The 2015 Trophée Éric Bompard would have been just another figure skating competition were it not interrupted by the November 2015 Paris attacks. The competition results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, the background and history have been extensively re-written to incorporate changes made to 2021 World Figure Skating Championships, the sources are properly formatted and archived, and relevant photographs are used. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and I look forward to any constructive input. Bgsu98(Talk)18:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll conduct a source review of this article, though it should be noted I am still new to this (I've only conducted one for Terraria so far) so patience is greatly appreciated. Icepinner23:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig reveals the top match is 17.4%, where unparaphrasable phrases have been detected (ex: ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating). All results are not copyvios.
Spot-checks are recommended for 10-15% of the article's sources, though given the size of this article, 20% of its sources will be vetted. An RNG will be used and the sources up for inspection will not be listed for fairness. I will also focus on [2], which is the most cited source, and [15], a Facebook post.
[2] Is it possible to provide excerpts for [2]? If so, please do so here or send me a photograph of the pages cited via my Discord (this is an exception under the "no contacting me on Discord DMs" rule).
[7] Besseghier is mentioned in the source. However, I am not too sure whether the source mentions that it was a host pick; he is under France but that doesn't necessarily imply it was a "host pick"
France was hosting the event; ergo, any French skaters added after the original assignments were host picks.
[11]/[12] Where does it say that Ge was removed from the roster on 28 September? The sources were published in October. Also I'm debating whether this is improper synth considering it's not mentioned he was removed due to visa issues.
Date changed to October 7. The second source confirms the removal from the French event was due to the visa. "So have to say sorry, but seems French GP will be unable to make it because of visas."
I interpret it that they speculated they probably couldn't make it, not that they can't actually make it, but I'm willing to accept it if appropriate justification is made
That is a giant stretch. A visa is required for Uzbeks to enter France, Ge states that he won't be able to procure a visa, Ge is removed from the competition. I don't see a problem here.
Alright fair enough. Can be keeped
[15] is it really the best source you can find? Surely there has to be coverage of their partnership ending. Also debating if it's improper synth
Different source added.
now approved
[17]/[18] Although [18] does mention that Amodio had an injury which affected his skating career, it mentions that he withdrew from the 2016 European Figure Skating Championships. Once again, improper synth. Is there a better source to this other than his Twitter account?
Different source added.
approved
Also, why does [18] have the "limited access" parameter? I can access the source just fine. If it's registration, then the content of the article doesn't change after registering for an account I can remove that.This source is now gone.
[23]
[29]
[33] most of the claims are checked out, though the claim that 1,500 people attended the concert is not supported. I've also added the editor's name to the citation, though this can be freely reverted if it's against "consistent source formatting"
Apologies for the off-topic comment but I feel this an issue that should be raised. I'm struggling to see how the article's treatment of the November 2015 attacks follows DUEWEIGHT/SCOPE; whilst brief contextual info is needed, going into this level of detail is perhaps not needed, considering how the attacks led the competition to be cancelled.
I have pared this section down.
Thanks. Do you think it's possible merge the November 2015 attacks and the aftermath section into one, by the way?
There is an Aftermath section which covers followup of the competition, the ISU's response, and Éric Bompard's termination of their sponsorship. It makes sense that followup of the attacks would be included there as well, as all of those events were post-November 13.
Alright, I don't see how it can be merged into one section so we'll just leave it at that
[37] is there a better source for this? The source is a rather opinionated article on migrants and the Schengen area. Also, the claim that seven of the attackers died is not supportedThis source is now gone.
I'm still a bit unsure how to proceed. Technically we can use the source but I want to know whether there are better sources available (ex: interpretation from the NYT, BBC, etc, since it was a major incident)
Okay, maybe I'm lost, because the numbers changed while I was editing. Which source are you referring to?
[36]. The source is still present
New source added. It is now no. 34.
[34] needs the subscription symbol in its citation
[41]
[45] All of the short programs had been completed on 13 November hours before the attacks began This is not mentioned in the source. The closest is an athlete slept early before the attacks commenced. I will also enquire whether there is a better source for this, though I imagine this competition wasn't covered that much by secondary sources. The author's bachelor's degree in journalism somewhat helps him with the "reliability" mark, though looking at [54], it seems that anyone with an interest in skating can contribute.
Paula Slater (from Golden Skate) is a respected and well-known skating journalist, credentialed by the ISU.
What source(s) back up this claim?
WikiProjects are empowered to determine the reliability of sources in their particular area. Golden Skate is one of the sites that has been vetted by the FS community (WP:WikiProject Figure Skating/Style guide#Referencing) and determined by community consensus to be a reliable source. Pingning User:Figureskatingfan.
Given there is consensus by WP:FIGURE that it's a reliable source, it passes the source review.
Also the cancellation of the medal ceremony is not present within the article.
Irrelevant. Since the competition was not finished, of course there was no medal ceremony.
Ok fair enough
[49] I've added quotation marks to the "act of war" statement
[54]/[55] I'm concerned with [55] along with the website in general; The author appears to be self-published, considering how the only thing that even "helps" with her credibility is her interest in skating.
I've already addressed this above, but I also added a different source.
The added source is sufficiently independent and therefore accepted. Likewise, which source(s) say she is credientialed by the ISU?
Some of the links for the citations are presented as archived links even though their links are active. I don't know if it's considered as "strict", but I would like to see this change reflected
Fixed.
The lack of reliable, secondary sources on the competition itself is a bit concerning; Out of the 55 total sources, only [2], [18], [19], and [44] fit the bill. The Golden skate website and The Irish Times news article could fit the bill, though that needs some discussion. The article heavily relies on primary, non-independent sourcing for the competition itself. All the other reliable, secondary sources are used for the attacks, which in itself is overly detailed and needs to be trimmed. It's okay to use a few primary sources for basic info, but if the article heavily uses primary sourcing, then it's a bit of a problem under WP:PRIMARY
Given that WP:FS STYLE advocates for WP:IGNORE, such sources are fine for the FA.
@Bgsu98: I am nearly done with the source review, I just need the scanned pages. Overall, the sourcing for this article is a bit iffy in my opinion. Given that I am relatively inexperienced with FAC and sports articles, I will request for comments from someone who has experience in this field. Icepinner02:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Icepinner: I have e-mailed you the pages. I will address your other concerns tomorrow. I do agree that the text dealing with the attacks is overly heavy; I imported the text from the article's main page and already shaved some of it down. I will take another look at it tomorrow. Thank you for taking the time to do the review. Bgsu98(Talk)03:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98: I am satisfied that this meets the necessary FAC criteria for sourcing. I shall therefore support this nomination in terms of sourcing. Great work! Icepinner22:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will do a full review in due course, but as a drive-by comment I feel that the "aftermath" section should be merged into the "attacks" section, given that all of it relates to the attacks and their immediate impact on the competition and not really any sort of aftermath of the competition -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This series also provides the viewing public with additional televised skating, which was in high demand" - tense changes mid-sentence? Everything else in the background section is in the present tense apart from that one verb........ Done
Any reason for the Changes to preliminary assignments section to be a bullet-pointed list rather than prose.......?
The original format on these articles featured a bulleted list, but at some point, the Project switched to a table format. I have converted the bulleted list to a table. Bgsu98(Talk)20:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the Required performance elements section relates only to the short programme. Obviously that's the only part that actually took place but is there a way to indicate that they would normally have been expected to do more.......?
I guess I can add clarfication that the free programs would have been held the next day – although that is already mentioned elsewhere in the article – but I certainly don't want to load up the article with competition elements for components that did not take place. Bgsu98(Talk)20:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The cashmere manufacturer Éric Bompard had been the principal sponsor of the Grand Prix de France since 2003 and the competition bore the company's name in recognition." I suspect "in recognition" is not quite right; isn't it likely that the sponsorship contractually required the name to be used? As phrased it sounds like the tournament organizers generously decided to use the name in gratitude for the sponsorship.Fixed.
"The series also provides the viewing public with additional televised skating.". This phrasing seems slightly odd to me -- it's clearly a true statement, but is the point that the ISU designed the sequence of competitions to attract more TV coverage, or is this just an editorial comment, sourced to someone outside the ISU?
The way I understand it is that the motivation for the tournament was partly to generate revenue from TV broadcasts. Interest in figure skating was at a high, and the ISU wanted to capitalize on that by hosting competitions in countries where they would be guaranteed decent TV coverage (France, Canada, the U.S., Germany, Japan, and Russia). In fact, Germany lost their host spot to China because China negotiated a more favorable TV deal with the ISU.
I would guess that the "preliminary assignments" are the list of expected competitors known some time before the competition begins. Could we get a sentence or two above that table that clarifies the process? E.g. "At the start of the season, preliminary assignments of competitors for each competition are made, based on the previous year's performances, but these are subject to change because of injury and for other reasons." Though I don't know if "start of the season" or the mention of "the previous year's performance" are correct here.
A preliminary list of entrants is released at the beginning of the season for Grand Prix events. I will try to see if I can track down the original list with the date that they were released, but the Internet Archive is blocked here at work, so I will work on it when I get home this afternoon.
Sure, if you can find it, but that's more than I'm asking for here -- I was just hoping for a sentence to introduce the table, saying more or less what you say here.
In the judging section you give the multipliers for the short program but not the free skate, presumably since it never happened. I think it would be worth giving the free skate multipliers too -- the number was defined for the tournament and is what would have been applied if the tournament had been completed.
As I mentioned in a review above, I don't want to load down the article with details about event components that never took place, such as the required elements for the free skate. And honestly, I'm not sure this table is even necessary.
I also noticed there was no way for me to find out what the base values were for the technical components. Since those component base values are presumably fixed for at least a season and perhaps longer, I can see that it would excessive detail to add them to every tournament article, but is there some other figure skating article which could be linked from "base value" that gives the numbers or at least gives more detail?
I have added a link to ISU Judging System at the top of that section. There does not appear to be a listing of the base values for individual elements at that article, although the individual elements are listed and described. I'm going to ping User:Figureskatingfan here because this is her area of expertise. Honestly, this is wading off into the weeds. Base values may be adjusted every season, so the base value of a triple Lutz right now may not be the same value of a triple Lutz in 2015.
I've struck this; the link you added is enough -- without that I couldn't go find out the information for myself (and I agree it's not specifically relevant to this article).
"and any prize money and qualifying points for the Grand Prix Final were distributed": suggest "and the prize money and qualifying points for the Grand Prix Final were distributed on that basis".Done.
@FAC coordinators: I am seeking permission to nominate a second article since this first nomination has gained what I believe is significant support along with a source review and image review. Thank you for your consideration! Bgsu98(Talk)18:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The opening action of the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War; relatively minor in terms of numbers involved but had significant consequences for the later campaign. The action potentially led to British overconfidence in their superiority over the Zulu on the battlefield and also to the Zulu king selecting the British centre column as the main target for his army. The column was defeated and almost wiped out at the Battle of Isandlwana ten days later. I created the article in 2020 and it has recently passed a MILHIST A-class review - Dumelow (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to get a better scan of the original, which I have now uploaded locally under a published abroad pre-1930 license - Dumelow (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto
File:Sihayos_kraal_action_map_(cropped).png,
I think the most appropriate tag here is Crown Copyright as a published work of the Intelligence Branch of the Quartermaster General’s Department of the British Army, I have switched to this tag - Dumelow (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sihayos_kraal_action_map_(cropped).png: see MOS:COLOUR. Ditto File:Sihayo_kraal_satellite.png
This one might be a bit tricky. I am red-green colourblind and when I created the route overlays I chose colours that appeared distinctive to me. If you've any suggestions for better colours for each line, let me know and I will change them - Dumelow (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest instead changing the line formatting - eg having one line as solid, one dashed, one dots, etc. That ensures that no matter what form of colour-blindness someone has, they can distinguish between the lines. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's a great idea! I've had a go, let me know if it needs any further changes. I've just changed the satellite photo. I removed the map overlay as the underlying map has errors and it didn't really add anything. I've added an additional image to the background section, which I think is helpful in depicting three of the detachments involved. It should be OK as published in London in March 1879 - Dumelow (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Natal_native_contingent.jpg needs a US tag and a description of the work undertaken to try to identify the author
"reconnaissance in force" - is that different than a "reconnaissance force"? Or is this simply BrEng?
It's a military term to indicate a scouting party that is sufficiently strong to engage in combat with the enemy rather than just to locate them and report back. It is linked in the article to Reconnaissance#Reconnaissance-in-force, which hopefully explains it to those that aren't familiar? - Dumelow (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The British lost 2 members of the NNC killed and at least 14 wounded." - I don't think that "and at least 14 wounded" is grammatical - where's the verb?
"The NNC became pinned down but Hamilton-Browne led one company, to assault the Zulus in the rough ground." - that comma isn't needed and should be placed before "but"
Good idea, it's a South African term for a ford, particularly in undeveloped frontier country. I am away from my books for about a week or so, but I think there is a good explanation in one of them, I will add in a footnote to define the term when I can - Dumelow (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "below the belt" in quotes? If it is a direct quote, it should be immediately followed by a citation. If it's because it's a colloquialism, perhaps Wiktlink instead.
It's a quote from the source, I have duplicated the citation from the end of the sentence for now. I'm away from my books for about a week or so but will double check if it is attributed to anyone in particular by Snook. I remember looking around for other sources but finding nothing more specific. It is perhaps down to Victorian prudishness, the implication is that he was struck in the genitals - Dumelow (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No luck. Snook (2010) has "he was standing not far from the foot of the bluff, waving his sword around, when a rock thrown from above hit him painfully 'below the belt'. Even the NNC NCOs, men well accustomed to the sporting langauge of the frontier, were mightily impressed by the stream of Gaelic oaths emanating from the doubled-up major. Black decided to retire for a moment or two to regain his composure, and on falling back through the bush came across Glyn, Clery and Browne, who had been eyewitnesses to his discomfiture. One of them was thoughtful enough to express regret at the major's 'wounding', at which all three collapsed into fits of laughter" - Dumelow (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And (this out of curiosity more than anything) why the lower case 'kraal', compared to the upper case 'Drift'? They don't strike me as being particularly different, albeit one man-made and the other natural.
I don't know but the preponderance of (but not all) sources don't capitalise "kraal" in "Sihayo's kraal", but do "drift" in "Rorke's Drift" and "Fugitive's Drift". I suspect it is because the former hasn't survived as a modern placename but the latter have (both drifts also have tourist lodges named after them which probably helps) - Dumelow (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, in the first sentence of the lead, the word "kraal" may be accepted as part of the name without explanation. However, I really would briefly explain the word when it appears in the second sentence. You provide a lengthy footnote, which is interesting, but I still did not know what the word means in this particular context. I suggest to add a brief explanation in brackets, e.g. "settlement" or "cattle enclosure", just that readers do not have to follow the link to the footnote. The footnote won't be available when reading the blurb that will appear on the main page.
I have moved the footnote to the second mention of kraal. I am a bit reluctant to add a clarification in brackets when it is wikilinked to kraal here, but happy to take other opinions - Dumelow (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NNC became pinned down but Hamilton-Browne led one company, to assault the Zulus in the rough ground. – What does "rough ground" mean here?
Likely to be rocky ground with vegetation, when I am back next week I will check the sources to see if there is anything specific. The implication is that it would be difficult to quickly move up to the Zulu position and therefore the attackers would likely suffer losses by fire from the defenders - Dumelow (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Knight (1992) has "amongst the boulders" and Snook (2010) has "Browne pressed on into the scrub", I have used "Zulu warriors who were hiding among boulders, shrubs and caves at the edges of the gorge" in the previous paragraph. Happy to take suggestions as to better wording here ("boulders and scrub", "cover", "difficult ground"?) let me know - Dumelow (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Zulu warriors retreated up steep path leading to the top of the cliffs – "the" missing?
The men of the NNC with rifles opened fire, causing the company under Hamilton-Browne at the foot of the cliffs, who were also under fire from the Zulus, to take cover. – I can't follow here. Take over what? Why did opening fire caused it?
I think you have misread "cover" here, meaning terrain that offers protection from incoming rounds. We don't appear to have a decent article on it, the best I could find was Enfilade and defilade, where the latter term means firing from cover. What I am trying to convey with this sentence is that Hamilton-Browne's men were already under fire from the Zulu but were forced to take cover (and hence stop their attack) when their comrades opened fire dangerously close to them - Dumelow (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
number of obsolete firearms and a brand-new wagon were also recovered from Sihayo's kraal. – Much earlier in the article, you stated that they "recovered" prestige staffs. Shouldn't these two lootings be discussed together, maybe even in one sentence?
Yes, great idea, I have merged them and included mention of the livestock that are dealt with in more detail in the "Aftermath" section. I am not sure why I used "recovered" here, I have switched to "took", the staffs were undoubtedly loot as they would have been the personal property of Sihayo but I don't think we can class the removal of weapons as looting - Dumelow (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The action seems to have convinced him to order an attack the Centre Column – "at" missing?
The British soldiers recovered a number of Sihayo's carved prestige staffs from the kraal. – "Recovered" is a quite positive verb, when the source speaks about "looting". I think we should call it by its name. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike Christie. I've redlinked it and will hopefully get around to creating an article if no-one beats me to it. I'd love to create one at some point for the iButho regimental/social system but that'll take a bit of work - Dumelow (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Washing of the Spears" if doi:10.10520/AJA10231757_225 is to be believed a source to be used with caution, but apparently it's not being used for anything suspect. Most of the other sources seem reliable but with many I can't find much information like reviews. Didn't do any spotchecking. Formatting seems consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus, yes Morris' work is a bit dated now though it was pioneering at the time and is broad ranging. Given the situation in South Africa at the time and Morris' other commitments (he wrote most of it while on posting to Berlin with the CIA and accessed archives by correspondence) it is light on input from the Zulu side of things. I have tried to prefer more modern sources where possible - Dumelow (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Nynetjer, third pharaoh of the Second Dynasty of Egypt in the Early Dynastic Period, in the 28th century BC. He ruled Egypt for around 40 years and had a large gallery tomb built for himself in Saqqara. Although Nynetjer is the best attested king of his dynasty, his reign is still poorly known. Political unrest and religious troubles seem to have erupted towards the end of his reign, leading to a partition of the country for one or two generations.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A first batch, mostly focusing on the lead and bibliography. On a quick scan through, I'm picking up a couple of grammatical or idiom lapses; a good proof-read from some fresh eyes might be beneficial. UndercoverClassicistT·C15:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
some time in 29th to early 27th century BC -- not quite grammatical. Are these dates for Nynetjer specifically or for the Early Dynastic Period generally? Likewise, between 35 up to 49 years: between 35 and 49 years. This will need correcting in the infobox too.
Tentative fix. These dates are for Nynetjer alone. The problem is Egyptologists are higly uncertain on the matter and have proposed dates differing by over a century. All the dates they proposed are reported in the footnote 2 accessible from the infobox. Here is what they proposed c. 2810 BC, 2810–2760 BC, 2790–2754 BC, 2785–2742 BC, 2767–2717 BC, 2760–2715 BC, c. 2700–2660 BC. This spans no less than 150 years! Do you think I should present these dates in another way? This is the way it was done for all other FA articles on pharaohs. I propose to clarify the lead sentence with "The dates for his reign are uncertain, Egyptologists have proposed that it took place at some point between the late 29th and the early 27th century BC for 35 to 49 years, most likely circa 40 years." Iry-Hor (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would work in broad terms, though NB the idiom: better as Egyptologists have proposed that it took place at some point between the late 29th and the early 27th century BC for 35 to 49 years, and most likely lasted around 40 years. The phrase "the reign took place for X years" doesn't really work in English. UndercoverClassicistT·C18:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to make it more obvious what the list of (I assume) alternative names in the infobox actually is? In particular, I'm not sure all readers will grasp what [Netjermu deprecated] means: suggest replacing that with an EFN that goes into some more detail (e.g. "The rendering Netjermu, proposed by the Egyptologist SuchAndSuch/made under the SuchAndSuch transliteration system/popular in the nineteenth century (or whatever), is no longer considered correct.")
Fixed So these are names by which Nynetjer is called in various Egyptological publications. For simplicity I have remove the "deprecated" mention and kept Netjermu since this is used in old publications (early 20th century). Note that all ancient Egyptian names of the king are given in the infobox if you click on the [Show] button. Iry-Hor (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox image caption is a sentence fragment, so no period (MOS:CAPFRAG)
I think the lead could do more to help non-Egyptologists through it. See, for instance, These suggest that royal activity was largely confined to Memphis and its vicinity: was Memphis just another city?
Fixed I say "The likely locations for these events indicate that royal activity was largely confined to the capital Memphis and its vicinity in Lower Egypt".Iry-Hor (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
on its first dynasty premises: not quite the right idiom, I don't think: on its premises here would normally mean "on the same physical site".
but became more sophisticated: can we elaborate a little as to how?
Fixed I gave more details from the main text: "The administrative structure of the state continued on its first dynasty basis but became more sophisticated, with the earliest evidence for the nome regional management system dating to Nynetjer's reign.".Iry-Hor (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link on "later periods" to Late Period of ancient Egypt is an easter egg to me -- suggest using a date range here if "between 664 and 323" is intended.
Fixed I removed the piping altogether because in fact the tomb was reused in several different periods, so it is better not to single out one over the others.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the tomb proved to still contained some of the original funerary equipment of the king when excavated. This included hundred of jars that once held wine, beer and jujube fruits<,> as well as many stone tools<,> some of which seem to have been used in a ritual feast at the time of Nynetjer's burial: some grammatical wonkiness here.
Fixed I propose: "Although used as a necropolis during Egypt's later periods, the tomb still housed some of the original funerary equipment of the king. This included hundred of jars that once held wine, beer and jujube fruits. Excavations have also produced numerous stone tools, some of which seem to have been used in a ritual feast for Nynetjer's burial. "
The subterranean tomb was likely built with associated superstructures none of which subsist as they were levelled and overbuilt by subsequent pharaohs.: ditto -- needs a comma before none and another word for subsist -- "remain"?
Fixed I wrote " The subterranean tomb was likely built with associated superstructures, none of these remain as they were levelled and overbuilt by subsequent pharaohs.".Iry-Hor (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note 96 -- is that a plate number? Format as such if so.
I don't understand, what is the issue with this? Indeed I mean to say that on pages 3 to 8, in plates 2 to 9 the objects to look at are those numbered 2 to 8. What format should I use for this?Iry-Hor (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah -- I think the numbers may have shifted; my fault for not being clear. It's the note that currently reads Petrie & Griffith 1901, pp. 26–27, see also Pl VIII.13.. -- "Pl" should surely be "pl. " if it stands for "plate"? NB also two full stops at the end. UndercoverClassicistT·C18:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seperately, there are one or two places where |p= is used instead of |pp=, or vice-versa -- this is easiest to spot outside the editor view (you'll see e.g. "p. 1–2"). UndercoverClassicistT·C18:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography -- book titles should consistently use title case. We are currently inconsistent as to whether to write "volume X" as part of the title or to use the |volume= parameter.
Fixed I think. I kept only thr volume unchanged in the few cases where it is an integral part of the main title of the book (see e.g. Baker's book).Iry-Hor (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can still see a few titles in sentence case: Baines and Málek 2000, for instance. Emery 1964 has a hyphen where a dash is needed. In Kahl 1994, 0. is an ordinal, so needs the dot after it. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed as far as I could see (especially with the dash, I have trouble seeing the difference between hyphens, endashes and emdashes).Iry-Hor (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A tip, if you want one -- you can copy-paste an endash and then use ctrl/cmd-f to highlight them. I tend to do the inverse and ctrl-f for hyphens, which helps me see if any are in the wrong place. UndercoverClassicistT·C07:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Caps on "Loeb Classical Library" (it's a proper noun). Ditto "British School of Archaeology in Egypt", "Facts on File" and "Cambridge World Archaeology" (series names are names nonetheless).
Málek 2000 is missing a location. The template documentation advises against using locations when they're part of the publisher's name (e.g. Oxford University Press), but that should be applied consistently or not at all.
Archaeologically, Nynetjer is the best-attested of the kings of the early second dynasty: confusingly, here we probably shouldn't have the hyphen!
Fixed I think I get it from the articles you sent, the hyphen should be present if the words make up a compound adjective, is that it?Iry-Hor (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost -- if they make up a compound adjective and are used attributively -- so "he is the best-known king" but "the king is best known for his seven wives"; "I saw a well-dressed woman on the street" but "the woman was well dressed, unlike her husband". That's the most of it, barring a couple of exceptions like old-fashioned, short-term and tongue-tied which are always hyphenated, and a rarer few like death metal band which almost never are.. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His name appears in inscriptions on numerous[1] stone vessels and clay sealings from his tomb at Sakkara.: this has a citation in mid sentence, which isn't great for readability. Could it be moved after the full stop, perhaps multi-cited with another?
Fixed this was meant to justify the use of the word "numerous" which could be seen as biased but is indeed used by the source. I have moved the citation at the end of the sentence (I prefer to keep it there so it is clear the source is used to justify this sentence and note the next one).Iry-Hor (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
king Seth-Peribsen etc -- per MOS:PEOPLETITLES, "King" should be capitalised when it's used as if part of someone's name. However, if you want to avoid that, you could use "the king Seth-Peribsen" (in Roman topics we tend to try to avoid "Emperor Hadrian" if we can as anachronistic). UndercoverClassicistT·C07:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I removed the word king altogether since it is clear either from context or from clicking on the link to Seth-Peribsen's article.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further attestations include ... in a mastaba in Giza and a tomb in Helwan: as you can see when we cut out the intervening words, this isn't quite grammatical -- we need a noun phrase before in. "Inscriptions"?
Fixed well spotted, I have cut the sentence into pieces: "Further attestations include a small ivory vessel from Saqqara[21] and sealings bearing his name from the tombs of three elite individuals in North Saqqara.[22][23] Additional sealings were uncovered in a mastaba in Giza[24] and in a tomb in Helwan." Is that satisfactory? Iry-Hor (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we explain what a serekh is, to satisfy MOS:NOFORCELINK?
Done, I changed the sentence to afford the space required by an explanation: "Nynetjer's name also appears on a rock inscription near Abu Handal in Lower Nubia which shows a serekh of the king. A serekh is a rectangular symbol enclosing a royal name and representing the façade of a palace surmounted by the Horus falcon. It is the oldest form of royal titulary from ancient Egypt." Iry-Hor (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relative chronological position of Nynetjer as the third ruler of the early second dynasty and successor of Raneb is a consensus among Egyptologists.: that's a lot of citations. Do we really need all of them? If so, can we bundle them to reduce the wall of blue?
I do not know how to convey the idea of "consensus" other than providing all these citations? Indeed none of the sources explicitely say that this is a consensus even though they all say the same thing. So if a reader challenges the idea that this is a consensus, how should we persuade him/her? Perhaps I could include all of these citations in a single footnote if you think this is better.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:SYNTH, we can't simply list sources to indicate consensus anyway -- we need a source that actually says "the consensus is..." After all, there are presumably a few oddballs who disagree or have disagreed, and another editor could otherwise line all of them up and say "look, there's consensus!" for the opposite conclusion. At a minimum I'd put multiple sources in one footnote, but the previous point may be more important anyway. UndercoverClassicistT·C12:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
whose serekhs are inscribed in seemingly chronological order on Hetepedief's right shoulder: Hotepsekhemwy, Raneb then Nynetjer: comma after then. I must admit, on its own, this seems pretty weak evidence -- surely there could be some other logic to the order (the three "best", in order? Pronunciation?) -- but then I'm not an Egyptologist.
I see your point, I think Egyptologists work by combining evidences, all of which are too weak to prove anything on their own. Indeed there are historical sources supporting this order of succession (if you accept name variants) and archaeological evidences suggest that e.g. Nynetjer reigned after Raneb (because he reinscribed his name on his predecessor's on some stone bowls) or that Hotepsekhemwy was the dynasty founder (notably because of the meaning of his name and the troubles at the end of the first dynasty after Qaa). Taken together these clues strongly support the idea that the inscriptions on Hetedief's shoulder really is just what it seems: a list of kings in chronological order.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further archaeological evidences support this theory, notably stone bowls of Hotepsekhemwy and Raneb reinscribed during Nynetjer's rule: evidence supports (evidence is a mass noun in English). We tend to avoid notably, interestingly etc as WP:EDITORIALISING -- if it weren't worth noting, we wouldn't be bothering the reader with it.
the oldest is the Old Kingdom royal annals: if we're going to say that something is the oldest X, we should probably say how old it is.
Fixed I moved up a passage of text that was presenting this source later on in the article. Now the sentence reads: "Several historical sources also point to the same conclusion. The oldest of these is the Old Kingdom royal annals now known after the name of its main fragment, the Palermo Stone. These annals were likely first compiled during the early fifth dynasty, possibly under Neferirkare Kakai (mid-25th century BC) around whose reign the record stops.[38][39] These annals are considered to be a reliable witness to Nynetjer's rule in particular because they correctly give his name "in contrast to the corrupt, garbled variants found in later king lists" (Wilkinson).[40] While the Palermo stone does not preserve the identity of Nynetjer's immediate predecessors[...]".Iry-Hor (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is the Aegyptiaca (Αἰγυπτιακά), Ptolemy II (283–246 BC) by Manetho: I'm struggling to parse this title: are we saying it's the Aegyptiaca, written by Manetho during the reign of Ptolemy II? I probably wouldn't include the Greek script, as this is the English Wikipedia and relatively few readers can read it (plus it's practically identical to the Latin transliteration/translation).
Yes the title is Aegyptiaca, I gave the original Greek title as well but can remove it. This sentence appears word for word in over ten additional FA articles on pharaohs but this is an interesting problem: should we report the original title of an ancient book or only its translated one??Iry-Hor (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, we just use the English: "the Iliad not Ἰλιάς, "the One Thousand and One Nights" not أَلْفُ لَيْلَةٍ وَلَيْلَةٌ. If the original title is vitally important in context, we can always footnote it (I tend to do this when referring to works not generally available in English, so that interested readers can actually find them -- see e.g. n. 136 on Ludwig Ross). UndercoverClassicistT·C12:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it is now known only through later writings by Sextus Julius Africanus and Eusebius. According to the Byzantine scholar George Syncellus: again, dates would help here.
Aegyptiaca recorded "Binôthris" (Biνωθρις) or "Biophis" (Βίοφις): as above, I'm not sure the Greek script really helps here -- it's not as if the letters are distinct in English but easily confused in Greek.
In this situation, unlike the Aegyptiaca for which I feel neutral, I would prefer to keep the Greek version here since this is the name of the king in the ancient source. I guess the chance is small that someone reading this is also an avid reader of Syncellus in his original Greek but it feels to me like an information would be missing.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm -- we haven't given the names of the various Egyptian kings in the original script, so this seems an odd place to stand on it, especially as transliteration between English and (ancient) Greek is completely predictable: there's only one way to write "Binōthris" (NB the macron used on the o) in the ancient Greek script. Being more pedantic, there's a mistake in Biνωθρις -- the second letter is a Latin i and the accent is missing. UndercoverClassicistT·C12:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the names of the kings in the original ancient Egyptian script are given in the articles, please click on the [Show] button in the infobox, we provide the hieroglyphs, their transliteration and translations. This is the case for all names in all FA articles on pharaohs and in most pharaoh articles. The problem that the [Show] button is not often noticed is recurrent but we haven't found a solution in spite of extended discussions on the matter. Some of the issue is technical: we can't significantly alter the infobox source code (e.g. to make the button bold or larger) we could only alter its left/right position which we did so as to make it more noticeable. For the mistake on the "i" of Binothris I fixed it, but for the accent on the o, I follow Waddell's rendering of the Greek in the Aegyptiaca which has "ô".Iry-Hor (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not of all the kings, though -- we don't name Seth-Peribsen is hieroglyphs, so why name Binothris in Greek script? Using a circumflex to mark a long vowel is outdated (see WP:GREEK) and risks confusion with the circumflex accent ῶ, often now written with ^ as the accent. Per MOS:CONFORM, we don't need to retain purely typographical features if they don't otherwise fit our MoS. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I get your point about Peribsen and other kings mentioned in the article. That said Binothris and Biophis are both referring to the main subject of the article. I am not sure what to decide, it is true that we are getting farther from the era of classic studies when scholars got to know ancient kings from classical latin and Greek texts prior to their true ancient names. I corrected the ō as you indicated. I propose to put the Greek versions of the names in footnotes to settle the matter. Do you agree?Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Binôthris likely being the Hellenized form of Banetjer, the name used for Nynetjer during the Ramesside era: strictly, I would italicise the first two names in this sentence per MOS:WORDSASWORDS.
Following Helck who points to Nynetjer's celebrating a sed-festival to support a reign of at least 30 years (in note 5) -- I think this could do with some explanation. Was a sed-festival usually celebrated after three decades of rule, for example?
Fixed. Yes indeed, throughout Egypt history and with very exception (Akhenaten...), the Sed festival was a rejuvenation feast that was first celebrated only on the kign's 30th year of reign. After that the feast could be held more regularly, as much as the king felt the need to replenish his forces. This is explained later on in the main text, it is unfortunate that the footnote comes first. I have updated the footnote with an explanation "Helck points to the celebration of a sed-festival by Nynetjer. This was a rejuvenation feast that could only be held after three decades of rule. Consequently, according to Helck, this supports a reign of at least 30 years." Iry-Hor (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the Turin Canon gives him 96 years of rule: what's the Turin Canon?
This is explained earlier in the main text, under "Relative Chronology". It says "The second-oldest historical source on Nynetjer is the Turin canon, a list of kings written under Ramses II". Should I recall that here?Iry-Hor (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, in Africanus' version of the Aegyptiaca, Binôthris, the third king of the second ynasty is credited with 47 years of reign: a couple of things here: "Africanus's" per MOS:', italicise the title, and macron for circumflex in the transliterated Greek. It might be worth making it a bit clearer that this is (probably) our man -- not everyone will have read (or fully digested) the preceding subsection, especially if navigating via the ToC.
Fixed, I wrote "Secondly, in Africanus's version of the Aegyptiaca, Binōthris, the Greek name given to Nynetjer, is credited with 47 years of reign" although it sounds as if the "name" not the man was credited with 47 years of reign.
Yes -- perhaps Binōthris -- as Nynetjer was known in Greek -- is credited...? Although earlier we were a little tentative as to whether they were 100% definitely the same person (we seemed to leave it on "probably"). UndercoverClassicistT·C15:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Well the issue is that nothing is really completely certain in historical/archaeological studies of such remote periods (after all Nynetjer died over 4600 years ago!). I wrote "as Nynetjer was most probably known in Greek".Iry-Hor (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does "Sed festival" have a capital (or a hyphen)? We vary on both counts.
Fixed you are right I changed my mind several times and it shows. I will remove the hyphens and capitalize the word Sed throughout.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a well identified Egyptian king: hyphenate well-identified
The Palermo stone, main fragment of the Old Kingdom royal annals,: the main fragment -- but what does main mean here? "Largest"?
Fixed yes it means largest, the annals were engraved on a large stone slab from which survives 7 pieces which represent only a small portion of the original record.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note 6 is massive. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but would like some convincing that it's (all) of value here.
Well I am not sure either. This section was already in the main text of the article when I started working on it. I did not see mistakes in it so had no reason to remove it, but I also have no special reason to keep it. I am really neutral on this.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
an "adoration of the celestial Horus", Although not: something is wrong with the punctuation here.
Although not mentioned on the royal annals: in, I think, as we're talking about them as a text rather than an artefact (cf. mentioned in the inscription).
Another bowl of the king mentions a chapel of Hedjet: what does "bowl of the king" mean -- owned by him? From his reign?
Clarified it means the bowl bears the king's name. It was either an equipment owned by some institution (like the chapel) or a funerary bowl prepared as an equipment for his tomb. I wrote "Although not mentioned in the royal annals, the goddesses Bastet and Neith must also have received cults as witnessed by stone bowls on which their names are associated Nynetjer's. Another bowl bearing the king's name mentions a chapel of Hedjet [...]"Iry-Hor (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Contra this opinion: I think this is a bit informal and a little MOS:JARGON for our purposes here.
Fixed I wrote "This could point to royal activity being largely confined to Lower Egypt during his reign. The inscription bearing Nynetjer's name found in Nubia could point to an exception to this observation, as it may be a clue that he sent a military expedition into this region [...]"
the expedition is not mentionned in the surviving fragments: typo.
An historical source dated to the third dynasty: an historical source is a bit vague -- any idea what we're talking about here? Can we put a rough calendar date on the third dynasty?
Fixed Sure, I wrote "According to the annals of the third dynasty (27th century BC) this census involved an enumeration of gold and land".Iry-Hor (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing of a seal impression mentionning (caption): typo.
From at least the reign of Sneferu onwards this extended census included cattle counts—under which name it became known—while oxen and small livestock were recorded from the fifth dynasty onwards: again -- most readers won't have a sense of these as chronological markers.
The datings of these inscriptions, made of black ink, is difficult (note 9): dating is singular. I would probably go for "Dating these inscriptions ... is difficult", just for idiom.
this treasury did not function as envisaged by a modern reader (note 10): how are we deciding what "a modern reader" will be envisaging at this point? Honestly, I think this footnote does a lot of good, and could be condensed and promoted to the body.
agricultural produces and/or stone ware: "and/or" is discouraged per the MoS: can we be specific? Could they choose whether to administer crops or vessels? Did it vary over time?
Although a single estate prodiving natron. Typo. Worth glossing briefly what natron is used for, per MOS:NOFORCELINK?
Fixed. I wrote "Although a single estate providing natron—a type of salt used for curing food, cleaning and in the mummification process—is known from a seal impression [...]".Iry-Hor (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having just read the Administration section, I think we could structure it more effectively to put the bottom line up front -- that Nynetjer's reign shows the earliest evidence for some major increases in the state capacity of Egypt and the areas which the state saw as "its business". At the same time, it's not clear how far geographically this state actually stretched.
Historical records preserve conflicting lists of kings between the end of Nynetjer's reign and that of Khasekhemwy, who oversaw military campaigns against the North of Egypt: north. Can we give an idea of how long this period was? On another note, we've fairly consistently used Upper/Lower Egypt, so "north of" reads a little oddly.
Fixed concerning the north of Egypt. For the period we really can't give any idea, indeed the mid second dynasty is one of the most obscure periods in the history of Egypt, nobody is sure how many kings reigned, over which parts of the country and for how long. Essentially between Nynetjer and Khasekhemwy nothing is certain except that Seth-Peribsen was in there. I think this represents a gap of one or two generations but could be more: specialist of the first dynasty see it as finishing c. 3000 BC to 2900 BC and those of the third dynasty, in particular Djoser the first 3rd dynasty king, all agree on a date c. 2650 BC for him. This would imply at least 250 years for the 2nd dynasty but if you add up what is known you are nowhere near this tally and nobody has proposed a coherent way to plug that gap (most of the tentatives have been by moving the first dynasty forward in time but this disagrees with radiocarbon dates for example). So there is a big question mark of completely unknown temporal size in there.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm -- completely unknown, as in we don't know whether it was a thousand years or two weeks? I think we can probably do something here, even if it ends up as "a gap of at least 100 years" (or whatever) and a footnote explaining the complications. UndercoverClassicistT·C12:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done I added "The period from Nynetjer's death until Khasekhemwy's coronation is very obscure and the understanding of it has seen little progress in Egyptology over the entire 20th century. Consequently, an accurate estimate of its length is impossible, the total temporal duration of second dynasty remains debated by Egyptologists and boils down educated guesses of one to two centuries". plus citations for each claim.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing:
This is manifested through he abandonment of the first dynasty necropolis of Abydos: typo (the abandonment). Hyphen in "first-dynasty".
. A tentative to counteract this trend could explain why: missing something: was an attempt intended for a tentative?
Fixed yes I mean that the king may have attempted to please Upper Egyptian interests with this, or reinforce their claim to what was a remote part of their realm as seen from Memphis.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the novel cultual emphasis put on Ra by Raneb: typo.
Fixed. I did mean "cultual" as in "cult", because Raneb emphasised or gave a new role to the god Ra. I changed this sentence to solve also your next point by " For Grimal, the establishment of the cult of Ra by Raneb and the emphasis on Bastet and Sopdu, both Lower Egyptian deities, on Raneb and Nynetjer's behalf may have been perceived as too favourable to northern Egypt". I kept northern here to avoid repeating Lower Egypt.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
may have been perceived as too favourable towards the north of Egypt.: see earlier on "north of Egypt", but I think the connection needs explaining anyway.
In this case, the division of Egypt would have been peaceful at first, as possibly witnessed by the joint mortuary cults in Saqqara of Senedj and Seth-Peribsen: are these two his sons? We haven't introduced Senedj at all, and haven't really given a proper sense of where Seth-Peribsen fits into the story.
Tentative fix. My bad, Senedj is introduced but later in the text. Nobody knows the family relations between the kings of the time, in addition, nobody is sure which king fits where and when in the story... To avoid problems at this point in the text I propose to simply update with "[...] as possibly witnessed by the joint mortuary cults in Saqqara of two subsequent second dynasty kings Senedj and Seth-Peribsen, would might have ruled over Lower and Upper Egypt [...]"Iry-Hor (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, to address the problem of feeding the Egyptian population, Nynetjer split the realm into two and his successors ruled two independent states until the famine came to an end.: I don't really see how that would help -- surely, if anything, splitting the state makes it harder for regions in food surplus to assist those in famine?
I believe that you are thinking about a state that is far too organized for that time period, when even basic administrative structures that we take for granted had not yet been invented (much of these came with the first pyramids). In particular, an effective redistribution of food (and the apparatus needed to do so) was non existent and people subsisted locally. Anyway the source does not really say how splitting the state would make it easier to handle, perhaps the late Roman empire is a good example for us?
Bell's theory is now refuted by Egyptologists such as Stephan Seidlmayer, who corrected Bell's calculations: refuted means that we're categorically saying it's not true. Is that so? In that case, we need to rework the initial framing of Bell's theory to make clear that it belongs in the past (WP:FRINGE). More generally, we spend a lot of time in this paragraph talking about something we ultimately conclude didn't happen.
