Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2024 [1].

---

Freston (causewayed enclosure)

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is about another Neolithic site in England, this one being investigated by a Canadian research team, for some reason; only one excavation so far, so not a lot of findings to report, which is a pity as there's a possible Neolithic longhouse or Anglo-Saxon hall in part of the site, which I'm sure the team are keen to get to. The article has had a very helpful pre-FAC review from UndercoverClassicist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

sawyer777

very exciting, always happy to see archaeology at FAC! i can commit to a review for this in the next few days. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

initial suggestions/comments:

• (lead) i'd link person-days (redirect to "man hour" but still useful for those unfamiliar)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• (lead) it should be "McMaster" not "McMasters" University

  Oops. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• (site) link Anglo-Saxon here as well

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• (discovery, fieldwalking & watching briefs) "though this will require excavation to confirm." i'd change that to something more like "this would require excavation" or maybe "excavation would be required for confirmation".

  I agree that "will" doesn't sound ideal, but I don't think "would" works any better. The problem with "would" is that "X would later be required" can mean "X happened later, as was required"; we need a form of words that can't be misread to indicate it actually happened. I settled on "will", even though it jars a bit with the past tense of the narrative, because it's a true statement -- right now, excavation will be required to confirm what those features are. I thought about reversing it so that instead of saying what will be needed, it says that it hasn't happened: "... some of which could be Saxon sunken-featured buildings, though as they have not yet been excavated this has not been confirmed", but I think that's uglier and less true to the source's point, which is just "here's a theory, but it needs excavation to confirm it". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  fair enough! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• (finds from 2019 excavation) "acid soil" --> "acidic soil"

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• (sources) i'd add ISSNs to journals/periodicals where available, for consistency & usefulness to the curious reader

  I generally don't add ISSNs, though I often see people adding them to articles I write, and I don't remove them. I don't find them helpful myself. If you think it's necessary I'll add them, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  one citation does already have an ISSN, which is why i suggested it. i like to add them, but if you don't usually, then i have no objection to you removing that singular one! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  I went ahead and added them -- you're right that consistency is valuable, and I don't really object to them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

overall the prose and such is great, not many issues at all. i think i'll do a source review for this as well - if i've not done that by sunday, ping me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

source review

in terms of source quality, no complaints. especially for more rural/"obscure" sites like this, these (archaeological journals, books/chapters from university presses, government trust reports, &c.) are definitely the best kinds of sources one can find. if necessary i have real-life access to most of these, but not immediately on my laptop.

comments:

• Palmer (1976) is referenced but not listed in the bibliography. as far as i can tell, this is the only citation with this issue

a spot-check is probably unnecessary what with how many FAs you have, but just for good measure:

• 10 (Curwen 1930) - good
• 14a (Carter et al. 2021) - good
• 20 (Martin 2007) - good, quote matches up
• 32 (Wilson 1975) - good
• 47 (Schofield et al. 2021) - good
• 49 (Carter et al. 2021) - good

... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks -- have fixed Palmer. I can send you a copy of Curwen if you need it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

oh, sorry lol i forgot to put the "good" down for Curwen initially. now that we have Palmer 1976, support. :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

HF

Another archaeology one, I'll be sure to review soon. Hog Farm _Talk 23:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for how long it took to get to this; work got busiser than I expected.

Supporting, I read through it and had no concerns from a non-expert perspective. Hog Farm _Talk 22:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, HF; I appreciate the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith

Just some random comments for now.

• Freston is a causewayed enclosure,[4] a form of earthwork that was built in northwestern Europe, including the southern British Isles, in the early Neolithic period. I'd drop "including the southern British Isles". It's a long complicated sentence, and given that the entire article is about something in the southern British Isles, that goes without saying.]

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• The causeways are difficult to explain in military terms does the source actually say they're difficult to explain, or is that you editorializing?

  The sources do make this point. For example, Cunnington says "It is very difficult to see why the frequent openings in the entrenchment should have been left, when apparently they must weaken it so materially, if it was intended for purposes of defence ... [one theory is] that they had some distinct purpose in the scheme of defence; that they were, indeed, a strengthening and not a weakening factor in this seemingly not very strongly-defended place". She goes on to give other possibilities, including the sally port suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• There is also evidence that they played a role in funeral rites, you need to go back to the previous paragraph to be sure what "they" is referring to; probably better to be more specific here.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• material such as food, pottery, and human remains was deliberately deposited I think this is grammatically correct in a strict way, but it reads funny. The subject of "was" is "material", so it's correct to use the singular form of the verb, but at first scan you see "human remains was" which is jarring. Can this be rephrased to avoid that?

  Had a go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• they were built in a single operation what evidence is there for this? I assume the source says so, but enquiring readers will want more.

  The source doesn't say so -- the statement comes in the concluding summary of an article about causewayed enclosures, and doesn't cite a source or give more explanations. I think the source is strong enough to include this, even without further explanation, though I agree I'd like to be able to say more on the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Since these are found in both continental Europe and the British Isles, the obvious question is how did they get across the water, by whom, and when, and in which direction? I see you touch on this briefly at the ends of the "Background" and "Site" sections, but I think it deserves going into more and earlier in the article.

  I'm not sure I agree -- this is an article about a specific causewayed enclosure, after all, not about the whole class of causewayed enclosures. There's already a fair bit of text in the article that is not specific to this particular site (compare Great Wilbraham (causewayed enclosure) and you'll see what I mean) and I'd rather not go further in that direction if I don't have to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• The enclosure is 8.55 ha (21.1 acres) in area, "in area" is redundant.

  That was added in the pre-FAC review on the article talk page, so I'd like to leave it there and see if other reviewers have an opinion one way or another. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Four sherds of pottery were found link sherds -> Glossary of archaeology#potsherd

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

All responded to; thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

A few more comments...

• The Discovery, fieldwalking, and watching briefs section starts out a bit oddly with it not being found in 1944. I'd lead with the key idea, i.e. "The site was discovered in 1969", and then fill in the details about it not being found on earlier photos. Any idea why it wasn't seen in the 1944 photos? Were the 1969 images higher quality? It's also not clear what happened between 1966 and 1969; was there was one set of photos in 1966 and another set in 1969, or were the 1966 photos re-examined three years later using better techniques?

  I can do this if you really think it's necessary, but I like the directly chronological approach, rather than having to step back in time in the second sentence to 1944. To answer your question, the source says there was no sign of earthworks or cropmarks. The article says further down that the earthworks were long gone by the 20th century, and cropmarks are often only visible in very dry conditions, so if the 1944 photos were taken when it wasn't very dry the cropmarks would not have been there. The 1966 photos were taken for the Ordnance Survey and not as part of a search for cropmarks, and nobody noticed the evidence on them. At some point, no later than 1995, someone went back and looked for earlier photos and found the 1966 ones, and realized that the site was identifiable if anyone had paid attention. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• This may be outside the scope of WP:FACR, but I wonder if just plain Freston causewayed enclosure would be a better title, per WP:PARENDIS? Looking at Category:Causewayed enclosures I see people have done it both ways, so no strong feeling either way here.

  The sources don't tend to append "causewayed enclosure" to the name, which is why I haven't named the articles I've written that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• a group from McMaster University organized ... a pedestrian survey This is in the lead, but I don't see anything in the body that talks about a pedestrian survey. Or is this what you refer to as "fieldwalking"? If so, it would be helpful to non-expert readers (like me!) to either use the same term in both places, or explain the linkage.

  Added "(surveying the site on foot)" after the first use in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Freston is about 13 km (8 mi) from the sea; it would have been about 18 km (11 mi) from the sea at the start of the Neolithic. Why did this change by 5km? I'm guessing rising sea levels, but it would be good to explain that.

  The source doesn't say but it's sure to be sea level changes. I can probably find a source that says something about sea levels in the Neolithic, and might be able to use that, but I'm slightly hesitant about possible synth problems. I'll see what I can find and will report back. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  My first look didn't come up with anything I can cite, but this does imply that sea level is the reason -- the North Sea was low enough for Doggerbank to be above water only 2,000 years before the enclosure at Freston was constructed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Roy, anything further to add here? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, thanks for the ping. I've been dragged in different directions, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to just leave it as some informal comments. RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from UC

Good to see this here. I will chip in, though it might be wise to wait until we have a few more reviews (as I left comments on a recent draft): let me know if a good moment comes up, otherwise I'll keep my eye on the page. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist, I think this would be a good time if you have more comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive...

• near the village of Freston, in Suffolk, England: since we've got the in, we don't want the preceding comma.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• from shortly before 3700 BC until at least 3500 BC: consider from shortly before 3700 until...: the one BC can cover both, especially as there's not yet been an AD 3700.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• The Freston enclosure was first identified from cropmarks in aerial photographs in 1969: consider first identified in 1969: I think it's neater and more grammatical, and clarifies that the identification was in 1969, not (just) the photographs. Nit-picking, but I don't think we actually say this in the body: we have In 1969 J. K. St Joseph, who ran the Cambridge University Committee for Aerial Photography (CUCAP) program for many years, took aerial photographs that recorded cropmarks in the northern part of the site, but that doesn't actually confirm that anyone noticed that the photographs showed those cropmarks.

  The wording in the source is slightly odd: Dyer says (after mentioning the earlier photographs) "The site is generally accepted as being discovered in 1969 during an aerial reconnaissance flight by St Joseph when the site was first intentionally recorded by photography". I think the most natural way to interpret this is that St Joseph's was looking for sites, saw the cropmarks, and hence took a picture, but the "generally accepted" gives me pause enough to have prevented me making that statement directly in the article. The body does currently say "was not discovered until 1969", which I think does mean it was discovered in 1969, but if you think the source wording is definite enough I could reword. Perhaps "Aerial photographs taken by the Royal Air Force in 1944 showed no sign of cropmarks, and although the site was partly visible on photographs taken in 1966 this was not noticed at the time. The site was discovered in 1969 by J. K. St Joseph, who ran the Cambridge University Committee for Aerial Photography (CUCAP) program for many years; he identified it on a reconnaissance flight that year and took aerial photographs that recorded cropmarks in the northern part of the site." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think that source definitely puts the identification in 1969, so how about "first identified in 1969, from cropmarks..." UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Done in the lead. After thinking about it some more I've made the change I proposed above in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• The cropmarks show an enclosure with two circuits of ditches, and a palisade that ran between the two ditches: between the two circuits? We imply that there may have been more than one ditch in a circuit (which seems to be true, from the map)

  Done; also in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Consider a link to Survey (archaeology) on "pedestrian survey" and to Geophysical survey (archaeology) on "geophysical survey".

  Both added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Other finds included oak charcoal fragments that suggested the palisade had been made of oak: how about oak charcoal fragments, believed to come from the palisade? Seems to be stating the obvious at the moment.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Evidence of attacks at some sites provided support for the idea that the enclosures were fortified settlements.: hm -- there's pretty good evidence of attacks at Omaha beach, but I'm not sure that provides any evidence that it was a settlement. Perhaps a problem for the sources rather than the article, as long as those are unequivocal that fortification implies settlement status.

  The section of Whittle et al. that I am citing is an overview of causewayed enclosures in Britain; this particular paragraph starts by talking about the long history of multiple interpretations for them. After going through some of the assertions about them having been settlements, they say "Fortifications and defence, originally inferred from superficial similarity to Iron Age hillforts, returned to the fore in the 1980s with evidence for hostilities at sites such as Crickley Hill in Gloucestershire and Hambledon Hill in Dorset", and they cite the articles in which those suggestions were made. I've been taking this sequence as arguing that the fortifications were of the settlements just discussed, but perhaps that's reading too much into the sequence of presentation? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  I must admit I'm not seeing that from what you've written, but then you're looking at the source and I'm not. Is anything lost from cutting settlements here, and developing the two strands separately? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've cut it and tweaked a little -- I agree they don't have to be connected. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• used for trading cattle or other goods such as pottery: more importantly, its contents, surely? Again, a sources problem rather than an article one, I suspect.

  This is from later in the same summarizing section that I mentioned just above; I'm attempting to summarize a broad-ranging pageful of speculation (though I see that one of the relevant sentences actually starts on the previous page, so I'll amend the citation to say that). Here the relevant bits are "A role in animal herding, prompted by [various evidence] ... The frequency of pottery and lithics from remote sources, sometimes of finer quality and manufacture than local products, suggested that causewayed enclosures were foci for the exchange, consumption and deposition of significant objects ... [After suggesting that a family might have lived in an enclosure] The territory would provide most of the essential resources, such as ... [some] would be obtained by exchange with other groups ..." I picked cattle and pottery as representative examples. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think what you've got is reasonable, though perhaps gives more weight to the pottery than is due: as I read the source quoted, the point is that we can see the pottery and the lithics, and therefore infer that there were also other, similarly-valuable goods being passed around that are no longer archaeologically visible. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've cut the examples and left it as just "trading"; I think you're right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• as they were built in a single operation: consider as the enclosures were built...: it's been a while since we had the antecedent of they.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• either would make Freston a site of "potentially national importance", according to English Heritage.: do EH (or Historic England, as they now are) elaborate on why this would be so?

  All Martin says is "Two large pits recorded between the structure and enclosure ditches could be either Saxon Sunken Featured Buildings (SFBs) or relate to the Neolithic ditches (Hegarty and Newsome 2004, 66). Either date for the building would make it of potentially national importance." Carter quotes Martin, saying "In either instance it can be viewed as a structure ‘of potentially national importance’ (Martin 2007, 1), given the rarity of such buildings; it would also represent one of the largest known examples of either category" and goes on to say how few causewayed enclosures have Neolithic longhouses inside their perimeter.

  Can we add some of this -- seems to be that the point is that either building would make it an important site on its own, since both are very rare? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Added a bit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• and although the site was partly visible on photographs taken in 1966 this was not noticed at the time.: this is a little clumsy in phrasing, I think. Perhaps Aerial photographs taken by the Royal Air Force in 1944 showed no sign of cropmarks; the site is partly visible in a second series of photographs taken in 1966, but was not noticed at the time.?

  Done, but rather than "second", which might imply to the reader that these were also RAF photographs, I've made it clear they were taken by the OS. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• on the geophysics survey: usually on the geophysical survey, though admittedly most archaeologists would say geophys in person.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• The ditch probably predated the causewayed enclosure and may have been dug next to a long barrow, a form of Neolithic burial mound: is this the same mystery structure that might be an Early Medieval hall?

  No -- is this not clear? The building is in the northeast corner of the enclosure and this ditch runs from south of the trench, which is itself on the south side of the site. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Probably an artefact of me reading it in several parts, and slightly losing the track of where I was -- but perhaps there's room to idiot-proof it a bit more? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I am struggling a bit to find a way to say this that isn't just "by the way, this thing isn't that other thing I mentioned earlier". I've added more text to the site image caption, mentioning the long barrow as a separate entity from the longhouse. Does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Certainly -- I'm sure most readers will be far more switched-on than me. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• The chapter title of Andersen 2015 is in title case: other book and journal chapter titles seem to be in sentence case. Is there a logic here?

  No, no logic! Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Edwininlondon

With the caveats that I am neither an expert in neolithic structures nor a native speaker, I offer the following comments on prose. (My only somewhat relevant claim here is that I have been twice to Bury Ditches.)

• manuring practices in the 19th century --> elsewhere it is "eighteenth or nineteenth century"; be consistent

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• we have various spelling forms of directions, e.g. "the north-eastern part of the site", "the north-east of the site", "in northwestern Europe", "in the northeast corner", "the northeastern corner", "south to northeast",

  I think I got them all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• In 2019 a --> previous paragraph starts in similar way but with a comma

  They are now consistent (no comma). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• The survey identified located both the inner and outer ditches --> identified? located? but not both

  Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Features identified in the 2019 trench --> should this table not be next to the diagram?

  Ideally, but I don't think there's a way to lay out the page to achhieve that without sandwiching or causing other layout uglinesses. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• after the monument was abandoned --> this makes it sound as if it was a monument at the time of abandoning

  Changed to "enclosure". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• The palisade trench, F11, identified next to F2 contained oak charcoal, --> I would do the commas differently, but this is probably personal preference: The palisade trench F11, identified next to F2, contained oak charcoal,

  No, I think you're right; changed to the way you have it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• after the initial construction of the monument --> I think causewayed enclosure is better than monument

  Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

That's all. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; all addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• The title looks wrong to me. Freston would normally mean the village rather than the site. Why not Freston causewayed enclosure without the brackets?

  You're the second person to suggest this; I'll move the article, but I'll wait till the FAC is closed to avoid causing a problem with FACbot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• "A cropmark is an area of a field in which the crops grow differently because of differences in the soil beneath them." This is not quite right as a general definition. Cropmarks often indicate buried walls rather than different soils.

  Added a comment about sunken walls. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• "a long barrow, a form of early Neolithic burial mound". This is the first use of the term early Neolithic. I think you either need to explain it or describe the site as early Neolithic in the first line of the lead, as you do in the first line of the main text.

  I'm not sure I follow you -- the body is more specific than the lead, after all. A lay reader may baulk at "Neolithic"; I don't want to qualify it further in the lead if I can avoid it, since "early Neolithic" won't help those readers, and just "Neolithic" isn't wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  • I take it you re saying that the barrow dates to the same period so I think it would be better to spell this out - e.g. "a long barrow, a form of burial mound dating to the same period". Dudley Miles (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

    Actually I misread your comment, so let me start again. The barrow is likely to be even earlier than the enclosure, so I don't want to say "same period". I could cut "early" for the description of the barrow, both in the lead and the body, since the body makes it clear it would have predated the site. I could also make the lead "of a long ditch to the southeast that probably predated the enclosure, and which may have accompanied a long barrow, a form of Neolithic burial mound", which would be specific enough to remove the need for "early" in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

    • That would be fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

      Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• "one of the largest causewayed enclosures known". In Britain or overall? The McMaster site at [2] describes it as "one of the largest Neolithic monuments in Britain".

  The sources only support Britain so I've changed this in the body and the lead; I suspect it is large compared to most of the ones in Europe too, but I don't have the sources to support that and can't remember where I saw it or thought I saw it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Neolithic practices began to reach Britain in about 4050 BC". "Neolithic practices" is vague. As you will know, genetic evidence shows that it was Neolithic farmers who migrated to Britain at this time and replaced Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.

  I could make it something like "Neolithic practices, such as pottery and farming, began to reach ..." but strictly this isn't in the source, which has "Perhaps unsurprisingly, given its proximity to the mainland, the initial colonisation (‘Earliest Neolithic’) appears to have entered southeast England around 4050 cal BC (Fig. 1). Neolithic subsistence and other practices thereafter moved into south central England (‘Early Neolithic’) by the second half of the 38th century cal BC". Of course this is a reference to the Neolithic "package" of various practices that all appeared at the same time, but I would have to add another reference for that, so long as we think it's not SYNTH to do so? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  • The reference to colonisation would support Neolithic farmers instead of the vague prectices. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

    Yes; changed to "farmers". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• "the seafaring groups that crossed from mainland Europe". I have not come across "seafaring groups" in this context before. Do you mean that they were seafarers rather than farmers who migrated to Britain?

  No, it was just intended to say that they crossed by sea, so had to have some seafaring ability. I made it "the groups that crossed by sea from mainland Europe". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Aerial photographs taken by the Royal Air Force in 1944 showed no sign of cropmarks". I thought cropmarks are normally only visible during droughts. Is this correct and could it be why they were not visible then?

  I think cropmarks can occasionally be visible other than in times of drought, but yes, my understanding is that drought is when you get to see them. Dyer doesn't say anything about the 1944 photos other than that the cropmarks are not visible, so I don't think I can say more, but presumably there was not a drought at the time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Saxon sunken-featured buildings". Perhaps Anglo-Saxon is better. Saxon may refer to the Continental people.

  I'd like to stick with "Saxon" as that's how both the sources have it. Looking at Google Scholar it seems "Saxon" is at least as common as "Anglo-Saxon" when discussed these buildings. Perhaps they are also found on the continent so it's a term of art that is not restricted to Britain? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent whether to abbreviate and convert terms such as metre, e.g. 70 m (230 ft) but two metres. It is a matter of personal preference (I prefer always spelling out) but I think it is better to be consistent.

