting between publications.
  • Reviewers thought the song was youthful like her previous music but lyrically reflected college-oriented themes rather than high schoo – suggest "themes more oriented to college than high school" instead for flow.

Commercial performance:

  • Seems fine at a glance.

Music video:

  • Rodrigo revealed that it will feature – "that it would".

Live performances and other usage:

  • Again, seems fine on a first look.

Nice work; ping me when done and I'll take another look. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 22:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great insights, UpTheOctave!. All done.--NØ 09:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All good. A few more misc. points:
  • Whether or not – determining whether to do something covers the negative as well, so I don't think "or not" is needed either time this construction appears.
  • reminiscent of – we use this phrase three times in one paragraph. Could synonymous phrasings be found?
  • Stereogum's Chris DeVille believed it has "major '90s pop rock energy", People's Ilana Kaplan described it as a 1990s grunge song, and Time's Maura Johnston thought it channeled 1990s alternative rock. – why is this in a footnote?
The genres themselves are covered in the opening sentence. The footnote exists here to source the "Multiple critics identified it as reminiscent of 1990s music" bit without the citation overkill of three references together.
  • good old fashioned teen angst – this is in a quote, but I think this should still be "old-fashioned" per MOS:TYPOFIX.
  • Early on in the creation process of Guts in 2022 – "on" is superfluous.
  • According to Rodrigo, they experimented with their most unconventional ideas on it, incorporating her voice gradually getting louder and louder as a section in one of the choruses, which ended up sounding like an instrument. – this still feels a bit jumbled. Maybe try "According to Rodrigo, they experimented with their most unconventional ideas on it, including a section in one of the choruses where her voice gradually crescendos until it sounds like an instrument"?
  • Nigro considered "Bad Idea Right?" his favorite song and pushed for it to be released as the lead single from the album, enthusiastic about showing people the "more sarcastic side" of Rodrigo, but others involved in the decision preferred "Vampire". – this is a tad dangly: try a semicolon after "album" and "he was enthusiastic to show people..."
  • disparate – "essentially different in kind; not able to be compared" (OED). Since they're actively being compared in this sentence, perhaps you want "distinct" or "different"?
  • was shared the same day – I don't think we need the passive voice here: who shared it? If it was Rodrigo, the whole sentence could be rewritten in the active voice.
  • Rodrigo also tries to pretend that she is innocent and accidentally slipped and fell on the ex's bed. – a bit wordy: in this sense, slipping is accidental by definition. We could try "Rodrigo also tries to pretend that she innocently slipped and fell on the ex's bed".
  • Rodrigo repeats that she "can't hear my thoughts" – MOS:PMC: we should change "my" to "[her]" to avoid a jarring swap of first-person and third-person perspective.
  • Sputnikmusic's Sowing thought it was finer in the context of Guts – "finer" how? Stronger, more effective...?
  • also directed the 1990s B movie and horror-comedy-influenced one for "Bad Idea Right?" – weak pronoun antecedent: try "also directed the music video for "Bad Idea Right?", which draws on 1990s B-movie and horror-comedy aesthetics" or similar.
  • a fictional address – confusing turn of phrase. Do we mean a made-up address for the promotion or just a non-existent one?
  • boards a bus where someone throws a slushy filled with plastic instead of ice at her – is the plastic meant to look like ice? If so, I think it's a not needed to specify that it's a stage effect: seems a bit too granular.
  • bear easter eggs – usually we'd say "contain easter eggs"?
UpTheOctave! • 8va? 17:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Covered this batch as well, I think UpTheOctave!--NØ 18:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re: footnotes, 1990s music is not a monolith, and these are all subtly different genres, so saying "1990s music" in prose is needlessly unspecific when we have the exact labels critics used. Even something like "Multiple critics identified it as reminiscent of 1990s music: Stereogum's Chris DeVille believed it has "major '90s pop rock energy", People's Ilana Kaplan described it as a 1990s grunge song, and Time's Maura Johnston thought it channeled 1990s alternative rock." would be preferable to me. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 19:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I agree these are different genres. They are already mentioned in the text outside of the footnote; please look to the sentence that starts with "'Bad Idea Right?' is a rock song" and ends with "influences of alternative rock and pop". This footnote only appears (despite the redundancy) to internally comply with Wikipedia's policy on citation overkill (WP:OVERCITE).--NØ 19:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think it's overkill to use three citations, but maybe that's just me. I see what you mean about the genre list; I'm usually reluctant to put any relevant prose into footnotes, but your explanation seems valid. Therefore, I'll give a support on prose. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 20:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

JuniperChill (image review)

edit

i plan to do an image review shortly. Expect comments today or tomorrow GMT JuniperChill (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Guess i can now pass the image review and give this one a support! Note that this is my first time doing an image review at FAC. JuniperChill (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review (pass)

edit

Is File:Bad Idea Right?.ogg a sample from a particularly significant section of the song? Some files lack ALT text. Sources are major magazines (reviewed them already in other FACses on such topics) and consistently formatted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source and image reviews, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Yes, the audio sample in this case begins with the line "fuck it, it's fine", Rodrigo's delivery of which drew critical commentary, with the crescendo of her voice that is supposed to "sound like an instrument" in the background. It then leads into the chorus, demonstrating a vocal shift and spoken-sung delivery, also the most rock and guitar-driven/jangly part of the song which best demonstrates the comparisons to various artists. All of the visual images have alt text, and the audio sample which has TimedText instead does not require it.--NØ 03:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise there was a file in the article, which is why I didn't review it. I only saw 'image review' and reviewed the three images. JuniperChill (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, hope the explanations are satisfactory. Do the reviews pass?--NØ 16:43, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit

@FAC coordinators: Would it be okay for me to open up another one at this point? Also, since it just seems highly unlikely this will attract more reviews on its own, I wanted to confirm if a consensus to promote has been reached with existing reviews or if I must request more people.--NØ 08:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan, sorry for the late reply. Yes, it would. Regarding consensus for promotion, I count two general supports so I don't think we're quite there yet. I'd like to see another review or two. FrB.TG (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Does my support declaration not count seeing as I only did an image review? JuniperChill (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I had that question as well, JuniperChill. I guess it might help if you indicated near your support that you have reviewed the prose as well and had no suggestions for changes (or go through it now if you haven't). Really appreciate you taking the time to help with this. From what I can see, Olliefant's review here is also about the same size as others where she has support voted so I am not sure what happened there.--NØ 08:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Supports based on "only" image or sources do not count as a full (or as I said "general") support since it does not involve fully reviewing the prose, among other things. FrB.TG (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously knew that just saying 'support' wouldn't count given that most Wikipedia discussions are not a vote. However, seeing as I'm relatively new to reviewing at FAC, I didn't think reviewing only images doesn't count. I don't have the time to review the prose as I'm currently busy with real life stuff. JuniperChill (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leafy46

edit

I'd hate to see this article not get through FA just because it's missing one or two reviews, so I'll pitch in. Marking myself down over here, will get to comments soon. Leafy46 (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Leafy. I'll have a look at your nomination over the weekend most probably.--NØ 02:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments based on this current revision. Leafy46 (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After writing over 100 songs, they chose the more rock-oriented tracks for the album because they received stronger reactions from her audience during live performances." " — I'd suggest switching out the first "they" to something like "the two", as the sentence refers to two separate things as "they" and it's a bit confusing.
  • I don't know if it's necessary to explain when the album title was released? The sentence could be cut, with the fact that "Vampire" was the first single being moved to the previous sentence (e.g. by saying that Nigro was outvoted).
  • I'm also not wild about the Tolentino quote? I get that one could make a pretty clear leap that the song she was referring to was "Bad Idea Right?", but it is a leap nonetheless and it wouldn't be impossible to argue that she listened to a different song altogether with a similar theme as the album hadn't yet been finished. I think it's right on the edge of the guidelines for smth like SYNTH, but what do you think?
  • I noticed jangle rock is the only genre mentioned in the body not listed in the infobox. Is there a reason for this?
  • A user had removed rock and jangle rock a year ago, citing Template:INFOBOX. After this having been a contentious issue, the seven genres currently listed in the infobox have been stable as a compromise over the earlier nine...
  • This is a fair point. The only solution I could really suggest would be to only include pop-punk and pop rock as the infobox genres because they are the only ones which have multiple citations attached, but I also see the rationale for keeping as many as possible. If no other reviewer has pointed it out, it's probably fine as is. Leafy46 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I think keeping as many as possible is best for readers and that user seemed to be okay with these seven.
  • Is the note explaining the riot grrrl movement necessary? I feel like that's the job of the Wikilink, really.
  • This was requested by the user Olliefant in her abandoned review above. I am inclined to agree with you on this but I suppose keeping the note isn't doing any harm.
  • Add a paywall indicator for WSJ (source #53)
  • "Pitchfork's Shaad D'Souza called it one of the year's standout pop performances and Rodrigo a great performer, noting that her strong commitment to playing a character made the song succeed, a sentiment also echoed by the Los Angeles Times's Mikael Wood." — First off, "also echoed" is redundant and can be shortened to just "echoed". However, I feel like it's worth splitting this sentence into to to avoid giving the impression that the "sentiment" being echoed goes beyond Rodrigo's character acting on the track (i.e. it currently reads like Wood also believes that "Bad Idea Right?" was a standout pop track when the source doesn't say as such).

More to come later.

All done up to this point, Leafy46.--NØ 14:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing up my review:

  • Would it be better to link "Inner monologue" as opposed to "Inner monologue"?
  • "Rodrigo repeats that she "can't hear [her] thoughts" in it; Pitchfork's Cat Zhang interpreted the song as Rodrigo's thoughts while under the influence of alcohol" — I would argue this qualifies as SYNTH? Since I took a look at the source, and it doesn't seem like Zhang ever mentions the line "can't hear my thoughts" (whereas this article is implying that Zhang was referring to this line when interpreting the song). Tbh, I think the flow would work just fine without that first half in it, and would also get rid of any SYNTH.
  • Sputnikmusic doesn't need to be italicized
  • Any reason the Billboard citation is next to the Sputnikmusic sentence instead of by the Billboard one?
  • I did a quick search, and found these other listicles of Rodrigo's songs which include "Bad Idea Right?". It might be worth adding them in, for comprehensiveness. Rolling Stones Philippines, NME.

I think this is about it. Good stuff, let me know when you've finished applying these points to the article :) Leafy46 (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think!! Leafy46--NØ 00:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose, good luck with both this article and "Lacy" :) Leafy46 (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yongle Emperor

edit


Nominator(s): Min968 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Yongle Emperor, the third emperor of the Ming dynasty. I have tried to improve this article as well as the articles related to the Ming dynasty. Min968 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on that! Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

edit

I see no problems with the sources. Several of the images need alt captions though. Векочел (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. M

Image review

  • File:Portrait_assis_de_l'empereur_Ming_Chengzu.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:仁孝文皇后徐氏（明太宗（成祖））.jpg
    • Done. M
  • Several of the maps use non-English labels - suggest translating them. Also see MOS:COLOUR
    • Removed. M
  • File:Yongle_Dadian_Encyclopedia_1403.jpg needs a US tag and is flagged as lacking source
    • Done. M

Also, not an image comment, but sources would benefit from editing for consistency - for example, there are multiple different formats given for publication location, and some books don't include any. A Manual of Style review would also be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I support the article on source and image quality. There are a few instances where primary sources are used, but the balance overall is toward secondary sources. However, I think it would be a good idea to find locations of published sources as suggested by Nikkimaria. Векочел (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел Some sources, such as Mingshu, are available only in online form and therefore do not include a publisher location. This information is also unavailable for the journals. Min968 (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Olliefant

edit
  • WP:LEADCITE violations
    • Fixed.
  • I don't like the use of bullet points for the family section
    • Given the large number of consorts and children of Chinese emperors, bullet points provide the clearest and most effective way to present this information.
  • Why is the exhibit link in external links instead of further reading?
    • The exhibit is an online resource, not a published secondary source, so it is more appropriately listed under External links rather than Further reading.
  • Cut the further information template under "War in Đại Việt" and"The treasure voyages" and just make the links in article
    • They are useful for readers, so I don't think they need to be removed.
  • Can you put year ranges on the headings?
    • I don't think it's necessary.
  • Why is the Childhood/Youth cutoff at age ten?
    • The cutoff reflects the age at which he was conferred the title of Prince of Yan.
that's what I found Olliefant (she/her) 23:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Olliefant Done. Min968 (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think having multiple further reading links is helpful, it just clutters the page. Year ranges is helpful for those unfamiliar with the subject Olliefant (she/her) 12:03, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Olliefant Done. Min968 (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Several sections are still missing ranges and the bloated further reading sections are still included Olliefant (she/her) 07:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Olliefant I've added year ranges; if any sections are missing them, could you point them out for me? Min968 (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olliefant (she/her) 08:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Векочел

edit
  • I would limit the lead to 4 paragraphs if possible.
  • "The couple had two more sons, Zhu Gaoxu and Zhu Gaosui." Could you give the birth years for these children?
  • "Zhu Di was regarded as the most dangerous of the princes." Who regarded him as dangerous?
  • "officials Huang Zicheng and Qi Tai were executed". Could you please specify their offices?
  • "Despite their protest, the Emperor proceeded". What does the source say he proceeded with?
  • "Additionally, as a foreigner in Nanjng, the Yongle Emperor likely felt more at home in Beijing”. Could you explain why he was seen as a foreigner in Nanjing?
  • "large-scale maritime expeditions were discontinued". Can you name the emperor or officials who discontinued them?

Векочел (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел All done. Min968 (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Векочел (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support by ZKang123

edit

Will review.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 05:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • known as the Jingnan campaign, or the "campaign to clear away disorders". Don't think you need to say what's the alternative name here in the lead
  • The Mongols remained the most serious security threat to the empire. They were divided into three main groups: the southeastern Uriankhai, who were largely aligned with Ming, and the eastern Mongols and western Oirats, who posed ongoing challenges. The Ming court alternately supported and confronted these groups. Could summarise to: The Mongols—including the southeastern Uriankhai, eastern Mongols and western Oirats—remained the empire's greatest security threat, prompting the Ming court to alternately support and confront the various groups.
  • Although he was a skilled military leader, his wars were ultimately unsuccessful, with a war in Đại Việt (present-day northern Vietnam) from 1407 lasting until the end of his reign and his campaigns in Mongolia failing to ensure the security of China's northern border. – Although a skilled military leader, his wars were ultimately unsuccessful, as the campaign in Đại Việt lasted until the end of his reign and his Mongolian campaigns failed to secure China’s northern border.
    • All done.

Early life:

  • On 22 April 1370,[13] the Emperor's nine sons,[14] from the second to the tenth, with the exception of the eldest, Zhu Biao, who had been designated as heir in 1368, were granted princely titles. Sentence is quite chunky. Suggest splitting
  • At that time, Zhu Di was given his own household, What does it mean, for an eight-year-old (or ten-year-old) kid, to be "given his own household"?
  • In early 1376, Zhu Di married the daughter of the senior Ming general Xu Da,[19] who played a significant role in the founding of the dynasty and one of the twenty-four men of the so-called "Fengyang mafia" recruited by the Hongwu Emperor after he joined the Red Turbans. Also chunky
  • Zhu Di's interest in the military was put into practice when he personally trained his own guard... Zhu Di had the freedom to train and deploy his own guard A bit repetitive
  • In the 1380s, Zhu Di served in border defense under the leadership of Xu Da. After Xu died in 1385, his deputy Fu Youde took over leadership. Might rewrite In the 1380s, Zhu Di served in border defense under the leadership of Xu Da, who was succeeded by Fu Youde after Xu's death in 1385
  • Out of the six princes[xii] responsible for guarding the northern border, Zhu Di was the second oldest but also the most capable. This sounds like an opinion. Might attribute who said this. Similar to He was not afraid to take risks

Will comment more.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rise to power:

  • His closest advisors immediately began reviewing the Hongwu Emperor's reforms, with the most significant change being an attempt to limit and eventually eliminate the Hongwu Emperor's sons, who controlled a significant portion of the empire's military power. Suggest split
  • Zhu Di was regarded by the government as the most dangerous of the princes... seen as a serious threat to the regime A bit repetitive
  • He petitioned for leniency toward his brother Zhu Su[47] and requested the return of his sons, who had remained in Nanjing since the Hongwu Emperor's funeral and were effectively held as hostages Similar complex sentence, especially the clause after FN47
  • used the arrest of two of his officials is it known who they were and what positions they held?
    • The outbreak of hostilities occurred late in July 1399, when a military official loyal to the Chien-wen court seized two junior officials attached to the Prince of Yen's fief and carried them to Nanking for execution on the charge of sedition. The prince, taking this as an excuse, grasped the initiative by launching military offensives against several neighboring counties and prefectures on 5 August under the pretext of chastising treacherous court officials. This marked the beginning of a bloody, three-year military struggle between the court and the prince, which later was camouflaged under the name of a campaign to clear away disorders (ching-nan).
  • However, he believed it was his duty as the eldest surviving son of the late emperor to restore laws and order that had been undermined by the new government, out of respect for his father I did a bit of editing here, but I'm wondering if "out of respect for his father" is redundant and can be removed
  • Most importantly, his military leadership skills were superior to the indecisiveness and lack of coordination displayed by the government's generals "Most importantly" sounds too essay-like.
  • How did the civil war started exactly? Like, is it because the Ming government tried to launch an offensive against Beiping first, or did Zhu Di cast the first stone?
    • In early August 1399, Zhu Di used the arrest of two of his officials as a pretext for rebellion.[51] He claimed that he was rising up to protect the Emperor from the corrupt court officials. With the support of Beiping dignitaries,[xiv] he gained control of the city's garrison and occupied the surrounding prefectures and counties.[52] He attempted to justify his actions through letters sent to the court in August and December 1399, as well as through a public statement.[51] Zhu Di cast the first stone. The government's arrest of his officials provided the pretext, but it was Zhu Di who initiated the rebellion and launched the first military operations in August 1399.
  • In September 1399, a government army of 130,000 soldiers, led by the experienced veteran general Geng Bingwen, marched towards Zhending, a city located southwest of Beiping, but by the end of the month, they were defeated. Suggest split
  • In 1400... In 1401... In 1402 Reads a bit too much like a chronology log. Might suggest a bit more reword to avoid WP:PROSELIST. I also find similar issues in the subsection "Accession to the throne (1402)"
  • During the clashes, the palace was set on fire, resulting in the deaths of the Emperor, his empress, and his son I read the Emperor page which noted that his body was not found and there were rumours he might still be alive. Might say "presumed death" and add a footnote of his alleged fate as a monk.

More comments to come.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123 All done. Min968 (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accession to the throne:

  • It included claims that he was the son of Empress Ma, that the Hongwu Emperor had considered appointing him as successor, that he was to be the regent of the Jianwen Emperor, and that he was an exceptionally talented military leader who was highly favored by his father. A bit too long.
  • resulting in a purge that affected tens of thousands of people I don't know, but I felt "a purge that affected people" sounds a bit odd. Like obviously a purge would affect people. Like I might simplify to say that "tens of thousand of people were purged".

Domestic policy:

  • The reign of the Yongle Emperor is often described as the "second founding" of the Ming dynasty Described by whom?
  • As a result, the administrative fragmentation typical of the Hongwu Emperor's reign declined "As a result" reads a bit too essay like
  • Led by the grand secretaries, officials gained control of the government. A bit of an odd phrase here, partly due to the use of a dangling modifier.
  • Are there wikilinks for Chinese nobility titles (e.g. gong, hou, bo)
  • (2,200–2,500 dan of grain for dukes, 800–1,500 for marquises, and around 1,000 for counts; with one dan equal to 107 liters) Could be a footnote
  • As a result, the military nobility remained closely tied to and loyal to the Emperor. There was no need for large-scale purges, and isolated punishments were due only to individual failures. Overall, this nobility enhanced imperial prestige and contributed to the military successes of the reign. This part reads like an essay
  • He restored the administrative structure of the Hongwu era, while also making some changes. First and foremost, in 1402... Also this part
  • Overall, the administration became more qualified and stable. And this part
  • I personally recommend trying to avoid essay-like phrases like "Overall", "Meanwhile", "As a result", "Moreover", "In response"
  • both the Hongwu and Yongle emperors faced the challenge of governing from a great distance from the empire's northern and western borders, – both the Hongwu and Yongle emperors faced the challenge of governing the empire's northern and western borders from a great distance,
  • By the end of 1417, most of the palaces were completed, but construction on the walls continued. In 1420, the city was deemed ready for the relocation of the government. On 28 October 1420, Beijing was officially declared the principal capital of the empire, and by February 1421, ministries and other government agencies had relocated to Beijing Again WP:PROSELIST
  • and there were no less than two thousand Tibetan monks Reword "there were no less than"

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123 All done. Min968 (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign policy:

  • In addition, the Uriankhai formed a separate group. Again, remove "in addition". Or you can merge with the next sentence into: The Ming dynasty had a strong relationship with the Uriankhai, another Mongol group who aided the Yongle Emperor during the civil war and earned his trust. The Emperor resettled them in the territory that had been vacated by Ming troops in 1403.
  • and, after a three-month campaign, defeated Öljei Temür Khan Bunyashiri and his chancellor Arughtai – and defeated Öljei Temür Khan Bunyashiri and his chancellor Arughtai after a three-month campaign
  • the Emperor returned to China, Feels a bit redundant
  • The large amount of money spent on equipping the armies proved to be a waste when the Mongols refused to engage in battle. A bit confused by this sentence. Like, the Mongols don't wish to fight a war against the Ming despite raiding the border?
  • but the allure of Chinese coins and goods was too strong for the Japanese to resist, This phrase seems unencyclopedic.
  • Đại Việt was facing growing internal weakness Could Đại Việt faced growing internal strife be a better phrase?
  • A total of two thousand ships "A total of" is redundant
  • By this logic, cutting naval expenditures also reduced the eunuchs' influence at court Remove "By this logic" otherwise this reads like an essay

Death and legacy:

  • The young emperor's accession was contested by his uncle Zhu Gaoxu, echoing the civil war of 1399–1402. – "echoing the civil war of 1399–1402." feels a bit extra here. Would also just say afterward that "The revolt was swiftly suppressed"
  • In 1538, the Jiajing Emperor changed the temple name to Chengzu (Accomplished Progenitor) in order to strengthen the legitimacy of his decision to elevate his father to imperial status after his death. A bit of a complicated sentence here. Also, the Jiajing changed Yongle's temple name to Chengzu?
  • Might spell the character "Cheng" here

That's all I have for my review. My only concern is that the prose, while looking alright, still feels like reading an essay at some bits. I think there's certainly an effort to condense a lot of the Emperor's accomplishments, but also I am a bit wary whether an AI tool has been used to summarise the points.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123 All done. Min968 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen several quotations from the sources provided, especially in the GA review for this article, I feel fairly certain that this article is free of AI writing. If others feel it would be helpful, the editor might list again some quotes from selected sources to verify that the sources are being cited properly. Векочел (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 07:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

edit
Lead
edit
  • It may seem obvious to some, but China isn't even mentioned until the very last sentence.
  • Yongle Encyclopedia ... surpassed all earlier encyclopedias Is that all encyclopedias world-wide, just just in China?
Early life (1360–1398)
edit
  • As with the lead, this should say upfront that we're talking about China.
  • also designated as the capital of the province with the same name. I'm pretty sure you mean "Beiping Province", but could use clarification.
  • Gao spent the next four to five years lecturing him on Confucian classics ... clarify that "him" means Zhu, as opposed to Hua.
  • Zhu Di traveled to Fengyang (then known as Zhongdu, the Central Capital), where he spent seven months in military training alongside his elder brothers Zhu Shuang and Zhu Gang. Two years later, he returned to Fengyang with his younger brothers Zhu Su, Zhu Zhen, and Zhu Fu There's a lot of these Zhus running around. Could you state somewhere how many total brothers and sisters where were?

(I'll pick up with Rise to power next time)

Rise to power (1398–1402)
edit
  • His closest advisors immediately began reviewing the Hongwu Emperor's reforms. The most significant initiative was There's a bit of a semantic mismatch here. First you talk about reviewing (i.e. examining), then you switch to initiatives (i.e. actions taken as a result of those examinations).
  • He petitioned for leniency toward his brother Zhu Su[47] and requested the return of his sons A couple of problems here. First, it's not clear who "He" is referring to. Second, this is the first we're reading that his sons were missing, so that's confusing.
  • The map you have of the campaigns (File:Jingnan Campaign (English).svg) is really confusing, to the point of being unusable. It has so much detail on it, I really can't make out what's going on. In addition to that, the heavy use of color-coding violates MOS:COLOR. I strongly suggest you ask for help at WP:Graphics Lab/Map workshop to create a new one.
Domestic policy
edit
  • File:Map of Ming Chinese empire 1415 (cropped 2).jpg has the same issue with MOS:COLOR
  • officials who feared the growing influence of eunuchs Not everybody will know what a eunuch is, so this needs explaining.
  • ministers were able to challenge the Emperor, even at the cost of their freedom or lives This is confusing. What does it mean to be able to challenge the Emperor if doing so is going to cost you your life?
  • Under "Officials and authorities", you have a {{quote box}} ("The grand secretaries during the reign of the Yongle Emperor ...") This really doesn't work. In some window widths it's formatted just fine, but in others it's essentially unreadable. Get rid of the quote box and let this get laid out in the normal way.
  • All were from the south or southeast why is this significant?
  • The Yongle Emperor had four sons, the first three by Empress Xu, while the fourth, Zhu Gaoxi, died in infancy the use of "while" implies some comparison of parallel constructs, which you don't have here. First you talk about who the first three's mother was and then you talk about when the fourth son died.
  • ... the relocation of the capital to Beijing. The idea of moving the capital from Nanjing (then known as Yingtian)[ Why do you, elsewhere in the article, primarialy use the historical name of Beiping, but here you switch to using the modern names Beijing and Nanjing?
Foreign policy
edit
  • File:Yongle Mongol campaigns 1410-1424.jpg same as with the other maps. This is so difficult to read, it's essentially unusable.
  • the Emperor launched a second campaign into Mongolia, this time against the formidable Oirats Earlier, you described the Oirats as "weaker", but now they've become "formidable". How did this happen?
  • The Emperor was unable to subdue the Mongols. Well, of course not, because in the previous sentence you told us that he had died. This needs to be reorganized to be more chronological. Or at least recast into a logical tense ("Had been unable ...")
  • Although the Chinese had larger troops "larger troops" implies that each individual soldier was bigger. I assume you meant either "had a larger army" or "had a greater number of troops".
  • The constant feuding among the Mongol leaders eventually led them to become hostile towards China. How did their internal feud lead them to be hostile to China?
  • Among the Jurchens living in Manchuria, the Ming government aimed to maintain peace on the borders, counter Korean influence, acquire horses and other local products such as furs, and promote Chinese culture and values among them Who is "them" referring to? More generally, this is an overly long and complicated sentence.

@RoySmith: All done. Min968 (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Death and legacy
edit
  • They believe that abandoning the outer defense line north of the Great Wall was a strategic mistake It's not clear what abandonment this is referring to. Is this a reference to "particularly the withdrawal of several forward garrisons to the vicinity of the Great Wall"? This needs to be clarified.
  • Additionally, the economic downturn at the time made it difficult to support large military operations It's not clear what time you mean here.

@RoySmith: All done. Min968 (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That does it for a first full reading. Overall, the prose seems in good shape. My major concern is the quality of the maps. I see that you have removed them, but that's not the solution I was seeking. The maps are important, so just removing them isn't a solution. They need to be replaced with better maps. Fortunately, as I noted earlier, we have a cadre of excellent map-makers at WP:Graphics Lab/Map workshop who can work with you to create them. RoySmith (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith For the maps, I will temporarily remove them until better replacements become available. However, I will keep File:Map of Ming Chinese empire 1415 (cropped 2).jpg, as it is derived from the Historical and Commercial Atlas of China published in 1935 and is also used in several Featured Articles, such as the article on the Ming dynasty. Min968 (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith What do you think? Min968 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what question you're asking, but I think keeping File:Map of Ming Chinese empire 1415 (cropped 2).jpg is fine, and we'll have to wait on the other two maps until replacements can be created. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I'm not sure when and how long they were created, so this nomination has failed now, right? Min968 (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the prose is in good shape. I can't see myself supporting this without replacement maps, but I'm not going to oppose it either. The FAC coordinators can figure out how they want to weight that. In any case, this probably has a couple of months before it times out and the map wizards at the map workshop may well be able to get replacements done by that time. RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer Pak

edit


Nominator(s): Cyberlink420 (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Transfer Pak, an accessory for the Nintendo 64 that allows it to connect to Game Boy games and exchange data with them, enabling new features. While considered innovative for the time, very few games supported it, and retrospective commentary has labeled it an afterthought at best.

Information on the device and its functionality was incomplete for a long time, so I made this article my pet project the last few years, and now believe it's in as complete a state as the currently available sources will allow. This is my first time going through the FAC process, so the article has been peer-reviewed and given a once-over by a FAC mentor. Any comments and feedback would be greatly appreciated. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to the inclusion of an additional non-free image demonstrating the Transfer Pak being utilized in a game (something along the lines of or ) if it's believed that it could be used to improve the article. An image of the 64 GB Cable might also make sense for inclusion, but because it was never released, it's only possible to get non-free images from online outlets or magazines that provided coverage at the time (such as this page from Monthly Nintendo Power). -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Olliefant

edit
  • Cut "GameCube – Game Boy Advance link cable" from see also since its included in prose
Done.
Done.
  • "the "Surf" ability" surf isn't an ability, its a move. Given that abilities and moves are two different things in pokemon, the correct term should be used
Done.
  • Weather or not outlets are linked is inconsistent
Done.
  • shouldn't the table sort chronologically instead of alphabetically?
That was a conscious choice. I considered going chronological at one point, but I felt the information flowed better and was more easily conveyed alphabetically due to several sequels having similar or overlapping Transfer Pak functionality (e.g. Pokémon, Nushi Tsuri, Mario Artist, Mario sports, Power Pros). I put together a mockup in my sandbox that shows the games in chronological order, which I genuinely believe looks worse.
That's what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 06:19, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Olliefant: All points addressed. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olliefant (she/her) 13:23, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Drawers

edit

Comments to come soon, but ping me if I haven’t started by Wednesday. Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 19:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystal Drawers: Pinging per your request. (Tried to do this yesterday, but I don't think it actually worked.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, will start reviewing the article tonight Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 14:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystal Drawers: Pinging one more time since it's been a week. Just want to make sure this didn't get lost in the shuffle. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the wait, I’ve been busier than usual recently, I’ll leave comments on the Lead and such tonight and finish it up tomorrow Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 18:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberlink420: All comments are now up. Let me know when you’re done addressing them Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 16:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystal Drawers: All set, I think. Was working on addressing some of #Nineteen Ninety-Four guy's points when you pinged, so good timing. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I’m satisfied with the changes, so I’m happy to support Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 16:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Why is Game Boy Color abbreviated but Game Boy isn’t?
    For whatever reason, it's fairly common for Game Boy Color to be abbreviated as GBC, but less common for Game Boy to be abbreviated as GB, even on Wikipedia. Look at their page leads to see what I mean.
    That’s fine, then
  • "The Pokémon Stadium games, with which the Transfer Pak was initially bundled for sale, also feature the ability to emulate specific Game Boy Pokémon games on the N64" — This sentence reads a little choppy to me, could you condense it a bit?
    Done. Changed to "The Pokémon Stadium games, which the accessory was initially bundled with, also use it to emulate Game Boy Pokémon games on the N64." Any better?
    That works
  • "or had the functionality removed" — I feel like "or removed the functionality" or something similar would read a little better
    Done.