Fixed no it is only in Seidlmayer's eyes that it is refuted. Hoffman shared Bell's ideas and Wilkinson mentions them as well. I have updated the whole paragraph: "In contrast, Egyptologists such as Barbara Bell and Michael Hoffman believe that an economic catastrophe such as a famine or a long-lasting drought could have affected Egypt around this time.[116] Therefore, to address the problem of feeding the Egyptian population, Nynetjer may have split the realm into two and his successors ruled independent states until the famine came to an end. Bell points to the inscriptions of the Palermo stone, where, in her opinion, the records of the annual Nile floods show constantly low levels during this period.[111] Bell's theory is not accepted by some Egyptologists such as Stephan Seidlmayer, who objects to Bell's calculations. For Seidlmayer the annual Nile floods were at their usual levels at Nynetjer's time up to the period of the Old Kingdom. According to him, Bell had overlooked that the heights of the Nile floods in the Palermo Stone inscriptions only takes into account the measurements of the nilometers around Memphis, but not elsewhere along the river. Any long-lasting drought is would therefore less likely to be an explanation.[117]" Iry-Hor (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
all attempts by modern Egypotlogists at reconstructing events from the end of Nynetjer's rule: typo. Does from mean "around" or "after"? If the latter, is that true until (say) 30 BCE?
Fixed, I have clarified, basically Wilkinson emphasized in several articles what I wrote in the new version of the introduction of the present section, namely that really nobody knows what happens between the death of Nynetjer and the coronation of Kasekhemwy. Keep in mind that, while not as famous as the intermediate periods, the mid second dynasty is actually even more obscure... I wrote "As Wilkinson remarks, all attempts by modern Egypotlogists at reconstructing events between Nynetjer's end of reign and Khasekhemwy's ascend to the Upper Egyptian throne remain highly speculative owing to the lack of strong, direct evidence on the matter".Iry-Hor (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear whether Nynetjer's successor voluntarily shared his reign with another ruler, if there were rival claimants to the throne, or if the Egyptian state was split later, at the time of this successor's death: I feel like we should get the elephant out of the room first and say that we're not sure who Nynetjer's successor actually was.
Done.
have Wadjenes as Nynetjer's immediate successor and as the predecessor of Senedj both of whom are poorly known.: dodgy grammar here -- both of whom? I would cut at Senedj and look to rework the rest.
I propose "All known king lists from historical sources such as the Saqqara list, the Turin Canon and the Abydos table have Wadjenes as Nynetjer's immediate successor, a king who is poorly known. These sources claim that Wadjenes was succeeded by the equally obscure Senedj. Wadjenes and Senedj may or may not be the same as Weneg[note 10] and Nubnefer, shadowy rulers who could have ruled shortly after Nynetjer too." Here we are in the midst of chaos: nobody knows who reigned where and when among these guys and we don't even know if these are various names of the same person/people.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
indicating that an ennemy had invaded the historical seat of Upper Egyptian power: typo.
He started his reign in Upper Egypt under the name Khasekhem, "The powerful one has appeared",: I can see why it matters to translate his new name, but do we really need to do so for his old one?
Actually I think it matters because it first name indicates his sole allegiance to the god Set, which represented Upper Egypt at the time (he was only much later considered to be an evil god by Egyptians!), while his second name indicates his allegiance to both Set and Horus, a clear sign of reunification of the country.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
records him “fighting the northern enemy within Nekheb”, indicating that an ennemy had invaded the historical seat of Upper Egyptian power: I'm not sure it does indicate that -- Augustus Caesar would be very happy with how credulous we're being about royal propaganda! "Invaded" in particular is a loaded word...
Tentative fix what if I say "an enemy was closing in on Nekheb"? I mean if Khasekhemwy was really fighting there, his enemy has indeed set foot in the heart of Upper Egypt. That said, I share your opinion: I think we are really buying into Khasekhemwy's propaganda here, but we really have no choice because we have absolutely no other source!Iry-Hor (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Later in his reign he added Horus to his serekh, changed his name to Khasekhemwy which means "Two powers have appeared" along with the addition "Two lords are at peace with him", having reunited Egypt at last.: is it undisputed that he did reunite Egypt? If so I would put that up front.
Done, yes I am yet to uncounter a source doubting that Kasekhemwy overcame his enemies (the precise identity of which is not clear though). Everybody agrees that Egypt was united after him (Djoser of step pyramid fame was his likely son!), while most Egyptologists agree that Egypt was in troubles before him. I moved this info up front.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tomb of Nynetjer was discovered by Selim Hassan: can we introduce him at all?
next to a natural wadi running west to east: most readers won't know what a wadi is. Is there such thing as an unnatural one?
Done I have added an explanation. A wadi is dry river bed that is active during flash floods. Some wadis may have artificial origins, e.g. from a deep dug trench as around Djoser's pyramid.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but also ensured that the tomb remained hidden from the Nile valley: was this usually a priority for royal tombs? The whole "big white pyramid" thing suggests that they generally wanted to be seen...
Ancient Egyptian rulers were aware of tomb robbers since at least the first dynasty and while their tomb locations and shapes were dictated by religious motives, they included much anti-theft devises (in particular granite portcullises). While the source does not explain why it was a plus to have the tomb hidden from the Nile valley, from the context of the discussion I understand it to mean that the realm of the dead was hidden away from that of the living, i.e. from Memphis. I can't really say that as the source does not expand on the why though.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to Erik Hornung, the choice of Saqqara over the Abydos burial grounds of the first dynasty points to some neglect of the older Upper Egyptian center of power in favour of Memphis, which might have contributed to an Upper Egyptian reaction in the troubled times following Nynetjer's rule: we've already said this: I don't know whether there's a better way to organise the information, but just dropping this bit in twice doesn't seem right. We should also pick a spelling of Saqqara/Sakkara.
Fixed For the sentence that is repeated, I agree, so I have removed it and incorporated the link to the first-dynasty necropolis in the first instance of the sentence, earlier in the main text. For Saqqara, I have decided in favor of the spelling with two q since this is spelling used in the article on Saqqara.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What remains is not sufficient to determine the layout of the structures nor if they were made: or if they were made (single negative in English, double negative in French).
I would put some kind of link on "niche stele" -- I had to look up what it was, and I suspect I'm in the minority of readers in that I already knew what each word meant on its own.
a mortuary temple and a serdab: similarly... and a what?
Done, link to Mortuary temple and I have added a short explanation for serdab. A serdab is a special type of room housing a particular statue of the king representing his Ka, a specific part of his soul. The room is sealed but for a small slit allowing his soul to move from the statue to the outside and back, as he wills.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
8 m (26 ft) to 10 m (33 ft): you can do this more elegantly with the convert template: try {{convert|8|to|10|m|ft}}, which gives 8 to 10 metres (26 to 33ft). There are a couple of other examples.
Is there a good map of Saqqara/Sakkara that shows all the tombs we talk about? I notice there's one at Gisr el-Mudir, but Nynetjer is (understandably) missing.
Unfortunately I could not find that on wikicommons. There are maps in the recent articles by the excavators of Nynetjer's tomb but I am sure this is copyrighted.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image here is a map of Saqqara, and it's freely licensed. It shows the tomb of Unas -- we could either include it directly and say "Nynetjer's tomb is underneath that of Unas", or add some indication to the map of where exactly it is, if that would be appropriate. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I uploaded a new picture based on the one your suggested with the approximate location of Nynetjer's tomb beneath that of Unas on the map.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copper tools marks: marks left by copper tools is probably best -- the usual word is toolmarks, but copper toolmarks would mean that the marks themselves were made of copper.
The tomb shows great architectural similarities to the Gallery Tomb A some 130 m (430 ft) to the west: don't italicise names of features. We would also usually drop the the -- just "the tomb is similar to Gallery Tomb A"; "the tomb is bigger than Grave IV", etc.
The tomb itself became the locus of renewal funerary rituals: when?
Fixed I meant that the tomb was, by its novel architecture and from its inception, the locus of renewal rituals. I changed the sentences to "Yet Nynetjer's tomb marks an important development in monumental royal mortuary architecture with its extended labyrinthine layout involving numerous rooms. The tomb was the locus of renewal rituals as it incorporated a dedicated cult place".Iry-Hor (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tomb shows great architectural similarities to the Gallery Tomb A some 130 m (430 ft) to the west: can we give a sense of what the similarities are?
At the southern end of the tomb, a group of chambers seems to be model of the royal palace: not quite grammatical. A model, perhaps, but we probably want something a bit more careful like "to mirror the layout of...".
Fixed I will add the word "a" that was forgotten. The source does not say that the layout mirrors that of a palace, it only says that the tomb is a kind of model of a palace. My understanding is that it is not just the layout that was palace-like, but also the function of each room symbolically reproducing the function of palace rooms.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These comprise the main burial chamber towards the southwestern end.: chambers comprise a chamber? Something seems off there.
The whole burial site is highly unstable and is in danger of collapsing.: is this a feature of its construction or how it's fared in the millennia since? This bit seems to jump forward at the moment: it would be good to have something like "Since its construction, the tomb has been left highly unstable by erosion as well as the recent construction of Highway XYZ running over its top..." (or whatever the causes are).
Done yes this is how the tomb fared over time, although the sources do not point the finger at any one culprit (Unas causeway or otherwise). At any rate, I am sure the original builders did not mean the tomb to collapse on the king's body...Iry-Hor (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another room produced the fragments of a further 420 unfinished and unsealed wine jars: cut the.
and less than ten jars of beer: slightly odd phrasing: perhaps up to ten? Even then, how would the excavators know -- you can normally estimate the minimum number of vessels (e.g. by counting bases), but I don't see how you could estimate the maximum unless you can also be sure of the minimum, in which case there would be no fuzziness.
I think they say "less than ten" because some fragments may not be from a beer jar. So they have at most 10 beer jars, perhaps less. I wrote "up to", I think this level of details is sufficient for the article.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excavations of the tomb also yielded 144 to 151 stone tools comprising knives with and without handles, stone sickles, blades, scrapers, hatchets and many further fragments of stone tools: needs a slight reworking: fragments of stone tools are not themselves stone tools.
Fixed This is the point, they have fragments and reconstructing the original tools produces 144 to 151 pieces, depending on how you assemble some fragments together. I replace by the slightly less precise "yielded about 150 stone tools".Iry-Hor (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This necropolis remained in use sporadically until the early Christian period, when the nearby monastery of Jeremiah was built in the sixth century.: are we saying that the building of the monastery marks the end of the necropolis's use? If not, would try to put a more precise date on the latter (and the early Christian period, which doesn't start in the C6th). If so, would rework slightly for clarity.
Tentative fix. I do not have a precise date for the abandonment of the necropolis, the source links it to the early Christian period and points to the construction of the monastery. In any case, the (pagan) necropolis certainly would not have been used after the nearby monastery had been built. I do not know what to write except "This necropolis remained in use sporadically until the early Christian period, when the nearby monastery of Jeremiah was built (c. sixth century)"Iry-Hor (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could divorce them if no direct causal/temporal relationship is suggested? I assume the source treats the monastery as a terminus ante quem, in which case we could do This necropolis remained in use sporadically until the early Christian period; in the sixth century, after it had fallen into disuse, the nearby monastery of Jeremiah was built.
The hard quartzite is difficult to work, especially with the bronze and flint tools available to the Egyptians at the time. It is therefore remarkable that they could already handle this hard rock so well: this is a bit WP:EDITORIALISING, WP:PUFFERY and so on -- we don't generally say "this is notable", "this is interesting", "this is surprising" and so on, but rather let the reader decide when to be interested, surprised, etc.
Looking back again at note 8, I would probably remove it -- it's massive, difficult to read, and I can't see that it adds value or is particularly important in context. We could perhaps provide a link in a source to the full text if anyone really wants to follow it up?
Check the system for capitalising after a colon in a title: I was always taught to do it (so Sharknado 2: The Second One), but we prevaricate (see e.g. Hoffman 1990 vs Hornung and Lorton 1999).
You've given place and publisher for the journal source Simpson 1956, but I can't see that you've done so for any other journals. It's not usual to include this, except for books.
I'm happy so far -- I'll leave the review open for now, as I may come back and do some spotchecks, but it seems that A. Parrot below is likely to be on that as well, so I'll see how things develop. UndercoverClassicistT·C21:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the review below covers enough spotchecks to make duplicating it unnecessary, so I'm at Support. It's a quality piece of work that has improved even further during this process. UndercoverClassicistT·C18:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way A.Parrot(talk·contribs) I wanted to ask you a question: a second pharaoh article is ready for FAC, namely Userkare. Do you think it is a good idea to post it as the same time as this one or should I wait for this one to be (hopefully) promoted? I mean in terms of reviewer fatigue.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made several small prose edits. Feel free to look them over and discuss any change you disagree with.
Thanks, in particular I was hesitating on the capitalization of all dynasties as in "Second Dynasty" versus "second dynasty". I happy to revert back to the capitalized version.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very reliably and extensively sourced, as usual. Old sources are used in a very limited way, to report on archaeological evidence and not to interpret it. While I'm not especially knowledgeable about the Second Dynasty, the picture given here fits with what I know from the sources I have (e.g., Wilkinson 1999 and Kahl 2007).
There are two oddities in the source list. One is that Katary 2001 is mis-titled. It seems to be the OEAE article on taxation (which matches the author and page range), but it says it's the entry for Saqqara (which is already listed correctly as Chauvet 2001). I assume this was simply an error in copying the template and forgetting to replace the title= field.
The other oddity is more significant. I think Wilkinson 1999 and Wilkinson 2005 are the same in different printings (my PDF edition is dated 2005, but the text is the same as the 1999 print edition). These listings and the associated citations will need to be consolidated before I can do a spot-check. A. Parrot (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved Yes this was a real problem, upon inspection I think I understand its origin: my physical copy of the book is the 1999 one and I also have an e-book copy which says "Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005." But below it says "ISBN 0-203-20421-2 (Adobe e-Reader Format) ISBN 0-415-18633-1 (Print Edition)" and indeed on OCLC 0-415-18633-1 is the 1999 edition. My understanding is that the book was only physically printed in 1999 and bears the 0-415-18633-1 ISBN while the e-book is dated 2005 and has ISBN 0-203-20421-2 or 0-203-02438-9. Unfortunately the print and e-book have different page numbers. Since there was a single Wilkinson 1999 reference, I updated it to the e-book page numbers pp. 73-75.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I spot-checked 20 citations. Most presented no problem, but I found some irregularities.
You cite Hornung 2012 as if it were a unified volume, but while some of your citations are to overview sections that were apparently written by the editors, several of the citations are to the chapter written by Kahl. It might make more sense to have a separate entry for Kahl's chapter, similar to the separate entries for other contributions to larger works like the OEAE articles.
Citation 63 (Kahl 2007 pp. 44–46) is odd, because although those pages discuss the possible evolution of Ra's cult during Nynetjer's reign, they don't discuss the events mentioned in the previous sentences.
The truth is unfortunately I do not have access to this book so I kept a reference to these pages that was inserted in the pre-existing text before I started significantly editing the article. I just removed this reference. All the references to Kahl's 2007 book are either from pre-existing edits or from things I inferred from secondary sources quoting this book. This is a bit unsatifactory.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have the book, and all the other citations to it check out—but are there any other sources in the article that you didn't vet yourself?
No this is the sole one I could not check yet kept because the book is absolutely central to the subject matter here. Note that in the current version of the article, there are only four citations to Kahl 2007's book, n. 13, 31, 37 and 63. Number 31 is consensual, it says that Raneb was Nynetjer's predecessor, n. 37 is about resinscription of older vases under Nynetjer which Kahl himself talks about in other sources like in Hornung, n. 63 is reported in secondary sources (it is the translation of a name), only n. 13 was something I could not verify: it should say that Nubnefer may have been a successor of Nynetjer on p. 16.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 101a (Baines and Málek 2000, p. 32): Baines and Málek don't quite say that later records give conflicting lists of Second Dynasty kings, though one could argue that they imply it.
Ok it is true they don't directly say that so I removed the reference at this point. In the "Succession" section more details are given on this: historical sources (Abydos king list, Turin canon and Saqqara Table) do give conflicting lists of rulers.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 103 (Wilkinson 2005 p. 69): "…the understanding of it has seen little progress in Egyptology over the entire 20th century." This goes farther than Wilkinson's text, which says "…scholars today are scarcely more confident about the internal history of the Second Dynasty than were their predecessors a generation ago."
(Unsolicited peanut-throwing) The idiom of this doesn't quite work ("over the last generation"?), but in any case it creates problems with close paraphrasing of the source and with writing something that is already out of date -- Wilkinson wrote that twenty years ago, which is about the standard definition for a generation! I would suggest explicitly quoting Wilkinson and putting a date on it: The period from Nynetjer's death until Khasekhemwy's coronation is very obscure; Wilkinson wrote in 2005 that negligible progress had been made on its internal history over the preceding generation or something to that effect. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to specify the year, we should probably use the year the text was written. I've changed it and added an "origyear" parameter to the Wilkinson citation.
The citations for the first four sentences of the "Succession" section are strangely structured. It's a block of text with one citation in the middle of a sentence, then four citations in a row at the end. Can they be restructured so it's more clear which statements are attributable to which source?
It's better structured, but you support the text about Wadjenes with a citation to Wilkinson 2005 p.73, which discusses Weneg but does not mention Wadjenes as far as I can see. A. Parrot (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me Wilkinson equates Wadjenes with Weneg by reading the Ramesside era king lists as having Weneg as successor of Nynetjer, when litterally these lists read "Wadjenes". Indeed he says "Ninetjer’s immediate successor, at least in the north of Egypt, was a king whose nswt-bỉty name has been read as Weneg" and cite Grdseloff for this, when Grdseloff is the one who proposed Wadjenes = Weneg and explained the why. I have added a footnote adapted from the article on Wadjenes that explains Grdseloff's reasoning for Wadjenes=Weneg (and indeed it is about the writing of their names).Iry-Hor (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a couple of passages I found unclear and then I'll be done...
"For these Egyptologists as well as Grimal, the god Ra took over the role of the king's progenitor…" I know what this means, more or less, but it needs some clarification for readers who may not be familiar with Egyptian royal ideology. And it needs to say who Ra took over from—Horus, I presume?
Tentative fix. I am a bit uneasy for the Horus claim. For now I wrote "For these Egyptologists as well as Grimal, the god Ra took over the role of the king's progenitor—that is the ancient Egyptians started to see their ruler as the offspring of the sun deity—a role previously occupied by Horus. Within this context, Nynetjer's name should be understood as meaning "He who belongs to the god (Ra)"." The issue is I don't have a reference for the claim about Horus's role before Nynetjer's reign. Grimal says nothing about which deity was seen as the progenitor before. I am turning to Schott on this, I have his 1950 book but must translate it again to understand if he mentions Horus on this.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources don't specify which deity it was, you can just say that Ra came to be seen in that role, whether or not he took it over from Horus: "For these Egyptologists as well as Grimal, the ancient Egyptians started to see their ruler as the offspring of the sun deity. Within this context, Nynetjer's name should be understood as meaning "He who belongs to the god (Ra)"." A. Parrot (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A. ParrotFixed so I am following your suggestion because Schott does not say that Horus was the progenitor of the king in earlier eras, he just talks about calendar issues and translations of the Palermo stone. Grimal does mention feasts for Horus / Soped but does not correlate these with the ideology of kingship. I looked for source on kingship in the early dynastic period, but quickly went down the rabbit hole (by the way I found out about the recent discoveries regarding Hor-Aha's tomb and related temples, I might turn to this pharaoh later!).Iry-Hor (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In this idea, a tomb room stood for a courtyard or for the entrance to a house, itself symbolised only by the massive bedrock." I understand the sentences around this one, but I don't understand this sentence itself. I checked the source it's based on, and I still don't understand that part.
Clarified. I have clarified as much as I could in the main text. Lacher-Raschdorff notes that in the tomb it is hard to discern what was meant to be inside versus outside. She notices that the ceiling of some rooms and corridors were painted with stars, so should be understood as outside spaces, and given that many of these rooms where too narrow to be usable as storage (in fact they cannot functionally be used for anything), they were meant to symbolize streets and courtyards. Then the walls of these underground chambers, i.e. the massive bedrock were to be understood as the houses of the city and the tomb is to be seen as an inverted model of a real city. Inverted in the sense that subterranean chamber = street, solid bedrock = buildings. Hence while you stand inside of a tomb room, you are symbolically standing outside in a model/mock city with palaces and cult places for the king to live his eternal life. She notably points to Djoser's dummy buildings, which is exactly the same concept but built above ground: the buildiong are solid and have no internal rooms because they are not functional buildings but symbols replacing what was solid bedrock in the underground galleries of the 2nd dynasty.
I wrote: "Its extended labyrinthine layout may have been meant to represent a city, rather than a simple system of corridors and magazine chambers. Firstly, many rooms of the tomb are too narrow to be functional and some had their ceiling painted with stars. For Lacher-Raschdorff this indicates that the tomb chambers symbolically represented open courtyards or entrances to dummy buildings, themselves modelled only by the walls of the underground chambers, that is by the massive unhewn bedrock. According to Lacher-Raschdorff, "the entire maze functioned as a model residence, with small streets, courtyards, dummy houses and dummy magazines". Several special groups of rooms can be discerned, three of which being model cult-places. At the southern end of the tomb, a further group of chambers seems to be a model of the royal palace which comprises the burial chamber. The idea of a model city inside the royal tomb complex was continued after Nynetjer's reign as can be seen from Djoser's pyramid complex, which comprises dummy rather than fully functional buildings with no internal rooms.".Iry-Hor (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Siegfried Schott has proposed" – opinions vary on this – I know UndercoverClassisist disagrees with me – but I think when we say "Joe Bloggs says so-and-so" we should briefly explain who JB is to let readers know why they should care what he says. Thus, either "the Egyptologist Joe Bloggs" or "Joe Bloggs in his 2010 [title of book]". I do not press the point.
"the chancellor of the treasury of the king " – I was intrigued by this title – retrospectively conferred by modern Egyptologists, I assume, as we are long predating the Latin cancellarius here.
Good point, I think you are quite right, the source mentions "The treasury was headed by the "Royal Chancellor," a central title within the administration, attested from the early first dynasty", it seems that the original translator chose this word to translate what must be some sort of overseer. I have added a reference to this sentence of the source.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Archeological evidence confirms the existence of the treasury" – but everywhere else you use the spelling "archaeological", which is the preferred spelling in the Oxford English Dictionary.
"is very uncertain... is very obscure " – you might lose one or both adverbs here.
Done, I removed the first "very" and removed the bit of the sentence with the "very obscure". It now directly says "Wilkinson wrote in 1999 that negligible progress had been made on the internal history of the Second Dynasty over the preceding generation."
"light-colored hieroglyphs " – another intrusive AmE spelling
A purely stylistic point, and not one I'm pressing, but in BrE "was likely built", "were likely first compiled" and "likely being the Hellenized form" etc would normally be given as "was probably built", "were probably first compiled" and "probably being the Hellenized form". (For no reason that I can explain "likely" is idiomatic English if you put an adverb in front of it – "most likely", "very likely" and so on).
I understand, this is typically the kind of subtleties I miss every time I write an article. I have changed to "probably" throughout.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above points are important enough to prevent my supporting the promotion of this excellent article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. I wish I could have read it before I visited Saqqara a couple of years ago. – Tim riley talk14:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"on the Old Kingdom royal annals". on sounds odd and [[Palermo Stone|Old Kingdom royal annals]] is an WP:EASTEREGG.
Fixed I changed the sentence to "[...] on the Palermo Stone, the Old Kingdom royal annals, [...]" so the "on" makes sense I think because it is recorded on a stone, and there is no Easter egg anymore. Is that fine? Iry-Hor (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the nome regional management system". This conveys nothing to the readers. You need a few words to explain nome (or delete from lead).
Fixed I think I clarified with "[...] with the earliest evidence for the administrative partition of Egypt into nomes, a regional management system, [...]"Iry-Hor (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the tomb of Seth-Peribsen at Abydos and in the galleries beneath the step pyramid of king Djoser." Why is Djoder described as a king and not Seth-Peribsen? Also, it would be helpful to specify their dynasties.
"in a mastaba in Giza[24] and in a tomb in Helwan". The contrast here between a mastaba and a tomb implies that a mastaba is not a tomb but mastaba says that it is.
Done. Well mastabas are tombs but not all tombs are mastabas so I replaced with " a mastaba in Giza[24] and in another tomb in Helwan".Iry-Hor (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The oldest of these is the Old Kingdom royal annals now known after the name of its largest surviving fragment, the Palermo Stone." "Now known after" is clumsy and awkward.
Fixed. I wrote "Old Kingdom royal annals, called after the name of its largest surviving fragment, the Palermo Stone." I hope it reads better?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"as Toby Wilkinson puts it. You say below that he is an egyptologist, but qualifications should be given on the first mention of an expert.
As several king lists survive, why is Nynetjer's successor not known?
This is explained in the "End of Reign" and "Succession" sections. All king lists agree that he was succeeded by a certain Wadjenes, but: 1) this king is not attested at all archeologically, not even by a faint trace; 2) there is strong evidence of conflict engulfing Egypt at the time; 3) these king lists were written over 1300 years after Nynetjer's death and do not even record Nynetjer's name correctly; 4) several completely obscure rulers are attested archeologically after Nynetjer and it is not even clear who is who (they bore several names....); and 5) the king lists disagree with one another after Nynetjer's second successor Senedj. All in all, the mid Second Dynasty is one of the least known period of the history of ancient Egypt.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the biennial Following of Horus". Following of Horus looks odd without quotes and you put it in quotes below.
"These included cults to the god Sokar every six years". This does not make sense. A cult is not an event.
Fixed. I think it refers to a special form of cult, like a feast, that was performed only once every 6 years, I wrote "special feasts of the god Sokar occuring every six years".Iry-Hor (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"must also have received cults" "received cults" is also odd.
"Given that the expedition is not mentioned in the surviving fragments of the royal annals, it may have been recorded in what is now a lacuna, which would place it some time after Nynetjer's 20th year on the throne." This is clumsy. Maybe "Given that the expedition is not mentioned in the surviving fragments of the royal annals, which do not cover Nynetjer's reign after the 20th year, it may have taken place later."
"the foundation or attack of two localities". This is ungrammatical.
Tentative fix, I wrote "and either the foundation or the attack of two localities", the problem is the same hieroglyphic sign is used for attacking a city or creating one so Egyptologists are not sure whether the cities mentionned were attacked or founded.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Alternatively, for Colin Reader and Jochem Kahl". Comment as above on Wilkinson. Ditto with Grimal and you should give his full name. Ditto Emery. (In the view of Gog the Mild, if the qualifications of a cited authority are not given, it is probably someone you chatted to in a pub.)
"an increase in the size of the civil service as the tasks for which it was responsible grew significantly". The concept of an ancient Egyptian civil service seems anachronistic to me. Maybe "an increase in the number of royal administrators as the tasks for which they were responsible grew significantly". Views Tim riley?
It didn't strike me as anachronistic when I read it, and now you raise the point I am reminded of this extract from Plain Words:
I can claim no novelty for my advice. Similar precepts were laid down for the Egyptian Civil Service some thousands of years ago ... If we may judge from the following letter, those brought up in this tradition succeeded in avoiding verbiage. The letter is from a Minister of Finance to a senior civil servant:
Apollonius to Zeno, greeting. You did right to send the chickpeas to Memphis. Farewell.
Ok perhaps, I do not know if the term is really appropriate. It is clear there was a large administration in the ancient Egyptian state, I would guess people participating in it view themselves as serving the king and the gods, rather than an abtract nation. I am fine with avoiding the term, but I also don't think they were all "royal administrators". I propose "an increase in the number of people involved in the administration as the tasks for which they were responsible grew significantly".Iry-Hor (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In the Early Dynastic Period, this treasury did not function as its modern counterparts such as the United States Department of the Treasury." This is a strange comment. I do not think that anyone would suppose that an ancient institution would operate like a modern one. The reference to the Early Dynastic Period implies that the treasury from the Old Kingdom onwards did operate like the US treasury. I would delete.
Done this was added to respond to a comment by UC, but in both cases my idea is just to underline that this treasury really was not about storing gold or managing a budget. I kept "did not function as its modern counterparts".
"The main task of the civil service". Comment as above.
"negligible progress had been made on the internal history of the Second Dynasty over the preceding generation". Preceding to what?
To when the comment was written by the source i.e. 1999. This bit is literally what he wrote. I think he meant over the preceding generation of Egyptologists (i.e. up to those finishing their careers in 1999?).Iry-Hor (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"second, this could result from a deliberate choice on Nynetjer's behalf following administrative considerations". This is clumsy and unclear. Based on what you say below, maybe "this could result from a decision by Nynetjer to bequeath Upper and Lower Egypt to different sons".
Done yes this is fine, although in this hypothesis Nynetjer did this because managing Egypt was becoming difficult for a single ruler. So I wrote "from a decision by Nynetjer to bequeath Upper and Lower Egypt to different sons to better manage Egypt".Iry-Hor (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Wilkinson points to no less than four rituals named "Appearances of the king of Lower Egypt" reported for Nynetjer on the Old Kingdom royal annals as possibly "intended to deliver a political message about the extent of his authority" over this region." I am not clear what this means. Lower Egypt titles seem to imply a question about his control over Upper Egypt but "this region" grammatically refers to Lower Egypt.
Done. Yes yes: so Wilkinson is of the opinion that Nynetjer's primary seat of power was Upper Egyptian (as was the case during the first dynasty) and so had trouble asserting his power in Lower Egypt. Consequently, he may have acted as king of Lower Egypt in religious occurences to show that he really was the king there (as you understood the sentence). But the confusion comes from the assertion by others that royal activity was confined to Memphis and its surrounding in mid to Lower Egypt, giving the impression that the king was loosing his grasp on the South of the country. It depends on which scholar you trust. To clarify this, I made a new paragraph out of Wilkinson's opinion and wrote more clearly about it: "For Wilkinson, unrest had already broken out during Nynetjer's reign because the king had difficulties asserting his rule over Lower Egypt. Wilkinson interprets the events of Nynetjer's 13th year on the throne as the quelling of rebellion in the North. To further that hypothesis, he points to no less than four rituals named "Appearances of the king of Lower Egypt" reported for Nynetjer on the Old Kingdom royal annals as possibly "intended to deliver a political message about the extent of his authority" over this region. For Wilkinson, another indirect evidence that troubles had started before Nynetjer's death is given by the numerous stone vessels originally prepared for Nynetjer's Sed festival that were found in the galleries beneath Djoser's pyramid. These vessels may have remained in storage at Saqqara instead of being distributed because strife disrupted communications and weakened the authority of the central administration."Iry-Hor (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Bell overlooked that the heights of the Nile floods in the Palermo Stone inscriptions only takes into account the measurements of the nilometers around Memphis, but not elsewhere along the river". It is not clear why the Memphis levels would be unrepresentative. I think you either need to explain or delete as excessive detail.
Done ok I deleted the details, Seidlmayer's reasoning is not of central importance, the point is simply that he does not think there was a drought.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"An inscription on a stone vase records him "fighting the northern enemy within Nekheb",[129] indicating that an enemy was closing in on the historical seat of Upper Egyptian power." I am not clear what you are referring to here - a rival claimant or an invader?
Nobody knows for sure, and I cannot say much more, but given the context all authorities believe this refers to a war between Lower and Upper Egyptians.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"A separate enclosure wall built of stone was in all probability built as well,[155] such structures accompanying royal tombs since the First Dynasty, albeit here probably on a much grander scale." This sentence is unclear.
Clarified I wrote "In all probability, a separate enclosure wall built of stone was built as well as was the case for royal tombs of the First Dynasty. Yet here, the enclosure was probably on a much grander scale than those built in earlier times".Iry-Hor (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are inconsistent whether metres is abbreviated. I prefer both metres and feet spelled in full but abbreviation is fine so long as it is done consistently.
Fixed. I had simply forgotten a "abbr=on" parameter in the convert template. I prefer to keep everything abbreviated as I think it would otherwise overburdden text sections about tomb dimensions.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"At the end of the ramp are by two stone portcullises". The grammar gets lost here.
"Gallery Tomb A is located some 130 m (430 ft) to the west and which is thought to be either Raneb's or Hotepsekhemwy's burial site." I am not sure what the word "which" means here.
"According to publications". This is odd. Maybe "The statue was originally described as being made of alabaster".
Fixed I wrote " The statue was originally described as being made of alabaster,[1] but doubts arose about this after its purchase by Rijksmuseum van Oudheden. In 2017, the statue was examined by geologist Hanco Zwaan of the Naturalis Biodiversity Center in Leiden who found it to be made of quartzite".Iry-Hor (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So this is a problem that is peculiar to this source and which we settled with A. Parrot: Wilkinson's book is dated 1999 and, as a book, was indeed printed. But in 2005, the book was re-edited as an e-book. Unfortunately and even though the book content hasn't changed at all, the 2005 version does not have the same page numbers as the 1999 one and the 2005 page numbers are used in the article. In addition the 2005 e-book says the 1999 edition is the original publication, even though the e-book has its own isbn. So A. Parrot suggested we use the "origyear=Print edition 1999" parameter in the reference, while listing the year as 2005 and giving the isbn of the e-book for the other parameters.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with the solution as it does not make the position clear to the reader. I think there are two better solutions. 1. "origyear=1999 (reprinted as ebook 2005)" or better 2. Just use the 1999 print book as you have a copy. BTW. Hardbacks, paperbacks and ebooks always have different isbns even if they are identical. Also, Emery 1964 has an error message as it is given an isbn before they came in. It should have an oclc. Any comments on these points A. Parrot? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But if we just use the 1999 print book, then all page numbers given in the article will be wrong since they are from the 2005 e-book (I don't know why but even though both have the same texts, all pages numbers are different between the 1999 and 2005 versions). So I would prefer option 1. if this is fine by you. I put the oclc for Emery 1964. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant changing the page numbers so that they are the ones in the print book, but that is just my prejudice as I prefer print books. If you prefer ebooks, option 1 is fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I like the feel of a real book, it is much more practical to have a large library of pdf on my computer when I edit wikipedia than getting my physical books out of my shelves everytime I want to look up something (and that search option is great too). Given that it would take quite an effort to figure out the print book page numbers, I would prefer to stick to the ebook ones.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, so I fixed the broken source links. I wrote the alt text for File:Ninetjer3.png which I had simply forgotten. For the section 3, I think it depends on your screen width. Indeed on my latop's small screen the spicture are more of less aligned with the text related to them. But on a larger screen at my office they do seem completely out of place. The only solution would be to remove one, so I removed the picture of the mastaba of Shepseskaf, here given only to illustrate what a mastaba can be. For the templates, you mean we need to put a PD-old tag for the author of the stone bowls who died like 4600 years ago or is it about the author of the photo? Regarding the source of the plan of Saqqara, the picture is mine, I simply edited a picture that was already present on commons and which itself looks like any map of Saqqara you can find, e.g. on Lehner's book p 83 which shows the same map except for Nynetjer's tomb not located on the picture. Is that fine? Iry-Hor (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I belatedly remembered that PD-Art is only for 2D artworks. So instead it needs PD-old to cover the nonexistent copyright for the underlying artworks. I admit that I am not sure what the preferred solution for image layout issues that vary by browser is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand what you mean? On the WikiCommons page of the first two pictures, I can see "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or fewer." plus the CC FlickR review etc. What is missing? Iry-Hor (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GogtheMild(talk·contribs) Ah I am sorry, I may have misunderstood something. Indeed Jo-Jo Eumerus did not raise anything about this particular picture, he only mentioned three others so I assumed there was no need for the PD declaration for that one. I have just added it! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lovely article. The only very minor point - which doesn't affect my support - is that while you eschew serial commas throughout, you use one unnecessarily in footnote 3 ("Vercoutter,[32] and Smith.[33]") - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Is there anything else that needs to be done with this nomination? It has four supports, has passed the source review, and seems to have passed the image review. The last edit was a week ago. A. Parrot (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the notice on the templates and you need to add a public domain tag for the United States to the images. Growing through them I'm also seeing the issue of no actual dates being given for the actual art being photographed, hence the PD-art tag cannot be verified. I get that this is all ancient art, but there should be some information (from the gallery tags, etc.) about the date of this material, and that information should be in the actual image description pages to support the PD tags. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk21:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my sixth time nominating "La Isla Bonita" for Featured Article status — as a longtime Madonna fan and committed editor, I've spent months refining every section to meet FA criteria. The article has undergone multiple peer reviews and incorporates extensive sourcing, inline citations, and balanced coverage across all major aspects: background, composition, reception, chart performance, video, live renditions, and cultural impact. I've strived to ensure neutrality, comprehensiveness, and adherence to the Manual of Style throughout. I welcome feedback and hope this nomination finally brings the article the gold star it deserves. Christian (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment: WP:SONGS suggests that a section detailing the track listings for singles should not be included in articles as a standard practice (see WP:SINGLETRACKLIST). I don't see any mention of the remixes in the article's body, let alone "extensive commentary", so the 'Track listing and formats' section should probably be removed. Leafy46 (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback @Leafy46:!. While WP:SONGS does caution against including single track listings by default, it also allows for exceptions where the content is contextually relevant and well-sourced. In this case, "La Isla Bonita" was released in multiple formats (7", 12", CD, digital single), each with varying B-sides and remixes.
Other Featured Articles of songs such as Bad Romance and Never Forget You (Mariah Carey song) retain detailed Track listing and formats sections, despite not discussing the remixes in the prose. Their inclusion has been accepted when the variations are verifiable and historically relevant, even without extensive commentary. For consistency across song FAs and as a resource for discographic completeness, I believe this section is justified here—but I remain open to consensus if trimming or merging is preferred.--Christian (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder if the inclusion of such a section in those article is due to intention or simply because it was never brought up. In the FAC for "Never Forget You", the topic is never mentioned; in the one for "Bad Romance", it was directly mentioned but not addressed or acted upon. There is also a lack of consistency amongst song FAs in regards to this: "I Don't Wanna Cry" (which was written by the same nominator as "Never Forget You" around the same time) and "Bad Blood", among others, do not contain a separate 'Track listings' section. Ultimately, I'll leave whether this should be addressed up to whoever ends up closing this discussion, due to my relative inexperience working at FAC. For what it's worth though, one of the FA criteria is that pages should follow style guidelines, and keeping a 'Track listing' section when it is not the "subject of extensive commentary" would go against the style guidelines set up at WP:SONGS. Leafy46 (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add references to the statements made in the music sample caption
I would link "travelogue" to its wikitionary entry, since it seems like a rather unusual word to me
Critical reception -> Barnes felt that while not as impactful as "Open Your Heart" -> clarify that "Open Your Heart" is the single previous to "La Isla Bonita"
Daryl Easlea, in Madonna: Blond Ambition, argued that "La Isla Bonita" and the other singles were so strong that they overshadowed the rest of True Blue. -> Daryl Easlea, in Madonna: Blond Ambition, argued that "La Isla Bonita" and the other singles released from True Blue were so strong that they overshadowed the rest of the album. (to have more clarification over which singles are meant here)
The production was frequently noted -> I'd use another wording, possibly "The song's production was a frequent topic of discussion among critics"
Madonna's vocal performance was also highlighted: AllMusic's Stuart Mason and Billboard's Bianca Gracie both singled it out as a strength -> I'd make it more clear that her voice was a strength in the song specifically
One retrospective review described -> name the publication and author
Rikky Rooksby, in The Complete Guide to the Music of Madonna, commented that the song's accompanying video would be "marginally more interesting".[28] -> This is a commentary on the video rather than the song, so I don't see it as fitting in this section
The last couple of sentences in "Critical reception" repeat the word "it" a lot; I would diversity it with "the song", "the track", the title or other alternatives
I would rename the section "Usage and covers" in "Use in popular media" since "Usage" could really refer to any usage, such as in a music video
Just a note: how do you think Micaela managed to cover the song before its release?
The Black Eyed Peas and Ozuna sampled "La Isla Bonita" in 2020's "Mamacita", which producer Johnny Goldstein credited to will.i.am's creative vision -> I would simplify to: "... an idea which producer... credited to will.i.am".
Certifications and sales -> French, Japanese and US sales should have a symbol next to them like the other ones, based on which sales they take into consideration
Refs 19, as well as 185-189 show issues; "Madonna" needs to be listed in the "author" parameter, not "others"
The refs with "subscription required" should have the parameter "|url-access=subscription" included instead
I am not truly convinced that DrownedMadonna and DVD Movie Guide are reliable sources
Link "Google Books", "Cashbox", as well as all the chart publishers (especially in the year-end chart table) in the references
A well-written and well-sourced article that flows effortlessly. It was a nice read and I was happy to get to know more about the article. I'll happily support once my points above are fixed. I'd truly appreciate some feedback on my own music FAC. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful feedback — I've gone ahead and implemented nearly all your suggestions. Here's a breakdown of the changes and notes:
Caption references: I've added references to the caption statements in the audio sample as recommended.
“Travelogue”: I replaced the word with “place” to make the meaning more accessible and avoid needing a Wiktionary link.
Critical reception clarifications:
I clarified that “Open Your Heart” is the single released just prior to “La Isla Bonita.”
I expanded the Easlea quote to specify “the other singles released from True Blue.”
I reworded “The production was frequently noted” to “The song’s production was a frequent topic of discussion among critics.”
I rephrased the line on Madonna’s vocals to make it clearer that both reviewers praised her voice in this song specifically.
The “One retrospective review described...” sentence now names the publication and author.
Rooksby’s comment on the video: I’ve moved this to the Music video section, as it fits better there.
Word repetition: I've diversified the repeated use of “it” in the final sentences of Critical reception for better readability.
Section name change: Renamed “Use in popular media” to “Usage and covers” for precision, as suggested.
Micaela cover: I havent' found a source that mentions how or why she covered the song.
Simplified Mamacita sentence: Reworded per your suggestion for clarity.
Certifications and sales:
This is one of the few items I haven’t been able to address fully. The template auto-generates the symbols based on region, and manually adding them without interfering with the template is tricky. If you have any guidance on how to fix that within the {{Certification Table Entry}} or {{Singlechart}} frameworks, I’d be grateful.
References:
I updated reference formatting as requested:
Fixed issues in refs 19 and 185–189 (moved "Madonna" to the |author= parameter).
Added |url-access=subscription to applicable sources.
Linked Google Books, Cashbox, and all chart publishers where relevant.
Re: DrownedMadonna — I understand your concerns. While the site is a fan publication, the content used is an interview with the song's creator, and to my knowledge, this interview has not been published elsewhere. I believe it holds value as a primary source, but I’m open to replacing it if the same interview can be located in a more traditional outlet.