  Now consistent; I decided to abbreviate all of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think that the final paragraph beginning "Radiocarbon" belongs in the 'Site' section.

  Moved. I'm not entirely sure about this, since the radiocarbon dates depend on the site finds, but I see why you suggest the move, and on balance I agree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Another first class archaeological article from Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! And thanks for the review; all responded to above with a couple of questions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks -- and I made the remaining change per the comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I don't have much.

• "sally ports for defenders to emerge from and attack a besieging force.[note 2]" I feel the from in "emerge from" dangles a bit. Maybe "sally ports that defenders could emerge from and ..."

  I see your point; I made it "that defenders could emerge from to ...", which I hope connects the clauses smoothly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• "There is also evidence that the enclosures played a role in funeral rites: food, pottery, and human remains have all been found deliberately deposited in the ditches.[11] The construction of these sites would have required substantial labour for clearing the land, preparing trees for use as posts or palisades, and digging the ditches, and would probably have been planned for some time in advance, as they were built in a single operation." The sentences of this paragraph don't feel connected, and the second sentence feels more general than the first. I guess I expect a paragraph to start with the general and work its way to the specific.

  The "also evidence" is meant to be a reference to the "Evidence of attacks" in the previous paragraph; I think this sentence was moved to the next paragraph to avoid a short paragraph of one sentence. I've moved it back and have now joined the remaining sentence with the following paragraph. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• "either would make Freston a site of "potentially national importance"" Given the string of cites that followed, I think it would be helpful to the reader to say who is asserting this.

  The quote is from Martin (2007), who did the geophysical survey for English Heritage; the quote is then given verbatim in Carter et al. (2022). I decided to use the quote because Carter repeats it, so giving it more support, but although he supports it I think I just have to cite Martin as the source. I've done that -- let me know if that's enough or if you think Carter should be mentioned too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; changes made and a couple of notes above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 November 2024 [3].

---

The Sims 4

Nominator(s): TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the 2014 social simulation game The Sims 4. Initially released to mixed reception due to its limited variety of content and gameplay features, the game has since been significantly expanded upon by its developer Maxis, who has continued to support the game via free updates and many many DLC add-ons (thanks EA!). The game differentiates itself from previous entries in the series in several ways, such as: its stronger representations of gender identities and sexual orientations, fully-featured versions of the game on consoles, built-in online features (thankfully optional, unlike Maxis' SimCity, at launch), and being free-to-play from 2022 onwards.

This article achieved GA status in November 2022, after its third nomination (That was my fault, oops! I was a way more inexperienced editor back then.), and I have done a lot of work to the article to make it happen, including basically re-writing the whole thing. It's my first time attempting an FAC, so I am receptive to feedback and changes (including major ones, if necessary), but I do believe that the article has reached a point where it qualifies for FA status. Thank you in advance! TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Vacant0

Welcome to FAC! I'll have a look and review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 114: Change title to "The Sims 4 Review", add website: The Escapist
• Add the website for Ref 117, 122
• Ref 143: Change VGC to Video Games Chronicle
• Try to find a replacement for Ref 158 (Dexerto)

@Vacant0: Done. TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Please mention the EU/AU and UK release dates in the prose.
• Remove references for release dates in the infobox.

@Vacant0: Done. TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look at some parts of the prose this week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Wikilink the first mentions of macOS and Windows in the Gameplay section.
• "The newborn and infant life stages were introduced to the game in a 2023 update, and replace the baby life stage." → "The baby life stage was replaced by newborn and infant life stages in a 2023 update."
• "A new feature introduced in The Sims 4, is the ability to resize" – remove the comma
• "When constructing a building, buildings can have multiple floors" → "Buildings can be constructed with multiple floors."
• I did not notice any major issues in the rest of the Gameplay section. Everything looked understandable and clear.
• No issues spotted in Development.
• "A free playable demo of the Create-a-Sim feature was made available for download on August 12, 2014" – on which platforms?
• No issues were spotted in Release and marketing.
• In Missing features controversy, change "AI" to "artificial intelligence". Add the abbreviation AI in parenthesis if it's mentioned further in the article.
• I'm curious, but was there any reception regarding the soundtrack?

Another thing, @TenthAvenueFreezeOut:. Considering that this is your first nomination, FACs need to be assessed by several reviewers in order to get promoted. This also includes source and image reviews. It's soon gonna be a month since you've nominated this article for FAC, and so far, I've been the only one who left a review. So as a recommendation, you should follow the advice at §How to get the best from the process or simply ask WP:VG FAC editors to leave a review. Cheers and good luck, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ve made the above changes. Thank you for your feedback so far! TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll take another look at the article tomorrow. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Did not spot any further issues. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I’ll get to working on this within the next two weeks! I’m still committed to working on the FAC. TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't your fault @TenthAvenueFreezeOut! Gog let's you know about this out of formality. It's possible for FACs to close simply due to a lack of user reviews, unfortunately. Panini! • 🥪 13:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand, thank you! TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Review from Hurricanehink

Support - I figured I should since I have an open FAC with Hurricane Dennis. I've never played The Sims 4, just the first three, so I'm curious about the read.

• "The game was released in North America on September 2, 2014, for Windows" - odd to specify the release of North America, but not mention the rest of the world in the lead. And I get it, Europe/Japan was two days later, followed by the UK, so North America was the release to the world. But it was basically a worldwide release in September 2014. Also a nitpick, but you don't mention anywhere that the game was released in Japan, South Africa, or India, but that's available in ref 84.
• "It is the fourth major title in The Sims series, following The Sims 3 (2009). " - there should probably be a mention of The Sims 3 original release date with a citation, since the 2009 bit isn't backed up anywhere.
• Since you mention that it became free-to-play, is it worth mentioning how much the game cost at release?
• "Sims primarily make money by getting a job, and Sims need to develop skills for jobs; for example, Sims in the Culinary career track need to be proficient in the Cooking and Mixology skills." - I get that it's called the Sims, but could you find a way of saying "Sims" just once this sentence?
• "Paid downloadable content (DLC) packs expand the number of features, objects, worlds, and gameplay options available to play with." - the ending "available to play with" seems clunky, and would work fine ending at "options".
• "where individual Sims and families can be created and placed in the game world" - here is another example where I think you're saying "Sim" too many times, and just saying "where individuals can be created and placed". I mention that because you can also create two sims at the same time in Create-a-Sim and have them as roommates but not related, so it's not just necessarily families.
• "A new feature introduced in The Sims 4, is the ability to resize, move and duplicate entire rooms and buildings, along with all objects placed within the room or building." - should this be in new gameplay features?
• "A Sims-themed gaming headset, mouse, and "Plumbob" USB light designed by SteelSeries were released alongside the game's launch in 2014" - I feel like just quoting Plumbob doesn't do it justice what that word means, and how iconic that symbol is to the series. Might wanna explain what that is, at least until there's an article for Plumbob at some point in the future.
• "Content and feature updates continue to be developed for the game, as of 2024." - this might be a spot worth mentioning the upcoming expansion pack, since it's unsourced right now.

A pretty good read! Nothing major stood out to me, so it won't be much to get my support. Let me know if you have any questions about these comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the review.

• According to WP:VG/DATE, release dates for non-English markets should not be included, since this game was developed and published in the US. I’ve changed the phrasing to simply reflect its earliest official release date.
• Added in prose
• Price probably isn’t necessary for the article (WP:NOTPRICE)
• Done
• Done
• Done - changed it to “households”, which is the term used in the game.
• It’s an enhancement of the Build Mode portion of the game (present in all Sims games), rather than a completely new feature.
• An explanation of the “Plumbob” probably belongs in the The Sims article rather than here. (It is a good suggestion) I can’t currently find citations specifically discussing the Plumbob, so I’ll leave it as is for now.
• I’ve added a relevant citation, though it’s not about the expansion pack.

TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies, happy to support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Panini!

Leaving this here to lock myself into making sure I do it. Ping me if it takes me a while. Panini! • 🥪 03:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

...Yeah it's taken me a while. I can complete a review tomorrow. Panini! • 🥪 03:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

There's not much from me, save some few comprehensiveness concerns.

• I've done some general edits of my own for time's sake.
• "The Sims 4 topped the all-format video game chart in 2014" - Which chart?
• I was going to comment that you should link Maxis in Development where it first appears, but upon my immediate publishing in between edits you changed this regardless. I was scratching my head wondering if I was crazy and if Maxis was ever the first word of Development the first place.
• I had a general concern about the comprehensiveness of the Development section, but it doesn't seem like there's much to say in that regard after my own source hunting. I've added what I could find in the meantime.
• Is it possible to generalize more of the critic reviews within the reception section? GameSpot discusses visual design, and PCGamesN the depth, but I'm certain the critics have more overlap on subjects such as these. With being able to combine similar statements, something like "Critics praised the levels of depth", it can help break up the monotony of the "A said B" formula that most reception sections accidentally fall into. Once you have these generalized statements you can call on specific developers' insight, such as the ones that have unique phrasing or really specific compliments regarding a broad subject.
• LGBT representation is a hot subject among social simulation games. Considering how so many reporters covered these inclusions in future updates, I recommend it's worth a mention in reception if there's any specific critic commentary within these update announcements.
• Considering how this game is dominantly dependent on the people that play it (which is especially clear since looking through these sources, the players are very vocal about how this game is treated), are there any large audience praises/complaints that you can generalize into an "Audience response" subsection within Reception? I'm thinking something similar to The Last of Us Part II. Just general audience feedback about what they commonly enjoy about the game, and what they were vocal about; similar to the Missing features controversy but specifically for post-release commentary.

Panini! • 🥪 17:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read through the article and add comments!

3. I noticed the coincidental timing too. :P I kinda edited what you added, if that's okay.

4. Yeah, there really isn't much that can be done about the Development section. There's some additional stuff that I wanted to add about the game's online multiplayer origins (Google "The Sims Olympus" for more info), but there isn't a single citable article that I could use, so it's been watered down to "a stronger focus on online functionalities".

5. This is already the generalized version of the Reception section, per "Reviewers criticized The Sims 4's missing gameplay features and content compared to previous titles, particularly The Sims 3's "Create-a-Style" color customization tool, open worlds, and gameplay elements from its expansion packs; reviewers also noted encountering frequent loading screens and occasional glitches" and "On the positive end, reviewers praised the game's improved graphical quality, intuitive Build mode and Create-a-Sim tools, the Sim emotion and multitasking systems in gameplay, and the Gallery feature", because the reviews almost always just repeat these points over and over again. Wish I could add more, but critic reviews only covered the release version of the game, or its expansion packs. I'll try to tweak that section a little more though. However, I can't further trim the "Reception" section, as it had already previously been criticized as short by other editors.

6 and 7. These are good suggestions! I'll try to add those in the future. TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Sims4CAS.png and File:Sims4_Room_BuildMode.png have largely identical FURs to each other and to the lead image. Generally speaking, the more non-free imagery is used, the stronger the rationale needed to justify each. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Done! TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Airship

• Prose is generally clunky. From the lead:
  • "The game was moved to a free-to-play model on October 18, 2022, monetized by the purchase of various paid downloadable content packs that have been developed since its release." This sentence faces a severe lack of clarity. Grammatically, it means that the game was monetized by whoever did the moving then purchasing various content packs—if you were to keep it in the passive voice, you'd need to say "selling" instead of "purchase". Then, we have the unnecessary date—just say October 2022 or 2022—and "that have been developed since its release", which says pretty much nothing.
  • "the new emotion and personality systems" the article should be removed, because you have not referred to it before.
  • "Development of The Sims 4 began as an online-focused title" does not make sense, what you actually mean is "The Sims 4 began development as an online-focused title"
  • "but plans were shifted to a single-player experience" again, unnecessary use of the passive voice, and what exactly does the word "experience" mean here? Sounds like something out of a brochure.
  • "In the months leading up to the game's release, Maxis revealed that several features present in prior The Sims main titles would be omitted at launch" in addition to being wordy, this omits what seems to be the main relevance—that the cuts were controversial and heavily criticised by the playerbase.
  • "the lack of content compared to prior The Sims titles...and missing features" the difference being?
  • "numerous paid downloadable content packs, namely seventeen expansion packs, twelve game packs, and several stuff packs and kits; expansion packs are the largest content packs" excessively wordy, you can probably cut everything before the first comma and after the semicolon, and add "larger" or "smaller" where necessary.
  • Why do the "free content updates" get details of what they include but not any of the expansions or game packs?
• Lead needs work to match MOS:LEAD. Per MOS:OPEN, the first paragraph should define and identify the topic while providing context. Currently, the first and third sentences are good, but they are surrounded by sentences on release dates and pricing. Would suggest moving the latter information later in the lead, combining the second paragraph with the remainder of the first, and reorganising appropriately.
• "The most recent expansion pack, The Sims 4: Life & Death, is set to be released on October 31, 2024." is likely WP:RECENTISM and should be removed.
• Would expect worlds to be at least touched on in the lead, considering the frequency with which they come up in the body.
• At a glance, much of the infobox, such as the directors, producers, designers, and artists, are uncited.

Such extensive problems before we reach the body does not bode well for the article, and a quick skim shows quite a few issues. Lack of clarity, such as how can you construct a lot? Slightly promotional tone in the downloadable content packs section, see e.g. "Explore ruins, uncover artifacts, and encounter challenges in a Latin American-inspired jungle world. Learn about local cultures and collect unique ingredients"

I'm going to note an oppose for this nomination; I would suggest working it over with the help of a copyeditor or an experienced video game writer before renominating. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review :). I have generally addressed the above points mentioned. The lead for this article has been a little difficult to write, due to the open-ended scope of the game, and its many changes over the years. I hope it's clearer now, as of the latest article revision. If you're willing to further evaluate the article, I'm happy to cooperate. Also, I hope this citation for the credits is suitable, as I am not 100% sure how to cite game credits. TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I've played Sims 4 often times, but got bored with it eventually. I'm gonna add that you also need to italicize game titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE and possibly include some content like this one [4]? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Done @ the italicising game titles. I didn't add the link you requested, since there's already five other citations by Jess Lee in the article, and the section about Project Rene already has sufficient citations at the moment. But do let me know if I need to add more citations.

P.S. I do agree that it's easy to get bored with The Sims 4. Not my favourite in the series, I like Sims 2 a little more. TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't like how "The Sims 4 received mixed reviews from critics upon its initial release, who praised the game's visual design, improved artificial intelligence simulation for Sims, and the simplified building tools, but lamented the lack of or missing content compared to prior The Sims titles, frequent loading screens, glitches." was written (also, I don't understand what the "online-focused title" is). Sadly, after reading the lead, I will oppose this nomination aswell. The length of this article will make it challenging, but take your time with it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I've done some major copyediting to the article, including fixing the lead, and I rephrased the "online-focused" to "a stronger focus on online functionalities", but given the current discussion, I'll most likely withdraw the FAC anyway. Thank you for participating in the discussion! TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

SC

Rather reluctantly I'm also going to oppose. Can I suggest you withdraw this and work on it a bit further before bringing it back. Issues include (and these are only examples, there are others):

• "The game introduces a newly developed custom game engine": "introduced". (Although we should write about plots, characters in the present, the introduction of a game engine happened in the past
• Link to game engine
• "an online-focused title": what does this actually mean? I think I know what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure. Do you mean "an online game" instead?
• "leading up to the game's release, Maxis revealed that several features present in prior The Sims main titles would be omitted at launch": as the game hadn't been released, do we need "at launch"?
• "but lamented the lack of or missing content": leaving aside that "lamented" isn't terribly encyclopaedic, is there something missing here?
• "expansion packs and twelve game packs, which are larger packs": any chance of a synonym for the final "pack" which explains what a "pack" is? (Not everyone plays computer games and the terminology doesn't always make sense to outsiders)

That's just the lead, and I could carry on in the same vein with the rest. It's not a bad article by any stretch—it's very good in many respects and in many places—but I think it needs a bit of a polish before it is reopened at FAC. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I've done some major copyediting to the article, including fixing the lead, and I rephrased the "online-focused" to "a stronger focus on online functionalities". I think I've resolved all the issues in the lead that you've mentioned. There's additional development history about the game's online multiplayer origins (Google "The Sims Olympus" for more info), but due to lack of citable sources, it's been reduced in the prose to "a stronger focus on online functionalities". Given the current discussion, I'll most likely withdraw the FAC anyway. Thank you so much for your participation! TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Sadly it does not look as if a consensus to promote will be reached at this time, so I am going to archive this. The usual two-week hiatus re new FAC nominations will apply. The comments above look helpful and the nominator should be aware of GoCE and PR. I hope to see the article back here before too long. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2024 [5].

---

Leroy Chollet

Nominator(s): Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I first read about Leroy Chollet in a local newspaper that mentioned him as an African American basketball player who played in the Whites-only inaugural NBA Finals because he did not tell anybody that he was Black. That sounded a bit off, so I googled him but didn't find much. The Wikipedia article was a stub. As I read about the guy, I expanded his article. This is my first nomination, so feel free to offer any guidance on this process. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

750h

Lovely article. I'll take a look. All of the suggestions listed may be rejected with justification. 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

lead

• and became a teacher and varsity head coach for the school. I'd remove "for the school"; i think the start of the sentence does the job

early life

No problems here. 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

college carreer

• colleges were segregated, and neither remove the comma
• rival colleges Louisiana State University (LSU) and Tulane remove the acronym "(LSU)", as it's not used later in the article

professional career

• ball to the teams' veteran players ==> "ball to the team's veteran players"

later life

• No problems here. 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Excellent work for a first nomination, short and sweet article, hope we'll be seeing this on the main page as TFA soon! 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, 750h+, I've addressed the comments above in the article,[6] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. 750h+ 23:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I did the GA review for this and am glad to see it here at FAC. I left some comments on the article talk page in preparation for FAC, and I see those have been dealt with, but rereading the article now I have a couple more comments.

• I can see why the Loyola national championship is mentioned in the first sentence, but it's awkward because the third sentence has to repeat the information, since we're recounting his timeline and that's early in it. It might be best to cut the first sentence all the way down to "was an American professional basketball player", and let the succeeding sentences tell the story.
• Suggest adding "He died in 1998" to the end of the lead.
• In the lead, "When Chollet's African American heritage was revealed" is followed by a note giving the details of his paternal great-grandmother, and that note is used again in the body of the article. I don't see any reason why those details can't be brought into the body, and for the lead I'd suggest something like this: "Chollet had one black great-grandparent, and when this was revealed he was pressured into leaving Loyola. He moved to New York ..."
• Why is note 3 in a note instead of in the body of the article? It's only marginally relevant to Chollet, but if we're going to include it at all I think it's interesting enough to be promoted to the body of the article.
• Similarly can we incorporate notes 4 and 5 into the article? These are good quotes; no reason to bury them; and "could not influence the unfolding events" is not as effective as the quotes it summarizes.
• "Louisiana newspapers did not openly publish their ancestry": what is meant by "openly publish"? I'm sure this isn't in contrast to clandestinely publishing their ancestry, but I don't know what is intended instead.
• Can we get links for the BAA and NBL, and a link in the body for the Syracuse Nationals (currently only linked in the lead and infobox).
• "Chollet was the varsity head coach from 1956 to 1960 and retired from teaching in 1985. He was an administrator for community sports programs at the Lakewood Recreation Department from 1960 to 1980": any reason this is out of chronological order? Can we mention his retirement after his work for Lakewood Recreation Department, in other words?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, Mike Christie, addressed in article,^[7] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Support; fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "he became a role player" - what's a "role player"? Is there an appropriate link? I presume it doesn't mean that he played Dungeons & Dragons ;-)
• "Chollet signed with the Syracuse Nationals" - link the Nats
• "In the NBA, Chollet was a reserve guard tasked with facilitating" - are there appropriate links to whatever a "reserve guard" is and whatever "facilitating" is?
• "Chollet was the varsity head coach" - what does this mean? "Varsity" would suggest to me a university, but it was a high school.....?
• That's all I got on prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, ChrisTheDude! Linked the Nats. I've added "role player" to the glossary of basketball terms and added a link to this article's lead. In the body, I've tried to explain his role in the NBA with less jargon. Is that more clear? Regarding "varsity", I've specified that he was a high school varsity coach and added piped links to varsity team. In high school, it contrasts with a JV or freshman coach. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review

Images are well placed. Have the newspapers been checked for a copyright notice? Does the ALT text for the second image have to be this long. Source-wise, is there a reason for the inconsistent application of "via newspapers.com."? What makes Statscrew a reliable source? Newspapers seem to be inconsistently formatted, both between the "References" and "Sources" section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• I checked the newspapers for copyright notices.
• The alt text is longer for one image because it includes the caption from the newspaper. This makes the text in the image accessible (Example 3). To shorten it, I'd need to crop out the caption.
• Removed "via newspapers.com".
• I'm basing the reliability of Stats Crew on WP:USEBYOTHERS. It has been cited by a variety of reliable news sources,[8][9][10] and I don't see any doubting it. The article cites it only for the table of ABL stats, so if it doesn't meet FA standards, I can remove that two-line table.
• For consistency, I've used similar parameters for all the newspaper sources.[11] The sources cited inline and left out of the "References" section list are all primary sources.