History

  • It might be worthwhile to introduce who people like Shigeru Miyamoto are, a title before their name like "Game designer" and such would help contextualize certain things
    Done.
  • "The cable would connect from an N64 controller port to a dedicated GBC cartridge, allowing players to transfer data between the GBC and a 64DD storage disk, and to use the GBC as a sub-screen for certain 64DD games" — This sentence is kind of long, can you cut it into two?
    Done.
  • I’m not so sure on this, but since some sentences are cited by several citations, shouldn’t they be bundled?
    Ehhh, like WP:CITEBUNDLE says, there are advantages and disadvantages to it, and I'm not fully convinced that it's needed in this specific case.
  • "place private bets on horse races" — The wording here made me think it let you actually bet on real races for a sec, could you state, either here or at the beginning where the game is introduced, that it is a game about horse racing?
    Done.

Functionality

  • "printing stickers through specialized stations at specific retailers" — I think you can get rid of "specialized"
    Done.
  • "back and forth between the two games" — Do you have another word you can instead of "games"? The word is used a lot near this use, and an alternative would help clear up any prose issues, I think
    Done. I swapped out an earlier version of "Game" in that section to break it up a little more.

Reception

  • "would find the games' appeal and features severely limited" — Consider "would find the appeal and featured of the games severely limited"
    Done.
  • "Lucas M. Thomas of IGN" — Change to something along the lines of "Lucas M. Thomas, another IGN writer,". Also, can you not have this right after another IGN review? Can you move it near the end of the paragraph to spread them apart?
    Done.
  • The second paragraph follows the "[name] of [publication] said [opinion]", could one use of this in this paragraph be changed to avoid repetition?
    Rearranged a bit. Now it's "[name] for [publication] said [opinion]", "[opinion], said [name] of [publication]", "[publication]'s [name] said [opinion]", "for [publication], [name] said [opinion]." Does that help at all?

Legacy

  • "if the game detects a Perfect Dark Zero (2005) save file" — I’d add something along the lines of "on the console" to the end of that for better contextualization
    Done.
  • Can you mention Mario Tennis was rereleased on Switch instead of just saying it was done through Nintendo Classics?
    Because Nintendo Classics is also on Switch 2 with its own exclusives, I'm hesitant in saying anything re-released for that service is on a specific console unless it really is exclusive to just one. That said, I've rephrased it to "In the 2024 re-release of Mario Tennis (GBC) for the Nintendo Classics subscription service" to hopefully add some clarity.
  • "Hero of Law, a 2025 ROM hack of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (1998), also includes custom Transfer Pak support" — Does the source expand on what the functionality does for the game? It might be worthwhile to write a little more
    Unfortunately not. I know from playing it myself and the (super fascinating) developer commentary that connecting to the Zelda GBC games unlocks a minigame and an additional episode, plus some other Easter eggs, but the source doesn't mention any of that, only that it supports a bunch of accessories with a link to a list that also doesn't mention what it does.

Metalicat

edit

The article reads well and the sources I checked are accurate. A few prose points:

  • The lead's second paragraph packs three ideas into two sentences: number of supported games, cancelled/removed support, and the retrospective assessment. That last point ("retrospective coverage... has found it largely unnecessary") could do with its own sentence rather than being tacked on.
I moved the acknowledgement of its being an early connectivity example earlier in the lead and away from the rest. Now the flow is generally "Not many games supported it" → "other plans for it fell through" → "as a result, people think it was underutilized", which I think is probably a better way of conveying the intended idea. I'm open to more suggestions, though.
  • "Several games which initially planned to utilize the accessory were either cancelled or had the functionality removed" — recommend something like: "Several games that were initially planned to support the accessory".
Done.
  • "when it released" in the final sentence of Reception — missing a word. "When it was released" or "at the time of its release".
Done.
  • "only six of which supported it outside of Japan" — I initially read this as six games supporting the Transfer Pak from outside Japan. "Only six of which were released outside Japan" would be unambiguous, if that's what's meant.
So this is a weird case. There are six games released in the West with Transfer Pak support (Pokemon Stadium 1 and 2, Mario Golf and Tennis, Perfect Dark, Mickey Speedway USA). However, Beast Wars was also released outside of Japan, but its Transfer Pak support is only available in the Japanese version, which is why I chose to phrase it the way I did. Do you have any other suggestions that can account for this edge case, or do you think this is minor enough that "only six of which were released outside Japan" will still suffice?

Spot-checked the Nintendo Life (Lane) and IGN (Schneider) sources against the article's paraphrases; both check out. Happy to support once these are addressed. Metalicat (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Metalicat: Responded to your feedback, though there is one area where I'm not necessarily sure how to proceed. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberlink420: Thanks for the quick responses. The lead reads better now.
On the Beast Wars point, that's a fair distinction. How about "only six of which included Transfer Pak support outside Japan"? That covers the case where the game was released internationally but the feature wasn't.
Support Metalicat (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote both the lead and the intro to the Supported Games section, which should hopefully read better now. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Octave

edit

Reviewing on prose. Comments below.

Lead:

  • Nintendo's home consoles and handhelds – suggest "home and handheld consoles".
Done.

History:

  • receiving a standalone release shortly thereafter – suggest "and received a standalone release shortly thereafter" for clarity.
Done.
  • the game DT Bloodmasters, a trading card game – no need to repeat "game"; I'd do away with the first.
Done.
  • planned to use the cable to exchange cards between the two systems, and allow players to privately view their cards on the GBC scree – not sure a comma is needed here.
Done.
  • 64DD's underperformance – in what? Sales? I'd specify.
Done.

Functionality:

  • When properly connected, compatible N64 games will be able to read and exchange data with the connected portable game. – MOS:TENSE. Suggest "are able to be read and exchange data" instead.
Done.
  • with only six games released in Western markets that support the accessory. – we've already said that these are the games supporting the Transfer Pak, there's no need to say "that support the accessory" again.
Not Done. See #Metalicat. This is to account for the edge case of Beast Wars Metals 64, which was released in America but only included Transfer Pak support in its Japanese version.
  • that will be transferred back to the GBC version – another future tense construction. The rest of the sentence is in present tense, so it would make sense to say "that are transferred back". This occurs in both the Mario Tennis and Mario Golf entries.
Done.
  • Yoshi, Wario, Waluigi and Bowser – the rest of the article seems to use the serial comma instead.
Done.
  • Connecting both versions again after completing these minigames will unlock additional tennis courts in the N64 game. – future tense again.
Done.
  • Players will unlock different characters for play based on which Game Boy game is inserted, similar to the use of CDs in Monster Rancher. – future tense again.
Done.
  • the N64 game featured a mode called "Perfect Head", through which players could transfer photos from the Game Boy Camera to create characters with real-life faces for use in multiplayer matches. – it's a long sentence, so I understand the urge, but I'm not convinced a comma is needed.
Not Done. The portion after the comma is a nonrestrictive clause and thus justifies its usage.
  • This mode was removed during development, as a result of both technical issues and a wave of anti-violent video game sentiment after the Columbine High School massacre. – same with this sentence.
Done.
  • "Mobile System GB" – why is this in quotes?
Done.
  • Special food items will be generated in Nanatsu no Umi no Caramel. Connecting to one of the Robopon GBC games will also allow players to exchange and battle their Robopon between GBC and N64. – another two present tense constructions.
Done.
  • A set of maps featuring the four additional units will also be unlocked in 64. – another present tense.
Done. (merged into the previous sentence)
  • Some games were intended to include Transfer Pak features, only to remove them prior to release – the game does not remove its own features, the developers do.
Done.
  • WWF No Mercy (2000) was meant to use the Transfer Pak to import points earned in its GBC counterpart, to be spent on rewards in the N64 game's "SmackDown Mall". – another rogue comma.
Done. (sentence rewritten)

Reception:

  • with some claiming – if we have the references, it's better to say who claimed this.
Done.
Done.
  • Writing for GamesBeat, André Bardin was also critical of the Transfer Pak's lack of support, particularly outside of Japan. – was he critical of the lack of support, or drawing attention to it?
Done. (sentence rewritten)
  • In contrast, David Craddock of Shacknews called the device "ahead of its time", noting the novelty of interconnectivity between game systems at the time of its release. – I don't see how this is a contrast to the last sentence.
Done. (moved to previous paragraph)

Legacy:

  • Looks fine on a first read through.

Good work overall, just a few stumblings (mainly) on tense. Please ping when done and I'll have another look. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 00:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@UpTheOctave!: Most of your points have been addressed, though I personally disagreed with a few and left them as is. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the swift reply. Fair enough on both points: weary eyes make bad reading it seems ;) I didn't see any issues on a second read through, so I think I'm happy to give this a support on prose. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 02:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteen Ninety-Four guy

edit
  • "The Pokémon Stadium games, which the accessory was initially bundled with initially bundled an accessory, also use it to emulate Game Boy Pokémon games on the N64."
    Not Done. This phrasing doesn't make sense to me, as it removes the larger context.
  • "Several games that were initially planned to support the accessory were either cancelled or removed the functionality had the functionality removed."
    Not Done. This was the original phrasing until an earlier review asked it to be changed.
  • "an accessory designed for use with the N64's 64DD peripheral."
    Not Done. Per the source, the 64DD and the cable are separate 64 accessories that are used in conjunction with one another; it's not an accessory for an accessory.
  • "a trading card game directed by Masanobu Endō that was planned to use the cable to exchange cards between the two systems and allow players to privately view their cards on the GBC screen to view their cards on the GBC screen privately."
    Not Done. I don't think that's actually considered good adverb placement.
  • "Derby Stallion 64 (2001) was also intended to support the 64 GB Cable, using the GBC as a second secondary screen to place private bets on horse races, but the feature was removed after the accessory's cancellation but it was removed after the accessory was called off."
    Not Done. Second screen is the proper term and "called off" is worse phrasing.
  • "When properly connected, compatible N64 games are able to can read and exchange data with the connected portable game."
    Done.
  • "Nintendo and Intelligent Systems developed a separate accessory for playing Game Boy games on the N64, the Wide-Boy64, which was not released to the public; the device it was only available available only to game developers and members of the gaming press, and was used to more easily capture footage and images from Game Boy games to capture footage and images from Game Boy games more easily."
    Done.
  • "Players can take photographs using with the Game Boy Camera and import them for use in into the game's creation suite."
    Done.
  • "Beast Wars grants the greatest possible boost, and unlocks the secret boss Megatron X as a playable character." Ditch the Oxford Comma
    Done.
  • "During the development of Pokémon Snap (1999)"
    Done.
  • "Other games with planned Transfer Pak support went unreleased were never released in any form."
    Done.
  • "The game was planned designed to allow let players to transfer their virtual pet to the Game Boy and continue to nurture nurturing it throughout the day."
    Partly done.
  • "and would have allowed players to transfer their progress back and forth between the two games."
    Done.
  • "Reviews of the Pokémon Stadium games praised their use of the Transfer Pak, with press outlets such as IGN, GameSpot, and Eurogamer claiming stating that players who played the games without using did not use it would find their the games' appeal and features severely limited sorely lacking."
    Partly done. I think "limited" is a stronger word given the context (i.e. features are locked behind the Transfer Pak, limiting what the player is able to do).
  • "When reviewing the Wii Virtual Console re-releases of Mario Golf and Mario Tennis, Lucas M. Thomas of IGN was disappointed by expressed disappointment with the removal of their Transfer Pak functionality, lamenting the games' incompleteness due to the inability to because they would not unlock their Transfer Pak-exclusive content."
    Partly done. Rephrased to "lamenting the games' incompleteness due to the inaccessibility of their Transfer Pak-exclusive content."
  • "Some members of the press later identified the Transfer Pak as an influence on later examples of connectivity between Nintendo's home consoles and handhelds, most prominently notably the GameCube – Game Boy Advance link cable."
    Done
  • "Brett Elston of GamesRadar+ claimed said that many players misinterpreted the Transfer Pak as a device meant to play for playing Game Boy games on the television."
    Partly done. Sentence fully rephrased
  • "In the years following since the N64's discontinuation, the Transfer Pak has been largely regarded as an underutilized and unnecessary add-on."
    Done.
Most of these have now been addressed, though I chose not to implement several changes that I felt were not actually improvements. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I very clearly explained why I disagreed with certain points. We can have differing opinions, and I don't mind if you oppose the nomination because you don't think the prose is good enough, but the WP:NPA violation is really unnecessary. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're one to talk, the one with the attitude. May you earn the Pulitzer Prize for Useless Contribution to Human History. Ciao Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: These comments are absolutely unacceptable. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: see above. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: It would be nice if you struck the uncollegial name-calling. Coordinators are not likely to weigh opposes highly if they come with invective and dismissive commentary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Rjjiii

edit

Starting a section to read and comment this week, Rjjiii (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Making notes while I read:[reply]

  • The lead does not mention that the device physically plugs into the controller. Is there a brief way to work that information in? No modern videogame controllers have this kind of port on them.
    Done.
  • Jumping down to the functionality section, it seems like there should be some type of brief (maybe a sentence explanation) what this port is. My understanding is that controllers did not have any kind of feedback mechanism so that goes into the "Rumble Pak" and that the console did not have any type of hard drive so a memory card could be inserted into the controller. For a reader unfamiliar with the Nintendo 64, I don't think it's clear.
    Done.
  • Jumping back to the lead "was also never released." Why "also"? I think this is more clear with "also" removed.
    Done. "Also" was a holdover from when the sentence was placed after "Several games that were initially planned to support the accessory were either cancelled or removed the functionality."
  • How tied is this device to Pokemon? Do sources say if this was developed to enable features in these Pokémon titles specifically? Do they say that Nintendo was trying to leverage the mid 90s popularity of Pokémon to promote it? If so, that should probably be worked into the "History" section. If not, disregard.
    Pokémon was definitely the killer app for the device, by virtue of the fact it was bundled with the Stadium games, but I don't have any sources explicitly saying it was developed specifically for Pokemon.
  • The "64DD" is mentioned twice in the lead and a peripheral for it gets its own section. I feel most reader would want some kind of a brief gloss on what this was.
    Done. Tweaked a good chunk of the first 64 GB Cable paragraph to elaborate.
  • "with only six games released in Western markets that support the accessory." Do sources say which six? If so, could we get an asterisk or something for those titles in the table?
    Pokémon Stadium 1 and 2, Mario Golf and Tennis, Perfect Dark, and Mickey's Speedway USA. Beast Wars was also released in the US, but its Transfer Pak features only exist in the Japanese version. I am not sure what the best way to convey this information would be. Would it be best to add another column noting release dates (like this sandbox) or if a game was released outside Japan? A superscript note or some other formatting? Perhaps a differently colored cell? I am open to suggestions.
    There are probably several ways that work. I find the added column somewhat confusing. Colored cells work great; per MOS:COLOR,colored cells should also have "an alternative method—such as an accessible symbol and/or text (for example, ✔ Approved), a colored table with an icon and text (for example, see table on the right), or clearly written footnote labels", like the templates for Olympic medals. A superscript note would also be fine. Rjjiii (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This mode was removed during development as a result of both technical issues and a wave of anti-violent video game sentiment after the Columbine High School massacre." No FA concern, I just wanted to note that this was interesting cultural context.
    It's a fascinating subject to be sure, which is a big reason why I've been trying to polish up the article for so long.
  • "the development team found the printer's output quality to be insufficient" Does the source say if this is a limitation in the printer hardware or the camera cartridge? If the latter, there is commons:Category:Taken with Game Boy Camera which includes File:Appreciably lower quality dunedin tram in otago settlers museum.png, adapted from File:Appreciably higher quality dunedin tram in otago settlers museum.jpg to give readers an idea in the drop in quality. If it's the printer hardware, I can't find any CC or public domain Gameboy Printer output photos that aren't raw text (which is less helpful and not needed).
    The quote from Satoru Iwata is roughly as follows (machine translated): "I was trying out a few methods. For example, I was seriously experimenting with transferring images to a Pocket Camera using a 64GB pack and then printing them out with a Pocket Printer. When we actually tried it, it was just a black and white image, and it couldn't really show much gradation, so it only conveyed a tiny bit of the visual impact you feel when you see it on the N64 screen. When people saw the picture, some would say "Hmm," but no one would say "Wow!" So we considered a completely different approach, but it didn't work." So that indicates the camera cartridge was the problem. To clarify, would you want both Otago Settlers Museum images included, or just the Game Boy Camera one?
    Thanks for the quote. I don't have a strong preference on which image to use. I think some visual example of what the format looks like would be helpful to readers (especially since the camera is mentioned in other parts of the article). If you think a single image is best, I am completely fine with that. Rjjiii (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the lead mention the "Legacy" section content which covers how the games have been released with(out) Transfer Pak content.
    Done. I've also added a new cited statement to Legacy that some re-releases don't keep their Transfer Pak features, in order to be more consistent with the lead.

And that's it, Rjjiii (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: I've added most of your suggestions, but there's a few that I'd like further clarification on, specifically the Western-released games and the GB Camera pictures. Please respond at your convenience. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberlink420: I've replied above. I think there are several ways to handle either comment, and it sounds like you have multiple solid plans. If my replies are unclear, feel free to ask more questions, Rjjiii (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii:} I've added the image, along with a footnote on each of the internationally released games (cited with primary source links to Nintendo's official masterlists of Japanese and American N64 releases). I think this should now address all your concerns, but let me know if I missed anything. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Rjjiii (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

As with all videogame articles, I'll be relying heavily on WP:VGRS. What makes The 64dream, Dengeki Nintendo 64 and Gamejin reliable sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Both The 64 Dream and Dengeki Nintendo are print publications that are still ongoing after 30+ years, and both are already listed as reliable on VG/RS (under the names Nintendo Dream and Dengeki). Gamejin, while not as long-lived, is a print interview and thus provides insight that cannot be easily obtained through other sources. The answers in the interview are also consistent with one given by Miyamoto at the same event to 64 Dream (which is, again, considered reliable), leaving little reason to doubt the veracity of its claims. All Japanese print sources currently listed in the article have been uploaded to the Internet Archive, and thus their contents can easily be verified by readers; they are only not linked because of ongoing concerns related to direct linking of magazine scans on archival websites. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I wasn't asking for a link, by the way; sources do not require to be linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I only mentioned that to make it clear that this information can be verified, and so you would know where to look in case you wished to spot-check those sources for accuracy as well. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check
edit

Of this version:

  • 1 Where is it called "unnecessary"? And "players can view and organize their Pokémon, transfer them from the Game Boy games to Stadium for storage and use in battle, trade them between Game Boy games"?
    "Unnecessary" is meant as part of the sentence that describes general reception, not just 1. 24, 82, and 83 all very have quotes describing the Transfer Pak as "an afterthought, with features that were barely worth the hassle of digging it out of the closet"; "a frivolity rather than something fundamental to gaming. When you then consider the embarrassing amount of titles that actually supported the hardware, this endeavor seems even less necessary"; and "wholly and entirely worthless to me"; all of which can be summarized with the word "unnecessary". I've rearranged the sources in that paragraph to hopefully avoid that confusion going forward.
    As for Pokémon, "you could move your Pocket Monsters back and forth between the cartridges, view them and transfer them with friends far more easily than via Game Boy alone, and also witness your Pokémon fight in stunning, colourful three dimensions."
  • 3 OK
  • 10 Need a quote.
    Via Gamejin: "今までですと、山内のほうがクリエイタ一に新しいタネと仕掛けを提供するとずっと言ってきたんですけどねやはり具体的なものとして見えてこないので、「64GBパック」や「ポケットカメラ」などを見てもらったりしたんです。そこで、いろいろなタネや仕掛けがなんなのか、ちょっとでも感じ取ってもらえる。今回はそういったショ一だったんです。すべてが量産に入れるバージョンで発表していますから。この任天堂が理想とする遊びのシステムは、2000年まではかからないということが現実に見えてきていますので信用してください。"
  • 25 "Gaming press" apparently means only Nintendo's. "capture footage and images from Game Boy games more easily" where is that?
    Per 25, IGN (a non-Nintendo affiliated press outlet) was able to obtain one. 25 also states "This makes it easy to grab screenshots and video clips of Game Boy Color titles in action without having to go through a less-capable emulator."
  • 27 A little uncertain whether it actually links the emulator to Super Game Boy.
    "with the exception of Pokémon Stadium which (via the N64 Transfer Pak) would allow users to play the Pokémon games with the special palettes and borders, the [Super Game Boy] enhancements have never been seen since."
  • 36 OK
  • 37 Doesn't mention Mario Tour?
    38 identifies the name of the mode as Mario Tour. "The meat of the game, though, resides in the Mario Tour mode, placing you in the shoes of a promising new, non-Mario student at the Royal Tennis Academy." Added another citation of that source right after 37.
  • 39 OK I think
  • 43 OK
  • 45 OK
  • 51 Is it implicit in the lack of mention of specific places?
    51 is Nintendo of America's official documentation of every N64 game released in North America, while 52 is the official documentation of of every N64 game released in Japan, providing a simple way to compare the two and verify which games were available in both regions. I am open to changing the verbiage to "Also released in English", "Also released outside Japan", "International release", or something similar if you believe there is an issue with the current use of "Worldwide release".
  • 54 Need a quote.
    Via Nintendo Power: "If you have the right Pokémon in your Game Boy game, you can use your own creatures in the Minigames too!"
  • 57 OK
  • 64 Need a quote.
    Via Dengeki Nintendo 64:
    • "今回同時に発表されたGB版は、『スパロボ64』で登場するキャラ(ロボット)を使用し、1対1のバトルを楽しむSLG。もちろんその結果によってキャラが育っていく。このソフトでは64GBパックを使用して、『スパロボ64』のキャラデータとGB版のデータを受け渡すことができるのだ。N64とGBのリンクが生み出す新しい『スパロボ』。くわしい紹介はP.16を見てね。"
    • "『リンクバトラー』でのキャラ(パイロット)データは、「スパロボ64』のキャラデータと互換性を持っている。つまり、『スパロボ64』からキャラデータをコピーして、「リンクバトル」で対戦、成長させることができるのだ。『スパロボ64』でレベルアップさせにくい脇役パイロットのデータを成長させたり、はじめから強くなったキャラデータで『スパロボ64』をプレイするなんてこともできるぞ。さらに『リンクバトラー』を接続すると『スパロボ64』に登場するような、隠しキャラが存在するらしいぞ。それとは逆の形で『リンクバトラー』に登場する隠しキャラなんてのも。このふたつをつなげることで、両方のソフトのキャラデータがより充実するというわけだ。N64版とGB版のリンクを利用すれば、もう怖いものなしだね!"
  • 65 Need a quote.
    Via The 64Dream:
    • "GBのみに出現するキャラクター"
    • "GBにしか出てこないユニット・パイロットは次の通り。ユニットかパイロットのどっちががGBで手に入った状態で64とリンクすると、64版でユニットが登場するようになるぞ!移すのはユニットかパイロッ卜片方だけでもOKだ。"
  • 66 Need a quote.
    Via The 64Dream:
    • "64にしか登場しないユニットはこれだ!"
    • "さてさて今月も続けて64&GBのリンクの話題。今回はまず、64にしか登場しないユニットの話。64にこのユニットがある状態でリンクさせれば、GB版でも買えるようになるぞ。というわけで、まずはユニットのリスト。"
    • "先月紹介した「GBにしかいないユニット」を「スパロボ64」に移すと、特殊マップが立ち上がる。マップは登場ユニットによって7種類、各マップとも立ち上がるタイミングによって宇宙編と地上編があるぞ。"
    These quotes above do not seem to support the text sufficiently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've now listed additional quotes from the same sections that hopefully reinforce the text more. Do these address your concerns? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the numbers sourced to 65 and 66 in these quotes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry, I misinterpreted and thought this was about not having enough sourcing for the functionality. Those first quotes I listed for 65 and 66 are the section headers for the lists of transferable units in each version that were printed in each issue; this page from 65 has the list of four GB-exclusive units in a red inset box in the bottom right corner [ガンダムF91、ビギナ・ギナ、ゴーショーグン、ザンボット3], while this page from 66 has the list of 21 N64-exclusive units in a black inset box in the middle just below the Link Battler banner [グレンダイザー、スペイザー、真・ゲッター1/2/3、ソルデファー、アシュクリーフ、ノウルーズ、スヴァンヒルド、ラーズグリーズ、シグルーン、アースゲイン、スーパーアースゲイン、ヴァイローズ、スイームルグ、スイームルグS、ウイングゼロ、アルトロン、デスサイズヘル、サンドロック改、ヘビーアームズ改]. The numbers just came from counting the names in the list, per WP:CALC. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 71 and 72 Where does it say it was dropped?
    So...this one's complicated. 71 and 72 were written months before the GBC game was released, but no reviews or coverage of the final product mention Transfer Pak functionality. There is also no mention of it in the game's manual, and no unofficial documentation of any kind, including footage, is known to exist. While I did not put this part in the article because it felt too much like SYNTH, both pre-release articles reference enhancing characters in multiplayer based on the contents of the portable game's save file.
    • "[...]you'll be able to improve the strength of your character in the N64 multiplayer game depending on how far you've advanced in the portable rendition."
    • "Players can transfer character attributes gained from the GBC version into the multiplayer mode in the N64 version of TWINE."
    However, the final version does not save progress to the cartridge, but instead uses passwords (per the game's manual), so without a save file to read, the feature cannot function as intended. While that explanation is again not suitable for the article, the fact remains that without any sources confirming its presence in the final game, we can only confirm that it was planned, not that it was implemented.
  • 86 Dunno if this is about Transfer Pak
    "The game is reported on work on real N64 hardware (with the N64 Expansion Pak), as well as most emulators, and even includes support for the Voice Recognition Unit and some other N64 accessories. You can check the Readme document here for more information." The Readme document linked to in the TimeExtension article explicitly lists the Transfer Pak among the supported accessories and devotes multiple pages to its use.
  • 87 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Addressed each source with comments. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, is the spot check a pass? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from RandomEdits

edit

I'd been meaning to review this for a while but ran out of time until now, so I'm fairly late to the party. As such, the issues I'd written down have already been taken care of over Olliefant and Crystal (and others)'s reviews already. Happy to give this a support; the work done on this page is very good already, with engaging prose (for someone like myself who'd only ever vaguely heard of this pak beforehand) and covering everything I'd expect in such an article. Nice job! RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reconrabbit

edit

This has already been gone over a few times, but I have these remarks:

  • The 64 GB Cable was first publicly exhibited at Space World 1999 alongside DT Bloodmasters, a trading card game directed by Masanobu Endō that was planned to use the cable to exchange cards between the two systems and allow players to privately view their cards on the GBC screen.
    • I feel like this reads better as two sentences, split after Masanobu Endō. The second could start "In DT Bloodmasters, players would have been able to use the cable to..."
      Done.
  • Unlike the Super Game Boy peripheral, which allowed Game Boy games to be played on the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, the Transfer Pak's primary use is not to play Game Boy games on the N64.
    • If that's not its primary use, why is the next sentence describing how it emulates some Game Boy games on the N64?
      I felt it important both to clarify that it is not another Super Game Boy or Game Boy Player, as that confusion among purchasers was brought up in the reception section, but I also felt it equally important to detail information about the one exception to that rule, hence the "However" at the start of the following sentence. I can see how it comes off as self-contradictory, though. I've moved the passage about the WideBoy earlier in the paragraph to put some speace between the two, which should hopefully allay some of those concerns.
      That reads as more natural, thank you.
    • The newly added images are appropriately licensed but are currently missing alt text.
      Done.

That's all from me. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit: Changes have been implemented based on your feedback. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am comfortable giving this article my support. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

edit

Endometriosis

edit


Nominator(s): —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When people talk about the gender bias in healthcare, endometriosis is often the first disease that is brought up. It causes tissue like that of the endometrium (the tissue that bleeds during periods) to grow outside of the uterus, for instance on bowels or in the lungs. Even thought endometriosis is common (10% of reproductive-age women), individuals wait an average of 5 to 12 years for a diagnosis, and can experience years of intense pain in the meantime. Treatment does not always work, or can stop working over time. Research funding is relatively low.

The article received a lovely review from IntentionallyDense, a great GA review from Strange Orange and an incredibly detailed pre-FAC review from UndercoverClassicist. I'm looking forward to further comments. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

edit

A well researched article: I have a few comments on the prose:

There are many examples of "outside of", which should just be "outside" as it is a preposition. I know the former is used in the US, but it this article there are examples of the latter too. The former are:

  • grows outside of the uterus
  • Lesions outside of the pelvic region
  • also provide an explanation for endometriosis outside of the pelvic region
  • allows endometriosis to continue growing outside of the womb.
  • endometrium-like tissue grows outside of the uterus
  • Lesions outside of the pelvic region,
  • but also provide an explanation for endometriosis outside of the pelvic region
  • This weakened response to progesterone allows endometriosis to continue growing outside of the womb.
    All replaced

Here "The likelihood of symptoms returning after surgery is highly variable, with studies reporting recurrence rates anywhere between 6% and 67%." I find these with+participle expressions rather ugly. Can we say "and studies have reported"?

I've used a semicolon instead to link the two sentences without with. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here "In terms of surgery" - does this mean "regarding"?