Let me know if you have further suggestions. I really appreciate the close reading and your help improving the article! I’ll be sure to stop by and leave comments on your own FAC nomination shortly Christian (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrishm21: Thank you for your great job implementing my feedback! I've thought more about the sales in the certification table and was also informed through another FAC I reviewed that pure sales don't need symbols (since those sales are not based on the certification; which is the case here). So everything should be fine with that. As for the DrownedMadonna source ― I do see it as an acceptable ref now with your explanation, even if it is a primary source. Also, I doubt we can find it anywhere else, since DrownedMadonna conducted the interview themselves. Happily giving this article my support. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although you could expand a bit more on the release information, delving deeper into the formats and B-sides, for example, just as it appears in "I Don't Wanna Cry". Guide yourself by what is found in "Track listing and formats." Also, and this is optional, I think the 'Impact' section could go last. Apart from that, I appreciate the consistent work to improve this article and hopefully, it will be approved as FA. It deserves it. Regards, MadonnaFan (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Apoxyomenus! That's an interesting perspective—thanks for sharing it. While I'm not certain whether Otu or DK Records meet notability guidelines, their take on the song does highlight its continued cultural resonance and appeal across diverse musical scenes. Let me know what you think. Cheers! Christian (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"According to the sheet music published by Alfred Publishing Inc., the song is set in C♯ minor ―with a bridge in F♯ minor― at a tempo of 100 beats per minute, and spans Madonna's vocal range from G♯3 to C♯5" → musicnotes.com is not a high-quality source for arrangement details, particularly vocals. Many songs have dozens of arrangements available online, and it is inappropriate to select one that is not clearly the original (note "Arrangement Details gives you detailed information about this particular arrangement of La Isla Bonita - not necessarily the song.") For comparison, a more reliable source would be Hal Leonard's "Original Keys for Singers" series, which is the original arrangement of vocals, but I don't think "La Isla Bonita" is covered.
I'd like to point out that musicnotes.com has been used in other song Featured articles ("Bad Romance" and "Alejandro") In those cases, it was considered the most reliable available source for technical details such as key, tempo, and vocal range. If there is a more authoritative alternative available for "La Isla Bonita," I’d be happy to switch or remove, but in the absence of such a source, this seems consistent with FA precedent
It has also been objected to at other FACs. Anyone can rearrange a song by increasing its tempo or changing the key, etc. As I noted, even the source itself notes that "Arrangement Details gives you detailed information about this particular arrangement of La Isla Bonita - not necessarily the song". It is okay if an article does not have these details anyways. Most readers do not even know what a key is or what a vocal range means. Really this is highly technical info that while nice to have, is absolutely not essential to an encyclopedia article.
'I was unaware of this. Thank you for letting me know that specific info is not mandatory. Removed
inconsistent ISSN usage
Done. Let me know if anything's missing.
I see that the pattern is to include ISSNs when a print source is cited... but like why? All the publications already have wikilinks, and some even have URLs to the source, but ok I guess
Newspapers.com links should be clippings so everyone can see, not direct links to the full page
done
The Age ref cites page 5 but the article is on page 15 of the Entertainment Guide department
fixed the page; the section Entertainment Guide belongs to The Age.
Yes but there are multiple "page 15" in the newspaper. You need to say which page 15 of which section you are citing, which is what department=Entertainment Guide is for.
Have added department=Entertainment Guide
some RPM links are broken
done
what makes drownedmadonna.com a high-quality source?
See my reply above.
Unless you can establish that the fan site has a reputation for reliability or significance, etc., then it isn't really a high-quality source. It still has to be high-quality as misquotes and other things can happen. In addition, if something is only available on a fan site it is perhaps not notable enough to include in an article as it did not receive attention/was published by a better source.
what makes digitaljournal.com a high-quality source?
what makes orcasound.com a high-quality source?
Both Digital Journal and Orcasound are established online outlets with editorial oversight and bylined authors, and offer non-controversial points and brief commentary (for example, album reviews and coverage of releases). Their use here is limited to this type of information.
digitaljournal.com/about-us says "We focus on elevating voices in the news cycle so we can help businesses share these firsts with those reading or searching, as well as empower our audiences to learn something new." Why even cite this? You could just cite Rebel Heart Tour
OrcaSound is not reliable for review. You should not cite something as a review when the artists are quoted in the same article. Quasi interviews/reviews is not a good source. It looks like a press release also
Have removed both Digital Journal and OrcaSound'
what makes smoothradio.com a high-quality source? like why is some random radio station's summary relevant and trustworthy?
'removed
what makes maistocadas.br.com a high-quality source?
Maistocadas.br is aligned with Crowley Broadcast Analysis, which is a recognized Brazilian music chart monitoring service. Because the data reflects airplay tracked by a credible industry entity, the source is considered reliable for chart performance.
Can you provide a link that supports this?
I have removed it, since I couldn't find a verified source that backs it up; only blogs
is selectmagazinescans a copyvio?
removed
dont link to imgur copyvios just cite it as a physical copy
ensure all 'La Isla Bonita' has single quotes in ref article titles
can you please point out where this is not done?
ensure all-caps article titles are converted to the sentence case format used
Done. Only proper names abbreviations (CD, DVD), demonyms, titles (ie. Queen of Pop) are capitalized. Let me know If I missed anything.
"Also in 2022, Otu released a cover of "La Isla Bonita" arranged in the style of heavy metal band System of a Down, featured on the tribute album Moonic of a Down" → unless this can be cited to a secondary source and not Apple Music it's doesn't merit inclusion
removed
Is it accurate to use a chart based on Panama City and extrapolate it to Panama the country - same for Santiago and present it as a "Chile" chart? This should be specified in the prose that it is referring to city only.
done'
you should add the doi to Vinuela. the live url is available and free, so idk why the archive is used
The Viñuela source (Instituto Cervantes at Harvard University) does not have a DOI because it's an institutional report, not a journal article. DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers) are typically assigned to peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, or other formally published academic works.
I noticed that my suggestion to incorporate doi:10.1017/CBO9781316663837.016 in archive4 was not done - can you address this?
I appreciate the suggestion, but there is no requirement to use any specific source for FA criteria. I don't have access to the cited chapter and I'm not going to pay for access (it's not available through my university either). I stand by that the existing coverage already meets FA's comprehensiveness and sourcing standards with multiple reliable, accessible references. If another editor with access feels it adds value, they are welcome to incorporate it, but I won't be able to.
Per WP:FACR 1c, FA must be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". This Cambridge University Press(!) source contains five pages of analysis of the music video. If you haven't even accessed it then how can you know the "the existing coverage already meets FA's comprehensiveness and sourcing standards"? Can you at least read it and then make an argument that it would be superfluous of existing analysis cited? As multiple editors noted at archive4, the source is freely available via WP:TWL.
I have found the book (Music and Culture in the Middle Ages and Beyond) in Google Books; getting the information now.
DNA was a respected English-language broadsheet newspaper published out of Mumbai between 2005 and 2019. It was jointly operated by Zee Media Corporation and the Dainik Bhaskar group, two of India's largest media companies. During its run, DNA maintained a wide circulation and employed professional editorial standards, publishing original reporting, cultural commentary, and analysis. Its status as a major city daily during a period of intense media competition in India (alongside Hindustan Times, The Times of India, etc.) further underlines its reliability. For the purposes of Wikipedia, especially in coverage of global pop culture, it meets the threshold of a mainstream, professional publication with editorial oversight.Christian (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some links to a proof of reputation rather than a summary? Circulation has nothing to do with reliability.
How DNA newspaper is dying a slow and painful death - Discusses mass layoffs in DNA’s bureaus, including the editorial team, and editorial impact, indicating that it was regarded as a paper with serious reporting capacity and staffed bureaus.
ref 40 - "Madonna recorded a dubplate version" → where is this supported? - use one of the subsequent refs at the end of the sentence to support dubplate
fixed
ref 42 - ok
ref 43 - ok
ref 49 - ok
ref 55 - ok
ref 56 - ok
ref 62 - ok
ref 77 - ok
ref 85 - ok
ref 94 - "topped the European Hot 100 Singles chart on the week of June 20, 1987" - article shows it was already at number one the previous week. look to what date it went number one for the first time.
fixed
ref 109 - ok
ref 166 - ok
ref 191 - ok
ref 220 - ok
"The lyrics evoke imagery of "tropical breeze" and "nature wild and free", describing its inhabitants as people with "beautiful faces" and "no cares in this world"" → where is this supported in Matthew-Walker?
article uses a lot of "noted", "noting", "observed", (and arguably) "identify" contrary to WP:SAID
This has been corrected; I have kept the use of the forementioned words as minimum
" Newsday's Wayne Robins described "La Isla Bonita" as an "enigmatic Latin fantasy" with a melody so resilient it could be interpreted across genres —from a Ruben Blades arrangement to a street-corner doo-wop rendition." → I would move this after the David Browne sentence as it relates to the production not the vocals
I reworded it differently, albeit in an acceptable way
"Madonna described the song as a tribute to the "beauty and mystery" of Latin Americans, explaining that she had long been influenced by Latin music, particularly salsa and merengue, which she frequently heard while living in New York City" → A bit of a run-on sentence
Run-on sentence has been reworded
"alongside the rest of" → along with the rest of
Corrected
"The lyrics evoke imagery of "tropical breeze" and "nature wild and free", describing its inhabitants as people with "beautiful faces" and "no cares in this world" → this reads odd - also 4 quotes like this is excessive
"though he added she at least "had the decency to grow her eyebrows"" → is this necessary to include?
Sentence has been removed
add some more topic sentences to the music video analysis and reception paragraphs so these can be understood better
Section has been divided into paragraphs: 1. Cultural appropriation allegations; 2. Madonna's perceived 'position' and the contrast between the characters in the video; 3. Spirit interpretation from the chapter in Music and Culture; 4. Costuming; 5. Overall critical commentary, closing up with the views
"Tom Breihan of Stereogum referred to "La Isla Bonita" as "pure risible kitsch" and a "clumsy fetishization of an exoticized culture", though he still acknowledged it as "one of the swooniest jams in a career full of swoony jams"" → 3 quotes in one sentence does not read very encyclopedic.
Apologies for the late response, but can you perhaps respond to each point and note what specifically was done as me parsing through 50+ edits of highlighted text in the "difference between revisions" window to see what was done is a little difficult. Heartfox (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the spotchecks comments have been resolved and I added some follow-ups to the source review. I can't determine whether the prose comments were addressed or not as you have made almost 100 edits to the article since my review, so as I said above can you "perhaps respond to each point and note what specifically was done" to address it like you did for the source review. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that I am neither a native speaker nor an expert in the field, here are some comments:
—who declined it— ---> do we really need this? It looks a bit odd to have a sidenote in the first paragraph of the lead. And if I'm really picky, then this bit doesn't align exactly with the body text "The piece was presented to Jackson and Jones, but was ultimately turned down".
I’ve addressed this one —the lead and body are now consistent. The lead keeps a concise, reader-friendly summary ('initially composed [...] for Michael Jackson [...] but ultimately rejected"), which reflects the body's fuller detail that it was presented to Jackson and Quincy Jones but turned down. This keeps the intro from getting bogged down in secondary specifics, per WP:LEAD, while still making it clear the song originated as Sade-inspired demo for Jackson.
her primary partner on previous album ---> her primary partner on her previous album
Fixed
wearing a Spanish-style embroidered bolero jacket ---> the info box image suggests otherwise
Fixed; worded per source.
I knew the song". ---> I knew the song." per MOS:INOROUT
Fixed
as previous single "Open Your Heart" ---> insert her?
Fixed
I miss some signposting in the section Critical reception: which ones are contemporary and which ones are retrospective? As it stands now, I read Tom Breihan's review as if written in the 80s.
I've kept contemporary and retrospective commentary together because The section already signposts their mix in the opening sentence ('both contemporary and retrospective critics'). The reviews are grouped thematically (overall reception → production → vocals → negative commentary) rather than chronologically to maintain readability, with publication dates visible in citations for context. Splitting eras here would break the flow and risk misrepresenting the reception as two unrelated conversations rather than an ongoing critical dialogue over time.
Gypsy punk ---> wikilink?
Fixed
"stomps, claps, and shouts" ---> who are we quoting here?
Fixed
Most recently ---> find alternative phrasing, as per MOS:RELTIME
Fixed
Between 1986 and 1987 ---> this sounds a bit odd to my foreign ear ... is there a way to rephrase this uncertainty?
Fixed
Note a b ---> I have never seen references for list items done this way. Although I quite like it as a reader (less clutter), it makes spot checking quite a task. Are you following an existing pattern at FA or are you setting a precedent here?
I don't see Spain listed in the first table. Is that because it didn't have top charts at that time?
Spain did have charts at the time. The source that backs up Spain's chart position (93. Jenesaispop) only mentions the song didn't make it past the chart's top 8. It doesn't specify if it peaked at number 8,7,6,5,4,3,2, or 1. I believe how I worded it on the the section (that it reached the top 10) is appropriate.
In the alphabetical order of references in Literary sources, McKeen seems out of order
Fixed
Pp523 ---> should that be just p or is there a second number missing?
Fixed
in the Sources I can see a few Official Madonna website references. To my understanding using this far from independent source is fine for simple straightforward info like a release date. However, in the case of "The performance from her Sydney concerts was included on the 2017 Rebel Heart Tour live album." I could not verify the Sydney part with either source 146 or 147.
Fixed
[Where is exactly 'La Isla Bonita' Madonna sang about?] (in Spanish) ---> perhaps a better translation would be "Where exactly is 'La Isla Bonita' about which Madonna sang?"
Caption "The performances of "La Isla Bonita" on the Confessions (top) and Sticky & Sweet tours (bottom)." should not end in full stop, as per MOS:CAPFRAG
Can you comb through the article and ensure that all references have accessdates? I fixed one such for you.
When you are using book references for sales and stuff, within a certification template, why not use the {{harvnb}} template there as well? See the Japanese sales.
Are you able to follow a standard ISBN format for the book references for consistency? Some of the book citations use ISBN-13 vs old ISBN formats. You can use the online ISBN converter tool.
Always a pleasure to hear from you @IndianBio! I have corrected everything you've pointed out. All sources have accessdates (let me know if I'm missing one); the ISBN have all been converted, and I have changed the Oricon citing. Looking forward to your comments! Christian (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think this looks much better for consistency across the article for the literary references. I am good to support this article for its FAC nomination. —IB[ Poke ]07:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for 9 weeks and discussion has petered out, but while Heartfox hasn't edited in the past week, the nomination hasn't aside from them had a significant source review, and there's still pending questions regarding criteria 1c. which was an issue in previous nominations as well. I would rather not archive this nomination, but without a consensus on that score it's tough to promote. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk17:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David Fuchs! Thank you so much for your input! I appreciate Heartfox’s careful review earlier in this FAC. The main 1c concern they raised was the absence of Music and Culture in the Middle Ages and Beyond in the music video section. That source has now been added, resolving the issue of comprehensiveness. While discussion has since slowed, no further objections have been raised, and the nomination currently has five supports for promotion. I personally believe the article now meets the sourcing and coverage requirements, and therefore disagree that it should be archived. In my view, it is ready for promotion, though I of course welcome any additional input you or additional reviewers may wish to provide. Looking forward to hearing from you 😊 Christian (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, I requested an additional reviewer to get a second opinion since the original reviewer has pretty much stopped editing the last few weeks, and I don’t know where this nomination stands source-wise. FrB.TG (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have carefully addressed all of Heartfox's comments in detail:
Sources: Removed or replaced weaker outlets (Musicnotes, DigitalJournal, Orcasound, SmoothRadio, Maistocadas, selectmagazinescans, Imgur, AllMusic release dates). Retained only those with demonstrable reliability.
Citations and formatting: Corrected inconsistent ISSN usage, added via=Google Books, converted Newspapers.com links to clippings, fixed The Age page/department, repaired broken RPM links, added DOIs where available, and standardized quotation/capitalization formats.
Content accuracy: Corrected the European Hot 100 entry date, dubplate attribution, and Matthew-Walker lyrical imagery.
Prose adjustments: Reworked run-on sentences, limited overuse of “noted/observed/identified,” reduced excessive quotations, and added topic sentences to clarify music video analysis.
Scholarly coverage: Properly incorporated the Cambridge University Press chapter, citing the chapter author rather than the volume editors, per standard practice.
Source reliability: Supplied reputation evidence for Daily News and Analysis (via ThePrint, Rediff/PTI, and Newslaundry) to establish it as a professional newspaper of record during its run.
With these corrections and additions, I believe all issues raised have been resolved. At your convenience, could you review the changes and confirm whether the review may now be signed off? Christian (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recusing. I'll finish this myself in Heartfox's absence.
Sources should all either be in title case or sentence case regardless of how they appear in their originals per MOS:CONFORM. You can use this script to do the work for you.
Stupid question; should this also be done with the literary sources?
Source 108 needs a more specific page number/range because you're citing an entire chapter which is 19 pages long.
I have added the pages of the chapter that mention the information on the article
You seem to be linking publishers/websites on all instances but you're not always consistent in e.g. 133.
@FrB.TG:! The Musica e Dischi chart database still works on the live site, but the archived snapshot often returns an error if you try to run a search there. To make it work, you need to use the live version of the site (not the Wayback link), set Tipo = Singoli and enter Madonna under Artista. That should bring up the “La Isla Bonita” entry (which actually reveals it peaked at number 19)
Since Heartfox's and my spot-checks didn't show anything alarming, I'm passing this on both source review and spot-checks for a first-time nominator. FrB.TG (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, @FrB.TG for taking the time to do both the source review and the spot-checks — I really appreciate your thoroughness and support as a first-time nominator. Glad to hear everything looked fine! Looking forward to next steps Christian (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I love you, but not enough to die for you"; if you lived in New York in the 1990s, you know that line. If not, then this article will explain it to you. For 10 years, this young couple shared their most intimate details with millions of subway riders as they struggled to navigate a romantic relationship in the middle of a deadly epidemic.
The campaign was contracted to Conill, a Latino marketing agency, who determined ... Agency Conill - seems pretty significant for this article. I guess they were/are too small to have a WP article?
We don't have an article on them. I vaguely remember looking at starting one, but couldn't find enough material, so that didn't go anywhere.
I'm having a hard time picturing how this worked visually: Frames vs Episodes: Each episode consisted of how many frames?
A single episode was displayed in subways for an entire year. Were all the frames (the entire episode) shown in a single "Strip ad"? Or did each strip ad have only a portion of the episode?
Yeah, I can see how that could be confusing. Let me think on this a bit.
The InfoBox shows two frames with caption "First two frames of Episode 1" .. this may lead readers to conclude that the image is displaying the entirety of a single strip ad. Is it a full strip ad? Or is that image a fragment of a single strip ad?
George Foy describes his protagonist riding the subway, reading the "forty-eighth installment" of Julio and Marisol... Now I'm really confused:-) If "installment" means episode here, how does "48" relate to the 8 or 9 episodes the article defines? Or, does "installment" mean a single strip ad (2 frames)? Were the episodes published as a sequence of several (e.g. ten) strip ads, and the ten strip ads cumulatively composed an episode? E.g. ten strip ads x 2 frames each = 20 frames per episode?
The "forty-eighth installment" is a joke but I can see that the humor is obscure if you're not familiar with the subject. I've dropped that part.
Clarify timing & duration: The action played out in slow motion: nine episodes were posted in subway cars at a rate of approximately one per year,... Was a given episode displayed for the entire year? Or was a given episode displayed for, say, 3 months, then there was a gap until the next episode appeared?
Clarify "Strip ad" - A caption says "Strip ad", but that phrase does not appear in the body text. Probably should.
In a 2007 guide to LGBT comics, the strip was ... Here "strip" is used, but as a reader, I'm puzzled: does it here mean "strip ad"? Or "Comic strip?
Time frame in lead: Reader has to wait for 2nd paragraph to get: ... of about one episode per year from 1989 to 1997. I was eager to learn who/what/when/where in the first paragraph. Consider placing "1989 to 1997" in the 1st paragraph of Lead, and "one episode per year" in the 2nd paragraph.
Done
More precise wording for telenovela aspect: The storyline, unfolding in a telenovela format, ... and ... the strip was described as including all the essential elements of the telenovela genre: "melodrama, illness, love, death, tears, suspense, hot babes, and handsome men" The word "format" may be confusing for some readers. Telenovela is a TV show; and "format" suggests the physical layout and composition. Yet the 2D paper advertisement is far from a TV screen. Even if the sources use the word "format", it may be best to use editorial override and provide readers with a word that helps them understand it is the events, relationships, and emotions that are shared, not the physical format or layout. Consider "telenovela themes" or "telenovela-style themes" or "telenovela concept" or "telenovela motif" or "telenovela-inspired" or "inspired by telenovelas" or something like that.
Rephrased as "in a style similar to a telenovela"
Similar ad campaigns directed at other demographics? The article emphasizes that the ads were aimed at Hispanics. Were there parallel ad campaigns run by the subway that targeted other demographics?
I'm not aware of any, but it's certainly possible they existed. Certainly none achieved the same cultural impact.
Was this ad campaign ever used outside the subway system? Ever used in another city?
The sources generally talk about the subway, and that's how I remember it. But, it's likely it was also in the buses, since they're both run by the MTA. I'll see if I can find anything that definitively talks about the busses. I'm virtually certain this never ran outside of New York.
Further Reading: that section has a single op-ed piece Getlin, Josh (July 22, 1991). "Ad Nauseam: Is Nothing Sacred? Apparently Not, Judging by Ads in N. Y. Subways". Los Angeles Times. It doesn't look especially insightful or important. I think of "Further Reading" as items that curious readers can go to get deep, comprehensive, broad coverage. This looks like a random op-ed that was once used for a cite, then its sentence was removed:-) Consider either (a) If the op-ed has a key fact/insight: then put that fact into the article & it becomes a cite; or (b) remove the op-ed entirely. No big deal, just musing.
It doesn't add much, so dropped.
The big issue that you touched on in several comments is mostly one of nomenclature: how do "frame", "episode", "strip", "installment", "campaign", etc, all interact with each other? I'll spend some time thinking on this before I make any changes. One of the issues here is that most of the sources assume the reader is already familiar with the campaign and understands all of this context already, so there's no source that comes out and says "Each episode consisted of N frames" or anything like that. The best way to make this obvious would be to just show it, but as far as I can tell, there's no PD argument I can make so that's out.
@RoySmith: Agree, you cannot state "Each episode consisted of N strip ads" or "Each strip ad contained 8 frames"; but you can look at images within Reliable Sources, and then state in the encyclopedia's voice "Some episodes contained over 14 strip ads" or "Episode 4 contained 13 strip ads" or "Some strip ads consisted of 8 frames" or "A strip ad from episode 6 contained 6 frames" etc. The article must give the reader some sense of the layout and quantity of the advertisements, even if it is only specific numbers from individual episodes or ads. Noleander (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: The best I've been able to come up with so far is that perhaps I could download https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/surviving-and-thriving/images/OB2207.png (or a crop from that) and include that in the article. I think a reasonable argument could be made under WP:NFCC. For example, Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information we would have two non-free images. The existing one in the infobox shows the artistic style, and Maria saying the "I love you but ..." line. This new one would show the general layout of what a "strip ad" looks like, and how the individual frames are laid out, including the info panel with phone number, etc. I think that (plus a little "the sky is blue" text) would go a long way towards answering many of your questions.
I've added some more detail about the ad format, and the photo-novella style which I think answers many (but perhaps not all) of your questions. @Nikkimaria: could I impose on you to look at the NFCC argument I outlined in the previous paragraph; do you think this would be acceptable? That image comes from:
As for "Was a given episode displayed for the entire year?", I'm pretty sure the answer is "no", but that's WP:OR and it seems unlikely that I'll be able to find a WP:RS that talks about this.
Today is #WorldAIDSDay. Many New Yorkers will remember "Julio and Marisol," also known as "Decision / La Decisión,” the popular public service comic strip and HIV/AIDS messaging campaign from @nychealthy that ran in subways and buses from 1989 to 2001. It followed a couple, Julio and Marisol, as they navigated their relationship in the midst of the early AIDS epidemic in #NYC. The campaign, which ran in both English and Spanish, raised awareness about the risks of contracting HIV, and educated the public about prevention methods. Intended as a photo-novella, Julio and Marisol was a high-drama illustrated soap opera, drawing in riders with strong facial expressions and emotional dialogue. Each successive episode continued the storyline, with scenes involving Julio and Marisol’s friends and family members Marco, Raul, Luisito, Anita, Iris, and Rosa. Some characters came to test positive for HIV, or be hospitalized with AIDS; others worried about contracting the virus. A familiar part of #NYCsubway and bus riding for a decade, Julio and Marisol was a unique and effective method of communication about the AIDS crisis. The campaign’s long run meant that riders became invested in the story; interpersonal tension between characters lasted years in the minds of New Yorkers. Marisol’s trademark sentence “I love you, but not enough to die for you” became an iconic and sobering symbol of the time. Image 1, from the #NYTMCollection shows one of the final episodes of Julio and Marisol Image 2, courtesy of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, shows an episode of Julio and Marisol from 1999. Image 3, courtesy of the National Library of Medicine, shows the English and Spanish covers of two comic books showcasing the full series, which were released in 2001.
Maybe that points in the direction of some interesting sources?
Yup, UndercoverClassicist found that for me during the Peer Review and it's used as a source here for a couple of things. Regarding the images, yes, the entire strip is available on line at various places. The problem is, it's likely that all of those places are violating copyright by reproducing the images and per WP:COPYVIOCopyright-infringing material should also not be linked to. If I could convince myself (and my reviewers, but first myself) that they were linkable, then they would also be uploadable to commons and I would do so. But I don't think I could get away with that. RoySmith(talk)16:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I was not clear: when I referred to the instagram post, and said "Maybe that points in the direction of some interesting sources" I was saying that the text in the Instagram may contain information that leads to new sources that may be useful for the article. I wasn't suggesting adding external links to infringing web sites. Noleander (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander Thank you for prodding me to dig a bit deeper. I found a bit more about the later episodes (12, 13, 15) and added that. You also asked about other campaigns; I found one mention of a planned chlamydia campaign and added that to the end of "Production history". RoySmith(talk)15:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That instagram post above says the full set of strips were published as in comic book form. The article already says ", in comic book form, and..." ... is it possible to find the Comic Book publication data and put it into a "Source" or "Further Reading" section? (do comic books have ISBNs)?
That instagram post above says that the ad was called by two names, so maybe include "La Decision" as an alternate title in bold in the 1st sentence. I see the alternative in the InfoBox, but probably should also be in bold in 1st sentence. The campaign was bilingual, so the English "Decision" (not "The Decision") was also an alternate title (as indicated in images shown in a Google image search)" ... perhaps present the alternate name in bold as Decision/La Decision (include both languages together, separated by a slash or something).
I read the MOS link, but I'm not sure it relates to what I was suggesting. I was commenting on the title of the article ... the ad campaign appears to have several names: "Julio and Marisol" "La Decision" and "Decision". I was suggesting that the various names (that are not used as article title) could be in bold in the 1st sentence. That is endorsed by the MOS "first sentence" guideline. Noleander (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the images I see in a Google image search is named "La Decision XV", as in 15. That makes me think that each (or, at least one) one-year episode had at least 15 strip ads.
One of the images I see in a Google image search shows that one single strip ad contained two rows of frames, about 6 to 8 frame total. Perhaps that was the typical layout? Even if you cannot find a RS that specifically says that, the WP voice could accurately say (in the context of describing the strip ad appearance) "... One strip ad from 1993 contained 8 image frames, arranged in two rows of four...". That is valid, as long as the editor (you) saw the image published in a Reliable Source (no need for the image to be free-to-use; the editor can observe a copyrighted image and report what it contained).
Consider including a few quotes from the ads. WP permits small quotes based on the "fair use" exception to copyright. See WP:Non-free_content#Text and WP:Non-free_content#Text_2 which say, among other things, Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea.
I understand, but if all the images are copyrighted (so none appear); and if the article does not supply any sample quotes, then the reader is left feeling empty. Tens of thousands of WP articles have quotes ... perhaps try some and see if any FA reviewers object?
Ah, victory. I finally remembered where I had once seen the comic book form. JSTOR, of all places! I've added it as an external link. It is CC by-nc-nd, which means we can't import them into commons, but should meet the requirements of WP:EL. Note that this format appears to contain all the same individual frames, but laid out to fit on book-shaped pages rather than in the horizontal format of the original subway ads.
I've also gone through and verified that the only remaining places I use "strip" in the article are explicitly "comic strip" which should eliminate any confusion over comic strip vs strip ads. Let me know if this resolves your remaining questions. RoySmith(talk)18:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Date range: the article has campaign that ran from 1989 to 1997 in the (source is a 1997 article). I see source https://www.instagram.com/p/C0UT6bUvSnX/ (NY transit instagram) says "...the popular public service comic strip and HIV/AIDS messaging campaign from @nychealthy that ran in subways and buses from 1989 to 2001."
Wording: The campaign was most well known for the print ads that ran... doesnt sound as smooth as it could. Consider The campaign was best known for the print ads that ran... or similar
Lead: Wording The well-known catchphrase was a line from the first installment .... word "the" at the start doesn't sound right ... it suggests the catchphrase was already mentioned in the preceding sentence. Consider The campaign's well-known catchphrase was a line ... or A well-known catchphrase was a line from ... etc.
Meh. I tried a few rephrasings, none of which sounded as good as the original, so leaving that.
Lead: Naming source: James Baron of The New York Times described the campaign as "one part steamy soap opera, one part language instruction, and two parts AIDS education service". Putting a quote in the lead is not ideal, but I have no objection to this one since it is pithy and informative. But naming this benign source in the lead is really jarring. Naming a source in the Lead is appropriate when the source is stating a controversial opinion, or a fact likely to be challenged. E.g. "SPLC says the ABC organization is white supremacist" or "Guinness certified person XYZ as the world-record holder". Since the "soap opera" quote is non-controlversial, rewording to something like (a): The campaign was described as "one part steamy soap opera, one part language instruction, and two parts AIDS education service".[footnote identifies the source] . Or (b) The campaign was described as "one part steamy soap opera, one part language instruction, and two parts AIDS education service" by a New York Times columnist.[footnote identifies the source]
The attribution was added at the request of an earlier reviewer, but I agree with you so I've put it back to how I had it originally.
Transition from nationwide to NYC: The cultural issues led to an advertising campaign specifically designed to reach a Hispanic audience[6] with the series published simultaneously in Spanish and English. Officially titled ... The preceding paragraph was (I believe) nationwide/global in scope. Then the next paragr transitions to NYC-only when it says led to an advertising campaign specifically designed to reach a Hispanic ... Suggest insert "in NYC" or "NYC authorities" or something at start of that paragraph.
I'm not sure it's necessary, but added.
Epilogue: The section title is "Epilogue" but the word "epilogue" never appears in the body text. That is not fatal, but "epilogue" is singular ... for readers, they are expecting a single panel, or a single episode. Instead, the Epilogue section describes several episodes. Consider renaming the section to something more consistent with the body text, e.g. "Final episodes", or "Subsequent episodes", or "Episodes that did not appear in the subway", or "Episodes 9 and following" or something like that.
I went with "The story continues", but to be honest, I think Epilogue was fine.
Why "says"? A ninth episode (which The New York Times, calling it "The Lost Episode", says never ran on the subway[15]) takes place after Raul's death. The "lost episode" fact is inside parenthesis and is undermined by word "says" (kind of a MOS:WEASEL). Is there some reason to doubt the NYT source? If there is no reason to doubt the NYT, consider removing from parenthesis, and remove "says"
Actually, the current wording is based on your earlier suggestion. But I've reorganized it a bit.
Breaking the 4th wall The documented history of the campaign is incomplete after episode 9. Readers may get confused as to why you are telling them about the fact that editors were unable to find sources:-) Consider re-wording to plainly state the fact that readers want: After episode 9, a few episodes were contemplated by NY transit, but they were never officially published ... or After episode 9, a few episodes were planned, but they did not appear it the subway or It is not clear if episodes 10 and following were ever published ... etc.
I think the current wording is essentially equivalent to your suggestion of "It is not clear if episodes 10 and following were ever published". Leaving this as is.
Cites for image captions: A couple of image captions state facts. Probably best to use the same WP:V rules as the body text, so consider adding cites for these two: Interior of an R42 subway car, typical of New York City Subway rolling stock while the Julio and Marisol campaign was running. and The Incredible Hulk comic series featured a character with AIDS to raise awareness of the disease. [for the latter, the existing cite may work: Roth, Ginny A. (June 30, 2022). "Circulating Now: Making a Case ...]
Reword caption to emphasize the Julio & Marisol topic: Caption is The Incredible Hulk comic series featured a character with AIDS to raise awareness of the disease. Although factually accurate, consider rewording to describe how it relates to Julio & Marison, e.g. Julio & Marisol is one of several uses of the comics medium to provide public health education. In 19xx the Hulk comic also addressed the AIDS epidemic. or something like that.
Changed the caption. It is cited in the body text, so I don't see any need for a citation in the caption
Can you include a statement near the end, which indicate how the campaign's timeline related to the timeline of AIDs prevalence amongst Hispanics? I'm not suggesting cause-and-effect, but a simple statement such as "The prevalence of AIDs in the New York Hispanic community peaked in 1995, while the Julio and Marisol ad campaign was still active". [The year 1995 used here is random, for sake of illustration only]. The goal is to give readers insight as to when the ad campaign ran in the overall arc of AIDs prevalence. Was the campaign early? middle? or late in the arc of AIDs?
The Hulk image strikes me as a bit gratuitous, not really professional or encyclopedic. Of course, images are great for articles ... but that looks like it was tossed in because it is brightly colored:-) Better would be an image of a comic used within a public health ad campaign. It could be for any health issue (smoking, drugs, etc); and the comic need not be famous (i.e. it could be a comic created by the ad agency). The image should illustrate that comics are frequently used in public health campaigns. Here are some possibilities:
I'll see what I can find regarding the timeline. As for the image, it seems absurd to suggest that Superman could in any way be superior to The Hulk, but replaced. RoySmith(talk)19:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not much of a comic buff, but I understand there are vigorous debates over whether superhero A could prevail over superhero B. (Also: I updated the image caption to include the pre-existing sentence tying it into the article). :-) Noleander (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could the relevant language template be added to the mainspace?
I don't understand what you mean.
The template which says Use American English.
Done.
My count tells me the lead's 163 words long. Could be expanded?
I believe the lead satisfies WP:LEAD's requirement to provide a summary of [the article's] most important contents. Is there something in particular that I missed which needs summarizing?
I see that you are presently reworking the Reception section. Will the article undergo (significant) changes in other sections as well? MSincccc (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not anticipate any more significant changes to the article. My expectation is that over the next few days, legions of new reviewers will swoop down, heap praise upon the current version, and issue their stamps of approval. Should that not come to pass, I may indeed be forced to make changes:-) RoySmith(talk)11:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may return with further suggestions (as I did for Abramson), but the article is at present too well presented for me to withhold my support. MSincccc (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Storyline
“two young lovers while they confront” → “two young lovers as they confront”.
“intravenous drug abuse” → “intravenous drug use” (more neutral).
Day 1
“thinking how smart his kid brother is” → “thinking how smart his younger brother is”.
The line from the original is "Smart kid protecting himself", so I think we're OK using the word "kid".
“I was dumb wrong” → add [sic] if verbatim from the script.
It is indeed verbatim from the original, but I don't see a need for [sic]. That implies we're intentionally reproducing something that's clearly wrong or a misprint. Neither apply here.
General
Episode numbering: 10, 11, and 14 are missing; consider a brief note if intentional.
Tense consistency: some sentences use present (“shows Julio”), others past (“took place”). Recommend standardising.
Suggestions from readers
“After episode 2 included a request for ideas” → “After episode 2 requested ideas”.
Split the long sentence: “over 100 people sent in suggestions, ranging…” → two sentences.
“would be working in a pet salon where Marisol brought her poodle” → “works in a pet salon, where Marisol brings her poodle”.
“get HIV from a prostitute” → “contract HIV from a prostitute”.
“ends both their lives in a murder–suicide” → “commits a murder–suicide”.
“wanted to see the couple apologize and get back together” → “favored reconciliation”.
“…cultural attitudes which discouraged condom use” → “…cultural attitudes that discouraged condom use”
"Which" is more British; that is standard for restrictive clauses in American English.
“Hispanic facial features” → “Hispanic features” (the alt text)
James Baron of The New York Times described the series as "one part steamy soap opera, one part language instruction, and two parts AIDS education service".
Fixed the first two. As for the quote, It's one of the best quotes in the article and succinctly summarizes pretty much everything there is to say about the campaign. Leaving it out of the lead would be, in my opinion, a mistake. RoySmith(talk)18:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Background
Pre-marital → premarital
American English.
Additional factors included recent immigrants not knowing English and being poor, both of which limited their access to health care and information. → Additional factors included recent immigrants’ limited English and poverty, restricting access to health care and information.
You could simplify the current sentence.
The action played out in slow motion: nine episodes were posted in subway cars at a rate of approximately one per year, with the leisurely pace becoming a defining feature. → The story unfolded slowly, with nine episodes posted in subway cars at roughly one per year, the pace becoming a defining feature.
The section mixes past (“were posted”) and descriptive present (“played out in slow motion”). The narrative flow could be made uniform.
I changed premarital. If I may be so bold, I think the other suggestions are just matters of style so I'll leave them as is. I believe I've already addressed all your points regarding Reception, but let me know if I've missed any. RoySmith(talk)12:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After episode 2 included a request for ideas → After episode 2 requested ideas
I don't know, but I think a good de minimus argument could be made here since the gist of the image is to show what a generic interior car card looks like, and the details of the particular ad are not important.
De minimus is typically applied when something is in the background; here it's being featured, even if as an example. Compare something like this: the car cards are definitely de minimus here, but (because) that doesn't do a good job of exemplifying them. If the point is generic example rather than specific artwork, a good alternative if copyright status can't be determined might be to create an original example. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Production history, paragraph 1: "The campaign ran in the New York City subway (and also on MTA busses)" - "New York City Subway" is a proper name, so all four words should be capitalized. Maybe you can link "MTA busses" to MTA Regional Bus Operations?
Done
Production history, paragraph 2: "The ads were run in the advertising space above the car windows in a horizontal format known as interior car cards" - There is a missing word here.
Some of the refs are tagged as requiring subscription when they don't necessarily need subscription to access, This includes the NYT (for post-1980 articles, you can access a limited number of articles per month without an account, so they should be marked with |url-access=limited) and newspapers.com (the clippings are completely free to access - only the urls with /image/ in them require a subscription).
for post-1980 articles, you can access a limited number of articles per month without an account are you sure about that? When I try to open any of the NYT links I have in an incognito window, I get prompted to create an account: "Create a free account, or log in. Enjoy limited free articles ..." RoySmith(talk)01:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, the prompt does say "limited" free articles. Unfortunately, there's no option to mark a CS1 citation as "limited access but only if you don't use incognito or are logged in". Nor is there an option to mark a citation as "limited access but only if you have a qualifying print disability that's recorded by archive.org". –Epicgenius (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I question the value of this field at all. Everything we do is supposed to be to provide useful information, or at least a better experience, to our readers. It's unclear to me how this improves their experience. If the little icon wasn't there, the reader would just click the link and the site would tell them they need a subscription, or they've used up N of their free articles for the month, or whatever. Wouldn't that be just fine? In fact, it would be more accurate because it would track whatever policy changes the site might implement in the future. Maybe a site decides to allow access to a URL if the HTTP referer header indicated this was a click-through from a wikipedia article? Or they removed the paywall completely? Or make it stricter? So, you've invested effort to notice that I used the wrong tag and to educate me about it. And I've invested effort to fix the tags. But have our readers really received any value from this? I don't think so. RoySmith(talk)13:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, my preference is to not use the tag at all, so I agree with you on that. However, I just mentioned it since, somewhere along the way, someone decided to mark these urls as needing a subscription. Maybe it marginally helps the reader by saving them an extra click if the source is paywalled; if the source is limited-access, on the other hand, they may still click it. Just my two cents. –Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
someone decided to mark these urls as needing a subscription that was almost certainly me. But only because in some previous FAC some reviewer insisted I needed them:-( RoySmith(talk)14:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CSECTION, I would be wary of dividing reception into praise and criticism sections, since it can lead to WP:NPOV issues if sections are largely devoted to positive or negative reviews. This is further complicated because the second paragraph of the "Criticism" section includes a review that isn't even negative - specifically, Danto's review. Instead, I'd group the reviews some other way. For example, you can have different subsections devoted to artistic style; cultural commentary (specifically how it's discussed in relation to the Hispanic, Black, and LGBT communities); cultural impact (e.g. how people from around the world requested copies); and educational usage.
Lead:
In the infobox, is there a reason New York City Department of Health isn't linked? I get not linking the other parts of the infobox, but New York City Department of Health isn't a WP:OVERLINK.
Para 1: "Julio and Marisol (officially titled Decision in English or La Decisión in Spanish)" - If "Julio and Marisol" isn't the official name of the campaign in either language, where does the name "Julio and Marisol" come from? For that matter, the lead doesn't mention at all that Julio and Marisol are the characters in the campaign (it doesn't even introduce them).
Actually, I think it may be beneficial to beef up the lead a bit. For example, the fact that the ad campaign targeted the Hispanic population because Hispanic people didn't tend to use condoms.
Para 1: "The campaign was praised by public health officials, but drew criticism from family values advocates." - This seems like this would fit in the next paragraph. Also, maybe the nature of the praise and criticism can be elaborated upon (for example, people praising how it was structured similar to a telenovela or soap opera, or people's criticism that it didn't feature gay or black characters".
OK, I've addressed most of those. I need to think about how I might rearrange the Reception section, so I'm going to hold off making any changes there until I've let that roll around inside my head a while. RoySmith(talk)16:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added a little bit more, found a couple of good images, and re-integrated my sandbox back into the article. Note to self (and anybody else who is listening): If you copy-paste a bunch of stuff including reference to somewhere else and then copy it back, VE just goes off the deep end and makes a total mess. Don't ever do that. RoySmith(talk)01:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Background
Para 1: "Over the next decade, New York became the major locus of infection in the United States with epidemiologists estimating that half of the gay men and three-fifths of the injection drug users in the city were infected" - Should there be a comma after "in the United States"?
Para 2: " "Gender relations take a different tone and tenor with Hispanics ... Machismo is prevalent and women are not taught to talk about sex, and also are not socialized to being confrontational to ask their partner to wear a condom". " - The period after the quote should be placed just before the quote mark, because the quote is a complete sentence, per MOS:LQ.