Thanks for checking it out, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason why I am questioning Stats Crew is because I don't see a clear editorial mechanism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Gotcha, I've removed the ABL stats cited to Stats Crew. It's just there as an external link now. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems OK. Unrelated to sourcing, but ALS should be spelled out IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Done. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo, as a first-timer, this one also needs a source to text fidelity check and a plagiarism check. Is this something you may feel like covering? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check

* 1 Can I have a copy of this source?

• Why does the article use different names than the source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I see "Alfred, grew up and married a woman named Olga" in the source and "Olga and Alfred" in the article. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Somehow I put a comment about the current source #6 (about the brothers) under #1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus Gotcha. Looking at those pages Leroy Patrick Chollet and Hillary Anthony Chollet seem to match the article. Most sources call Robert Alfred Chollet "Al Chollet" or "Al". To make clear that Wikipedia is not the one giving him a nickname, I've done a small change.[12] On page 70, second paragraph, that source begins calling him Al. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• 2 Where does it discuss retirement?
  • Check [37] at the end of the sentence, "The Canisius grad said during the past season that it would be his last year. [in the ABL] [...] LeRoy will be moving into a new field this Fall, that of high school coaching and teaching." I added citation [2] to the end of the paragraph because I was citing older sources and needed a more recent overview. "Career" lists the years he played professional basketball or coached high school basketball. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• 3 Can I have a copy of this source?

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• 5 Can I have a copy of this source?

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• 7 Can I have a copy of this source?

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• 8 Can I have a copy of this source?

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• 9 Can I have a copy of this source?

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• 10 Can I have a copy of this source?

  On which basis are some teams mentioned and others aren't? I know it's a long list but there has to be some selection criterium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus I added every team that I could clearly identify.[13] That was too many, so I removed each team that was not mentioned at least 15 times.[14] I think that meets WP:DUE, but let me know if that method seems too arbitrary, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Seems reasonable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• 12 Can I have a copy of this source?

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• 16 That doesn't say "Chollet parents endured harassment" exactly, nor "both brothers were pushed out of New Orleans' white universities"
  • I messed that one up when reformatting something else. I've added the citation to Lewis (2020) at the end of the sentence. It says, "Alfred and his wife, Olga, had been harassed after word got out about their lineage". Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• 17 Can I have a copy of this source?

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• 19 It doesn't say "Canisius later claimed Leroy Chollet as their first African American basketball player"
  • That 2023 source says "the school claims Chollet as its first African-American basketball player". Is the concern about changing the tense? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  No, just an oversight. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• 23 Can I have a copy of this source?

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• 24 OK
• 25 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • [15] I've gone back now that I have consistent access to their site and linked clippings of each of the sources available via newspapers.com. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  That one says 1117, not 1116? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus It does, but the school's official records and modern secondary sources give 1116. I'm not sure why their running total was one point off. If it's needed, I can add a footnote explaing all that, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Probably better to put a footnote, numbers in the source being different from these in the article is something I always view as suspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Gotcha. It's currently footnote [c], done similar to the examples at WP:WSAW. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• 27 Where does it say that?
  • "Even with the impressive National in its name, the NBL remained primarily based in the Midwest and Great Lakes region during its life span. Despite its geographical limits, the NBL became the premier and most stable basketball league of its era. [...] During its first six seasons, when the league was largely populated by pre-merger players, the NBA was dependent on and dominated by the old NBL teams. The first six NBA champions were former NBL teams. Even the franchises finishing as Finals runners-up were mainly from the NBL." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• 28 Where is "Syracuse was one of the league's smallest markets"? Also, I am not sure that "playing time" was the main issue going by the source.
  • "Syracuse. I was there longer than anywhere else, as both a player and coach. It was one of the smallest towns in the league," and "Cervi did not use Chollet much [...] Chollet did not send Cervi in until the last 30 seconds or so—about the usual time Cervi sent in Leroy". Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• 29 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • [16] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  OK, including after the sentence split. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• 30 Can I have a copy of this source?

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• 38 Can I have a copy of this source?

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I notice that there is an inconsistent citation format between the notes and the article text. Unrelated, but I wonder if Milan Cemetery could be linked anywhere - for me it sounds like Milan the Italian city. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I appreciate you checking them out. In one case above, I somehow removed a citation without realizing it and have put it back. In the others I've offered quotes. I've wiki-linked Milan to Milan, Ohio. Regarding "an inconsistent citation format between the notes and the article text", does that mean using citation footnotes in the explanatory footnotes? That's worse for accessibility (on mobile), but I can do that if it's an FA requirement. To provide a copy of the sources noted above, can I email you? Since you're catching some errors, I'm going to try to double-check the cited pages first. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes (on the email thing) and yes (the footnotes and article text should be using the same citation style) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The explanatory notes now also have footnotes (instead of parenthetical citations). I've added links to two of the requests above. With newspapers.com working consistently, I was able to clip and link a bunch of the newspaper sources. Since the first post in this section,[17] I've gone over the citations and added a page number to one of them, so the footnote numbers will be different. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we are done here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again. I appreciate the patience with citation questions, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• "He retired from professional basketball, married Barbara Knaus, and moved to her hometown, Lakewood, Ohio". Could we have a date for each of these three things. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Done: added a secondary newspaper source talking about Chollet's personal life and a primary newspaper source for the marriage license to give the date.[18] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 October 2024 [19].

---

Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 19:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is about volcanism of a volcanic complex in British Columbia, Canada, that has been erupting episodically for at least the last 7.4 million years. I'm renominating it for FA because there was no consensus for promotion in the last FAC, not to mention there were incomplete reviews. As I've explained in the previous FAC, the reason this article cites Souther a lot is because he's the only geologist to have studied the Mount Edziza volcanic complex in detail, not because the article isn't well-researched which is 1c of the featured article criteria. Most volcanoes in Canada are not well-studied due to their remote locations; Canada also doesn't have a lot of volcanologists.

Tagging those who were involved in the previous FAC: Arconning, Gog the Mild, Eewilson, Dudley Miles, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Volcanoguy 19:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Everything in Arconning's previous image review still stands; everything seems to be properly licensed and thankfully features alt text. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Support by JJE

• "It is the second largest " begs the question "what's the largest?"

  Clarified. Volcanoguy 17:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I assume that the reference for that sentence supports this information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. Volcanoguy 19:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• "eruption recurrence interval" might warrant an explanation for laypeople.

  Reworded. Volcanoguy 19:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The most voluminous rocks" I dunno, something sounds unclear/ambiguous about this sentence but I am not sure.

  "The most voluminous rocks" is definitely used in scholar sources. Volcanoguy 18:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but I am not sure if the lay reader would understand this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• "conformably" needs glossing.

  Removed "conformably". Volcanoguy 17:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• "They reached a maximum thickness of more than 300 metres (980 feet) near their source to only a few metres thick at their terminus" I think this sentence should be split.

  Why split it into two small sentences? Volcanoguy 17:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Relatively large atmospheric contents" this may require explanation.

  Problem is that the source doesn't explain what the "atmospheric contents" are. Volcanoguy 18:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  OK. Wearily familiar with this kind of problem with my own articles... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• "An anomalously old potassium–argon date of 10.2 ± 1.4 million years has been obtained from Armadillo comendite" so is it erroneous?

  Apparently, the source doesn't directly say it's erroneous though. Volcanoguy 17:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The predominantly rhyolitic eruptions were later replaced by the effusion of trachyte lava as deeper parts of the underlying magma chamber were tappe" 'replaced' is an odd word choice here.

  Replaced with "followed". Volcanoguy 17:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• "that resulted in the formation of a crater" overlong.

  How? Volcanoguy 17:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  "that produced a crater" Or some other word than "produced". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• "was substantially eroded " by what?

  The source doesn't say, my guess is glaciers and streams. Volcanoguy 17:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Either the article or File:Pyramid Formation cross section.png have a typo. I believe commons:COM:GL is the place to request a fix.

  Fixed. Volcanoguy 18:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• "agglutinated" might require glossing.

  I could change this but "agglutinate" isn't a technical word as far as I'm aware of. Volcanoguy 17:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the article topic is comprehensively covered, maybe one could say something about the research history? Already checked sourcing the last time, so nothing from me to add. I presume that File:Big Raven Formation.png and the other maps weren't copied verbatim from the source? I think with ALT text for maps, we usually try to pass on the information in the map in text form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No, the maps weren't copied verbatim from the source. Not much to say about the research history. Volcanoguy 17:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

OK. Since I reviewed the other criteria too, I'll file an official support here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

HF - support

I hope I can find time to review this over the weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 00:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: A review shouldn't take very long; the article text has not changed much since your pre-FAC review in April. Volcanoguy 03:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Noting that several months ago I performed a pre-FAC reviews at Talk:Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex#Pre-FAC review. Hog Farm _Talk 19:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The Nido eruptions deposited 127 cubic kilometres (30 cubic miles) of volcanic material, making the Nido Formation the second most voluminous geological formation of the second magmatic cycle" but also "The Spectrum eruptions deposited 119 cubic kilometres (29 cubic miles) of volcanic material, making the Spectrum Formation the second most voluminous geological formation of the second magmatic cycle". I don't see how both of these can be true

  Corrected. Volcanoguy 20:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• "However, this possibility cannot be confirmed until additional age-related data are provided for The Neck" - this is to a source over 30 years old. Has any of the more modern literature addressed this possibility?

  Not that I know of. Volcanoes in northern British Columbia (which are probably the most remote in BC) can go decades without much studies. Volcanoguy 21:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Likewise, Level Mountain northwest of the MEVC has not received much geological work since Hamilton's studies in the 1980s. Volcanoguy 21:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Most studies since Souther (which are relatively small) seem to have focused largely on interactions between ice and lava. Volcanoguy 21:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Obsidian from the Hidden Falls archaeological site in Alaska" - is this Hidden Falls (Baranof Island, Alaska)?

  Yes, linked. Volcanoguy 20:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The subaqueous material was deposited in a lake that may have ponded between the erupting volcano and a lobe of glacial ice." vs "the only recorded volcano-ice deposits of the Nido Formation occur on Idiji Ridge where molten basalt was quenched against ice and formed tuff breccia in meltwater ponds". Maybe I'm misunderstanding these things, but they don't seem to fit together well

  I've removed the second sentence to avoid confusion. Volcanoguy 21:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

From some quick looking for sources, it seems unavoidable that Souther is used this heavily. Hog Farm _Talk 19:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by GeoWriter

Lead

• "the latter seven rock types"

Only seven rock types are listed, therefore "latter" should be removed.

Corrected; changed to six. Volcanoguy 17:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your change - retaining "latter" but changing "seven" to "six" is correct. GeoWriter (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Background

• "composite shield volcano consisting of multiple flat-lying lava flows forms the plateau."

How much do you want to keep the word "composite"? I think it is an unnecessary and problematic term here that could confuse readers if e.g. they have been investigating the different types of volcanic landforms. Most sources, including Wikipedia, emphasise that shield volcanoes and composite volcanoes have different features and are not the same type of volcano. Confusingly, "composite volcanoes" are usually assumed to be synonymous with stratovolcanoes; in Wikipedia "composite volcano" redirects to the stratovolcano article. This would probably raise questions in the readers' mind such as "if the Mount Edziza complex includes a composite volcano, how can that volcano be a shield volcano?" and "if the Mt Edziza complex includes a shield volcano, how can that volcano be a composite volcano?" Where will they find the answers to such questions at the moment? Not in this Mount Edziza article. I recommend that it is better to remove the term "composite" from this Mount Edziza article.

Removed "composite". Volcanoguy 17:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Eruption rate and composition

• "This would make the MEVC the most active eruptive centre in Canada throughout the Holocene"

"Would" implies either it will happen in the future or it would be true if an (unspecified) condition did not apply. I suggest this should be changed to "This makes the MEVC the most active eruptive centre in Canada throughout the Holocene".

Done. Volcanoguy 18:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Raspberry eruptive period

• "Volcanism during Raspberry time did not experience long periods of quiescence"

I suggest that this should be changed to "Volcanism during Raspberry time did not have long periods of quiescence"

Done. Volcanoguy 19:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "but the valleys and lowlands would remain filled with thick piles of basaltic lava flows which would later be overlain by the much younger Mount Edziza ..."

Unnecessary use of some type of historical present/future tense. Past tense is much clearer and simpler. I suggest that this should be changed to "but the valleys and lowlands remained filled with thick piles of basaltic lava flows which later were overlain by the much younger Mount Edziza ..."

Done. Volcanoguy 19:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Little Iskut eruptive period

• "around the parameter"

Should be changed to "around the perimeter".

Done. Volcanoguy 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Nido eruptive period

• "around the parameter"

Should be changed to "around the perimeter".

Done. Volcanoguy 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Ice Peak eruptive period

• "exposing bedded tuff and debris that ponded inside a former crater lake"

I suggest that "ponded" should be changed to "accumulated" or "piled up", similar to what has been written for the Pillow Ridge debris.

Done. Volcanoguy 18:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "A circular volcanic plug called The Neck formed southeast of Ice Peak on the northern side of Sorcery Ridge during this eruptive period. It consists of an older outer ring of fine grained trachyte and a younger inner core of coarse grained trachyte, suggesting The Neck was the source of more than one trachyte eruption. This roughly 300-metre (980-foot) in diameter volcanic conduit has a potassium–argon date of 1.6 ± 0.2 million years which may be due to excess argon."

Is 1.6 ± 0.2 million years is the age for the older or younger part of The Neck? Is there an age available for the other part? Why is The Neck thought to be two masses of trachyte rather than two sections of a single mass with differential cooling features of a slow-cooling core and faster-cooling margins?

Source doesn't specify and 1.6 ± 0.2 million years is the only age given. Volcanoguy 18:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

OK about the single age, but as you did not comment on my question about whether or not The Neck is two masses versus one mass (of two differently cooled parts), I checked the relevant section in your cited source for details of The Neck. My understanding of the Neck, from the cited source, is: The Neck comprises two distinct sets of structures: (1) an outer set of concentric rings of fine-grained, foliated trachyte with well-developed centripetal horizontal columnar jointing; (2) an inner set of planar or gently curved tabular bodies of coarse-grained, unfoliated trachyte with less well-developed horizontal columnar jointing. The internal stucture suggests that the The Neck is the end result of some volcanic eruptions. The cited source does not explicitly state what was produced by any single eruption. I found no mention of the outer rings being older and the inner cores being younger, nor any mention that a specific core body is paired with any specific outer ring. My understanding of the cited source is not consistent with your sentence: "It consists of an older outer ring of fine grained trachyte and a younger inner core of coarse grained trachyte, suggesting The Neck was the source of more than one trachyte eruption." Can you clarify or explain your current wording? GeoWriter (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Did some rewording. Volcanoguy 17:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Your revised wording is OK. GeoWriter (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Pillow Ridge eruptive period

• "may have been leftover from"

I think "leftover" as a single word is a noun or adjective e.g "to eat the leftovers from a meal" and "to eat the leftover meal". The verb is "to be left over" i.e. two words. I suggest this should be adjusted accordingly for whichever option you intended.

Done. Volcanoguy 19:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Edziza eruptive period

• "The lava domes were punctuated by vent-clearing explosions"

Do you really mean "punctuated", or do you mean "punctured" (pierced)?

Source uses "punctuated". I've reworded this sentence a bit maybe it makes more sense now? Volcanoguy 18:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Your revised wording is fine. GeoWriter (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The trachyte erupted during this period straddles near the pantelleritic trachyte and comenditic trachyte boundary."

I've not seen the phrase "straddles near (the boundary)" in formal English. I've only seen "straddles the boundary"; "near" seems to be unnecessary - a boundary is straddled if something lies on one side and the other. "Near" seems to be already implied and "straddle" would be inappropriate if there was no nearness to the boundary.

Removed "near". Volcanoguy 20:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Nanook Dome; lava from this dome flowed down the stratovolcano and into the summit crater to form lava lakes."

Can you clarify why you have used the word "and"? Did lava flow from the summit rim into the summit crater only or did lava flow from the summit rim down the exterior flanks of the mountain and also from the summit rim into the summit crater?

Clarified. Volcanoguy 18:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You changed the wording to "lava from this dome flowed down the exterior flanks of the stratovolcano and into the summit crater to form lava lakes". I think it would be even clearer if you tweaked "and into the summit crater" to "and also into the summit crater". GeoWriter (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Volcanoguy 16:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Triangle Dome and Glacier Dome formed on the western and northeastern flanks of Mount Edziza, respectively, the former of which may be the product of subglacial volcanism"

"The latter" is way to refer to the second member in a set of two members but you have used it to refer to one member (or perhaps one subset of two members) of a set of four members (Triangle Dome, Glacier Dome, western flank, northeastern flank) split into two subsets (domes, flanks) each of two members (Triangle Dome, Glacier Dome) and (western flank, northeastern flank). Therefore "the latter" is too ambiguous. This should be clearer/more explicit. Also, "of which" is unnecessary and should be removed.

Revised. Volcanoguy 18:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The text is now "Triangle Dome and Glacier Dome formed on the western and northeastern flanks of Mount Edziza, respectively; Triangle Dome may be the product of subglacial volcanism. A trachyte flow from the latter dome travelled around the base of the older Pyramid Dome into the head of Pyramid Creek." Your change that fixed the previous point has caused the ambiguity about "the latter" to spread further along the paragraph. Your second mention of Triangle Dome now makes this the latter dome introducing what I think is an error - it implies that the flow around the base of Pyramid Dome has come from Triangle Dome, which I think is an error. I think the flow actually comes from Glacier Dome, so I suggest that you should change "the latter" to "Glacier Dome". I know it's a lot of mentions of the word "dome" but I think the clarity would be greatly helped in this case. GeoWriter (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, fixed. Volcanoguy 15:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Arctic Lake eruptive period

• "Tadekho Hill, a cinder cone 4 kilometres (2.5 miles) to the south, formed on top of a 180-metre-high (590-foot) remnant of Spectrum trachyte. Lava from Tadekho Hill spread onto the surrounding plateau surface to form a small shield volcano.

Can you clarify how lava erupted from a cinder cone can form a shield volcano?

Removed. Volcanoguy 18:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "during a massive lava eruption" (at Source Hill)

Can you quantify "massive"?

I don't understand this question. Are you asking what "massive" means in this context or how "massive" the eruption was? Volcanoguy 19:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

"Massive lava eruption" could mean either (1) a very large eruption or (2) eruption of lava that has a homogeneous texture when solidified. So, which do you mean in this case? (Most readers will assume that "massive" means "very large", hence my previous question - how big is very large?) If you mean "very large", I suggest you could reword to "during a massive eruption of lava" or "during a very large eruption of lava" to avoid any possible confusion. GeoWriter (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Changed to "during a massive eruption of lava". The source doesn't make it clear how massive the Source Hill eruption was unfortunately. Volcanoguy 16:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

'Snowshoe Lava Field'

• "massive lava flows"

Can you quantify "massive"?