It does, have replaced this with a new introductory sentence to be more concrete: "Surgery to remove endometriomas can help with fertility"

Here "The disease does not always worsen over time; in studies that track people over time" There is "over time...over time"

Removed the first 'over time'

Do we need some punctuation here, "It forms at or close to the location of the surgical cut"

I've instead replaced 'close to' with near. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-Graham Beards (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here "In contrast, animals like rodents and non-human primates with an estrous cycle, in which the endometrium is reabsorbed rather than shed, do not develop the disease." While rodents do not develop the disease naturally, they are widely used as models of the disease. (See Zeng Y, Hang F, Peng C, Zhao L, Ou S, Luo L, Liu B (June 2024). "Research progress in rodent models of endometriosis". J Reprod Immunol. 163: 104219. doi:10.1016/j.jri.2024.104219. PMID 38422807.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)). Perhaps this should be said? Graham Beards (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the word naturally, and a sentence on animal models to the research directions section. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Although we have to use the word "patients" in the citations, we avoid it in our articles as we are not meant to write from a physician's perspective. Graham Beards (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Not sure why this slipped through. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The word "endometriosis" is being used with two different meanings. First as the name for the disease and then, wrongly, for the endometrial-type tissue. This is giving rise to odd phrases such as in the Lead where it says "Endometriosis can return after surgical removal." What is returning the disease or the tissue? Clearly it's both but the wording is confusing nonetheless. Another example is "treatment consists of the removal of endometriosis". The following might be useful in this regard.Graham Beards (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're absolutely right about the second example, and I have changed that and will give the article another read to see if there are similar mistakes. In terms of 'recurrence of endometriosis', it took me a while to figure out why papers use this terminology. A new review seems to explain this: return of endometriosis is measured in two ways: the return of lesions (usually determined from imaging) or the return of pain after surgery. When talking about both, papers use phrasing like I've used in the article. The JAMA review I cite most is usually quite precise in distinguishing between pain recurrence and lesion recurrence, but uses recurrence of endometriosis too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it in most places, but kept it where sources where referring to recurrence in general, rather than one definition over the other. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include a section on emerging tests including blood, menses and saliva? Graham Beards (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Epidemiology section is too weak for a FA, and I think the rest of the article is below the standard for a medical FA to be honest. This review might be useful regarding the epidemiology: Harder C, Velho RV, Brandes I, Sehouli J, Mechsner S (December 2024). "Assessing the true prevalence of endometriosis: A narrative review of literature data". International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics: the Official Organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 167 (3): 883–900. doi:10.1002/ijgo.15756. PMID 39031100. This, and the concern I raised about terminology above, leave me little choice but to Oppose promotion for now. Graham Beards (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on the weaknesses of the epidemiology section. I know I'm always on the summary style side of the summary style / comprehensiveness trade-off and happy to add more, but maybe there are further weaknesses? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the paper I cited? Graham Beards (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few yellow flags that make me hesitant to include that paper. For one, it states in the abstract that insurance companies argue that prevalence numbers are low. Do these companies actually confuse diagnosed prevalence rate with overall prevalence? In most diseases there is a gap between the two, and the paper does not further support this claim. The paper at some point says that this mpdi paper found a prevalence of 0.05%, which is an extraordinary claim they should have double checked (it's 5%, formatted at 0.05 in places in the original paper). In another place, the paper says 44 656 per 1000 people have endometriosis. I've sent an email to the editor expressing my concerns.
I talk about the onion somewhat, in the sense that I have the estimate of overall prevalence, and the estimate of people diagnosed with laparoscopy. Keen to hear other suggestions or broad strokes about how to improve the article further. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The abstract goes on to say the insurance companies are wrong. My concern that the section is too short, i.e. not comprehensive and only consists of a dozen or so stubby sentences, is not countered by pointing out a couple of typos in an otherwise excellent review (which I offered as an example). Graham Beards (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to expand that section, of course.
There are good elements of the paper. I like the discussion about why Germany is different (now outdated, as Germany has also made the change to imaging for diagnosis). But the yellow flags are such that I do not feel confident using it. For instance, the paper says it computes a pooled prevalence for clinical studies, but instead simply computes a median without weighting in any sense. I initially tried to reproduce a pooled prevalence weighted on population after I noticed that the biggest studies they cite have very low prevalence values compared to their 'pooled prevalence'. Just like the biggest study (the 5% I mentioned before), the second-biggest study is also incorrectly reported (as 0.88% instead of 1.5%). The value 0.88 does not seem to be in that paper. I don't see this as a high-quality reliable source with this many errors. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try with this paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12958-025-01483-z. I trust the numbers, but the paper gives very little context surrounding these numbers. For instance, it says that endometrioma prevalence is highest among the subtypes but doesn't discuss to what extent that is because it's easiest to see on imaging. I think the context about staging is useable without having missed caveats, as well as how prevalence differs by modality of diagnosis. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2026 (UTC), amended 18:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like a reliable source. Graham Beards (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the epidemiology section and given it another copyedit. I've had another look at sources I missed, and have added some more content to the formation section as well, which allowed me to apply summary style more aggresively elsewhere (still a net expansion, but now with fewer unnecessary technical details). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Graham Beards: I was wondering if you feel like your concerns have been addressed? Or do you have remaining concerns you'd like me to work on? Based on comments below, I have added additional details to a few other sections to be more comprehensive. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 08:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My concern about using "endometriosis" to mean both the disease and endometrium-like tissue remains. Graham Beards (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Did I overlook some further instances of this? I thought I had caught them all.. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 12:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's an example in the lead image where the endometrium-like tissue is labelled "endometriosis". Graham Beards (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone over all the images and image captions now, and they should be more precise now. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 15:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to Support now. Well done. Graham Beards (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Toadspike

edit

I'll gradually add to this when I have time.

  • The first paragraph under "Other factors" is quite complicated in terms of sentence structure.
  • I've simplified the last sentence, I hope you don't mind.
    Thanks. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what to do with the first sentence; it's not bad, but I had to read it twice to understand what it was saying, and a grammar purist might not like opening with "Because".
    I've changed it to "Most women with retrograde menstruation do not develop endometriosis, so other factors must also contribute to its development". Better?
Awesome, thanks.
  • The "as is done" in the second sentence feels ungrammatical and is at any rate confusing (what is done, "develop"?). I suggest putting the cancer reference at the end of the sentence, so the reader doesn't have to jump between subjects. "For endometriosis to develop, its cells must evade destruction by the immune system, attach to a surface, and promote the formation of new blood vessels, similar to some cancerous tumors." (I've thrown in "destruction" as well to make it clear why the immune system matters – laypeople may not know that the immune system attacks abnormal cells.) There might also be another way to phrase this, like "Endometriosis can only develop if ..."
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how I feel about angiogenesis being mentioned in this sentence but not linked, only being linked later on.
    I sometimes put the MOS aside if I can put the link in a more pertinent place. I think I resolved the MOS issue somewhat by linking from the caption, which is truly the first place in the section and I think we're okay with double linking from captions? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't notice that link. All good then.
I added it after your comment :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find any good link targets for the other two list items. Unfortunately we don't have a good article on immune evasion, best I could do is Cancer immunology or the redirect immunosurveillance. (I discovered how poorly this topic is covered on Wikipedia back in January...) For "attach to a surface", maybe Cell adhesion? Whether you add any of these links is up to you on account of how poor the choices are.
    I don't know enough about the technical details to feel confident adding these links. It seems like immonusurveillance is mostly used in cancer research, but the term does pop up when I google 'endometriosis + immunosurveillance', so the redirect might be one of those with a possibility for a broader article instead of section link. Best to leave them out?
Sounds good, as I said I won't push for it.
  • "Endometriosis lesions require estrogen to grow" – the source says estradiol. The distinction isn't hugely relevant, since estradiol is the main form of estrogen, but for the sake of accuracy it may be better to write "estradiol, the most potent form of estrogen" or "most abundant" or similar.
    Instead, I've added another source that talks about estrogens being required for growth. There's some worry that the estrogens in contraceptives might stimulate growth too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks.
  • I realize "clearance" is the term used in the source, but that feels like jargon, and there's really only one way cells can be "cleared": by killing them. I think a clearer term like "destruction" would be better here.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, please replace "plays a key role in" with something more specific...
    Having looked at the paper I'm citing and a few others, I'm struggling to find something more specific. I've made a different change, as sources seem to talk slightly more about angiogenesis in the development and progression than in maintenance (e.g. (only development/progression) also maintenance), vs the cited source who just says maintenance. I'm happy to make it less specific and cut the second sentence as too technical and merge the para with the one above. What kind of information are you looking for? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Plays a key role in" says nothing about the relationship between the two terms, other than that they are connected in some unspecified yet important way. I wish it were abolished entirely, but unfortunately it's common in science writing, where incentives are set for authors to puff up their discoveries as much as possible without making claims their evidence does not support. Here, it could mean that more angiogenesis increases the formation and maintenance of endometriosis, or it could mean that more angiogenesis impairs said formation and maintenance. (You might think this is silly, but there are diseases like macular degeneration where more angiogenesis is harmful to the tissue being supplied, and at any rate the reader shouldn't be required to jump through these logical hoops themselves.) Toadspike [Talk] 13:52, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you're after the direction! That is supported by the sources (more angiogenesis = likely more endo). Overall, sources leaned towards more cautious wording, so changed the wording to 'is a likely driver'. I've also removed the next sentence which was too complicated and didn't add enough. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of serial commas isn't consistent. They're mostly absent, but this section has one. It's best to pick one and be consistent. I prefer using them for clarity, but if you choose not to that's also okay. (MOS:SERIAL)
I've now done them all.
  • "There are multiple possible causes of pain" – I suggest appending "associated with endometriosis". Though this is certainly true of all pain, that's not the point of this article.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest replacing "gold standard" with something more specific, like "preferred option". I had a long rant here, but I accidentally deleted it and won't bother writing it out again. Suffice it to say this is another phrase I wish were abolished from medical writing entirely.
    Well, it's the option with the highest accuracy, but not the preferred option in many cases anymore. Why is it problematic?
  • I'm wondering if "stroma" could be replaced with something like "connective tissue". Slightly more comprehensible, but longer. Up to you.
    If I click stromal cell, it is described as if these cells are connective tissue precursor cells. But stroma (tissue) talks about it as connective tissue. I'm a bit confused. Happy to explain this better once that confusion is resolved. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The real definition is "tissue that is not functional", which is kinda messy and much broader than just connective tissue. This paper uses the alternative "supporting tissue", which seems a lot better. What do you think? Toadspike [Talk] 21:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Explanation added. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ureter of the urinary system" – dunno if you really need "of the urinary system". There aren't any others, and it doesn't provide that much additional clarity to someone who doesn't know what a ureter is.
    Replaced with a longer more specific explanation. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 probably shouldn't link to a "manuscript" , which I'm guessing means a preprint that hasn't gone through peer review.
    That's the accepted manuscript; a way for unis to make knowledge free despite paywalls. The doi link leads to the final manuscript. Given I rely so much on this source, I want other to be able to access it too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if we need the word "representing" in the lead. As source 89 is geolocked to the UK, I can't see if this is an independent number or one derived from the "10% of women of reproductive age" statistic.
    It's a derived number, from WHO in 2023. NICE says that "Endometriosis is estimated to affect approximately 10% of women of reproductive age, translating to around 190 million women and girls globally". There's likely more, but the number of people with endo post-menopause is so uncertain that I (and most sources) prefer to not try to include those in the headline figure. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toadspike: did you have any further suggestions for improvement? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Femke Sorry for the delay, I've been extremely busy recently. I should be able to finish up by Thursday. Toadspike [Talk] 16:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7 June continuation
edit

I've finished my prose review and will dump everything here. Feel free to push back on anything you disagree with. Everything should be in the order of the article. Lead:

  • In the lead, pain medication is listed before hormonal treatments, but in the body the order is reversed. Hormonal treatments also seem to b supported by better evidence. I suggest swapping the order in the lead.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if "a birth control pill" would be better than "the birth control pill", as there are many pills.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lesions" should probably explained on first use.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice if we could put a number to "endometriosis can return after surgery" (how often?), but the number given in the body (26%) doesn't seem definite enough for this. The current wording makes it seem rare, though – if you can find a better wording that reflects the fairly common frequency, that would be nice.
    I've added it comes back fairly commonly. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Subtypes:

  • The second sentence mentions three or four subtypes, but the following list has four. Is here any less-confusing way to frame this?
    If there is, it beats me. It took me like half an hour to get to this sentence.
  • The C-section scar in the image has a yellow arrow pointing to it. Might be worth adding "(yellow arrow)" to the caption after the word "scar".
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explanation of endometriomas is a little confusing. For one, the list above calls them "ovarian endometriomas", but here they're not specified as "ovarian". It might also be helpful to reiterate that these are a subtype of lesion. (Or maybe this is a reading comprehension issue on my end.)
    I've simplified as endometrioma in the list definition, instead of ovarian endometrioma. Sources mostly use the shorter form, and appreciate that specifying as ovarian endometrioma in the definition might imply there are non-ovarian endometriomas. I find the word lesion to apply to endometriomas weird, but that might just be me not having a good intuition what that bit of jargon means. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 00:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might reverse the order of "old menstrual blood" and the dark brown color – since the old blood creates the color, it might make more sense to explain it first.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the muscular layer" bothers me slightly ("which one?") but it seems this is standard terminology. Oh well...
  • "appears as nodules" reads awkwardly, probably to do with the singular "it" combined with the plural "nodules". Maybe "forms nodules" would be better?
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the fallopian tubes between the ovaries ..." – it may be worth mentioning that they're not actually attached to the ovaries directly and there's a big opening there, which is presumably how the blood flows into the abdomen.
    Not really mentioned in sources I don't think, so the images will ahve to suffice unless you know of a source. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Signs and symptoms

  • "amount of pain is only weakly related ..." – some of the sources I read said it's inversely related, as in more pain is indicative of an earlier stage, while later stages often have less pain. Is this something you saw as well? If so, is it supported by sufficient evidence to mention here?
    I have seen a source say there is no relationship, and I've seen sources say that new lesions are more painful. Note that the stage doesn't have a great correlation with how new the lesions are. Lesions sometimes shrink and you can likely switch between stage 3 and 4 multiple times. THat is: stage 4 might still be quite active. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that stage != recency. If you've seen both, maybe the other claim (new lesions are more painful) is worth mentioning? Not really sure, since both claims are a bit iffy... Toadspike [Talk] 00:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "follow a cyclical pattern" – I recall some sources specifying acyclic pelvic pain as especially indicative of endometriosis and helpful for differential diagnosis, presumably as most other menstrual-related conditions have few symptoms outside of menstruation. Is this worth mentioning?
    The BMJ has quite a few differentials that also present with chronic pelvic pain (like interstitial cystitis, adenomyosis, pelvic inflammatory disease). In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 18:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of the lengthy "Some individuals ... feeling like", maybe "The pain may feel like" is sufficient.
    Done, not entirely sure about it though. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦
  • I would combine the sentence about period pain with that sentence. "lower abdomen, while the pain with periods may feel dull and cramping". Up to you. The period pain sentence feels mildly contradictory with the previous sentence; maybe emphasizing "period" over "endometriosis" would help there.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The jumps between different areas of symptoms in the next two paragraphs are a little jarring. For example, after three sentences about bowels, we jump to spotting, followed by three sentences about infertility. I was left wondering what infertility has to do with bowels... One possible solution is to put a paragraph break before "About a quarter", and another before "Endometriosis around scars". Another solution is to have clearer topic sentences listing the broad areas (bowel, infertility, thorax, other). But if you think there's no nice way to solve it I'm also fine leaving as is.
    I've split the infertility bit into a separate section. Not done so for extrapelvic endo, as a split would be a bit more random there and leave quite a short paragraph. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦
  • I've made some copyedits myself. One was to specify "rheumatoid arthritis" instead of just "arthritis". I would've done the same for lupus (SLE), but as our article is at the title "Lupus" I'll leave it as is.
    I tend to go for the common name, but I imagine that there is osteoarthritis too.. Thanks :). In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Risk factors:

  • "Studies attribute 50%" – I'd replace both uses of "50%" with "half" here, as the study isn't so specific with its numbers ("approximately 50%").
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be possible to explain "environmental factors" in some way that lay people would understand. I think most people assume it means, dunno, the trees give you endo or something. In reality a lot of "environmental factors" are things people can themselves influence or control, such as diet.
    Done, hopefully not too repetitive with the below. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 00:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanism:

  • "Cells in the peritoneum" – which cells? I assume endometriotic cells?
    Well, no, as they aren't endometriosis before the transformation. The source says "Metaplasia theory [27], proposed by Iwanoff and Meyer in 1942, states that there is a species of cells, located in the mesothelial lining of the ovary and the peritoneum, that is able to differentiate into endometrial cells under certain conditions." Any suggestions for clarifying? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 00:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dang... very mysterious wording there. Maybe adding the word "unidentified" would help, as in "Unidentified cells in the peritoneum"? That way the reader would know there isn't a specific cell type we have in mind. Toadspike [Talk] 00:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "weakened response to progesterone" – I was confused as to how progesterone resistance would help endo grow, since it's the drop in progesterone (and other hormones) that causes menstruation, not the progesterone itself. I checked the source and I'm still not fully confident I know the answer to my question, but it seems the main relevance of p. resistance is that it causes therapy to fail. I think rewording this sentence to focus on therapy failure might be an improvement.
    That feels off in a section about the mechanism? The source is focused on treatment, so it might be an odd choice, but it does talk about pathophysiology in saying "In endometriosis, attenuation of progesterone response enables the endometriotic cells to continuously grow and survive after translocating to the foreign environment. In terms of logic: To detect a drop, you need to be able to detect high levels first, right? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 00:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look and I agree that it doesn't really fit here. What really bothered me, though, was that the source is primarily about therapy failure and doesn't really explain why progesterone resistance is necessary even outside of treatment, or how progesterone would prevent endo growth or destroy endo. There's no source-text integrity issue, but if you have the energy finding (and citing) a source that actually explains this would be nice. Toadspike [Talk] 00:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnosis:

  • See my comment about acyclic pain from above.
    I think that's the same as chronic pelvic pain, at least mostly, which is mentioned first. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 18:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Diagnosis takes an average of five to twelve years" – I would prefer if this were worded more clearly as an observation of the current overall situation, rather than an immutable fact. I don't want people reading this and thinking "if I go see a doctor now, the diagnostic process requires five years, so I won't get any help until then".
    Not entirely sure how to signal this. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How about replacing the whole sentence with "Studies in Western countries show that diagnosis tends to take five to twelve years from the onset of symptoms." I hope it sounds less like a requirement this way. Toadspike [Talk] 00:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was a bit rushed at the end and didn't explain this well. I worry that the average non-medical reader will not understand what an "assessment" means here, and "The initial assessment further assesses" sounds especially awkward. Maybe something like "Medical professionals should ask about risk factors and evaluate symptoms, including symptoms of deep endometriosis or endometriosis outside the pelvis. They should also ask about possible complications, like depression. [The trauma sentence is fine and can go here.]" The JAMA source cited is specifically making recommendations to primary care physicians in Figure 4, which I assume is where this came from, so the "should" wording seems justified. The longer "are recommended to" could also work. Toadspike [Talk] 00:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by, but I would be strong in favour of "are recommended to" (and saying {{by whom}} and therefore {{where}}) -- Wikipedia is not a textbook and it's not our business to tell people what they should or shouldn't do. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dislike the recommended kind of wording. Instead, I've replaced the awkward assessed with 'includes questions about'. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a physical exam cannot detect superficial peritoneal endometriosis" – I'm skeptical of the very absolute wording here. I'm speculating here, but I'm not sure why an extremely large lesion that hasn't infiltrated other layers, and is thus still "superficial", couldn't be palpated in an exam. Also, the source says "a pelvic exam cannot identify superficial peritoneal lesions" (emphasis mine) – since the same source says superficial peritoneal endometriosis can be outside the pelvis ("abdominal or pelvic viscera"), this distinction may be important. (It may also be that the source is using "pelvic exam" very broadly.)
    I've changed to pelvic exam. The 2022 BMJ paper says something similar: "An abdomino-pelvic examination may help to identify ovarian and deep disease", but doesn't use the negative. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a big ultrasound fan, I'm a little sad you removed this sentence  :(
    I think it said the same as the MRI sentence, but that from the ultrasound perspective. I'm also a bit sceptical about 'no contraindications' as we don't use them for sexually inactive girls. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "characteristic ground-glass appearance" – I don't think this image shows the ground-glass appearance very well. Normally it refers to a much brighter (more echogenic) texture, more of a mixture of gray and white. You see this in the example used in the cited paper (Figure 2 A), which appears largely gray. You are welcome to mention the ground-glass appearance in the prose, but I don't think it should be in this caption.
    Replaced the image with Fig 2A (yay for CC-BY). In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cropped the trichromatic MRI image to just the one relevant to endometriosis.
    Thanks. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could "clinicians" be replaced with "doctors"? Probably clearer.
    Removed altogether. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ovarian cysts (also called chocolate cysts) are typically dark brown." – I don't think all ovarian cysts are endometriomas.
    Changed. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "can sometimes be distinguished from endometriosis in an MRI" – the ultrasound source (footnote 45) is fairly adamant that ultrasound can do this too: "Adenomyosis uteri has sonographically well-defined criteria (MUSA) that allow for detection with high sensitivity and specificity: MRI is not superior to a differentiated experienced ultrasound examination" and "No diagnostic superiority of MRI could be found, so transvaginal sonography is recommended as a first-line method due to its better availability and lower costs". I think this is worth mentioning.
    Changed to that source and the JAMA source. Now talks about enlarged uterus on physical exam + ultrasound instead of MRI. Might email BMJ later, they were responsive before when I pointed out a mistake in the ME/CFS primer. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Management:

  • I've reworded the opening sentence about progestins, because I was concerned that "hormonal suppression" (suppressing endometriosis using hormones) is too easily confused with "hormone suppression" (suppressing hormone levels in the body). This version also explains how progestins work. I hope you see this as an improvement.
    Thumb up. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest moving "Evidence is limited." earlier in the aromatase inhibitor paragraph, as that seems more important than e.g. how they should be used and by whom.

That's all up to the Pain medication heading. Toadspike [Talk] 02:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments from Noleander

edit
  • Pic caption "Clockwise from the top left is superficial peritoneal endometriosis, deep infiltrating endometriosis, a ruptured chocolate cyst and a mass of scar endometriosis encircled in red next to a caesarian section scar." That seems to have the pictures out of order - perhaps the final two are flipped?
    Fixed in a way that makes a bit more sense on mobile. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "John A. Sampson" suggest wikilinking name here, in addtion to existing link in body text.
    Done + explanation of why there is a photo of the guy
  • Warning for a cite: Consider changing "pages=108129 " to "article-number = 108129" to eliminate a cite tool warning.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

YuniToumei

edit

Hi Femke! Good to see such a vital and underdiscussed topic brought to FAC. I'll review this over the coming days. More comments to follow. YuniToumei (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deep endometriosis often appears as nodules: I suggest linking Nodule (medicine) at first appearance
  • Some individuals have no symptoms: It would be interesting to quantify this. What percentage of women experience no symptoms? Is there any good data on this in recent publications?
    The omission was intentional, as we don't really know. Some sources say the prevalence of endometriosis among asymptotic women is about 2 to 10%, implying that asymptotic cases could make up almost none to 80% of cases. There is large uncertainty on prevalence of endometriosis among post-menopausal women too, who often do not have symptoms anymore. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, that's good then. Let's hope the science turns up some better numbers soon. YuniToumei (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In those going through assisted reproductive treatment, endometriosis is found in about 30% to 50% of women: I'm concerned that there is a reasonable chance an unknowing reader could misinterpret this sentence to mean that assisted reproductive treatment could be causal to endometriosis. Do you think you could rephrase to resolve this ambiguity?
    I've changed it to 'among women going through', to stress it's about the group not the treatment. Does that work? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is better, although it doubles the word "women" at the end of the phrase. I was about to suggest making the temporal relation explicit by saying something like "Among women going through assisted reproductive treatment, 30% to 50% were found to have pre-exisiting endometriosis". However, I have a concern about the sourcing. I looked at the citation in the cited review (25, Bulletti 2010), and in that paper the review cites, I cannot find the figure 30–50% in relation to assisted reproductive treatment. That figure instead appears as "30 to 50% of women with endometriosis are infertile", which in turn is cited to a 1951(!) paper which I cannot access. Do you think the review's statement is reliable nevertheless? YuniToumei (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the statement (there was a similar statement elsewhere to a higher-quality source anyway). I will double check other statements from the source and probably remove it for all statistics and mildly contentious claims. This is the second error in statistics found in the source. They were helpful in correcting the other error, but two makes me question the rigour of fact-checking. Let me know if you'd like me to replace the source altogether. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now removed other statistics from that source too. They were supported by the cited sources, but the cited sources were primary and possibly not the best to make a sweeping statement. Will keep the rest unless there are objections. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, looks good to me. YuniToumei (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • endometriosis is linked to cardiovascular disease, particularly in those who have had the uterus and ovaries removed as treatment: Clarify as treatment for what? Could be interpreted that it's treatment for the cardiovascular disease
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • increased risk of developing ovarian and thyroid cancers: I suggest linking Thyroid cancer
  • when extra tissue divides the vagina into two sides is this implying a Uterine septum? If so, I suggest adding a link.
  • endocrine disruptors—chemicals that interfere with hormones, such as estrogen: I'm guessing that a confusion here is much less likely, but it could theoretically be misconstrued such that estrogen is understood as one of these endocrine disruptors. Though if you don't think that is likely, feel free to leave it as it is.
    I've removed the comma before 'such as estrogen'. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence supporting the theory comes from retrospective epidemiological studies: I suggest linking Retrospective cohort study
  • involving white blood cells: I suggest linking White blood cell
  • a bimanual exam I suggest linking Bimanual exam, perhaps as Pelvic examination#Bimanual examination. The former is a redirect to the latter, although interestingly not to the specific section (yet).
    Done and redirect fixed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "chocolate cysts" is introduced in the Subtype section and reused in the MRI caption, but not reused or re-explained in the Keyhole surgery section. Since this procedure is where one would encounter those, it might be worth name-dropping them here again when you discuss the color of endrometiosis lesions?
    It's a bit too much to explain it twice so close together. Would it be better if I move it down from the image to the text? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think so. To me, the term is a surgical one first and foremost, i.e. a description based on what one can see with one's naked eyes. MRIs don't typically record color, so I'm unsure why the cysts would appear chocolatey there. I'd probably just refer to them as ovarian cysts in the image caption. YuniToumei (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • if symptoms improve (‘empirical treatment’): I suggest linking Empirical therapy
  • The ENZIAN system: The Enzian system was amended to the newer #Enzian system in 2021 to include lesions with peritoneal, tubary, and ovarian localisation. What is the rationale behind referring only to the older system in this article?
    Mostly sources; I can't yet make a a clean statemment about how good the #ENZIAN system is. I can note the update after the more general statements, but prefer not to for summary style. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine by me then. YuniToumei (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether hormonal contraception: I suggest linking Hormonal contraception
  • includes the hormonal coil (intrauterine device): Shouldn't this be "the hormonal coil (an intrauterine device)" since hormonal coils aren't the only type of IUDs?
  • implant under the skin: I suggest linking Subdermal implant
  • or those with uncontrolled hypertension: I suggest linking Hypertension
    Done all the link suggestions, for the other comments see my replies. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Femke I've replied to some comments above. YuniToumei (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the edit hist, you seem to have gone for serial commas? I've added a few you seem to have missed. Feel free to undo any I might have mistakenly added.
    You and Toadspike are angels. Thanks for fixing them!
  • Alternative hormonal treatment can be tried if the pill or IUD are not effective.: "if the pill or an IUD"?
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symptoms typically start in adolescence or early 20s and tend to improve after menopause. This is due to the decrease in estrogen levels, which often aggravate the symptoms of endometriosis.: Do you think it's clear enough that "this" only refers to only the last clause of the first sentence? And do you think that it's clear that "which" refers to the sinking estrogen levels, and not to estrogen itself? I am aware that in the latter case the conjugation of "aggravate" makes it clear that it is linked to a plural word, but I'm wondering if someone reading quickly or being ESL might trip up over this.
    I've simplified and merged the two sentences to make this clear. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • describing malignant tissue: I suggest linking Malignancy
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • During operations, he observed that endometriotic lesions would bleed in sync with a woman's menstrual cycle: How did he observe that? Did he operate on the same patient across her cycle?
    I don't think so. The source says: "His original observations occurred during surgeries on women who were menstruating when he found that the peritoneal lesions were bleeding similarly to the eutopic endometrium". So more likely a comparison between women. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I was confused by how he would observe it "bleed in sync", but I guess given the original phrasing in the source, that's fine. YuniToumei (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • had masculinizing side effects: I suggest linking Masculinization
    Done.
  • because taboos about sex before marriage: "because of taboos"?
    Done
  • and cannot be used on its own.: "cannot" is ambiguous, it could imply e.g. a physical reason for which the biomarker cannot be applied by itself. Maybe you could rephrase this to make it clearer that the marker is not enough evidence when used alone.
    I've added the word 'so' to clarify it's related to the facts it's not specific enough. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That was good, it seems to have slipped out again in a subsequent edit. Was that intentional? YuniToumei (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit conflicted with myself. Now fixed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Research directions section, is there any research being done towards the pathogenesis of endometriosis that might be worth discussing here?
    I've added a few research direction around how to study the pathophysiology (studying the molecular differences between lesions, animal models and their limitations and the growing use of organoids). Paper came out this month :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome, looks good! YuniToumei (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Femke Giving this another readthrough before supporting and ran the article through Earwig. I checked the 10 most similar sources, and almost all are good. There is just one to fix: Vaginal ultrasound is inexpensive, easily accessible, has no contraindications, and requires no preparation.: Earwig found this to be a verbatim copy of a sentence in source 43.
    That's the public domain 'utterance' the note talks about at the bottom of the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I missed that. That completes my review :) Support. YuniToumei (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

edit

Thank you for bringing such a substantial topic to FAC. I'll make some minor copyedits as I go.