Para 2: Also, "Factors included recent immigrants not knowing English and being poor" doesn't seem like stereotypical behavior. I'd say "Other factors included..." As a matter of fact, shouldn't this be put after the Catholic Church sentence, since that sentence kind of explains the stereotypical behavior?
Para 3: "Officially titled Decision in English (La Decisión in Spanish)" - I suggest rewording to get rid of the parentheses, e.g. "Officially titled Decision in English and La Decisión in Spanish".
"The story follows two young lovers for several days while they argue about the dangers of unprotected sex during the AIDS epidemic" - I would move "for several days" to after "while they argue", to make it clear that these are in-universe days. Otherwise, it sounds like the story took place in several real-world days (contradicting the lead, which says the campaign took several years), not several in-universe days.
I just dropped the "several days". I also changed argue -> confront the dangers, which better aligns with the full story line.
Is there a reason the first two sentences are in present tense and the last two in past tense?
Do you mean "David Hinckley ... described"? That's past tense because it's talking about an action Hinckley took in the past, i.e. he wrote an article. The present tense sentences are present tense per MOS:PLOT.
I know that the following three subsections fall under MOS:PLOT, but do any reliable sources actually mention the content of the episodes?
In an earlier version, I had citations to various sources for specific items, but got rid of them. It left the text cluttered and I don't think added any value.
Day 1:
Para 2: "then discovers that both of his friends use them" - Is "them" referring to condoms?
Yes. I think that's pretty clear as written.
Fair enough, I reread the sentence, and I agree "them" has a clear referent. Though, a rule of thumb I like to follow is that, if people raise questions about specific wording, it might not actually be clear even if I think it is. - EG
Para 3: "Julio leaves Marco and Miguel, and encounters his younger brother," - Per WP:CINS, I suggest adding "he" before "encounters" (or alternatively, removing the comma after "Miguel").
Done
Day 2:
No concerns
Epilogue:
Para 2: "Episode 13 was announced in August 1999." - Do you know if this was ever released? Do any sources talk about what this is about?
What you see is all I know. As noted, the historical documentation is sketchy.
Para 3: "The episode was posted in 2024 on the New York City Transit Museum's Instagram" - The Instagram source is fine for this specific sentence fragment. However, my concern is that it might not be appropriate to use this for "it is unknown when or where it was originally published", since that requires additional secondary analysis that the Instagram post doesn't provide. I acknowledge that this info may be hard to find, since it's already mentioned that the production history after episode 8 is incomplete.
I'm open to concrete suggestions what to do here.
I suggest perhaps just removing "it is unknown..." - EG
Done.
Suggestions from readers:
No concerns
Another general comment:
Would it make more sense to put "Reception" after "Production history"? This is how I usually see these sections laid out in other art-related articles.
I don't see any real value in that. I think the reception section is more interesting, so I think it makes sense to put it first. I'm not bothered that I made different editorial choices than other authors.
The reason I suggested this is because, as a reader, I thought it might be better to learn about the production history first. Reading the article, I didn't really comprehend why they stopped at eight episodes until I read that section (specifically, the "Production gaps" subsection). - EG Epicgenius (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW: I also thought the sequence of sections was not ideal. Not only because the convention for WP articles is invariably Plot/Production/Reception; but also because production precedes reception chronologically (as production of J & M unfolded in real life). Having Reception before Production is a bit jarring, as if seeing "Death" section before "Early Life" in a biographical article. Noleander (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Para 1: "'ubiquitous faces of the [Metropolitan Transportation Authority] MTA'" - Usually, the acronym is put after the thing it stands for, but in this case, it looks unwieldy. I'd just say something like "'ubiquitous faces of the MTA', or Metropolitan Transportation Authority". Or even "'ubiquitous faces' of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority"
Rephrased.
Para 2: "Health Department Associate Commissioner Steven Mathews said the department had received hundreds of letters asking for reprints" - As of a specific date?
Added
Educational aspects:
Para 1: "Examples include a Ben Casey series about a young drug addict, Incredible Hulk character Jim Wilson, who has AIDS (#388, "Thicker Than Water"), a Justice League issue which teaches children how to use prescription medicines safely, and Dennis the Menace educating children about poisons in the home" - This specific sentence is hard to follow. Maybe you can use semicolons to separate the different parts of the list - this is usually done when the items in a serial list have commas.
Done
Para 2: "'The situations in the story are the kinds which people may see themselves in, situations which people can relate to'." - Per MOS:LQ, the period goes before the quotation mark as this is a full sentence.
Done.
Para 2: "Librarians Kristine Alpi and Barbara Bibel used Julio and Marisol as an example of educational materials" - Unless Alpi and Bibel actually used these as educational materials (in which case Julio and Marisol is one of the several educational materials they used), I would use "cited" rather than "used".
Done
Para 2: "while admitting that there was value in educational campaigns, said" - I would change this to something like "admitted that there was value in educational campaigns but said..." Otherwise, you have two parenthesis (rhetoric) adjacent to each other ("Hispanic AIDS Forum's executive director", "while admitting that there was value in educational campaigns"), which would be awkward.
Para 1: "$60,000 (equivalent to $128,000 in 2023) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grant" - I know this isn't the intent, but having two parenthetical comments almost next to each other, like here, is awkward.
Rephrased to give a bit more room between them.
Para 1: "Episodes 1-9 were republished (in two editions with different cover art) as a bound comic-book with the original graphical content rearranged to fit the book format." - Two comments. "Episodes 1-9" should be "Episodes 1–9", and "comic book" shouldn't need a hyphen because it's not being used as an adjective.
Fixed
Para 2: "Ads ran above the car windows, in a horizontal 11-by-44-inch (28 cm × 110 cm) format" - This sounds like the horizontal cards near the ceiling, which also run above the doors. In fact, nearly all NYC Subway cars from that era had interior car cards running the entire length of the car, not just the windows.
Added "and doors"
Para 2: "an information block" - I get what you mean, but I would describe this as a "panel" even though it doesn't have a drawing.
Rephrased.
Para 3: "Work began in the spring of 1998" - I don't recommend using seasons per MOS:SEASON, but if you do, I suggest "Work began in spring 1998".
Dropped "the", but I think I'm going to go with spring because that's what the source says. I tried changing it to "early 1998", but that kind of implies January or February, which isn't spring and anything else would either be WP:OR or awkward. For an article which is firmly in the context of one city, I think it's reasonable to assume the reader can figure out which hemisphere "spring" should be interpreted in.
Para 4: "The campaign was contracted to Conill, a Latino marketing agency; the initial contract only covered the first episode, with subsequent episodes managed internally by the Health Department using freelance artists." - I'd probably rephrase it to consolidate the info about Conill in one clause; for example, "The first episode of the campaign was contracted to Conill, a Latino marketing agency, with subsequent episodes managed internally by the Health Department using freelance artists."
Done
Para 5: "but English versions were provided in response to popular demand" - I suggest "but that English versions..."
Done
Para 5: "a three or four month" - This should be "a three- or four-month" because the numbers modify the word "month".
Production gaps:
Para 1: "with 20% of the cars" - 20 percent of each car, or one out of five cars?
The sentence talks about "all of the available space on each side of a car", so I think it's reasonably clear that it's not 20% of each car. I dropped the word "available", which perhaps makes it a little more clear.
If you meant "one out of five cars", I usually describe that as "20% of the rolling stock". Not a big deal, in either case. - EG
Para 2: "He also said that the department was working on a new campaign featuring a character named Lydia, to teach people about chlamydia" - Did this end up happening?
Unknown.
Popularity:
Para 1: "The series became sufficiently well known to be used" - I suggest "The series became sufficiently well known that it was used" or "The series was well known enough to be used".
This sentence has already been sequentially tweaked by previous reviewers, so I think I'll just leave it as is.
Educational aspects:
Para 2: Is Maldonado's comment specifically about Julio and Marisol, or was it just about educational campaigns?:
I think he was talking in general, but the statement in the source is right next to where J&M are being discussed, so it's not really clear.
Social impact:
Para 1: "HIV-positive character in Doonesbury" - Doonesbury should be italicized
Done
Para 1: "In a 2007 guide to LGBT comics, Julio and Marisol was said" - Who said this?
Oooh, when I first read this, I thought it was unattributed to any specific author, but upon closer inspection, I see that's not true. Added Jennifer Camper.
Para 3: "which he labeled as "tactful omissions"" - Is there a reason he said they were tactful?
Not stated in the source. I interpret it as a bit of sarcasm, but that would be WP:OR.
Consistency in (hushed tones!) capitalization of quotes, e.g "retrospective noting that "The campaign’s long run..."" or "called it an "interminable AIDS..."" and "the series was one of the "ubiquitous face..."" or "and that "Without question...""
I'm not actually sure what is the right thing to do here. I've asked on WT:MOS.
Aye, it never occurred to me to ask...
"The series is so well known, it has been used as" > "The series became sufficiently well known to be used as", perhaps; the comma seems misplaced?
Done
" He can even apply for a [low cost] public-service-announcement spot. His group might be eligible"." MOS:LQ: "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material", which this is.
Done.
" large customers", naturally I assumed this was a reference to obesity in already cramped cars!
Well, yes. But rephrased anyway.
Thanks for this. It was a fucking hardcore period, and some of the advertising, unlke this, was downrights brutal (and,if I remember, often offensive, although as a kid I ddn't yet see that of course). Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix12:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
everything resolved from my point of view; the issue of the WP:QUOTECAPS/WP:CAPQUOTES is yet to be decided, and in view of the likelihood that
WT:MOS moves at a slightly faster than glacial rate; we can't let it hold things up. After all, the FA has to follow MOS, and MOS ... has yet to speak :) —Fortuna, imperatrix15:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. For now, I'll just leave it the way it is but I'll be happy to come back to this if consensus develops at WT:MOS and/or amongst the other reviewers here. RoySmith(talk)15:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saving a space (by which I mean very little). I said my piece at PR but the article has changed a bit since then; if anyone else wants to jump in ahead of me, that would probably be to the good. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lots has happened here (for the better), so I'll pop in:
The focus of the campaign was promoting condom use to prevent AIDS. a question: does MOS:LEAD point towards including something like "particularly among Hispanic people" here, as we later seem to say that was a major part of its goals?
The next paragraph says The campaign was designed to appeal to a Hispanic audience and we start out by giving the title in English and Spanish, so I think we've got that covered.
With action covering just a few days, the story was told at a rate of about one episode per year.: it's a bit unclear whether this means that each episode is spaced narratively by a year (e.g. we are told about a total of five days on five different years) or appeared a year after the last.
I agree that there is a slight ambiguity here, but we go into more detail about this in Background, so I think this is fine for the lead.
We say it eventually grew into a pandemic -- it was never formally classified as one like Covid etc, but was definitely a major issue within (at most) six years -- we later say that 1987 was "early" in this story. I would cut the adverb.
I disagree that it was never formally classified as a pandemic. The citation at the end of that sentence is to a paper titled "Ending the HIV/AIDS Pandemic". I just added a second citation to "A pandemic anniversary: 40 years of HIV/AIDS"
I can't find a definitive announcement, as we had with Covid, of e.g. the WHO saying "AIDS is a pandemic now", though clearly official WHO/CDC publications use the term "pandemic" (and one assumes that there were boardroom meetings about doing so). However, my problem is with the word eventually: pandemic is absolutely fine. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think "eventually" is the right word here. It's not like it happened overnight. The growth curve (in the accompanying graph) took over a decade. That seems like "eventual" to me.
Stereotypical behavior, however, inhibited condom use in the Hispanic population.: I think this is a bit clumsy -- a stereotype is, after all, imposed from outside. How about "Certain cultural norms"?
Several of the sources refer to the behavior as stereotypical. As far as I can tell, this is the standard word used in epidemiology to describe behavior common to a cohort which is relevant to disease transmission. But changed as you suggest.
I would put a date on Ramirez's comment -- is this contemporary or retrospective?
Done
Additional factors included recent immigrants not knowing English and being poor: another one that may be a bit clumsy: nouns might be better: "poverty and limited English-language proficiency among recent immigrants"? After all, some recent immigrants knew English and some were comfortably off.
Done
limited their access to health care and information about the disease: might consider healthcare for readability (so not health, care, and information...).
Done
The cultural issues led to an advertising campaign...: this paragraph is pretty short and seems to miss some details that would be nice: who decided on this? When? Was there a bidding/brainstorming/tendering process? I appreciate we might not have all of this information.
I know some reviewers worry about paragraph length, but I do not share that concern. Leaving this as is.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the way the quotes are presented in the plot section -- they drop into the prose with little sense of what they are (it looks as if they're probably subtitles). I think the way you've done the first is good -- Marisol insists that Julio use a condom, pleading "I love you, but not enough to die for you" -- but would go carefully with e.g. {{green|Raul urges Rosa to let Julio know she is HIV positive ("You don't have to feel ashamed") -- there, the quote isn't quite what was being described in the text. That one, for example, might be better paraphrased as "HIV positive, telling him that he does not have to feel ashamed".
I'll take a look at these, but won't commit at this point to any changes.
it has since appeared in both print and radio versions and printed on T-shirts: and been printed reads better to me.
Done
in a horizontal 11-by-44-inch (28 cm × 110 cm) format known as an interior car card.: MOS:WORDSASWORDS is a tricky one, but I probably wouldn't italicise here -- "Texas Red was a type of wandering pastoralist known as a cowboy" reads better than the italics to me.
Done
the Health Department's Cross-cultural Affairs Director: MOS:PEOPLETITLES probably wants the capitals gone in CCAD.
Done
Conill, a Latino marketing agency: do companies have ethnicities? Is Walmart a white supermarket? Latino-owned? Latino-focused?
Conill describes themselves as "the nation’s first Latino agency" on their about page.
The last two paragraphs of "Background" and the first bit of "Production history" overlap in ways that don't make a whole lot of sense to me. We also contradict ourselves: in Background, it was always going to be bilingual; in History, it wasn't.
I don't see the contradiction. In Background, I say "led to an advertising campaign ... published simultaneously in Spanish and English." which is true. In Production History, I go into more detail that English was not in the original plan, but was added later. I don't think it's a problem that the reader learns more details as they read further into the article.
high-budget advertisers could purchase all the space on each side of a car, with 20% of the cars reserved for smaller advertisers: I would look to rework this: I don't think it's a contradiction, but I had to think for a while to figure out why not.
I tried to clarify this. You're not the first person to be confused by this, but I'm not sure how to reword it to make it totally unambiguous without resorting to excessive verbosity which I think is not justified. The point of the statement is that the MTA instituted a advertising policy which the Department of Health found untenable causing them to withdraw their ads. I'm not sure how valuable it is to the reader to go beyond that.
Thinking on it, I'm not sure what the problem was, which might be tied in to the manner of expressing. As I understand it, 80% of subway cars could now be 100% bought by e.g. Ford, and the remaining 20% would be a mosaic of small advertisers. Julio and Marisol would therefore be shunted into one of the 20%, and therefore competing for space with haemorrhoid cream, which Sternberg (ironically for a health professional) found infra dig. But wasn't it a free-for-all before, so the haemorrhoid cream could have been there anyway? What actually changed, from the comic's point of view? UndercoverClassicistT·C14:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely into WP:OR territory here, but I think the real objection was the division into "stuff that's important" and "stuff that's not important" and Sternberg objected to being put into the later category. Ultimately, we can only report what the sources say and I think I've been exhaustive in my research on this topic. RoySmith(talk)14:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One concrete problem: Sternberg felt that this would be inappropriate for the campaign -- there isn't a clear antecedent for this. Fixing might solve both problems, if we could say e.g. "advertising in the latter category", "being placed among the smaller firms", or similar. Alternatively, we need to do something like "this arrangement". UndercoverClassicistT·C15:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"categorically refused to occupy that space": this works awkwardly as a quote, and isn't clearly attributed: I would paraphrase, personally. The following quote works perfectly.
I don't understand how "Sternberg felt" isn't clear attribution.
It isn't tied to the quote, so it isn't clear that these are Sternberg's words (rather than someone else's) -- compare something like Ronald McDonald felt that hamburgers were nutritious and "completely refused" to eat anything else -- I can't see that an average reader would infer that these were Mr. M's own words. We can of course add something simple like "as she put it", but then I can't see that the words themselves are particularly important, as distinct from the information they convey. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:04, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that I like to include more quotes than some authors do. I think reading statements in the original speaker's own words lends both interest and veracity and I think my usage here is within the constraints of MOS:QUOTE. Words, like food, have flavor. While putting a fine meal into blender doesn't degrade the nutritional content, it does make it less appetizing. RoySmith(talk)15:04, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, Health Commissioner Neal L. Cohen announced that although AIDS mortality was down due to the introduction of effective treatments, young people were becoming complacent about employing safe sexual practices so there was an increased need for education about how to prevent infection and he wanted to speed up release of installments: a very long and somewhat tricky sentence.
Unlongified and detrickified.
the same attributes which make comic books work in a child's classroom: maybe I'm doing this teaching thing wrong, but I didn't think that was where children generally read comic books.
The cited source is entirely about using comic books in classrooms. From my own experience, I can remember an anthropomorphic tooth and toothbrush teaching me the basics of oral hygiene.
Incredible Hulk character Jim Wilson, who has AIDS (#388 in 1999, "Thicker Than Water"): this is almost a parenthetical citation, and in any case is a little unclear: personally, I would put the date in the body and the other details in a footnote, if felt appropriate. Is there a side question here about comic books exploring social issues, particularly (homo)sexuality, from a liberal and sometimes countercultural perspective -- I was waiting for X-Men to come in? But then we may hit the rocks of WP:SYNTH.
I would definitely stick dates on as many of the comics as possible, and perhaps disambiguate Dennis the Mennis in the text? I don't know how well known his US counterpart is, but I was definitely expecting the British one.
I've dropped the details completely. It seems peripheral and adding full coverage of each example's provenance would detract from the main point. If readers want to explore further, it's all in the source provided.
Howard Hurwitz, chairman of the Family Defense Council, objected to the ... failure to blame the gay community for AIDS: is this really a failure? I think we need to rephrase -- perhaps say more directly that he said the strip should have blamed them? Some context may be needed here, as I don't think we've really yet got across how strongly AIDs was associated with gay men (and other "undesirables"), particularly in the early 1980s, and how important homophobia was to delaying effective action against it. I'm also not totally happy about letting homosexuals who are largely responsible for the killer disease pass unchallenged, even if not in Wikivoice -- by 1993, it was an increasingly equal-opportunities disease, particularly in Africa, and indeed the CDC changed the case definition that year in a way which increased the number of women, injection drug users and people with haemophilia diagnosed. But even then -- "responsible", I mean!
I think the inclusion of multiple quotes makes it clear that we're just reporting on what Hurwitz said. And I think "failure to blame the gay community for AIDS" is an accurate summary of his statements. So I'm going to politely push back on this request.
It may be an accurate presentation of his views, but there are plenty of perfectly accurate ways of doing it which don't have this problem. "Failure" is in Wikivoice and we currently leave the statement that gay people were responsible for the AIDS pandemic unchallenged -- that seems firmly in WP:FRINGE territory, where it's not enough to say "well, we're just reporting what the flat-earthers/Covid deniers/antisemites say". At the very least, is it not preferable to go for something like objected to the promotion of condom use and argued that the strips should blame the gay community for AIDS? UndercoverClassicistT·C15:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
disputed the claim that condoms prevent AIDS: is this a bit like "disputed the claim that the earth is round"?
Yes, but again, we're just reporting on what was said, not agreeing with it.
OK, but "claim" is established under MOS:SAID as a term which implies that there's some doubt, so we should be careful about using it. "Disputed whether condoms prevent..." would avoid this problem and be more concise to boot. UndercoverClassicistT·C15:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I think I've addressed all of them one way or another. I'll continue to look at the quotes in the storyline section. RoySmith(talk)14:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty much happy -- the only thing I still don't understand is the division of material between "Background" and "Production history". I can't see that there's a clear or logical structure at work here. Personally, I'd shift everything that happens before the decision to launch the campaign into "Background", and everything else into "Production history", but I'd be content with an explanation of the principle being followed and suitable reassurance that an uninitiated reader will be able to follow and use it. UndercoverClassicistT·C16:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'll be able to give you an answer which you'll find totally satisfactory. The history of the article had most of the contents of these two sections sequentially reshuffled as each reviewer made additional requests. I am hesitant to go down that path again because I think we'll end up with a "whatever the last reviewer wanted" version.
My vision of Production history is things which are about how the series was produced, and "Background" is more about things which the reader needs to know to put the rest of the article, particularly "Storyline" in context. The last paragraph ("The action played out in slow motion...") is all about how the series dragged out for years. That's really one of the key attributes of the series, which is why I devoted so much space to showing the long drawn-out nature of the campaign, and sets the stage for what follows. Much of the storyline makes more sense once you understand that it was written in sync with the world's increasing understanding of the nature of the disease. Some plot elements were only added when the health department felt the need to introduce them to track real-world events. To put that at the end: "Oh by the way, this dragged on for over a decade", would be strange.
Forcing the narrative into a strictly chronological presentation would not be an improvement, so there is inevitably going to be some overlap between the various sections. As per your last request: "I hereby pinky promise that an uninitiated reader will be able to follow and use this article". RoySmith(talk)17:18, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ha -- I'm happy with that. Well within editorial discretion, in my view: I would do it differently, but then I would have never been able to get this article anywhere near its current level of quality if it were my project. That puts me to support, though I'll reserve the right to come back and do some spotchecks if I get a moment. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to remember whether I knew about Julio and Marisol before RoySmith brought them to Wikipedia, but I can't figure it out. I haven't been to NYC before 2005, so probably not in NYC. Anyway, to review a little:
Is it correct that we have no clue who the artist(s) was/were?
See below.
Storyline: I am not sure why you attribute the "pretty girl" and "nice-looking boy" to a secondary source but the "frank discussions" are just sourced to the comic.
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but there is no source for "frank discussions". WP:CITE only requires citations for "material challenged or likely to be challenged", It seems unlikely that anybody who had any familiarity with the material would challenge this statement.
Epilogue: "The history of the campaign is incomplete after episode 9" do you mean that you don't know what exactly was published when, or that this has been lost completely despite being quite recent? The comic book from [12] and JSTOR seems to end after Episode 9.
A little of all of those things. Presumably there were episodes 10, 11, and 14, but I can't find any mention of them. Episode 13 is mentioned in passing, but I haven't been able to locate it. I've made it "documented history", perhaps that reduces some of the confusion?
Reception: this is the reception of the subway strip version; is there a separate reception of the comic book? Interesting in the comic book is that it asks the reader for suggestions for Julio and Marisol stories. The comic book seems to answer also the "Requests for reprints" but is only mentioned much later?
The comic book was just a repackaging of the same content that ran in the subway ads, so no, there's no distinct reception. I've added a bit to the first paragraph of "Production history" which hopefully explains that better.
I really don't get the Hulk image here.
I've added a little bit more context. This section is talking about the history of using the comic book genre as a way of teaching important health lessons to children, and The Hulk specifically had an story about a character with AIDS.
Production history: how should I imagine the "broadcast versions"? audio? animation? film?
Ah. I've changed it to say "radio", which is the word the source uses. That should at least make it clear we're talking audio, but beyond that I have no information. RoySmith(talk)08:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"artist Stephanie Siefken, a native of Colombia and the Health Department's Cross-cultural Affairs Director, assigned to the project" just to confirm, she just happens to be an artist, but she is not the artist who drew Julio and Marisol?
"subsequent episodes managed internally by the Health Department using freelance artists" the source says "The department decided to handle future episodes on its own, with help from a freelance graphic designer and an artist who draws each panel." so there seems to be a single artist (at least after the first episode) but we do not know who it is.
Yeah, that's a good question (alluded to in my "see below" comment). It's possible Siefken is the person who did the drawings, but I have not been able to find anything that says she was. Given the uniformity of style, I suspect it was the same person doing all of them, but that's pure speculation, and given the number of years this ran, maybe not even a good guess. So a bit of a mystery there.
Production gaps: "the department was working on a new campaign featuring a character named Lydia, to teach people about chlamydia". that is quite a cliffhanger for the article to end on; what happened to Lydia? There is a short and a drag performer; any connection? does the NYC Health department still advertise?
I was asked by another reviewer about other campaigns. I found that, so I added it. Yes, I agree it's a little abrupt, but not sure what else to say here. I looked at the IMDb link. Despite the title, my best guess is that's unrelated.
Will look through your responses later. A photo in the subway would be awesome; I don't know if this can be used but it could certainly be linked to as external media. —Kusma (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(You might have a good case for FUR with that—it's absolutely the topic of the article and it's not so good quality that it would impinge any commercial rights.) —Fortuna, imperatrix16:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it to the Storyline section. I guess the worst that could happen is somebody objects to the FUR and I have to take it out, in which case we're no worse off than before. RoySmith(talk)22:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
..., both with normal sexual desires I would delete this text. For instance, oral sex is abnormal or a taboo for many religious people, but others have been practising it for ages.Borsoka (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying what the source says: "normal, healthy appetites for life, including its physical pleasures"
I understand the quoted text describes their life motivations/inclinations as normal and healthy, not their sexual desires.
The quote from the source is "They were attractive singles with normal, healthy appetites for life, including its physical pleasures". I can't think of any plausible way to interpret "physical pleasures" other than "sex", especially in the context of an ad campaign urging people to use condoms. RoySmith(talk)16:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Lead:) The campaign has been described as "one part steamy soap opera, one part language instruction, and two parts AIDS education service". I would delete this sentence. Alternatively, name the quote's source.Borsoka (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is attributed in the main body: James Baron of The New York Times described the series as "one part steamy soap opera, one part language instruction, and two parts AIDS education service", but OK, I'll repeat that in the lead per MOS:CITELEAD. RoySmith(talk)16:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources are marked as being from "ProQuest" while others from ProQuest are marked as being from "Proquest". This should be consistent.
Some newspapers (e.g. NYT) have ISSNs and others (e.g. NYDN, Newsday) do not. This should be consistent.
Some of the refs as of this version (specifically refs 26 and 38) use http://ezproxy.nypl.org urls. Unless the reader is a NYPL card holder like you or me, they can't access this. I suggest using the ProQuest url directly, e.g. https://www.proquest.com/docview/259852187. You can also use the "id" parameter in the CS1 citation (|id={{ProQuest|259852187}}) to link to ProQuest urls.
2 (Kaposi's Sarcoma and Pneumocystis Pneumonia Among Homosexual Men — New York City and California". Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 30 (25): 305–308. July 3, 1981.) - Checks out
10 (Foy, George (1996). The Shift. Bantam Books. p. 441.) - I mean technically it checks out, but this is a work of fiction. I'm not sure that it fits in the "Background" section. Maybe in one of the reception subsections?
I can see your point, but what this is really about is that even writers of fiction have picked up on the slow pace the story unfolds and used that as a plot element in their own story.
19 (@nytransitmuseum; (December 1, 2024). "Today is #WorldAIDSDay" – via Instagram.) - Checks out.
22 ("Decision: As the Minutes Ticked by, Their Passion Grew". National Library of Medicine Digital Collections.) - This doesn't say anything about episodes 1-9, just about the series in general.
21 and 22 show the two different types of cover art used for the two editions.
28 ("About". Conill. Archived from the original on January 26, 2020.) - Neither the live link nor the archived link support anything other than the fact that Conill is a Latino marketing agency. The other source, 1 (Barron, James (November 9, 1993). "AIDS Message in a Subway Comic Strip; New York City Health Agency Teaches About the Disease in a Soap With a Sober Focus". The New York Times.), does not support the fact that Conill was contracted for the ads. Maybe I'm missing something, though.
Baron: The Health Department hired Connill [sic] Advertising ... "Decision I" was in the subways and on the air -- a 30-second commercial with actors as well as a comic strip. Then the advertising-agency contract ended
This article is about a former cinema and Broadway theater opened in 1930. Located several blocks off New York City's Times Square, the Mark Hellinger Theatre has a Baroque interior that doesn't quite match its brick facade. It was used mainly as a movie palace for its first two decades, and it hosted Broadway shows from 1949 to 1989. Since then, the theater has been used by the Times Square Church, which continues to maintain it. Except for the marquee outside the theater's entrance, a casual passerby would never know this was anything more than a church.
This page was promoted as a Good Article nearly four years ago. After a copyedit, I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MallardTV, thanks for the comment, but I already bundled a lot of the sources before nominating this. There are no more than three citations for each claim, which is acceptable per WP:CITEKILL. Otherwise, the sheer number of sources is not an FAC criterion, and is actually more beneficial for verifiability than a single source would be. –Epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate. I never noticed how much my FACs relied on feedback from a relatively small number of reviewers, but this seems to have slipped through the cracks. I'll ask around to see if there's interest in reviewing this article. –Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)][reply]
I think that may be an example of MOS:OVERLINK, and I was previously advised to remove this link in a GA review about another Broadway theater (I forgot which one). However, let me know what you think. - EG
legitimate theatre is a confusing enough term I might gloss it in prose in the lede and first usage in the body
Done. - EG
That's all for prose for me. The rest of it seems quite solid.
As for sources:
All claims are cited with inline footnotes. Some SFNs are used throughout, and consistently.
Cimino (2013) has a different title casing than the others, and also has a space before the colon. It's also unclear why it needs an OCLC, since it has an ISBN
Various periodicals are missing ISSNs, but some have them. Keep this consistent one way or another.
I removed the ISSNs for consistency. All of these publications are reasonably well-known enough that they may not be necessary. - EG
Sources are verifiable and high-quality, appropriate for the subject matter.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for taking a look. My understanding is that these images depict decorations which are both part of the architecture and should be covered by the freedom of panorama rules for US buildings. Per c:COM:FOP US: "This means that for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the building is visible from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans. ... This includes style elements such as gargoyles and pillars, which are protected only from three-dimensional reproduction (Leicester v. Warner Bros.)." –Epicgenius (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: On my end it still has MOS:SANDWICH issues in "Other design features". I guess we have different screen widths/layouts so it might sandwich for some readers and not for others. I dunno how to handle it. Nikkimaria, need a second opinion on the FoP issue since it's a mural. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that this theater opened in 1930. Therefore, even if the mural were copyrighted, and even if it were not considered part of the theater's architecture, it would be in the public domain on January 1, 2026. –Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in, Nikkimaria. If the murals are indeed copyrighted, I wonder if it's worth requesting deletion on Commons, only to request undeletion in 4 months (which may be needlessly bureaucratic). The theater and artwork were completed in 1930, so they would be fully public domain by then, anyway. –Epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have rephrased the sentence to avoid this issue.
I changed this to "the Mark Hellinger Theatre". It's common in NYC to refer to theaters without the word "Theatre", but I'm not sure how common this is elsewhere.
This is part of a common name, "Basilica of the Fourteen Holy Helpers".
The list of notable productions is consistent with similar lists for other Broadway theaters. I decided to format this as a table not only for consistency, but also for easier readability - readers may skim over these productions if they are only listed in the running prose.
My mistake on the lack of clarity in 'The lists of films and plays': I don't mean the table at the bottom of the article, but the lists in the inline text in the body of the article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I included these details in the prose to elaborate on the productions summarized at the bottom of the page. Personally, it would be a bit strange to discuss the theater's history without mentioning these productions in the prose - in my view, it's like talking about a corporate headquarters, but only mentioning its occupant in the infobox. In addition, the prose provides a little more information about each production, such as how many performances it had at the theater. The table was intended to summarize the prose, rather than the other way around. –Epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article could do with some work before it is ready for FA. Comments to the end of the 1960s to mid-1970s subsection:
"The Mark Hellinger Theatre (formerly the 51st Street Theatre, Warner Theatre, and Hollywood Theatre) is a church and former theater..." – but the image shows it to be The Times Square Church. If that is its current name the title and the opening sentence need to be changed.
I see what you're getting at. However, the Times Square Church is the owner and has its own article; at least in NYC and the US at large, it's not unusual for a building's owner or tenant to add signage with their own name on it. The page itself is about a theater that is still most commonly referred to in sources as the Mark Hellinger. The wording of the lead is meant to convey that it's a theater that currently houses a church. - EG
And if it is now a church it is wrong to say, e.g. "Both the exterior and interior of the theater" when it now is not a theatre.
As I mentioned in the previous comment, it is a theater that houses a church. - EG
"façade could do with its cedilla (unless ignoring it is accepted AmE usage).
The version without cedilla is acceptable (and in fact more common) in AmE, per mwod:facade. - EG
"The facade is made of gold brick" – surely not real gold brick, but rather gold-coloured brick?
Fixed. Yes, "gold" here is in reference to the color. - EG
"Candelabras and globe chandeliers" – candelabla is already plural and the 's' is superfluous (unless AmE ignores this)
In AmE, funnily enough, "candelabra" is treated as the singular and "candelabras" the plural - see mwod:candelabras for instance. - EG
"Relatively few architects were responsible" – relative to what?
Removed. - EG
"including legitimate theater architects Thomas Lamb, C. Howard Crane, and John Eberson" – were these legitimate architects of theatres or architects of legitimate theatres? The false title is unhelpful as well as somewhat clunky here.
I removed the false title and clarified that these are the architects of legitimate theaters. - EG
"Generally, the Hollywood's films were not successful" – "the Hollywood's"?
"presenting a revival of Romeo and Juliet with Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier" – strange order: one might expect the man first, as in the title of the play.
Fixed. - EG
"My Fair Lady, with a score by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe – well, no. The score was by Loewe; Lerner wrote the lyrics and adapted GBS's book.
Oops. I've fixed that, thanks for that. This is why it helps to have a theatrical expert like you review this. - EG
"My Fair Lady opened in March 1956 and, with 2,717 total performances, was the longest-running Broadway production ever at the time" – this implies that the entire run was at the Mark Hellinger, but the show transferred to the Broadhurst in February 1962 and to the Broadway in April of that year. Who's Who in the Theatre and Jared Brown's biography of Moss Hart give the total as 2,715, and perhaps you could check the sources for 2,717.
Interesting... the IBDB and Playbill both gave 2,717. So I removed the exact number. I also made it even more clear that not all of these performances were at the Mark Hellinger - the info about My Fair Lady relocating isn't mentioned till the next section. - EG
"The New York Supreme Court ruled in February 1962 that My Fair Lady had to relocate, but Rodgers and Taylor had booked another theater by then – one wonders why the show relocated then?
In the US, one could be held in contempt of court if they refused to follow a court ruling. I suppose the producers did this to avoid being held in contempt, but this isn't explicitly stated, just implied. - EG
"40-foot-wide (12 m) alcoholic bar was installed in the lounge's rotunda" – an alcoholic bar? If it is necessary to convey that a theatre bar served alcohol this would be better redrawn to avoid the surprising adjective.
I removed "alcoholic", it doesn't really seem necessary anyway. - EG
"The late 1960s was characterized" – were characterised?
Yeah, probably. I was thinking of the "late 1960s" as a singular period, but I can see the case for using the plural. - EG
"after just 12 performances" – WP:EDIT – we don't need the "just"
Removed. - EG
"Jesus Christ Superstar, another classic" – "classic" according to whom?
I assume Bloom, but it isn't really necessary here. I removed this too. - EG
"Comden and Green produced A Doll's Life" – are you sure? Comden and Green were known as writers, not producers. I think it more likely that Hal Prince, who directed, was also the producer. Comden and Green wrote the book and lyrics for the show.
The article didn't say "produced" specifically, it said "Comden and Green's A Doll's Life". I rephrased it. - EG
"Theatrical producers have made several unsuccessful attempts to buy the theater from the Times Square Church. As early as 1993, Lloyd Webber had proposed buying the theater from the Times Square Church …" This is unnecessarily wordy and repetitive. Trimming the second iteration to "As early as 1993, Lloyd Webber had proposed doing so …" would improve the flow.
Done. - EG
"Notable productions" – one of the FA criteria (1b) is comprehensiveness, and listing "notable productions" is to admit that you are omitting others. Moreover, "notable" according to whom? For instance, you say in the text Texas Li'l Darlin' was the first hit in the Hellinger's history, running for 293 performances" – surely that counts as notable? Yet you count as notable Three Wishes for Jamie which ran for only 91 or 92 performances. (By the bye you say it ran for only 91 but you cite the Internet Broadway Database, which says it ran for 92, and not all at the Mark Hellinger). I think you are right to include the original production of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue because although it failed to run, it was the premiere of a work by two towering figures and may be considered ipso facto notable, but I can't see how a 1975 revival of The Skin of Our Teeth running for just seven performances could be classed as a "notable production". Contrariwise, how could a one-woman show by Marlene Dietrich not be considered notable in an article about the theatre?
I actually decided to resolve this by adding all of the live productions at the theater to this list. The word "notable" is kind of arbitrary here as it refers only to Wikipedia-notable productions, not notable in the sense that they were impactful or particularly famous. (Incidentally, I found a few errors regarding the numbers of performances, which I've fixed.) - EG
Footnote d: "In both 1949 and 1952, the Gilbert & Sullivan plays were performed in the following order" – two points here: first they are generally referred to as Gilbert and Sullivan operas, and secondly you mention "the following order" but don't tell us what the order was. (You don't mention anywhere that in the 1952 season the star was the preeminent G&S performer Martyn Green, but I don't press the point.)
Fixed. Also, the note did list the productions in order; I just realized the footnote was using a double pipe instead of a colon, which caused the actual productions to not be displayed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate links – no longer regarded as taboo, but I think there is scope for judicious pruning here: are these duplicate links helpful to the reader – Broadway, Broadway Theatre, entablature, Gilbert and Sullivan, Jujamcyn Theaters, The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, Times Square Church, volutes and Winter Garden Theatre?
Thanks for the additional comments @Tim riley. Notable productions is a bit of a tough one - I only included productions with Wikipedia articles. The theater's history is short enough that I can just add all the productions without bloating the table, if you wanted me to do that. Epicgenius (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can comfortably fit in all productions, that would relieve my mind as to comprehensiveness. But I see nobody before me has made an issue of the matter and I think therefore it's your call. Tim riley talk12:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking good now, I think. One final read-through today or tomorrow and I'll be back here to, I expect and hope, support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk14:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on the list of shows. All fine now except for footnote d: Trial by Jury is a half-hour curtain raiser usually played before Pinafore or Pirates rather than the longer, later operas in the canon. There's no way they could have played Trial by Jury, Pinafore and Iolanthe in one evening as the note conveys. I don't think it matters about the order you list them in here – I'd just say the operas presented were: Trial by Jury, H.M.S. Pinafore, The Pirates of Penzance, Iolanthe and The Mikado. By curious coincidence I have just done pretty much that in a new little article I posted today. It suffices, I think.
Having thus bored the bejasus out of you, I now add my support for promotion of this admirable article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria. It is a good read, nicely illustrated, well sourced and seems comprehensive and balanced. Happy to join the chorus of approval. Tim riley talk16:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I really appreciate it. I've modified the footnote - the note should've said these were performed on separate days, but it indeed is a trivial detail. –Epicgenius (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... Bruce Springsteen's seminal 1984 album Born in the U.S.A.. A collection of songs about the American Dream, working-class struggles, and even some humor, this was a defining '80s record — one that some still think is tied a little too closely to the '80s. Nevertheless, somewhat dated production aside, this is one of Springsteen's best, and one whose massive success shaped his career path for the rest of the '80s into the '90s. This was a collaboration with Moisejp and we believe it is finally ready for the star. We are looking forward to any comments and concerns. – zmbro(talk) (cont)14:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have been half-following the article since the expansion in January, and reread about two-thirds tonight. Impressions are that it's extremely comprehensive and well researched, the sources are first rank for the topic, the writing is crisp and clear, and without having spot-checked, the claims ring through from the bios have read over the years; also I know how diligent the nominator and Moisejp are in fact checking. This is a placeholder until have more time to think through; only two gripes for now:
In places we get too deep into the weeds eg what is a "true music video"...do we need "The video for "Dancing in the Dark", Springsteen's first true music video|[then in the notes]...Springsteen's first actual music video, for Nebraska's "Atlantic City", did not feature Springsteen himself, instead featuring black-and-white footage of Atlantic City life shot by Arnold Levine".
Thanks, Ceoil. I've trimmed the discussion of the "Dancing in the Dark" video, including removing mention of the "Atlantic City" video, and the "I'm on Fire" video. Moisejp (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is some overciting, with several statements followed with four to five references.
I've trimmed most places to have no more than three citations, and I trimmed to two for a couple of spots that seemed especially uncontroversial (e.g., release data of album). But:
""Glory Days" is an energetic synth-rock song that follows a protagonist speaking with old high-school classmates – a former baseball star and a popular girl now divorced with two kids – in a bar reflecting on the "glory days" of their youth with sadness." I don't have access to two or three of the sources. Zmbro, is this one you could look at and see if any citations seem superfluous?
"Not all reviews were positive, with several crits highlighting the use of similar lyrical themes as prior albums." I felt perhaps four citations is justifiable here, but Ceoil and Zmbro, do you disagree?