No, the source doesn't quantify how "massive" the lava flows are. Volcanoguy 19:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The cited source states "a massive effusion of basaltic lava". Therefore, I suggest that, in this case, "massive lava flows" should be changed to "very large lava flows" to avoid anyone thinking it could have the alternative rock texture meaning. GeoWriter (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Volcanoguy 16:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Kana Cone and Walkout Creek centres

• "Several pulses of lava took place"

I suggest that this should be changed to "Several episodes of lava eruption occurred".

Done except I used "effusion" instead of "eruption"; using "eruption" twice in the same sentence doesn't sound right. Volcanoguy 19:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. GeoWriter (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Sheep Track Member

• "Fission track dating has yielded an age of 950 CE ± 6,000 years for the Fission track dating has yielded an age of 950 CE ± 6,000 years for the Sheep Track pumice"

The error range is ±6000, which is ±600%. The -6000 part of that is so enormous that it makes the date expressed in this specific format a nonsensical and meaningless date in the distant future. It is not worth quoting from the cited source in this format. The error range apparently spans c. 5000 BCE to 7000 CE, which implies that the rock may not have even formed yet but it will form sometime before 7000 CE. An absurdity. Absolute dating error ranges should be meaningful, not just be numbers in an mathematical equation or in a graph. An alternative way to report the age of this particular rock unit is something along the lines of "probably 6000 to 1000 years Before Present" (source: Wilson, A.M. and Kelman, M.C. (2021) "Assessing the relative threats from Canadian volcanoes", Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8790, https://emrlibrary.gov.yk.ca/gsc/open_files/8790/ (spreadsheet appendix, table A1, row 307, Sheep Track Pumice (Member)) ; https://emrlibrary.gov.yk.ca/gsc/open_files/8790/of_8790.pdf ; https://emrlibrary.gov.yk.ca/gsc/open_files/8790/tables_A1-A2_1-4%20FINAL_Jan%204%202021.xlsx).

What if I reworded it to "Fission track dating indicates the Sheep Track pumice was erupted around 950 CE."? Volcanoguy 20:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You could put more emphasis on the uncertainty of the dating, with phrasing along the lines of "Fission track dating indicates the Sheep Track pumice was erupted in the last 7000 years, most likely around 950 CE." GeoWriter (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Volcanoguy 19:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples

• "Obsidian from the Hidden Falls archaeological site in Alaska is dated to 10,000 years old; this suggests that the MEVC was being exploited as an obsidian source soon after ice sheets of the Last Glacial Period retreated."

Please clarify, because these two sentences seem to be a non sequitur - the conclusion in the second sentence does not seem to logically follow from the evidence in the first sentence.

If "10,000 years old" refers only to the age of the obsidian's eruption (and not when part of the obsidian fragment was exposed to sunglight/air as a result of tooling by people - see: obsidian hydration dating), then I think its age suggests nothing about how soon after its eruption it was exploited.

"10,000 years old" refers to an obsidian hydration date. Volcanoguy 20:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that you added the hydration dating method to the article's text. Fine. GeoWriter (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Notes

• Note f - "Volcaniclastic rocks are broken fragments (clasts) of volcanic rock."

Volcaniclastic rocks are not clasts, they are rocks consisting of clasts. I suggest changing to "Volcaniclastic rocks are rocks composed of broken fragments (clasts) of volcanic rock."

Done. Volcanoguy 18:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

— GeoWriter (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@GeoWriter: I've responded to all of your comments. Volcanoguy 20:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

My responses to unresolved points are at each of the relevant subsections of my previous comments. GeoWriter (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support the nomination because all the points I raised about the geological content of the article have been resolved satisfactorily by the nominator. — GeoWriter (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from Ceranthor

Lead

• "The Mount Edziza volcanic complex (MEVC) in British Columbia, Canada, has a long history of volcanism that spans more than 7 million years" - Why not keep it simple and rephrase as "Volcanism in the MEVC in BC, Canada spans more than 7 million years?

  There's nothing wrong with the current wording, not to mention your proposed rewording doesn't make it clear what MEVC and BC mean; see WP:ACRONYM. Volcanoguy 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't mean to literally do the acronyms, but rather than full version. And I think the current phrasing is rather tautological, no ("long history of volcanism that spans more than 7 million years")? ceranthor 01:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  I removed "long" from this sentence if that solves anything. If the sentence were to be reworded to "Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex (MEVC) in British Columbia, Canada spans more than 7 million years", "Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex" would have bold text since it's the title of the article and then "Mount Edziza volcanic complex" won't be able to be linked per MOS:BOLDLINK since it is the only sentence in the introduction where it's spelled out. I think "Mount Edziza volcanic complex" should be linked in the introduction since this article is covering volcanism of that complex. Volcanoguy 21:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Also, I can't start off with the title of the article because according to MOS:BOLDLINK links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the first sentence of a lead. Volcanoguy 20:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• "It occurred during five cycles of magmatic activity, each producing less volcanic material than the previous one" - rephrase as "It included five cycles"; occurred is awkward here to my ear

  Magmatic activity isn't limited to volcanism which is only the surface expression of magmatism. Volcanoguy 22:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Right, but the suggestion was related to the word choice, "occurred." ceranthor 01:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Changed to "It has taken place during five cycles" if that solves anything. To say the volcanism "included" five cycles of magmatic activity isn't really correct since volcanic activity is only the surface expression of magmatic activity. Volcanoguy 21:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The approximately 1,000-square-kilometre (400-square-mile) volcanic plateau forming the base of the MEVC owes its origin" - would rephrase as a little informal; maybe better as "originated from the successive eruptions"

  Done. Volcanoguy 19:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The fifth magmatic cycle began at least 20,000 years ago and may be continuing to the present;" - better as "may be ongoing"

  Done. Volcanoguy 17:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Background

• "This volcanic province is the most volcanically active area in Canada, having experienced at least three eruptions in the last 500 years" - wordy; what about "undergoing at least three eruptions" or just "with at least three eruptions"?

  The only word I swapped was "experienced" with "undergone"; past tense here since the eruptions occurred in the past. Volcanoguy 18:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Eruption rate and composition

• Looks solid.

Magmatic cycles

• " Lost Peak consists of volcanic ejecta that was deposited in both subaerial and subaqueous environments; the subaqueous material was deposited in a lake that may have ponded between the erupting volcano and a lobe of glacial ice" - Not familiar with the word ponded

  Changed to "formed". Volcanoguy 19:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• "This roughly 300-metre (980-foot) in diameter volcanic conduit has a potassium–argon date of 1.6 ± 0.2 million years which may be due to excess argon.[95][99]" - -in-diameter should be hyphenated, but I think this would flow better if reworded to "The volcanic conduit, roughly 300 meters in diameter, has a potassium-argon date...

  Done. Volcanoguy 18:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• "the cause of this variation in thickness may have been due to changes in viscosity as volcanic gases escaped the erupting magma.[22]" - Can cut out "the cause of"

  Done. Volcanoguy 18:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Pyroclastic rocks erupted during Kakiddi time are exposed on the eastern flank of Mount Edziza; they are in the form of scoria and blocky explosion breccia.[111]" - for more active voice, how about "taking the form of ..."

  Done. Volcanoguy 18:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The Klastline River was forced to establish a new route" - Not sure I like the diction here as it makes it seem like the river has agency. Suggest rephrasing

  Rephrase it to what? Volcanoguy 18:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  What about "The dam formed a new route for the Klastline River along the northern valley wall where it still flows to this day"? ceranthor 01:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Volcanoguy 19:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Last two sections look fine.

Will likely support once these comments are addressed. Well-written, comprehensive article. ceranthor 00:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Replies? Volcanoguy 19:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Replied. ceranthor 01:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Replied to your last two comments. Volcanoguy 19:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Thanks for addressing my minor comments. ceranthor 01:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from Eewilson – source review

I have compared the sources to see if there were any changes since the last review, and they were minimal. I did the majority of the source review in July. All of the issues I found were resolved then, so everything from my previous source review still stands. Good job. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 October 2024 [20].

---

Seattle Kraken

Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The Seattle Kraken are a team that competes in the National Hockey League. They are the league's newest team, having been founded in 2018 and playing their first game in 2021. I think this article meets the FA criteria. Also, mind that this is my first FA nomination; I've done some FL nominations before, but nothing like this. Nevertheless, feel free to give a review. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Drive by comments the statement that ""Kraken" was a name that was already popular with fans prior to its official adoption" is cited to a spammy promotional article on the NHL website. If this is a reliable source, which I doubt, it would be better to say that the name was chosen as it rated best through market testing or similar. Independent sourcing would be much superior. The para starting with "Buoy, since his introduction, has been in a feud with Bissonnette" is also written in-universe, and oddly presents the mascot as being an actual person rather than a PR thing. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I have made the changes. I deleted the part about the Kraken being a popular name before announcement, and I edited the paragraph about Buoy and Bissonnette. XR228 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• There should not normally be citations in the lead, as everything in the lead should also be in the body and cited there. On that note, most of the stuff in the second paragraph is not mentioned anywhere in the body. Nothing should be only in the lead, so you need to find a way to work that into the body. The lead is also quite short and could summarise more of the article - it doesn't contain anything about team identity, for example.

Establishment (2017–2021)

• Literally every paragraph starts "On [date]". Find a way to vary the language. The paragraphs are also incredibly short (two are just a single sentence) so they should be merged into a smaller number of longer paragraphs.
• NHL should be written out in full on the first usage with the abbreviation in brackets (in the body as well as the lead)
• Seattle should be linked on first usage in the body
• "from their respective teams (Edmonton, Dallas, and Florida, respectively.)" - that full stop should be outside the brackets
• "On July 23, The first round" - T on the should not be capitalised mid-sentence
• More to follow....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: I have made the changes for the establishment section. XR228 (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  You still have literally every paragraph in that section starting with "On [date]". There must be a way to vary this a bit.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

First seasons (2021–present)

• "the Kraken signed forwards Alexander Wennberg, Jaden Schwartz, and goaltender Philipp Grubauer." => the Kraken signed forwards Alexander Wennberg and Jaden Schwartz, and goaltender Philipp Grubauer.
• In the first paragraph you have four consecutive sentences all starting "The Kraken". Try and rewrite to avoid this. You could use "the team", "the franchise", etc.....
• "Jones led the Kraken through an 8-game win streak" => "Jones led the Kraken through an eight-game win streak"
• "to win their first playoff series against the defending Stanley Cup champions." - in the lead you used "Stanley Cup champion" (singular). Which is correct in US English?

Arena

• "Amazon bought the naming rights to Climate Pledge Arena" - they can't have done, as it wasn't called that at the time
• "Vince Dunn scored the first-ever Kraken goal in the arena's history" => "Vince Dunn scored the first Kraken goal in the arena's history"
• "The Kraken's first-ever shutout win at home" => "The Kraken's first shutout win at home"

Logos and uniforms

• "The event was held under the banner of "Release the Kraken"" - what event? This is literally the start of the section and no "event" has been mentioned.
• "The franchise's promotional materials state that it was adopted" - what is "it"? Presumably the team name?
• "For the 2024 NHL Winter Classic, the Kraken wore a uniform inspired by the Seattle Metropolitans" - link Metropolitans. Also, see my comment above about adding info about the Metropolitans to the body as well as the lead.
• "walked into to their home arena" - there is a stray word in there
• Everything in the "see also" section is already linked in the article, so you can delete this entire section.
• That's what I got right to the end :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: I have made all the changes except for the changes to the lead, I'll get to work on it soon. XR228 (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Just fixed the lead. XR228 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  You still have a citation in the lead, which isn't needed if the info is sourced in the body, and I still feel that "For the 2024 NHL Winter Classic, the Kraken wore a uniform inspired by the Seattle Metropolitans" needs some explanation/context of who/what the Metropolitans are/were. Yes, I realise it's linked, but a reader shouldn't have to click away to another article to find that they were another ice hockey team as opposed to a baseball team or a marching band or any of the many other things that a team's uniform could conceivably pay tribute to...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Fixed it. XR228 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude XR228 (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

HF

Will review. Hog Farm _Talk 22:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The only time the Kraken qualified for the Stanley Cup playoffs was in 2023." - I would go with "have qualified"; the past tense is weird for a team that is still active
• "voted 7–1 to approve a memorandum of understanding between the city of Seattle and the Los Angeles-based Oak View Group," is the article text; the source text is " voted 7-1 to approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the city and the Los Angeles-based Oak View Group", this is close paraphrasing
• "he led first-time draft-eligible NCAA players in goals, with 10" in article vs "led first-time draft-eligible NCAA players in goals" in source. Yes, there's limited ways to rephrase this, but it's better to at least make some changes rather than go with the direct source wording in places like this
• "Beniers scored 24 points in 24 games during the previous season" - this needs some sort of link or explanation to indicate to non-hockey fans what a point is in hockey
• "Grubauer had been considered one of the top names on the market prior to the beginning of free agency" - considered by whom? Does the source indicate that this is a consensus view, or is attribution to the source of this opinion needed?
• "in what would be a 4–2 loss to the Pacific Northwest rival Vancouver Canucks" - is it really appropriate to call this a rivalry? The source mainly seems to be talking about how this was expected to become a rivalry in the future. How can a team really have a rivalry early on in its first season?
• "Philipp Grubauer recorded the franchise's first shutout, making 19 saves in a 3–0 victory against the New York Islanders" - first, when was this, and second, I think there needs to be some sort of link for saves in here for non-hockey fans
• "in last place of the Pacific Division with a 27–49–6 record and 60 points" - and because "points" here means something different than when discussing the player's 24 points in 24 games earlier, this also needs some sort of explanation
• "In early January, Jones led the Kraken through an eight-game win streak. While doing, so the franchise became the first team to win all seven games of a seven-game road trip" - the source doesn't seem to be pointing out Jones' leadership or performance in this win streak
• "and the first wild card spot in the Western Conference" - link for Western Conference and wild card?
• "On April 30, the Kraken defeated the Colorado Avalanche in the opening round, becoming the first expansion team in NHL history to win their first playoff series against the defending Stanley Cup champion" - so this sounds like they won a single wild card game, while the use of the term "series" leaves open the possibility that this is a multi-game series. Can it be stated directly if this is a single wild card game?
• "The Kraken finished their season with a 34–35–13 record and 81 points" - where does this standing finish within the conference?
• "The arena, at Seattle Center, is a $600 million redevelopment of the former KeyArena" - the $600 million is a planned figure, our article at Climate Pledge Arena states that the final cost was $1.15 billion, see also this Seattle Times headline I can't access
• "The team plays the Nirvana song "Lithium" after every Kraken goal at home" - is this still a thing? The source is from less than two weeks after the team's first season (I know Nirvana had connections to the Seattle area, but that seems like a very odd celebratory song choice)
• "Bell, Demetrius (July 23, 2020). "Seattle Releases The 'Kraken' Nickname, Logos And Colors Ahead Of 2021–22 NHL Debut". Forbes. Retrieved March 23, 2024." - this is a Forbes contributor piece, which is not a reliable source. See WP:FORBESCON
• "he uniform was officially unveiled on November 22, 2023, but was leaked four days earlier when players from the National Basketball Association's Utah Jazz walked into their home arena wearing it" - we can't source something happening on November 22 to a source from November 18
• "the Kraken promoted a "team dog" named Davy Jones. " - why the link to the Pirate of the Caribbean character? The source doesn't mention the Pirates of the Caribbean at all that I can find, and the Davy Jones concept is much older than those movies - see Davy Jones' locker
• "forward and Everett Silvertips commentator Al Kinisky to replace him" - link Everett Silvertips
• "For radio, Kraken games are broadcast on KJR-FM 93.3 and KJR 950 AM, the flagship stations of the Kraken Audio Network. During a schedule conflict, some games may be heard on 96.5 KJAQ." - why is this information in the TV section when there is a radio section, where the same stuff is also stated?
• I think some sort of explanation is needed for the structure of the NHL minor leagues. Otherwise, it is a bit confusing for the reader to read about AHL and ECHL affiliates. I also find it very confusing to read about the team sharing a minor leage affiliate when my main sports fandom is MLB, where such a minor league affiliate sharing would not be possible
• I don't know that all these non-notable people need listed for the minority ownership. There's often quite a few minority owners for sports teams like that and I don't know that this is due detail (I know as a Kansas City Royals fan that the team has a whole bunch of minority owners)
• " Morse, Dan (August 16, 2022). "Alison Lukan & Nick Olczyk to join Kraken broadcast team this season". Davy Jones' Locker Room. Archived from the original on February 6, 2023. Retrieved August 27, 2022." - the SBNation team-centric blogs generally have much lower editorial standards than the main site. What makes this blog a high-quality reliable source?

I think that's it for my first round of comments; due to some of the concerns above I don't plan on entering into a support or oppose declaration until after a source review addressing spot-checks and source reliability. Hog Farm _Talk 23:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I have made the changes. Also, this morning, the Kraken announced something called the Kraken Hockey Network, so info about that has been added to the broadcast section. XR228 (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll take another look at this once it passes its source review. Hog Farm _Talk 22:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Going into five weeks and this nom hasn't reached a consensus to promote. I'm adding it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so it is likely going to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• A week on and little has changed, so I am archiving this with regret. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 13 October 2024 [21].

---

KARE (TV)

Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If I have a type, it's major-market, often network-affiliated TV stations with unusual histories. After a radio detour, I'm back at it, and channel 11 in Minneapolis is one of them. You'll get: the story of two stations on one channel, consolidated by Consolidated; how the Minnesota Twins came along to save the station after it lost its network affiliation; how then-WTCN-TV went from successful independent to NBC affiliate with a disastrous "new news" that the ratings showed to be "about as popular as the measles" (not my words); and how Gannett took the station apart and rebuilt it to viewer acclaim in the 1980s and 1990s.

User:Premeditated Chaos provided a deep GA review in March 2024 in preparation for an eventual FAC (thank you!). This is the second-longest article by references and prose size I've sent to FAC. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

HF - support

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 00:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• "announced it would take over WCCO radio, merge it with channel 4, and divest WTCN radio" - how do you merge a radio station and a TV station? Is this meaning to turn it into a single corporate entity?
• "WMIN and WTCN—each seeking to avoid a lengthy comparative hearing—proposed to share time on channel 11" - I might have missed something, but the WTCNs mentioned above are a radio station and a TV station that was no longer known by the WTCN name, neither of which have been previously mentioned as wanting channel 11
  • The answers on these are related. In 1947, channel 4 went on as WTCN-TV and the sister to WTCN radio. The owner of those two stations, in 1952, bought WCCO, a radio institution in Minnesota (especially in those days). This meant that channel 4 became WCCO-TV and that WTCN had to be sold off. The new owners of WTCN were the ones that wanted channel 11, having already filed for it.
    • Okay, I think I get it now. I had read "at which time channel 4 changed from WTCN-TV to WCCO-TV" as a call sign change, rather than WCCO-TV moving from wherever it had been to channel four, and then WTCN not having a home. (I think I was trying to interpret it in the manner of the KTXR/KWTO-FM changeover that occurred in my home radio market a few years ago). Hog Farm _Talk 02:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Modern radio station format and frequency swaps are not like this case at all, but I can see why if that was your benchmark you were confused.

  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Is Note A about Captain 11 particularly relevant to this topic at hand?
  • I wrote KELO-TV to GA as well, and the program takes up more oxygen there than you'd think. The footnote is intended to reinforce the connection (and since I had already done the research on the South Dakota side). I'd like to keep it.
• Should Casey Jones be linked?
  • Yes. Comments to here, Hog Farm: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Ready for the NewsCenter 11 section. Hog Farm _Talk 02:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Tonight aired on KMSP until it was returned to WTCN in its original timeslot." - not finding this in the cited source
  • Turns out this addition by MrSchimpf was actually wrong! I've added two references here.
• Is there a reason why the text list of transmittors excludes K35KH-D, which is shown on the map as a second transmittor in Jackson?
  • Almost certainly because an error was in there somewhere. Nathan Obral did the map for me, and this article must have listed two transmitters. RabbitEars says that translator rebroadcasts KSAX-TV. Unless two transmitter sites in a translator system share the same COL, which can happen (e.g. Elko, NV), the listing of two translators for a station in an area is almost always wrong in practice. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm _Talk 02:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Fixed the other two errors. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:KARE_NBC_11_Minneapolis,_Minnesota_Logo.svg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Roger_Awsumb_as_Casey_Jones_WTCN_poster.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • The revision portion of the logo link was broken. Fixed on Commons.
  • The site with the Awsumb image has redesigned and moved the resource to the location https://pavekmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/roger-awsumb-wtcn-scaled.jpg . Fixed on Commons, Nikkimaria. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review from PMC

Since I did prose commentary for the GA, I'll do a source review here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Here we go!