  • Possibly you have already considered this. But it seems to me that "Mechanism" should be the first subsection - that is where the condition is fully described. The Subtypes section assumes some prior knowledge that later sections provide. Perhaps it could even be a subsection? That section also has less linking than I'd expect in the first part of the body (endometrium, pelvis, cysts...).
    The mechanism section is quite technical, which probably explains why WP:MEDORDER places it so late. The subtypes section could be moved and it took me a while to decide on where it should be. For me, explaining where these lesions can be makes it easier to describe symptoms later. Where do you think it fits as a subsection. Added more links. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, as to MEDORDER. For subtypes, I might locate it under "signs and symptoms" or possibly even "mechanism" - but the bigger quibble is the one below, with respect to the bolded subtypes not including others mentioned later.
    I'd like to get the locations of endometriosis, and the jargon for those locations/types, out of the way as soon as possible. It's difficult to talk about symptoms when you don't yet know where the endometriosis can end up. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point I just noticed: the article does not use the term Endometrioma at first mention of the definition, leaving that term undefined - is it used for any associated lesion, or only a subset?
    it's defined in the list definition in subtypes. I've now also linked upon second mention (first one is bolded). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section also covers the definition of deep endometriosis twice, slightly differently.
    The idea was the give the definition as a list definition, and tell more about it in the text. I've shifted some text for the list into prose to make that work a bit better. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see other names for subtypes, namely thoracic and scar, and relationship between that classification and the one above isn't immediately clear
    I've reworded to clarify these are subsubtypes of extra-pelvic endometriosis.
  • The cited source sticks to "lesions" rather than "spots", and personally I find "spots" confusing, in that it creates the possibility of something other than lesions
    Changed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is something of a personal preference. But I wonder at the use of the bulleted list for symptoms, because a) most of those are, in brief, "pain", with additional qualifiers that are discussed in subsequent prose, that actually seem quite important to understanding the symptoms as presented, and b) arguably some symptoms are not listed (cough, bloating).
  • Can you find a way to elucidate "cyclical" in the symptomatic context? Is it simply "recurring", or is there more nuance than that?
    It's in line with the menstrual cycle. The article now explains this as "Painful symptoms can occur anytime during the menstrual cycle, but are usually more intense during menstruation; in other words, they follow a cyclical pattern". Did you overlook that, or should I tweak this to be more explicit (change "they follow a cyclical pattern" to "the symptoms are cyclical"). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly I was looking at an older version, or I may have missed it altogether - but this addresses the concern.
  • You mention cooccurring IBS in symptoms, but not in Concurrent conditions
    mentioned there too now. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • re: "For instance, endometriosis shares a genetic underpinning with migraine, headaches, neck, and back pain." this is an unintended overstatement, surely. Suggest "...shares a genetic underpinnings" or something more qualified. I haven't read the source but if all associated genetic markers were shared it'd be huge news.
    I've made it more explicit: "shares some genetic risk factor". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked a second sentence, looks okay now.
  • re: "local transformation of peritoneal cells into endometrial-like cells (coelomic metaplasia)" I confess I don't fully understand this.
    removed the jargon altogether.
  • "Evidence supporting the theory..." but the previous paragraphs say "theories"...so which one?
    With a merging of paragraphs it should not be clear that this refers to the theory of retrograde menstruation. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you perhaps explain " Müllerian remnants"?
    explained and removed the jargon. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm struggling a bit with the structure of "formation" in general. I think you want to divide this by theory or factor, with all evidence to follow in that paragraph; and I might suggest dropping the level four titles, because that separation isn't obvious to me
    Removed one long sentence that wasn't fully necessary and broke the flow. Merged related paragraphs, and removed the subsubsection headings. The old logic was: where do these errant cells come from Vs what else need to go wrong for endometriosis to form. Better? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, much. I attempted a slightly further reorganization. Let me know if there's an issue with it.
  • "A health history and a physical examination may lead a health care practitioner to suspect endometriosis" I think this sentence doesn't say very much; in what way is this different from any other condition?
    For some conditions, you would just get a test (e.g. a COVID infection) without a detailed history taking. For others, you might need a health history and a test (non-endemic infections), for yet another category (mental health conditions), you'd get a history and a questionnaire. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough but it still feels a bit non-specific - examination in people with unexplained pain, perhaps? Or can it be suspected from an examination with no prior symptoms?
    Good point. Upon rereading sources, this wasn't quite accurate. I've added a new sentence about the type of symptoms that might lead one to suspect endometriosis. Health history and exam come after. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there is a shift away from requiring surgical confirmation" I think you want "has been a shift", and also, is it possible to give this a date?
    Changed to has been. I don't think so without going into the weeds, as this differs by both endometriosis subtype and by country. The JAMA source gives one example of a guideline that now recommends this from 2024, weakly implying that the previous guideline didn't recommend this. NICE and the 2022 BMJ source do not touch on the question. this 2023 paper highlights another guideline (from 2022), again implying that a previous guideline may have put more emphasis on surgery for diagnosis. The Global Burden of Disease study still uses surgical confirmation to define endometriosis worldwide prevalence and is seeing slowly declining numbers as a result (fewer people are diagnosed that way). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if you should then not imply a temporal shift, and simply say that many organizations recommend a diagnosis without a surgery, because of delays? This appears to be supported by the source
    There has been a temporal shift, and the JAMA source makes this explicit: This shift in diagnostic approach reflects awareness that requiring surgery for diagnosis may delay treatment. The article Graham Beards suggested for the epidemiology section for instance talked about Germany not having shifted yet; they seem to have been a holdout and changed their guidelines last year. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have 5-12 years from onset of symptoms, but 1-4 years + up to 9 years doesn't quite get us to 5-12...
    I was about to reply that this is perfectly possible. These are the averages of various studies, and the 9 year was not found in the same study that found the 4 years. Upon rereading the paper, I suspect they may have made a mistake. Their figure 2 has a maximum of 8, not 8.6 years for the wait time after first seeking help with symptoms to diagnosis. The 8.6 (which I rounded) could come from 3 other papers who are all labelled as 'overall diagnosis time'. Did the figure describe these 3 papers correct or the surrounding text? Unfortunately, I've not been able to figure that out. One paper corresponded to the figure, one paper seems to have a broken paywall (can't click the button), and the third has the numbers in a very different format and requires full data access to check. I'm happy to change this to 8 years, as I do trust figures more than plain text.. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be a change for the better, and supported by the source. I have no issue with presenting mildly differing estimates from different studies but then we ought to be describing them as estimates.
  • The mention in source 1 of a lack of validated blood or genetic markers seems worthy of mention, possibly dated to the source
    I've added it in (at least teh blood test, I don't think we ever expect a genetic test). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material about a "trauma-informed approach" I'm not certain about; it's both jargon, and also not specific in any way to endometriosis
    there's two reasons I want to keep it in: first is that not validating pain (but normalising it) is identified as one if the key reasons for delays in treatment. The second is that there are often traumas to deal with, including from being dismissed by previous healthcare professionals. Open to alternative wording. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more general point; you often write "women" in reference to people who have endometriosis, but also note specifically the diagnosis is not limited to women (text mentions men and girls who are not yet of reproductive age). Is this something you could work into the epidemiology section?
    I've added a meta-analysis about the prevalence of endometriosis among trans men into the section. The other two groups are very small: I found a number of non-MEDRS papers that claimed to have found the 17th or 18th cis man with endometriosis (can't all be true). As for girls, I could not find a number, bit I suspect it's equally small. Will keep my eyes peeled for a further statement I can use from a MEDRS source. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skimming source 31 (Pasalic et al) I think there's perhaps a bit more there you could add on the pros/cons of each staging system
    I've instead expanded the explanation of stages, which I believe is a bit more important. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confess I find it odd to have the history section near the end of an article. But then I do not work on medical topics.
    I'm following WP:MEDORDER, which does put history near the end as more of a background section. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair, I defer to our collective wisdom.
  • "The various hormonal options to treat endometriosis have comparable efficacy." This is an affirmative statement I'm uncertain about, given the subsequent qualifiers.
    I've removed one of the subsequest qualifiers (dienogest possibly working better than injections), as I think I misread the source. The word comparable is a function of research: there are differences seen in the efficacy but even the difference between the most and least effective hormone isn't statistically significant due to moderately small sample size. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if you can find a link for first-line therapy?
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cystectomy" is mentioned in the treatment section for infertility, but not in the surgery section
    I've moved the jargon up, to introduce it at first mention. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The estimate of 190 million is cited to NICE, but is identical to that from Zondervan et al 2020, which is using a World Bank estimate from 2017 - at this point, 9 years old. I wonder if a more up-to-date estimate is available, and if not, we should at least supply the date of the estimate.
    These zombie numbers are frustratingly common. Sources published in the last five year either give this number or the previous one on the WHO website (176 million). Based on the World Population Prospects report and relying on WP:CALC I've updated to nearly 200 million. That number corresponds to either 2024 or 2023 (report says 2024, but I believe it's 2023 because all their data files go up to 2023). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe specify that GnRH agonists are hormonal medications of the sort described above?
    They're introduced under the heading hormonal medications, so I don't think it's necessary to repeat? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further barriers come from outdated standards..." barriers to what? treatment, I presume, but it's a bit ambiguous.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I suggest presenting the cost estimates as estimates, given all the unknowns of incidence?
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Mostly prose suggestions, but I did read several of the major sources and found no omissions (allowing for WP:SS), and I didn't immediately find anything omitted in a sweep for sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much User:Vanamonde93! I hope I've addressed all you comments, but let me know if you'd like to see further changes. Your questions about understandability led me to find a new source from IQWiG (the German NICE), which I've used to expand both the diagnosis and formation section. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I looked at the source cited above as the rationale for opposing promotion, and I'm not convinced that it meets our bar for inclusion. I agree that a reader may have many questions after reading this but that's a reflection of the state of knowledge about the condition, not of our article's coverage thereof. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

edit
  • backward (retrograde) menstrual period flow – a bit difficult to understand (how can a period "flow"?). Maybe write "backward (retrograde) flow of menstrual fluid"?
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endometriomas – This quite central term could be explained.
    Is the list definition not clear here? I can omit the word Ovarian in front of endometrioma, as the name endometrioma already implies ovarian, but that might make it more difficult. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endometriosis most commonly affects the ovaries – This paragraph seems to be quite general or introductory. So why not move it to the beginning of paragraph?
    Would you like to move it to the start of the section? Towards the end of the paragraph, it is quite detailed, which make it a less suitable first paragraph for the section in my view. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pain has been described as dull and cramping in nature,[11] and can interfere with daily activities, such as school, work, or participating in social events – Before you listed different painful symptoms, here it is only "the pain".
    I misread, this seems to be about the period pain in endometriosis only. Reorganised the paragraph to clarify. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • with endometriosis often experience fatigue – mentioned for the third time already
    Removed the sentence. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endometriosis can also involve symptoms like constipation, diarrhea, nausea, bloating, and rectal or abdominal pain. This is sometimes caused by endometriosis on the bowels, but can also be due to concurrent irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). – I assume these are not in the list because they are not "common symptoms"? But why is bowel movements discussed here again?
    These are all slightly different symptoms. Where do you feel there is redundancy? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I do mostly worry about the structure in that section, which seems confusing. Why are some symptoms included in the list and others only in the text? You write "About a quarter of women diagnosed with endometriosis experience infertility"; so clearly, infertility is a rather common symptom, but it is not in the list of "common symptoms"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone over the bullet points in other sources aimed at a general audience, and most include infertility, so added it too. Including that made for an awkward overlap with the first sentence, so I've deleted that one, and reshuffled the bullet points up. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoracic endometriosis – why is this term not mentioned in the Subtypes section?
    It is mentioned, but in the most common classification it is not one of the subtypes (instead a subsubtype of extrapelvic endometriosis)
  • Why is the section called "subtypes", rather than just "types"?
    Types feels awkward to me. The type (of disease) is endometriosis I imagine. The literature does not use a standard wording for this. Some say subtypes, some say classification.
  • Eighty genetic regions – Had to click on the link to understand that you are referring to loci here. "Genetic regions" is very vague. I would provide the actual term here too.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • One image caption as a "Needs update" maintenance tag for some reason.
    That was a bot edit; have cited the updated review, to be good to our bot overlords.
  • The lesions behave similarly to the endometrium. They grow in the first half of the menstrual cycle and break down during menstruation. The shed tissue however has nowhere to go, and stays close to the lesion. This causes inflammation, cysts or the formation of adhesions, which cause organs to be bound together – This is quite insightful, and general. It's the type of information that I would expect in the lead or introductory sections, but it is currently the last paragraph under "formation", I would place this much earlier.
    I've added a sentence to the lead, and incorporated it earlier in the mechanism section. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 13:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • and damage to nerves might also occur due to surgery – Not sure that's needed, doesn't this apply to any surgery?
    Clarified that this is specific to endometriosis surgery. There is a debate whether surgery is useful for the most common form of endometriosis (superficial lesions). Trial results expected later this year. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis takes an average of five to twelve years from the onset of symptoms. – This and the following: For which country or countries does this apply? Does the "average" include data from India and China, for example?
    The only studies included were from Western countries (Australia, Europe, NA). Can't find another review that details this for India or China unfortunately.
    But shouldn't it be mentioned for which geographical areas this does apply? Without specification the reader has to assume "worldwide", which is clearly not the case? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "normal scan"?
    Reworked that paragraph, without the jargon and better flow. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a transvaginal ultrasound – Whats the difference to just "vaginal ultrasound"? You use both variants.
    Made it consistent: it's both the same. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • to severe (stage IV)[56] – dot missing
    Fixed.
  • hormonal coil (an intrauterine device) – the explanation might be too technical to be of help to describe the term
    Changed to IUD. Want to keep two different common terms as they're known by different names in different places. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ablation technique may better preserve the number of remaining viable eggs (the ovarian reserve), compared to cutting out the endometrioma – That was already mentioned earlier at some point?
    Removed earlier mention. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Infertility" section does not seem fit in the article structure? The subsections in "Management" detail the different treatments, but "Infertility" is not a treatment but a condition. As a consequence, the section seems to repeat a lot of info already mentioned in the other sections on the treatments.
    Changed the structure into pain and infertility management, with all the previous headings now subheadings of pain. There's very little on the treatment of other symptoms like fatigue, and this is how JAMA and BMJ structure it. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disease does not always worsen – If a higher percentage actually improves, this sentence seems off. Writing "the disease does not always improve" seems more logical, but it might just be removed as redundant.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:59, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The likelihood of symptoms returning after surgery is highly variable – This was also covered earlier, why here again?
    I moved the previous mentions to this section, and reduced overlap. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The earliest references to what may have been endometriosis are from Ancient Egypt, nearly 4,000 years ago – More detail would be great here. What symptoms were described? How do we know about this?
    The source does not give more detail. Upon reflection, I've decided to take it out altogether, because the 'may' in 'may have been endometriosis' was doing too much heavy lifting. The source says it's tracing back mentions of pelvic pain throughtout the ages, and then talks about Ancient Egypt and the concept of the 'wandering womb', but does not directly say that the text in Ancient Egypt was about pelvic pain. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 08:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • the observed that endometriotic lesions would bleed in sync with a woman's menstrual cycle. – This makes much sense but when reading the other sections, it was not clear to me that the lesions produce menstrual blood themselves. Maybe this could be explicitly mentioned much earlier in the article; at least for me it would have been a very useful information.
    Here, I'm struggling a bit with a paucity of sources. The closest that we have is Informed Health, which says "In endometriosis, this kind of tissue grows outside of the womb, too, "behaving" in the same way: It builds up in the first half of the menstrual cycle and is then shed again. But the shed tissue can't simply leave the abdominal cavity, like your period does. It stays near to the endometrial implant.". The shed tissue is similar to menstrual fluid and contains blood. There a few issues: (1) I think the Informed Health source may not be sufficiently precise. In quite a few lower-quality sources, I'm seeing statements that not all tissue sheds. Some tissue is progesterone resistant for instance; progesterone makes the endometrium "bleed" (2) the historical source isn't a MEDRS source, so I don't quite think it can be used elsewhere in the article. I've contacted the Informed Health website editors to confirm whether that statement is correct and potentially get a small correction and will look for other sources in the meantime. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A further search didn't lead to too much new information; sources typically don't talk about this. I've got no response from Informed Health. I've weakened the claim from Informed Health because I don't think it's universally true. I'm now just saying the tissue can shed, rather than it sheds in sync with the menstrual cycle. I've added an explanation of what the endometrium is so this point is clearer, but without claiming it always behaves the similarly. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "Endometriosis can return after surgical removal." Removal of what?
    Of endometriosis lesions; I think that should be clear from the previous paragraph? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment is misplaced. It should be at the end of the previous paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want both prognosis sentences after treatment? It makes sense to put it there, but it will create a disbalanced paragraph length. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 13:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should be in the relevant place. A shorter paragraph is not important. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reorganised the lead with prognosis in the treatment paragraph; Reworded for flow and to stop the paragraph from being too long. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Endometriosis in men may arise from leftover embryonic tissue which develops into the female reproductive system in women, but normally disintegrates during male embryonic development." I am not clear what you are saying here. Leftover tissue develops into the female reproductive system? Is this leftover from a previous female embryo?
    Is this clearer: "Endometriosis in men may arise from leftover embryonic tissue which would normally disappear in male development, but forms the female reproductive system in women"
  • "To detect deep endometriosis more reliably, the ultrasound is extended to look at the back of the pelvis for detection in locations deep endometriosis is often found." This appears ungrammatical unless I am misreading it.
    I've simplified and reshuffled.
  • I still cannot make sense of "to look at locations deep endometriosis". Maybe "to look at deep locations; endometriosis"?
What about "To detect deep endometriosis more reliably, the ultrasound is extended to the back of the pelvis towards locations where deep endometriosis is often found." I can also make a bit more wordy by saying "deep infiltrating endometriosis". In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 13:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Surgery is an option when medical treatment is insufficiently effective". Surgery is a type of medical treatment. Maybe "Surgery is an option when other measures are insufficiently effective". This comment also applies to the use of the term below.
    Fixed twice. Calling drug treatment medical treatment is jargon and shouldn't be in there. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 10:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ablation should be linked.
    Done + fixed related redirect. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 10:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stage I endometriosis is most common, found in 17% of included women in a meta-analysis." What does "included women" mean?
    This is a perhaps awkward way of signalling to readers that this is a biased sample. As endo likely only occurs in about 10% of women, having 17% of women with stage I is weird. The problem with that source is that they don't reflect much on the numbers, so I can literally say this is a biased sample. Curious if there is a better way of saying this implicitly. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You could change "included women" to "endometriosis sufferers" or similar, but it is still puzzling. The stages only add up to 30%. Are the stages of the other 70% not known?
    I've applied WP:CALC and recalculated it as a percentage of women with endometriosis. Before it was the percentage of overall women included, a biased sample that likely included populations of people with infertility or pelvic pain rather than the general population. P.S. For accessibility, could you ensure that the indenting is consistent. If something starts with a *, continue the indenting as *:, not :* per MOS:LISTMIX. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 12:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In lead "Some have no symptoms, while for others it is a debilitating disease." Symptomless endometriosis not covered in the main text, unless I have missed it. Do some of the 10% have no symptoms, and if so how many?
    It's covered in the symptoms section that some women have no symptoms. We don't know what percentage, as few women with symptomless endo have a diagnosis, and you can't easily do a big population study with diagnostic surgery to figure this out. Maybe we'll get an answer about the ovarian and deep endometriosis subset with recent advanced in imaging. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any figures on women with known symptonless endometriosis? If they are included in the 10% then the figure is misleading since as you say the total with the condition must be much higher. If possible, I think all figures should exclude those with no symptons. You may already be doing this but it should be spelled out.
    I'm following sources, which include people with asymptomatic endometriosis in the rough estimates of 10%. Where do I say that the total with the condition is much higher? That would be inaccurate. We don't have any reliable data on the percentages. As the article states, many women only discover they have endometriosis when they struggle with fertility. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 12:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proportion of people with asymptomatic endometriosis included in the 10% is important, but you obviously cannot give it if the sources do not have it.
  • Ref 11 should have a field: language=German.
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 10:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your headings for the references are confusing. I suggest "Sources" (as a heading not a sub-heading) instead of "Books, reports, and monographs".
    This is only the subsection of long-form sources, not all sources. Iirc, the pre-FAC reviewer objected to a subsection called "Sources". In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the reviewer's point, but I do not agree. It is a list of sources, although an incomplete one, and the current heading is unhelpful to the reader. Also, if you are having sub-sections, they should all have sub-headings and the first should be headed 'Citations'. In my opinion, it is better to have a source section covering all citations or no source section at all and everything covered in the citation section, but this is of course your decision.
    The advantage of keeping it as is, is that future editors can immediately see what kind of sources should be added to that subsection. That is: longer-form sources like reports, books and monographs. Choosing a more general section heading can lead to the style diverging. I'll follow the initial reviewer here. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 12:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your decision, but you should have a sub-heading of 'Citations' below the heading 'References'.
    That is a choice, and there are plenty of FAs and FACs that go for this style: e.g. Climate change, Portugal. Pushing back here because I disagree, but also because I think too much time at FAC is spent on citation formatting, which is not that important in the grand scheme of things. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 13:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Climate change like Endometriosis has a mixture of citations which are in the source section and those which are not, but it has a sub-heading 'Sources'.
  • What does "This article incorporates text in the public domain as a Swedish government "utterance" by URL§9" mean? This implies some of the text is not specifically referenced, which is not allowed for FAC.
    There was a single sentence copy-pasted from a Swedish gov document. I've removed it (it was the sentence saying that ultrasound is cheap), as I'm already saying that MRI is expensive later. Couldn't figure out how to adjust to add the utterance text to the specific citation it applied to either. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 12:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would delete the "External links" heading as that does not apply to Commons. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 10:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A very good article. The sub-heading 'Books, reports, and monographs' is confusing as it is unclear that it is a list of sources of some of the citations, but it is not a deal breaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TWA Flight Center

edit


Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 1960s-era airport terminal at JFK Airport in New York City. Designed by Eero Saarinen, it is centered around a headhouse with a very distinctive thin-shell roof. The interiors are similarly impressive, with soaring spaces, along with multiple intermediate levels connected by an overpass. Millions of travelers have passed through the terminal over the years, and it received extensive praise and awards when built. Despite its architectural stature, the TWA Flight Center quickly became functionally inadequate. The building was abandoned from 2001 onward and struggled to find another use for a decade; its near-demolition triggered preservation disputes. The headhouse is now part of a hotel, and its impressive architecture can still be visited today.

This page was promoted to Good Article status six years ago after a GA review by Eddie891. After some additional copy edits and expansions, I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Removed.
  • Removed this as well. Theoretically slide 3 of this NY Times page can be used as a source. But there are two problems with that image: it seems to conflate the TWA Flight Center as part of Terminal 5, and it's technically out of date (though the latter is addressed in the caption).
– Epicgenius (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

edit
  • I've made a couple of revisions for the time being but with exam preps, an open PR and multiple FAC reviews to conclude, it's unlikely that I would be able to give a full review at present. I might return later, if I have the time. Good luck with the nomination. MSincccc (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Impact
  • "a trend that continued during the building's construction" → "a trend that continued during construction"
  • "the company also used the terminal in marketing materials for years after the building's completion" → "the company also used the terminal in marketing materials for years after completion"
  • "Privately, Saarinen described the structure as a ‘Leonardo da Vinci flying machine’ and acknowledged that the building did indeed resemble a bird." → "Privately, Saarinen described the structure as a 'Leonardo da Vinci flying machine' and acknowledged that the building resembled a bird."
  • "Adulation for the original design continued after its completion." → "Adulation for the design continued after completion."
  • "the building remained architecturally influential even as it had become functionally outdated" → "the building remained architecturally influential even as it became functionally outdated"
  • "received numerous accolades and awards, including from" → "received numerous awards, including from"
  • "featured in magazines printed internationally" → "featured in international magazines"
  • "was frequently used in the popular media" → "was frequently used in popular media"
  • "called it among ‘the most potent images of '50s design’" → "called it one of 'the most potent images of '50s design'"
  • The NRHP listing also does not preserve the building from modification.
    • How about "protect" in place of reserve?

MSincccc (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll take a look over the weekend. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc, thanks for your feedback so far. I've addressed all of the comments you've made above. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture
  • "The project involved Grove Shepherd Wilson & Kruge as general contractor" → "The project involved Grove Shepherd Wilson & Kruge as the general contractor"
  • We could link to civil engineer and Canopy (architecture).
  • "The headhouse's form was designed to accommodate its small wedge-shaped site, with walkways and gates placed at acute angles." → "The headhouse's form was designed to accommodate its small wedge-shaped site, with walkways and gates arranged at acute angles."
Exterior
  • "The facade uses 236 pieces of glass, which were cut on site during construction." → "The facade consists of 236 pieces of glass, which were cut on site during construction."
Headhouse


MSincccc (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've done these as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • "started operating in 1948" → "began operations in 1948"
  • "John F. Kennedy (JFK) International Airport" → "John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK)"
  • signed a lease with Idlewild's operator,
    • We could avoid repeating "Idlewild".
Development
  • "announced a master plan for renovating Idlewild Airport"

→ "announced a master plan to renovate Idlewild Airport"

  • "TWA (which by then had been renamed Trans World Airlines)"

→ "TWA (renamed Trans World Airlines in 1950)"

  • "The site assigned to TWA was not the airline's first choice for an Idlewild terminal"

→ "The site assigned to TWA was not its first choice for a terminal at Idlewild"

  • "with two thousand departures and arrivals per hour"

→ "with 2,000 departures and arrivals per hour"

  • "even as his firm was simultaneously working on 15 other projects"

→ "while his firm was working on 15 other projects"

  • "he had viewed most other air terminals as ugly, shoddy, and inconvenient"

→ "he viewed most other air terminals as ugly, shoddy, and inconvenient"

  • "described TWA as having ‘vision and confidence’ for the project"

→ "described TWA as having ‘vision and confidence’ in the project"

MSincccc (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've done these too. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

edit
  • Can the article clarify the distinction between these items:
    1. The TWA Hotel
    2. The headhouse building
    3. The 1960's TWA terminal ( headhouse plus which other buildings?)
    4. The TWA Flight Center (is this synonymous with the terminal?_
I feel like the readers might need a venn diagram to see how they inter-relate :-) If distinguishing these is not feasible in the Lead, consider adding several sentences somewhere, maybe a paragraph in the Architecture section?
That's a fair point. Basically:
  • (1) uses both (2) and a new building.
  • (4) is synonymous with (3), which used to encompass "flight wings" along with (2). Since the flight wings have been demolished, (4), (3), and (2) are all the same. (And yes, (4) and the term "Flight Center" are synonymous with the terminal. I've clarified this in the second sentence of the first paragraph, as well as in the second paragraph.) - EG
  • Continuing the above: What parts of the FLight Center are not the headhouse? I read:
    • "The TWA Flight Center, designed by Eero Saarinen and his associates, is centered on a headhouse .."
    • "The building's main section, the headhouse... "
    • The TWA Hotel article says "TWA Hotel is a hotel ... It uses the head house of the TWA Flight Center... "
So if the headhouse is only part of the Flight Center, then what parts of the Flight Center are not the headhouse? Maybe it is stated further down in the article, but readers will want a summary of the major components/buildings very early.
I made it more clear that the flight wings were part of the terminal and have since been demolished. - EG
  • Continuing above: "Two tube-shaped, red-carpeted departure and arrival corridors extended outward from the terminal and connected to detached structures known as "flight wings", which contained the gates." Can this be clarified: Is the "terminal" here the headhouse? This sentence suggests that the wings & passages & gates are not part of the terminal. But I've always seen the word "terminal" used to include the attached passages & gates.
    • I have reworded this. The flight wings were actually are part of the terminal. I've gone through the article and changed other instances of "terminal" to "headhouse" where only the headhouse is being mentioned. - EG
  • Clarify: "... [its] thin-shell concrete roofs could not be built in other parts of New York City; ..." Can it directly state " ... due to building codes". I realize that is sort of revealed later, but readers would benefit from a more direct statement.
    • Done. - EG
  • Metric? "... 200,000 square feet (19,000 m2)..." Metric is far more common in the world and even in the USA these days. Is there any way the article could present metric first, then imperial in parens? I"m sure all the sources about the 1960s construction use imperial, but it is 2026 now, and English WP has an international readership.
    • Per MOS:UNIT, "In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the primary units are US customary (pounds, miles, feet, inches, etc.)". Since this is a subject with strong ties to the US, and is not a scientific subject, I put the imperial first. The metric conversion is included in any case, but putting metric first in this article would seem to violate the MOS. - EG
  • Are there any sources that discuss this building in popular culture? I'm certain I've seen it as a setting/backdrop somehere: Film? Advertising? TV shows?
    • Yes, this is mentioned in the "Awards and media" section. Strangely, I didn't find any sources that talked in depth about the terminal's appearances in popular culture, but I did find some scattered appearances here and there. However, per MOS:POPCULT I didn't mention these unless they were significant appearances (e.g. the terminal featured prominently in these media). - EG
  • Better wording? TWA's advertising manager said the building was promoted "as though it were a national monument". The word "said" may suggest to readers it is a statement of fact; but it may be a bit of puffery, so maybe something like TWA's advertising manager said their approach to advertising was to treat the building "as though it were a national monument"."
    • Seems reasonable, I have done that. - EG
  • The "Show Ref Check" tool says that book sources use the location/city attribute inconsistently: 3 have the location; 13 do not. E.g. this one includes location Eero Saarinen: an Architecture of Multiplicity. New York: Not a showstopper for FA, just FYI.
    • Removed all the locations - EG
  • The headhouse sits at the middle of a curve in one of JFK Airport's service roads,... Consider "access road" since "service road" implies a small, rarely used road, used only for repairs.
    • And consider "enclosed by [or 'within'] a curved access road" rather than "at the middle" since the latter could mean it is positioned at the midpoint of a long, gradually curving road, whereas I think you're trying to emphasize that it is nestled within the loop of a tightly curved road.
      • Changed to "The headhouse sits on a curve in one of JFK Airport's service roads". It is technically on the midpoint of the curve, but I think that wording can cause confusion (as demonstrated by your comment above), as the headhouse is located on the convex (i.e. outer) side of the the curve. As for "service road", this is how access roads are referred to in the NYC region, but I have changed it to "access road". - EG
  • Photo of a large man with hat and beard? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Central_View.jpg Not sure readers benefit from this: too many people obscuring the building. Black & white. Consider removing it to make room for other, more informative photos.
    • Swapped it with another image. - EG
  • Can the article include a photo of one of Saarinen's buildings he designed before TWA? In other words, do any sources say something like "The TWA building was an evolution of his style, extending ideas he first introduced in his earlier Kresge Auditorium ..."? If so, readers would like to hear that.
    • To be honest, Kresge wasn't really a major building of his. The sources do not make any connection like the one you're suggesting. In fact, he mainly designed based on the needs of his clients at the time, rather than necessarily making successive improvements to his designs; as an example, just before designing TWA and Dulles, he had worked on five corporate campuses, only to never design any others. Aside from that, there isn't really a good place to put the image; Kresge is mentioned once in the "Impact" section and in a footnote. - EG
  • Ditto for the Dulles International Airport Main Terminal ... if space & sources permit, a pic would be nice: Kresge -> TWA -> Dulles
    • I'll think about it, as Dulles is arguably more related to this design than Kresge (being one of the few other airport terminals he designed). However, as with the above, I'm not sure where in the article it would go. - EG
  • Titles of sources use a mixture of title case & sentence case:
    • "Thin shell classic TWA structure gets new life"
    • "TWA to Unveil Spectacular N.Y. Flight Center Monday"
MOS says a consistent algorithm has to be used; and that the way a source capitalizes its own title should be ignored.
Fixed. - EG
    • Just as a note, in the "Permission" section, it says "This image or media file contains material based on a work of a National Park Service employee". The file itself, indeed, does indicate that the NPS drew this file directly, meaning the underlying file is public domain. Works created by those in their official capacity as a US government worker are automatically PD.
      I'm not sure what Beyer Blinder Belle's involvement is, exactly. This is a scan of a file, and if they scanned the file, they cannot claim copyright over it because scans are entirely derivative and introduce no new content. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interior was modeled next; since the space was to be symmetrical, Saarinen & Associates only created drawings for half the interior.... studied the models throughout the night, crawling across them. - Not clear if this passage is describing 2D drawings ("drawings", "crawling across them") or 3D structures ("modeled"). Do the sources specify?
    • I've changed the wording. I didn't realize that the word "modeled" could be read as "physically modeled". - EG
  • ... which Ringli said was part of Aline's efforts to ... I'd forgotten (or skipped) the place where Aline was identified, so I was lost here. Is there a way to remind the reader who she is in this sentence? Either "his wife" or "Saarinen's wife" or "Aline Saarinen" or something?
    • Aline B. Saarinen is linked earlier; I spelled out her full name at first mention. Since this is in the section immediately preceding this one, I decided not to spell out her full name again, but happy to hear an alternative perspective on this. - EG
  • 14 engineers and 150 artisans "artisans" is an unusual word to use for the US construction industry. To me the word conveys an artist or craftsperson that works on decorations and is skilled in things like sculpture, carving, stained glass, etc. I suppose there could be 150 such artisans, but that seems high. On the other hand, there may have been 500 construction workers and 150 artisans working on decorations. Can "artisans" be defined or wikilinked here?
    • Changed to "150 skilled craftspeople". - EG
  • ... one-eighth of the airline's passengers criticized the design of the temporary structure. The roof was poured as a single form starting on ... Some readers may think "The roof" was the roof of the temporary structure since they are adjacent in the text. If the roof was for the other (new) building consider adding a word to clarify.
    • Changed to "The permanent structure's roof" - EG
  • It had been finished after most of the other major ... Grammar could perhaps be simpler ("had been" is annoying) e.g. It was completed/finished after ...
    • Done (I used "finished" because the previous sentence uses "completed"). - EG
  • Image caption: Union News restaurants coffee shop by Raymond Loewy Can it clarify what Loewy's role was? Interior designer? Chef? Photogapher of this pic?
    • I clarified Loewy's role in the project; he designed three of the upper-floor spaces. - EG
  • Two towers, flanking the headhouse's sunken lounge, curve around the original headhouse. These towers were constructed as part of the TWA Hotel, which has 512 guest room - Article should ideally tell the reader what Hotel facilities the headhouse contains: rooms? Reception? Restaurant(s)? I'm guessing no rooms, but that should be made explicit.
    • It already was made explicit (in the first paragraph of the "Headhouse" section"). I also added that restaurants and the hotel's reception desk are there. - EG
  • Explain: According to Saarinen associate Kevin Roche, Saarinen had thought the TWA tract "was the best site", despite airline officials' dissatisfaction with the lot. This makes it sound like the airport provided TWA with multiple possible sites, and TWA told Saarinen to choose one. If so that should be stated, because normally airports are so tight on space (and they have a master plan) so they would tell the airline: "here is where you must build your terminal". So, if the airport did give TWA 2 or more sites to choose from, readers will want to know that because it is a bit surprising.
    • They were assigned that site, same as in a regular master plan. TWA didn't like it, but Saarinen did. - EG
  • I ran the tool User:Alaexis/AI Source Verification which tries to validate all citations using AI. It was pretty slow, but by the time it got halfway thru, most cites were "not accessible"; a bunch were "validated", many were "partially validated". One failed validation, but it said that "only 10% of that source was accessible" so I'm not sure how it could draw a conclusion. Overall: it didn't find any solid source-to-text failures.
    • I ran that tool too, and would not put too much stock in it. For example, one of the issues it raised was that "it does not mention 'closed-circuit television,' 'a central public address system,' 'a schedule board,' or 'baggage scales'", even though the source did mention these things. - EG
  • As such, the designation did not preserve the TWA Flight Center from modifications, a major point of contention when the building's redevelopment was proposed in the 2000s. That paragraph is well-written, but ends on a cliffhanger: readers will want to know if the changes to the building in the 2000s (for TWA hotel etc) violated the intent/spirit of the LPC designation; or did the 2000s changes respect the intent/spirit of the designation.
    • The 2000s renovations didn't really change much, though this source says that the New York State Historic Preservation Office (a state agency) was consulted, so I would assume they conformed to the spirit of the designation. As for the 2010s changes, this source says that the developers consulted with nearly two dozen government agencies (already mentioned in the article).This source more explicitly states that the renovation team has consulted with the LPC regarding these changes "and will continue to work closely with these parties throughout construction". - EG
  • Compass: In its reports about the TWA Flight Center head house, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission uses modified cardinal directions for convenience. In this article, the precise cardinal directions are used. Readers may be confused by "modified cardinal direction" ... I'd never heard that term before, and I consider myself an amateur geographer. I finally figured it out by reading the source: For the sake of convenience, north is used in the description rather than northeast, and so on. Consider making the footnote clearer with something like In its reports about the TWA Flight Center head house, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission used approximate compass directions for convenience. In this article, precise compass directions are used.
  • Some of the older photographs of interiors are muddy & dark, especially in shadows. That's a shame, because it is such a beautiful building. I'm pretty sure it is not my computer or eyeballs, since most other images in other articles appear fine. MOS:IMAGES specifically permits enhancement of brightness & saturation of older photos (to a small degree), provided it is not so extensive as to misrepresent the original. Consider brightening the following so readers can appreciate details in the shadows:
    1. The terminal was ranked on the 2007 List of America's Favorite Architecture.
    2. The architect Robert A. M. Stern called the headhouse a symbolic "Grand Central of the jet age".
    3. Departures board in the headhouse [this one really needs it]
    4. The headhouse under construction (exterior image, muddy shadows)
I'd be happy to help with enhancement, if you want.
If you could help out, that would be great. We have a ton of good images on Commons already, so if the pics need to be swapped out, we can do that as well. Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I downloaded the four images listed above; made slight color adjustments; cropped two; and uploaded them to Wiki Commons (as new images). I retained the identical author/license/date information as the original. I included link to original image. I may not have copied over all the miscellaneous details from the original photo. If you think any of the emhanced images are unsatisfactory, feel free to revert ... my feelings won't be hurt :-) Noleander (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accessibility: Images contain Alt text; no color-coding is used to convey information.
  • Prose: overall, the prose is professional quality, and meets FACR requirements.
  • MOS: The article and its cites conform to MOS expectations.
  • Images: are relevant and informative. I have not done a copyright check.
  • @Epicgenius: Small wording issue: Three 45-short-ton (40-long-ton; 41 t) cranes brought the concrete to the site. Some readers might picture movable cranes moving on treads. But I assume the cranes were fixed in-place on site, adjacent to the structure, and the cranes simply carried buckets of concrete by pivoting, correct? Consider Three 45-short-ton (40-long-ton; 41 t) cranes were used to pour concrete into the form. or similar.