Yes, meant to clarify, in statements like that, the amount of citations is necessary to avoid a "list of critics". Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few "Attributable to multiple sources" instances in the Notes. I think I might have seen that Ceoil you mentioned this in a previous FAC of Zmbro's, but I didn't go back and see how you two resolved this. Did you reach consensus about the best way to handle these? Moisejp (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, would avoid breaking up readability with ref clutter by restating "Born in the U.S.A. is a rock and roll, heartland rock,[99] and pop album,[51][100] with elements of folk and rockabilly.[101] as — "Born in the U.S.A. is a rock and roll, heartland rock and pop album, with elements of folk and rockabilly.[51][97][98][99][100][101] and then reduce the refs as much as possible from there. At least one of the refs used has mention more than one influence; my instinct is that the more refs the more dubious the claim. This is an example only.Ceoil (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As another example...."In February,[72] Landau felt the album was still missing a lead single that would introduce Springsteen to a new pop audience. After an initial disagreement about the need for another song, Springsteen came in the next day with "Dancing in the Dark" written;[78][79][80] it was recorded shortly after.[81]" — The flow of the sentence is broken up by the citations, why is "February" cited before Landau; the cites are anyway too numerous unless there is disagreement.Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Givng the line up of the E street band in the sentence "He "intended" to rerecord the tracks with the E Street Band – Roy Bittan (piano), Clarence Clemons (saxophone), Danny Federici (organ), Garry Tallent (bass), Steven Van Zandt (guitar), and Max Weinberg (drums) " seems weak given ye are mentioning them in the context of songs (its implied but not said) they were not part of.Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceoil, I've addressed this one by delaying listing the band members, and mention of the Power Station, until later—see what you think. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(When I was trying to make the edit above, it said there was an edit conflict, and I thought I was doing the right procedure to cede the other person's edit, but I don't see anybody else's edit here. Apologies if I somehow overrode another person's edit.) Moisejp (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Contrasting with the album's livelier sound, Born in the U.S.A. continues several of the lyrical themes from Springsteen's previous records, particularly Nebraska.[102][103]" - this seems confused - maybe cut or rephrase "Contrasting with the album's livelier sound"
As a more general comment, the overview paragraphs to the "Music and lyrics" section are mainly quotes from music critics and are insufficiently synthesised. They don't say anything about the substance of the music and lyrics themselves, more what critics thought of them. Are there more analytical book-type sources that could be used for better insight. For eg we get that BITUSA "continues several of the lyrical themes from Springsteen's previous records, particularly Nebraska" and ""filtered the dystopian gloom of the Nebraska songs into the living world of love, work, and the hobbled pursuit of happiness", without being told, for those not seepend in Springsteen lore, what those overriding themes actually are. I would cut the quotes and structure the introductory paragraph much more generally: as if the reader had never heard Springsteen before. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ceoil. Mini-update that I'm in the middle of trying to rework the second paragraph of "Music and lyrics" (offline for now) to remove the quotes and better synthesize the themes for the reader who may not be very familiar with Springsteen, as you suggest. Hopefully will have something to show in the next few days.:) Moisejp (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is my stab at rewriting this paragraph, is it more accessible than before? If it's even somewhat of an improvement, we can use it as a starting point for hopefully further improvements. I paraphrased just about all the quotes but ran out of paraphrasing steam right near the end.;-) Moisejp (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It reads very well. But wonder if the paragraph "The album still attracts mixed assessments" is warranted as it doesn't strike me as true and reeks of a "on the one hand" false balance. Tbh would delete this whole perhaps cherry-picked paragraph given that the overwhelming positive consensus seems to be increasing with age (saying this as an ex-punk that intensely disliked the album at the time). Ceoil (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's beneficial to keep it because it can't be entirely one-sided. Moisejp and I discussed this before we nominated. The material may seem cherry-picked, but it's really all we could find within reliable sources, and you should at least try to have both sides represented so there isn't an WP:UNDUE situation. – zmbro(talk) (cont)21:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was also going to reply that it would seem quite radical in an FA candidate to only mention positive appraisal. I'd be very hesitant to remove the paragraph unless there was clear consensus from all reviewers. Moisejp (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Outakes" section makes for hard reading and is basically a list. Could do with expansion and converting to prose to make a wider point on how prolific he was at the time, as well as his songwriting and self-editing technique. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zmbro, do you have a source that explicitly makes the point how prolific this level of output was? I was thinking Marsh described it as such, but just now when I looked, I couldn't find it. That would be a start to addressing Ceoil's concerns. Ceoil, could you expand a bit on what you hope for regarding "his songwriting and self-editing technique"? Also, you found the section list-y but I'd argue that myself as a fan of the artist and album, this is the kind of detail I'm interested in (this outtake was released here, this other outtake there)—but would this detail work better for you in a footnote as opposed to the main body of the text? Moisejp (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can recall. I can check tomorrow but Moisejp is right, Springsteen's level of output is noteworthy, especially for this album. All outtakes were mentioned on all of my previous Springsteen FAs, and they should also be mentioned here. – zmbro(talk) (cont)02:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The recording sessions yielded between 70 and 90 songs; some were released as B-sides, others saw release on compilation albums, while a number remain unreleased. mmm not sure if this is lede-worthy..
I would argue it is. I'm sure Moisejp would say the same.
To butt in, think this is lead worthy as gives good insight into his prolificacy at the time, which maybe the article could better cover. Ceoil (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The iconic cover photograph of Springsteen true that, but this wording can steer towards POV-ish..
Removed iconic
But the cover is iconic, it was photographed by the high brow and legendary Annie Leibovitz, a print is in the MoMA and Rolling Stone named the sleve as one of the 100 best ever with the great quote from Bruce "In the end, the picture of my ass looked better than the picture of my face...so that’s what went on the cover.” Not seeing POV here. Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
best album covers ever
Done
It was a massive commercial success POV
Removed massive
"massive" might not be the right word (maybe worldwide commercial success) or something; it has sold + 30 million copies to date, so "it was a commercial success" seems to massively understate.
Maybe this could be better connected to the next raised point below, and "massive" and "best-selling album of 1985" or even of the 1980s- could be merged. Ceoil (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the best-selling album of 1985 is this worldwide/in the US/Anglosphere etc.?
Worldwide I believe
Suggest adding year for the tour
Added
Formatting: suggest italicising (or de-italicising otherwise) in ref titles and templates per MOS:CONFORMTITLE
Should be fixed
Suggest bundling up harv references using {{sfnm}} for readability
I don't think that's entirely necessary. Groups of 4 or more are already bundled into notes and 2 or 3 shouldn't affect readability too much. – zmbro(talk) (cont)15:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Springsteen himself did not promote the album
Done
Springsteen and his guitar tech Mike Batlan could you elaborate on "guitar tech"? I'm not sure what that means..
I'm not sure if autobiographies can be used as a source, but I'll leave this to the ref reviewer.
They most certainly can be, they just constitute WP:PRIMARY
Born in the U.S.A. is a rock and roll, heartland rock, and pop album, with elements of folk and rockabilly.[h] I think the refs can be attached directly to the next without being relegated into a footnote, for readability
"slamming" guitars, "massive" drums, and "front-and-center" vocals. can these be paraphrased?
Link rockabilly in its first instance and de-link the rest
Done
the rock photographer Annie Leibovitz mmm I'm not sure if Leibovitz is a "rock photographer", maybe "portrait photographer"?
Changed
Not something serious, but I myself try not to use "respectively" per WP:RESPECTIVELY
As the tour has its own article, I would trim down the "Tour" section... for example, probably the bit about Springsteen recording "We are the World" is irrelevant to this article, as are the details on every leg where a summary could do.
My main issue with substantial trimming is the fact that the Tour article itself is in poor shape and does not have many of the points that are listed here. I'd love to get Moisejp's opinion on this but I'd assume he'd agree. Although the "We are the World" bit probably could be cut out... – zmbro(talk) (cont)20:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I skimmed the section a day or two ago, nothing besides "We Are the World" jumped out at me as being a clear candidate to cut. I've got to go out now, but I'll try to have a more careful look later today or tomorrow, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ippantekina, thanks so much for your comments throughout the article! About this point about the tour, how strongly do you feel it should be trimmed? Like Zmbro, I'd personally rather keep this good content alongside other good content (i.e., in the album article) rather than moving it to an article in somewhat poor shape (the tour article). I'm actually even partial to keeping the one "We Are the World" sentence. That said, if you feel especially strongly that the section in the album article should be trimmed, possibly we could work out some bits to move. Moisejp (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #96 [Scott, Rogert; Humphries, Patrick (2013).] why is this not formatted using {{sfn}} as with the other book sources?
As you can see, most of my comments are nitpick-y, and the rest of the prose reads extremely well and engaging. In my opinion, this album is fine... and as a non-American I find it hilarious that TikToks of families vibing to the title track keep circulating every 4th of July. I do have to agree with several critics that its sound is extremely 1980s-dated, although certain tracks remain my guilty pleasure maybe for a week or two each year, like "Dancing in the Dark". Happy to support once my points are addressed!:) Ippantekina (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is certainly my era and I went to a couple of the concerts (one of the Philly Spectrum dates and one of the Giants Stadium dates the following year).
"the bedroom of his Colts Neck home between December 17 1981 and January 3 1982" maybe "house" for "home". And why no commas in dates? What does MOS say about this?
"According to the author Dave Marsh," Some reason for the "the"? A false title would be OK.
"although Springsteen added electronic textures he retrained his rock and roll roots" Should retrained be retained?
You fully introduce Julianne Phillips in the music video section and then do it again in Tour.
"East Rutherford" That's pretty borderline for not needing a link or state name or both.
"Nebraska...I never got it." Is this the proper spacing for an ellipsis?
Thanks so much for your review, Wehwalt! That's cool that you attended two of the shows. I have fixed everything above except for the "the" one. It seems there are two camps on Wikipedia with sometimes strong opinions about whether "the" is more correct/natural in these situations. I'm personally in the no "the" camp, but I believe Zmbro is strongly in the "the" camp. Zmbro did most of the writing in this article, with I believe "the" used consistently throughout, and so I prefer to cede to Zmbro here. Thank you! Moisejp (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. I had wanted to go to the earlier shows he did in NJ to open the arena but tickets were tough and transportation a problem. I was at school in Philly in 1984, so I could just take the subway, and by the Giants Stadium shows in 1985, I had a car. Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure I have reviewed these sources once already on a different FAC. I note an inconsistent application of padlocks to Rolling Stone. "Karas, Matty (1998). "Bruce Springsteen". In DiMartino, Dave (ed.). Music in the 20th Century. Oxfordshire: Routledge. p. 605. ISBN 978-0-7656-8012-9." has a different author and edition on Google Books. Some light spotchecking showed no issues, but it was light. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jo-Jo Eumerus Yes, most of the sources here you have already reviewed over at Nebraska (album) as the two albums have very similar histories and thus use many of the same sources. On the other note, I fixed the Rolling Stone access issues and the Music in the 20th Century source. Apparently, the author, location, publisher, and year were all wrong (that's on me for not verifying sooner). That Matty Karas isn't even listed in the editors of the book, very weird. If you have any other concerns let me know. – zmbro(talk) (cont)15:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:BruceBorn1984.JPG has appropriate FUR and is of sufficient quality
File:Bruce Springsteen - Born in the U.S.A. sample.ogg has appropriate FUR and is of sufficient quality and length
[Not related to file/image review] I suggest splitting the year-end charts into singular charts for each year, with sortable options where applicable. Ippantekina (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ippantekina, thanks very much for your image review! Could you show us an example from another article of what you mean by "singular charts for each year, with sortable options where applicable"?:-) Moisejp (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed this for GA last time, covering writing, coverage, and sourcing, and since then, this article has remained high-quality. I remember saying in the review that the article's comprehensiveness is on the level of an FA, and I still stand by that statement. Lazman321 (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the first Chinese-made feature-length film. Produced by a group of students in Shanghai, the film was based on a scandalous murder that captivated the minds of the Shanghainese. Although it is no longer extant, there is sufficient scholarship on the film to provide a very detailed look at it.—Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pass on image review; images are relevant, properly tagged, and have alt-text.
Prose:
Lede good. Perhaps gloss verisimilitude? I would also add the approximate runtime to either the infobox or the lede.
I've piped verisimilitude to "accuracy to real life" with a link. As for the run time, I've included (approx. 100 to 120 minutes) in the infobox, as per Wei. Unfortunately, the nature of early cinema means that a more accurate length is not something that can be guaranteed. Reels could be up to fifteen minutes for silent films, but varied in length; The Chinese Motion Picture Market (1927, page 5) notes, for example, that productions by The Commercial Press had reels of lengths that varied from 200 feet to 1,000 feet. That's part of the reason reels are standard for early cinema. I've linked reels to Reel#Motion_picture_terminology to make it more intuitive.—Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Xiaolin Daiyu also a courtesan? Should be introduced as such if so.
In historical record, yes. Unfortunately, as the film is lost, it cannot be confirmed with a viewing; the summary by Zhang only says "Wang's friend, Xiaolin Daiyu". Zhang doesn't cite the source for this summary; it could be historical record (assuming that "verisimilitude" didn't include any sort of magical realism like in some of the stageplays), or it could be a short summary distributed to promote the film (说明书, shuomingshu) like this one for Heroine Li Feifei. Although this could be a WP:BLUE situation, WP:REF would consider assuming she was a courtesan in the film to be OR. As a compromise, I've added {{further}} and directed it to Murder of Wang Lianying#Murder to provide a more detailed summary of the crime itself.—Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You link Shanghai in the lead, but not in the body.
Interesting it was shown in Taiwan; not really relevant to the article but it'd be cool to see how Taiwanese (under Japanese rule) cinema and mainland Chinese cinema interacted.
I know, eh? Lee's discussion of the Eraku-Za/Yongle Theatre provides some general context that is really interesting, including the fact that Taiwanese viewers generally didn't appreciate early mainland Chinese cinema and that the copy of Yan Ruisheng used secondhand reels (so previously screened elsewhere, likely Amoy given that's where the consortium was based)... honestly there's probably enough information on the cinema for an article. —Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made some copyedits while reading: feel free to revert if not helpful.
Optional: "Initially, the filmmakers considered hiring cast members from existing stage productions. Ultimately, they decided to cast amateurs." -> "The filmmakers initially considered hiring cast members from existing stage productions, but ultimately decided to cast amateurs." To eliminate some commas
Optional "The Commercial Press's filmmaking division also made available to the crew its indoor studio." -> "The Commercial Press's filmmaking division also made its indoor studio available to the crew." I think this sounds better, but I'm OK if other disagree.
"In this, they were aided not only by the extensive coverage of the court case, but also their own personal familiarity with the culprit." -> "In this, they were aided by the extensive coverage of the court case and their own personal familiarity with the culprit." To tighten up the language
"The most expensive balcony seats were reserved prior to the premiere, and per-day revenues reached 1,300 yuan (¥126,095 in 2019) per day." delete one of the "per day" mentions?
"the earliest Chinese film known to have survived in its entirety – the short Labourer's Love (1922) – was produced the following year." This feels off topic and I think it can be removed from this article.
I must clarify that I don't know enough about purely Chinese sources to judge their reliability. I'd say " Shanghai Chronicles" supports that it was almost 9800 prostitutes in 1915 not 9700. Otherwise, it seems reliable and consistently formatted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the "r" parameter of {{inflation}} to set some reasonable number of digits. Thus 4,000 yuan should yield ¥400,000 or perhaps ¥390,000, but certainly not ¥387,983.
Related to the above, why do you spell out yuan in some cases but use the currency symbol in others? Pick one style and use it consistently.
It is consistent: spelled out in the text, symbol in the parenthetical. Given that people are more familiar with the renminbi today, and that the ¥ symbol is more frequently associated with the yen, this allows lay readers to follow more easily while remaining period accurate.—Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not following it. It sounds like there's two different things happening here: taking inflation into account and also converting to a different currency. It sounds like the yuan is a historical currency which no longer exists, and you're comparing it to some modern currency symbolized by ¥, but I'm not even sure if that's the yen or the renminbi from what you describe above. As you might surmise, I know very little about these currencies, but I'm probably typical of our readership in that respect so this all needs some clarification. RoySmith(talk)12:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... this hasn't popped up in any of our previous Republican China articles (this format was previously used in Gao Qifeng and The True Record). Basically, the historical yuan was the precursor to the current renminmbi and the New Taiwan dollar; consequently, using either of these names would be anachronistic. The socio-political processes through which the currency split into its current forms is a bit too detailed for an article where this is incidental. To help guide readers, I have linked to Yuan_(currency)#Republican_era on first mention and linked the first mention of ¥ to renminbi (which also highlights that there is a currency redesignation). We could also use the abbreviation RMB, but I would rather keep ¥ consistent between articles.—Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you understand all this so well that it's difficult for you to take a step back and see the confusion experienced by people who know nothing about the history of these currencies. I see now that you have ¥ wikilinked, but until you pointed it out, I didn't even notice that. How about at the first place where you use these two things adjacent to each other (i.e. rented the theatre at 200 yuan (¥19,400 in 2019) per day, you add a {{efn}} which explains all this?
And please take this in the kindly way it is intended, but "nobody ever complained about this before" is kind of dismissive of the person doing the current review. RoySmith(talk)14:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roy, I did not intend this to be dismissive. It was intended to highlight that the question had not arisen previously, or been identified as problematic, and thus I had not expected it. I have added an EFN explaining that should hopefully provide clarity.—Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you move that note to after rented the theatre at 200 yuan (¥19,400 in 2019) per day, which is the first place these two things are used on conjunction with each other, and that's where the confusion arises. As I read this, I can't tell if ¥ is just an alternate way of writing yuan, and after reading your footnote, I'm still not sure. I think what you want to say here is "The yuan was a historical unit of currency used in China. ¥ denotes the modern-day renminbi, which has replaced it" except that I'm not at all sure that's actually correct. The stuff you added about the Spanish dollar, the Japanese yes, and the Korean won is interesting, but doesn't address the core confusion here which is "are yuan and ¥ the same thing?" The short statement I suggest (possibly with corrections to make it reflect reality) would resolve that confusion. RoySmith(talk)15:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He travels to her brothel It's not clear if "her brothel" means Wang owns the brothel or she just works there. I see that's clarified later ("the brothel manager realizes that Wang is missing") but better to make it clear up front.
Although Wang begs for her life, she is killed did something get left out? This is the first time there's any mention of murder. Previously we were just told about a planned robbery. What happened to turn this robbery into a murder?
Yan and his accomplices unsuccessfully attempt to evade their pursuers I assume "his accomplices" means Wang and Xiaolin, but that's not completely clear. Maybe the accomplices are Wu Chunfang and Fang Rishan? Earlier we were told that Yan had "invited" the two women to go with him; is accepting this invitation the same as becoming an accomplice, i.e. did the women know they were going to commit a crime, or were they just along as travelling companions?
more than a hundred cinemas were attested throughout China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan perhaps this is a regional English thing, but to my American ear, "attested" is out of place in this sentence and I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.
the 5,000-word verdict and accompanying confessions serialized we don't need all 5000 words, but you could tell the curious readers what the verdict (and sentence) was.
whose car had been used in the murder in what way was the car involved? Was Wang run down in the street? Or did Yan just use the car to drive to the scene of the crime? Oh, wait, later on you say the car used in the film was the same one in which Yan had driven Wang which just leaves me more confused.
I've replaced "travel" with "take a drive". In historical record acquiring the car was part of the preparation, and damage to it helped reveal the crime; unfortunately, the source doesn't offer more than "Yan drives Wang to a remote part of the suburb where Wu and Fang are waiting."—Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it was ten reels (approx. 100 to 120 minutes) in length clarify that it's 100-120 minutes total, not per reel.
Despite high ticket prices, ranging from one to twenty yuan it would help to put that in context, i.e. was that a full day's wages for a typical worker? A week's wages?
I've added a comparison vis-a-vis average monthly expenditures during the decade. The source also has that a picul of the highest quality rice averaged 10 yuan in 1921... I've decided not to add it as of yet because the unit of measure was not really standardized until 1930 (per the article) and "as much as one could carry on one's shoulders" really isn't illustrative. But basically, the highest-priced tickets were equivalent to a full month's expenditures for a skilled worker or about 100 kilogram metres (980N⋅m; 720lbf⋅ft) of rice (using the 1930s standardization).—Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some One more...
After learning from Xiaolin that the missing courtesan had gone with Yan, she contacts the police another unclear instance of "she". Are we talking about the brothel manager or Xiaolin here? I'm pretty sure you mean the manager, but I had to read it a couple of times to be confident of that parsing.
I made some copyedits to the lead. In the process, I noticed that the lead says he [Yan] and his accomplices flee, but the body says Yan flees to Xuzhou. So, did he flee by himself, or did all three of them flee?
I think "gaining traction" is MOS:IDIOM. Usually I am relaxed about this, but as I am unsure what this term is trying to communicate, I think that something more encyclopedic is called for.
"the film extensively used the resources of the Commercial Press's filmmaking division". Commercial Press needs introducing, in both the lead and the main article.
I don't agree about the lead, as it's not particularly relevant. Added gloss in the body.
"He also attempts to entice Xiaolin Daiyu". Entice or hire?
Source says, "One day Yan arrives at Wang’s brothel and invites her to go out with him. Wang’s friend, Xiaolin Daiyu, happens to be visiting Wang, so Yan extends the invitation to her as well." Contemporary reports indicate that Yan's reason to take Wang was a game (poker or mahjong, both are reported). This is likely the case for the film as well, but as I mentioned above the source isn't clear whether they are referring to the historic reports or a published summary, so I don't want to fall into the trap of WP:SYNTH. Long story short, "entice" is more reflective of the source and the historical record.—Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"He travels to her brothel and hires her. He also attempts to entice Xiaolin Daiyu, but she declines." Simultaneously - for a threesome - or on a separate occasion?
His relevance to filmmaking and drama starts with A Difficult Couple, so a bit difficult to keep things brief while keeping a high-level overview. I've added a footnote to provide more context.—Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the production of shorts was increasing." What are "shorts".
"scandalized and mesmerized the city's chattering classes". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
Early Western-style dramas that still included elements of traditional Chinese dramaturgy. I've reworked to "spoken-word dramas"; I'm avoiding "stage play" because that term has more modern (read: Western) connotations.—Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Yan's friend Zhu Zhijia, whose car had been used in the murder, offered to play himself." Was the offer accepted?
"There was much concern that the advent of films was incentivizing crimes and other acts that were deemed immoral by the contemporary community." This comes across as a bit clunky. Is it possible to rephrase.
A second attempt to bring this article to FA in time for the 25th anniversary of its maiden journey. This rail system is one of my username's namesakes and one that I take whenever my schedule allows; both spectacular in scenery and a pleasant way to commute. I do not think the article is in need of substantial changes, but some housekeeping has been completed to bring some statistics up to date. I have made some comments at WT:FAC#An increasing scrutiny on the quality of sources used in FACs to explain my objections to some previous comments on sourcing that may be relevant for new reviewers. SounderBruce21:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping, but unfortunately I don't see how this is substantially different from the previous nomination. My objection there was to the sourcing and it is substantially the same now as it was then:
@RoySmith: I will once again question why "local" sources from professional news organizations (some of which are Pulitzer winners) aren't in line with the FACR. There is no prohibition of them, and these can be considered high quality for the areas they cover (local and regional news), much more so than the out-of-state examples given in the last review that had some obvious factual errors. It is unreasonable to expect a niche topic such as local infrastructure to have the same array of available sources as a broad topic, and frankly it goes against the spirit of the FA process to close it off to only a select few areas with wide academic appeal.
As for the use of Sound Transit sources, primary sources are also not prohibited in the criteria and their use is sanctioned within reason under site guidelines. I can respond to specific examples in the article that may need a look and address those concerns where appropriate, but just being given a list with no specific direction is not productive. Throwing out all 88 sources is also not possible unless we want to have an article that is out-of-date and lacks relevant information. SounderBruce22:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much has already been written on this so I'm hesitant to go down this path again, but you asked so I feel obligated to respond. My primary concern is the self-published sources (i.e. what Sound Transit is saying about itself). It's OK to use some material from Sound Transit to source basic facts, but when the majority of the sourcing is from the company itself, that's a red flag or to use your term, not "within reason". That the rest of the coverage is local isn't wonderful, but by itself would not be fatal. RoySmith(talk)23:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know which specific Sound Transit sources are problematic and would be against the FA criteria or other site policies. Of the 88 listed sources: 17 are simply used for annual ridership figures; 2 are annual reports and development plans with basic specifications and other facts; and 6 are schedules, rider guides, and explanatory webpages on policies. None of these are being used to cite remotely controversial passages, nor do they require any analysis. SounderBruce05:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are looking at a bit of a philosophical dispute about which sources to use in a FA. My sense is that it'd be better to frame it as an article content issue - are there reviews, opinions, polls etc about this railway line? As it stands, the article is heavy on the technical specifications which are most propitiously sourced to the company itself. #28 is a bit of an unexpected source. Source formatting seems consistent and other than this philosophical point reliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for your comments. I am still uncertain how any article on public infrastructure would be able to be written without a generous use of sources from government entities or sources derived from them (as is often the case with news reporting, especially from less-scrutinizing national outlets). I take pride in how much care I put into selecting sources, as Sound Transit (like any entity looking to remain high in public approval) does display a naked bias in some materials, but never in the raw statistics and basic specifications that this article relies on. I really hope that a resolution to this question can be found, as it is immensely frustrating to see this nomination grind to a halt for an entire summer over a point of contention that has never been previously an issue. SounderBruce21:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that the article had not passed the first FA nomination. I read thru the comments in the first nomination (the ones that sort of sunk the FA approval); and I also read the discussion about sourcing in general at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#An_increasing_scrutiny_on_the_quality_of_sources_used_in_FACs; and I also read User:Roy Smith's comments immediately above here in Nom #2. The issues raised (for two distinct FA nomination, both on mass transit topics) were:
Articles should reduce their reliance on local, small-scale news outlets (i.e. strive more to find larger, more independent news sources)
Articles should reduce their reliance on primary-source publications of the agency that runs the mass transit system (i.e. strive to find independent or secondary sources)
Both of the points above are laudable goals; and it looks like the discussions covered some very important, yet subtle, concerns. After looking at the article again, I am prepared to Support it a second time. The nature of the Sounder Rail is that it is not going to get lots of outside or 2ndary coverage; and likewise the primary sources are going to be the only source for lots of facts and figures. This is precisely the kind of article where primary and local sources are okay (for some material).
But before posting a "Support" here for this 2nd nomination, due diligence requires me to gather a bit more info to make sure I have a full understanding of where we are now. Questions for nominator: During the discussions about the sources (in FA nomination 1, or in the FA Talk page) did anyone point out some non-local sources or non-primary sources that could be used for the article? Did you incorporate any of those sources? Why or why not? Did you yourself discover any additional (after June 2025) non-local or secondary sources for the article? Noleander (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: Thank you for returning to this nomination. RoySmith did point out a handful of potentially usable non-local sources, but most were 20+ years old and largely contained out-of-date information that, in my view, does not serve the reader better than citing The Seattle Times or The News Tribune. As for the primary sources, there was no alternative offered, and the removal of such sources would mean cutting a substantial amount of content that would lead to a less comprehensive and complete understanding of the topic. I am working on integrating the research paper (included in "Back to the Future"), but quite a few pages are missing from the Google preview and the only library with a copy has limited hours. I have also sought other non-local sources, but have none that are of the same quality or better than those already used in the article. SounderBruce05:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should reconsider excluding Back to the Future. Graduate students publish all the time in scholarly journals and stuff so I don't really see why this is different? Heartfox (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: I am reconsidering and will add information from that source once I have my hands on a physical copy (hopefully in the next week, depending on when the library has open hours for the reference section). SounderBruce05:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I supported this nomination previously, and am pleased to support this nomination. I've read Roy's comments in the previous nomination and above, and I think that - to be frank - they're entirely wrong headed. The Seattle-region news sources are reliable and include some well known newspapers, so I can't see any problem with using them. The primary sources have been used appropriately, with a good range of resources being used. Roy's comparison to the Singapore media and government sources is fundamentally invalid: Singapore does not have freedom of the press and its government institutions are not as transparent and trustworthy as those in actual democracies, so it's like chalk and cheese. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looked through the prose throughout the article. It's in good shape. Only the mildest of quibbles:
In 2024, the system carried a total of 1.9 million passengers, or an average of 7,300 on weekdays. Does this not include the aforementioned weekend special trips?
The figure does not include weekend ridership, which is counted separately by the Federal Transit Administration.
Lines section is good.
The two lines carried a total of 1.92 million passengers in 2024 might be important to contextualize this here with the fact that the vast majority of traffic is on the S Line; in fact, it might be a big enough disparity to note in the lede as well. (I know this gets brought up in the Ridership section, so it should just be brief mentions outside of that.)
Added.
Stations good. Why is welcome mat in quotes?
Clarified that they are called welcome mats but are not literally mats.
Service and operations quite good.
Rolling stock and future expansion also good.
Re: the sources, I honestly don't understand what the problem is. It obviously meets notability, so citing very reputable papers like the Seattle Times and the PI is fine. Like is the New York Times really going to run articles on Seattle transit; cmon. Out of diligence I checked Google Scholar and I could only really find brief mentions of it when commuter rail in the US in general was being described. Back to the Future did come up while searching, and I would highly agree with Heartfox above that you should add it back to the article; it seems to be the closest thing to proper academic coverage of the topic, and if FAs are supposed to incorporate a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, it seems pertinent to incorporate it. That's all from me, SounderBruce! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a 2007 single by (again) Taylor Swift. It became her first pop chart success that set the precedent to even higher achievements later. Looking back, this song was a sweet tune that was both catchy and relatable: who hasn't had an unrequited love for an unattainable crush? I believe this article satisfies FA criteria and I'm open to any feedback regarding its candidature. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Swift sings with soft vocals[19] -> refs should generally be placed after a punctutation, so insert a comma before the ref
Refs should always be placed in numerical order -> and tender.[22][19][23]
Grady Smith from Rolling Stone thought that its mournful sound followed the tradition of country ballads,[23] NPR and Roger Holland of PopMatters categorized it as a pop song; the latter argued that it does not contain country elements at all.[24][25] -> I would add a "While" at the beginning of the sentence
The version released to pop radio, at three minutes long, omits the banjo, mandolin, and steel guitar, adds a mid-tempo drum loop echo effects to Swift's singing -> an "and" needs to be added before "adds"
Statements in the caption of the song sample need references (just paste those already featured in the "Music and lyrics" section)
I don't see the genre "country pop" that is included in the infobox being sourced in the "Music and lyrics" section. Also, I would include the genres in the lead too
Critical reception -> the 14 best songs written by teenagers[35] and -> comma before the ref
Vulture's Nate Jones regarded the track as the best example of Swift and Rose's "early songwriting cheat code", highlighting how "they switch the words of the chorus around at the end of the song".[38] -> I would rather include this info in the "Music and lyrics" section since it addresses the song's structure
Not done -- I think I'd leave it here because it doesn't specify how the lyrics change at the end.. I tried looking for a source but none found, so.. Ippantekina (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial performance -> In the United States, it peaked at number 13 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart[40] and at number two on the Hot Country Songs chart. Comma before the ref
The info on the awards don't belong in the "Commercial performance" section, but rather in the "Critical reception" section; I would create a sub-section called "Accolades"
peaked at number 45 on the Canadian Hot 100[50] -> comma before the ref
The notes with references are unnecessary; just insert the reference after each fact, for example: In Canada, the single additionally entered on airplay charts, reaching number 6 on Canada Country,[REF] number 16 on Canada CHR/Top 40, [REF] and on Canada Hot AC,[REF] and number 21 on Canada AC.[REF]
Swift said that although her label's personnel expected the video to be "more city" and "have an older setting" -> I would try to paraphrase these quotes since I, personally, don't quite understand what they try to say
The video received a nomination for "Number One Streamed Music Video" at the web-hosted 2007 CMT Online Awards[66] -> comma before ref
Swift said she was "stunned" to be nominated at the MTV awards -> I would say "at the latter awards" to avoid repetition
Spin and Grammy.com -> Editors of Spin and the Grammy Awards website
featured some of her video trademarks -> "video" seems superfluous to me here
Live performances -> Swift also performed the track on America's Got Talent in 2007,[77] and at Stagecoach Festival[78] and the Chicago Marathon in 2008 -> Swift also performed the track on America's Got Talent in 2007,[77] at Stagecoach Festival,[78] and the Chicago Marathon in 2008
While promoting Fearless in the United Kingdom, Swift appeared on The Paul O'Grady Show and performed "Teardrops on My Guitar", in May 2009 -> no comma before "in" is needed
1c "A thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"
Yes - Article uses a variety of country-focused sources, music-focused sources, newspapers, magazines, books, from various countries, both print and online, both contemporaneous and retrospective
1c "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources"
Yes - Article cites high-quality reliable sources. Consider removing Business Insider per WP:BI.
No - Canadian radio chart links are dead
No - Google Books links should include via=Google Books
2c "Consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes"
No - Inconsistent location usage (The Times has a location but not The Commercial Appeal?)
No - Inconsistent ISSN usage
Spotchecks (10% of 109 = 11)
ref 10 - checks out
ref 13 - checks out
ref 14 - checks out
ref 15 - I'm not sure this supports a radio and digital release
ref 22 - checks out
ref 45 - title is "Fearless Feats" not "Fearless Feat"
ref 65 - checks out
ref 69 - checks out
ref 71 - not seeing where it says she sang the song
This passes the source review. IMO WP:RSP has issues with weird/irrelevant arguments contributing to the outcome of RfCs and discussion summaries that are often superfluous of existing policies and guidelines, so I don't treat it as gospel. The author has apparently even received a LA Press Award nomination for her Taylor Swift coverage so the citation should be okay, perhaps that even makes it one of the best sources to use. Heartfox (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor Swift was released by Big Machine Records in North America on October 24, 2006 ==> "Big Machine Records released Taylor Swift in North America on October 24, 2006." (active voice)
by a high-school classmate, whose should "high-school" be hyphenated
whose first name Drew is mentioned in the lyrics ==> "whose first name, Drew, is mentioned in the lyrics"
Swift was on a way to attend a hockey game ==> "Swift was on her way to attend a hockey game"
music and lyrics
Swift's voice have a restraint quality "restraint" ==> "restrained" (i think)
flexible track that be categorized into pop ==> "flexible track that can be categorized into pop"
critical reception
Randy Lewis of the Los Angeles Times thought that the teenage sensibilities contributed to Taylor Swift's charm, and Deborah Evans Price of Billboard thought that the lyrics had a conversational quality that made the audience easily relate to Swift as a friend. "thought that" is used twice in this sentence. maybe some variety?
young women. Jon Bream of Star Tribune considered ==. "young women. Jon Bream of the Star Tribune considered"
in Business Insider's 2019 list the 14 best songs written by ==> "in Business Insider's 2019 list of the 14 best songs written by"
commericial peformance
In the United States, it peaked at number 13 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and number two on the Hot Country Songs chart, and it became Swift's first pop crossover success, peaking at number seven and spending 21 weeks on the Pop Songs chart. ==> "In the United States, it peaked at number 13 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and number two on the Hot Country Songs chart. "Teardrops on My Guitar" became Swift's first pop crossover success, peaking at number seven and spending 21 weeks on the Pop Songs chart."
In Canada, the single additionally entered on airplay charts ==> "In Canada, the single additionally entered the airplay charts"
music video
She invited her high-school friends, her cousin, and her brother Austin to portray fellow high-school students in the halls. The video depicts Swift and Hilton as high-school students. Swift's character is in love with Hilton's, but he is in love with another girl. three instances of high school being hyphenated, i don't think they should be
The aquamarine gown was designed by the wife of Big Machine's president Scott Borchetta. is there a way we can make it clear that Scott isn't the wife of Big Machine's president
live performances
including Florida Strawberry Festival, Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, Craven Country Jamboree, and Z100 Jingle Ball. maybe add "the" before "Florida"
It began with Swift sitting in a desk at the ==> "It began with Swift sitting at a desk at the"
came down the stairs to the main stage, to slow dance remove the comma
Could we add a bit of retrospective reception to the lead? Like at the end of the second paragraph? I know you've had that in other Swift song FAs, so I don't see why we shouldn't have that here, especially given this was one of her first big hits.
"Reviewing the pop version," I assume you mean the single edit? According to the text both the album and single cuts could be deemed "pop" so perhaps a clarification would be good.
Trey Fanjoy directed the music video for "Teardrops on My Guitar", and Swift developed the idea for the narrative with Fanjoy. perhaps "The music video for "Teardrops on My Guitar" was directed by Trey Fanjoy, who developed the idea for the narrative with Swift."?
While promoting Fearless in the United Kingdom, in May 2009, Swift appeared on The Paul O'Grady Show and performed "Teardrops on My Guitar". → "In May 2009, while promoting Fearless in the United Kingdom, Swift performed the song on The Paul O'Grady Show."
Thanks Zmbro for the comments! I have addressed all prose points and tagged the Telegraph with limited access, although IABot is having a crash on my end... Ippantekina (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead's first sentence could be streamlined a bit. I would instead go with the phrasing used for "Style" and You Belong with Me" by using something like the following instead: "Teardrops on My Guitar" is a song by the American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift and the second single from her debut studio album Taylor Swift (2006). I get the song was later released on Fearless, but I do not think the "originally released" wording is necessary or particularly beneficial.
For the lead's first paragraph, I would use February 20, 2007 rather than just February 20. This parts comes right after the part on the album being released in 2006, so I could see a reader thinking that this means February 20, 2006, until getting later into the sentence. You could shorten November 9, 2007 to November 9, as the year would be established at this point.
This is probably already obvious, but for this sentence, Inspired by her feelings for a high-school classmate, the lyrics depict an unrequited love., I would use Swift's instead of her as two women (Taylor Swift and Liz Rose) are mentioned in the previous sentence so there could be some potential for confusion.
I am uncertain about the use of the phrase "love interest" in this part, as a heartbroken girl after learning that her love interest is in a relationship, as it could be read a number of different ways. When I first read this part, I was not sure if this mean she was dating this guy or was just into him. That and "love interest" feels more like something you'd use to describe a relationship in fiction. Maybe something "after learning her crush is in a relationship" would be clearer?
For this sentence, (Critics described its arrangement as simple and its sound as mournful, solemn, and tender.), I would clarify what is meant by "its" in the first mention. I believe that this is referencing the song, but since it is directly after the sentence on Swift's vocals, I could see this shift being a bit jarring.
I am uncertain about the "anonymous pop ballad" quote and its placement in the "Music and lyrics" section, as it reads more like a negative review of the song. I looked at the source, and the quote is in fact a negative review of the "pop version" included on the 2008 release of the album, so this would seem like a better fit for the "Critical reception" section.
I hope that these comments are helpful. I have read up to the "Critical reception" section. I have always had a soft spot for this song. It probably helped that it came out when I was also in high school. I will continue this review once everything has been addressed. I hope you are having a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Aoba47:, thanks for the review. I have addressed all of your points except the first sentence. For non-US audience like myself, this song was introduced as part of Fearless, and thus keeping the first sentence as it is currently helps with the nuances of this song's release history. If you insist, I could tweak the opening paragraph to something like: "Teardrops on My Guitar" is a song by the American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift. Big Machine Records distributed the song to [radio and date] as the second US single from her debut album, Taylor Swift. Elsewhere, the song was released as part of Swift's second studio album, Fearless, in 2009.
Also, I think "crush" is informal for an encyclopedic entry, so I didn't use that word in my edits. Let me know if the current wording works! Ippantekina (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply and the clarification about the start of the lead. I was more focused on making this part more concise, but it is better to make sure that everything is clear. I do see what you mean, as international audiences were introduced to this song through its rerelease on Fearless, so the current wording should be fine. I can understand not wanting to use "crush". My primary concern was that "love interest" sounded off in this context, and your edits for these parts work for me. I will post further comments later today. Aoba47 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain about "editorial" in this part, its editorial was impressed. I would think that this reference was handled by NPR's writers and reviewers, rather than the editorial staff, who would be responsible for a different set of tasks, so I think that a different word choice would be better here.
I would add clearer attribution to this part, which recalled classic girl-group songs, as it could read more in Wikipedia's voice and be mistakenly viewed as an objective fact rather than a reviewer's opinion. I would think that something along the lines of "which they described as recalling classic girl-group songs" would be clearer.
The first two sentences for the second paragraph of the "Critical reception" section are a bit repetitive as they repeat the word "praised" twice in a row, (Reviews also praised the production ... praised the production as sweet and tender). I would change one of these instances.
I would change "females" in this part, considered the song's message empowering for females, to "women". Even though the word "females" could be used in this way, it is not standard, and it is something that people take issue with. The source clarifies that this song would empowering for women in high school and college, so I would also recommend finding a way to factor that in, as this sentence is about how this song appeals to a certain demographic.
I am uncertain about this sentence: Retrospective reviews of "Teardrops on My Guitar" have remained generally positive. The first two paragraphs of the "Critical reception" section use both contemporary and retrospective reviews, so it is a bit jarring to have retrospective reviews being explicitly called out here, as if they were restricted to the third paragraph. I would instead use a more specific topic sentence, either tying in how most of the retrospective reviews in this paragraph are listings/rankings or the part from the lead on how retrospective critics consider this a defining single for Swift's early career.
The "Commercial performance" section has a few instances of citation overkill. I would recommend finding a way to avoid that, with something like citation bundling for instance.
For the Tyler Hilton image, I would include the year that the photo was taken to provide readers with a more complete context. For instance, it would be nice for readers to know that this photo was actually taken around the same time that the music video was released.
I would recommend linking bridge as some readers may be unfamiliar with this type of music jargon.
I am uncertain of the value of this sentence: Its nomination for Best New Artist at the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards made Swift "stunned". I would think that a lot of people who get nominations, particularly early in their career, are "stunned" by them, so unless further information can be added here, this reads as more trivial than anything worth mentioning here.
I have a question about this part, Spin and Grammy.com thought that "Teardrops on My Guitar". The Grammys.com writer is known, but not attributed in the prose. In the "Critical reception" section, the writers and publications are attributed in the prose when both are known. Is it not done here because the Spin contributor is unknown? If so, I would think there would be ways around that, like saying something along the lines of "A reviewer for Spin and Grammy.com's Glenn Rowley...".
The Taylor Swift image is from a 2007 performance at the Yahoo headquarters, but this is not discussed in the lead. Was this performance discussed in any coverage? I just thought that it was curious to include an image of a performance that is not discussed in the article.
According to the Fearless article, that album used an "international mix" for this song. Do you know what that means, and would that be worth bringing up in this article?
These are my last comments. I hope that this review was helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will support this FAC for promotion. Let me know if you have any questions. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything! I agree that the current Taylor Swift photo is much better than the Fearless Tour one. That works for me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Elsewhere, the song was released as part of Swift's second studio album" / "Outside the United States, "Teardrops on My Guitar" was released as part of Swift's second studio album" - Are we sure that Taylor Swift was not released anywhere outside North America before the international version of Fearless? I checked (Spencer 2013, p. 29.) but could not find the "North America" bit that is mentioned in the article. The song's international version here has "international mix" in parenthesis and is 3 minutes and 13 seconds long, so this seems like a different version with a different mix. Saying that the song (the original version) was released globally as part of a new album seems misleading to me. To provide more context, "The album version of "Teardrops on My Guitar" is 3 minutes and 35 seconds" does not seem true with the current wording
You are right. Swift's early releases are kinda confusing, so I edited the lead paragraph while also expanding the "Release" section a bit. Let me know if things read smoothly now! Ippantekina (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Music Week source says that the UK single release date was May 18, while The Daily Telegraph says May 25. Not sure which is correct, but the Music Week ref is currently used in the Release history table, so it fails verification there
Fixed; I believe Music Week is more credible with regards to music release dates, due to its status as a music industry-focused trade publication. Ippantekina (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the masters to Swift's back catalog" - master recordings is the correct wikilink
The credits (Nathan Chapman as a recording engineer and a percussion and Hammond B-3 player; Hank Williams as a mastering engineer; and Jeff Balding as a mixer) are missing from the article
This article is about a language spoken in Cameroon by around 10,000 Nizaa people. I have significantly expanded this article from a one sentence stub to a GA. The main concern I have is the lack of media in the article; however, I think this is due to a lack of free-license images in general, not because I haven't added them. Nevertheless, any suggestions would be appreciated.