• What makes Northpine a high-quality RS?
  • If Northpine is kept, usage should be made consistent - ref 2 has Northpine.com, but ref 183 has Northpine straight up
• Same question for RabbitEars
  • See my comments in GA reviews at Talk:KLKN/GA1 and Talk:KASA-TV/GA1. The former has my replies to both sites. If you'd rather see Northpine bypassed, the replacements would be an FCC order and a since-unfortunately but understandably-replaced reception guide. (Tegna sites do not archive)
• The vast majority of sources don't have the work linked, except for the following sites/works: FCC, Seattle Times, WaPo, MinnPost, City Pages, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It doesn't matter which you go with, but it should be consistently linked or consistently not linked
  • Decided to link on first use of any publication.
• Similarly, location inclusion is inconsistent - Minneapolis Tribune and Minneapolis Star all have it whenever they're used, and LA Times does, but some other papers don't
  • Ref 94, 97, 101, 113, 129, 130, 133, 136, 142, 158, 159, 161, 165, 166, 171, 172, 175, 177, 184, and 192 are missing location
  • Removed all locations.
• Ref 49 doesn't specify the work
  • Oops. It's Variety.
• Some inconsistency in Star Tribune/Minneapolis Star and Tribune. Ref 120 uses Star Tribune, but that was 83, so before the rename if I'm reading right. 132 and 138 also predate the rename.
  • Repaired 83, 132, 138. (Any 2024 and on references, as of last month, should be Minnesota Star Tribune, but none of them exist yet.)
• Why does ref 126 include a publisher when no other newspaper includes this?
  • That is an agency, not a publisher. Knight-Ridder syndicated this article to the newspaper.
• Ref 159 lacks publisher info
  • Fixed.

Since I already did a source check in the GAN and found no significant concerns, I'm not going to repeat it here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Replied, Premeditated Chaos. I have fixed all issues, removed location for consistency, gone for link-on-first-use-only for sources, and responded in re: RabbitEars and Northpine. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Looking good to me, including the rationales for the two noted sites. Passes the source check. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp

OK I'll review. Steelkamp (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox:

• "KARE 11 (pronounced "Care")" -> "KARE 11 (pronounced "care")" as sentence case should be used.

Lead:

• "that broadcast the Minnesota Twins, " -> "that broadcast the Minnesota Twins baseball team, ".
• "This continued under two successive owners, Chris-Craft Industries and Metromedia." -> "This continued under two successive owners: Chris-Craft Industries and Metromedia."
• "to its Washington, D.C. station." -> "to its Washington, D.C., station." as per MOS:GEOCOMMA
• "ballyhooed" is too informal for Wikipedia I reckon.
• There's nothing on the 1990s or post 2000 history in the lead.
• Why is "St. Paul" used rather than "Saint Paul", which seems to be the city's official name according to Saint Paul, Minnesota?
  • This potato will need more time. I don't have Chicago Manual of Style access to the section that discusses this. AP Style, which while not influential on Wikipedia in most cases is used by most US news outlets, suggests "St." in all cases. If someone has CMOS access, please help.
  • @Steelkamp: I have obtained CMOS access. The relevant section is 10.35 (covering Fort, Mount, and Saint) and reads as follows: Generic terms as elements of geographic names are usually spelled out in formal prose (and in mailing addresses) but can be abbreviated where space is at a premium or to reflect predominant usage (as in the last two examples below). The last two examples mentioned are Saint (St.) Louis (usually St. Louis); Saint (St.) Paul (usually St. Paul). I believe that Chicago, as a major influence on MOS, should be applied here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Ok. The reason I asked in the first place is because the Wikipedia article is titled "Saint Paul, Minnesota", but I see there have been some discussion about this on Talk:Saint Paul, Minnesota. As long as the spelling is internally consistent within this article, I think its OK. Steelkamp (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Early years:

• "At 2 p.m." As per MOS:TIME, a non-breaking space should be placed before the p.m. There are a bunch of other places in the article where this should be done.
  • I usually avoid doing this by script as the script likes changing "p.m." to "pm" and is exceedingly inconsistent about it.
• What does master antenna mean?
  • Elaborated a bit in the article. An antenna setup designed to broadcast multiple stations.
• "At that time, Consolidated consolidated". I hate to be the fun police, but can a different word be used here other than consolidated?
• "minor-league baseball" -> "minor league baseball".

As an independent station:

• "WTCN had the only TV news staff in the market without a professional meteorologist." This reads like unusual wording to me. I suggest rewording to "WTCN had the only TV news team in the market without a professional meteorologist.".
  • New items handled, Steelkamp. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Affiliating with NBC

• "and sportscaster Bob Kurtz[b].[83]" I think MOS:CITEPUNCT applies to footnotes as well, so the footnote should be placed after the full stop
  • I've tried to repair everything to here. I do have one question I can't answer right now. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Gannett purchase and news overhaul:

• Chicago is linked here but it can be linked higher up under "Chris-Craft ownership" and also in the lead. Also, I notice that Portland, Oregon is not linked at all. There's also Los Angeles and New York, but those fall under MOS:OVERLINK, although I am generally in favour of linking cities and wouldn't be opposed if those two were linked.
• "the station added as many as 40 new staff members[115] to add to the 40 that it had at the time of purchase" -> "the station added as many as 40 new staff members[115] in addition to the 40 that it had at the time of purchase".
• "new news vehicles and cameras." -> "new cameras and news vehicles."
• "The station's newscasts were retitled News 11." Could a date for this change be added. Otherwise, its not clear how long the "11 News" name lasted.
  • I made it clearer with rewording that everything debuted at once in August 1983, Steelkamp. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 12:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Is "Sky 11" the name of the helicopter?
• "It was the first time a tornado had been filmed from creation to dissipation." I'm confused by this. Wasn't the tornado already created when the helicopter arrived there?
  • Reworded for clarity — the sources seem to say that is not the case.
• "Star Tribune" can be linked earlier. Also, is the Star Tribune the same newspaper as the Minneapolis Tribune, mentioned earlier. Can that be linked as well?
  • Fixed.
• "and pushed KARE back to second." I may have missed this, but when did KARE become first?
  • You missed it Magers—the anchor commonly credited with helping KARE remain number one in late evening news
    • I was referring to when KARE became first before it was pushed back to second. Steelkamp (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
      • Oh, earlier. Yes, you did indeed miss it, Steelkamp. The July 1987 sweeps period brought another historic achievement for KARE: it finished first at 10 p.m., with an audience share of 29 percent. This momentum was sustained through late 1987 and early 1988, even as an expansion to the Twin Cities market gave WCCO an edge in counting viewers in Alexandria. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Post-2000:

• No comments.

Those are all the comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Steelkamp: Changed or addressed all items. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support. Steelkamp (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Review by Generalissima

Mark me down for one. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oops, sorry for the delay.

• Lede is solid. I would merge the first two paragraphs, but that is purely stylistic preference on my end.
• Early years also extremely solid.
• "catapulted" might be a bit too metaphorical and puffy. Maybe just "brought"?
• NBC and Gannett portions solid.
• Post-2000 also good.

Yeah, not a lot here to change! Apologies for the delay, Sammi Brie. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I will probably stick with the existing lead structure, simply because it is closer to most topic pages, @Generalissima. Made the other change. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough! All looks good to me; support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "It was originally shared by two stations: WMIN-TV in St. Paul and WTCN-TV in Minneapolis, which alternated presenting local programs and shared an affiliation with ABC." Suggest "It was originally shared by WMIN-TV in St. Paul and WTCN-TV in Minneapolis: the two stations were each affiliated with ABC and alternated presenting local programs."
• "that broadcast the Minnesota Twins baseball team": suggest "games" rather than "team" -- I know this is standard terminology but for non-US readers I think this is more natural, and it should be fine for US readers too.
• "More recently": this is a tricky thing to do with the "as of" requirement, but maybe "as of 2024, the station has been a second-place finisher in local news for almost a decade", or whatever the relevant dates and periods are. I had a look in the body for the material that supports this and didn't spot it, but I haven't read through carefully yet -- can you just confirm it is indeed in the body?
  • Tweaked to match added "as of".
• No change necessarily needed, but I'm curious about the sharing arrangement, alternating broadcasts. Is this unusual? Is it unusual enough for the rarity to be commented on in the article?
  • Yes. This isn't like the UK which had really long-running "split broadcasts" (think London ITV), and I suspect to many readers only familiar with modern-day TV it would be hard to explain. Shared-time broadcasting was typically proposed by applicants to get them to air faster.
    There were only a handful of shared-time stations, and their time as such was limited to months or a couple of years before one party sold out: KOOL-TV and KOY-TV, Phoenix; KSBW-TV and KMBY-TV, Salinas/Monterey; KMBC-TV and WHB-TV, Kansas City. There was one longer-running case among these, WHEC-TV and WVET-TV, Rochester, New York, which lasted eight years. There were two later shared-time TV stations: WILX-TV and WMSB, Onondaga, Michigan (1959–1972), which involved an educational and a commercial station, and one in Chicago in the 1980s, WPWR-TV and WBBS-TV (the latter of which is currently covered in WXFT-DT), where the operations did not merge in the end (WBBS was basically undermined by a changing Spanish-language TV market). In each case, the level of integration of the operations was varied. In Phoenix, the channel 10 stations basically operated out of separate wings of the same studio. The channel 11s of the Twin Cities were literally across a river from each other (WMIN-TV was in St. Paul).

    Do you have sources that would allow you to say "This was an unusual arrangement"? No problem if not but worth adding if you do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

    Alas, no. The closest I can come is a fan page: [22]. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 14:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The transmitter and antenna was the only physical facility shared by the stations": number mismatch between subject and verb. "were" would mismatch with "facility", though, so perhaps "The transmitter and antenna were the only resources shared by the stations"?
• "films had to be airmailed to and from sister station KELO-TV in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, before air": I think "before air" is redundant and could be cut.
• "Captain 11" seems worth a redlink, or a link to a section in the related existing article about the cloned show -- though a bit of googling seems to indicate a separate article could be justified.
  • Turns out Captain 11 is an article, and I think it merits it, too. I've placed this blue link in the footnote because it's about the Sioux Falls version, which is the one that meets the GNG.
• "made for an attractive purchase because it was hampered by its shared status": I'm not sure I follow -- the shared status meant the price was low?
  • Yes, that's how I read that.

More to come; done through the "Early years" section. It might be tomorrow or Monday before I can get back to this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Changes handled to here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  One follow up above, and one that I think you missed. Will continue with the review below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Continuing:

• "These reports proved true": needs rephrasing; the reports in the previous sentence aren't reports that ABC was considering moving to KMSP-TV; they are reports that channel 11 wanted a protection clause.
  • Rephrased.
• What is "studio wrestling"?
  • Wrestling. In a television studio.

    I did think it was probably that, but it seemed an odd thing to mention and I wondered if there were some odd variety of wrestling I'd never heard of. I'd drop "studio" unless you feel it's important, in which case something like "by adding wrestling (live from the channel 11 studio) and college sports ..." would avoid my misunderstanding. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• "In lieu of the collapsed candelabra": just checking that "candelabra" is a standard term in the industry -- presumably for a multi-station mast? I've never heard it used in this way, but if this is industry usage that's fine (though if there's a glossary somewhere that could be linked that would be good).
  • A type of tower with a mast with two or three vertical elements, e.g. File:Television_hill's_tv_towers.jpg.
• "barely registered as a news source in the community, though it was just behind KMSP-TV in total viewers": I don't understand this -- what does "registered" refer to if not viewership?
  • Reworded.
• "she was dismissed because she was not a degreed meteorologist, and though she was technically a freelancer, her duties for WTCN prevented her from immediately seeking similar employment in the market": the source doesn't mention degrees -- I agree that's probably what is being referred to, but they don't say so. Also, I think the second-half is a misreading: she's saying she was unable to work at other stations in the past while she was employed, not after she lost her job.
• "and Gil Amundson (himself relieved of news director duties) too weak a leader": I don't understand the parenthesis -- if he'd been relieved of the leadership role, why is he being described as the leader?
  • Reworded.
• "the station placed fourth out of three newscasts (and KMSP)": odd phrasing -- KMSP did have a news operation, or so we say a paragraph or two earlier, so why not just make this "last of the four local newscasts"?
  • They were not airing news at 6 but an entertainment show. Reworded.
• "Burns was the last of the original three news presenters to remain with WTCN": suggest "leave" rather than "remain" as more straightforward.
  • Good idea.
• "changing the name from NewsCenter 11 to 11 News" and "The station's newscasts were retitled News 11": I assume one of these is in error?
  • Nope! The 11 News title was so short-lived that there is little visual proof of it, so here is a 30-second promo. It was basically a band-aid on the outgoing WTCN news presentation and set until the top-to-bottom revamp (as News 11) debuted in September.

    Fair enough, but since I can imagine other readers will wonder too, how about making this "The station's newscasts were retitled again, from 11 News to News 11."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• "continued its domination of households 25–54": I think this has to be "adults" or "viewers", not "households"; households don't have ages.
  • Changed (though "households" in this way can be common phrasing in advertising and marketing).
• The paragraph starting "The 1990s were a decade of strength for KARE news" cites a 1992 and 1996 story about specific sweeps results, not general statements about the whole decade. I see the 1996 source does indicate KARE had had strong results for a while. Perhaps just make this "the early 1990s", unless you have sources about the sweeps for the later years of the decade?
  • Found an additional source.
• "The competition was spousal": I think you could cut this: the rest of the sentence makes the point.
  • Done.
• "While KARE has been competitive since": suggest starting this with "While, as of 2022, ...".
  • Done.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Resolved all the issues and responded to your question on shared-time. It's my eventual goal to do the remaining stations for GA grade (the Rochester one is going to be the toughest and most voluminous). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 14:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Most struck above; a couple of follow up comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie Final rewording on Toni Hughes, wrestling, and 11 News. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. 22:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The Roger Aswumb file returns an "Access denied" error but I'm going to assume good faith here and assume it's a problem on my end (location). Promoting. FrB.TG (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 13 October 2024 [23].

---

Hurra-yi Khuttali

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Recently successful GAN (reviewed by Simongraham, this article is about a Princess in the medieval Iran (Ghaznavid dynasty) who is known as the most politically active woman in her era; namely because of writing a letter to induce her favourite nephew to usurp the throne. Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Llewee

• "recorded by Shabankara'i (c. 1298 – c. 1358), a later historian" - I don't think later is really necessary here as we have his rough lifespan. It might create the impression he was latter than Bosworth.--Llewee (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Deleted it
• "According to Bosworth, she was distinguished from her sisters because of her intelligence and tactfulness, which gave her an influential role in the governmental matters. In an era when the education for women was restricted to only theology, she sought to learn sciences."
  • The two the's aren't needed and look a bit grammatically awkward.--Llewee (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Deleted them
  • Is any more information available about how she tried to learn sciences?--Llewee (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately nothing
• "a patriotist rebellion broke out in Khwarazm on March 1017"
  • If the rebels were angry that Khwarazm was under foreign rule then "nationalist" would probably be a more usual term than "patriotist".--Llewee (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Replaced it
  • "In" would probably be a better fit than "on" here.--Llewee (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Done
• "the rebels killed Ma'mun for his submission" - a better wording for this might be "the rebels killed Ma'mun; objecting to his submission"--Llewee (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't specifying that they are 'objecting' be redundant? What about 'because of' instead of 'for'?
    • Yes, "because of" should be OK. The original wording just felt a bit vague.--Llewee (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

    Done Amir Ghandi (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Furthermore, Hurra may have been taken hostage by them." - I don't think "Furthermore" is needed here.--Llewee (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delted
• "and the Turkic military commanders" - Could a link be added to "Turkic" here?--Llewee (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Done
• "the real power behind Muhammad's government" - Maybe add a link to Power behind the throne here?
  • Done

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map
  • Done
• File:Mas'udIGhaznavidCoin.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing all these other images of coins (File:Denarius Sextus Pompeius-Scilla.jpg for example) and they have the exact same licenses as this one. Why a tag for original work?

• • • Other similar images should also have one, but sometimes that doesn't happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Done

FM

• While the article generally looks good, it lacks a lot of context throughout, making it hard for the reader to understand where, how, and why things are happening, but that should be fixable with the suggestions below. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Link Ghaznavid at first mention in article body, now it's at second.
  • Done

• Since the article is so short, I think you can devote some space to explaining non-English terms in-text (in parenthesis), instead of making readers chase links.
  • I have done that for the majority of the foreign words. Sultan, Amir and Harem aren't obscure terms and don't need explanation

• "from Ma'munid dynasty" From the.
  • Done

• Where was she from and where did she live? The article gives very little geographical context in modern terms. Even your blurb here gives clearer location info than the article itself (medieval Iran).
  • Done

• Anything on er ethnicity and religion? Since the article is so short, there is plenty of room for more context. Could be something as simple as saying her dynasty was Muslim of Turkic Mamluk origin or whatever fits.
  • Done

• "ruler of Khwarazm" State where this is in modern terms too.
  • Done

• "Abu al-Hasan died at an uncertain date between 1006 to 1010" From what?
  • Unknown, meaning the source itself doesn't even say 'from unknown causes'

• "However, a nationalist rebellion broke out on Khwarazm" I see this was discussed above, but does this really count as "nationalism"? What does the actual source say? I'm very doubtful that any regional identity of this time could be called "nationalism".
  • The source says 'patriotist'

I think we have to stick to that, because the concept of nationalism didn't really exist back then, so applying it retroactively is WP:OR. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• "broke out on Khwarazm" In?
  • Done

• "and repeatedly sent him luxurious gifts" After she was married and moved away? Could be specified, as it gives context.
  • The source does not specify

• "In 1030, after Mahmud's death" What did he die from?
  • Is this necessary to add?

Depends on how he died. If he died in battle, it adds context to the story. If he died from disease, not so much. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

THe cause of death was a combination of diseases, so I won't add it

• "Hurra-yi Khuttali, along with her younger brother" Why randomly give her full name again? Shouldn't be needed after first mention in the article body. Also happens elsewhere in the article.
  • Changed all to Hurra

• How many siblings did she have?
  • We know how many brothers he had, but for sisters it is unknown. Should I add this into the article?

If the source specifically states this, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Then no, the source I have only says her father had six sons

• Who was her mother?
  • Unknown

• "receive letters from Hurra and his mother" Who was his mother?
  • Unknown

• "may have had him blinded" Could link Blinding (punishment).
  • Done

• "with Khorasan in second place" You never explain or link Khorasan before this point, needs context. What does all this have to do with Khorasan?
  • Done

• "As a result, Turkoman tribes migrated into the region" From where? You should establish whether these were sent specifically by Mas'ud.
  • Done

• "by Beyhaqi" But you haven't presented him before (or here), so the readr doesn't know there have been previous mentions of her by him, or even that he is aparticularly important source about her.
  • Done

• "and his throne was usurped by Muhammad" But wasn't he blind? How did he rule, and how long after?
  • Only allegedly. Also wrote some information about his second tenure.

• "From a feminist outlook" This could be given in-text author attribution, who speaks on behalf of feminism here?