Olliefant

edit
  • "America's Most Endangered Places" is mentioned twice, once italicized and once not
  • "A writer for..." could the writer be named instead?
Architecture
  • Link Virginia
  • Link Athens
I think MOS:OVERLINK says major cities (and states?) don't need links. Noleander (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fine for Athenes but I wouldn't consider Virginia a major state. Either way links are generally helpful Olliefant (she/her) 23:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Impact
That's what I found ping me when done Olliefant (she/her) 20:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Olliefant, thanks, I've done all of these. I did notice Noleander's comment above, but think there's a borderline case for linking these. If anyone else objects to them, I'll remove these links. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olliefant (she/her) 23:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments by YuniToumei

edit

Unfortunately I don't have time for a full review right now. Here's some things I noticed driving (or perhaps flying) by: YuniToumei (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • in front of the elevated AirTrain JFK people mover: (A) The source says: "The elevated tracks of the recently constructed Air Train wind in front of the Terminal". While "front" is relative, is this not implying the opposite? (B) It's not the entire 13km people mover which is in front of the building, but a section of its tracks. I'm not sure if you can just say "in front of the [...] people mover", as that might imply the positioning relative to the entire people mover line?
    • I changed this to "near the elevated AirTrain JFK people mover tracks". - EG
  • the headhouse was used as a terminal, a parking lot and a passenger canopy were located: The first time I read this, I thought that the headhouse was used also as a parking lot and a passenger canopy until I arrived at the verb "were". It's not really an issue but maybe you could rephrase this to resolve this ambiguity?
    • Rephrased to "there were a parking lot..." - EG
  •  part of the original plans was a heliport, which was never used outside the 1964 New York World's Fair: I'm confused. Was it only planned, or was it built? If it was not built, how could it be used in 1964?
    • I reworded to make it more clear that it was actually built as part of the design. - EG
  • comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act: This made me wonder if there is any more profound criticism or analysis of the accessibility of the building at the time, considering it featured stairs? Although this might be better suited for the reception section.
    • Unfortunately, disability access wasn't really a big consideration for the time. Many structures were built with few or no accessibility features aside from elevators; neither the state nor the US required such features at the time. - EG
  • The presence of the flight wings [...]: I don't get exactly how the flight wings made it easier. The alternative given is "changing between terminals". What difference would such a layout have? In which way would that be less easy?
    • I changed this to "The proximity of the flight wings to each other"; this was what I meant, rather than "presence". The flight wings were closer together than some terminals (which could be up to 0.5 km apart) would be. - EG

Thanks for the initial comments YuniToumei, I've replied to the comments you left above. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

Discussion on the nom seems to have stalled; I've added the nomination to FAC urgents, but unless there's greater movement it is liable to be archived in the next few days. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs, yeah, unfortunately these things tend to stall out. In the meantime there was another page I wanted to bring to FAC; that one is shorter and hopefully would get more comments. Could this be archived, so I could come back with another article in two weeks? – Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I spoke too soon. Please hold off on archiving this until at least Friday. I'll see if I can get other editors to take a look. Epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

edit

Will leave a review in the next couple of days. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Designed by Eero Saarinen and Associates for Trans World Airlines (TWA) and completed in 1962" the building was designed and completed in 1962? according to the third para, this was not the case.
    • Oops. I reworded the sentence to make it more clear what 1962 is referring to. - EG
  • "The TWA Flight Center was among the first to use enclosed passenger jetways, which connected with flight wings (structures with airline gates). The jetways removed the need for passengers to walk on the ground to reach planes, and sheltered passengers from inclement weather." repetitiveness, cut down the mention of passengers
    • Done. - EG
  • " An open, three-level space with tall windows originally offered views of departing and arriving jets." is it relevant including the reason why it does not offer this?
    • Originally this overlooked the tarmac, but Terminal 5 and the hotel were built between the terminal and the tarmac, cutting off the view. I've added this. - EG
  • "The original headhouse serves as a lobby for TWA Hotel, which opened in 2019" → The original headhouse has served since 2019 as a lobby for TWA Hotel
    • Done. - EG
  • "Although the original design included a heliport, it was never used outside the 1964 New York World's Fair." → "Although the original design included a heliport, it never saw regular operational use outside of the 1964 New York World's Fair"
    • Done, with a slightly different wording. - EG
  • "along with a nearby parking garage for T5, which connects with a nearby AirTrain JFK station." → "along with an adjacent parking garage for T5 that connects to the AirTrain JFK station".
    • Done. - EG
  • "The proximity of the flight wings to each other allowed TWA passengers to more easily transfer between flights, since they only had to travel between the two flight wings (or between gates in the same wing), rather than changing between terminals." → "The proximity of the lfight wings allowed passengers to transfter between flights with ease, requiring travel only between the two structures or adjacent gates rather than between entirely separate terminals".
    • Done, with a slightly different wording. - EG
  • "while he and Aline were eating dinner with Time magazine's associate editor Cranston Jones" → "while dining with Cranston Jones, an associate editor at Time magazine".
    • Done, with a slightly different wording. - EG
  • "Unhappy with initial designs, Saarinen asked TWA for more time and took an additional year to resolve the design,[3] testing out numerous shapes" → "Dissatisfied with initial concepts, Saarinen requested more time from TWA and spent an additional year testing numerous shapes to resolve the structure's final form."
    • Done, with a slightly different wording. - EG
  • "The final model for the shell may have been inspired by one of Saarinen's breakfasts, a grapefruit that he pushed down at the center." → "The final model for the shell was reportedly inspired by a breakfast during which Saarinen pressed down on the center of a grapefruit".
    • Done. - EG
  • "Many contemporary media" → media outlets
    • Done. - EG

That's it from me. Great article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0: Thanks, I appreciate the review. I've addressed all these comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. Now... what should I do? I know... SUPPORT. On prose. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Froglord

edit

the term 'adaptively repurposed' seems unnecesarily technical, wouldnt just repurposed convey the same meaning while using a less technical term? I understand that term in the body, but just saying repurposed in the lead makes more sense to me

  • Good point, I shortened it to "repurposed". - EG

The headhouse has a thin shell concrete roof I think only 'thin shell' should get the link.

  • Done. - EG

Lead says 'Designed by Eero Saarinen and Associates', but body says 'designed by Eero Saarinen and his associates' I initially assumed 'Eero Saarinen and Associates' was the name of a firm or something, but the body makes it seem like the capital A might be accidental, if that is it's name, should be consistent

"Flight Tubes" should be 'Flight Tubes'. Also, couldnt it be " Radiating from the headhouse are two departure–arrival passenger tubes, called the 'Flight Tubes', ..."

  • In American English (which is used here), double quotes are used to denote quoted text. Moreover, MOS:DOUBLE says that quoted text in general uses double quotes, unless it's a quote-within-a-quote (nested quote), them a single quote is used within a double quote. - EG

The jetways removed the need for passengers to walk on the ground to reach planes, and they sheltered passengers from inclement weather the 'they' seems unneeded

  • Removed. - EG

Terminal 5 seems like it could be a redlink

The TWA Flight Center's headhouse is a two-story structure.[9] The main portion of the headhouse's facade is made of large green-tinted glass walls,[9][11] measuring 1⁄4 inch (6.4 mm) thick and spanning 3,500 square feet (330 m2). if the size is specified, is the word large needed?

  • Removed. - EG

which were cut on-site during construction isnt it 'onsite'?

  • In American English I believe these are two words. I've changed this to "on site" because it isn't an adjective. - EG

maybe link canopy

  • Done. - EG

"gull wing" should be 'gull wing'

  • Per the above, double quotes are used in American English and should be used on Wikipedia in general. - EG

From an intermediate level, passengers continued to the flight wings,[42] two outlying gate structures detached from the headhouse this sentence makes no sence to me. what does an intermediate level mean? is the part after the comma about the flight wings or where the passengers go? Why is it between two attributed descriptions?

  • So basically I put this before the actual description of the intermediate level. Basically, there are a couple of levels: the lowest level, intermediate level, and upper level. The intermediate level is half a story above the lower level and half a story below the upper level. The flight tubes extend from this level. But like you said, it's confusing because this context isn't given until later. I've moved this. - EG

It contains two full stories. that doesnt work as a standalone sentence imo

  • Grammatically this is correct, but I've changed this to clarify that the building is composed of an upper level and lower level. - EG

The interior uses concrete extensively in design details such as desks, seats, and the flight information display; these concrete ... 'extensively' feels unnecesary. and the ; could be a .

  • Removed "extensively". However, changing the semicolon to a comma would create a comma splice, which I'd like to avoid. - EG

"The interior also uses almost 58 million ceramic tiles" 'also' is unneeded

  • Removed. - EG

Loudspeakers are placed throughout the headhouse. feels a bit weird as a standalone sentence

  • Yeah, this isn't a major detail. Removed as well. - EG

TWA-related objects are exhibited there. could you be more specific?

  • Done. - EG

maybe link tarmac

  • Done. - EG

Might do more later. For now thats all from me! :] Finnfrog99 (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Finnfrog99, I appreciate the input. I've now addressed the above, except for a few points that I thought would result in grammatical errors or would be incorrect in American English. Epicgenius (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

USS Anzio (CVE-57)

edit


Nominator(s): Stikkyy (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

USS Anzio was one of the fifty Casablanca-class escort carriers built for the U.S. Navy during World War II. She had a distinguished, but unheralded career during the Pacific War, supporting the island-hopping campaigns and hunting submarines. This article recently passed a MILHIST A-class review, and I believe that it is now ready to undergo the FAC process. This is my first FAC nomination, so robust scrutiny is both warranted and welcome. I disclose that I am registered in this year's WikiCup, although I have not been a very active participant. Stikkyy (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by JacobTheRox

edit
  • All 11 images are in the public domain because they were produced by in-service navy officials.
  • The last image hangs over into the next column for me, which then makes the table thin. Consider adding a {{clear}}.
  • I removed the last image, it didn't seem to be adding much.
  • All captions correctly formatted
  • Correct grammar in alt text "An aircraft carrier at sea with both aircraft elevators are depressed."
  • No other issues I can find
  • Image review is a  Pass

Other comments by JacobTheRox

edit
  • Currently your end has:
Lvl2 "Notes"
Lvl2 "References"
Lvl2 "Sources"
Lvl3 "Online sources"
Lvl3 "Bibliography"
Semi-colon "Military documents"
This makes no sense to me – the use of a semi-colon as a section header is proscribed and if bibliography is for books, shouldn't it be its own lvl3 anyway? And why is it called "bibliography" while only including books, not "Book sources" to match the other headings?
  • The cost is only in the infobox; please add it to the actual prose itself. I would also add {{inflation}} with it so we know how much it is today.
  • That is all for now, I look forward to hearing your response.
  • P.S. My article Robert Jacomb-Hood is at FAC at the moment; please do consider dropping by!
Should all be resolved, I'll get around to your FAC ~soon. Stikkyy (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A.Cython

edit

An interesting article of an aircraft carrier during the WWII. As a non-expert on the era, I only have some minor comments.

  • where her aircraft were replenished perhaps aircrafts?
  • Aircraft is the plural form.
  • another group of an estimated 30–50 Japanese planes were "were" → was (you are talking about a single group)
  • in-between remove dash
  • was attached with "with" → "to"
  • hardpoints which could mount "which could" → that
  • wikilink: torpedo bomber first appearance is at the end of "Design and description" section, consider moving it
  • wikilink: squadron (at "Design and description") → squadron
  • wikilink: West Coast as it can ambiguous in its meaning (though it is clear if one reads the text), e.g., West Coast is a disambiguation page
  • Perhaps splitting "Okinawa and post war" into two sections? The section felt a bit too long (6 paragraphs).
    • The same applies for "Typhoon Cobra and Iwo Jima"
  • Consider moving the two figures below the infobox per WP:SANDWICH: a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween im­ages, in­fo­boxes, or sim­i­lar tem­pla­tes hor­i­zon­tally op­po­site each other.
  • For clarification, are you referring to the two images under "Gilbert and Marshall Islands" or the action report images?

A.Cython(talk) 00:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your points. Stikkyy (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti

edit

Swinging by after Stikkyy's hard work on the FAC I nommed. I'll make a few comments here and there over the next couple days. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • The caption for the photo Anzio in Shanghai's waters says it was the first American carrier to visit the city. This is not mentioned in the body and is unsourced in the caption.
  • Info moved to the body, backed by DANFS.

Pbritti, are you still planning on conducting a review? Stikkyy (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Another courtesy ping, it's OK if you're just busy elsewhere. Stikkyy (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Stikkyy: Deepest apologies. I've had extremely little time to devote to thoughtful editing and I'm incapable of providing an FAC-quality review. My best wishes on the rest of this review. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Parsecboy

edit

Some general comments to start:

  • The box is too bloated; remember that the point of the box is to summarize the topic of the article at a glance. There's a tendency to assume that because a field exists, it must be filled. What, for example, is the significance of including Martha Richards Fletcher? She's not a notable individual, and the reader is not helped to understand the ship by this detail. Similarly, the laundry list of engagements and operations is excessive.
  • I've cut out some content.
  • There are too many images and they are not well arranged; on my display (which is admittedly fairly wide), there is a lot of white space between the last two sections of the article. The Turkey Shoot maps could be put into a gallery to save space, for example.
  • I arranged the action report images into a gallery, do you think that I should keep trimming?
  • This looks much better
  • There are a few dupe links
  • Are you referring to the wikilinks? I've removed one duplicate, but I think that it's OK to have items wikilinked once in the lead, and then again in the body.
  • The Babcock & Wilcox boilers are still linked twice, once in the design section and again in the construction section
  • Good eye, is there a tool that could help me with spotting these?

Design/Description section:

  • The first paragraph assumes too much background knowledge on the reader. Why is the Battle of Atlantic and "the U-boat threat" relevant to this ship?
  • Cut
  • No, I meant it needed more explanation, not to be removed. We do want to put in context around why this ship was built, and the Battle of the Atlantic was one of the main reasons the Navy ordered scores and scores of escort carriers. Take a look at SMS Prinz Heinrich (currently at at FAC, if you'd like to review it), which provides a good bit of detail on why the ship was built and what it was intended to do. Parsecboy (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a background paragraph, but I don't think that I can add too much to this–the escort carriers were born out of the necessities of WWII, and became obsolete just after it, so there's not really any predecessors or successors to draw comparisons to.
  • This looks good, along with a minor tweak for clarity. Nice work on the article!
  • It is stated that the expected complement is 27 aircraft, but then lists a breakdown that amounts to 30 - are 3 of these spares? And if so, this should be explained. Note the table at the bottom provides a maximum air group of 27
  • Specified, Chesneau & Gardiner were referring to a 1943 air group while Ross was listing a 1944 air group.

Construction:

  • The {{inflation}} calculator should use the US-GDP parameter instead; the government does not buy warships the same as you or I buy milk and bread ;)
  • Done

Service history:

  • There are cases where the text strays onto other topics. A couple of examples:
    • "702 men, including Rear Admiral Mullinnix, were lost with Liscome Bay, which remains the deadliest sinking of a carrier in the history of the United States Navy.[22] With the death of Mullinnix, Captain Roscoe Leroy Bowman, the commanding officer of Corregidor, temporarily took charge of Carrier Division 24" - what is the relevance to Anzio here?
  • Cut
    • A beacon was dropped at the submarine's approximate location, and Lawrence C. Taylor, guided by the beacon and her sonar, let loose a full Hedgehog barrage at 11:40. This triggered two massive underwater explosions about 1,000 ft (300 m) below the surface that knocked out power to Lawrence C. Taylor's sonar and caused her some engine room damage. Robert F. Keller followed this up with another Hedgehog barrage, but this proved to be unnecessary, as the former contents of I-13 surfaced. - more excessive detail that could effectively be summarized as "the destroyer Lawrence C. Taylor sank the submarine."
  • Also cut

Parsecboy (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy: I've responded to your points. Stikkyy (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Should be done, I'll get to your FAC soon. Stikkyy (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

edit
  • Compliance with MOS meets FA expectations.
  • Citation format/layout/uniformity meets FA expectations.
  • Prose, overall, is professional and meets FA quality criterion.
  • Bold text: "...receiving the hull symbol CVHE-57. .." I'm not familiar with navy articles ... is the boldface correct?
  • USS Anzio (CVHE-57) is a valid redirect, but if it's just the hull symbol, maybe it's not needed.
  • Air pressure: "At the height of the storm, Anzio recorded a reading of 28.88 in Hg (978 mbar) in pressure and encountered winds that reached an estimated 120 kn (140 mph; 62 m/s; 220 km/h)." Readers will be familiar with wind speeds IRL; but for the air pressure, 99% of readers won't have any idea of the significance of "28.88 in Hg". Consider (a) removing that fact; or (b) explaining its significance in body text or footnote.
  • The anemometer was blown off, so the barometer was the only accurate instrument for assessing the height of the storm.
  • Per MOS:CAPFRAG captions:
    • "The view from Coral Sea, 17 June 1944." probably should not end with a period. Needs a verb to have a period.
    • "A TBM-3E Avenger lands on Anzio, 20 May 1945". Should have period.
    • "Anzio in Shanghai, 1 December 1945." probably should not end with a period.
  • Not all readers know that word: "... word that she was renamed to Anzio, after the eponymous battle, ... Consider removing "eponymous" replacing with link to the full battle name. Currently, it looks like the author of the article is trying to show off their vocabulary :-)
  • Not my intention, I swear! :)
  • Cite for data undelying images: Coral Sea's action report depicting the engagements from 17–19 June Readers should not have to click thru to the image page in Commons to discover what the source is for those images. Consider putting a cite/source in this article for the source of those images.
@Noleander: Thanks for the review, I've addressed your points. Stikkyy (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Noleander (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

zzz plant

edit

Hi! Nice work on the article. I'll do a prose review. Feel free to push back on anything you don't agree with. This is not my area of expertise so also take my notes with a grain of general reader salt :-) Zzz plant (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
edit
  • would tweak one of two first sentences of second para so it doesn't echo the [In month year] pattern
Design and description
edit
  • "During the first six months of the Second Happy Time, over 2,000,000 tons of shipping were sunk off the Eastern Seaboard by German submarines." I'd put this in active voice, like "German submarines sank over 2,000,000 tons of Allied shipping off the Eastern Seaboard in just six months."
  • "The 1942 escort carrier program had already called for the conversion of twenty-four hulls into escort carriers, but President Franklin D. Roosevelt believed that more were needed to stem the loss of shipping." suggest "The 1942 escort carrier program had already called for the conversion of twenty-four hulls, but President Roosevelt believed that more were needed to stem the loss of shipping."
  • "declared that he desired" feels unnecessarily wordy, would suggest simplifying to something like "backed" or "selected"
  • similarly, "Although Kaiser wished to build not less than a hundred of the design, an order of fifty ships was placed." suggest something like "Although Kaiser proposed building at least a hundred ships, the Navy ordered fifty."
Construction
edit
  • this section does read a bit dry and sparse on details. if sources allow, a bit more color here would be extremely helpful. was the ship launching ceremony reported in the papers? and with the renaming, I assume naming a ship after a recent big victory would be quite a morale boost, but it sounds more like a simple bureaucratic move from the text.
Gilbert and Marshall Islands
edit
  • "...began, commencing..." reads repetitive to have synonyms next to each other
  • "sortied" I think a wikilink could be added here
  • "Just 76 hours later, Tarawa and Makin had both been captured." Tarawa wasn't mentioned up until this point?
  • "Furthermore, the three escort carriers of Carrier Division 24 were plagued by accidents that killed four airmen and six deck personnel..." feels a bit breadcrumby, as I read I just want to know more- what kind of accidents?
  • Noles p.66, p.78, p.82 capture some of the accidents on Liscome Bay in detail, but the causes of the accidents (engine failure, engine failure, tail hook malfunction respectively) seem disparate (hard to capture in summary style), and not of particular interest to an article about the carrier itself.
  • I believe 23 should either be spelled out or reworked to avoid a figure at the beginning of a sentence, per MOS:NUMNOTES
  • what is the Coral Sea's war history document? If this is an official document of some kind I feel like it should be capitalized and/or italicized in full
  • at beginning of last para there are three "conduct-" in close proximity, would try to swap/remove at least one
  • "En route on 25 February, Coral Sea and Corregidor were both recalled to Pearl Harbor." because of the bombing? or were they just generally called back as a matter of routine
  • Almost certainly because resistance on Eniwetok was collapsing, but the (primary) sources don't say that.
Solomon Islands and New Guinea
edit
  • I don't feel a strong sense of continuity/transition between the end of the last subsection and the beginning of this one. I'm not really sure how we ended up here
  • "Her aircraft commenced strikes on D-Day, 22 April, but found little opposition." I'm not sure I fully follow this- I would have guessed finding little opposition during a military operation would be a good thing, but the "but" to me implies it's a negative or unexpected outcome?
Mariana Islands
edit
  • "...Coral Sea arrived at Kwajalein on 8 June, which served as the staging point..." it sounds like the date is a staging point because of the placement, suggest "...arrived on 8 June at Kwajalein, which served as..."
  • assumed Kantai Kessen was a person until clicking link, I think this could be solved by glossing briefly as something like "Imperial Japan's naval doctrine"
  • the narrative in this section is particularly strong; there's dates/times but it still feels like a very cohesive and engaging story
Typhoon Cobra
edit
  • "Anzio held sea trials off the California coast before setting off for the western Pacific on 16 September with 71 aircraft and 200 passengers embarked." this is a pretty dense topic sentence, and to me "passengers" kinda implies they were not involved in the military operations described, which seems strange if true.
  • "slim pickings" sounds informal to me
  • "By the next day, a 2 mi (3.2 km) wide oil slick covered the area." if sources permit, it would be nice to make it a bit clearer that this strongly implies the submarine was destroyed
  • "Accentuating the crisis, as the weather continued to deteriorate on 18 December, Admiral Halsey made a series of blunders that maneuvered his fleet directly into the typhoon's core." this feels a bit wordy, would simplify to something like "As the weather continued to deteriorate, Halsey made a series of blunders that steered his fleet directly into the typhoon's core on 18 December." also, fwiw I'm very curious as a reader what kind of blunders he made!
  • "When Halsey called off the search..." would swap for "By the time Halsey called off the search..."
Okinawa
edit
  • "...radio traffic was fielded to mimic Halsey's fleet..." fielded feels like a strange verb choice here, is this military-specific vocab?
Post-war
edit
  • "She sailed for Guam on 19 August, where she unloaded VC-13 and took on Composite Squadron (VC) 66." Idk what unloaded means in this context, and it feels weird to define an acronym after it's already used (if they refer to the same VC?)
  • first para has four Septembers in four consecutive sentences which feels a bit repetitive
  • maybe the sources don't explain so I'm not suggesting synth, but if context exists it would nice for narrative to briefly explain why the ship went through some of these post-career milestones: decommissioned, mothballed, redesignated, then struck
  • Decommissioned and mothballed because they couldn't support modern aircraft, particularly jets. Converted to helicopter carriers, based on the example of Thetis Bay, if they were ever going to be put back into service, it would be with helicopters (which does neatly align with FDR's original intention), since the Bogue-class was more economical for aircraft transport. Struck because they were no longer useful.

@Zzz plant: I've responded to your suggested changes. Stikkyy (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Cone

edit


Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 17:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a small volcano and the youngest cinder cone in the Desolation Lava Field of British Columbia, Canada. It's kinda short but that's to be expected for an article about a minor landform. For example, see the article about Eve Cone which is about 6 kilometres (3.7 mi) northwest of Williams Cone. Volcanoguy 17:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, GeoWriter, and Generalissima: This FAC may be of interest to you. Volcanoguy 20:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

JJE

edit

Disclaimer: Was linked to here from my own FAC so this review should be assessed accordingly.Pretty short article, but not too short for FA I reckon. Specific points:

  • "The cause of volcanic activity in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province is thought to be due to rifting of the North American Cordillera" is the "due to" needed? The rifting is the cause, there isn't an intermediate step named here.
    I've removed "The cause of" and replaced "volcanic activity with "volcanism". Volcanoguy 20:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "involved the accumulation of" better "build up"?
    Done. Volcanoguy 21:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most of it was rafted away by massive lava from Williams Cone" what does "massive lava" mean here?
    Removed "massive". Volcanoguy 18:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing objectionable about article structure, sourcing and formatting. ALT text and images fine too.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the small-text qualifier above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Viz request at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests, I actually reviewed the sources too. Mostly consistent except for some IDs but that's for the bots. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that, sorry. Volcanoguy 14:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: noting that I did a source review here too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FM

edit
Yes, the script looks at the article body alone. There are several duplinks from within the Basemen section and below. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the duplinks for the Nido and Raspberry formations. Volcanoguy 18:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after being submitted to the BC Geographical Names office by the Geological Survey of Canad." do we know how it was proposed and by who?
    Source doesn't say. Volcanoguy 17:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Williams Cone is named after a man named Hank Williams who was killed in an avalanche near the cone along with Johnny Edzerza in or before 1974" this seems awfully vague for something that happened so recently. Really no more info about this?
    I tried to find more information about this incident but I was unable to. It's vague because BC Geographical Names does not give the exact year when Hank Williams and Johnny Edzerza were killed. It cites a Beautiful British Columbia magazine published in 1974 so the avalanche happened that year or earlier. Volcanoguy 21:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First mention is "The name of the cone", which would seem a logical place to spell out and link the term first time. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 18:23, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the northeastern flank of Mount Edziza." I wondered why the name was so similar to the name of the other man that died with Williams. Turns out it's a native name, and both men were native Tahltan, could be mentioned, along with any other missing info from that source.
    I don't think this is important, not to mention it would probably be off topic since this article isn't about Mount Edziza. Volcanoguy 17:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It indicates the hiker this cone is named for was Tahltan, which seems relevant. "They, like many of the local Tahltan people, had made the trip many times before". FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the following sentence in the article: "Hank Williams and the Edzerzas were Tahltans, the local First Nations people whose traditional territory covers an area of more than 93,500 km2 (36,100 mi2)." Volcanoguy 19:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and bombs" no idea what this was, seems the linked article is more specific with saying volcanic bomb or lava bomb, so could help here too.
    Used "lava bombs". Volcanoguy 17:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're inconsistent in whether you abbreviate measurements or not (mm/millimetres etc.)
    I recall there being a guideline that says if a measurement is used several times it should be abbreviated after its first usage. Volcanoguy 17:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, haven't seen that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unusual that Hank Williams in the infobox links to a section in the article. Can't really ind a policy on this, but I was under the impression that it was discouraged.
    Hank Williams is not a notable person so it links to this article. Volcanoguy 18:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and comments Crisco 1492

edit
  • I see that Jo-Jo already signed off on the images above. For visibility's sake, I just figured I'd add a subheader and note specifically that all three photographs are from the same photographer, with EXIF data also reflecting the credited photographer.