Comment as GA reviewer (see review). Given my past involvement with the article and lack of familiarity with FAC (as a first-time contributor to an FAC discussion), I won't attempt to do a full review, but I just want to mention a couple of things that might be relevant for this review: firstly, the TheilEndresen-1991 source is fully accessible to users of The Wikipedia Library. Secondly, a couple of the sources are from University of Oslo (UiO) scholars, and UiO's online repository has (fairly recently, I think) been restricted to members-only access until the content has "been migrated to the national research archive (Nasjonalt vitenarkiv) during fall 2025" (according to the 403 error message). Because of this, Kjelsvik-2008 is currently only accessible via ResearchGate and Pepper-2016 is only accessible via archive link. Kjelsvik-2002 is available via CORE as well as ResearchGate. I hope this helps! Also, I'm not sure whether consistently-formatted dates are a requirement for FA, but just in case they are, it might be worth standardising them throughout the article; I was going to do this myself based on WP:DATEVAR, but looking at the early edits it isn't clear what would be classed as the original format, so I'll defer to @PharyngealImplosive7 on that one!:) Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A further note from me: unless there's another source that I've missed, as far as I can tell the name 'Mengaka' is only attested in one source (well, technically two—Ethnologue 1988 and Ethnologue 1992—but these are consecutive editions of the same publication with the same editor so they don't necessarily represent consensus among sources) and is actively questioned by another source (Theil Endressen 1991). It's then not even listed as an alternative name in Ethnologue 2005; this entry (p. 72) is under Suga as the primary name, with alternatives listed as "Nizaa, Ssuga, Galim, 'Nyamnyam', 'Njemnjem', 'Jemjem'". Given that the attestation for 'Mengaka' as an alternative name is pretty dubious, might it be worth removing it from the bolded list of alternative names in the first sentence of the lead? Obviously it would still be discussed in §Name, but it would just deprioritise it in comparison to the widely-attested names, and potentially avoid having to hatnote Mengaka language for disambiguation. I'd be interested to hear what others think about this issue! Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One other point that we discussed in the GA review was that §Kinship system might be a bit out-of-place in §Grammar, as it's more of a vocabulary feature, but we agreed that having a whole §Vocabulary section just for the one paragraph on kinship terminology might be a bit OTT. Does anyone else have any thoughts on what the best option is re FA layout criteria? Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! There's a couple of other points I forgot to mention... §Tonology currently says:
Endresen groups the tones into "primary tones" and "secondary tones".
I feel like the wikilink here is unnecessary, as technically a "tone group" appears to be a slightly different thing (), and anyway it redirects to Tone (linguistics) which is already linked elsewhere. Later in that paragraph, it says:
The "secondary tones", which include rising (HM), falling (HL, MH, and ML), and peaking (LHM)
This is a bit confusing, as HM (high to mid) would appear to be falling, and MH (mid to high) would appear to be rising. Endresen (1991) p. 176 doesn't actually classify them further than Primary and Secondary, so it might be worth reworking this bit? Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the wikilink and fixed the error where I classified HM as rising. Endresen (1991) on page 176 does mention the tone groups:
The first four tones, that is H, M, L and LH, are the Primary Tones, which are found on all types of syllables. The flve remaining tones, that is HM, HL, MH, ML and LHM, are the Secondary Tones, which are only found on word-final syllables; they can be interpreted äa Primary Tones plus an addition: 5. H+M, 7. M+H, 8. M+L, 9. LH+M. More details will be given in Endresen (forthcoming).
Yes for sure, he discusses primary vs secondary, all I meant is that within those groups he doesn't further group them into rising and falling etc. (at least not within that passage, anyway).MH is still listed as falling in the article? The "secondary tones", which include falling (HM, HL, MH, and ML), and peaking (LHM) tonesPineapple Storage (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pineapple Storage: Yeah, nice catch for the MH tone classification. It should be fixed now. As for rising, falling, and peaking tones, those are just definitions based on what tones make up the contour. Should I remove the classifications or add a source? – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)23:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I think it's okay now! I was just concerned before that I might have missed something or maybe there was another location within the source that should be cited here, but now that the HM/MH thing has been cleared up, the classifications are all pretty intuitive so I don't think a further citation is needed.:) Well done again on this!! Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've modified the alt text for the images that have it. In terms of the MOS:COLOR issue, should I go ahead and remove the image or do something else (sorry, I'm not too familiar with MOS:COLOR). – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)04:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The alternatives would be to expand the legend to cover all the languages included, or add some kind of pattern or symbol to the map itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 24, 27, 31 and 34 don't point to any citation.
" Older speakers of Nizaa also pronounce /ɛː/ is also pronounced as the sequence /ar/" This feels a little wordy/confusing.
"...in one word root (xag or 'to clear one's throat'), and is not consequently, is represented the same as /h/ in the orthography." Also feels very wordy.
For ref 19, I can't find where it says in the given page for the source that says "extensive documentation began in the 1990s".
The text mentions "orthography" a lot but I don't really see anything that elaborates on what that is for WP:TECHNICAL.
All of those should be fixed. Refs 24, 27, 31, and 34 just needed "Theil Endresen" as the last name instead of "Endresen" in the sfns. I fixed the two awkward sentences as well and defined what orthography was the first time it was mentioned in the phonology and orthography section. I also removed the claim about the classification doubts resolving in the 1990s. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)18:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems quite reliant on Kjelsvik 2002, which is a "Candidate of Arts and Letters" thesis; I'm not familiar with the Danish academic structuring, but this seems about equivalent to a PhD thesis. WP:THESIS advises to use such theses which "have been cited in the literature, supervised by recognized specialists in the field, or reviewed by independent parties"; as this is a potential FA, I'd like to see evidence that Kjelsvik 2002 meets at least two of those three criteria. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: For the have been cited in the literature requirement, Pepper (2016), Pepper (2010), and Phillip (2011) seem to cite it (which are all the non-Kjelsvik-authored sources that I could find published about Nizaa after 2002). As for supervised by recognized specialists in the field, Kjelsvik (2002) states I must thank my knowledgeable and always patient supervisor, Rolf Theil Endresen, which suggests that Endresen supervised over Kjelsvik's work. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)19:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would expand the lead a bit to properly summarize the article
Nizaa has a complex phonetic inventory consisting of 65 consonant phonemes as well as numerous tones; in terms of grammar, it preserves verbal morphology much more than is typical for the Mambiloid languages. – The leas has to be as accessible as possible, and this is, I think, too technical (see WP:MTAU). Any chance to explain this for a general reader? In particular, jargon such as "verbal morphology" strikes me as possibly unnecessary; do you simply mean that verbs change? In the body, you could probably avoid quite some jargon, too.
The language is currently endangered – I don't think we need the "currently" here. Is this for implying that the classification is only temporary? But then, you don't use that word in the article body.
The language is classified as endangered. – "Classified" implies some formal decision to me, so who did classify it?
The Atlas Linguistique du Cameroun (ALCAM) estimated only 2,000 speakers however, – It would be important to note in the text when this was published.
Bjørghild Kjelsvik – you red-link her in the lead but there is no red-link in the body. Would she meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) to warrant an article to start with?
Endressen (1991) – This academic notation may feel unfamiliar to readers, and we usually write "In 1991, Endressen" or similar.
'Sewe' may also be another alternate name for the language, while 'Baghap' is the Nizaa for themselves – Can't follow – the Nizaa call themselves "Baghap", or what? But you stated that the endonym is "Nizza".
traditionally, it was thought that these animals helped a clan go through some stressful situation in the mythological past – "it was thought" means that they do not believe in this anymore, but that does not seem what the source says?
though some do practice Christianity or traditional African religions – I do not think that "traditional African religions" does this justice. Africa is a continent. Can we be more specific? Also, this implies that these people practice more than one African religion; is that really the case?
in research that was supported financially by the Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture – I don't think that is relevant?
However, his research was not published until 1991.[5] Before this, no comprehensive documentation of Nizaa had been undertaken, – This is somewhat poor wording, and the "Before this" part seems redundant since you already started the paragraph with The language was first studied extensively from 1979 to 1984.
Furthermore, because another language exists in Adamawa Region also called 'nyamnyam' – "the Adamawa Region that is also called" might work.
Leaning oppose: I am just through the first paragraphs and there are just too many issues, particularly concerning prose, but also concerning WP:MTAU. The article is in need of polishing. Hope these examples help. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: Thank you for the detailed feedback first of all.
I've tried to reduce the complexity of the article as you've suggested (as I'm familiar with the jargon, it's more natural for me to use, but I digress). A few comments specific points you brought up:
Bjørghild Kjelsvik - I'm really not sure if she meets notability guidelines?? Her papers have been very helpful in the niche field of Nizaa linguistics, but I'm not sure if that really meets criteria one of WP:NPROF. I don't think whether an article for her exists or not is really relevant to the FA nom though.
That was just a minor point, I complained that linking is inconsistent (linked in the lead but not in the body). Unlink and I'm happy. If you instead red-link consistently in lead and body, note that a red-link is saying "Hey, we lack this article, please create it", so we should only red-link if we are sure that that new article we would actually comply with our notability guidelines. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Sewe' may also be another alternate name for the language, while 'Baghap' is the Nizaa for themselves - I've removed the Baghap claim considering that neither Endresen nor Kjelsvik nor Blench mention it and because Grimes (1988) was published in 1988 may have outdated information.
though some do practice Christianity or traditional African religions - that was an error on my part; it doesn't really seem like they practice those types of religions anymore.
@Jens Lallensack: I've tried to reduce the technicality of the article by adding descriptions for most linguistic terms. Would you be able to do another review of the article and see if you understand it more this time? Thanks – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)18:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: (sorry for the repeated pings) The article has been significantly revised (see Aspet's comments below). Would you consider re-reviewing the article or rescinding your oppose vote if you don't have time to do another review. Thanks – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)20:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUser:PharyngealImplosive7, I disagree with User:Jens Lallensack on the usage of phoneme. The current lead (with sounds instead of phonemes) reads sloppily. Phonemes are a very basic linguistic term without which linguistics articles cannot be written. I say revert to "65 consonant phonemes". I would rename "History" to "Background", as I expected a diachronic analysis of the language in that section. It would be nice if you could give examples under "Nouns and pronouns". Finally, I wonder where you got "Nizaa preserves verbal morphology in general much more than most ..." from. The source seems to say (page 30 is 3 pages from the end, right?) that only Nizaa preserves strings of extensions. I'm not familiar with the term extension, but I assume it means suffix or morpheme. In that case, I don't understand it as supporting the claim that Nizaa "has more verb forms". Please, enlighten me if I misunderstood anything. It's a very important article, and good job with it so far! Aspets (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not criticize the usage of phoneme explicitly, but I do think it warrants explanation; it's the lead, and when on the main page, it will be seen by many people without any clue about linguistics. You could write phonemes ("sounds"), providing the term but also offering a short explanation in a bracket, and that will be of much help to readers. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aspets and Jens Lallensack: I've re-added "phoneme" (with an explanation in the lead of what it means). I've also revised the verbal morphology claim to instead say that Nizaa is the only Bantoid language that supports strings of verbal suffixes. Finally, I've added examples of nouns and pronouns to the article. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)20:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PharyngealImplosive7 I think a secondary concern would be that we do not infringe on Kjelsvik's copyright. I will not claim any expertise in this, but for example, are the listed nouns all of those which Kjelsvik gives? If we only list a few of her's, we should be fine. Just do not list every single noun she lists.
In the phonology, you refer to the "phonetic representation", so I assume that the table lists phonemes according to their normal phonetic pronunciation. Then, older speakers do not have any phoneme /ε:/?
I assume that Kjelsvik gives the forms for the tenses? I would add those. I would also like to get a further description of the mechanisms of the two perfects (or, if it's not very important, just a note that there exist two perfects). Currently, the description mystifies.
Please move the "Nizaa is ... permits strings of verbal suffixes" down to the same paragraph as, probably just before "A stacking of up to three suffixes to a single verb is grammatical in Nizaa". Either that or as the following sentence. Aspets (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aspets: I did not list all of the nouns she provides, though I listed every pronoun. I'm not sure if that would infringe on copyright though, and if I removed some pronouns, the list would feel incomplete.
Yes, older speakers don't pronounce /ε:/. I've put its symbol in parentheses in the table to emphasize that.
I've moved the information about the perfects down to a footnote; let me know if I should add more information in the footnote itself. I've also add every tense form. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)20:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PharyngealImplosive7 Yes, I think the way you did it was ideal. Of course we need to list all the pronouns, I was just afraid of the nouns. I think I've read enough of the article to actually review it, so I will add a new section shortly. Aspets (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the language's speakers live in and around the village of Galim, a village in the department of Faro-et-Déo. – Do we have to mention twice that it's a village?
Nizaa has a complex phonetic inventory consisting of 65 consonant phonemes (sounds) as well as eleven tones and features an oral-nasal contrast in its vowels. – I still wonder if we cannot formulate this more plainly. What about: "Nizaa has a complex sound system with 65 consonant phonemes, eleven tones, and a contrast between oral and nasal vowels"? This way, you might not need the explanation "sound" anymore, because you already make clear that it's all about sounds and the reader will be able to follow even if they are not familiar with the term "phoneme".
I think you need more wikilinks. I personally would link "vowel", "suffix", "verb", and more.
Nizaa was first extensively studied and documented in the 1980s, by Norwegian linguists – I would remove that comma
helped a clan go through some stressful situation – maybe "helped a clan overcome a difficult situation"?
The writing system of Nizaa also has not widely been adopted by the Nizaa people – You don't discuss this writing system anywhere; who invented that, and on what writing system is it based? Arabic? Or is it just the romanization system that was recently devised by that scholar?
Many also know Hausa, another regional language, or French, due to their historical colonization of Cameroon. – Do they really know French because of the colonization, or because French is one of the official languages in Cameroon today? Germans also colonized Cameroon yet they don't speak German.
Certain imprecise details of Nizaa were known as early as 1932, – Is this the best wording? "Imprecise" is the opposite of "detail", no? And if you say "certain", that somehow implies that we know what these details were, so I would expect to read about them – maybe just say "Several details of Nizaa were known …"?
Because another language exists in Adamawa Region also called 'nyamnyam – I commented on that one above already
linguists often confuse the two languages – "confused"?
Mambiloid – needs to be linked in body, too.
Finally, Roger Blench in 1988 classified the Mambiloid languages, along with another language family in Nigeria's Adamawa State, the Dakoid languages, as members of the Northern Bantoid languages, which are a subdivision of the Bantoid language family. – Link "language family". This sentence implies that there are families within a family, is that correct?
which is where the present classification originates from. – Is that sentence just superfluous? I do not see what it adds.
However, another linguist, Bruce Connell, in 1997, disagreed with this classification. He suggests – stick with one tense
genetic relationship between the Mambiloid languages and the Dakoid languages are weak. – singular/plural mismatch
contrast between oral and nasal vowels – I can't find this bit about the contrast mentioned in the body? If it is not there, it has no source? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both types of consonants are common in the languages of Sub-Saharan Africa, including Nizaa. – "including Nizaa" is redundant since it was already stated that they occur in the language in the previous sentence.
Endresen groups the tones into "primary tones": high (H), mid (M), low (L), and rising (LH) found on all types of syllables, and "secondary tones": rising (HM), falling (HL), falling (MH), falling (ML) and peaking (LHM) found on word-final syllables and can be understood as one of the primary tones plus an additional tone. – I don't think the grammar works here. Two colons? Is this supposed to be one sentence?
Any reason this article is in American English? English is one of the official languages in Cameroon, and that should be Commonwealth English, no? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of this review is mainly to make the article read well and to simplify the prose for a layman audience.
While you note that "the exact classification is still in doubt", the infobox gives a straightforward classification. Which is it? I do not see any source for it being Mambiloid, and further, do write (perhaps in a "Classification") that Mambiloid is a subgroup of Bantoid etc.
The lead could be expanded with another paragraph, breaking up the linguistic description and the documentation history. For the linguistic description, maybe add that the language features an oral/nasal distinction in the vowels, and maybe something about nouns.
How do you cite the consonant table? A tip would be to write (if the sources support this): Nizaa distinguishes between labial, alveolar, postalveolar, velar, labio-velar and glottal consonants (etc. with the manners of articulation and the labialiazation co-articulation).
Do the sources go into more detail on the tones? Specifically, I do not understand if eleven tones can occur on any syllable, or if there are eleven "accent patterns" or something similar. Some examples could help illustrate.
When explaining head-initial, give an example of an English sentence's head and modifiers. You can cite any "Handbook of Syntax" you have available.
"however, in noun phrases, the language does not strongly favor putting the main noun before or after its modifiers", this is clunky. Do you understand the exceptions and the rules? If so, you should be able to explain it more clearly. Use simple and few words.
Do postpositions fall under head-initial? Spell that out.
Give examples of possesor and possesee. Again, cite some handbook.
I do not think that "no overt grammatical marking" is the same as a "zero-marking language" (which you have hyperlinked). It should go to Relative clause#Formation methods and the appropriate entry.
"when the noun is animate, i.e. is a human or an animal" maybe "i.e. refers to".
"which marks location" does it work like the Slavic locative i.e. it's used when a noun has the meaning of location. Or is it something else?
The pronouns "in context", does that just mean "in a sentence with a finite noun"?
Does the vocative really not exist for the second person singular pronoun?
Please move "Nizaa is the only Bantoid language that permits strings of verbal suffixes" down to the paragraph where you discuss suffix concatenation.
Finally, do you have access to Eliane Sonkoue Kamdem's article "Mengaka tense-aspect system" in the Nordic Journal of African Studies December 2019 issue (vol. 28 no. 3)? Does it concern this language or is the term polysemous? Aspets (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blench (1993) states that it is a Mambiloid language and pretty clearly fleshes out the classification of Nizaa (and the Mambiloid languages as a whole). The Mambiloid languages are also part of the Northern Bantoid and Bantoid language families. Maybe that makes the entire classification issue resolved? I'm not sure.
I've expanded the lead.
Kjelsvik (2002) does include a consonant table in her thesis, so I've just added a description of the table at the top with a citation.
No, none of the sources explicitly go into detail about the tones sadly. I do mention in the wikipedia page that noun and verb roots can only take certain tones.
I've added an English example and cited Fukui (1993)
I've given a better explanation of how the nouns work.
Postpositions are a feature of head-final languages so I've updated the article to reflect that.
I've added an example of a possessive phrase.
Done.
Done.
I think so. I've updated the article to say that.
Yes, it doesn't seem to exist for some reason. I'm not sure why.
Done.
Lastly, the article about "Mengaka tense-aspect system" also relates to a language spoken in Cameroon, but it is a different language.
@PharyngealImplosive7 "Blench (1993) states that it is a Mambiloid language ..." Yes, but you need to write it in prose in the article, and give the page from which you source it.
I think with the pronouns in context, it now reads as if they take those forms either in context or in normal clauses. I'd say replace the "or" with "i.e.".
Otherwise, I think that clears up the points I've had. Regarding the footnote: WP:DUE is key here. I would suggest you make the call about which detail to go into, keeping in mind that the audience will include people who do not even know what a verb is, and avoiding copying the sources since there is copyright. Also, you need to source the footnote. Aspets (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aspets: I've explicitly created a paragraph about classification that says However, in 1983, ALCAM classified Nizaa and another language, Kwanja, as Mambiloid, which is where the present classification originates from. Finally, Roger Blench in 1988 classified the Mambiloid languages, along with another language family in Nigeria's Adamawa State, the Dakoid languages, as members of the Northern Bantoid languages, which were a further subdivision of the Bantoid language family.
I've implemented your suggestion that changes 'or' to 'i.e.' and I've sourced the footnote. Since it isn't very important anyways and because I don't want to violate copyright as you say, I'll keep the description relatively short.
I think that in the consonant section, some more prose would go a long way to help the uninitiated understand all the strange symbols. The nature of labialization and pre-nasalization could be described with reference to some introductory handbook in phonetics. You should give some background on the implosive and labial-velar consonants: mention that the language is spoken in an area where those commonly occur. Also, perhaps describe how they're produced. The same phonetics source could be used, and for the areal stuff just a handbook of African linguistics or similar.
The same with tones. A description like "which means that the fundamental frequency (f0) shifts across the word, independently of pragmatic considerations" and maybe something about the presense of tones in neighbouring languages.
Before you explain "The syllable structure V (a single short vowel) exists only in the particle a", you should illustrate what syllable structure is by showcasing some normal words in the language. "This means that only words which fit this structure are allowed, e.g. cún "tree"."
Your explanation of codas should probably change from "that follow the vowel in a syllable" to "that end a syllable". I think that's clearer.
Under "Morphophonology", I don't understand "In some types of suffixes including irregular noun plurals, vowels become /a/". What is this in contrast to? Related languages? Does the stem vowel become /a/, or the suffix's? Also, is this important to include? If it is, we can spare a longer explanation.
Maybe explain the imperfective aspect in one and the same section. Currently one finds information in both "Morphophonology" and "Verbs".
"The possessor always precedes the possessee and most adjectives, demonstratives, and numerals also precede the noun they modify." (the signs of head-initialness) should precede the slew of "however" and "alhtough". Always explain the usual situation before going into exceptions.
I actually think that even definiteness could be explained. Remember, not everybody paid attention when learning grammar in high school. However, all readers know English. Something as simple as "definite nouns are like those with the in English, while indefinite are like those with a" could make it click. Or, in the table, give definitions for the definites and plurals as well: "the house", "houses" etc.
My sneaking suspicion is that the honorific and vocative pronouns are used similarly. It might be WP:SYNTH or even worse WP:OR to put that into the article, however. Would you like to scour the sources to see if we could simplify the amount of jargon used to explain the pronouns right now?
Maybe explain the tenses before the locative suffixes? Unless the locative suffixes are heavily used, they seem to take up undue space. Always begin with the most general and important information.
"does not distinguish mothers and maternal aunts or fathers and paternal uncles from each other, calling them maaŋ and táá respectively. However, maternal uncles and paternal aunts have separate terms to distinguish them from maternal aunts/mothers and paternal uncles/fathers." is hard to keep track of. Can you simplify?
I've added some information about tones and consonants in general and how they work to their respective sections. I've also fixed the description of the codas. I have also clarified that the root vowel is the vowel that becomes /a/ as you can see in the table in the nouns section.
I split the information about the imperfective section into two sections because the first set of information is about morphophonology, while the second group of information is about grammar. I've moved the information about relative clauses before all the exception information.
I've also given examples of definiteness in the noun table. I'm not sure about whether the vocative and honorific pronouns are used similarly, and because Kjelsvik mainly talks about verbs, not nouns/pronouns, there isn't much information there anyways. I've moved the tenses info before locative info.
Finally, I've simplified the kinship section to make it more readable.
@PharyngealImplosive7 I've rearranged the layout in "Consonants" and "Verbs". Please review it and you are free to change it back if you feel it makes it worse. Personally, I think this order makes more sense.
The "Tonology" section should probably start with "Nizaa is a tonal language" using the Kjelsvik source pp. 12-13. Also, not "common ... as well". Remove the "as well".
Looking at the noun table, it looks way more cluttered now. Maybe bring back the previous table, but in the headings (Singular, Singular definite, Plural) write "e.g. a house, the house, houses"? Aspets (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aspets: I'm personally fine with the rearrangement of the paragraphs in both sections and have added that Nizaa is a tonal language and have decluttered the table. Thanks for all the detailed feedback again. Do you have any further suggestions to the article? – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)17:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PharyngealImplosive7 Yes, I have found the title Classification Interne du groupe Bantoïde by Pascale Piron from 1997. It could be used for the classification. It seems to be in French, but I could help with that. Do you have access to it?
But more importantly. It seems like Bruce Connell has written The Integrity of Mambiloid which I guess is quite important to the classification of the language. Do you have access to this article/chapter? It's from the year 2000. Aspets (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the book in French and could not find it on the Wikipedia Library either sadly. I don't want to pay upwards of $150 as well. Perhaps we could ask at WP:RX?
The Integrity of Mambiloid does seem to have quite a lot of useful information, especially Second, it is apparent that Nizaa and Ndoro are the most divergent of the group; sufficiently so that, in the absence of a strong set of unifying features, and until alternative possible alignments are considered, their inclusion in Mambiloid must at this point be considered tentative. (This, however, is not to suggest a closer link between the two.).
@PharyngealImplosive7 Yes, to satisfy the requirement of comprehensiveness it is important that any relevant information from The Integrity of Mambiloid is added to the article. Could you do that? I think we can ignore the French article for now, especially if Connell deals with it himself. Aspets (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under Background, "The writing system of Nizaa also has not widely been adopted" → "The writing system devised by ... has not been widely adopted". Also, are you sure you have the right source for this sentence?
Under classification: remove "however", "finally" and maybe write "However, Bruce Connell disagreed with this classification ...".
"connections between" → "the genetic relationship between" since you've already used "genetic group" earlier in the paragraph.
"He suggests that", remove "finally".
Under Orthography: move the first sentence to the section between the title and "Vowels", since it applies to both the vowel section and the consonant section.
Under Consonants: "doubly articulated" could probably be simplified to "articulated simultaneously" with a wikilink to Doubly articulated consonant.
When discussing the implosive consonants: "which refer to sounds" → "which refer to consonants".
Support – article is well-written and I have specifically critiqued the technical language with the purpose of making it understandable to laymen. The article's editor has been very responsive and fixed the issues, so I believe that it meets the criteria of WP:MTAU.
It is comprehensive, with every available source used which is important for this language of which not much has been written. The French source mentioned in my review is tangential to the topic, but when it is accessed it may have some information that could be added to the article.
I have not evaluated the neutrality of the article, but considering the paucity of coverage it shouldn't be an issue. The one disagreement in the classification is dealth with even-handedly.
The article is stable.
I have not assertained if there are any copyright violations in the article.
The lead summarizes the content.
The structure of the article leaves nothing to be desired.
I have not looked over the citation practices.
I have not looked over the media.
The article is the appropriate length for the topic.
This article tests whether a topic can be notable, but not able to be promoted to a Featured article. Many of the shortcomings of the article (the uncertain treatment of the tones, the lack of detail in the grammar sections) have to do with the lack of research on the language. However, the article's editor has made a good job with the available sources. While I haven't checked for copyright issues, the citation styles or media, I can to the best of my knowledge confirm that the article meets the other Featured article criteria. Aspets (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PharyngealImplosive7 I have some more comments now that two other reviewers have come with suggestions.
In Morphophonology, maybe "In the imperfective aspect, coda consonants in final syllables change ..." Remove the "also", and maybe rephrase to "the last consonant in the word" or "word-final consonants".
A "coda augmentative" – is that supposed to be a suffix or affix? I read "appendix" and that is terminology I'm not familiar with. Maybe explain the morphophonological change i.e. "(e.g. /m/ back to /w̃/.)"
Do you want to expand on the noun phrases' head-initialness in a footnote?
Under Nouns and pronouns, maybe use the word "declension"? Does Kjelsvik speak of declension?
I am kinda unsure if SIL Global#Criticism raises any questions about reliability, seems like many of the issues haven't anything to do with it and it's unclear how many of these are inside views. "Verb chains in Nizaa" and " Nominal Compounding in Nizaa – A cognitive perspective" seem reasonably cited so I'll let it stay. "Mambiloid Inside and Out: Mambiloid Integrity Revisted and The Situation of Somyev Within Mambiloid" requires additional information. What makes https://mambila.info/ a reliable source? Spotcheck:
1 I presume this info is in the subscription-needed section?
Kjelsvik, Bjørghild (31 March 2008). Emergent speech genres of teaching and learning interaction. Communities of practice in Cameroonian schools and villages. Faculty of Humanities (Linguistics PhD thesis). University of Oslo. pp. 91–134 – via ResearchGate. p. 91: "the actual site of the present head village, Galim"
13 Millet and sorgo not mentioned. Where is cattle herding?
Millet (mil) is mentioned on page 28 in the list of produce farmed, and sorghum (sorgho) is listed as one of the staple foods at the top of page 29. I've tweaked the article to show this. I also couldn't find a mention of cattle herding, but I've added another citation to Kjelsvik-2008 that discusses hunting, fishing, beekeeping and ironsmithing. Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the vowel table, each of those IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) symbols is defined as open-mid, open, close-mid, close, etc so we don't need to source that. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)18:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about a different source / was using an old version of the article. You can ignore the comments I made below. The source says The 58 phonemes in the syllable onset System are presented in table 2.There are altogether 21 labialized phonemes, not counting /w/. Notice that the unvoiced dorsal fricative /x/ is highly marginal, as it is found in one root only, /xag/ 'to clear the throat'. The glottal phonemes also have a very low frequency, being found mostly in loanwords and ideophones – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)14:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the source spotcheck by the way. The specific webpage on mambila.info seems reliable to me because it was presented at a linguistics conference in 1997.
Source 1: Yes, Ethnologue is subscription only.
Source 11: Yes, don't worry about that. Sources 10 and 4 also support this claim.
Source 13: Millet and sorghum are mentioned on the last sentence of page 28 and the first of page 29. The sentence starts with La nourriture principale des Nizaas. The cattle herding claim has been removed by User:Pineapple Storage and replaced by activities sourced by Kjelsvik (2008)
Source 15: Kjelsvik (2008) has entire paragraphs on Islamization (During the last 40 to 50 years, the Nizaa have become steadily more islamized...). Endressen (1992) also states La majorité des Nizaas sont des musulmans nominalement, mais il y a aussi quelques chrétiens. Dans la réligion traditionnelle des Nizaas le culte des ancêtres joue un grand-rôle
Source 24: It does have page numbers (pages 10 to 11)?
Source 29: Unsure what you mean. Could you please clarify?
Source 32: See the paragraph starting with Another domain of pitch variation is the word or syllable...
Source 36: Has a page number already?
Source 39: Table 3 lists /j̃/ as a coda, so this is fine.
Source 41: already has page numbers?
Source 43: Good catch. I've fixed the initial sentence to say that it is neither.
Source 46: Do you mean expand the information about the head-directionality parameter or something else? Could you please clarify?
Source 47: and there are a number of postpositions but also at least one preposition is mentioned by the source
Sources 50, 51, 53, 57: all seem to have page numbers, unless I'm missing something.
@Gog the Mild: (sorry if I'm doing this wrong, this is my first FAC nom after all) 3 reviewers have supported based on prose and Jo-Jo Eumerus has passed the source review and seems to have passed the close paraphrasing check as well. Would it be ok to close / promote the article or is it better to keep the nom open? Thanks – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)19:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PharyngealImplosive7: I have a background in linguistics. Glad to see other linguistics pages get to FAC and I think you've done a bang-up job here. I was planning to review this when it was a GAN, but real life got in the way. Happy to have the opportunity to add my two cents here. Going to begin with a volley of comments, follow up, and then I think the lede needs a bit of expansion to cover the breadth of the page.
In the lede, delink the first instance "endangered" per WP:SOB; you link it later in a different environment anyway.
Nyamnyam is a pejorative term likely derived from the Fula word nyaamnyaamjo 'cannibal' which is further derived from nyam-nyam 'to eat', despite there being no evidence of the Nizaa being cannibals, while Galim is the main town of the Nizaa people – Not sure that there's a reason to give us the full Fula etymology here, nor link Galim to the rest of the sentence; it's a harsh left turn. Recommend rephrasing to something like Nyamnyam is a pejorative term likely derived from the Fula word nyaamnyaamjo ('cannibal'), though there is no evidence the Nizaa have ever practised cannabalism. The name Galim comes from the main town of the Nizaa of the same name.
Can we clarify that for the reader who might go look up couscous trying to figure out what it is? Perhaps by calling it a "couscous-like dish"? ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
though some do practise Christianity a traditional religion that incorporates ancestor worship – Not sure what this is supposed to really say. Also there are two periods here.
That source quote is quite long. Any real reason for its inclusion?
Thank you for the ping! Um... to be honest, I'm not 100% sure why I put the whole quote in there... I seem to remember it had something to do with WP:NONENG, but reading that again now it only says translated quotes should be provided in the event of a dispute, so maybe I misread it before, I'm not sure. Otherwise it might just have been because @PharyngealImplosive7 said he didn't read French, so I wanted to be clear about exactly which part of the source I was referring to and what it said? Again, I don't know, but I don't think it's necessary to keep the quote; if anything, maybe get rid of most of it and keep just the most relevant bit(s)? Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
write Fula in the Ajami script of Arabic – I think it might be clearer to say that they write Fula using an Ajami Arabic script, only linking Ajami script.
However, another linguist, Bruce Connell, in 1997, disagreed with this classification. He suggested [...] – Awkward. Recommend However, another linguist, Bruce Connell, disagreed with this classification. In 1997, he suggested [...]
are tentative members of the Mambiloid languages at best – Kind of informal/awkward. Recommend can only be tenatively considered members of the Mambiloid languages
that the genetic relationship → that evidence of a phylogenetic relationship – The phylogenetic relationship isn't weak per se, but rather evidence of it is shaky, no? In either case, the term here is phylogenetic.
@PharyngealImplosive7: Yes, looks good for this first volley; I will look at the second one shortly. I've left a couple comments above and I've included a small change which appeared to have been half-fulfilled. Let me know if you have a concern about the wording. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Missed this on the first go, but shouldn't the lede pronunciation be [nɪ́zʌ̀ː ~ nɯ́zʌ̀ː]? Certainly is should be with the long marker and not a duplication of the vowel, esp since you haven't marked the syllable boundaries.
Interestingly, the sources always use /ɪ/ and never use /ɯ/, though they do list allophonic variation between the two vowels. Also the reduplication of the vowel is used to signify a different tone (/ʌʌ̀/ is different from /ʌ̀ː/) – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)00:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, with respect to [ɯ], do the sources indicate any particular conditions under which it appears? It's fine if it doesn't occur in the name itself, but if there's anything to say about allophony, we should include it. Re: tone, what difference is it signifying? If it's signalling a contour, we need to use the appropriate IPA contours, since this would be confusing to someone with knowledge of IPA but not knowledge of Nizaa in particular. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've used the more common Chao tone letters to represent the name of Nizaa (now it says /nɪ˦zʌː˧˨/. As for [ɯ], the sources again, are frustratingly vague about where each allophone occurs. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)22:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaesOfereode: Endresen (1992), the French source, has information on where each allophone occurs. You may want to check out the vowel section; I added an explanation as to what is used where. The explanation also justifies why [ɯ] is never used in the word /nɪ˦zʌː˧˨/. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)17:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, excellent addition. Couple suggestions:
Clarify "it" here (in except if it follows). A bit hard to follow for the layman, I think.
Add a contrastive example showing blocking before the excepted phonemes.
Remove quotation marks from "back" and "front"; these are not metaphors since they are literally at the front and back of the mouth mechanically. The use of "normal" in quotes is good and appropriate, I think.
Soft suggestion to reverse the order so that the reader is exposed to the onset first, the placement of the vowel, and then the following consonant whenever possible (e.g., used when a vowel is before /n/ and follows /tʃ, dʒ, ᶮdʒ, ɲ, j, ʃ/ → used when a vowel follows /tʃ, dʒ, ᶮdʒ, ɲ, j, ʃ/ and precedes /n/). This helps the reader follow the process as C1VC2 rather than C2VC1.
No short nasal vowels at all? Seems odd. Typically, a field linguist might include certain contexts for the shortening of phonemically long vowels. Anything like that in your source material?
but this distinction has been lost in younger speakers – Soft recommend to link Merger (linguistics) to "distinction has been lost". Might be worth mentioning which vowel collapsed into which.
Asking myself as well here, but since /ɤ̃ː/ collapsed, should ⟨ʌ̃ː⟩ be in square brackets (i.e., [ʌ̃ː]), or since it is an underlying phoneme in younger speakers should we keep the slash bracketing? ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Older speakers of Nizaa also pronounce /ɛː/ as the sequence /aɾ/. – One of these is the underlying representation and one of them is the surface. That means one of these needs to be in square brackets (e.g., [ar]).
Under "Short oral vowels", your unrounded vowels are organized front-to-back (e.g., ɪ ~ ɯ), but your rounded vowels are organized back to front. Why? I would guess that the underlying representation favors one over the other (e.g., unrounded vowels are underlyingly front and vice versa).
This is a very strange organization, but I don't suppose I have any real objection to it since the information isn't obfuscated in any way by its order. We can keep it as is, I think. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You only discuss marginal phonemes in "Consonants" when your "Vowels" section has two. Why? You point out that your marginal phonemes are in parentheses here, even though you do the same without the explanation above. Consider revising this.
Older speakers of Nizaa also distinguish an eighth nasalised vowel /ɤ̃ː/ from /ʌ̃ː/, but this distinction has been lost in younger speakers. Older speakers of Nizaa also pronounce /ɛː/ as the sequence [aɾ]. - this is my description for the vowel marginal phonemes.
Both types of consonants are common in the languages of Sub-Saharan Africa. – Soft recommendation to rephrase so you can include a link to Sprachbund; not a big deal though
Footnote seems most appropriate here. It'll also help justify your footnote section since I've often (I think correctly) been suggested during GANs to remove single-note sections and integrate them into the body of work whenever possible. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(combinations of tones) – I would clarify this; I think a relatively smart reader might interpret this as a polysyllabic quality rather than a monosyllabic one. For example 指鹿為馬 (zhǐ lù wéi mǎ) requires a combination of tones, but it's four words. A contour is strictly the shift of the tone within the syllable.
In §Tonology, the claim that Verb roots can only use the high or mid tones, unlike nouns, which may use any of the three levels. is cited to Kjelsvik 2002, page 18. That page says:
Verbs can have a M or a H lexical tone, as noted above. The root can be augmented with a number of derivational suffixes, and inflected with suffixes. Periphrastic forms making use of the auxiliary á / a᷆ / a etc further expand the paradigm, as we noticed above.
(By the way, while researching this I discovered that there are tone contour diacritics in the Unicode Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement block. I drafted a version of the §Tonology table using them, based on the table in Kjelsvic 2002 p. 13, which can be found here, in case you want to add that to the article @PharyngealImplosive7? No pressure either way, of course.)The only bit I could find in Endresen (1992) that discusses the tonology of verbs specifically is the text on page 43, between the diagram and the table; this is my rough translation:
This hierarchy is important both from a synchronic perspective and from a comparative and diachronic point of view. For example, in synchronic analysis we find that among monosyllabic verbs there is only one tonological lexical opposition: between the H tone and the non-H tone. In comparative analysis we find that the lexical H tone of monosyllabic verbs corresponds to the H tone of Proto-Bantu, and that the non-H (M and L) tone correspond to the L tone of Proto-Bantu; cf. Endresen (forthcoming). But Nizaa doesn’t just have the three tones H, M and L. By overlooking the downstep and the floating tones, we must distinguish between nine different tones in order to obtain a sufficient description. Other than the three simple tones, H, M and L, there are five double tones, HM, HL, MH, ML and LH, and one triple tone, LHM.
Hopefully this helps! And apologies if I've mistranslated any specific linguistic terms that I'm just unfamiliar with in French! Just let me know if there's anything that doesn't make sense. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pineapple Storage: Firstly, great translation, only a few terminology differences that were fairly easy to parse out. I have several questions still though. Are these representations in the table orthographic or are they supposed to be IPA? If orthographic, we need to include IPA. If they're supposed to be IPA, they aren't in line with typical contouring conventions. Are the tones in CVC falling on the nasal coda? I think I've seen this kind of representation before, but only on nasals. I don't think we want to give the impression that this kind of "coda tonality" is possible on coda stops. Again, highly recommending IPA contour conventions here: the current use seems to suggest a syllable break that isn't there and the mid-tone contours are difficult to discern on my screen; I can only imagine what this will be like for someone with accessibility issues. I should be able to add them, but if there are any indications about absolute tone (instead of relative; this is typically a 1–5 number), I need to know to appropriately add. Is there anything in the "Endresen (forthcoming)" that explains the tonogenesis of the mid tone? As an aside, I think CV → CVV → CVC is the more natural progression for the table, but open to suggestions. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaesOfereode: I believe User:Pineapple Storage is translating the 6 pages in Endresen (1992) that talk about tones from French to English right now. As for the tone table, I've added a separate chao tone letter column and moved the nasal coda accents to the vowel. Sadly, neither Kjelsvik nor Endresen actually gives numerical tone letters, but since there are no extra-high or extra-low tones in Nizaa, I think the chao tone letters are accurate. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)23:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
L tone in French is B (for bas) so apologies if I transcribed any by accident and left some confusing tone labels!
The translation of Nizaa mum is given as just "un" in this paper, so I'm not sure whether it's best translated as "one", "a/an", or both/either (depending on context); this is probably given somewhere else in the literature.
Wherever I've written "shift" or "shifted", that's a translation of transport or transporter; there might be a more linguistically accurate English equivalent for this, I wasn't sure.
I've translated substantif as "noun" throughout, hopefully this is accurate(?)
Endresen groups the tones into "primary tones" and "secondary tones". – Seems better to put the link of "groups the tones" rather than on "primary tones", no?
The primary tones, high (H), mid (M), low (L), and rising (LH), are found on all types of syllables. – This seems to contradict what you wrote above about the tonal quality of verbs. Clarify. Also, what is "all types of syllables"? Is this a phonological constraint (e.g., CV vs CVC) or is it a stress-based one (e.g., primary vs penultimate stress)? If it's about syllable structure, this section needs to be moved to below "Syllable structure" so that the reader can understand what the possible syllable types are.
It seems strange that you gave us a rundown of the places of articulation, but haven't made any effort to explain what a tone group is and how it works in Nizaa. I'm totally out at sea with this. Can primary tones occur in syllable-final position (see also above)? What do you mean they "can be understood as one of the primary tones plus an additional tone"? It looks like this was lifted more-or-less verbatim, but it's not clear what that means at all. Are they underlyingly two syllables and the contour arises from the surface pressures? I was so confused by this I looked at the source and it says "Tones will not be discussed in this article" but says that a forthcoming article will discuss it; I suspect it's Endresen's French-language article you've cited, which is oddly only found in the "Background" section despite clear usefulness elsewhere (no mention of nyaamnyaamjo in its sense as 'sorcerer'?)