Doesn't seem to have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Done

• "I and the women of the harem are all in the citadel of Ghazna." This detail could be mentioned in the article body itself, with link to the citadel.
  • Done

• "in the Ghaznavid politics" The is unneeded.
  • Done

• The intro also needs modern geographical terms for context.
  • Done

• "leaving Ghazna for India, her ultimate fate is unknown." The comma should be a semicolon.
  • Done

• The intro should mention it's unknown if she had children.
  • Done

• Mention in the intro that her husbands were brothers and where they ruled.
  • Done for brothers; I've already mentioned that they ruled Khwarazm

• Changes look good, I've added some comments above. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - looking nice with the added context. FunkMonk (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than four weeks now and has only one general support. Unless there is significant progress in the next three days or so, I am afraid this risks archival. FrB.TG (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

There's been no progress since my last note, unfortunately so I'm archiving this now, noting that the usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 October 2024 [24].

---

2015 KNVB Cup final

Nominator(s): Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

3 May 2015, one of the best days of my life. My favourite (local) football club winning something for the first (and thus far, only) time. Travelling down to Rotterdam with several family members, seeing people on viaducts waving and cheering on the passing buses with us fans (even ca. 100 km down the route), and the incredible (but tense) atmosphere in the stadium, is something I won't forget. There's one image in the article, which is not mine, as the few pictures I took were all a bit blurry ;) I've used online and newspaper articles to try and give a comprehensive (and of course unbiased) view. All comments are appreciated! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

• I will take a look at this one but probably not till after the weekend -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Image is appropriate licensed, but the article would benefit from having additional imagery. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: I agree, added another image. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Groningen reached the final of the competition once before" => "Groningen had reached the final of the competition once before"
• "PEC Zwolle began, as a professional side and defending KNVB Cup champions, their campaign" => "As a professional side, defending KNVB Cup champions PEC Zwolle began their campaign"
• "In the last minutes of the match" - I think "In the closing minutes of the match" works better
• "VVV equalised, but the goal was disallowed" - if it was disallowed then they didn't equalise. I suggest "VVV appeared to have equalised, but the goal was disallowed"
• "it was the sixth time it happened since 1956" => "it was only the sixth time it had happened since 1956"
• "It was the seventh time both sides met" => "It was the seventh time the two sides met"
• "Groningen also entered the 2014–15 KNVB Cup in the second round" would suffice, I think
• "found the back of the Vitesse net in the rebound" => "found the back of the Vitesse net on the rebound"
• "showed his squad video messages of their family members before the match" => "showed his squad video messages from their family members before the match"
• "Jans was hailed as a "motivator"" => "he was hailed as a "motivator"" (avoids repetition of his name)
• "Groningen were already 1–0 down after two minutes when Romário scored, the fastest goal in KNVB Cup final history" - this is slightly confusing as a standalone sentence. I suggest joining it to the previous sentence as "reached the final once before when they lost 4–1 to PSV in 1989;[25] PSV's Romário scored after two minutes, the fastest goal in KNVB Cup final history"
• "played each other once in the Eredivisie during the season, with Zwolle winning 2–0 at home" - is the league not a double round-robin? Why did they only play each other once?
• Jans image caption needs a full stop
• "but played since 2012 for PEC" => "but had played for PEC since 2012"
• "Van de Looi was pleased for the fans that they claimed the club's first major honour" => "Van de Looi was pleased for the fans that the team had claimed the club's first major honour" (avoids the suggestion that it was the fans who had claimed it)
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude, thanks very much Chris! Addressed your comments, and tried to clarify/expand on the point that PEC and Groningen had played each other once in the league (the next league meeting between the two was a week later). Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I've copyedited; let me know if you disagree with any of the changes I made.

• "stated that Van de Looi mainly formed his plans on the quality of his players": a bit vague; can we be clearer about what Van de Looi meant by this?
• "RTV Noord stated that Groningen were more nervous than PEC; several minutes later Groningen grew into the game". Suggest "Early in the game the RTV Noord coverage suggested that Groningen seemed more nervous than PEC". I don't think the second half of the sentence is worth keeping; this is a live blog, not a post-match analysis, and "grew into the game" is vague.
• "Antonia reached Juninho Bacuna, but he misjudged the ball": "reached"? What is this saying?

That's all I have. It's hard to get this sort of article to flow smoothly, with engaging prose, but I think this gets there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• • Thank you very much, Mike. The copyedit definitely is an improvement, IMO. I also tried to reword/clarify the three sentences mentioned here. I sometimes found it hard to find the right English words for some Dutch text in the references, but I'm glad it gets there:) Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixes look good; support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Going into five weeks and this nom hasn't reached a consensus to promote. I'm adding it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so it's liable to time out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs - I understand this nom still needs a source review and probably another content review, but with 2 supports and 0 opposes, it is closer to a promotion than to being archived, right? Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

Prose looks good. Just a few nitpicking comments:

• Zwolle were appearing --> I don't see any source referring to PEC Zwolle as Zwolle. I find it jarring how it jumps between Zwolle, PEC, and PEC Zwolle. I would do what the sources do, use PEC Zwolle at the start and then just PEC
• Groningen, founded in 1971, --> good, but I would then also give a founding year for PEC
• had played each other once in the Eredivisie during the season to date --> I would swap the order of this 2014-15 info with the historical "marked the third meeting between both in the KNVB Cup" bit in the next sentence. Just to keep all historical info together, and end on the current season
• Groningen's game". --> Groningen's game." as per MOS:INOROUT
• "We hebben hem!" (lit. 'We got him!') --> I don't think that is right. Because "hem" is likely referring to "de cup" or "de beker", both masculine nouns, the literal translation really is not "him"/ It just translates into "We got it!"
  • All done. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources: formatting looks good. However, a few questions:

• fcgstats.nl seems to be a fan site, not quite matching the reliability standards needed for FA, or am I wrong?
  • According to this [25], the owners of the website work together with FC Groningen and the club's museum. The website has also been used multiple times by news stations like RTV Noord - e.g., [26][27][28]. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    • The way I interpret WP:FACS, I don't think this source qualifies as high-quality. Perhaps the Dagblad van het Noorden source already supports the claims in the sentence? Otherwise, I'm afraid there should be another source, of high quality.Edwininlondon (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• fcgroningen.nl seems to be the club web site. Do you have a less biased source?
• same for peczwolle.nl
  • I think I've used PEC's and Groningen's websites for objective information only (e.g., for Groningen: "Groningen, founded in 1971" or when mentioning the 4th round tie v Volendam; for PEC: their history in the cup or "Botteghin, the Groningen defender, played for PEC from 2007 until 2011"). However, if you insist that I need to replace both sources, I will do that. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    • If I follow WP:FACS and WP:ABOUTSELF correctly (although unclear if "self" includes a football club), I'm inclined to say yes, please find alternative, high quality sources. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Anderson Independent-Mail. 27 April 2015. p. 12 --> I could not find this and am a bit puzzled why this source would be right for substantiating the league table standings
  • I found this source via the British Newspaper Archive, the only source where I could find the Eredivisie table that I needed :) Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I had a quick check on archive.org and found this link from vi.nl which confirms the Anderson Independent-Mail. If I follow WP:FACS to the letter, the VI source probably should replace the Anderson one. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comprehensive review, Edwin! I've addressed your comments and left some comments above. Cheers, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Edwininlondon - replaced the sources mentioned above. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I did a spotcheck: 27abcd 42abcdef 45 46 47 all check out. I Support on prose, sources, comprehensiveness. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

TRM

• A shame there's no lead image for the infobox? Not even of the stadium? Would be better than the blank we have right now.
• Someone should write a featured list about the List of KNVB Cup finals.... just my opinion...!
• "scored 22 goals, the most goals of all" repetitive "goals", probably "the most of all" is fine.
• "PEC were considered the slight favourites ..." re-establish the context here now you've talked about other stuff, so "PEC were considered the slight favourites to win the final"...
• "was subbed on " still think that "subbed" is colloquial and not encyclopedic in tone: substituted.
• "by three goals to two with goals " grim repeat of goals.
• "club HHC Hardenberg at home" where is home?
• "HHC headed against " so you mean the entire club headed the ball??
• "added a second and third goal" maybe "added two more"
• "meeting in Venlo" link Venlo.
• "appeared to have equalised" sounds like a newspaper report.
• "against Eredivisie club" I think this is first mention of the league structure, so what's the context for this match-up?
• "semi-final of the KNVB Cup for the third consecutive year" this is good background for the lead of a FA.
• "whilst at PEC.[7] PEC were" whilst? archaic. PEC... PEC. repetitive.
• "neither side found the back of the net" sorry, this is an encyclopedia, neither team "scored".
• On my screen the next section's right-hand table is crushing the text. Consider using a "break" piece of code.
• "played in Barendrecht" why not link the location and provide context for its geography?
• "a convincing 8–1 " no need for "convincing"
• "finding the net" do you mean scoring?
• "found the back of the Vitesse net on the rebound" scored from the rebound.
• "the semi-final of the .... [16][17] The semi-final," repetitive.
• "without key players" opinion.

Takes me to Pre-match. Ping me once this is dealt with. The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 22:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: great to see you here again. Thanks for taking a look, I addressed your comments. Cheers, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to be back in the thick of brilliant football articles! So, progressing from my previous comments:

• "the 1928 final" notable enough to be linked, even if red?
• "against RCH and" I would expand this per common name.
• "the 1977 final" per above, link, even if it's red.
  • I linked it in the "Road to the final" section - "including the 1977 final". Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• " in 2014, defeating" this is an easter egg link, perhaps link something like "2014 final" instead of just the year.
• "by Dagblad van het Noorden" perhaps "by Dutch newspaper Dagblad van het Noorden" to help those of us who haven't heard of it!
• "in 1989;[25]" similar comment re: Easter egg linking a bare year.
• "football player" why not "footballer"? And what's the context for this guy who's a red link, is his opinion notable?
  • VD Heide has a Dutch Wikipage, has written some books for coaches, is editor of a magazine for football coaches, was said to be a scout and video analyst in 2018. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Drost scored eight goals and registered seven assists..." reads odd to me because the season is still ongoing, perhaps a subtle reword to make it clear that it was their record in the division at the point of the final.
• "Groningen scored more goals" -> "Groningen had scored more goals" as the competition was still going.
• "home team, they wore their home kit and were awarded the home" home home home.
• "6 pm" seem to remember there should be a non-breaking space between 6 and pm and actually pm should be p.m.
• Any more info on Richard Liesveld, like had he refereed these clubs or this kind of final previously?
• "in his own goal...." how?
• "of the box," maybe "penalty area" just to be clear to our non-European readers. I know you mentioned box earlier, perhaps there too.
• Noted that "header" isn't linked first time in the article.
  • I linked it in the "Road to the final" section - "Van Hezel of HHC headed". Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Ditto for "foul".
• "seemed more nervous than" perhaps quote them directly as this is a bit journalistic.
• Link for "dribble"?
• "dribbled through the PEC defence ... dribbled through" repetitive...
• "replaced" could link substitution. Better here than the later link for "substituted off".
• "Antonia crossed the ball" quickly repeated, boring prose.
• "Several minutes later" odd thing to say in a match report.
• "stoppage time" link?
• "who misjudged it " poor wording, what actually happened?
• "PEC's Nijland had a goal disallowed a minute later" how, why?
• "Groningen red ones as the victors. Groningen captain Kieftenbeld was handed the trophy by former Groningen" Groningen Groningen Groningen.
• "Post match" normally hyphenated.
• "1933–34 KNVB Cup" link.
• "winning the Cup" not formal name so no need to capitalise Cup.
• "1.9 million" non-breaking space between 1.9 and million.
• No photo of the mural?
  • Unfortunately not (also not on Flickr as far as I could find). Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass. The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 21:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I addressed your remarks and left some comments above. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support an excellent article, good work. The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 19:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Seems like most sources here are in Dutch, to be expected. What makes https://www.oost.nl/, https://www.elfvoetbal.nl/, https://www.pzc.nl/, https://www.vi.nl/, https://www.ad.nl/, https://www.voetbalzone.nl/, https://www.rsssf.org/ and https://www.destentor.nl/ reliable sources? Formatting seems mostly consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus;

• Oost (omroep) is the newsstation for the province of Overijssel (where PEC are based) - as you can see, the Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) sometimes works together with Oost ("in samenwerking met").
• Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant (linked at NOS), Algemeen Dagblad (linked at NOS) and De Stentor (linked at NOS) are all well-known newspapers in the Netherlands.
• ELF Voetbal is the biggest monthly Dutch football magazine, while Voetbal International is one of the biggest and most famous Dutch football magazines with several football experts working for them (e.g., [29]).
• Voetbalzone is the most frequently visited Dutch football website (linked at NOS)
• RSSSF is the online database of football statistics that's used as a general guide by several mainstream sports media outlets, including ESPN. Its charter may provide some extra clarification. The site is referenced in most of the featured articles (e.g., Burnley F.C. and Manchester United F.C.). Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  OK, although I wonder how RSSSF is written, does it have editors? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Jo-Jo Eumerus - The website does have editors, see e.g., the list of editors here. RSSSF has different editors for different areas of the world. It's not a website like Wiki that everyone can edit, the board of RSSSF will deal with eventual applications apparently. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• The article is titled "2015 KNVB Cup final", the first line of the infobox is "Event: 2014–15 KNVB Cup". I assume that it is the infobox which needs amending?
• "losing to PSV in 1989." Could we have PSV in full at first mention in each of the lead and the main article. Thanks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, I amended the first line of the infobox. About PSV, I changed it to PSV Eindhoven (also the name of the article), to have it presented in a similar manner as PEC Zwolle, abbreviation first followed by the place name. Hope that's alright. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Yugoslav torpedo boat T6

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

T6 was a dinky little steam-driven torpedo boat that started life as an Austro-Hungarian vessel. She saw extensive service in the Adriatic Sea in the latter stages of WWI, performing convoy, escort, patrol and minesweeping tasks, and anti-submarine operations. After WWI she was taken over by the new South Slav state, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes – which was renamed Yugoslavia in 1929. She was captured by the Italians during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, and despite her age the Italians put her to good use on coastal and second-line escort duties in the Adriatic. When the Italians capitulated in September 1943, her crew tried to reach an Allied port, but scuttled her when this proved impossible. This article is part of the 36-article Featured topic, Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy, that I am slowing improving to the point where every article and list is Featured (I'm about two-thirds of the way there). Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review

File:Yugoslav torpedo boat T3.jpg - a reprint of the source just credits the image to "Photo, Official" - could you please explain where the indication is that this is a British official photo, rather than a Yugoslav one?

The answer to this is with reference to the captions of photographs of RN ships in the same book, which have exactly the same annotation, "Photo, Official", whereas French ships for example, have "French Navy, Official" (see page 139 for an example of the latter). I consider it is entirely reasonable to assume that because it does not say "Yugoslav Navy, Official", but uses the same annotation as RN vessels, that it was taken by a RN source (probably the naval attache, or by a RN ship on a show the flag visit). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I will also note that the caption doesn't quite work right now - it's technically unsourced since the distinction is never made in this article that T-3 was of the T type instead of the F type. The same source this image is from does include a photo of one of the two-funnel models of these torpedo boats, but it's of much lower quality so I can understand why it is not used. Hog Farm _Talk 23:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to cite the fact that T3 was a T-group boat as it is very unlikely to be challenged. I could add it and a citation to the caption if you think it is necessary, but it seems like overkill to me. An explanation of the distinction is made per "The F-group had two funnels rather than the single funnel of the T-group" under Description and construction. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

G'day Hog Farm. See what you think of my responses above. Thanks so much for having a look! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay - passing on the image review. Hog Farm _Talk 13:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Sammi Brie

Solid article. Paragraphs and sentences occasionally need splitting, and I have some thoughts on commas. Ping me when all of this is handled. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

• she was armed with two 66 mm (2.6 in) guns and four 450 mm (17.7 in) torpedo tubes, and could carry 10–12 naval mines One subject: "she". Remove the comma. WP:CINS

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Background:

• Would a paragraph split be useful?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• In such circumstances, there would be a need for a torpedo boat that could sail from the Austro-Hungarian Navy (German: kaiserliche und königliche Kriegsmarine, Hungarian: Császári és Királyi Haditengerészet) base at the Bocche di Cattaro (the Bocche or Bay of Kotor) to the strait during the night, locate and attack blockading ships and return to port before morning. Consider converting the translation note to a footnote to improve readability in this complex sentence.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• as diesels with the necessary power were not available, and the Austro-Hungarian Navy did not have the practical experience to run turbo-electric boats Remove comma as this is part of one clause.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Description and construction:

• The 250t-class F-group boats had short raised forecastles and an open bridge, and were fast and agile Remove comma CinS

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'd recommend splitting the first paragraph unless it is like this in other articles of the FT.

Good point, it has become larger over time as more material has become available, and is now a bit unwieldy. I have reorganised it a bit, then split it. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• with the forward gun mounted on the forecastle, and the aft gun on the quarterdeck Remove comma
• with one pair mounted between the forecastle and bridge, and the other aft of the mainmast Remove comma

Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• 93 F was laid down on 9 January 1915, launched on 25 November, and commissioned on 4 April 1916 Remove comma after 25 November to be consistent with this article's non-use of serial comma. (There is one serial comma later that is fine because of the complexity of the phrase)

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Career:

• The original concept of operation for the 250t-class boats was that they would sail in a flotilla at the rear of a cruising battle formation, and were to intervene Remove comma

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• On 29 October she underwent Comma after "29 October" for consistency with the other date prepositional clauses in this paragraph

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• In June, 93, along with 96, and Csikós and her sister ships Wildfang and Velebit were try the comma order In June, 93, along with 96 as well as Csikós and her sister ships Wildfang and Velebit, were

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• During 1917, 93 conducted further minesweeping missions, and escorted 36 convoys. Remove comma before "and" (CinS). Think of it this way. Is the part after the conjunction a standalone sentence conceivably? Not "Escorted 36 convoys.".

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• of Pag, but had to terminate Remove comma.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• On 20 August, 93 was transferred to the Bocche, and was part of the 1st Torpedo Flotilla Remove comma (CinS)

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• On 29 September, 93 along with 82, 87 and 96, and the Ersatz Triglav-class destroyers Lika, Dukla and Uzsok try On 29 September, 93 along with 82, 87 and 96 plus the Ersatz Triglav-class destroyers Lika, Dukla and Uzsok,

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• As the end of the war approached in November and the Austro-Hungarian Empire broke apart, on 1 November 93 was ceded to the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs Restructure so "1 November 93" is not stuck together and could be mistaken for a date. Splitting the description of the SSCS into its own sentence ("This was...") will help.

I think I have addressed this, perhaps not exactly as you envisaged. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Skradin where the population begged them to leave the harbour to avoid the town being bombed by the Italians. Add comma after Skradin for readability

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• In response, Kern ordered T6 to escort Perun to the Bay of Kotor, and the two vessels arrived there the next day without incident, where T6's malfunctioning gun was repaired and she was loaded with weapons, supplies and extra men and sent to Šibenik. Split this sentence: In response, Kern ordered T6 to escort Perun to the Bay of Kotor; the two vessels arrived there the next day without incident. There, T6's malfunctioning gun was repaired; she was loaded with weapons, supplies and extra men and sent to Šibenik.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• the Axis puppet fascist state, the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) try the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), an Axis puppet fascist state

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• T6's commander, a Slovene, was not interested in serving in a Croatian navy, and abandoned Remove comma after "navy" CinS

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• join NDH navy missing "the"

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

G'day Sammi Brie, all done I reckon. See what you think? Thanks for taking a look, apologies for the delay in addressing your comments. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Happy to Support after taking a look. My issues are rectified. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Pendright

Placeholder - Pendright (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

PM - I seem to be awash in projects, so for now I'm wiggling out of this one—my apology. Pendright (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Peacemaker67, my comments:

• Why have we not linked to the Skoda 7 cm gun article in the lead when we have linked to it in the infobox?

Good question. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• "...Schwarzlose M.7/12 machine gun carried for anti-aircraft work": prefix "carried" with "was" for grammatical accuracy?

Wow, not sure how that got through previous reviews... Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• In the WWI subsection, "the naval historian Zvonimir Freivogel" is too long, just "Freivogel" may bw enough since he was introduced just two paragraphs ago.