Otherwise, in excellent shape - at least as a lay reader. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, could I just check if you are intending to indicate a pass for the image review and a support for the article in general? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Drive-by comments

edit
  • "Williams Cone is a cinder cone on the northeastern flank of Mount Edziza in Cassiar Land District of northwestern British Columbia, Canada." Is it normally described like that? To me it seems to lack a definite object - '... a cinder cone on the northeastern flank of Mount Edziza in the Cassiar Land District of northwestern British Columbia, Canada.'
    There is normally no the before the names of land districts. Volcanoguy 17:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has an elevation of 2,100 metres (6,900 feet)". Exactly 2,100 m? (Which does not convert to 6,900 ft.)
    2,100 metres is all I could find in RS. Volcanoguy 17:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What was the source? And would it be possible to either quote here just what that RS says about the height or send me a copy?
Global Volcanism Program, there is nothing to quote it just lists the elevation of the cone as 2,100 m. Volcanoguy 17:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Surrounding Williams Cone are a number of other volcanic features". But when you go on to list some, you only list cones - not "a number of other volcanic features".
    The cones are volcanic features. I used "features" instead of "cones" to avoid redundancy. Volcanoguy 17:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Access is via horse trails from Telegraph Creek and Iskut, although landing on Buckley Lake with float-equipped aircraft is also promoted to reach Williams Cone." 1. I don't think we need "access is by" and "to reach Williams Cone" in the one sentence. 2. Promoted by whom?
    I'm not sure what's wrong with the current wording. Changed "promoted" to "allowed". Volcanoguy 17:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if this might be ready for promotion, but given your last two comments I am a little twitchy re 1a. I could skim the rest of the article myself, but given the FAC backlog I will see if I can round up someone else. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what is wrong with my last two comments so we can solve any issues. You said you don't think "access is by" and "to reach Williams Cone" are needed. However, with without those included, the sentence would read as "Horse trails from Telegraph Creek and Iskut, although landing on Buckley Lake with float-equipped aircraft is also allowed". Without "access is by", it isn't clear what the connection is between the cone and the horse trails. Volcanoguy 18:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bgsu98 (6/10/26)

edit

Cinder cone is not a term that most people will recognize. Ideally, we don't want a reader to have to navigate away from an article in order to understand something about it. Therefore, I recommend a brief (one-sentence) definition of "cinder cone" in the lead so readers will know what it is.

I'm not sure if that is necessary because the following sentence makes it obvious that its a volcanic feature. Volcanoguy 22:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • You don't need to wikilink "CE".
  • "although landing on Buckley Lake with float-equipped aircraft is also allowed to reach Williams Cone" --> The section in italics is awkward. Perhaps "allows access to" or something similar?
Name and etymology
  • "The name of the cinder cone became official on January 2, 1980." --> This is not a good opening sentence. Perhaps "Williams Cone was officially named on January 2, 1980."
    Done. Volcanoguy 22:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Williams Cone is named after a man named Hank Williams who was killed in an avalanche near the cone along with Johnny Edzerza in or before 1974." --> "Williams Cone was named after Hank Williams, a man who was killed along with Johnny Edzerza in an avalanche near the cone on or before 1974."
    Done. Volcanoguy 22:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The avalanche occurred during a vicious snowstorm that had blown in from the north as Hank Williams, Johnny Edzerza, and Edzerza's wife Eve were traveling via dog sled to Iskut from Telegraph Creek 72 km (45 mi) to the west."
  • "Hank Williams and the Edzerzas were Tahltans..."
Geology
  • You could repeat the full name Mount Edziza volcanic complex (MEVC) at the start of this new section, but that is just a recommendation.
  • "The dominant rocks comprising these volcanoes..." --> This is a misuse of "comprising" (a common error, which many people, including myself, have made.) You probably want "composing" instead.
  • You don't need to wikilink "CE".

User:Volcanoguy: Overall, a well-written article. Please let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:01, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Mascarenhas

edit


Nominator(s): AA (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the English international cricketer Dimitri Mascarenhas. Born to Sri Lankan parents in London, Mascarenhas spent his youth in Australia, before securing a contract in English county cricket with Hampshire, who he played for between 1996 and 2013. He later captained Hampshire with success in limited-overs cricket. He was best known as a limited-overs specialist, playing both One Day International and Twenty20 International cricket for England, playing in two T20 World Cups and notably hitting Indian bowling Yuvraj Singh for five consecutive sixes in an ODI - in the process scoring the must runs in an ODI over for England. His all-round abilities as a bowler and an attacking batsman drew the attention of the Rajasthan Royals, captained by Shane Warne (who played alongside and captained Mascarenhas at Hampshire) with Mascarenhas becoming the first English player to take part in the Indian Premier League. Setting a precedent that would be followed by countless other English cricketers, Mascarenhas is considered a "T20 revolutionary" and featured in several T20 leagues around the world. All feedback for this article greatly received. AA (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

―Howard • 🌽33 21:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How annoying. I'll remove the photo until it is confirmed, though I don't hold much hope - the uploader hasn't been active on Commons since 2011 and Flickr since 2014. AA (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an additional picture and used the |upright parameter to make the image a little bigger. There is another image option, though it is poorer detail. Both show the ground when Mascarenhas scored his first century, and before it was redeveloped and increased in size. AA (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Additional review:
File:England vs Sri Lanka.jpg: OK (source on Flickr says CC BY-NC, but a 2006 Commons reviewer confirmed it was CC BY at the time; I am therefore adding c:Template:Flickr-change-of-license). ―Howard • 🌽33 10:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

edit
Early life
  • When he was a child, his parents emigrated again, to Melbourne in Australia.
    • Drop the comma?
  • His father ran a chain of successful fast-food restaurants there
    • You could drop "there".
  • You could drop the link to "batting".
  • having been impressed by him.
    • You could drop this phrase, since the previous clause already formed this idea.
  • "fostering ambitions" → "with ambitions"
  • Well, we finally have a modern-day cricketer at FAC. How about Stokes, Buttler, Bethell, Root or Brook in future?

More to follow. MSincccc (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket career (Early years)
  • "He played minor counties cricket for Dorset in 1996" → "He played minor counties cricket for Dorset that year"
  • Linking "7/64" to Five-wicket haul could mislead the surface reader to think that the figure itself had an article on it.
  • with Mascarenhas claiming 16 wickets in his first two matches.
    • Wouldn't "taking" be more natural and common among general readers?
  • "he was afflicted with a back injury" → "he suffered a back injury" (A suggestion)
  • and with the bat scored 645 runs at an average of 28.04,
    • How about dropping "with the bat"?
  • Apart from Early years which is a level-3 heading, all others are level-4, causing them to come under "Early years". I suppose that's not your intention.
  • Could we include at least one picture of Mascarenhas in the article? No worries, if not (since I did not come across any on Commons).
  • Comment. I was surprised there are no pictures of him freely avaliable. Annoying the original photo in the infobox seems to have been uploaded by someone who nicked the photo from elsewhere. I asked a few weeks back on WP:CRIC if anyone had photos of him, as some of the project members went to T20 finals day's in the early 2010s, but nobody responded to say they had any :( AA (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First century
  • His Championship appearances were limited by a back injury sustained in a Championship match in May, keeping him out throughout June.
    • You could avoid repeating "Championship" in the sentence.
  • He was appointed Hampshire's T20 captain in 2007
    • Do we need more than two links to "captain" (one each in the lead and article body)?
  • Comment. I tend to treat the lead and article as two separate entities that compliment one-another. I tend to link important terms in the lead, especially here with Mascarenhas having been Hampshire's captain. AA (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "taking one five-wicket haul" → "including a/one five-wicket haul"
  • "top-score" "top score"
  • "in a 46 runs victory" → "in a 46-run victory"
  • average of exactly 25
    • Do we need "exactly"?
  • "a second placed finish" → "a second-place finish"
  • Do we have finer alternatives for title of this sub-section?
  • Done. Funny you mention this. I have been unhappy with that sub-section title for a while, been bugging me. He really becomes established as Hampshire's main all-rounder during the period the section covers, so I have gone with "Established all-rounder". How does that sound? AA (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

International debut
  • with his all-round performance in the first of 31 runs from 14 balls, including four consecutive sixes from Jeetan Patel's bowling,[67] and 2 for 19 from 4 overs contributing to England's victory by 32 runs and earning him man-of-the-match.
    • You could rephrase this to make it easier for a general reader to understand.
  • Done. How does this read now? "He played in both T20I matches that opened the series. In the first, he scored 31 runs from 14 balls, hitting four consecutive sixes off Jeetan Patel's bowling, and took 2 for 19 from 4 overs. His all-round performance earned him man-of-the-match in England's 32-run victory."
Twenty20 revolutionary
  • Mascarenhas played for the Rajasthan Royals in the 2010 IPL season, but injured his Achilles in his second match against Delhi Daredevils, forcing him to return home from the tournament;[85] this caused him to miss the beginning of the English season and ruled him out of the 2010 World Twenty20, having been named in the initial 30-man squad.
    • You could split this sentence.
  • "taking 5 wickets at an average of 30.40" → "taking five wickets at an average of 30.40"
    • It's more common to spell the number if it's under ten.
  • "expletive laden Tweet" → "expletive-laden tweet"
  • "He had nursed torn tendons" → "He nursed torn tendons"
  • "defeat to Lancashire" → "defeat by Lancashire"
  • "During the course of the competition" → "During the competition"
Retirement
  • "In July, Mascarenhas had announced" → "In July, Mascarenhas announced"
Playing style and statistics
  • I would suggest converting this into a section itself rather than including it under Career as has been done for many players.
  • "being able to score quickly to accelerate the total" → "being able to score quickly to accelerate the scoring"
  • "which assisted with accelerating an innings" → "which helped to accelerate an innings"
  • "remaining so until" → "remaining so until it was"
  • "inclusive of T20Is" → "including T20Is"

AssociateAffiliate I look forward to your response and intend to conclude my review soon. I hope that my comments so far have been helpful, and I have made a few minor revisions along the way. MSincccc (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching
  • "choosing not to renew his contract for a second season" → "choosing not to renew his contract"
    • Simpler?
Personal life
  • None, except optional stylistic tweaks.
  • Comment. Be nice to have less "Mascarenhas" in that section, but probably unavoidable given that Warne and Hurley are mentioned in prior sentences, so "he" wouldn't be correct to use. AA (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line
Thanks for the review, much appreciated. One or two things happening over the next few days, but will attempt to work my way through! Cheers again, AA (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc found myself having some spare time this evening, so have gone through your comments. Please find above my responses, and thanks again for taking the time to review :) AA (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate I will support the nomination. It would be great to have a T20 era player reach featured status. MSincccc (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support and taking the time to review. I wonder if we have any T20 era players that are FAs... I count four on this list (Collingwood, Gilchrist, Kieswetter, Trescothick). AA (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Michael Aurel

edit
Note: resolved points from this review were moved to the talk page. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Dimitri Mascarenhas/archive1#Michael Aurel. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here from my talk page. I'll confess that I've never warmed much to the T20 format, but as an Australian I can hardly say no to a bit of Shane Warne. At first glance, this looks like another nicely put together cricket biography. I'll get started on my review soon. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get underway:

  • In 2008, he became the first English cricketer to play in the Indian Premier League, leading him to be considered a "T20 revolutionary" due to his participation in the nascent years of franchise cricket – Hmm. I think we're explaining why he's considered this in two ways ("leading him to be considered" and "due to his participation"); I think removing one of the causal links would work here.

This is down to the end of the "Early years" section. There's nothing consequential to quibble with here, and my only lingering wonder is whether some of the more technical and statistical stuff might be a bit hard to follow for readers unacquainted with cricket. I shall head onwards to the later parts of the article soon. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the first part of your review. I've addressed some points (I'll cross off on here tomorrow), for now time for bed! Thanks again :) AA (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Aurel I'm on nights at work for the next few days, apologies if actioning slows down! I have a few footnotes to add to the article! AA (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I'm not exactly a paragon of promptness myself! – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Aurel many thanks for the review of the first few sections, please find my responses above. I think I've addressed them all! AA (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. I'll take a look at your responses shortly. For now, here's a bit more:

  • Hampshire moved from the County Ground in Southampton to their new home – I notice that we link County Ground, Southampton above on "Southampton". This one's optional, but you could link it again on the words "County Ground", or link the city above and then the ground here.
Looks good. I'd say that's the best solution. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My internet connection's been a bit patchy over the last few days. With a bit of luck, I won't vanish from the face of the earth, but a heads up in case I don't look at this with astounding frequency. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, technology failing in 2026! Thanks for the next part of your review, I'll work my way through this over the next few days. AA (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Aurel thanks again for a very thorough review. Please find my responses above! AA (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Travelling, actually. ;) I'm home now, so I should be able to give this a bit more attention from this point on. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bit more (I actually wrote these this morning but apparently didn't click the "publish" button! – I see you've done some copyediting since then, so apologies if any are obsolete):

  • In the 6th ODI at The Oval, he hit – Is this The Oval? Also, I'm guessing that this is the sixth game of the series, which happened to be played at The Oval, rather than this being the sixth game of the series that was played at The Oval? I think a comma would sort this out.
  • Done. It was indeed the 6th match of the series. I've inserted a comma and slightly reworded it, so this now reads: "In the 6th ODI, played at The Oval, he hit five consecutive sixes from the final five balls bowled by Yuvraj Singh." AA (talk)
@Michael Aurel thanks again for your suggestions, super constructive :) Please find my responses above. AA (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • the cricket writer Martin Williamson described his bowling as "impossible to get away". – When we say "get away", do we mean something like "hit away", or do we mean "get away from"? If it's the former, perhaps just quote "impossible" and phrase the last part in our own words to make it a little more idiomatic in non-cricketing English?
  • Done. Now reworded to: "...the cricket writer Martin Williamson described his bowling as "impossible" to score from." The latter part is much more simplified for non-cricket readers now. AA (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • He played in both T20I matches that opened the series. – Hmm. I'm having some trouble parsing this: were there further T20I matches beyond these? Or do we mean that the T20I series, which comprised two matches, "opened the series" in the sense that it came before the ODI series? If possible, I'd make one of these a bit more lucid.
Nice. That works. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • a move that would see him considered by the cricket journalist Freddie Wilde a "T20 revolutionary". – Assuming this is kept (see below), regarding the phrasing: perhaps something like for which the cricket journalist Freddie Wilde called him a "T20 revolutionary"? Regarding the statement itself: the article by Wilde seems to have been written in 2013, so I'd probably mention that (as otherwise it could sound as though he was saying this in 2007).
  • I'm happy to be persuaded here, but it seems as though we might be giving this quote too much weight: we use Twenty20 revolutionary as the heading of the section, but the phrase only appears once in the text of the article's body (in this quote). Also, checking the source, Wilde doesn't seem to use the exact phrase "T20 revolutionary". Assuming I'm not missing out on a fuller, restricted version of the article, the only place in the body of Wilde's article where "revolutionary" appears seems to be: He may well feel deflated or resigned to this fact, but on a purely basic level, in Mascarenhas' 17-year long career he managed the remarkable feat of bridging generations. He will be remembered as another "valuable county servant", a "loyal cricketer" and a "stalwart" but at the same time, he will be remembered, or at least should be remembered as somewhat of a revolutionary. While his T20 playing is certainly relevant to this statement, given that the exact phrase doesn't appear in the article, I'm not sure I feel confident about putting those particular words in quote marks in the body, or using them as the section's heading. As to how we should use Wilde's article: perhaps we could add the quote he will be remembered, or at least should be remembered as somewhat of a revolutionary in the part of the article that chrononlogically corresponds to 2013, when the article was written. Perhaps we could use something like Wilde's statement that his crowning achievement will surely be leading Hampshire to two Friends Life t20 lower down in the relevant part. There are a few options, and I'll let you choose.
  • Comment. I'm inclined to agree. While Wilde is hinting at that, he doesn't explicitly say that, so it wouldn't be prudent to include it. As such, I have removed it and have retitled the section to "Participation in T20 leagues" and added some of what you have mentioned above into the retirement section. AA (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following an ECB decision to not allow centrally-contracted England players to play in the tournament, Mascarenhas was the only English representative in the tournament, playing one match. – Hmm. I think this might raise the question of whether Mascarenhas was the only English player int he tournament before the decision. (I'm guessing he wasn't, as otherwise we probably wouldn't be saying this!) There might be a phrasing that makes this clear, though. For example, something to this effect: In [insert month] 2008, the ECB passed a decision to disallow centrally-contracted England players from playing in the tournament. Mascarenhas was the only English representative who continued playing in the tournament, ... My suggested rephrasing might need tweaking.
  • Done. He was indeed the only English representative that season in the IPL. I have rejigged that little section to read: "In April 2008, the ECB decided not to allow centrally-contracted England players to play in the IPL, with Mascarenhas being the only English representative in the tournament. However, he made just one appearance in the competition against the Delhi Daredevils." AA (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. So I must've misunderstood the meaning. I think "with" could still leave the semantic door ajar to a slight bit of ambiguity: perhaps (using a semicolon) "at the time, Mascarenhas was the only English representative in the tournament"? – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the tournament, playing one match – Regarding this specific bit, do we mean that he played one further match in the IPL that year? If so, perhaps specify that.
  • Done. He only played once in the entire tournament, which was a little surprising given Warne captained the Rajasthan Royals and rated Mascarenhas highly. I have amended it to clarify that: "...but played just one match in the tournament." AA (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on what you do with the previous sentence, you could perhaps append this bit to that sentence. I'd also remove "however", as I'm not sure there's much of a contradiction here. Perhaps something like "having played one match, against the Delhi Daredevils"? – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • before playing limited-overs cricket in New Zealand for Otago – Perhaps "the first-class team Otago", as in the lead, to make clear that this was a competition that existed only within the bounds of New Zealand?
  • Comment. I wonder if this might sow confusion, by implying he played first-class cricket for them?
  • Mascarenhas had missed the start of the season due to his IPL commitments with the Rajasthan Royals, – Hmm. Did these 2009 IPL games take place before the international ODIs or T20s? I only ask because we write that this happened at the "start of the season", whereas in the previous sentence we say the ODIs happened "later in the 2009 season", which makes the chronology a tad confusing.
  • Done. Agreed. I have reorganised this to read: "Mascarenhas had missed the start of the 2009 season due to his IPL commitments with the Rajasthan Royals, with Pothas deputising as captain. Returning to Hampshire, he made ten appearances in the County Championship, scoring his final first-class century (108 runs) against Lancashire. He led the county to the final of the Friends Provident Trophy at Lord's, where they defeated Sussex by six wickets. He also captained them to the quarter-final of the Twenty20 Cup, playing in seven matches of their ten matches; his total of 153 runs in the competition were the most he would make in any running of the Twenty20 Cup. In May, was included in England's fifteen-man squad for the 2009 World Twenty20, playing three matches in the tournament. Later in the season, following an injury to Luke Wright, he played in the final two matches of the ODI series against Australia." AA (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. I think that gets us out of strife. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • he scored 153 runs in the competition, the highest aggregate of his career. – I think I pretty much understand what you mean, but I think rephrasing to something like "he made a total of 153 runs, the most he scored in the tournament across his career" might help with clarity (though admittedly the phrasing in this suggestion isn't elegant).
  • Done (perhaps!). Hmm, yes. A tough one to reword. I went for: "...his total of 153 runs in the competition were the most he would make in any running of the Twenty20 Cup. I did consider replacing "running" with "edition". Let me know what you think :) AA (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'd say that's essentially the way to go. Maybe his total of 153 runs across the competition was the most he would score in an edition of the Twenty20 Cup? It's a tricky one. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, this brings us to a bit over halfway through the "Twenty20 revolutionary". I'll go back and move all of the above points that have been resolved to the talk page, so we can see what we're working with. I think we've done a majority of the article now, so I should be able get out the rest of the review over the next few days. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again! Please find my responses above. Coming together nicely :) AA (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In May, was included in England's fifteen-man squad for the 2009 World Twenty20, – "he was", I think.
  • played for the Rajasthan Royals in the 2010 IPL season, but injured his Achilles in his second match against Delhi Daredevils, – I think this should be "the" Delhi Daredevils. Also, similarly to above, I think this is the second match of the season, which happened to be played against the Delhi Capitals, rather than the second match that he played against the Delhi Capitals in the season. I think a comma before "against" solves this.
  • injured his Achilles in his second match against Delhi Daredevils, forcing him to return home. This caused him to miss the beginning of the English season and ruled him out of the ... He returned against Kent in the – All of the right information is here and it's all correctly done, but I wonder if we're going in slightly the wrong order. The phrase "this caused him" implies that his coming home was what causes him to miss out on these things. (I'm presuming they didn't think "quick, let's get him out of all the teams" the moment they heard he was coming back!) I think we need to instead hitch this causal link to played for the Rajasthan Royals in the 2010 IPL season. You could either mention the Achilles injury after the This caused him to miss sentence, or you could specify before "caused him to" that it was his playing in the IPL that caused him to miss these things.
  • Done. Agreed, the order does seem a little bit discombobulated the more I read it! So I've gone with this: "As a result of this injury, he missed the start of the English season and was ruled out of the 2010 World Twenty20, having been named in the initial 30-man squad." How's that? AA (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That works well. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • He returned against Kent in the Friends Provident t20 in June – I think "He returned" sets up the reader to be told where he returns to, which makes the mention of a place name without reference to the place itself a little confusing. I think something like "After returning to England, ...", or "His first game back in England was against ..." would work.
  • after he posted an expletive-laden Tweet – Really not my area, but is "tweet" capitalised?
  • Tweet about England chairman of selectors Geoff Miller, claiming to have – Perhaps "Geoff Miller, England's chairman of selectors"?
  • claiming to have been ignored by Miller at a match and expressing – By this, do we mean that Miller "ignored" a match Mascarenhas had played in the sense that he hadn't rewarded a good performance with selection, or do we literally mean that he wouldn't speak to him one time at a match?
On second thoughts, I think the previous wording was alright: I think I was wondering if the phrasing in the article was implying something slightly different to what we meant. I think "physically" is alright, but it almost sounds like we're implying a romance or something like that(!), so it's probably not needed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In September 2010, Mascarenhas was sanctioned by the ECB and Hampshire after he ... He was subsequently banned for 14 days at the start of the 2011 season and was fined £1,000 by Hampshire and £500 by the ECB – I'd probably remove the "was sanctioned by the ECB and ..." phrase in the first sentence, and possibly specify by whom or from what he was banned in the second sentence.
  • Done. I've reworded and gone with: "In September 2010, Mascarenhas posted an expletive-laden tweet about Geoff Miller, England's chairman of selectors, claiming to have been physically ignored by Miller at a match and expressing his frustration that his in-form teammate James Adams had not been considered for selection. As a result of the tweet, he was banned by the ECB for 14 days at the start of the 2011 season, and fined £1,000 by Hampshire and £500 by the ECB." AA (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • He returned to action in the Clydesdale Bank 40 in May 2011. – Somewhat similarly to above, I'd use "returned" to specify that he was back in England.
  • Done. I don't think he ever left for India due to his injury, so I have reworded it to remove any implication that he went there and returned home by rewording it to: "He had recovered from his Achilles injury by May 2011, playing his first match of the 2011 season in the Clydesdale Bank 40 against Durham. How's that? AA (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that works. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • notably taking the last five-wicket haul of his – I'd probably omit "notably".
  • He opened the batting in some matches, and across his eight matches he scored 124 runs. – "matches" is used twice, and we mentioned the number of matches in the previous sentence. Perhaps go for "He scored a total of 124 runs, opening the batting in some matches."?
  • However, he had less success with the ball, taking just three wickets. – There's probably not a genuine contradiction here, so I'd omit "however". Also, while I don't have access to the source, is this potentially a case where it's a table of statistics (in which case the comparison "he had less success with the ball" technically isn't sourced)?
  • Done. Agreed, while he uncharacterstically struggled, the table of stats from CricketArchive implies, but doesn't say. So I've gone with: "He scored a total of 124 runs, opened the batting in some matches, but took only three wickets, averaging 50." AA (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • He again missed the start of the English season in 2012 by playing in the IPL for Kings XI Punjab – Very small, but this technically implies that he had previously missed the beginning of the English season by playing for this particular team, which I don't think is the case.
  • Done. I've reworded to: "His participation in the 2012 IPL caused him to miss the start of the 2012 English season. Playing for the Kings XI Punjab in the competition, he made four appearances." AA (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • to help King's XI Punjab to a – No apostrophe, I think?
  • with the captaincy in the County Championship and one-day cricket passing to Adams. – It feels tricky to read this without implicitly hearing either "the County Championship cricket" or "the one-day cricket". Maybe just write "in county and one-day cricket", so that the two items are of the same type?
  • Mascarenhas captained Hampshire in the Champions League Twenty20 qualifying defeat to Auckland at Centurion in South Africa. – I think the bit around "qualifying" might be a bit too compact: maybe something like "in the Champions League Twenty20, being defeated in the qualifying [final/game/etc.] by ..."?
  • Comment. I wonder if broadning this might be the way to go? So I've expanded Hampshire's time in the competition, with an additional ref, going with: "Following the 2012 season, Mascarenhas captained Hampshire in the Champions League Twenty20, where they lost to both the Sialkot Stallions and Auckland in the qualifying group-stage. He was critical of the pitch in the aftermath of their defeat to Auckland at Centurion, calling it "no good for 20-over cricket". How's that? AA (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked a hyphen, but otherwise: nice, looks good to me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the 2012-13 HRV Cup, – Endash.
  • before playing the same number of matches in Australia for the Melbourne Stars as a replacement for Lasith Malinga, – "and twice in Australia", maybe?
  • he notably claimed his second one-day five-wicket haul with 5 for 42 in a – Again, I'd remove "notably".
  • He captained Hampshire to their second successive finals day in the Twenty20 Cup, – Hmm. What does "finals day" mean?
  • During the course of the competition, he made 11 appearances taking 12 wickets. – Personally, I'd omit "the course of" and replace "taking" with "and took".
  • Going a bit out of order here, but I wonder if the previous paragraph (the one starting in Following the 2012 season, Mascarenhas) is best situated in the "Retirement" section, seeing as it doesn't mention his retirement from anything. It does mention his participation in a lot of T20 leagues though, so perhaps it'd work better in the "Participation in T20 leagues" section.
  • Mascarenhas made one first-class appearance against Gloucestershire in the County Championship, – Similarly to above, I think we mean "Mascarenhas made one first-class appearance in the County Championship, against Gloucestershire".
  • Despite retiring from county cricket, he intended to – I'd omit this first phrase, as it was stated in the previous sentence. You could perhaps attach the remainder to the previous sentence, if it then seems too short.
  • Writing in 2013 after his retirement, – Perhaps go "After his retirement from county cricket, the ..." or maybe even just "At the time, the ..."?
  • whilst opining that he was a "valuable county servant" and that he should be remembered as a "revolutionary". – Mm, yes, more or less. Wilde says that He will be remembered as another "valuable county servant", a "loyal cricketer" and a "stalwart" but at the same time, he will be remembered, or at least should be remembered as somewhat of a revolutionary. He was the first and most definitely not the last, English county cricketer who realised the potential that domestic T20 leagues offered him, ... I think it'd be worth using the longer quote (somewhat of a revolutionary) and explaining what Wilde was using the term "revolutionary" in reference to (that is, roughly realised the potential that domestic T20 leagues offered him).
  • Done. I've expanded this to now read: "...and that he should be remembered as a "somewhat of a revolutionary", referencing Mascarenhas realising the potential that domestic T20 leagues offered." How's that? AA (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked it slightly, but yes, I think that works. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In September 2013, Mascarenhas signed for the Hobart Hurricanes in a dual-player and assistant coach role, – Hmm. What's a "dual-player"? Perhaps do we mean "as both a player and assistant coach"?
Mm, yeah, I think that works. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • recovering, he made four appearances in the competition, including their defeat to the – Was this after recovering or while he was recovering? Poking in an "after" or "while" should solve this.
  • He was useful at the end of an innings in one-day and T20 matches, being able to score – Maybe "suited" or something similar instead of "useful" (this'll depend on what the source says)? "useful" seems perhaps too broad.
  • T20 matches, being able to score quickly to accelerate the scoring. – I think this might be pleonastic: I'd use one of "to score quickly" or "to accelerate the scoring". (Perhaps the former, given that we use "accelerate" in the next sentence.)
  • A right-arm medium-fast bowler, The Times remarked how Mascarenhas possessed – Remarked "that", I think.
  • Mascarenhas possessed the ability to use "smart and well-disguised alterations in his line and length", – I'd consider a link to line and length, because I think these terms will be a tad confusing for readers unacquainted with cricket.
  • with his teammate Udal describing his as an "accurate" bowler; – Honestly, this one doesn't feel hugely remarkable to me: a teammate will tend to have a little bit of bias, and "accurate" isn't necessarily an incredibly descriptive or valuable characterisation. Personally, I'd omit this one.
  • he was one of the most economical bowlers in county cricket. – I think this might be a case where MOS:NOFORCELINK applies: I'd try to add in a brief explanation, which might be easiest to do if you rephrase this to use the phrase "economy rate". See what you can do.
I've had a go at rephrasing this one myself: see what you think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mascarenhas credited playing alongside Warne with improving his bowling, making him think more about how he – I'd go for "as it made him think ...", as otherwise I think it could sound as though the crediting was what made him think.
  • The Daily Echo remarked that he ... was described as an "athletic" fielder by cricket journalist Andrew Miller. – I think we need "he" before "was", as otherwise this will sound as though Miller's opinion was relayed by the newspaper.
  • Commenting on his bowling at international level in an interview for The Guardian in 2015, Mascarenhas believed that England's one-day captain Paul Collingwood – Perhaps omit "Commenting on his bowling at international level"? It seems largely already implied. You might then replace "believed" with "commented".
  • With the ball, he took 450 wickets at 28.22, taking – As a wise individual once said, How else would he take wickets? Not with the bat, a boomerang, or any other object!
  • Playing for nine teams in T20 cricket (including T20Is), – More a query than anything else, but is there a reason we include the T20I games in these stats? We presented the T20I statistics separately above, and my sense was that the paragraph's overall structure was to cover the international formats first and the domestic ones second. Would the source permit using his domestic T20 statistics?
  • Comment. The source would permit it, I think? Would it be acceptable using the source to just deduct the international runs from his domestic? Just wondering if that might border on WP:OR? AA (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we're doing fairly basic arithmetic, then yes, I'd say that we're fine to use the source in that way. If you wanted, you could add a note making clear that the source doesn't directly contain the numbers given in the article, but that they were deduced from it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Wasn't as straightforward as I was hoping for a Tuesday morning! As for strike rate, I've just left that as "...and had a strike rate of over 120" as getting into the nitty gritty of deducing his domestic T20 strike rate might get messy... unless I'm missing an easy maths hack (maths was never my strongest subject!). AA (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • citing the need to spend more time with his family in Australia. – Might it be worth clarifying for how long he had lived in Australia, perhaps here or above (if such information is sourceable)? This statement surprised me a little, as I would've assumed he lived (and continues to live) in England.
  • Comment. I can't find an exact for when his family moved to Australia, but have done a little rewording to make it more clear they had relocated (so it doesn't come out the blue) and have added an additional reference. AA (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful: looks good to me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Early on I was a little concerned that the article might've been too laden with statistics, but it became much better in that respect as it went on and I gather that you've since toned down the statistics in those earlier parts. This review ended up being pretty lengthy, so thanks for your patience throughout, and it's a pleasure working with you again. Aside from all the pedantry above, this all looks pretty shipshape to me, and I've no doubt that a support will be forthcoming. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Aurel Many thanks for undertaking such a thorough and detailed review, your efforts are much appreciated :) Has also been a pleasure working with you once again! Please find my responses. I think I've addressed all points, let me know if I've missed anything. AA (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful! I'm a bit too busy today to look over all of your changes, so I'll preemptively throw in my support now. I'll go through the above tomorrow, but I highly doubt I'll have any substantial qualms. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Aurel many thanks :) I've commented on some of your further suggestions. Thanks again! AA (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Aza24 – Pass

edit

Will do soon. Please ping me if you don't see comments here in a day or two. Aza24 (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Hope all is well at your end :) Just dropping a ping! Cheers, AA (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, although to actually reach my notifications, you need to use {{ping}} (I saw this comment by pure chance!). Regardless, I'm looking at this now. Aza24 (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah! Forgot the @Aza24! Thanks for your opening points. I've corrected/actioned them. Re: "Portsmouth Evening News"... force of habit, as most of my Hampshire cricketers are from before the 1960s when the name was used more exclusively. AA (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate Thanks for your edits here! I finished up here and am happy to pass the source review and the spot check, with the expectation that the one outstanding point in the spot check section will be addressed. – Aza24 (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24 many thanks for taking the time to review the sources, much appreciated. I've added an additional reference from BNA that names Llewellyn and states his 8 for 132 figures. AA (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting (FACR 2c)
  • The Works cited section looks good
  • Ref 49 Williamson has no publisher/website
  • Ref 65 Williamson has no publisher/website
  • Ref 35 "Mascarenhas Leads Hawks to Norwich Union success" – "success" should probably be capitalized
  • Other capitalization title-case issues:
    • Ref 34 "Crushing Blow for County team"
    • Ref 84 "Mascarenhas Ton puts Hants on Top"
    • Ref 115 ""Broken Jaw puts Mascarenhas in BBL Doubt"
    • Ref 137 "Mascarenhas Appointed Australia U-16 coach"
  • Why "Portsmouth Evening News" for ref 30? Didn't they change the name in the 60's? The others have "The News. Portsmouth"
  • Author missing in ref 55
  • Ref 133 missing retrieval date
  • Publication date missing in Ref 5 Wilde
  • Strange to me that you put the url for ref 16, when there's no URLs for other refs
Reliability (FACR 1c)
Coverage (FACR 1c)
Verifiability (FACR 1c and 1f)
Spotchecks – Pass
edit
  • Ref 2 C Thawfeeq – Good
  • Ref 15 Wheeldon – This is missing Llewellyn's name and the spefic 8 for 132 figures he got
  • Ref 20 Hallam – Good
  • Ref 34 Daily Echo – Good
  • Ref 65 Williamson – Good
  • Ref 73 A Allen – Good
  • Ref 122 Wilde – Good

Looks good here. Pass for spot check. – Aza24 (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

edit
  • I realize that {{Infobox cricketer}} is a commonly-used template (32,000 uses according to its docs) so this may be a bit out of scope for FAC, but I can't help thinking it's information overload. MOS:INFOBOX says it should "summarize key facts about the page's subject". This is less of a summary than a data dump.
  • Comment. I'd argue it's the opposite! Given that cricket is quite a statistically heavy sport, the infoboxes provide the bear bones in that regard, in fact, there's loads that are omitted: strike rates, innings, not outs, run outs, economy rates, balls faced batting. I do think the infobox cricketer in its current guise provides a nice summary of their personal details, teams played for, and career statistics. Also, sometimes people might be more interested in knowing how many One Day International's someone played, or how many Test runs they scored, without diving into the meat and gravy of the article. To that end, I think it provides a nice summary. There are an abundance of non-stats parameters I don't bother using, which would be veering into a data dump, for sure. AA (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • More broadly, there's a lot of jargon here. I'm sure cricket fans know what this all means, but much of it is impenetrable to outsiders. WP:AUDIENCE says "It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully". I know a little about cricket, but I'm still struggling to follow much of the text. I can guess that bowling average is some measure of how good a bowler is, but have no clue if 33.33 is good or not. I know that the wicket is the wooden thing the batter (batsman?) stands next to and that the bowler tries to hit, but I don't know what it means to "take a wicket". I think a century means scoring 100 runs, but I'm not completely sure. I've heard the term "over" but had to go look up what it was. "relying on swing to dismiss batsmen" leaves me mystified. In some places you define these terms (i.e. economy rate), but my overall impression is that I'm struggling to get through some of this. Maybe that's just unavoidable for a sports article. For example, looking at Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak I could imagine somebody who knows nothing about baseball being clueless at ERA, shutout, scoring position, sinker, perfect game, pick off, etc. Or why we talk about thirds of an inning. Still, I'd like to see less unexplained jargon.