For this question and the one above (along with the Can verb roots participate in tone contour question), I'd like to ping @Pineapple Storage: (sorry if I'm pinging you too much!) since they know French and can interpret what Endresen 1992 actually says. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)00:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the French article also refers to a "forthcoming" article that will more clearly explain the tone situation, but looking at his list of publications (of which there are absolutely loads, so apologies if I've just missed the relevant one) I couldn't immediately find that "forthcoming" work. His selected publications indicates that his subsequent work was about Fula, so I'm not sure whether the Nizaa tonology was ever published? Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, no problem! Those pages are mostly tables anyway, so it shouldn't take too long. The journal is non-commercial use only (the website specifies CC BY-NC prior to 2023) so I'll do it in a Google Doc and post the link here rather than actually publishing the text on-wiki, if that's okay? Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no tone table, which I think would be useful. More useful still would be a map of tonal diacritics since you're about to throw a lot of them at the reader and there's not really a useful way to understand it. Case in point, is sìì low? Is yîm LHL, LHM, or MHL?
Why are you marking long vowels with VV? Are they polymoraic? You should say if they are since that's what outlines the syllable constraints. The French-language source from Endresen seems to indicate that they are (p. 33).
You're not consistent with Endresen's name; sometimes it's just Endresen, other times is Thiel Endresen.
As an aside, strange that the Norwegian Wikipedia page only includes "Theil" (as do his University of Oslo, Google Scholar, Academia.edu, and researchgate.net pages!), but he seems to cite himself as Endresen (cf. 1991 p. 176)?
Why are you only discussing the lenition in coda wrt imperfectives? The source gives an example of fortition in augmentatives, which seems worthy of mention.
Okay, the biggest takeaway from these changes is that we absolutely positively must establish a universal orthography for this page; I can barely follow this page with its two principal sources competing for orthographic dominance. We cannot have "!" mark a downstep for an African language when /!/ exists in several neighboring languages; I thought I missed a new addition to phonology for a moment. Mark it with ꜜ◌ instead, since the exclamation is alternative for a typographical constraint we don't have here. The macron likewise needs to be removed. Its use in the "Sample text" section looks like a failed copy–paste; kekirā́ should be, I believe, kekira᷇, and it looks like there are similar issues passim. You should do a pass through and make sure these are rectified. I recommend just using Chao, but if you can use the prescribed IPA orthography that's fine too. Bottom line is that I don't want the reader to be guessing the whole time like I am now.
Other major takeaways:
Monosyllabic nouns can only have the syllable structures CVV and CVC – There are no instances of a (with tone) that are nominal?
Tone grouping still has not been explained. Is there not even a broad approach to this that we can use to explain to the audience what this is? I speak two tonal languages and I don't know what these groups are meant to signify; I can't even tell if this is a morphophonological or a phonosemantic phenomenon. My hunch is that it might be a sandhi phenomenon obfuscated by sound changes, but that's just a guess. The link is good and should stay, but it simply redirects to Tone (linguistics).
It's unclear why you introduce ° without giving an example.
ŋun 'boy/girl', with a mid tone, and ɓʉʉ, with a floating mid tone sound the same – They have the same tone, but they don't sound the same, right?
ɓʉʉ́ is a rising tone – You've marked a high tone here.
the result is inaudible – No. There simply is no change.
bɔ̀ɔ́ŋ 'egg' merges with the mid tone in mum when the two words are combined – Endresen has ɓɔ̨̀ɔ̨́ mum as 'one egg', seemingly unaffected by the tone shift, no? It's not merging; it simply has not been affected per above.
You need a counter-example here.
Do you have the right tone on ɓo᷄w? Seems like that's mid–high, not high–mid, but the sentence is a bit confusing.
Soft recommend placing the tone table after the second syllable.
@ThaesOfereode: I have tried to standardize the orthography by removing any of the macrons and using the hook accents. I've also used ꜜH to represent the downstep. As for your other concerns:
Monosyllabic nouns can only have the syllable structures CVV and CVC - no nouns use a with tone. That is reserved for the copula and auxiliaries.
I'm not sure how to put this into the article but I think the tones groups are just a way to show which tones are the main tones (primary) and which ones are derived through floating tone attachment, suffixing (e.g. suffixing of the L tone for definiteness), or tone-shift (secondary tones).
It's unclear why you introduce ° without giving an example. - it is just a shorthand so I don't need to write "the floating tone" multiple times, as that gets repetitive. It is used in the paragraph and in the table.
ŋun 'boy/girl', with a mid tone, and ɓʉʉ, with a floating mid tone sound the same – They have the same tone, but they don't sound the same, right? - yes right, clarified.
ɓʉʉ́ is a rising tone - I think you misread the tone table, a high tone would have an acute on both vowels (see the CVV section of the tone table)
bɔ̀ɔ́ŋ 'egg' merges with the mid tone in mum when the two words are combined - yes right, they are not merging; clarified. Also I added a counter-example in the next sentence.
Do you have the right tone on ɓo᷄w? - I had the wrong tone. Thanks for correcting me. I've scanned the entire article for any incorrect tones and have fixed hopefully all of my errors, but there still may be a few outstanding ones.
Soft recommend placing the tone table after the second syllable. - unsure what you mean by syllable.
Yeah, that's fine; I just don't know how helpful it is to the reader. What's the point of introducing a linguist's convention if you don't really use it passim. You write "floating tone" three times after the fact..
Okay.
Good fix.
Part of my frustration with the orthography. Though this has brought something else to my attention: this syllable is CVVC, no? Where is that in the analysis?
I haven't caught any so far, but will let you know if I find any.
Sorry, I meant moving the table to after the second paragraph of the section; I think the table will be useful to read before approaching the rest.
@ThaesOfereode:bɔ̀ɔ́ŋ is not CVVC, rather it is CVV with a nasal long vowel. As for the degree symbol / floating tones, I'm only using "floating tones" to describe them in general, so I think the setup is fine. I've also moved the table as you suggested. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)22:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've done a final sweep (mostly for my nitpicking that I don't think I'm justified bothering you here for). I apologize for the delay; I was going to make recommendations to the lead, but other than vaguely recommending you expand it somewhat to make it more summary, I don't have much to add. This article's writing is excellent, the facts contained therein are faithful to the source material, and the content is comprehensive in its approach to this language. Great work, PI7; I'm happy to support on prose and factual content. ThaesOfereode (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence (or source material) that says this is an underlyingly head-initial/head-final language? I understand if not, but would be great color.
These examples from Kjelsvik are excellent, but the orthography is difficult based on previous sections. What is the macron doing? I imagine length, but these are duplicated in your orthographic conventions above... and in some of your examples here. Also, is the circumflex supposed to be a LHL or MHL or LHM? Hard to tell.
I think the macron represents a mid tone? I didn't make the orthography, so I'm not entirely sure, but we should probably use Kjelsvik's orthography as at least it's standardized. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)00:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PharyngealImplosive7 @ThaesOfereode The complexity of this tones discussion is now outside my comfort zone given my (unfortunately) limited experience in Linguistics, so apologies if I've misinterpreted, but my reading of the Kjelsvik (2002) p. 13 table is that macrons by themselves only occur on the final consonant of a CVC syllable or the vowel of a CV syllable, to indicate that a three-tone contour ends with a final M tone (ie. LHM: CV = tǎ̄ and CVC = tǎm̄) because a M-tone vowel is just bare, without diacritics (so LHM: CVV = tǎa). I think given that Kjelsvik (2002) is the most recent (and most comprehensive) documentation of the tones, it would be good to standardise to her orthography, which does appear to use additional diacritics next to the vowel they apply to for CV syllables (which just needs a zero-width joiner or Template:Hair space to produce). Kjelsvik doesn't stack the diacritics (the way they currently are in the table at §Tonology for LHM, LHL and MHL) and I feel like this should be avoided as it could introduce some ambiguity about the order the tones are applied... I've done an updated version of the table at User:Pineapple Storage/sandbox/sub-sandbox 7 so you can see what I mean. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but my major concern here is that it seems to indicate that the coda can always carry tone. I have only ever seen a resonant coda carry tone and without explicit details I'm somewhat concerned about using a CVR syllable to serve as a paradigm example. @PharyngealImplosive7: My understanding is that the tone is carried entirely on the vowel or vowel–resonant sequence. Are there any examples in the literature regarding the tones shown in the table with the resonant occurring (LHM, LHL, and MHL) with a stop coda as well? ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaesOfereode: In the tone table on page 13, Kjelsvik (2002) uses accents on the coda, e.g. ta᷄m̀ or tǎm̄. I can only find accents used on 'm' or 'n' (page 150, the word is ndǔn̄); no other codas seem use a separate accent. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)23:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's one instance on page 72 of kpa᷄ŋ̀, on page 108 there's a ɗàňí (intervocalic), and page 109 nitaŋẁ, but again these are all nasals/nasalised. The only exception I could find was at the top of page 155, gu᷄r̀. Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insight here, Pineapple. @PharyngealImplosive7: Right now, I highly recommend using Chao throughout given the disparity between the two orthographies and the likelihood a non-expert may become confused by it. That said, given its use in the literature, I won't oppose on this basis alone. The choice is yours. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, this is outside my expertise, but given that you've asked for my opinion I'm happy to give it! My instinct is to go with Kjelsvik's orthography, as it seems to have been used in subsequent literature (eg. Pepper 2010), and AFAIK Chao tone letters aren't used in sources about Nizaa (routinely? or at all?). But I think it should be explained explicitly (either in the body or in a footnote) that Kjelsvik's orthography splits the diacritics out of necessity (if this is correct). She says on p. 12:
a certain splitting up of the triple tones was unavoidable, since no triple-tone symbols was available
I might be wrong, but I interpreted this as meaning that the resonant coda (m, n, ŋ, r or w) doesn't necessarily carry its own tone, but rather the vowel+resonant cluster shares a single triple-tone sequence; only a couple of triple-tone diacritics exist and they don't cover all the tone combinations in Nizaa, especially the ones that include M segments. I would guess that, in order to preserve the order of the tones in the diacritic representation (ie. rather than stacking them, which could make it ambiguous which tone is realised first), Kjelsvik spread the diacritics out over the constituent characters.If this interpretation is correct, then I think the diacritics should be explained explicitly, along with a discussion of any differences between Endresen and Kjelsvik's orthographies, just to make sure everything's as clear and confusion-free as possible. Does this make sense? Again, I may have gotten things completely wrong. But as a (comparative) layperson this is my reading of it. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow up, are these all compounds in typical language or not? The "two nouns" one is kind of throwing me. I think this should be regarded as a compound noun. Strictly speaking, is nízαὰ an adjective here or is this another compound noun? Are the adpositional phrases cliticized to the head? ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there isn't much specific information in the source. I've relabeled the "two nouns" one as a compound noun. As for the adjective + noun one, nízαὰ is an adjective because the source labels the phrase as such. As for the adpositional phrases, I'm not sure if they are clitics or not. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)22:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definiteness on nouns is marked by adding a lowering tone contour.
What is ɓaara doing? You just told us that pluralization is done through the use of animacy-based suffixes. Shouldn't the plural of sìì be sììya? Same for mbéwwu?
I've actually got no idea. Kjelsvik talks about -ya and -wu in one sentence and then throws 'ɓaara' at us in the table for regular nouns. Endresen (1992) actually defines it as the word for 'two'. I've added that to the article. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)00:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks like your sfn tag was erroring out, but I believe I've fixed it. Double check me though. Also, I highly recommend using the example njèè from "Verb chains" since it actually does use one of these suffixes to pluralize (njèèyâ). Also, does the word 'two' pluralize it per se or does the pluralization simply not need marking due to context? I don't think the source is backing up what you have written unless I missed something. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ɓaara does not appear to take plural markers. As for where Endresen talks about ɓaara, I got that information from this passage (translated into English):
Note that the M tone of the lexical tones HM and LHM “disappears” before mum and ɓaara: ɓów mum “one/a dog”, ɓɔ̨̀ɔ̨́ mum “one/an egg”, ɓów ɓaara “two dogs” and ɓɔ̨̀ɔ̨́ ɓaara “two eggs”. The “disappearance” is the result of a “shift” [lit. “transport”] of the final tone of a syllable to the following syllable:
Anyway to link the kinship system to its archetype (Iroquois kinship, it looks like)? In any case, recommend a {{broader}} tag, either Iroquois kinship or Kinship terminology
a 'younger sibling' nā́m is seen as disrespectful – Soft recommendation to say something along the lines of "indeterminate of gender" for clarity's sake.
@PharyngealImplosive7 @ThaesOfereode, regarding "Older speakers of Nizaa also pronounce /ɛː/ as the sequence [aɾ]." The older speakers do not have any /ɛː/, right? As in, they have no [ɛː] and therefore there's no reason to analyse them as having a phoneme /ɛː/. Rather, it's the younger speakers who have shifted /aɾ/ into [ɛː]. But then, it's easier to just analyse the new sequence as a phoneme /ɛː/, and maybe /aɾ/ just doesn't occur for younger speakers. My suggestion is: it may be that older and younger speakers have different phonemic systems (phonologies), and it must be if there isn't a merger or split.
But all of that is unimportant, because we cannot analyse the phonology ourselves. We have to stick to what the sources report, and is that really /aɾ/ and /ɛː/ or /aɾ/ and [ɛː] or [aɾ] and /ɛː/? We must follow their analysis. Aspets (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aspets and ThaesOfereode:: Endresen (1991) uses slashes for both ɛː and aɾ:
First, there is a generation difference in the use of /ɛɛ/. In nouns, the younger generation, e.g., Hamadicko Daniel, uses /ɛɛ/ where the older generation in most cases uses the VC sequence /ar/, (cf. /bɛɛ/ vs. /bar/ ('cloud'). These are clear indications that a change */ar/ > /εε/ has taken place in Nizaa. The fact that there is generation difference today, combined with loanwords like /jέέtu/ ('file') < Fulfulde /jarto/ indicate that it has taken place fairly recently, and probably after Pre-Nizaa A. In an even more recent influx of loanwords, even the younger generation has /ar/, (cf. /martô/ 'hammer' < French marteau).
@PharyngealImplosive7 It doesn't say if the older generation has /ɛː/. My interpretation of that passage is that young people have both /aɾ/ and /ɛː/. If /aɾ/ was [ɛː] they wouldn't be able to pronounce /marto/. I think this is better understood as a sound change than underlying/surface realizations. Aspets (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the language was first documented extensively from 1979 to 1984 by Norwegian linguist Rolf Theil Endresen This is cited to two of Endresen's papers. That's not enough to state in wiki-voice that nobody documented the language before he did. See my essay Wikipedia:First is worst. RoySmith(talk)14:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I must thank my knowledgeable and always patient supervisor, Rolf Theil Endresen. He is in this case a 'first mover' in a very real sense of the word: it was he who first analysed the Nizaa language and created its alphabet.
The next one in the series, this article is on a class of two German armored cruisers built before World War I (a class of ships the Germans were apparently not great at designing, given that both of these were sunk during the war). The article passed an A-class review at MILHIST last month, so should be in pretty decent shape, but I look forward to working with reviewers to correct any deficiencies that remain. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Prinz Adalbert class was a pair of armored cruisers built for the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) under the terms of the First Naval Law.: I'm chewing on the last part here. Most readers won't know what it was, except that it was a law to do with the Navy and that there were later more of them. It feels to me like, if this is important enough to include in the first sentence, we should also include some explanation of what it was (perhaps as the second) -- on the other hand, if we don't think it particularly matters if readers understand it, is it really important enough to give it some of our most valuable real estate?
How about adding ", which initiated a major naval expansion program." for context?
a gunnery training ship: a gunnery-training ship (probably all linked), I think, assuming we mean a ship intended to help teach sailors about gunnery? See later in body too.
There's not a specific link for that, but agree that it should be hyphenated
while Friedrich Carl initially served as the flagship of the High Seas Fleet's reconnaissance forces.... I appreciate this must be getting tedious, but I'll beat the drum again -- it wasn't called the HSF until 1907.
Facepalm
was quickly sunk by Russian naval mines off Memel in November: I would remove quickly here, since we've given the date, and there's a possible misreading that there was not much time between hitting the mines and sinking, which the body contradicts.
Makes sense
The sinking killed 672, the greatest single loss of life for the German fleet in the Baltic during the war; there were only 3 survivors of her sinking.: a bit repetitious: how about only 3 sailors survived?
Works for me
Armored cruisers were vessels that generally possessed side armor intended to serve on foreign stations, as a fast wing of a fleet of battleships, or to attack or protect merchant shipping. Side armor differentiated them from large protected cruisers that only incorporated an armor deck for defense against enemy fire.: the first sentence goes a bit wonky here (what's the antecedent of intended?) Suggest Armored cruisers generally possessed side armor, which differentiated them from large protected cruisers that only incorporated an armor deck for defense against enemy fire. They were intended to serve on foreign stations, as a fast wing of a fleet of battleships, or to attack or protect merchant shipping..
Done
The First Naval Law in Germany, passed in 1898, envisioned -- I think we can be a bit more explicit here -- didn't it order their construction?
Not all at once, as they were to be scheduled out over a lengthy period, and in fact, the Germans only ever built nine of them
Right, but I still think envisoned makes it sound a bit passive, whereas the Naval Law was -- at least if I'm not misunderstanding -- causing these ships to be built. UndercoverClassicistT·C19:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the main battery barbettes: main-battery (compound modifier)
Good catch
a new propulsion system that was about 10 percent more powerful than Prinz Heinrich's increased the ships' top speed by 0.5 knots (0.93 km/h; 0.58 mph) compared to the earlier vessel: can we get a sense of how fast they ended up? It seems odd to go from a percentage increase of power into an absolute increase of speed -- was that a big jump or a trivial one?
It's a bit messy, since just about all of the German armored cruisers failed to meet their design speeds (and in this case, no speed advantage materialized once the ships were in service) - have added some details here.
The design suffered from a number of defects, some of which were common to German armored cruiser designs: I could do with having this explained to me a little. At the time, weren't there only two German armored cruiser designs that had been tried? Are we suggesting that the Germans made a habit of some of these defects in later designs? I wonder whether the sentence would be better cut back to defects.
Yes, some of the design faults were repeated through all of the armored cruisers, save the last one (and the only one that could reasonably be called a first-class ship, SMSBlücher) - this wasn't specific to the Germans; most navies in this period were designing follow-up designs for ships that were still under construction (and usually 2 or 3 iterations before the first ship was in service). Such was the pace of naval construction at the time. As an example, design work on the American Tennessee-class battleships began in January 1915, the same time construction of their predecessors (the New Mexicos began. You have to skip past twomore to reach a class that had actually entered service.
I think the propulsion system changes makes the most sense where it is, since it's in the context of changes from Prinz Heinrich. I did split off the failure to make design speeds and merge it into the following paragraph, since that was also a problem that affected other German ACs.
They lost up to 60 percent speed with the rudder hard over, but suffered only minimal speed loss in heavy seas.: I'm not sure I get the connection here -- on first glance, I thought that heavy seas somehow made it that putting the rudder hard over cost less speed than it did on calm water. Was this all a consequence of having one rudder rather than several?
They're unrelated - split the sentence to avoid confusion
The propulsion system was rated at 16,200 metric horsepower (16,000 ihp) for Prinz Adalbert and 17,000 PS (16,770 ihp): I would spell out "metric horsepower" the second time, or flag that PS is the abbreviation on the first.
Done
the gun is 40 times as long as it is in bore diameter: it isn't long in bore diameter, but wide; suggest "the gun's length is forty times its bore diameter".
Works for me
for close in defense: close-in defense.
Fixed
These guns fired an 40-kilogram (88 lb) projectile: a 40-kilogram.
Good catch
only seven men were killed in the attack: what's the principle behind numbers as words or figures? I don't think it's consistent through the article.
Depends on context - guns and armor thickness are never given as words, but otherwise, if the number is one word, it's spelled out, unless it's in a string of numbers where some should be expressed in numerals
The sinking was the greatest single loss of life for the German Baltic forces for the duration of the war: should forces be fleet -- were there any land forces counted as "Baltic"?
Clarified
Hildebrand and Steinmetz -- hyphenate ISBN.
Done
Will come back and do some spot checks, as I've advocated on FAC talk for them, but for now this looks in excellent shape -- the comments above are, as usual, mostly pretty minor and several could be considered optional. UndercoverClassicistT·C08:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks as promised.
Note before starting: many of the most cited sources are not easily available online (Gröner, Hildebrand et al, Dodson). Campbell et al, Halpern and Herwig are available on Archive.org, but only via special access. This means that most of the citations are out of my reach to spotcheck directly, and would be for most reviewers. Of course, that's not the nominator's problem, but as this is something of an experiment, worth putting on record. I'll do this from what I can get hold of.
Note 2 (Campbell et al) -- not totally sure about this one. The source has Germany, not having the budget to build both colonial cruisers and fleet scouts, tried to find a compromise which soon proved to be a miscalculation -- but that's explicitly talking about the Kaiserin Augusta, which was a few years earlier. We're at least heavily implying that this was true of the Heinrich and Bismarck, but Conway's passes over both of them without saying it.
I think it's implicit, as only a few years (and only a single intervening class of cruisers) had passed between Augusta and Bismarck
Not sure we can "do" implicit: after all, WP:V has Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source., and the usual standard is that a source needs to explicitly say what we need it to. There might be a more precise way to phrase this, or another source that can be brought in to support? UndercoverClassicistT·C16:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree; it's unreasonable to expect the authors to repeat the same general statement in every section in a fairly space-limited book. But I can provide another reference. Parsecboy (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note 3 (Herwig) -- everything checks here apart from According to the law, one large cruiser was to be built per year, so work began immediately on a follow-on vessel to fulfill the requirement, which I assume is in Dodson. You could consider moving the multi-cite or just the Herwig citation in front of this sentence, to be clear on what's coming from where.
I think I had bundled it since Dodson also covers the earlier sentence - but fine to split them up as well.
Note 10a (Conway's, guns and shells) -- Conway's gives the MV as 2559 FPS, so I think we should adopt the same level of precision, and ideally put the unconverted measurement first.
Made some updates/corrections (and added some material from Friedman), but in general, metric should be used first for metric countries, regardless of the source's preference.
10b (Conway's, secondary guns) -- similarly, here we have 88.2 lbs for the shell and 2625 fps. I think our conversion of the range is slightly off - C has 15,200 yds, which is 45,600 ft, or 13,899 m.
Fixed as above
10c (8.8cm guns) -- similar -- 15.4 lb shell, and either 2526 or 2264 depending on the age of the TBD (not sure what that is?) -- I assume we're rounding the former. Range of the former is given as 9940 yds, or 29,820 ft -- dead on what we have.
As above
The question of rounding figures isn't set in any guideline, as far as I know, so very happy to discuss here.
I don't feel strongly about it either
Note 18a -- this may be close to the line for CLOP, particularly in terms of structure and some very similar phrasing.
Side-by-side comparison
Corbett (with omissions)
Wikipedia
Admiral Behring ... was ordered to attack Libau to prevent its being used as a base by the unwelcome intruders [UC: British submarines]. ... [I]n the small hours of the 17th, as the Friedrich Carl was proceeding to her covering position, she was twice struck by a mine about thirty miles off Memel, ... By a fine effort the flagship was kept afloat ... the operations against Libau went on ... blockships were sunk to complete the work ... by 6.30 a.m. the crew of the flagship had been taken off and she was left to sink
Behring was ordered to attack the Russian port of Libau, which was believed to be acting as a staging area for British submarines. On 17 November, while steaming to Libau, Friedrich Carl struck a pair of Russian naval mines off Memel. The ship's crew managed to keep the cruiser afloat long enough to allow nearby vessels to take off the entire crew before she sank; only seven men were killed in the attack. The remainder of the operation proceeded as planned, however, and several blockships were sunk in the harbor entrance
I don't see anything particularly close in this example - maybe "Behring was ordered to attack Libau", that that requires eliding material in both sentences to make them fit.
Yeah, there's not really a way around that - in the above example, it wouldn't make sense to say that the ship struck mines before the Germans were ordered to attack it (which is obviously a bit of an extreme example, but the point that we're constrained by the chronology remains). Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
18b has everything except the transfer to the Cruiser Division, which I guess is in Hildebrand et al?
Yes, that's in Hildebrand
Note 20 (Halpern) -- unless I'm reading p. 195 wrong, it looks as though Heinrich and Adalbert sailed on 2 July, after Hopman received radio reports of the engagement early that morning? The bit about the torpedoing, naturally, checks out.
I don't have Halpern in front of me at the moment, so I'll have to look at this later
Yup, you're right - fixed
22a (Halpern again) -- I don't see Prinz Adalbert's repairs were completed by September. She took part in a sortie into the Gulf of Finland toward the end of the month that resulted in no action. -- the first mention of Adalbert on the page is the 23 October sortie. The rest checks.
Good catch, that bit is in Hildebrand (which I had overlooked when I summarized that article for this one)
22b (ditto) -- doesn't actually give a casualty figure, so we're forced to infer that the ship had its usual complement of 675 aboard -- possibly a bit dangerous (what if someone was on leave/sick on another vessel/fell overboard the night before?). Nor does it actually say that the ship sank immediately, though that seems likely to happen when a big chunk of it has just been blown up. Again, possibly close to the CLOP line:
The casualty figure comes from Gröner
Side-by-side comparison
Halpern
Wikipedia (with omissions)
One of the cruiser's magazines exploded, and there were only three survivors. It was the heaviest loss of the war for the German Baltic forces.
E8 ... detonated the ammunition magazine ... There were only three survivors. The sinking was the greatest single loss of life for the German Baltic forces for the duration of the war.
On this, the only close phrasing I see is "There were only three survivors", which I've tweaked - sometimes, when you paraphrase your paraphrased text, you end up back around to the original. Thanks as always for looking so thoroughly! Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following the changes made above, I'm happy here -- I raised the CLOP queries for discussion, but don't feel strongly that there's a problem with either, given the obvious secondary considerations (especially following chronological order) that account in part for the similarity of structure. Happy to support the article's promotion. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"intercepted by the submarine E8". I would specify British submarine.
Done
I assume that it is not known whether they ever inflicted damage on enemies?
No - Prinz Adalbert was present for a bombardment of Russian forces in April 1915, but it's not clear whether the ship actually opened fire or was part of the screening force (I would suspect the latter)
"safely evacuated" evacuated seems a bit odd when applied to a ship. Perhaps "rescued" or "taken off" instead
Opted for the latter
link reconnaissance, metric tons, knots, squadron, kilowatt (some of these just need to be moved to first use)
Done
Delete mounts from "turret mounts" as that makes me think of the supporting structure in the hull rather than the turret itself, which is what you're referring to.
Done
Convert the range for the 88s in yards, not feet
Good catch
I would substitute "armored citadel" for "central section/portion"
Done
In the armor diagram, tell the reader than the red lines show the armor
Overall, this is a fascinating article! It has great prose and wonderful details about their design. This is my first FAC review, so apologizes if I am overly strict/focus on the wrong things.
The basic hull size and shape remained largely identical. Hullform would be a better term imo, but that may be too much jargon.
I think size and shape is probably more widely understood, but I'm not strongly opposed to changing it
It may be good to have Wikidictionary links for transverse and longitudinal.
Good idea
They had a transverse metacentric height of 0.734 m (2 ft 4.9 in). What does this do for the casual reader? While metacentric height is linked, the average reader would still have a hard time connecting the value with the description. Normal values (ie. length, height, crew) give the reader a relatable scale to understand and compare topics, which they can not do here. While the GM article mentions that A larger metacentric height implies greater initial stability against overturning in the lead, they would have no understanding of what counts as a ‘large’ value. As a naval architect apprentice with a background in seakeeping, my gears were turning when I read this. Under what load condition was this measurement taken? Was this value taken when the ships were first built, in service, or from an initial design (this significantly alters the context)? How stable is a GM of .734 m in relation to dreadnoughts? Also, what should I do with that information, as someone who appreciates the meaning? The prose already explains how they handled at sea. Should I calculate the righting angle?
Those are good questions - Groner doesn't provide any additional context (nor does he define how the figure was calculated, unlike many other specifications). Probably best to remove it since I can't really place it in context (beyond providing GM for other German ships of the period, which is probably not all that helpful)
Dürr water-tube boilers Is the mention of Dürr repetitive with the company mentioned afterwards, or is that a brand name?
There is a specific Dürr boiler (which is now linked)
You can wikilink ducted with Duct (flow). Same idea with drag with length-to-beam ratio and aspect ratio.
Good idea
they were made self-supporting. What does this mean? Did they feature a strong shaft log? Were the shafts conjoined with the hull?
Dodson doesn't provide any more details, but I'd assume he means they weren't braced apart from the hull fairing
Is there a reason why the two ships had different machinery outputs?
Nothing specific - it was pretty common for ships of the period to vary in performance, since building them was a bit more art than science
one on either end of the main superstructure. I’ll also add ‘fore and aft’ afterwards.
Done
The vessels' armament system. Since the armament is not unified, I would not describe it all as one system. Removing that word would make the most sense imo.
Removed
Could you mention Krupp Steel in the armor section? Also, would it make sense to also mention why sloped armor was advantageous in itself?
Linked to Krupp armour - I think trying to explain it here would verge into WP:SYNTH territory. What we really need is an article that explains deck armor, but that will have to wait for another day
being used as a torpedo training ship. Would both used as torpedo training ships make more sense?
No, Prinz Adalbert was used to train gun crews, while Friedrich Carl was used for torpedo training
which was believed to be acting as a staging area for British submarines. ‘acting as’ is redundant.
In the Armament subsection, the main battery guns are described as " four 21 cm (8.3 in) SK L/40 guns in two twin turrets, one on either end of the main superstructure fore and aft". Recommend that the 21 cm SK L/40 Gun model number " Model C/01" be added after the "L/40"
Because there were three models of the 21 cm SK L/40 gun, this addition improves the accuracy of the article by stating the exact model used and also improves understanding of the gun development timeline since gun model number is the year that model's development completed and was placed in service. This addition helps the article meet the A-Class criteria A2 "...it neglects no major facts or details"
The specific gun model is not a major fact, it is a minor fact. And without a RS, as noted below, we can't add it
Oppose the contention that the gun model number is a minor fact. Some examples of why it is important follow. Will the person making this comment please give me the courtesy of identifying yourself? Thank you.
Since one finds many gun model identifiers such as Type 96 (Shimakaze) and Modèle 1935 (Richelieu), on many existing pages, strong precedent for my proposed change exists and the criticism pointed at the proposed change is inconsistent and contrary to this precedent. Ask that the person who made this comment reconsider in view of this strong precedent. Same for turret model number
A gun model number is an essential part of the gun name. Leaving it off is inaccuracy by omission. Consider:
Prinz Adalbert as noted previously was equipped with Model C/01 as was the following Roon-class. Model C/04 was one of three model variants. Model C/97 was installed on the Victoria Louise-class. Both Model C/01 and C/04 were installed on the Scharnhorst-class
The USN 40mm/56.3 Bofors gun. Mount design necessitated that left and right hand models of this gun be produced, and of course, these variants needed to be uniquely identified. Model identifiers were use to distinguish the left and right hand gun variants. This use of model numbers to identify position-specific different gun models was obviously a major detail.
The model number adds only 4 characters to the length of the article while enhancing accuracy. No one has disputed the content accuracy this very small change
Norman Friedman "Naval Guns of World War 1 is a RS.
To illustrate the timeline point of the previous bullet, the Victoria Louise-class used the model C97. The Prinz Adalbert-class and Roon-class armored cruisers were equipped with the Model C/01. Lastly, the Scharnhorst-class armored cruisers used both model C/01 and C/04 21 cm guns.
In the Armament subsection, the main battery turrets are described as "two twin turrets". Recommend that the wording be changed to "two twin (DrL) Model C/01 turrets
This change improves the accuracy of the Prinz Adalbert-class article since there were three variants: two turrets and one (casemate) mount possible. It also helps the article meet the A2 criteria regarding neglects no major facts or details
DhL means "DrehscheibenLafette", so to say that they were "DrL...turrets" would be tautological. Again, the specific turret model is a minor detail. One must bear in mind that we are also writing an encyclopedia article, so some summarization is required.
Oppose your contention that "twin (Drl) is tautalogical. Will the person making this comment please give me the courtesy of identifying yourself? Thank you.
From the Cambridge Dictionary: "TAUTOLOGY meaning: a statement in which you repeat a word, idea, etc., in a way that is not necessaryItalic text". In this case, the two expressions are in different languages and are in the form of a widely used constructed for showing a word in another language. Would "Twin (Ger.: Drilling Lafatte, DrL) be acceptable?
Oppose your contention that the German that the Turret model number is a minor detail.
Note that I did not use DhL but DrL, (Drilling Lafette, twin mount) as used by Friedman in his approved RS Naval Weapons of World War I. Also that approved RS doesn't include DhL. While the two (DhL and (DrL) are synonyms, after all that has been said about using approved RS shouldn't the RS version be used?
As mentioned previously, the Kaiserliche Marine developed 3 different mount or turret types for the 21 cm/40 (8.27") SK L/40 gun and identified them with DrL, TL, and MPL. The turret model number is thus distinguishing,
Consider the USN 20mm Oerlikon mount family. Mark numbers distinguished multiple physically different single and twin mounts. RS is "20 MM Antiaircraft Gun Mount, OP 909, 1943"
Similarly, USN single, twin, and quad 40mm/56.3 Bofors mounts were assigned model number to distinguish these variants. RS: 40 MM Antiaircraft Gun, OP 820, 1943
Regarding the summarization comment. given the very tiny (but large in accuracy) size of my change, the its contribution to a and accurate fully distinguished name, and the hundreds of turret parameters I have not advocated adding, this just more stonewalling.
An authoritative source for these additions is the NavWeaps Germany 21 cm/40 (8.27) SK L/40 webpage article:
Neither of the published works "Jane's 1906 Fighting Ships" or the Groner, Jung, and Maas "German Warships Volume 1: Major Surface Vessel add the gun model number
Oppose. So just use the Norman Friedman Naval Weapons of World War 1 approve RS. To refute this item on the basis of a non-approved RS when you have an approved RS that is acceptable is just stonewalling.
Organization
Suggest that the torpedo sentence at the end of third paragraph in the armament section be made a separate (4th) paragraph since the last sentence discussing the torpedo tubes is an entirely different subject (e.g. not related to the tertiary battery) than the preceding part of that 3rd paragraph. This change will improve Prinz Adalbert-class article organization and navigation
That I can do
Thank you. Will the person making this comment please give me the courtesy of identifying yourself?
Propulsion
The last paragraph of the "General Characteristics" section begins with the sentence: "The propulsion system was rated at 16,200 metric horsepower (16,000 ihp) for Prinz Adalbert and 17,000 metric horsepower (16,770 ihp) for FriedrichCarl. This is inaccurate because ihp is a theoretical power measure that applies only to a rotary engine (prime mover) and not the entire propulsion power train. Recommend replacing propulsion system with " The theoretical triple expansion engines total power output was calculated to be..."
To understand better this change contrast ihp against shaft horsepower and brake horsepower which can be measured and include the inefficiencies associated with the entire propulsion train including reduction gears (not present in Prinz Adalbert class), and bearings (certainly present) as well as the prime mover and screw propeller)
The United States Naval Academy course on ship drive trains is an authoritative source of information:
That's what "rated" means; it was the power expected to be produce
Oppose. Will the person making this comment please give me the courtesy of identifying yourself? My proposed change isn't about if "rated" it is about erroneously tying the rotary engine calculated ihp to the propulsion system total power. Note that Jane's 1906 hp for design power. I note that despite my detailed explanation and citing a very relevant USNA course this response digresses into "rated" rather than giving a technical argument that the refute the technical basis of the proposed change
For grammatical reasons (double use of the word "and"), separate the "General Characteristics" section last paragraph first sentence into two separate sentences by removing the second "and". Separating into two sentences also decouples ihp from speed.
The new sentence will need rewriting. Suggest: For SMS Prinz Adalbert, the entire propulsion drive train was estimated to deliver a top speed of 20 knots; for SMS Friedrich Carl, a top speed of 20.5 knots."
Funnels (Stacks)
The 1906 Jane's Fighting Ships terminology translation lists "Schornsteine" as the translation for funnel. Schornsteine translates to "smokestack" in current German to English dictionaries. Wouldn't Stack or smokestack be a more accurate term to use instead of funnel since it is closer to the German word than funnel? Input from German-speaker appreciated
I am perplexed as to why you think we need to directly translate the German term for a common English object
Will the person making this comment please give me the courtesy of identifying yourself? This comment sidesteps the issue, which is not focused on translation but on whether funnel or stack is more common or prevalent. The mention of the translation was in the context of the 11 different language equivalents in the Jan's 06 technical term, 9 of which used some form of (smoke)stack or chimney and only two (UK English and Finnish) used funnel. Much of that text appears to be now missing. The reason for the language comparison based on Jane's was to refute the contention that funnel is more common than stack. I suggested in the Smith-class article talk that using stack where appropriate with it linked to the funnel preview was a good solution since it without bias for one or the other casts them as synonym. Easy Fix
Reminds me of watching a very senior naval engineering officer who corrected a sailor on this by sending him to the engine room to get a real funnel (like you use to put oil in your car) and on his return took him on deck, point to the stack and to the funnel asking if the latter looked like the former.
Suggest instead of "ducted..." using "exhausting through uptakes to three tall evenly spaced stacks". "Exhausting through uptakes" is more correct from a naval architecture terminology perspective
This is excessively jargon-y, which should be avoided
Oppose. Not Jargon. common widely used terminology in commericial and marine boiler applications
The term duct is inappropriate, in the boiler context, it is typically used for air vents and not exhausting
A preview would help educate those who might be confused - simple solution to use the right terminology and educate users as well
The three funnels (stacks) of the Prinz Adalbert-class were a distinctive identification feature among the Kaiseriche Marine's first class and armored cruisers. The Roon-class had four stacks as did the Scharnhorst-class. The Furst Bismarck, Prinz Heinrich, and Blücher-classes all had two stacks. Might be added value to mention this and also that they might be confused with dredreadnought battleships of the Braunschweig-class and Deutschland-class. Both these classes had similar arrangement and appearance as the Prinz Adalbert-class and were nearly identical in length
Do you have a source for the idea that they might be confused with contemporary battleships? Without one, this would be WP:OR
1) Obvious by inspection of ship images. 2) Lengths among the three classes varied by less than 1% (Prinz Adalbert-class: 126.5m; Braunschweig-class: 127.7m; Deutschland-class: 127.6m, max delta 1.2m or 0.94%. 3) Main turrets equal in number and arranged the same. 4) number of smokestacks the same and their height proportionally the same. 5) Masts location, height, and style very similar
Both John Campbell's Jutland and Paul Halpern's Naval History of World War I speak to identification problems as I recall but I don't have a specific example of one or more of these ships being
Organization
Make Propulsion a separate section like Armament and Armor.
General Characteristics
In the last paragraph of General Characteristics, in the final paragraph, the sentences talking about length to beam ratio being "primarily" the cause of the Prinz Adalbert-class poor speed performance. At least, "primarily" should be changed to "among the many possible causes". My rationale includes the following:
Propulsion drive train losses are likely a significant factor in poor speed performance. shaft and bearings are often speed-limiting
The design and relative positioning of the three screw propellers can, especially at high speed be speed-limiting. The screw propellers could also be cavitating, or too small, or have poor blade pitch
The hull shape affect the laminar and turbulent water flow also causing speed impacts
The depth of the water the trial is being run over impacts speed.
In short you can't claim to an Assessment A-Class A2 accuracy and non-biased criteria standard that length to beam ratio was the primary Prinz Adalbert-class speed-limiting culprit if you haven't quantified all these other speed-limiting factors. Note carefully I am not saying that the length to beam ratio wasn't a factor, just saying we haven got the reputable, factual evidence to prove the assertion.
All of the above comments on the failure to meet the design speeds are irrelevant. I'm not claiming that the length-to-beam ratio was the primary cause, Dodson does. So we repeat his statement absent any evidence to the contrary.
Oppose. Will the person making this comment please give me the courtesy of identifying yourself?
If that is all Dodson states, then its conjecture. You have no evidence that his statement is valid, and strong indicators that it isn't (raise power, speed doesn't change much indicates that the loss factors I describe are influencing speed).
Consider the USS New York ACR-2. Length 115.98 (shorter than Prinz Adalbert), beam 19.76 (wider than Prinz Adalbert) Length to beam ratio 5.87 Much lower than Prinz Adalbert's 6.45 length to beam ration. ACR-2 design speed 20 knots, made 21 knots on trials (exceeded design
Design
The statement "were substituted for the pair of slower 24 cm (9.4 in) guns could be improved by substituting "slow-firing" for "slower" if I am correct in assuming the statement's intent is to characterize rate of fire and not other gun and turret characteristics like turret traverse speed and gun elevation and lowering speeds
What is your disposition of this comment, please???
Overall Organization
This article scatters as does many other Wikipedia naval ship articles, information about construction, modifications, authorization, contracting, and trials among many sections. I suggest that this article (and may other ship article pages) would benefit from
A reduced, more concise opening section that overviews succinctly what the class consisted of, the years its ships were in service its significance
An Acquisition and Contracting/Awarding section following the present design section
A Construction and Modifications Section following Acquisition and Contracting and preceding Service History
Includes any trials, since (both builder and navy) trials occur before acceptance and commissioning
Initial construction (laid down, launched, yard, yard hull number) subsection followed by subsection for each modification/refit in chronological order
Acceptance dates are good to have. The amount of time that passes between the end of trials and the acceptance date is an indicator of how repair, correction, re-design, modification were needed.
The Service History section should be more operational and organizational
Begins with Commissioning and ends with final disposal
Operations generally Ok as is
Need more about navy organizational assignments: based at, fleet, squadron flotilla, etc.
Link words like repair, modification, etc. to a detailed paragraph in the construction and modifications section rather than expanding in detail in the operations section
This last series of comments belie a total lack of understanding of what we should be trying to accomplish in an encyclopedia article about a ship class, the division of information between class and ship articles, how WP:LEAD sections are supposed to be written, among other things, and not to mention asking for details that aren't anywhere but in archival documents (that may or may not have survived the destruction of the navy archives during World War II). I'd suggest you read other FAs (ships and otherwise) and look at other FAC reviews to get a better sense of things. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"belies a total lack of understanding?" To the contrary I understand all too well what you are accomplishing. Since my last 2021 attempt (which received similar responses) I have watched these ship and ship classes page (and have studied many hundreds of them) become more and more neutered to the point of uselessness. It is telling that not once in these interactions has the need of and benefits of the page users been mentioned. Further, where is your Naval History Project? Ship page template standardization and template enforcement?