Ah yes, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Brijuni islands?

It is already piped to the Fasana Channel, but no harm in linking directly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Strojne Tovarne (Iskra)?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• How exactly did the ship make a good impression in Malta? Was it the sailors' conduct, the ship's power or something else?

Presumably the sailor's conduct and the appearance of the ship. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Zablaće (Šabac) or Zablaće (Čačak), whichever one the source is referring to?

It's neither, both those villages are landlocked ones in Serbia. This is a different place, a village on the coast of Croatia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• "so took the": "so he took the"?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• "join NDH navy": "join the NDH navy"?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• In the biblio, link to Norman Friedman and Velimir Terzić?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Add 44888337 as the JSTOR ID for Vego 1982?

I'm not a huge fan of adding extra identifiers, the task is to enable verification, not provide every possible option to access it. Unless the MoS has changed and it is now mandatory, I'll stick to one I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• As an aside, would you be ok with adding DOIs for the books? These enable easier access than ISBNs and I faintly recall that there is an MOS on providing as many access options as possible. If you do wish to, then Djukanović 2023 and Ramet 2006 do have DOIs available.

See my response above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me, will do a source review soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Matarisvan. See what you think of my responses above. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding my support, will do spot checks soon. Matarisvan (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67, I will not be doing the spot checks since Jo-Jo is already doing a source review. I would suggest you get a review from @Nigel Ish, who's a subject matter expert on ships. Matarisvan (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Going into five weeks and this nom hasn't garnered a single support. Unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so it's most likely going to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, any progress on the reviews above and below? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco 1492

• Reserving a spot.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• They were the first small Austro-Hungarian Navy boats to use turbines, - Previous sentence had "Austro-Hungarian Navy", which may be misunderstood as "They". Perhaps "The 250t class"?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• On 11 May 1917, 93 F, 96 F and 78 T, accompanied by the Huszár-class destroyer Csikós, unsuccessfully pursued the British submarine HMS H1 after the submarine had stalked 78 T off Pola, missing her with two torpedoes. - Feels like this could be simplified. Perhaps "after the submarine had fired two torpedoes at 78 T"?

Have had a crack at simplifying, see what you think now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Bojana river - As a proper noun, shouldn't this be Bojana River? Same with Brijuni islands and Istrian peninsula

Done. Not sure how that happened. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• World War I - Question... I thought World War I was preferred in American English, with First World War preferred in British English.

It's written in Australian English, and we don't mind (both are used). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• When the navy was formed, she and the other seven 250t-class boats were the only modern sea-going vessels in the KM - Would "were its only modern sea-going vessels" work better?

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing consistency in your use of the Oxford comma.

It really isn't consistent in Australia, the government style guide says only to use it when ambiguity is created by its absence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Bay of Kotor - You referred to it as Bocche earlier. Why the shift?

Change of usage over time. Generally the Italian usage was most common in WWI, but in Yugoslav times, it was referred to as the Bay of Kotor. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Overall, the prose is quite tight. Well done! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Chris. Sorry about the delay. See what you think of my responses. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Looks good. Thank you! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "second-line escort duties". What does "second-line" mean here? This needs explaining.

Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• I cannot see an explanation. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've separated and clarified the explanation. See what you think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Kraljevska Mornarica, KM". Not "Kraljevska Mornarica (KM)"?

Well, it's already in parens, and the semicolon associates them sufficiently, IMHO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• "New torpedo tubes of the same size". Presumably the same as the old ones but this should be clarified.

Correct, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• "accompanied the light cruiser Dalmacija, the submarine tender Hvar and the submarines Hrabri and Nebojša". New KM ships? As you say above that originally there were only eight ships in the KM navy you should clarify.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• I find the second paragraph of WWII confusing. Šibenik Command was presumably a naval command of the NDH, so why should it need to be evacuated and why did Italy capture the boats of its Fascist ally?

It is the KM Šibenik Command (added). The Italians did not approve of the NDH having a navy, and the Germans acquiesced in this until the Italians surrendered in September 1943. Do you think I need to explain this? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• "but T6 was captured by the Italians along with the other boats of the division". Maybe "but the Italians opposed NDH having a navy and they captured the boats of the division including T6". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks, yes. Good idea, done, and added a citation for the Italian opposition. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• There is a CS1 maint error notice on the Freivogel ref. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure of what this is? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• The message on the last Freivogel source is "CS1 maint: ignored ISBN errors". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Jo-Jo identified this too, and I discovered I had reversed two numbers. Should be fixed now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Dudley. See what you think of my responses. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, should be good to go now, Dudley. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Source formatting seems consistent. 978-953-366-036-9 throws an ISBN error. Is there a logic behind using Google Books for some sources, OCLC and ISBN for others? None of the sources seem to be inappropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for taking a look. Somehow I'd reversed two numbers. Fixed now, I hope. In terms of Google Books etc, I generally use Google Books if the book is available in preview and the link might help with verification, and always use either the OCLC or ISBN\ISSN with each long citation. I can't say I'm a huge fan of adding OCLC and ISBN, seems like overkill to me. Generally I use whatever was the system at the time of publication, for a long time Yugoslav books only had OCLCs, and both of the OCLC books are Yugoslav. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2024 [30].

---

Ada Wong

Nominator(s): JokEobard (talk) 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a character from the Resident Evil game and film series; who is known for her red dress.

The article has undergone a lot of changes due to the reviewers at the 2nd peer review. It received several reviews from Aoba47, PanagiotisZois, Panini!, and Crisco 1492 (thanks for their help). Because of it, I feel like the article is ready for the FA criteria. Thank you! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from Panagiotis Zois

Given my involvement with heavily rewriting the content of the "Reception" section, could I even take part in this FAC? I feel like a "conflict-of-interest" situation might arise.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey. I don't think thats a problem in fact some reviewers wants to assist nominators more in a different way so that they can easily resolve any issues. Additionally, you were also not the author. Just in case you don't want to continue the review, you can strike it out. Thanks! Regards 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 14:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

One thing I wanted to ask is about the "Reception" section. The part about the Dragon Lady trope is interesting, but as it stands, only two sources are used. Are there at least one-two more sources discussing this trope that could be added? PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi PanagiotisZois. No, I went throughout and couldn't find more. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 09:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, but understandable. All right. I've gone over the whole article again. It look really good. There are a few things I would like see changed, but that's more of personal taste, and not something that is required to make the article better. Taking this into account, I support this article's promotion. Always nice to see articles of female character get more love and attention. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Vacant0

Will review this again. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 43 missing page(s).

Hi Vacant0. I don't think they need book pages since the book itself contains almost everything about the RE plot; and as usual almost the entire book pages mentions Ada (same with the usage of that sources from Jill Valentine). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• I do not see any particular issues with references and their reliability. Valnet sources are used, though TheGamer is now considered reliable.

I only used two TheGamer, but it is marked reliable unlike the content before. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• First ref in the Ref 46 is still confusing me. Do you have an issue number or ISSN of the comic book?

Not at all. I ended up removing the Chinese comic book source. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Spotchecked:

• In Resident Evil series: Ref 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25 (only mentions "Also, completion of Separate Ways will further flesh out new information files which get added to "Ada's Report."")

Nice caught! I Ended up removing the claim of ref 25 because I cannot support the claim. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Other appearances: Ref 31, 33, 39, 47
• Concept and design: Ref 49, 54, 56, 58, 62
• Voice-over and live-action actresses: Ref 4, 12
• Reception: Ref 8, 66, 75, 76

I'll take another look at the prose by the end of the week and will then decide my vote. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Take your time 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• I gave the article another read. It has certainly been improved since the last FAC, so, again, you have my support. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Crisco 1492

• Just a quick question - I'll have another read later, as this has changed a lot since the peer review. Does Jennings offer any arguments for why Ada "demonstrate[s] the intersectional potential of the feminine gaze?" The next line, that Jennings criticized the game's whitewashing of her heritage, suggests to me that Jennings was arguing that Ada's representation as both a woman and as a person of Asian descent brought more potential agency to the character. Why, though? Is this worth a footnote, or even just a bit of a more explicit clause explaining her argument?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Chris Woodrich I expanded a bit [31], and yeah she mentioned about her representation as a woman. I hope this is fine for you as a non-native English speaker. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)<

• To avoid too much mark-up, we had some discussion of Jennings' arguments at my talk page. Linked here for transparency.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Lede

• Worth mentioning in the lede that Lily Gao has reprised the role in the most recent release?

I'm not sure if this is needed as this may be potentially being removed by my co-nom, but I added it [32] 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Is there any way to avoid mentioning Resident Evil 2 twice in two sentences? I had reworked it to use "latter", but that was reverted. Maybe "the prototype for the sequel"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  My conom reverted it. I replaced it now with "sequel". 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Appearances

• After the restructuring, it's not clear who Alice is on first mention.

Added [33] 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• What's the distinction between an alternate skin and a costume? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Replaced the "costume" as an "alternate skin" [34]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Concept and design

• "randomly and without much thought" - This is a bit awkwardly phrased. Any means of rewording this? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure how since Kadoi said he "randomly thought her name without much thought" in the first Resident Evil. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• If that's the word he used, we may stray too much if we rephrase it. It's a minor quibble, anyways. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Separate Ways" is mentioned three times in three sentences. Any chance of reworking this to avoid the repetition?

Honestly, I prefer to repeat than to say DLC imor minigame because it confuses readers. In the original RE4, it is a minigame; but in the remake it is now DLC. Or you got any suggestion? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• I reworked it with this edit. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Reception

• For the feminist critiques of the character, I was wondering if there is any consideration of the deuteragonist in Ada's chapter in Resident Evil 6 vis-a-vis Ada herself. She has a name, a face, and a known story, whereas the faceless male-coded deuteragonist in her chapter is there simply to ensure that the game's co-play mechanics are available (he isn't even H.U.N.K.) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Chris Woodrich You mean if I can find more reception about her appearance in RE6? Nope. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• It was more wondering if anyone had contrasted Ada with the Player 2 character in that chapter, but given that the character is essentially a non-entity, makes sense that nobody has.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Probably not, but I will recheck it again to make sure in Saturday since I couldn't access my computer yet this time. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Overall, this article is looking really solid right now.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support, based on the peer review and review here. This appears to be a thorough review of the sources available, and it feels accessible to the average reader (though as someone who has played the games since release, and whose first edits were RElated, I might not be the best judge of that) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

I will do a thorough read-through of the article later in the week. I have a few quick comments for now.

• I would avoid repeating "video game" in the following sentence as it does make the prose unnecessarily repetitive: (Video game publications have positively responded to Ada as a video game character.)
• I would move the Resident Evil 4 link up to this part, (a remake of the original game), as that is the first time that the game is mentioned. I would also include the year up there as well.
• The source links for File:Early concept art of Ada.jpg are both dead (at least for me). Both links go to blank images for me.

Please ping me in a week if I have not posted anything further. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• RE: Source link, I have cited the PC port of RE2 as that was where the copies I provided the nominators came from. I have also fixed the links to Fandom – hopefully they work now.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Chris! Also, I already replaced "video game publications" and about the link of RE4, it was later removed per [35] 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the responses. Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• I think this part, (the character that would later become Ada was initially depicted as Linda), could be condensed to something like (Ada was initially depicted as Linda) to be more concise.

  Thank you for your comments! The reason I phrased this sentence the way that I did is because the final version of Ada that debuted in RE2 is an amalgamation of two prototypical characters that (initially) had no relation whatsoever: John Clemens girlfriend "Ada", who was only mentioned by name in RE1; and the Umbrella researcher Linda. Writer Noboru Sugimura ultimately gave Linda's role as Leon's supporting character to Ada in the final build, so Ada and Linda were never the same characters at all. I therefore feel that it is more appropriate to say that the (prototypical) character that was (eventually) transformed into Ada was initially depicted as Linda. I hope I'm adequately getting my meaning across, and I would be more than happy to discuss this further. :)JokEobard (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• For this part, (After the prototype was scrapped), I would avoid the word "scrapped" as it is too informal for Wikipedia.
• I do not think the director link is needed for (director Hideki Kamiya) as it does create an instead of a WP:SEAOFBLUE.
• This could be a matter of personal preference, but I would revise this sentence, (Ada's appearance was designed by artists Isao Ohishi and Ryoji Shimogama), to a more active tense: (i.e. Artists Isao Ohishi and Ryoji Shimogama designed Ada's appearance.)
• I would better attribute the quote in this sentence: (Recognizing Ada's minimal role in the main campaign and her being a "very strong character" that "deserves to really stand out" in Resident Evil 4, Capcom developed a short campaign dedicated to her.) The sentence attributes it to Capcom in general, but the source makes it clear that it is from Masachika Kawata.
• I have two comments on this part, (who helps protagonist Ethan Winters, such as helping him escape one of his trials early in the game). I would avoid repeating helps / helping in the same sentence as it is too repetitive. Also, is there a better and clearer descriptor for Ethan Winters? It would be helpful to give readers a better understanding of who this character is in the game itself.

These are my comments up to the "Reception" section. I hope that this is helpful and let me know if you have any questions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Aoba47. It seems like all of them are already resolved by @JokEobard (Thanks to him). Though, I don't know what's the best descriptor for Ethan Winters. Replacing "protagonist" into "civilian" seems kinda odd for you or not? Thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I am likely just over-thinking it. "Protagonist" is likely the best word choice as it would clearly let readers know that Ethan is the primary character from that game. I agree that "civilian" would not really work in this instance, and after looking through the article about him, I could not really come up with a better word choice so I believe your current version is the best in regards to this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to use a more specific descriptor for Jenny Platz other than "critic". I would say that even something like "scholar" is more precise, but that is already used for Andrei Nae later in the same paragraph. I just think that the "critic" word choice is a bit too broad for this instance, and it is already used three times in close proximity to one another as well.

Replaced 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• The word "femme fatale" gets repeated quite a bit at the end of the first paragraph and for the second paragraph as well. I would see if there are ways to avoid such repetition if possible.
• I think that the prose for the Andrei Nae parts could use some further revision. It has some great information and I find it very interesting, but I think that it could flow better overall. Let me know if further clarification is needed for this. One suggestion is that I do not think this part, (Concerning Ada's portrayal as a femme fatale), is really needed. I do understand how it is being used as a transition and to make things flow better, but it does feel a bit repetitious as the previous sentence already makes it clear that the discussion will be on Ada's role as a femme fatale and the subsequent reviews about it.

Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• I believe that when discussing the critic's opinions, the past tense should be used. This is pretty consistent throughout the "Reception" section, but I would revise this part, (scholar Andrei Nae notes), to be in the past tense and to double-check this section in case there are other instances of this that I missed.
• I am not sure if "appeal" is the right word choice for this part, (makes her accentuated sexuality as a femme fatale appeal to Orientalist clichés of East-Asian erotic femininity). Maybe something like "conform to Orientalist clichés" or "continue Orientalist clichés". Neither of my suggestions are particularly good either, but I did keep coming back to this part as I am not sure you can really appeal to cliches. I am also not sure if femininity really needs a link here. I would think one for East Asian would be best. Also should that be hyphenated? It is not done for the Wikipedia article, but I am honestly the worst when it comes to this.

Replaced 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• I would suggest that you remove the stereotypical link as most readers would be familiar with this concept and it would avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE as it is next to "Dragon Lady", which is a more beneficial link.

Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• I would give some sort of descriptor for Stephanie Jennings to provide some background and context for readers.

Added, but not sure if this is the best descriptor for her after checking here [36]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say that is better than nothing. It can be difficult to find a good descriptor for this if the person does not have a clear focus in their overall research. It should be fine in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• I am uncertain about the structure of the following sentence: (Ada's presence as one of the series' few multiracial characters, she opined, demonstrates the intersectional potential of the feminine gaze, albeit without exploration of the character's racial identity.) The placement of "she opined" in the middle does not seem particularly beneficial for readers. I would also avoid "opined" in general, but that could be a matter of personal preference. I do not have any strong opinions about it, but I believe that I have seen it discussed in other FACs. That being said, I think the sentence structure is more of my issue here.

Already restructured by other editor. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Should the criticism for Lily Gao's vocal performance be mentioned in the lead as it has a separate paragraph in this section? It is a shame to hear that Gao got this kind of harassment in general.

Added 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I would clarify that Gao was the one that received the criticism, not the character itself. It may also be worth briefly noting the review bombing as well to provide that additional context for readers. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• I would make sure that authors are linked in the citations if they have a Wikipedia article. Anita Sarkeesian and Esther MacCallum-Stewart should be linked in their citations.

Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience with my review. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. I hope that is helpful. I have really enjoyed reading through this article. Ada has always been a character from RE that stood out to me the most so it was nice to finally learn more about her. I am a huge fan of spies in general. It would have been cool to see a RE game lean more into the spy stuff with Ada as a lead, but I doubt most people would want that lol. I hope you are having a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'd play the ever-loving... out of an Ada-centric game. On topic, as I had proposed the sentences summarizing Jennings' arguments, I've rephrased the last one to "She suggested that Ada's presence as one of the series' few multiracial characters demonstrates the intersectional potential of the feminine gaze, albeit undermined by the limited exploration of the character's racial identity."  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for being sincere. This character as a spy is my favorite thing to the franchise. I'm glad Aoba enjoyed reading it. I am attempting to work on it. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I am glad that I am not the only one who would want an Ada-centric game lol. I just love spies in general, and I cannot really think of anything zombie-related taking that kind of angle. The rephrase looks great to me. Thank you for being patient and understanding with my comments. I have a minor comment on the citations. I have been told in past FACs to be consistent with whether or not citation titles use title case or not. I am mostly raising it to your attention, and it would not affect my review as it is more so focused on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and yeah thanks to Chris Woodrich for rephrasing it. I already did italized the game or film titles before and I am not sure if there are still other citations that have been overlooked or you mean this type of capitalization [37]? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I am referencing how words in the citation titles are capitalized. See MOS:TITLECAPS. I do not believe that it is required, but I will leave that up to the source reviewer. Again, this is just something that I wanted to raise to your attention and it is not a requirement for my review. I will read through the article later in the weekend. I do not imagine that I will find anything major, but I want to make sure to be thorough. Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I see. I will attempt to go through all the citation titles on what is needed to change. Thanks a lot for reviewing! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the nomination. I was debating on asking if the "a mysterious masked figure" description for Ada's planned appearance in Resident Evil Village should be more specific and mention the plague doctor element, but it may be getting too specific for something that was ultimately cut. Otherwise, everything looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review (with two notes about completeness)

File:Early concept art of Ada.jpg has the problem that it seems to illustrate a part of the article subject more than the whole, and thus doesn't meet the "significantly" part of WP:NFCC#8. Otherwise the image placement and stuff is fine. Source-wise: Are these Twitter accounts and Terasaki, Kimberly associated with the franchise? #58 and the sources under #70 throw an error message that must be suppressed. The bibliography seems reliable, while the rest of the sourcing is conditional, so to speak, on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. One thing that jumps out to me is that we don't have much description of her appearance, even though there are one or two paragraphs discussing the reception of her appearance. Also, the games themselves aren't cited as sources anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Jojo. Just a comment about the FU image. I proposed it at the peer review because the 1.5 concept art and the art for the model ultimately used shows some shifts in the character from "Linda" to "Ada". The left image shows the researcher design, including an Umbrella logo on the jacket, while the right image shows her in the design that was ultimately used. A similar comparison FU image is used at Jill Valentine, though in that case the image highlights a particular outfit rather than two iterations of the character.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus The two twitter sources are associated to the franchise like Vicky voiced her in DBD, while the terasaki source supports the claim that Sally Cahill vliced RE2, RE4 and RE Dark Chronicles. I don't understand why the sources at #58 and #70 are error to you since it was sourced fine; I don't know what needs to "suppressed" with that (You need to clarify what it is since other editors didn't spot any error at those sources at all). Also, there's nothing more that can be found to add about her description and most of it are now already at the "appearances section" and there are some games are cited like who designed her appearance. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" warning at 58 and 70. My question about the Twitter sources was more what makes them reliable sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" at us from our POV? (I also asked my conom if he saw the "error" or "harv warning", but nope) Also, the Twitter sources came from the voice actors themselves (Other FA also uses that kind of tweet as a source), so I will say that they're fine. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 07:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like it's a function on which userscripts one has. I also note that archiving Google Books links is pointless. Did some spotchecking, nothing jumped out to me but I must stress that I don't have much confidence in my assessments of the reliability of typical video game sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I see. When I use the sources, I did make sure to check it first at WP:VG/RS before using it. I will say all of them are reliable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Are they high-quality, though? That's a bit of a tougher question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus Yes. I did not include any inconclusive sources. The 2 sources of TheGamer are the only ones that may be controversial cause its Valnet, but it says "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable." + that sources were also used in the recent promoted article Raichu. So, it will be fine. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Boneless Pizza! - just confirming I see the errors as well, at 46, 58, and 70. I think it's from the way that these references have been nested. The script seems to be coded to ignore harv references generated automatically by the citation family of templates if and only if the reference is on its own between REF tags. By having extra formatting, the script is returning error messages. To fix this, each nested ref should have the field |ref=none added to the template. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Its kinda odd that other people can't see it, but thanks for informing me. Now I know what @Jo-Jo Eumerus mean. I already added it. Does it resolved the issues? Chris Woodrich 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  As Jo-Jo said, it isn't enabled by default; you have to have a particular script (User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors) enabled. Since SFN is my preferred citation style, I installed it a while ago. Returning to Ada, this appears to have been fixed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I see. Thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for the above. This one is also going to need a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing. Any chance that you could oblige? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check

Reviewing this version: * 4 Do the games and commentary name Taylor as the voice actor?