That's it for me. Not a full review, just a couple of comments. RoySmith (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/actions. I've given some bracketed explanations for the following:
  • Bowling average (and batting average)
  • Taking a wicket
  • Swing
With regard to if 33.33 is a good average or not, I mean it's not great, but not terrible. I do wonder though if trying to say whether it's good or bad might be be straying into WP:NPOV and WP:OR? Plus, there could be a whole multitude of reasons for a bowling average (good/bad batsmen, helpful/unhelpful pitches, match situations, etc), so I wouldn't like to say what is good or bad, as it's a bit of a rabbit hole.
Does no source make any comment on whether this average was, or was considered, good, bad, or middling? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With "overs", I'm wondering how to explain that one.

Perhaps footnote something like 'An over consists of the delivery of six legitimate balls by the bowler'? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's "the legal delivery of 6 balls", but not sure that's too helpful. If I were not someone who knew much about cricket, I'd be thinking a crime might be committed if there wasn't a legal delivery! With century, the first mention goes on to stipulate the score, so I'd be inclined to say that probably doesn't need further explanation? As for the baseball article, I'm afraid it's all Greek to me!!! I think you are right though, with these types of articles I guess there is a certain unavoidability that odd words and phrases populate the article. AA (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith many thanks for your comments. Please find my responses above. AA (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith just wondering if you are in a position to support or oppose? Cheers, AA (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not responding to your previous ping. Cricket is really a bit outside my area of expertise, so I'd prefer to just leave this as a couple of informal comments RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

This has been open for more than two months and has only received two supports so far despite having been added to WP:FACURGENT days ago. Unless there's notable progress toward a consensus for promotion within the next three or four days, I'm afraid it will be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

edit
  • Cites/sources: overall, the cites & sources appear to meet FAC and MOS requirements. If I find any issues, I'll post them below.
  • Prose: Overall, the prose is professional quality, and meets FAC requirements. Will post any specific notes below.
  • Clarify: "An all-rounder, Mascarenhas began his career primarily as a bowler who could also bat, but as his career progressed his batting improved." It is not clear how the word "but" applies. It suggests that "a bowler who could also bat" is somehow contradictory with "his batting improved". I think the sentence is trying to say that initially, his bowling skills were better than is batting; but as time went by, his batting improved and the two skills became relatively equal/impactful, and he was no longer considered primarily to be a bowler. In any case, can the wording be clarified a bit to indicate what the sources are saying?
  • Done. How does this sound: "An all-rounder, Mascarenhas began his career primarily as a bowler who could also bat, and as his career progressed his skills as a batsman improved."
  • Wording: "joint-highest" - I can sort of guess what that means. I'm assuming that term is common in UK or within the cricket world, correct?
  • Wording? "... Domestic T20 batting and bowling statistics not implicitly stated..." is "implicitly" supposed to be "explicitly" here?
  • Link available? "Mascarenhas holds an ECB level-three coaching qualification." Is there a WP article that " ECB level-three coaching qualification" could be linked to?
  • Comment. No current article on this, and I'd imagine going forward from a GNG and coverage perspective, it's unlikely to become an article. AA (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no photo of the person in the article InfoBox .. is that normal for cricket articles?
  • Comment. It's fairly normal, though less so for a modern player. There was a photo of him in the article, uploaded many years ago, though it turned out the photo had been taken from elsewhere and claimed by a now inactive user as their own :( AA (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move cite to end of sentence: "He recuperated in Perth in the winter and played grade cricket,[34] the top level of club cricket in Western Australia." That superscript is kinda ugly in the middle of the sentence. I realize that the "the top level of club cricket in Western Australia" is merely a definition added by the article's editor, and may not be stated in the source, but that sort of editorial note is common in WP articles.
  • 'Done. I've moved it to the end of the sentence.
  • Clarify "Mascarenhas scored the first century at the Rose Bowl (pictured) in the 2001 County Championship." That is ambiguous ... did he score the first century, ever, by anyone at the Rose Bowl? or was he the first to score a century (of anyone) at the the 2001 County Championship?
  • Done. How does this sound: "Mascarenhas scored the first ever century at the ground against Worcestershire in the 2001 County Championship."

USS Missouri (1841)

edit


Nominator(s): GGOTCC 15:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first American warship named Missouri. While the most obscure USS Missouri, this frigate brought the Navy kicking and screaming into steam era, and both established and legitimized the roles of engineers throughout the fleet...before one of them dropped a wrench, destroyed the ship, and nearly got everyone killed. Regardless, Missouri and her sister are officially considered to be among the most impressive early engineering feats in US naval history, at least according to the Navy in 1937 and a mosaic which depicts the six ship classes that hold the title. I was also motivated to write this article after meeting the US Navy's Curator of Models. We worked together to identify a bunch of old ship models, and we had to rely on Wikipedia to identify some of the most difficult. Since the US is shockingly underrepresented in the list of FA/GAs on Wikipedia, I wanted to change that and improve the copy+pasted entries from the US Navy's website with legitimate articles. Additionally, this ship holds a special place in the lore of US Navy engineers. Now that I am finally in college, this article feels appropriate for my first FAC and second A-class.

GGOTCC 15:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Paddlewheel_frigate_USS_Mississipi_abeam.tiff is missing a publication date
  • File:Caleb_Cushing.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
@Nikkimaria Thank you for the review! I added the publication date (1853), author's death (1896), and rescued the link. GGOTCC 04:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TIFF files are not to be used for display in wikipedia articles, please see c:COM:TIFF. Consider converting the file to a png or jpg. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GGOTCC: given that you have not uploaded a PNG conversion, I have done it myself at File:Paddlewheel frigate USS Mississipi abeam.png. Please replace the TIFF with the PNG version. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Howardcorn33 Hello, thank you! I was looking into ways to convert the image without having to redownload it and upload it again, but this would do! GGOTCC 18:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Olliefant

edit
  • Can you specify which Congress ordered it? I'm pretty sure it would've been the 25th United States Congress
    • I am not sure if any of my sources specify, but I will check
  • Under "Development and design", [Secretary of the Navy] [James Paulding] is an MOS:SOB violation
    • Done
  • "Brooklyn" -> "Brooklyn, New York" for consistency
    • Done
  • "Washington D.C." -> "Washington, D.C."
    • Done
  • "Norfolk to Fayal in the Azores" where are these places?
    • Specified Norfolk Virginia and Fayal Island
  • Under "Service history", [ship of the line] [HMS Malabar] is an MOS:SOB violation
    • Done
That's what I found ping me when done Olliefant (she/her) 20:25, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, @Olliefant:! GGOTCC 20:40, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olliefant (she/her) 21:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A.Cython

edit

Overall, a great article. I enjoyed it as it is also related with the societal resistance to new technologies.

Prose

  • Three steamship were → Three steamships were
  • officers that outlined → officer who outlined
  • main difference between the ships were change "were" → was
  • an audit lead by change "lead" → led
  • axillary power and → auxiliary power, and
  • which was already add comma before "which"
  • A boat from Gibraltar crewed by convicts and → A boat from Gibraltar, crewed by convicts, and (add commas)
  • US Navy Charles Copeland, and were built → US Navy, Charles Copeland. They were built
    • Thank you! I made these changes or redid the prose to flow better.

Other

  • 568,806 is this today's money? If not wouldn't be useful to have a note to the corresponding value of today's money? see example
    • Good point! I added the inflation template in the prose.
  • routine maintenance.[17] is the citation needed here since it also at the end of the paragraph
    • The two sentences ("Captain John T. Newton... routine maintenance") are cited to ref 17, while last sentence ("Her arrival marked...when she arrived") is cited to ref 17 and 15. I did not want to overcite as ref 15 is only for one part of the last sentence.
  • Her chief engineer Her? not clear
    • I swapped it to mention the ship's name
  • Range 20 days of coal Range typically means distance, I do not know what 20 days means in terms of distance. I found it a bit confusing. A.Cython(talk) 03:04, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am open to changing this, but none of the sources provide a range, as the frigate was never intended to have a maximum distance like later warships. Instead, everything focused on the number of days the engine could be kept running.
    • Thank you for the feedback, @A.Cython:, it is much appreciated! How does everything look now? GGOTCC 04:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Support: Thank you for the making the changes and providing a clarification about the range. I am not an expert on ships, so I do not have strong feelings about it. Happy editing! A.Cython(talk) 14:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

I reviewed at GAN and did a source review at ACR so I might not have much too add, but I will take a look. Hog Farm Talk 16:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • " disrupted the traditional conservative zeitgeist throughout the Navy" - this is a bit nit-picky, but I'm of the view that it's generally bad for readability to be including obscure words that we have to link (here zeitgeist) when there are plenty of other, more plain speech, words that can be used which will actually be more understandable to the majority of readers
    • I am a bit surprised to see "zeitgeist" considered obscure, but I see your point. I swapped it with mindset.
  • "named after the Missouri river. " - shouldn't "river" be capitalized? "Missouri River" as the name of the place is a proper noun, and using Missouri as an adjective here doesn't really make sense because a lot of the river isn't in Missouri
    • Capitalized the R
  • I believe the correct form is "Paixhans" not "Paixhan"; this isn't a plural, rather the designer's last name included the trailing s
    • Good point, thank you
  • "and cost US$568,806 equivalent to $17,752,252 in 2025." - I'd put the inflationary conversion into parentheses to improve reading clarity
    • Done. I forgot I can do that outside of the template
  • " known as the "Dark Ages"" - known as this by whom?
    • Several of my books use the term, but I removed it and reworded the sentence.

This is my third time reviewing the article, so I'm not surprised that I don't have much to add here. Hog Farm Talk 00:14, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting for the content review part. Hog Farm Talk 01:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • Some books have publisher locations; some don't, even when available. There should be consistency.
    • I am going through each ref and seeing what else can be added
The first one I checked showed a missing location which is available - Kinnamann 2022. (Wilmington)
  • Several works lack identifiers when they are available. Eg the ISBN for Dulles is 9780404022167, the OCLC for Bennett & Weir is 1435130402 etc.
    • Same as above
  • "an engine producing 9 knots". An engine doesn't produce speed. Suggest rephrasing.
    • Changed to 'output' in both instances
Which gives "an engine that output 9 knots". Save objection, an engine does not output speed (eg knots).
Developed?
  • "... the three masts were located unevenly on the hull. Combined with the funnel preventing the use of mainsails, they were inefficient while under sail." With the information spread over two sentences it is not clear that you mean that the masts were inefficient. (I assume that is what you mean?) And how can a mast be inefficient? Suggest rephrasing.
    • How is "Due to the position of the engine and funnel, the three masts were located in unconventional locations on the main deck. Combined with the funnel preventing the use of mainsails, the design was slow while under sail"?
  • "Below the gun deck was the berth deck." Which was what? Bearing in mind that MOS:NOFORCELINK states "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."
    • I added a clause defining the berth deck
  • "800 tons of coal for 20 days of steaming." At what speed? And is it known what range this gave the ship?
    • In this era, the unreliability of steam engines made it hard to measure speed and range in the modern sense. As a result, the period of time a steam engine could be operated was the goal. I can check again, but none of my sources specify.
  • "Below the berth deck was the tween deck and hold". Is this two separate decks, one split into two parts, or one named "the tween deck and hold"?
    • Two decks. I reworded the sentence to separate the two
  • "Missouri was praised as having an interior, "much superior" to that of her sister ship USS Mississippi." Is it known in what way her interior was superior?
    • The source only specifies a rug and headboard in the captain's quarters, but also generalizes about the entire ship. A previous comment during the A-class review removed both examples for being very limited in scope and requiring knowledge about what was normally in a captain's quarters, but I can re-add it.
  • "During the trials". During what trials? They have not previously been mentioned. And what are "trials"?
    • The trial run with Mississippi mentioned in the previous sentence. Should this be more clear?
  • "and did not return until next April." Return to where?
    • Added mention it was regarding Washington DC
  • "the Home Squadron, which complained about". A squadron cannot complain. A person can, such as the commanding officer or the senior supply officer. Or, in more general terms 'complaints were made' or 'which elicited complaints' or similar. Were these formal complaints made to someone? Or more in the way of intra-squadron grumbling?
    • How is "which elicited complaints"?
  • "with unclear terms and protections." What are "protections" in this context?
    • I reworded the sentence to emphasize terms of service and job security, although the source referred to protocols protecting the engineer's jobs
  • "the US Consul to Gibraltar and the governor of Gibraltar, Sir Robert Wilson." 1. Why the lower-case g but an upper-case C? 2. This reads as if Wilson held both positions.
    • Changed to upper-case Governor. I added a comma, but am unsure how to further designate the consul and governor being two different people.
  • "The men planned to stay ashore". What men? Only one person has been mentioned as going ashore to this point.
    • Cushing and Newton, mentioned in the previous sentence. Is this unclear?
  • "Her arrival marked the first powered crossing of the Atlantic by an American warship and was applauded by British sailors when she arrived." This would fit better as the second sentence of the paragraph.
    • Great idea!
  • The paragraph commencing "At 7:50 pm" uses "then" five times. This is not flowing prose.
    • I removed most of the uses of "then".
  • "To protect the ship's alcohol amidst the chaos, a sentry was posted outside the storeroom." To protect it from what? Catching fire? How would posting a sentry do this?
    • The source does not say. I'd assume it was to prevent the seamen from pillaging the spirits, but I am not sure at this point.
  • "Cushing traveled East on land to reach China." Why the upper-case E?
    • Changed to lower case
  • "Missouri's chief engineer was also court-martialed and was suspended for one year, although only eight months were served before he was relieved." I don't understand this - "relieved" usually means relieved of command, but how could this happen if he were suspended from service?
    • I tried to not repeat two things in a row, and has changed it to, "although only eight months were served before the punishment was likewise remitted."
  • "Under de facto Secretary of the Navy David Porter, steam engines were only to be used as axillary power, and that every use needed a justification." 1. "that doesn't make sense in this sentence. 2. "every use" of a steam engine, or every one fitted in a naval vessel?
    • I am confused on your comments. What does not make sense? The Secretary of the Navy only had authority over naval vessels. I reworded the sentence to, "Under de facto Secretary of the Navy David Porter, every use of a steam engine aboard warships required justification, as they were intended only for auxiliary power in an effort to prioritize sail." Does this work?
  • "The Steam Navy of the United States states there were three boilers, while The Destruction of the U.S. Steam Frigate Missouri at Gibraltar and The Old Steam Navy states there were four; the latter specifies that the boilers were arranged in pairs." This needs appropriate citations.
    • Would I need citations if it is the three sources cited in that sentence?

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that looks good. I have a couple of comebacks, but unfortunately real life means that it may be a while before I can get to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog the Mild, do you have any further comments? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UC

edit

I notice this is still listed as needing comments, so will chip in a few, trying not to step on Gog's much more knowledgable toes above:

  • Being very nitpicky, note A needs a citation.
    • Done
  • Her introduction helped legitimize the role of engineers and disrupted the traditional conservative mindset throughout the Navy: I'd like to know a bit more about this, even in the lead. I don't immediately see how "her introduction helped legitimize the role of engineers" would have worked -- did they advocate for it? Have a lot to do with building the ship? Presumably lots of them were needed to operate it?
    • While I believe the issue is addressed in my response to the next point, Missouri was involved in a scandal that lead to an engineer-lead engineering corps
  • Similarly, "disrupted the traditional conservative mindset" -- I'm not a huge fan of "traditional" (as a wise person pointed out, all traditions are invented, and usually more recently than we think). Presumably the US Navy wasn't a particularly conservative institution in 1794, and that's only 50 years previously. I'm reminded of the British military joke that the Army has traditions, but the RAF is only old enough to have habits. More seriously, I note that the "traditional" idea isn't found in the body, where we present this as the result of a few specific senior officers having a conservative outlook (any names? Paulding wasn't an officer).
    • Both of these points are very enlightening. I changed the lead to focus on the modernization of the Navy rather than the mindset.
  • spilled turpentine ignited a fire: did the turpentine ignite the fire? As we find out later, it was the turpentine that was ignited, by a lamp.
    • Reworded to "spilled turpentine ignited"
  • Despite an international firefighting effort, her captain judged it futile: this isn't quite grammatical (what's the antecedent of "it"?). Suggest "An international team attempted to fight the fire, but her captain judged the effort futile..." or similar.
    • Good idea!
  • Per WP:ISBN, we should use the ISBN-10 printed on the book rather than calculating a 13-digit one for those who don't have them: that's most books published before 2007.
    • Think I got them all
  • Endash, not hyphen, in title of Canney 1990.
    • Done
  • who vowed to never, "See our grand old ships: as we're running the sentence straight into the quote, I don't think we want the hyphen or the capital letter (the latter is normally used when the quotation is a full sentence -- this isn't).
    • Fixed
  • the floating battery Fulton.: would "floating artillery battery" help clarify what this is? I was at first picturing a very large device to store electricity.
    • "floating battery" is a specific technical term. Hog Farm Talk 19:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but is there any way to pad it out with anything that might help the non-expert understand it? Google Books has plenty of hits for "floating gun battery", "floating artillery battery", and similar. "No" may be a perfectly good answer here, and to be honest it's not particularly important given the context that the reader understand exactly what sort of ship we're talking about.
        • Changed to "floating artillery battery"

UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC) More to come. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first group was composed of line officers who outlined the capabilities they would like in the vessels: similar to "floating batteries" above -- I know that "line officers" is a term of art, but it's also pretty obscure and open to misinterpretation (something to do with telegraphs? Ropes?). Is there a way to rephrase or buttress it? Unlike the floating batteries above, here it does matter that readers understand what these people did for a living.
    • I am thinking of a better term. A line officer is an officer in charge of a combat unit. Compared to officers that may be engineers or surgeons, "line officer" identifies their role clearly. The sources do not mention who they were, so I can not name them.
      • You could keep it and do e.g. "line officers (that is, officers serving in combat roles)", or paraphrase to something like "officers serving in combat posts". UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed it to line (combat) officers, but I do not see the need if it is wikilinked.
          • MOS:NOFORCELINK: if we can, we should avoid having readers follow links to find out information necessary to understand the article. Primarily, it's best to have all the information necessary to understand a piece of text within that piece of text; a lesser but important concern is that some people print articles or otherwise can't follow the links at all. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Excellent point. How is adding "(naval officers who lead warships)"? GGOTCC 07:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Would that not imply that they commanded them -- is that accurate? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Yes, that is a better word! Thank you GGOTCC 06:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Is it definitely true (and supported by the source), though -- were all of these people the commanding officers of individual ships, as opposed to either more junior combat officers or commodores/admirals commanding larger formations? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          That is a very good question. None of the sources specify who the line officers were besides nor the positions they held. The only person named was Matthew C. Perry, who played a role in both roles and related bureaucratic proceedings as he was managing a shipyard at the time. This confusion was a factor in why I initially only used the term "line officer". Do I also need to cite the definition now that it is in the article? GGOTCC 06:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          We need a definition that matches the term in the source. If the article defines it, we can use their definition or paraphrase an equivalent; if it doesn't, we need to define it based on what the term is likely to have meant to the author. What we can't do is give it a definition that's more restrictive or different to what the source actually allows us to say, and "line officer" does not generally mean "commanding officer of a warship": all of the latter are line officers, but not all line officers are the latter. In terms of citing that definition: in most cases, we allow uncontroversial definitions to go uncited (there's no specific policy for this, though), and sometimes expect citations when the term is very obscure or being used in an unusual way (for example, when arguing that it had a specific meaning in a specific time period). UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:14, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          I have no reason to believe the source uses a different definition, but at this point, including the definition seems to do more harm than good. GGOTCC 01:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Then we need to rework: we can't have a phrase that is opaque and necessary and still meet FACR 1a. If the way we've constructed the article makes an explanation unwieldy, we need to revise that construction. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          AH! The Steam Navy of the United States uses the term "commodores" . This is a rank of senior officer. Would this term work better? GGOTCC 02:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Sounds good to me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Great! I just added it now. Was there anything else? Thanks for all the help, UC! GGOTCC 02:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • engineers and constructors who analyzed the officers' request and developed specific instructions required to build the duo.: requests, surely?
    • This was brought up during the A-class review. I think request is correct as it was one description for the ships, but the description contained multiple points. I am not that sure myself.
  • ocean-going steamships equipped with 10 guns, provisions to supply a crew of 200 for two months, and enough fuel to power an engine producing 9 knots (17 km/h; 10 mph) for 20 days: if we're doing 9 and 10 in figures, we may as well do 2 (MOS:NUM).
    • Done
  • Combined with the funnel preventing the use of mainsails, they were inefficient while under sail: this seems a bit confused: the masts were inefficient when the ship was under sail? Surely we mean simply that the sails didn't power the ship very efficiently?
    • Good idea, I reworded the sentence to make it clear that the sails were inefficient due to the mast locations
  • the engine located amidship: the link here is to amidships. Is there a difference? The latter seems to be more common.
    • In my experience, Americans spell it with only one S, as I pronounce it as "amidship". There is no difference beyond spelling,
  • double return copper boilers: compound modifier: double-return.
    • Done
  • Missouri's engines were designed by principal engineer of the US Navy Charles Copeland: this is clunky with such a long title: suggest "the principal engineer of the US Navy, Charles Copeland".
    • Changed to "Missouri's engines were designed by Charles Copeland, the principal engineer of the US Navy"
  • She was laid down at the New York Navy Yard in Brooklyn, New York sometime: comma after New York to balance the one before. The same, later, with and sailed to Washington, D.C. for a trial run and ran aground off Port Tobacco, Maryland on 1 April. There are a few more.
    • I believe I have gotten all of these
  • She was laid down at the New York Navy Yard in Brooklyn, New York sometime in 1840 and launched on 7 January 1841 and cost: a bit breathless with the "and ... and"
    • Removed two instances of 'and'
  • US$568,806 (equivalent to $17,752,252 in 2025: round for sig figs.
    • I can not see an option to add sig figs for the inflation template. Am I missing something?
    I see, thank you! I have done that just now. GGOTCC 06:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • for a trial run along with Mississippi: when was Mississippii built and commissioned? We say this for Missouri, but I can't find it for the other ship. We should at least mention that it was built first, and I think it would be good to give the date of commissioning somewhere.
    • I added more information on their construction, and a timeframe for when Mississippi was commissioned
  • to transport US Minister to China Caleb Cushing to Alexandria, Egypt, as the first part of his voyage to China, where he was to negotiate a trade treaty with the Daoguang Emperor: I may not be a great geographer, but I'm struggling to follow the logic here. Was he due to get the train from there, or wait for another ship? We might say something like "en route to China" rather than calling this part of the voyage to China.
    • I changed the mention to, "trip for China". Per the article later on, the plan was to take another ship from Suez to reach China. For some context, the US lacked major ports in the Pacific, so it was easier to sail around the world with easy access to ports and coal.
  • The crew then manned pumps, hoses, and bucket brigades: I'm not sure you can man a bucket brigade: I think you have to form or organize one.
    • Changed to organized
  • To protect the ship's alcohol amidst the chaos: this is a bit mealy-mouthed: presumably his job wasn't so much to protect it (prevent damage to it) as to prevent the crew from taking advantage of the chaos to steal it?
    "A sentry was placed over the spirit room." from this article while discussing the crew's response without further elaboration. Since a sentry guards against unauthorized access, I assumed it was to prevent sailors from stealing the alcohol for themselves. GGOTCC 06:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be tempted just to cut "to protect..." and amend "storeroom" to "the room where the ship's supply of spirits was stored" ("alcohol" could theoretically be stuff for wound-cleaning that nobody would drink; "spirits" can't). "Storeroom" clearly isn't right, since the source doesn't say that the ship had only one of those. That way, we don't need to go beyond the source or set ourselves up for difficult questions we can't answer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea! I will do that now GGOTCC 01:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the afternoon of 25 August: I would restate the year here, as we're starting a new section that's fairly likely to be one that people click down to from the ToC.
    • Done
  • as Missouri's crew was pushed towards the bow and stern.: I think were works better here, as we're talking about individual people rather than a group acting (or being acted upon) as a coherent whole.
    • Done
  • Congress budgeted $60,000: inflate, as we did before.
    • Done
  • steam engines were only to be used as axillary power, and that every use needed a justification: their every use or every use of them. Can we explain exactly what we mean here: did he issue an order that captains needed to justify their use to... whom, exactly? Or simply that did he create doctrine that sails should be used unless there was a good reason to turn on the steam engines?
    • How is "Under de facto Secretary of the Navy David Porter, every use of a steam engine aboard warships required justification, as they were intended only for auxiliary power in an effort to prioritize sail."
    Hmm...I struck that mention and replaced it with, " Under de facto Secretary of the Navy David Porter, every warship was ordered to be fitted with sails and the development and use of steam engines were severely limited." How is this? GGOTCC 07:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely an improvement. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note C could do with references.
    • I will remove it entirely
  • Note 4 and 19 (possibly more too): check capitalisation and punctuation in title.
    • Fixed
  • Personal preference, maybe, but I would capitalise the first letter of e.g. "Newspapers.com".
    • I removed the Newspaper.com mentions entirely
  • Note 1: year only in the date field. Ditto for Note 8?
    • This issue was for every time I cited Steam Navy, which I now fixed
  • I notice Bolton's first-hand account in the Further Reading -- we haven't mentioned him at all in the article. Should we?
    • While one of my sources refers to Bolton's account and includes a summery, nothing else mentions Bolton's role or the book. Nothing besides his description of events is that notable IMO, and the other sources already provide that information.
  • Thank you for the insightful feedback, @UndercoverClassicist:! Sorry for only getting back to you now, I had finals to get through. I believe I have incorporated all of your feedback. GGOTCC 01:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metalicat

edit

Just a prose pass alongside the existing reviews.

  • Service history: The engineers were paid less then their civilian counterparts — "then" should be "than".
    • Fixed!
  • Development and design: In the stern was the officer's quarters — should be "officers' quarters" (plural possessive, as the quarters housed multiple officers).
    • Thanks!
  • Development and design: In front was the engine located amidship — "in front" of what? The preceding sentence describes the stern. "Forward of the officers' quarters" would be clearer, and would avoid the colloquial "in front".
    • I added fowards

Spot-checked the Naval History and Heritage Command (DANFS) source against the article's claims about the commissioning date, grounding off Port Tobacco, deployment to the Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic crossing. All supported. No other concerns beyond what Gog and UC have already raised. Metalicat (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing comments

edit

Aza24 requested my thoughts on some of the sourcing of this article, particularly the heavy reliance on the 1912 Proceedings piece by Farenholt and potential institutional connections between the USNI and the Navy. I thought it would be best to respond here so that the comments are more visible for FAC reviewers and coordinators:

The 1912 source is from Proceedings (magazine). Naval History Magazine is a similar thing from the same publisher, but with a somwhat different focus. Naval Institute Press is also part of the United States Naval Institute. The Naval Institute is officially independent from the US Navy, although it does have some ties to the Navy. It has published some quasi-official works such as Morison's History of United States Naval Operations in World War II but is an academic source. I would only be considered about the independence from the subject for a USNI work if the author had a close connection, or the work was discussing a recent or then-current topic (for instance, Morison with WWII being too close to the events to really be able to discuss certain classified matters, or potentially embarassing matters such as the possibility that Norman Scott (admiral) was actually killed by friendly fire). In this case, from quick searches I can't find any connection between Farenholt and the discussed wreck; this should really just be treated like any other older academic journal article. I haven't immediately seen anything that would indicate detailed significant scholarly coverage of this wreck since then other than the Cressman article.
The book by Howard I. Chapelle is also older (originally published in 1949) but represents a major piece of scholarship). My go-to work for early US naval steam technology is Canney, which is appropriately relied upon. Canney notes "The most telling evidence of this inattention is seen in the paucity of literature on the subject of early naval steam vessels compared to the numerous books on both the sailing ships of the navy and the modern steel warships." Canney goes on to describe Bennett 1896 as "The nearest approximation to a study of the ships of the steam navy" but also states it has "serious shortcomings". Canney seems to view those shortcomings as being related to a perceived lack of comprehensiveness, insufficient focus on the ships' "sailing qualities, hull designs, or construction" as well as the "small format and primitive photographic reproduction methods", rather than issues with factual accuracy. (all quotes from p. xix). I am not familiar with Kinnaman's biography of Lenthall or Vernon Press but didn't see any obvious red flags during the ACR source review.