Let me back-up and summarize my rationale for and justification for the organizational comments since in the specific detailed recommendation the big picture has been lost. In the context of the lifecycle of ship classes and ships there is a common set of phases within that lifecycle and these phases are equally applicable to ship classes and ships. Structuring these pages in time order of phase execution will result in more concise articles that are more complete and easier to navigate and review
While I have your attention. "Geared turbines" has to go. Gears and turbine two vastly different pieces of complex machinery that are separate. The gears were not in the same housing/casing as the turbine as this widely used on ships and ship class pages. If you doubt me look up locked train double helical double reduction gear. Similarly, widely used characteristic box armament descriptions like "4 × twin 15 in (381 mm) guns" are blatantly incorrect since "twin" placed as an adjective of gun and the omission of turret or mount changes the meaning (to four installations - mount or turret unknown of a single gun system that has two barrels like some sort of Gatling gun). Contrast with "8 15 in. (381 mm guns) on 4 twin turrets". Again, shows a need for a project to standardize this.
These two examples support my contention these pages are going in the wrong direction. Welcome your responses.
I second Parsecboy's reply, as many of these points are inappropriate for an encyclopedia due to original research, implied information, and a lack of references to warrant such sections. Injecting irrelevant sources to explain small gaps in sources is pointless as we can't evaluate the ships' design ourselves.
I also disagree that 'ducted' should be removed. The term is perfectly fine from a NA standpoint, especially as context refers to the ship's funnels. GGOTCC19:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Specific examples please. If by "original research" you mean my rationales justifying the input that is being questioned, I'm not once asked for any of those to be added to the article so what is your point? Similar thoughts regarding "irrelevant sources"
"Ducted" is fine for AC and air vents and the like but in no way reflect the very specific role that uptakes perform exhausting nor their size, strengthening, internal ladders, insulation, air flow baffles, and often armor. Didn't dive into those details but they are differentiating.
Please stop posting walls of text. Your last post was literally almost 10,000kb, and contains all sorts of tangents on unrelated articles. This is not the venue to post rants about your general displeasure with Wikipedia (to which you'd made all of 15 edits in the last 4 years your account has existed, and I can't find any previous posts you allegedly made at FAC or any other review). I'm not going to respond to any of it, because, again, you clearly don't understand the point of what we're doing here. To point you in the right direction, do me a favor: go find a paper copy of Britannica and find me the article on this class of ships, and then tell me if said article has any of the information you're asking me to do archival research to find. I hope that the FAC coordinators judge your oppose by the value of its argumentation, not its volume. Parsecboy (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"... killed almost her entire crew. The sinking killed 672 ..."The repeat with a sentence break is a little clunky. Maybe something like 'The second, in October, caused an internal magazine explosion that destroyed the ship and killed 672, almost her entire crew. This was the greatest single loss of life for the German fleet in the Baltic during the war; only 3 sailors survived.'? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like that, but tweaked slightly to: "...destroyed the ship and killed 672; only 3 sailors survived. The sinking was the greatest single loss of life for the German fleet in the Baltic during the war." How does that sound? Parsecboy (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Mysterious Affair at Styles Fountains", anyone...? Actually, it's not that exciting at all, no real denouement (although Greenwell seems to have been as popular as Alfred!). Another vignette from days of yore. All comments welcome, mes chers amis. —Fortuna, imperatrix14:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, NM for not replying! I had a thorough look, but back then, only royalty had portraits etc. done, not even abbots. There's sometimes other depictions—stained glass windows, for example, gravemarkers, occasionally even doodles or marginalia—but nothing for Greenwell (and certainly not for "just" a monk!). Still, RoySmith put a map in, which was a good idea. —Fortuna, imperatrix10:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The death of Abbot Robert Burley led to violent argument over his successor This is out of chronological order, as it precedes the disputed election the previous sentence talks about. I'd first say that Burley died in 1410, then go into the problematic election and succession squables.
Done, also tweaked wording.
dissension among the monks continued for the next 20 years. So, this takes us up to 1430, then we suddenly jump to October 1442. What happened between 1410 and 1442? Was there no abbot?
Well, nothing exciting seems to have happened; I've glossed the next two abbacies, though.
It is on this account that Greenwell was a regular visitor to Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury's caput, Middleham Castle and to Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, at Topcliffe Castle This is kind of confusing. It's a list of three things:
Richard Neville
Middleham Castle
Henry Percy
but the plethora of commas serving different purposes (and all the blue links) makes that hard to parse. Perhaps adding another "to" in front of "Middleham Castle" would clarify things.
Absolutely right. I've completely recast these sentences, splitting them up for clarity (hopefully—if it works?)
it only possessed 33 other monks Is "possessed" really the right verb here?
Changed to 'housed'.
at the time of the poisoning outside of the lead, this is the first time a poisoning is mentioned. I think you want the body to be able to stand on its own without requiring the reader to depend on facts that are only introduced in the lead.
Removed.
Poisonings within enclosed religious communities were rare Is this actually what the source says? I would assume that most of what happens in an enclosed religious community never becomes public knowledge, so how do we really know that?
I've clarified that it's relative. As to how much we know, well, they might have been enclosed, but they weren't secret. Eileen Power wrote >700 pages on Medeval English Nunneries:)
This was not the first attack on an abbot with poison this century "this century" makes me think of the current century. There's probably a better way to phrase this.
Done (15th)
Downom made him a bowl of soup ... when it was requested that he taste the dish as far as I can tell, the "him" in the first sentence is Greenwell, but the "he" in the second sentence is Downom. This is kind of confusing. And apparently despite Downom's refusal to taste it, Greenwell ate it anyway. Was this tasting in the sense of "Does it have enough salt?", or "Prove to me it isn't poison", i.e. was Downom supposed to be a Food taster. This is all kind of confusing.
I've clarified the object of the sentence. As to the tasting thing, unfortunately the sources aren't that detailed. I don't think even abbots had official food tasters—things would have to be anarchy in the monastery for that to be the norm!—but I agree that it indicates a suspicion that was curiously ignored. But unfortunately, I'm ORing. I've clarified that this is a gap in our knowledge.
in 1451 he was forced, says the writ, to provide securities This is the first time a writ is mentioned, so that's a big confusing.
Expanded that it was a legal instrument bollocking the abbot.
placed under a bond of £2000 Give some estimate of how much that is in modern times.
I've inserted the conversion template; also I've added contemporary contextualization.
At the end of the lead, following which he disappears from the record, I think the use of the present tense "disappears" is correct, as the disappearance is ongoing, but I can't help think "disappeared" works better. Perhaps we have somebody better at grammar than I am who could weigh in here?
I don't mind either way, but perhaps Brother Riley could opine? I would be grateful for the advice too.
The subsequent abbatial election was heavily disputed,[3] with bitter argument, accusations of electoral fraud, violence,[4] climaxing in the physical eviction of the incumbent, John Ripon and his replacement by Roger Frank maybe "... and violence, which climaxed in ..."?
Thanks.
they declared for Ripon what does that mean? Perhaps a BrEng thing?
I didn't realise, but apparently yes; according to Merriam-Webster, in AmEng it's "to officially say that one will take part in (something)", while in BrEng "to officially say that one supports (someone or something)". So the latter sense? I could change it to "found in favor of", but I was trying to reduce verbiage.
edicts forbidding the molestation of either Fountains or its residents at least in AmEng, "molestation" implies sexual abuse. Is that the intended meaning here?
I see that M-W calls it "somewhat old-fashioned", so fair enough. How about "interference" in?
apart from Greenwell, it only housed 34 other monks by 1447 I would simplify this and say "it only housed 35 monks". It may be a slight loss of precision, but worth it to avoid some complexity.
Absolutely.
It was also not to be the last known attempt I think you can drop the "to be".
Ditto.
it would be seen by the motherhouse, Cîteaux Is this Cîteaux Abbey?
Ah, yes, it appears to be linked later, so move the link up to here.
It is unfortunate that the 15th Century monks did not keep more detailed records, but lacking anybody finding a cache of contemporary security camera tapes, the record is what it is so we have no choice but to accept that there are gaps and questions that can't be resolved. Support. RoySmith(talk)19:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually less certain on this than I was on "Background"; while I often differentiate between them (my last FAC had two sections, using both), it's a matter of length, to me, and avoiding stubby paragraphs. I consider the aftermath to be the events immediately following the end of whatever topic, while later events are things that happen much later. Probably a slightly subjective definition, but. So the Eng. Invasion Scot., was long enough to warrant both, but this has only a bit of aftermath and even less (known) later events.
"By the 15th century, Fountains Abbey—approximately 3 miles (5 km) south-west of Ripon" - clarify here that Ripon is in Yorkshire (mentioned in the lead but not the body)
Done.
"with bitter argument, accusations of electoral fraud, violence[4] and climaxing in the physical eviction of the incumbent" => "with bitter argument, accusations of electoral fraud, and violence,[4] climaxing in the physical eviction of the incumbent"
Good call!
"It was eventually necessary for the abbots of Jervaulx and Rievaulx to intervene and restore order,[5][6] who declared for Ripon" => "It was eventually necessary for the abbots of Jervaulx and Rievaulx to intervene and restore order;[5][6] they declared for Ripon"
Ditto.
"Notwithstanding Fountains' wealth and importance, apart from Greenwell and Downom" - first mention of Downom in the body so give his full name
Right, so at this point the only important figure is the abbot, so I've removed the mention of Downom...
"A monk, William Downom, was accused" - ah, now you introduce him, even though he's already been mentioned......
...which means this introduction now makes sense chronologically?
"Greenwell survived,[20] and Downom confessed to his crime" - so even though Downom was asked to taste the soup and refused, Greenwell still ate it.....?
Yes, Roy asked the same :) it's annoying, but the sources completely elide the issue (and that's because the Letters to Citeaux also elides it. I've read it several times, but it remains undiscussed. There's several (totally OR of course) possibilities. Perhaps the abbot didn't want people knowing he'd been stupid enough to eat soup after its preparer had refused to taste it; or perhaps, even, Greenwell (who was already sick, remember) didn't eat it, but relapsed, and took the opportunity and a little real politik to get rid of an established troublemaker. All very interesting but not much use to us, I'm afraid Chris).
I know we shouldn't be editorializing in wiki-voice, but could you say something like "The historical record gives no explanation for why"? RoySmith(talk)15:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not much from me: the heavy lifting has already been done (I must remember to turn up late in the day at other FAC pages).
"Downom appears to have brought a degree of peace to the abbey upon his election" - Have you inadvertently written "Downom" instead of "Greenwell" here?
Uughh! Can I claim the classic today's-deliberate-mistake trope.
There are two statements at the end of the lead that don't quite square with what you say in the main text. In the lead you say "Downom had ... joined Kirkstead Abbey in Lincolnshire, following which he disappears from the record". Both statements are a bit more definite and unqualified than your main text (my italics): Little [not nothing] is known of Downom after his expulsion from Fountains, although he appears to have subsequently joined Kirkstead Abbey, Lincolnshire, at some point.
I think that's fixed Tim, I've added about disappearing from the records.
As there are several references to elections of abbots it would helpful to have a footnote explaining who were the electors and how the elections were conducted - secret ballot or what?
Right, I've added a (hopefully not too fat) footnote which hopefully clarifies the procedure.
Red links in opening para of main text: there are three. Is there a realistic prospect of articles being written about these three abbots?
Good point. No, probably not, even by me. So delinked. However. It occurs to me that the thing that they have in common/gives them notability is the election dispute. And since we've already got Keldholme Priory election dispute at FA...
On a stylistic point, I think percentages are better in words than in figures and symbols in the prose of an article - thus "six per cent of all poisonings ... twenty per cent of recorded poisonings" rather than "6% of all poisonings ... 20% of recorded poisonings". But the MoS is no longer prescriptive about this, and it's your call.
Right, I see what you mean. The only problem (perhaps) is spelling out 2.4% though?
Flagged Ealdgyth in case she's interested. I wonder, are there any contemporaneous sources? I wonder if Kerr 2008 and Thornton 2019 should be formatted more like a journal or magazine than its current form which reads like a book. Is Kerr 2009's publisher right - Google Books seems to have a different one. "Fountains Abbey in the mid-fifteenth century" apparently has an ISBN, should it link to that rather than OCLC? Baker 1997 needs to be disambiguated I think. Most of the sources look reliable but this isn't a field where I am an expert. I could only spotcheck #1 and I dunno if "principal source" or "notorious scandal" can be derived from it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for taking this Jo-Jo Eumerus, replying to your points one by one for (my) convenience.
Ealdgyth: I'm always happy to have the expert in early-medieval ecclesiastics look in on late-medieval politics :)
Contemporaneous sources: The Letters to Cîteaux are contemporary (although an edited edition?) and are quoted from.
Kerr 2008 & Thornton 2009: they use {{cite journal}} already?
Kerr 2009's publisher: Change Bloomsbury to Continuum?—the former bought the latter and it no longer exists. What say you?
Baker 1997 disambiguation: Baker is already disambiguated by the year.
Most of the sources look reliable: Indeed, all the sources are produced by academics who are subject experts in the field, either with the university presses, established publishing houses, or double blind-peer reviewed journals.
Spotcheck: There are two sources here. Baker 1977 is pretty clear that the only info we have is "a dossier of letters and deposition", i.e. the main source. Baker 1977 explicitly calls the case notorious (and the other source, Kerr 2008 calls it a scandal, but in an any case I read the terms as practically synonymous in this context).—Fortuna, imperatrix12:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get notorious, but "At some point not long after, the affair became public knowledge and a notorious scandal for the Cistercian Order in England"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, i see. "At some point not long after" comes from Kerr, who says "There was great scandal at the Yorkshire abbey of Fountains in the mid-fifteenth century when it was suspected that one of the monks, William Downom, had attempted to poison Abbot John Greenwell for refusing the pottage William had prepared". Personally I think it's a fair assumption that it became known around the time it happened (Kerr implies that with "when it was suspected", I think—that one followed the other), but if you prefer I could change it to just "At some point, the affair ", thus avoiiding the question of precisely when it became knowledge? —Fortuna, imperatrix12:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the "At some point not long after, the affair became public knowledge and a notorious scandal for the Cistercian Order in England" part is in #21? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, "notorious" is in #1. The article no longer says "not long after". So: "At some point" = we don't know when; "the affair became public knowledge" = it was known of; "a notorious scandal" = "a great scandal"; "for Cistercian Order" = "at the Yorkshire abbey of Fountains".@Jo-Jo Eumerus: By the way, why did Baker need disambiguating, or the contemporary sources request? Is Ealdgyth looking in? Cheers! —Fortuna, imperatrix14:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Older sources sometimes get outdated, or reflect perspectives no longer held. The Baker disambiguation was mostly because the citations don't display the disambiguator, but I guess most people click on the reference instead of eyeballing it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"but he does not seem to have been particularly popular." I am unsure the "particularly" adds anything - or is encyclopedic.
"The first half of the century saw it wracked with internal strife, including a violently disputed abbatial election ... a series of crises to hit the abbey in the first half of the 15th century, following a disputed election ... which had violent repercussions". The lead is a little repetitive. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a twelve-volume Yiddish encyclopedia that was published over more than thirty years, during which time most of its audience and many of its editors were killed in the Holocaust, and the project transformed from a fairly typical general-purpose encyclopedia to a memorial to prior Jewish life and culture. I'll note that this article relies quite heavily on one author—Barry Trachtenberg—as he is the only scholar to do extensive scholarly analysis of the text; were it not for him, this article would be little more than a stub. I have searched hard and I'm reasonable certain that I have included the sum of scholarly analysis on it. Thank you so much for your time, and I hope you enjoy the article! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Raphael Abramovitch, a socialist politician, → Socialist politician Raphael Abramovitch sounds better to me
I do not think that "regime" should be capitalised in this case.
"was released three years after Abramovitch's death" it would be useful to state the year when he died
Also suggest wikilinking Yiddish in the first sentence. Same goes for the first mention in the body, because I see that it is only wikilinked way down below for some reason.
Introduce Algemeyne Entsiklopedye in "The probeheft, a 36-page soft-cover sample volume of the encyclopedia".
I thought of wikilinking Menshevik but then it could be the case of overlinking (three wikilinks next to each other). What do you think? I'll leave this up to you. (It seems like this is first wikilinked in the History part of the article).
"covering topics alphabetically from alef to Atlantic City" was this also done in Yiddish or English?
Again, antisemitic is mentioned in the second paragraph and isn't wikilinked, while antisemitism is in the third paragraph (this should be removed).
why are volume 3 and 4 paras combined?
There appears to be false titles within the article. At some parts there are none. This should be consistent throughout the article.
I notice that Yidn series do not feature years unlike the Normale series? Is this intentional?
"This would be the fifth and final such volume" → "This was the fifth and final such volume"
"biographies of historical figures such as Henry Ward Beecher and Dieterich Buxtehude was absent" – I think that were absent would be gramatically correct here
I must admit that I really had to cherrypick because I was unable to find any major issues within the article. Overall, good job on the article! Vacant0(talk•contribs)17:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm having a bit of trouble accessing the most cited book (Trachtenberg 2022), so it would be awesome if anyone else able to see it could take a look at some of those, but here is a look at some I could access.
Ref 25: The David Golblat part about Ilustrirte yidishes leksikon checks out, however the book says it was part of an effort in "1912-13"? The text says "A similar attempt in the early 1920s by the South African Yiddish publisher David Goldblatt" so I'm not sure this lines up.
"the encyclopedia's main audience – in the Holocaust," – I would just link "Holocaust" and not the "the" with it.
"After decades of proposals and failed attempts" – The "proposals" bit is unnecessary, I would just go with failed attempts.
Fair. -G
"in the Yiddish press" – I would drop the "the" here.
I don't know, I think it scans better with the "the".
"by the anti-Zionist socialist Ben-Adir." – Also drop the "the" here, and is that their full name?
That's his pen-name he is most known by - I introduce both names the first time I mention him. And the "the" is necessary to avoid a false title. -G
"extremely positive and supportive" – These essentially mean the same thing here so only one is needed.
The word "however" appears twice in the text, it is listed in WP:WTW as a form of editorializing.
Removed. -G
"from previously published volumes of the encyclopedia." – Were there volumes that were not published? If not I would go ahead and drop the word "published".
@Sophisticatedevening: Thank you very much! Just checking in on the source review stuff - you did a spot check, but did you check to see if it passes the FA criteria for source quality overall? Just checking, cause I know the coords like such things being explicitly stated. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that this article uses both spaced en-dashes and unspaced em-dashes. This should be consistent.
Fixed. -G
Lead:
Para 1: "Additionally, a small sample volume was released in 1932." - Is this usually considered part of the Normale or Yidn series, or was it an entirely separate thing that just happened to be included in the Algemeyne Entsiklopedye later on?
Actually, maybe the sample volume can be mentioned in paragraph 2 instead?
Good idea. -G
Could the "Reception and legacy" section be briefly summarized in the lead? It is the only major section to not be summarized.
Done. -G
Probeheft:
I assume this was published in Yiddish like the rest of the encyclopedia, but this isn't explicitly mentioned.
Clarified. -G
"Ten of the entries were related to Jewish culture, including articles on Hirsh Lekert, Cantonists, and the Khazars." - Should this be in present tense, since most of this section is in present tense?
Good point.-G
Normale series:
Para 2: Do the sources mention why the second volume included fewer and shorter entries on Jewish topics?
It doesn't seem so. -G
Para 5: "Although further volumes of the series were planned, they were never completed" - Out of curiosity, where in the alphabet did the series end?
It says, no? Made it more clear. -G
Para 6: "Many articles within the encyclopedia have bibliographies, although this is inconsistent; some have none, drawing criticism from reviewers" - I'm not sure if "this is inconsistent" is redundant, since the sentence then goes on to say that some articles have no bibliographies, which implies that it's inconsistent.
Good point. -G
Yidn series:
Para 1: "various Jewish topics written by experts in the respective field" - I think "respective fields" might be the correct way to say this, since it's related to "various Jewish topics".
Makes sense. -G
Para 4: "three short essays on Jewish history and culture in Mexico, Brazil, and Cuba" - Is this three total (one per country), or three each per country?
one per country. clarified. -G
Para 5: "These essays, written by a variety of influential scholars (many of whom had not previously contributed to the encyclopedia), are generally organized by country, and give a history of the persecution of Jews before and during the war, life under occupation, and details on how Jews survived or engaged in armed resistance" - I suggest splitting this into two sentences (e.g. after "organized by country"), as this sentence is relatively long.
Done. -G
Background:
Para 1: "roughly concurrent to another German encyclopedia" - Should this be "roughly concurrently with another German encyclopedia"?
Done. -G
Para 2: "these encyclopedias were specialized on Jewish topics, and did not seek to cover general knowledge" - I recommend removing the comma here, per the explanation given in the essay WP:CINS.
Done. -G
Para 2: Do we know how much content Di Algemeyne Yidishe Entsiklopedye and Goldblatt's encyclopedia covered? I noticed that the article mentions that Hillel Zeitlin and Shoyl Stupnitski's encyclopedia gets halfway through "aleph", but it doesn't mention how far the other two encyclopedias went.
Para 2: "A February 1931 meeting of various prominent Jewish intellectuals in Berlin (including Meisel, Dubnow, Tcherikower, and Shalit) convened to evaluate the plans for the encyclopedia. " - This should be "was convened". People convene at meetings, but meetings are convened; if you remove the parenthetical comments, this would be "A February 1931 meeting convened to evaluate the plans for the encyclopedia", which is unwieldy.
Fixed.-G
Para 3: "Political and organizational rifts emerged over its development. Editors, contributors, and critics debated the proportion of the encyclopedia to be focused on Jewish topics." - Would it be useful to combine these sentences, or at least join them using a semicolon?
Para 1: Is there a reason "5000 double-sided pages" has no comma separator, but "40,000 entries", "160,000 to 200,000 entries" do?
Fixed.-G
Para 1: "Poet and encyclopedia contributor Daniel Charney " - Elsewhere in the article, you put "the" before the occupation to avoid what may be seen as WP:FALSETITLE. This should be consistent here. (I don't think, however, that "encyclopedia contributor and poet" would need "the" before it, though, even if you do choose to avoid false titles.)
Resolved the false title following your suggestion.-G
Para 2: "A core group of editors (including Abramovitch and Tcherikower) regrouped the Dubnov Fund in Paris, although some contributors had fled to other European countries." - This should be either "had regrouped ... had fled" or "regrouped ... fled" for consistency.
Fixed.-G
Para 2: "To reduce the cost of printing runs, encyclopedia" - This should be "... the encyclopedia".
Fixed.-G
Para 3: "They were denied bank loans, and attempted to solicit donations from their contacts in United States" - The comma is not necessary here.
Fixed.-G
Para 3: By the way, where did they end up printing the volumes, if not in Belgium?
France; made this more clear.-G
Publication in America:
Para 1: "along with a small portion of the fund's administrative documents" - This should be "a small number", unless you really meant a small piece of each document.
Fixed.-G
Para 1: "Most administrative and financial records were lost, as was the stockpile of around 12,000 books from previous volumes of the encyclopedia. These were republished in New York" - I assume it was the surviving documents and the manuscript for Yidn Giml that was published, not the items that were lost. Therefore, I would suggest swapping these two sentences.
The prior copies of the encyclopedia is what I meant; made this more clear.-G
Para 2: "The encyclopedia's intended audience, Yiddish communities in Eastern Europe, were destroyed." - Despite there not being any ENGVAR template here, I assume you're writing in American English because of certain grammatical characteristics elsewhere on the page (e.g. the use of -ized spellings). If that is indeed the case, "audience" is a singular mass noun, so it should be "...was destroyed".
Fixed.-G
Para 3: "Abramowitz died in 1963" - This person is never introduced in the article.
Agh, variant spelling. Fixed.-G
Contributors:
"Anarchist Alexander Berkman" - Again, I'd be consistent in using or not using "the" before the occupation.
Fixed.-G
Reception and legacy:
Para 1: Shouldn't Charney's comment from paragraph 1 of "Prewar publication" go here?
Good call, fixed.-G
Para 1: "disapproving that the article on the Zionist leader Max Nordau" - I get what you mean, but "disapproving" is not usually used in this way (you typically say that someone "disapproved of" something). Maybe "disliking"?
Fixed.-G
Para 2: Zionism should be linked when it's first mentioned (in the Normale series section). You could link it down here (or not), but you should link it up there too.
Fixed.-G
Para 2: "The historian Bernard Dov Weinryb" - Is he an example of the Zionist academics mentioned in the previous sentence?
Yes, fixed.-G
References:
Should the notelist get a subsection?
I just renamed the top header to Notes to make it more clear, as I avoid having second-level headers immediately below top level ones when I can.-G
"The encyclopedia has received limited academic attention, although a book by Barry Trachtenberg entitled The Holocaust and the Exile of Yiddish was published in 2022." I think reader's initial thought will be "So what?" I assume there is some connection between Trachtebberg's work and the encyclopedia, if so could you briefly mention it? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hedonism is a family of philosophical views that prioritize pleasure. This is the second nomination—the last one failed since it did not receive any reviews. As a level 5 vital article with nearly 900,000 views last year, it would be good to bring it to FA status or at least figure out what changes would be required. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, even unpleasant things, like a painful surgery, can be overall good, according to axiological hedonism, if their positive consequences make up for the unpleasantness.
→ "unpleasant things" is vague; "unpleasant experiences" is more precise.
→ "make up for the unpleasantness" sounds informal — "outweigh the discomfort" or "justify the pain" reads more encyclopaedically.
I reformulated one passage and removed some links. Nozick's criticism is often discussed so I think it deserves to be mentioned in the sections "Types" and "History". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
on intensity and duration → on the intensity and duration
Articles needed for clarity when listing multiple defined factors.
In a nutshell, I currently support the nomination. A few minor suggestions above to reduce redundancy and improve grammatical accuracy. MSincccc (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article looks really interesting, especially since I've often heard about hedonism but I probably have always had only a vague idea about what it actually is. I'll look over the whole article and once my comments are done, I'll leave them here.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
I'm wondering if it would be better at the very start of the lede to clearly state that there are three main branches of hedonism.
It could make the article more accessible, but there are difficulties in defining what counts as a "main branch". For example, some sources do not clearly distinguish between ethical and axiological hedonism, see footnote [c]. So they may categorize them as one branch rather than two. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the lede, I'm curious. Why is it that hedonism received less attention in the medieval era? Is it because with the rise of Christianity, the idea of people seeking "pleasure" was viewed as sinful/frowned upon?
You are probably right about the effects of the increased emphasis on religion. Some religious teachings are hostile to pleasure-seeking behavior. Others are not outright hostile, but have their focus elsewhere. Our source on this, Gosling 1998, mentions the fact but does not give a detailed explanation of why this is the case. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Types
"right action". I'd add ", respectively" at the end to clearly indicate that each of these three thigns corresponds to the three major branches of hedonism.
Interesting read. If one assumes it is accurate, it essentially means that all actions humans take are in some form selfish. We do nice things to the people we love? Seeing them happy in turn makes us happy. Ergo, our own pursuit of pleasure/happiness is fulfilled.
Yes, according to this view, it's a little like social tendencies are built into the way people feel so they can be selfish and help others at the same time. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking the image of Hobbes might be better on the left side of the section. From what I've seen people say, it's ideal to have images of people facing/looking towards the text, rather than outside of it. [Aesthetic hedonism, lol]
Given the size of the last paragraph, I'd recommend you separate the section about the criticism of psychological hedonism from the support it garners.
Oh, God. I'm so stupid. See, this is what being sick and unfocused does to you, lol. I meant to put this in the section about "Axiological hedonism". That the last paragraph in that section is a bit too large, so I was wondering if you may considering splitting it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit, the first couple of sentences are somewhat confusing. So axiological hedonism argues that pleasure is what determines whether something has value or not. Then you talk about intrinsic value and how it contrasts with instrumental value. Then you talk about how pleasure is valuable even if there's no external benefit, but that seems like something that'd be better suited to connect with either the first or second sentence.
Also, the section "Axiological hedonism asserts that only pleasure has intrinsic value [...] they lead to pleasure or the avoidance of pain" seems to be just a rehash of the first few sentences.
I rewrote that paragraph to explain the basic idea first and then introduce the technical terminology of intrinsic and instrumental value. I hope it's less confusing this way. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"that other things than". I'd change it to "that things other than".
"happiness of others if this happiness". Repetition of happiness. I'd recommend you rewrite it as "care about the happiness of others if 'it impacts their".
"For example, if a person feels guilty about harming others, they have a reason not to do so". Uh, what? Does that mean that if I feel bad about hurting someone's feelings, I shouldn't because according to egoistic hedonism, only my own happiness matters? It also seems to come into conflict with the previous sentence, which argues that humans should only care about the happiness of other if it impacts their own well-being. Yet here, the argument is that if I feel guilty about harming others, I shouldn't have to.
It's not generally under a person's control whether they feel guilt. I tried to clarify the sentence to focus on unpleasant feelings in general. Have a look if it is better now. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"disputed and affects". Seems it would flow better as "disputed, which affects", as the nature of pleasure and pain being disputed is directly what leads to all forms of hedonism being argued for or against.
I think either one works. I left it as it was to have the conception of pleasure, rather than the dispute, as a factor of plausibility. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Measurement
"between individuals since different". Add a comma after "individual".
I've read the article up to this point. Ideally, I'd like to go through everything and then leave comments, but I've been feeling a bit sick the last couple of days and it's hard for me to concentrate. Rather than have you wait, I'll at least leave these suggestions up here.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"ancient Greek thought" isn't exactly wrong, but why not simply say "philosophy" outright? Unless the goal is to ensure the word philosphy (and its variants) isn't repeated over and over in just two lines.
The main reason to use the word "thought" rather than "philosophy" is to avoid repetition. I think keeping the words "ancient Greek" is helpful since although hedonism was present in Indian and Chinese philosophy, it was not as important there as in Greek thought. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no no. I didn't mean the "ancient Greek" part had to change; just the "thought" part. And even that was more of a consideration. I wasn't 100% sure whether "thought" would be better over "philosophy", but I definitely agree it's better than the alternative of the same word being repeated three times in close proximity. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"As a student of Socrates, he formulated a hedonistic egoism"
Firstly, why "As a student of Socrates"? Does him being one of Socrates' students influence his philosophical thinking? Was Socrates a hedonist? The phrasing of this sentence makes it seem like it influenced the second one.
Secondly, is the use of "hedonistic egoism" intentional? Because earlier in the page, you use "egoistic hedonism".
Some sources prefer one or the other term but they are usually used interchangeably. I think you are right that consistency is better so I used the term "egoistic hedonism" throughout.
"He and the school"; clarify you're talking about Aristippus, especially since it helps you avoid repeating the word "he".
"main motivators fueling the passions". As in "one's passions"?
Hume uses the term "passions" to talk about emotional life. I reformulated the expression to avoid confusing the reader with Hume's terminology. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"advocating instead"; switch around the words for better flow.
Does "impartial hedonism" refer to utilitarian hedonism?
Yes, I added the term for clarification. I don't know if Sidgwick himself uses the term in this context, but his interpreters do. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding in my remaining comments for the article. Once these are addressed, I would like to reread the entire article once more. Hedonism is an interesting philosophy (particularly when combined with things like utilitarianism or Christian ethics) and you have done a wonderful job with this article. Admittedly, since my knowledge of philosophy is pretty limited, i had some difficulty reading and properly understanding this article; still do, lol. But I do hope that reading it through again will be easier.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Writing philosophy articles in a way that is accessible to readers with no philosophical background without leaving out central aspects of the academic discussion can be challenging. I usually aim for a level where a general audience understands at least all the most important points of the topic. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Some psychological hedonists propose weaker formulations". I kinda understand what you're aiming at here, but "weaker" seems like it could be replaced with a better word to indicate that some psychological hedonists argue that the search for pleasure isn't the only factors influencing human behaviour.
"This view asserts that the primary motivation". The primary motivation of what? Or do you mean that "humans' primary motivation for their actions comes from selfish drives"?
"secondary motivation". I might be wrong, but shouldn't it be plural?
I think both are possible in this case: we refer either to the general concept or to each individual instance of this concept. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You link altruism the second time it appears in the paragraph, rather than the first.
I believe I understand the first paragraph more clearly now, though I'm still slightly confused. I understand the distinction between X thing having intrinsic versus instrumental value. The example about money does help explain what instrumental value is. But isn't also possible to argue that money can have intrinsic value by itself for some people?
The paragraph does say that "according to axiological hedonism, only pleasure is intrinsically valuable". Doesn't that mean that whether a person finds pleasure in X thing/object is the only thing giving that value? If a person finds pleasure in the mere act of having money, doesn't that by itself make money have intrinsic value, and not just instrumental?
I guess the point of comparison used here seems a bit flawed, because it's essentially "pleasure has intrinsic value" vs. "X-thing has instrumental value", rather than being "X-thing" vs. "Y-thing" about comparing and contrasting intrinsic vs. instrumental value. But maybe that's just me.
Philosophically speaking, you raise a valid point. However, both of our sources cite money as an example of something that has only instrumental value, so I guess this is the standard view. One explanation could be the following: if a person enjoys money, the money-pleasure is different from the money itself, so the money has instrumental value as the cause of the money-pleasure. The philosopher Robert Audi developed a similar idea to what you are suggesting, in case you feel like going down this philosophical rabbit hole. He suggests that the money in your example has what he calls "inherent value" rather than intrinsic or instrumental value, see . But this is not a widely held position and discussing it in the section would probably violate WP:PROPORTION. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ethical hedonism
"utilitarian ethical hedonism". Is "ethical" here necessary?
The intro doesn't do that great of a job at telling the readers that "besides pleasure and pain, some other theories on hedonism take into account this XYZ thigns instead". I mean, the first paragraph does mostly do this about happines, but then the sections on well-being and eudaimonia dont, and come off as very abrupt.
I worked on the transition between the first and the second paragraphs. The main point of this subsection is to clarify pleasure-related concepts to discuss not only what hedonism is but also what it isn't. The paragraph on eudaimonia is not strictly speaking necessary. Various sources on hedonism mention the contrast to eudaimonia, but we could remove the paragraph if it is not helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"indicating a weak form of the hedonic treadmill". What exactly does weak form mean?
This is just to convey to the reader that an effect can be measured but that it is weaker than what proponents of the hedonic treadmill traditionally proposed. For example, our source says "the evidence for adaptation is not nearly as strong as many psychologists have tended to assume." Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient
Does the source describe exactly how the Epic of Gilgamesh displays a hedonistic philosphy? I'm guessing it's with Gilgamesh himself seeking pleasure, but I'm not sure.
Forgas & Baumeister 2018 talks about an exchange between Gilgamesh and Siduri, where Siduri argues that humans should spend their lifes indulging in pleasures. However, this may be too specific to mention in the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Lucretius (c. 99–55 BCE) further expanded on Epicureanism". First reference to this philosophy, which should be linked. Also, you didn't mention earlier that Epicurus spawned an entire philosophical movement.
"greatest good for the greatest number of people". Repetition of greatest.
Normally I would agree, but "the greatest good for the greatest number" is a typical slogan in utilitarianism so it's worth keeping. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have necessarily reviewed this one since my knowledge of ethics is not that great compared to other areas of philosophy, but since this didn't get any reviews previously I thought I would have a look through and add some comments. Shapeyness (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the effort! I'm not sure about the reason for the lack of reviews. I would have thought that this type of topic would attract attention on its own, but neither the first FA review nor the peer review before it did. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Psychological egoism: since this is an empirical claim, is there any work done on it from within psychology? E.g. any studies to test if it could be true.
Sections 4 and 5 of https://iep.utm.edu/psychological-egoism/ address this point, but there seems to be no clear verdict one way or the other. This source also says that While psychological egoism is undoubtedly an empirical claim, there hasn’t always been a substantial body of experimental data that bears on the debate., so we shouldn't overemphasize the empirical arguments. I could try to include some of the points in the last paragraph of our section "Psychological hedonism". The article is about psychological egoism rather than psychological hedonism but it explicitly defines psychological hedonism as one type of this view, so including pleasure-related arguments should be fine. What do you think? Phlsph7 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this shouldn't be overemphasised given the lack of strong evidence, but I think a mention is worth it here, especially since the IEP mentions "a great deal of empirical work beginning in the late 20th century has largely filled the void" (after it says there "hasn’t always been a substantial body of experimental data"). Shapeyness (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prudential hedonism is a form of axiological hedonism I didn't see the sources explicitly saying that
I guess it depends how one interprets the passage from Weijers: Hedonism as a theory about well-being (best referred to as Prudential Hedonism) is more specific than Value Hedonism because it stipulates what the value is for. I changed our formulation to "closely related to" to avoid the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ethical hedonism is often understood as a form of consequentialism Is this true? I may have an oversimplified understanding but I thought they were distinct positions, although they can be combined to get utilitarianism. This looks like what the cited sources are saying too.
I think you are right that this is not explicitly in the sources. Utilitarian hedonism is consequentialist and I guess one could make an argument from the sources that egoist hedonism typically also is, but we may run into problems of WP:SYNTH. I used the expression "combined with" instead of "understood as" to evade these difficulties. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
holds that pleasure and pain are attitudes The first two sources look like they are saying that pleasure and pain are the things the attitudes are directed at, not the attitudes themselves - the IEP one definitely says it is the attitude itself though. Is one of these more common than the other? Quite minor, but worth aligning the detail with the more common view I think.
It seems there two closely related theories, roughly: one says that pleasure is an attitude and the other says that individuals have a specific attitude toward pleasure. For our purposes and the contrast with the theory that pleasure is a sensation, the first theory is relevant. I removed the references that seem to only talk about the second theory and added another reference for the first theory. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
welfare economics examines how economic activities affect social welfare Does social welfare mean welfare spending in this context? (That is where the link currently goes.)
No, this is supposed to be about how people feel. I removed the wikilink and changed the expression to social well-being to avoid misinterpretations. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing all these Phlsph7! I checked some overviews to compare for comprehensiveness and coverage of key topics looks good. Sources also look good, although I am not sure about Adams IV 2004 or Blue 2013, not heard of the publishers and the authors don't seem to be experts in the field (I may be missing something). I would maybe suggest adding broader overview sources to as many figures in the history section as possible - even if they are less good sources for content, they are good supplementary sources to show to the reader that these figures are historically significant. More miscellaneous comments: McClellan 2015 - is McClellan the author or the translator? Also, very minor but I realised the sources are inconsistent between Oxford Bibliographies and Oxford Bibliographies Online, don't think it matters too much but thought I'd mention for completeness. Shapeyness (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced Adams IV 2004 with a better source and removed Blue 2013. I added a few more references to overview sources. McClellan is the translator of the main part of the book and the author of the section "Translator's Introduction". I put him as author since we only cite this section in the template. I removed the inconsistencies regarding Oxford Bibliographies. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: Yes, sorry for the delayed response! I just checked the sources and that looks a lot better. And since all my other comments have been addressed, I'm now ready to support. Shapeyness (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting at the nominator's invitation, although like Peter Wimsey, "I have not the philosophic mind ... I know that philosophy is a closed book to me, as music is to the tone-deaf".
My only comments are:
"Outside the academic context, hedonism is a pejorative term for an egoistic lifestyle seeking short-term gratification" – not sure about this. Neither the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) nor the Chambers Dictionary mentions "pejorative", "egoistic" or "short-term": Chambers says hedonism noun, ethics 1 the belief that pleasure is the most important achievement or the highest good in life. 2 the pursuit of and devotion to pleasure. 3 a lifestyle devoted to seeking pleasure
I weakened our claim to not imply that this is the only non-academic usage. Our sources say:
From Buscicchi § 1. Condensed Conceptual History: For a non-philosopher ... a hedonist is a person that pursues pleasure shortsightedly, selfishly, or indecently—without regard for her long-term pleasure, the pleasure of others, and the socially-appropriate conduct.
From Weijers § 1.a Folk Hedonism: According to non-philosophers, then, a stereotypical hedonist is someone who never misses an opportunity to indulge of the pleasures of sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll, even if the indulgences are likely to lead to relationship problems, health problems, regrets, or sadness for themselves or others.Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"what is attractive and aversive" – passing over the word "aversive" which I've never seen before and is described by the OED as "obsolete, rare", if you mean by the word what I think you mean, a little clarification would help: "and what is" before "aversive" would remove the possibility that something can be both at once.
I have read the text (rather slowly) and I think I understand it. The prose seems to me excellent – clear and jargon-free; insofar as I am any judge the proportions of the article are judicious; the sources are numerous and for the most part recent; the illustrations are first rate. I hope to add my support for promoting the article to FA, but I think I must wait to see what reviewers who know what they are talking about think of it. – Tim riley talk13:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All images have obvious encyclopaedic value and are well captioned, with alt text.
It's a nice thing to have an image in the lead, I think, if at all possible: it means that you also get one when you mouse over the name for a tooltip. Any good candidates here? Maybe a multi-image of Epicurus, Hobbes, Bentham and Nozick?
Following earlier FA discussions on lead images, I'm wary of this type of lead image. I added a more neutral diagram, please see if that works. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Epicurus-Altes Museum.jpg: we haven't actually said how old the bust is on the Commons page. It's really old, but this should probably be spelled out and cited. It could theoretically be a modern plaster-cast or replica, for example, which would not necessarily be PD.
This is yet another of these broad subjects for which "comprehensiveness" is hard to assess so I'll focus on the sources. They seem to be appropriately broad and while most are Western, there seems to be some Asian stuff too. One wonders if there is African or South American stuff as well. What makes "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for reviewing the sources! I added some sources from SciELO to cover South American publishers. I'm not sure if they fulfill the FA high-quality sourcing requirements but I hope it works as a compromise. Generally, it's hard to find high-quality academic English-language sources from non-Western publishers on the subject, but I'm open to suggestions if you have specific sources in mind. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an academic, peer-reviewed source. According to the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy, it is an excellent online philosophy encyclopedia ... refereed by distinguished editorial boards and peer reviewers. The Bloomsbury Companion to the Philosophy of Consciousness also recommends the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind non-English sources and neither does policy (WP:NONENG) when the English ones aren't "of equal quality and relevance". Unfortunately I don't have any African sources at hand - merely noted that there don't seem to be many. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done
.png)
Trout on my end; apologies for the mixup. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_retouched.jpg){kind=link}
_(14782093375).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