My one question would be regarding the inclusion of Weir as a co-author for the Bennett book - from what I can tell, Weir's participation is limited to the suspected production of an older satirical piece called "Uncle Samuel's Whistle and What It Costs" included by Bennett as Appendix C. Hog Farm Talk 20:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Hog Farm, thank you for the wonderful input! I'll throw in my two cents as well, although it is finals week and I am pressed for time.
The United States Naval Institute (USNI) is independent from the US Navy, although they do overlap. Currently, USNI resembles a think-tank for conferences, essays on naval policy, news site, and book publisher. In my opinion, USNI's book publishing arm is the most extensive and reputable publisher for American naval history. As a member myself, Proceedings is a collection of essays. Even today, authors are very critical of naval policy and Proceedings is no means a propaganda arm, with USNI News often being one of the first to report on the latest naval screwup.
Somewhat recently, Naval History was stood up as an independent magazine and contained historical articles that would have previously been published under Proceedings. While I do rely on the historical articles from USNI, I have found no significant faults in the text. Missouri was destroyed nearly 180 years ago, and there is not a significant number of modern sources on her destruction as they would all ultimately repeat the same claims.
Ammen C. Farenholt wrote his 1912 article when he was a surgeon, and there is no reason to believe he would be biased in describing the events. The ship was destroyed more than 70 years prior, and I struggle to imagine someone wanting to suppress information about the event. Even if that were the case, none of the other sources differ in the cause of the fire or related events. To address @Aza24:'s concern, the only sources from the US government I cite are:
  • The Evolution of Ship Naming in the U.S. Navy, which defines the meaning of "USS"
  • Fouled Anchors: The Constellation Question Answered, which is used to mention what was the last sailing warship in the Navy
  • The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS), which I wrote an essay on here. While DANFS is biased, I primarily use it to discuss the location and task of the ship, which the source excels in as it is drawn from government documents.
GGOTCC 21:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the well reasoned thoughts above. The rationale for the 1912 source's independence is well heard. However, I am still a bit concerned about its age.
Do no better sources for the 1912-sourced content exist? I can understand when old sources are used in one-offs, maybe out of necessity. But to see nearly nine references covering large swaths of text, all from a source 100+ year old? That is difficult for me to understand. Aza24 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Cressman's An Ornament to the Navy was published 100 years later in 2012, and also by USNI. I also cite this profusely, but Farenholt is more detailed in how the crew responded to the fire while Cressman gives more context to the ship and the cleanup efforts. In fact, several sections are only cited to both, and I struggle to find a more modern source that includes the same details. I believe Farenholt used A Narrative of the Last Cruise of the US Steam Frigate Missouri for some of the details, but that book was published in 1844 and was a first-hand account of the accident. I am not drowning in modern, reliable, sources about a 180-year old naval accident, hence my reliance on more dated articles and books. GGOTCC 02:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

edit
  • Clarify: "She was assigned to the Home Squadron, which elicited complaints about her high cost to coal and operate." Can you add some words to tell the reader: Who was complaining? Why was the high cost of coal significant here? If there is something significant behind the complaint, then elaborate on it.
    • The source does not elaborate, but the coal of coal was relevant as she was one of the first steamships to deploy (and thus need to be supplied with goal). I would search for anything that gives more details.
  • ".. to witness a test run of Missouri with her new funnels. The trial was a dismal failure, and Thompson successfully blamed..." Consider expand "trial" to "trial run". Lay readers may get confused and think a legal proceeding was involved.
    • Good idea, I switched the terms out
  • Quote not needed: "While otherwise similar, Missouri was praised as having an interior, "much superior" to that of her sister ship USS Mississippi." In general, most text in any encyclopedia article should be in the encyclopedia's voice. Quotes should be used sparingly, and only for good reason. Consider replacing that quote with prose in the encyclopedia's voice. Alternatively: if that quote is special somehow (e.g. spoken by a very important person) then explain to the reader why the quote is important (e.g. name the speaker).
    • I am quoting the book, but I will put it in enclopedic voice.
  • Suggest add link to Caleb Cushing in image caption: "Caleb Cushing; his voyage to China was the motive for Missouri to sail to the Mediterranean." Not required for FA. But many readers glance thru articles, and some focus on images: may as well help those readers quickly find more about the subject of the photo.
    • This is done for an earlier image, so I see no reason not to
  • Ditto for caption " ....The crew of HMS Malabar (left) ..." link to HMS Malabar (1818)
    • Done
  • Inconsistent use of publisher location/city. (Did another reviewer mention that above?). RefCheck tool shows 8 books name city, and 13 do not. All books (or none) should have the city.
    • My understanding was to list the city when the information is known, but I do not object to removing it all.
  • Source Dulles, Foster Rhea (1930). The Old China Trade. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin. p. 194. ISBN 9780404022167. has an inconsistency: year is 1930, but books did not have ISBNs back then. The book has had a few reprints/editions over the years. The reprint/edition identified in the article should be the precise one the nominator read. If you read the IA edition at https://archive.org/details/oldchinatrade00dull then year is 1930 and ISBN should be blank/omitted. If you read a post 1970 reprint/edition, then an ISBN can be included, but you need to update the year to the reprint year (and also specify "orig-year=1930"). I see a 1974 reprint at google books with ISBN 9780356047553. Which is weird because 13 digit ISBNs did not arrive until 2007.
    • Struck the ISBN
Looks great! Support on prose and MOS. I have not scrutinized images or sources. Noleander (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stikkyy

edit
  • Per Template:Inflation, For inflating capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich, the US-GDP or UK-GDP indexes should be used, which calculate inflation based on the gross domestic product (GDP) for the United States and United Kingdom, respectively.
  • Paulding only became Secretary of the Navy in mid-1838, casting him as the face of the anti-steam resistance seems a bit unfair?
  • Speeds could be reconciled, listed as 9 knts in infobox and body (for 20 days), 10 knts in body, Copeland says she reached 14 knts top speed during trials but 8 knts cruising?
  • How is 26–27 August calculated? As I read it, she blows up on 26 August and her wreck burns for six hours after that, not enough to reach 27 August even in Auckland.
"At about 8:05 [on the 25th], a boatswain's mate on the gun deck spotted flames emerging from the forward hatch and yelled, 'fire!' " ... "At about 2 am the next morning, Missouri's forward magazine detonated, obliterating the bow as the wreck continued to burn for another 6 hours." Does that explain things? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that's not 27 August, is it? Stikkyy (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph in the Legacy section should be tied specifically to Missouri.
Hi Stikkyy. I am not sure what you are getting at here. Any chance you could unpack that comment a little? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph is talking about Constellation and the (delayed) adoption of steam ships by the Navy, with little direct connection to Missouri. Stikkyy (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stikkyy (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Mallow (K81)

edit


Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a British corvette that ended up serving under four flags. She conducted nearly 100 convoy escort tasks during WWII, first with the British then with the Yugoslav navy-in-exile. While under the British flag she sank a German U-boat (with assistance from smaller ship) and drove others away from convoys, for which her captain was decorated. After the war the new Yugoslav government had to relinquish her, and she ended up serving with the Egyptian navy. This is one of the few remaining non-Featured articles of the 36-article Featured Topic Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Done, thanks Nikki! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Harley

edit
  • Wouldn't it be better to use cite book instead of cite web for the Navy Lists? e.g. The Navy List for June 1943. Vol. 2. National Library of Scotland. 1943. p. 1878. To take that June 1943 issue as an example, it seems odd for a 2258 page edition in two volumes to be rendered as an article rather than a book.
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the full names of the captains really have to be given? If so, then possibly reference the pages where you got the full name.
Probably not, reduced to initials. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly add RN, RNR and RNVR as appropriate after the captains' names.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you have, the MoS requires that these abbreviations be given in full at first mention. And really there should also be a brief in line explanation of what each means. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Gog. I've placed them in full after each and linked to the relevant article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Simon, just checking to see if there is still more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support by ZKang123

edit

Will leave a review.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Design, description and construction:

  • Many ships of the class were modified while they were under construction So these ships weren't originally intended for this class?
Yes, but as lessons were learned, mods were made with later ships of the class and of ships already in service. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • included a total of "a total of" is redundant.
Good point, deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Career:

  • During the balance of 1940, What does "balance" mean here
The remainder of 1940. Changed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I will try to avoid WP:PROSELIST given most sentences here tend to begin with dates (e.g. "During 1941", "On 1 July 1941" etc.) Also, in fact within the same paragraph, you don't have to keep mentioning the year since it's also largely in chronological order.
Have tweaked these, see if there are any others you think need trimming? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • conducting a total of 17 convoy escorts Again "a total" is unnecessary
Quite, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • as her crew was not considered "politically reliable" because they were not aligned with Josip Broz Tito's Partisan forces. A bit of a run on here (...as ...because...); would suggest splitting
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The requirement to return Partizanka was a painful blow to the Yugoslavs Why does Partizanka need to be returned?
The British required it. Tweaked the wording. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This occurred in the immediate aftermath of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and was part of a significant fleet expansion. How did this transfer come about? Like, did Egypt purchase the ship or loan it?
Purchase, clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These are all my comments. Quite short, but in good shape for FA.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking a look, ZKang123. See what you think of my edits in response? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No other issues I see. Support.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GGOTCC - Support

edit
G'day GGOTCC, I've responded to the above review now, so feel free to review at your leisure! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! I got sidetracked by my classes, but will do that now! Sorry about the delay. GGOTCC 05:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the first paragraph of "Design, description and construction", I think it would be great to include information about the Flower-class and the intended purpose. The article states that they were based off Southern Pride, but why? The first paragraph is shallow, as the reader has no idea why the sketch was made or what the drydock had to do with the Royal Navy
I think I've addressed this now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any of the sources mention the namesake of the Flower-class? This can be used to state that a Mallow is a flower.
This seems so simple, but I have been unable to find a source that explains it properly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the stats in the first section specifically for Mallow, or her class? In USS Gyatt, I generalized the measurements and cited data applied for the entire class because each vessel varied from one another. Here, you could state that the dimensions are for the Flowers in general, not just Mallow
I've now addressed this, using the general class stats. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shoreham-class sloop HMS Rochester I understand MOS:SEAOFBLUE issues, but why not link Shoreham-class sloop if both whaling ship and Southern Pride are linked before?
I think the argument is that "whaling ship" might be less widely understood without the link than the class link for HMS Rochester where you can hover over or click on the ship link and it gets you info on what a sloop is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lieutenant Commander W. B. Piggott, RNR Is writing the branch of service like this a British thing? I only seen it as shorthand for "Lieutenant Commander W. B. Piggott of the Royal Navy Reserve" when it is fully written out in the prose.
Great question. It was suggested elsewhere, but now I'm not so sure they should be rendered as postnoms, but just as you suggest. Have changed as suggested. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it MOS to use dashes to abbreviate a timespan? AutoWikiBrowser switches them out when I use it.
Which timespan are you referring to? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer date of 11 January 1944 is never cited in the article
It comes from the renaming ceremony photograph, which is held by the British Imperial War Museum in London. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy to see small ships get attention the deserve! However, I have a few questions. I assume you have nothing about what happened after she was decommissioned in 1975, why the Royal Navy wanted her back (and why the Yugoslavs obeyed), or why the ship was given to the Royal Yugoslav Navy if they were considered unreliable (and whose allegiance were they too)? Explanations at these points would really flush out the article
I found a ref that says she was sold for scrap, but not one that says she was actually scrapped. She was a loan, so presumably the RN were keen to make use of her, if only for sale, and I think my explanation below covers the politics issue. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is convoyweb.org.uk reliable?
The convoyweb Arnold Hague Convoy Database that these entries are drawn from was established by Arnold Hague, who was a RN/RNR officer and then a sub-editor for Jane's Fighting Ships. He also authored several books on the subject of the Allied convoy system in WWII. So, despite the site being arguably an SPS, Hague was an SME published by reliable independent publications. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GGOTCC, I reckon I might have addressed all your comments now. See what you think? Thanks for taking a look. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67 The article looks much better now, thank you! I have no issues supporting this article! GGOTCC 05:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

I hope to be able to get to this one tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 01:51, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it intentional that World War II is not mentioned by name outside of the first sentence of the article?
Great point, no. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under as yard number 1065" - I don't think this is grammatical?
Correct, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to avoid sea of blue. If anyone wants to they can hover over or click the ship link and the link to the class is there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later that year, she was transferred to the Egyptian Navy in which she served as El Sudan." - I'd recommend stating here outright that this was a purchase
Sure, done. I'm just putting together a bit of an expansion on the first para of the Design section, in which I'll explain the need for losts of cheap escorts to deal with the u-boat threat, and I'll obviously keep the reference to WWII in that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: - are you still working on this expansion? Hog Farm Talk 15:14, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry. Just checking it, as there were a lot of different shipyards that built these ships, and I don’t want to be specific when I need to be general, and vice versa. Close to done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:33, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • " During her final escort of the year she was detached from convoy KMS 66 as her crew was not considered "politically reliable". This stemmed from the fact that they were not aligned with Josip Broz Tito's Partisan forces. " - this will need a separate source, as it is found on a different page on the convoyweb website. Additionally - even if we're considering Arnold Hague to be a subject-matter expert who is okay to cite their self-published work, the page this is from (here) notes that the notes were extracted by one Don Kindell from Hague's papers. Is it possible to distinguish on convoyweb what's from Hague and what's from other contributions who likely don't qualify as subject-matter experts?
The overall data is clearly drawn from Arnold Hague's papers (and Hague is a SME on Allied convoys), and that note is specifically annotated as "Additional notes by Arnold Hague and co-workers" for this particular convoy. Now, perhaps the bit in parens is extra from a co-worker, but I think the "not a politically reliable ship in the Eastern Med" is likely to be directly from Hague's notes. I could trim it to remove "This stemmed from the fact that they were not aligned with Josip Broz Tito's Partisan forces." as I think the rest is almost certainly Hague's work. Although, to be fair, this sentence is highly likely to be true given that by late 1944, the Allies were completely aligned with Tito, and were paying lip service only to the forces of the government-in-exile, and given the crew were ex-Royal Yugoslav Navy personnel aligned with the government-in-exile, they wouldn't have been seen as Tito-aligned. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main concern here is the convoyweb question. Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is ready for further discussion, HF. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good so far; please let me know when you've finished putting together the design section expansion. Hog Farm Talk 02:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HF, I think I might have addressed all your comments now, sorry for the delay. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me; supporting. Hog Farm Talk 18:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Parsecboy

edit

Not a ton from me:

  • I second (or third?) the comments above about the design section needing a bit of context on where these ships came from. Also, the line about modifications; I assume this applies to Mallow? And if so, do you know what specifically was changed on her presumable sub-class?
I think I might have now addressed this with the Background section. Some detail of exactly what was done with this specific ship isn't available, only that many mods were made to ships of the class over time. There is info on the main mods to this ship re: armament by the time she was in Yugoslav hands, and they are all included. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea what the .303 machine guns were? Lewis guns, I'd assume?
Yes, confirmed and added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to you, but I prefer to have construction details in the career/service history section, since I think it makes more sense to have the chronological narrative in one place - not a huge deal though.
Have done that, if I understand you correctly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 28 October 1949, Mallow was purchased from the UK by the Egyptian Navy and..." - a bit nitpicky, but this could be rephrased to avoid passive voice like "On 28 October 1949, the Egyptian Navy purchased Mallow from the UK..."
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text says decommissioned in 1975, but the box says stricken - which is correct?
The body, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume we don't know anything definitive on her ultimate fate?
Sold for scrap, but nothing to say she was scrapped. Have added a fn for the sale. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, I had a look in the volumes of Warship International from the early 1970s for any mention of El Sudan (it has a section on naval intelligence - things like ship decommissioning/sale/scrapping/etc. would be mentioned) but came up empty. But I don't actually have any of the issues from 1975, but I know @Sturmvogel 66: has a more extensive collection of them than I do, so he may be able to help.

Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much AFAIK. I've had a look at every relevant book and magazine I can find in the extensive maritime section of my state library, and there isn't much on Egypt in general, let alone this ship. But if Sturmvogel_66 has anything to add, I'd be grateful for it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, see what you think of my responses, Nate. Thanks for taking a look. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work - sometimes, it can be hard to track down the fate of ships like this. I ran into a similar wall with SMS Viper (1876), which was apparently still in use as a crane ship as late as 1970, but that's where the trail goes cold. Parsecboy (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And Lo! He is summoned. She's still shown as a training ship in the 74-75 edition (published 74) of Jane's, but is not mentioned at all in the 81-82 edition which does show deletions in 1975 and 1980. I do have the 1975 issues of Warship International and will check them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No joy in any of the '75–'76 issues. Just to further obfuscate things, the ship is still listed in the 76–77 edition of Combat Fleets of the World, albeit without any mention of its training role.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No further joy in the '77 issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Aza24 – Pending

edit

Will do soon. Please ping me if you do not see comments in a day or two. Aza24 (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting (FACR 2c)
  • The Daily Commercial ref: why is there two issue numbers?
  • You have a space before the colon in Friedman 2008, but not elsewhere
  • Why "Barnsley, South Yorkshire" and not United Kingdom like elsewhere?
  • You used the UK abbreviation in Lamb, but not elsewhere
  • You could link Arnold Hague
Reliability (FACR 1c)
  • I've looked through all of the older sources (a few 1940s ones) in this article and their usage all seems accetable. They are routine references to changes of command (and dates for such), presumably too specific/niche to be in other, more modern sources
  • What makes https://www.convoyweb.org.uk/ a high-quality, reliable source?
  • Refs 18 & 19 after "on 11 January" should be in numerical order
Coverage (FACR 1c)
  • Not seeing issues here.
Verifiability (FACR 1c and 1f)
  • Is Chesneau is listed as the editor for the 1980 publication. Is he also the author for the more specific page references?
  • The History Press seems to be based in Brimscombe and Thrupp, at least at time of publication
Spotchecks – Pass
edit
  • Checked all of the old sources (1940s one), seeing no issues. Given the nominator's lengthy FA history, not seeing a reason for further spotchecks. Happy to do so if the coords request as such. – Aza24 (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aza24, give me a couple of days, as I am rejigging some aspects as a result of the reviews above, and may need to introduce a couple of additional sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Yes, just let me know when you are ready. – Aza24 (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Aza24, I've done that work now. Feel free to review at your leisure! Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aza24, are you going to be able to circle back to this nomination? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes definitely, I should get to it either today or this weekend. Aza24 (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UC

edit

Let's see if we can shift this one off the bottom (dreadful ship-related pun intended). UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • although a significant number of secondary and anti-aircraft guns : in honour of an FAC regular, who would ask "what did it signify, then?", I'm going to propose swapping for the much less pufferyish "large number of", or even "several".
how about "a variety of secondary and anti-aircraft guns"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that works. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:12, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • she served in the fledgling Yugoslav Navy: I think it would be worth briefly explaining how "the Royal Yugoslav Navy" (which seemed reasonably functional) became "the fledgling Yugoslav Navy": suggest something like [[Yugoslav Navy|the fledgling navy]] of the new [[Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia]]..
Excellent idea, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume "Partizanka" means something like "Partisan": can we say that? What's "Nada"?
Partizanka is the feminine noun counterpart of partisan in Serbo-Croat, it is a somewhat idealised term. There is a wiktionary link, which I have added. Nada is a common female given name across Serbo-Croat speaking countries and means "Hope". I have included that in a note. Both in the body when they name changes are mentioned. Let me know if you think they should also be in the lead (obviously made more difficult by the bolding, but I'll work around it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it were me, I'd EFN Partizanka (MOS:NOFORCELINK). Personally, I tend to use named efns and repeat them in the lead in cases like this (see e.g. Panathenaic Way): it's usually easy enough to fit in and doesn't take much in the way of space. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • she was purchased for the Egyptian Navy: this makes it sound like the purchaser was a third party: "by" the Egyptian Navy?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 1930s, the Royal Navy (RN) realised that in the event of war it would have insufficient numbers of escort ships.: presumably "in the event of a major war", "war with Germany", or similar? After all, they managed perfectly well in various small wars throughout the 1920s.
Good point. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some discussion of meeting this need ... occurred in 1936,: seems needlessly periphrastic: can we say where? In Downing Street? In the Admiralty? In pubs in Portsmouth?
Quite, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In February 1939 the concept was revisited and six options were considered: again, I think we need a "by whom" here.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • cost ₤90,000 to build: can we inflate, and possibly contextualise that: was it a lot?
Inexpensive. Added some context. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • one of which was a whaler named Southern Pride: I'm not particularly clear what's going on here: did this ship actually exist? Were they proposing building this whaler? Another ship to the same design?
It already existed, tweaked the wording to make this clearer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • being faster than a trawler and needing a smaller crew than a patrol vessel: what's a patrol vessel if it's not a vessel that does patrols, such as this one?
well, this was an escort rather than a patrol vessel. One escorts mainly cargo ships to protect them against subs, the other patrols on its own or with others to locate and detect subs, not necessarily as part of an escort. Given the options considered, I think what Lamb is referring to here is an Admiralty-designed sloop, but he doesn't make that obvious. I have tweaked the wording slightly within what he seems to be saying without straying into OR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • a Type 123 ASDIC: a case for MOS:NOFORCELINK, I think (we can get the word "sonar" in here).
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to get something like "this design was known as the Flower class or similar into the Background section: at the moment it sounds like this discussion was specifically about HMS Mallow, which it wasn't.
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • lessons learned at sea during World War II: we've missed out the elephant in the room of the war actually starting -- I'm somewhat willing to wear that many readers will know it broke out in 1939, but few will know the month.
  • As the ships of the class , there was an evolution of the class between 1939 to 1942 across the 269 corvettes built for the Allies: I think this would be much clearer the other way around: something like In total, 269 corvettes of the Flower class were built for the Allies between 1939 and 1942. The details of the ships varied, as vessels were built by different dockyards, and lessons learned at sea during World War II were incorporated into the design as later orders were placed. Even then, it's a bit by-the-by, since Flower is an early one. I note that we get a long way into the article before we actually talk about this ship.
  • and length between perpendiculars of 190 feet (57.9 m): not convinced we can round this to 10cm: a foot is just over 30cm (and that's assuming the footage is accurate to 3sf). The same is true of most of the numbers that follow: round for sig figs.
  • They had a crew of 47 men: I don't think many Wrens served at sea, but even then, I do find the metonymy of "men" for "sailors", "soldiers" etc a bit old-fashioned: what about "a crew of 47"? Could consider merging the sentence into what follows, too, for flow.
  • 0.303-inch (7.7 mm) machine guns: this is an odd way to say it: we'd normally say ".303-calibre" or similar (the bullet itself could be up to 7.92 mm wide). Could consider a link to .303 British.
  • Later in the war, ships of the class received two additional depth charge throwers: any idea when?
  • Should we put a date on the armament and complement in the infobox, as it changed?
  • forward-firing anti-submarine Hedgehog: can we get the word "mortar" in here?
  • six single 0.79 in (20 mm) Oerlikon cannons: I would get the mm measurement first, since that's what the thing was actually categorised as: nobody called it a "0.79 inch cannon" (edit: or did they?).
  • two 6-pounder Hotchkiss guns: give the calibre as for the 2-pounder?
  • the firm of Harland and Wolff: the firm use an ampersand; should we, as it's a proper noun?
  • her first convoy was OB 187 which departed Liverpool on 21 July: I don't suppose we know where it was going?
  • In October she was serving with the 37th Escort Group based in Liverpool, along with two sloops and seven other corvettes: this is a case where "she" is a bit suboptimal, as conceivably it could apply to Lieutenant Noall, whose first name and gender have not been given (yes, I know it's safe to assume). It might be worth changing to "the ship" or something similar.
  • together sank U-204 on the 19th: I would state that this was a German submarine: not all readers will know that from the designation.
  • A note of appreciation for how well you've done the prosopography of the commanders, and woven it into the overall narrative: it's very nice work. There's quite a bit of WP:PRIMARY here but I think it's handled well.
  • Noall was later made: in January 1944, if the source is anything to go by?
  • During her final escort of the year she was detached from convoy KMS 66 as her crew was not considered "politically reliable".: another passive I'd be interested in turning active: who made that decision and assessment?
  • part of a significant fleet expansion. El Sudan survived the significant Egyptian naval losses: see above re. "significant" (and in any case, repetition not ideal).
  • Larger Egyptian surface units such as El Sudan: "surface units" feels a bit jargony: "surface ships", "surface vessels" or equivalent? Did Egypt have submarines -- "warships"? I was somewhat amused to see a small corvette described as "larger", but you do quickly explain what it was larger than.
  • In bibliography: make sure it's "United Kingdom" throughout, not "UK".
  • Convoyweb seems to be down. Is it archived? I haven't come across it before: what allows us to vouch for it as a WP:HQRS?
  • ISBNs should be as printed on the book (see WP:ISBN): that's not 13 digits for e.g. a work published in 1992 or 1993 (Macpherson and Miller, Rohwer and Hümmelchen}}
  • In the Navy List citations, we make it sound like they were published by the NLS: suggest formatting closer to the Australian Daily Commercial News citation at the top of the list.
  • Prince Tomislav of Yugoslavia renaming the corvette Nada at Liverpool on 11 January 1944: which one is he? It looks like what's going on in this precise moment is that two priests are blessing it?
  • If I can dissent slightly from a reviewer above: if we have the full (first) name of the captains and can cite it from somewhere reliable, I think it would be good to give it: we don't need "John Herbert Alan Smith", but "John Smith" or "John H. A. Smith" would be good. There are a (very) few people usually known by their initials, but for most people, it's usual practice to introduce them as Firstname Lastname (plus, having the first name is a very useful thing for other researchers who might have found a cross-reference, to be able to tell if they've got the right guy).

UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

edit
  • In the 1930s, the Royal Navy (RN) realised that in the event of a major war it would have insufficient numbers of escort ships. You should explain what an escort ship is. In the lead you talk about a "convoy escort" which helps a little, but the main text should be able to stand alone and even if read together with the lead, people may not know what a convoy is. Also, convoy should link to some more specific section like Convoy#Naval convoys.
  • Southern Pride ... cost ₤75,000 to build Add {{inflation}}.
    There is a flag to {{inflation}} to tell it to use the capital cost formula. I think you just add "index=UK-GDP". RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • improvements on the design were quickly agreed Maybe just a regional english difference, but I would have said "agreed to" or "agreed upon".
  • needing a smaller crew than a purpose-built naval patrol vessel Surely purpose-built vessels could have been designed in various sizes, with various crews. I suspect you want something like "... than any of the purpose-built designs currently under consideration".
  • but lengthened by 9.1 metres (30 ft). In the rest of the article, you put the imperial units first, then convert to metric. Why the opposite order here?
  • because major shipyards were already committed to expanding the fleet, I think this would read smoother as "... already committed to other work", especially with the following "... to build the ships".
  • As the ships of the class were built by different dockyards and lessons learned at sea during World War II were incorporated into the design as later orders were placed, there was an evolution of the class between 1939 to 1942 across the 269 corvettes built for the Allies Overly complex sentence. How about "The ships of the class were built by different dockyards, and lessons learned at sea during World War II were incorporated into the design as later orders were placed. This led to an evolution of the class between 1939 to 1942 across the 269 corvettes built for the Allies."
  • The original Flower-class design had an overall length of 205 feet (62.5 m), and length between perpendiculars of 190 feet (57.9 m), and a beam of 33 ft (10.1 m). Drop the first "and".
  • Most of the Design section (but particularly the first paragraph) is kind of clunky and choppy: "They had this. They had that. They had the other thing".
  • This was intended to better meet the higher air threat in the Mediterranean Sea. Was there something in particular about the Mediterranean which made the air threat greater than in other areas?
  • Mallow was built by the firm of Harland and Wolff at Belfast, Northern Ireland, under yard number 1065,[8] and was ordered on 19 September 1939 ... Full stop after "yard number 1065", then pick up with "She was ordered ..."
  • and her first captain was ... kind of a clunky phrasing.
  • Mallow was quickly put into service as a convoy escort from July 1940 onwards Either "... in July 1940" and drop the onwards, or "was in service as ..."
  • During 1941, she escorted 22 convoys to and from Liverpool I'd start a new paragraph here, even if it leaves the preceding one a bit stubby.

That it for a first pass. RoySmith (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another look at this, I'm a little worried about WP:FACR #4: "stays focused on the main topic". The main topic is the Mallow, but only slightly less than half of the main body text is about the Mallow. The rest (essentially all of Background and Design) is about the Flower class in general. For sure, some of this is needed for context (and there's a small amount that's Mallow-specific) but I think the amount of detail devoted to the class should be significantly reduced and better covered in Flower-class corvette, linked-to via {{main}}. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my review, I requested more information about the Flower-class development as the article previously lacked information about the intended purpose of Mallow, why the Royal Navy built her, and why the design was the way it was. GGOTCC 21:33, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I'm still not wild about the ship/class balance, but I also don't want to put the nominator in a squeeze between contrary reviews. RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I made a similar point above: I note that we get a long way into the article before we actually talk about this ship. There's definitely a way to thread the needle: we could do something like:
  • "HMS Mallow was a Flower-class corvette."
  • "This is what the Flower-class was intended to do and where it came from, in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE (remembering that the focus here is on Mallow".
  • "Breaking off the story of the class when we get to Mallow, here's how that ship fits in and compares to the general type".
I don't think there's a contradiction between my (and Roy's) comment about summary style/article hierarchy and GGOTCC's comment that the article should cover the intended purpose of Mallow, why the Royal Navy built her, and why the design was the way it was. However, it may be that the implementation of that feedback needs a couple of attempts. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely normal to discuss the class in some detail in a ship article when the ship is one of a class. We usually then talk about the particular ship then its career. This isn't a new approach, there are literally hundreds of FA ship articles on en WP which do just that. Just for a couple of examples (not ones I wrote): French battleship France and HMS Hood.

Stikkyy

edit
  • Some pedantry: 24 + 22 + 15 + 15 = 79, not the 80 escorted convoys as in the lead.
Or even 76? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't it be FPR Yugoslavia instead of SFR Yugoslavia? Naval ensign should also be period-accurate – Commons:File:Naval ensign of Yugoslavia (1943–1949).svg
  • I think that the infobox could show her refitted armament as well.
  • Tomislav only showing up in the caption means that the information isn't attributable unless you go into the Commons file, worth a cite?

Stikkyy (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67, this could do with a bit of attention here and in a couple of other places. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ↑ "ՔԱԼԱՆԹԱՐ Ալեքսանդր Հայրապետի (Kalantar Aleksandr Hayrapeti)". Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia (in Armenian). Vol. 12. Yerevan: Armenian Encyclopedia Publishing House. 1986. p. 382.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=1358783941"