Yes 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• 10 Seems like we can't verify this until the webarchive works again.

ref 10 supports the first sentence, while 42 at the second sentence. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this was removed wholesale. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• 11 OK
• 12 Seems redundant to 11

Removed it 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔)

Still there, seems like. Also "portrayed Ada in the live-action film" appears twice, perhaps it can be reworded? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus reworded, and the current source for ref 12 os different now and the Complex source was already removed. The current source for ref 12 supports the voice being dubbed in Japanese, aswell as the promoting thing from Li. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• 20 I am not sure which part of 17 or 20 supports this.

17 supports everything, while I did replaced the source 20 into Digital trend to support the claim where Wesker sent Ada to steal the virus. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Now "Los Iluminados" doesn't appear anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus ehh, it is mentioned in the ref 17. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I bet you ctrl + f it, but in their website they double spelled the "L", which it was written as "Los Illuminados". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Aye, the article might need correction then. Also, does the cult use the parasite, is it infected by it, or both? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus the IGN articles does not us since they are spled correctlt. Also, both. They are infected and does contain the Las plagas parasite and often used it like for ex. when you blow up their head the giant parasite emerged and attacks protagonist. Is this aye already since this is the last one? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 15:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

From the source, it doesn't seem clear that the cult is using the parasite, instead of merely being its victim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus Sorry for confusing you. I did ask RE fans at discord and they were right that the cult was only infected, and they didn't "use" for parasite since the creature is already controlling when they were infected. So, they didn't use them but was only infected and being controlled by the Las plagas parasite. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• (3rd party comment) Referring to the primary source (i.e., RE4), every villager met by Leon and Ada has a Las Plagas parasite in them ("infected"). Three leaders (Saddler, Mendez, and Saddler) have a "higher breed" of parasite that allows them to control others infected by Las Plagas. They also "use" Las Plagas to infect others; Saddler's ultimate goal is to infect Ashley (who is implanted with a parasite about midway through the game) and have her infect her father, the President, thereby allowing him to control the United States through him. This is consistent in both the original RE4 and in the remake. So, based on the games, "infected" (as per Ref 17) and "used" (which doesn't seem to be in the sources used) are both correct. That being said, I agree that we need a source that explicitly says "use" if we're going to use that word.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Its hard to find and verify that claim that they "used" the parasite. I reworded it now to only "Infected" Since most of the cult were also victims and were just infected only. Update, we decided to reword it and doesnt mention "infected" or "used" anymore. I reworded it into simply into "from the los Illuminados cult". User:Jo-Jo Eumerus 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Any update to this? ( your final concern) . User:Jo-Jo Eumerus 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• 24 Seems like we can't verify this until the webarchive works again.

I will say this source definitely support the claim and was spotchecked by Vacant before web.archive.org was taken down. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• 30 OK
• 31 Doesn't appear in article.

Removed 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• 32 OK
• 35 OK
• 41 That Resident Evil: City of the Dead is a book is somewhat implicit here rather than explicit.

Eh, I just ended up removing the sentencr, but she still appears so her being mentioned appearing at novelization would be fine. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• 45 OK
• 47 The Linda part is supported by 48? Not sure what it supports in the other sentences.

"Ada was initially conceived as an Umbrella researcher named Linda" is supported by ref 48, while ref 47 support the rest 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask for a quote on #48?

Replaced it into Bloody Disgusting as a source just in case you're gonna doubt about it since I cannot access to that book. Bloody Disgusting still confirm that Ada was linda in the early concept, which it says that Linda was renamed as Ada in the final version. Jo-Jo Eumerus 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• 50 Don't have access.

It's in the end of game's credit scene. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• 54 Seems like we can't verify this until the webarchive works again.

It just supports her appearance in the "Separate Ways". Thats it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• 56 Don't have access.

Download it at libgen website. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Library Genesis seems questionable, legally speaking. I am a little uncomfortable with sourcing something to pirated text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Oops sorry for suggesting you about this as a source reviewer. I was able to download/receive books from other users after making request at resource. I've already emailed it to you the ref 56 and ref 72 book pages. I used Ref 56 so that I can claim her outfit as "red slit dress". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 16:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

'fraid that the emails did not include any content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus its in the second email. I already emailed you again for 3rd time now. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, got it now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• 60 Don't have access.

For you to see at twitter [38] 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why that would be a reliable source, and it only supports part of the sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Removed 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 16:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

OK: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• 61 OK
• 72 Don't have access.

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• 76 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus made a comment. If you can't access books then you download it from libgen website for free. About books, I was able to borrow/receive them from anotherr user via email after requesting at resource. Can I maybe take a screenshot and email it to you??? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

On 10 and 24, can I have a second pair of eyes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus about ref 24, this was the content fron a separate ways Ive taken to that website.

GI: Let’s talk about Separate Ways. Was this your idea? How it all come about?

Kawata: Actually while we were thinking about the game itself we realized that the development time was actually very long and we wanted to add something to the game more than just porting it. We wanted to really add something to the game and one of the things we realized was that Ada shows up in the game later but you don’t know much about her and she’s a very strong character and she deserves to really stand out in the game. So we really wanted to give her that side story in order to let her stand out the way she should have in the game

. I ended up removing the ref 10 and 40 aswell due their source problem I guess, its a Japanese full text and it might be a questionable source while archive org is still down. I've also already emailed it to you the ref 56 and ref 72 book pages. I used Ref 56 so that I can claim her outfit as "red slit dress". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus can you update? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the source review User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. @FAC coordinators: It seems like everything have been strucked and finished now (His final concern has been addressed [39]. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 09:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Panini!

I workshopped some of this article with (if your username were to be shortened, would you rather be called just "Boneless" or just "Pizza"?), including a peer review. My main gripe was the reception section, but this recent version is written very wonderfully, with its detailed critical opinions and comparisons to stereotypes and popular genres. I'm not a character guy, but I think you nailed it; really! My other concerns have been picked up prior to FAC. I Support this article. Panini! • 🥪 21:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Ada is hired by an unnamed organization to steal the G-virus mutagen developed by the Umbrella Corporation, a pharmaceutical company responsible for a zombie outbreak in the fictional American metropolitan area of Raccoon City. I really like this summary in particular

  Thanks for being sincere(if my username were to be shortened, I think it would be best to be called "Boneless" or just "BP" lol), that summary was made/copyedited by JokEobard wonderfully. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Shooterwalker

I had a chance to re-read this article. It was already very close not long ago. It has improved significantly, and I can support the prose as being featured quality. Great work. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Kung Fu Man

Tossing my support, but two suggestions with one purpose: I feel the note section is unnecessary:

• It should be fine to include the nihongo in the lead per other article. While I recognize Jill deviates from that, it's kind of an exception.
• For the Dead by Daylight reference, there's really no need to make a special note for the Resident Evil crossover, as others such as Knives Out came out years after the game's release also. Simply putting the reference itself in place of the note should suffice.

With these two small changes, the notes section can be removed for easier reading.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tintor2

Just like in the previous nomination, I think Boneless Pizza did a good work with Ada but I think he improved on it thanks to the fact the article provides more coverage about her other appearances like the making of the character.Tintor2 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 October 2024 [40].

---

My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy

Nominator(s): K. Peake 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is about My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (2010), the fifth studio album by American rapper Kanye West. It was recorded during West's exile in Hawaii after a period of controversy through 2009, resulting in a maximalist style with elements of his previous work. The album was met with widespread critical acclaim and also received much retrospective praise, including being ranked as one of the greatest albums of all time. West promoted the album with four singles that were top 40 hits in the United States and the film Runaway, while it reached the top 10 in countries like the US and Canada. The article became a GA back in 2011, more than five years before I joined this site, though I have monitored it over the years and put in extensive work back in both 2022 for the first FAC and even more so for the multiple candidacies of 2024. The prevention of FAC on the last occasions were mainly the book sources not included and too much close phrasing, although I have put in a massive effort to clean these up and also worked on the reception to have concise themes. Clearly having waited over a month after the last candidacy had closed, I had brought this to the maximum potential and would appreciate any users commenting to follow this constructively with whatever suggestions since last few times, it appears the same ones commented with concerns in one candidacy but saved others until the next. West's magnum ops surely deserves FA; we can do this, fans! K. Peake 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

I'll leave some comments soon. If I don't follow up by Wednesday, please ping me. ~ HAL333 19:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Certain retailers would not carry the original cover" --> "Certain retailers did not carry the original cover"
• Why wikilink "Burbank, California" but not "New York City"? (Both in the lead and body)
• "reviewers lauded the maximalism" might be unclear to the average reader. Maybe "maximalist sound" or "maximalist approach"?
• "the top 10 in numerous other countries" - can you give the actual number?
• Reword to avoid the passive tense: "It has been ranked in lists"
• The meaning of the clause "for challenging through contributions and inspiration" doesn't make sense to me...
• What is "alien electronics"?
• "West dedicates himself to expressing his emotions" seems a little fluffy
• "West ventures into the id of his ego" seems like it should be credited to someone.
• "shrinking world" - shrinking in what way?
• "African-American" - shouldn't be hyphenated

More comments to come. ~ HAL333 20:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

HAL333 Thanks for these comments, took me over a week but I checked back happily to find them – I've covered everything now. Please let me know if you want to clarify anything, look forward to seeing your further comments! --K. Peake 18:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Round 2:

• "once titled Good Ass Job and then as Dark Twisted Fantasy" —> I don't think "as" is needed
• "A second cover containing painting of a ballerina" is awkward
• "GOOD Fridays was originally intended" — "originally" isn't needed
• Sentences like West elaborated how he had been deeply considering the idea of a phoenix for a while, regarding the possibility of it being parallel to his career that he "threw a Molotov cocktail" at, then felt the need "to come back as a better person". make me think that a formal copy edit might be needed...
• "At one of his screenings for Runaway in Paris, he broke down into tears." --> "At a Runaway screening in Paris, he broke down into tears."
• "Later after another screening in Los Angeles" —"later isn't needed"
• Is there a better way to word "West said how his music and art affects people is his inspiration to continue in his career."
• "it was reported that My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy had been streamed a billion times on Spotify" - Is this an allegation or is it fact? Can we word it as such?
• "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy later appeared on decade-end best albums lists." — "Later" relative to what? Remove.
• Touré's views are given undue weight in the "Industry awards" section
• Can you make "Having been vocal about snubs for major categories of award shows in the past" more concise?
• I'm not particularly familiar with music media sources, but what makes outlets like HipHopDX or Hung Medien high quality reliable sources? This is an issue in several spots, e.g. the tabloid The Daily Telegraph.

Those are all my comments for now. This might need a second look from me, especially after others have commented. Comprehensiveness and most other aspects look great, but reference quality is a concern and the prose is lacking in many spots and needs to be polished for concision and "punchiness". ~ HAL333 17:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Kyle Peake? FrB.TG (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

HAL333 I have covered these comments now, although I would like to respond to what you said about sources. You can find The Daily Telegraph listed at WP:RSP, I had a discussion about HipHopDX on the Kids See Ghosts FAC and one about Hung Medien under the Late Registration FAC – check the source review tabs if you don't see it first time. Regarding what you said about the prose, I have been dedicating myself to cleaning this article up continuously as will be able to be seen if you take a look through my responses to these past four candidacies so to have it up to scratch on the fifth would be very satisfying! --K. Peake 20:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Going into five weeks and this nom hasn't garnered a support. Unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so it's liable to time out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• A week on and little has changed, so I am archiving this with regret. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 October 2024 [41].

---

John Gould Stephenson

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

John Gould Stephenson might just be the most obscure Librarian of Congress; he was a political appointee with no real experience with libraries, spent most of his time in office serving in the Union Army, and is mostly known for his appointee of the far more important Ainsworth Rand Spofford as assistant librarian during his tenure. Despite all this, he managed to lead an interesting (if poorly-documented at some points) life. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:John_g_stephenson.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Could find no evidence it was published, so put the unpublished PD tag instead. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp

I'll comment later. Steelkamp (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: I implemented all of these! Ty very much. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I aim to complete this review by the end of the week. I will have some more comments, which will take some time. Steelkamp (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• There are some instances of "Librarian of Congress" that go against MOS:JOBTITLES.
• "he attended education at" -> "he was educated at"
• "He moved to Terre Haute, Indiana, in the early 1850s, where he became active in the temperance movement and the nascent Republican Party. He campaigned for Abraham Lincoln in the 1859 Senate race in Illinois and the 1860 presidential election. He pursued an appointment of Librarian of Congress immediately following Lincoln's election, possibly due to his brother's work as a librarian in Cincinnati." -> "Stephenson moved to Terre Haute, Indiana, in the early 1850s, where he became active in the temperance movement and the nascent Republican Party. He campaigned for Abraham Lincoln in the 1859 Senate race in Illinois and the 1860 presidential election, and pursued an appointment of Librarian of Congress immediately following Lincoln's election, possibly due to his brother's work as a librarian in Cincinnati." This avoids there being three sentences in a row that begin with the same word, and makes it so that Stephenson is mentioned by name more than once in the entire paragraph.
  • Good, but now there are a bunch of terms that are no longer linked which probably should be.
• Cincinatti can be linked.
• "Lincoln appointed him" -> "Lincoln appointed Stephenson".
• "He died on November 11, 1883, after several months of illness" -> "He died after several months of illness" as the date is redundant to the first sentence of the lead.
• "J. G. Stephenson". Use a non-breaking space between the J and G as per MOS:INITIALS.
• "additionally serving variously as a selectman, county coroner, deputy sheriff, constable, fire warden, and high sheriff." -> "additionally serving as a selectman, county coroner, deputy sheriff, constable, fire warden, and high sheriff."
• "He was one of Lincoln's earliest advocates" -> "Stephenson was one of Lincoln's earliest advocates"
• Does Patriarch have to have a capital P?
  • Fixed. - G
• Chicago can be linked.
  • Fixed. - G
• "beginning within a few weeks of the election". Is this a few weeks before or after the election?
  • Clarified. - G
• "In March 1861, Senator Henry S. Lane also wrote to Lincoln in support" -> "in March 1861, Senator Henry S. Lane wrote to Lincoln in support".
  • Fixed. - G
• "Stephenson arrived in Washington". Should this be Washington, D.C.? Also, it can be linked.
  • Fixed. - G
• "Dole, Lincoln's Commissioner of Indian Affairs, described meeting with Lincoln to urge Stephenson's appointment." This sentence should end with a colon instead.
  • Fixed. - G
• "His longtime ally and associate" -> "Meehan's longtime ally and associate"
  • Fixed. - G
• "and asked Caleb B. Smith if Stephenson had resigned." Why did Lincoln think that Stephenson had resigned?
  • Unfortunately, the sources don't elaborate on Lincoln's worry. If I had to guess, he had just heard that large numbers of staff had left and wondered if this included Stephenson. - G
• Is the 19th Indiana Regiment and the 19th Indiana Infantry the same thing?
  • Ooh, yeps. Clarified. - G
• "Stephenson began to spend extended periods in military service soon after his appointment as Librarian of Congress." Maybe add that this was due to the Civil War.
  • Clarified. - G
• "He is recorded as a resident of Washington". Is this still Washington, D.C.? It should be clarified.
  • Fixed. - G
• "where he stated he was discharged without a given cause." -> "where he was discharged without a given cause."
  • Fixed. - G
• "he entered employment" -> "Stephenson entered employment".
  • Fixed. - G

Those are the only comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Steelkamp: Thank you very much! Fixed up things. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support. All my comments have been adequately addressed. Steelkamp (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Joeyquism

Committing to a review; should have a few comments by end of today! I'll have a more full-bodied review posted tomorrow after work. joeyquism (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Below are a few things I've noted. As with most of my reviews, many comments are nit; feel free to refuse any as you wish.

Lead

• "he attended education at Dartmouth" - I'll admit, I haven't seen this wording used before; perhaps this could do without "education at"?
• "nascent" - while I would personally be comfortable using this word in regular conversation, I would opt for "newly-formed" in the lead.
• "Stephenson begun" - should this be "began"?
• "He served in various positions as a clerk" - would "law clerk" or "judicial clerk" be accurate here?

Early life and career

• "He initially pursued further education at Dartmouth Medical School, before transferring" - I don't think there should be a comma between "School" and "before"

Will finish tomorrow. Work demands I be there early tomorrow, so I've gotta clock out earlier than I wanted. I'll strike this out later. joeyquism (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Further comments are listed below. I'll admit I'm in a reviewing slump, so forgive me if any of these seem silly.

• "(becoming a Patriarch of the local Sons of Temperance chapter)" - Any particular reason why this phrase is in parentheses?
  • No clue why, removed this. - G
• "A February 1860 notice in the Wabash Express attempted to clarify a controversial political statement from him, printing "J. G. Stephenson did not say that all men were created free and equal. He held just what the writers and signers of the Declaration of Independence held, namely, 'that all men are created equal.'"" - Is there any more context to this sentence? I understand that the paragraph it belongs to is laying out the beginning of his political career, but I feel like this particular sentence could benefit from a little more outlining - i.e. is there more background to what prompted him to give such a statement?
  • Not really with the source... I realized it's kinda nonsensical; it probably is him trying to couch abolitionist sentiments, but since the author doesnt expand on this point, I'll just remove it. - G

Librarian of Congress

• "While the number of other candidates for the position is unknown, at least three people wrote to Lincoln asking for Hezekiah Lord Hosmer to be appointed as librarian." - This seems extraneous?
  • Yeah, reduced this. - G
• "Stephenson himself arrived in Washington..." - Not sure if "himself" is needed, as there's no prior mention of anyone else arriving in Washington
  • Removed. - G
• "Although publicly apolitical, Meehan himself faced rumors of southern sympathies." - Also not sure of "himself" here; should "southern" be capitalized as well?
• "Stephenson was infuriated by the presence of the War Department's bakeries in the Capitol basement" - Wikilinking "bakeries" might be overlinking
  • Removed. - G
• Rest looks great.

Later life and death

• Just out of curiousity, is there any more background on why there's such a large gap between the suspected years Stephenson joined the Bureau of Pensions? Nothing here I can see in need of fixing otherwise; just wondering about this sentence.
  • No clue! The two sources give conflicting dates and neither seems clearly correct. - g

@Joeyquism: Forgot to say I corrected these! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking good on the fixes! Sorry for getting back to you past the time I promised; life's been getting the best of me lately. Will have some more comments down and a finished review tonight. joeyquism (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: Left just a few more comments above; everything seems to be in great shape otherwise. Just a few minor things that may or may not need addressing and I'll likely come back to support. joeyquism (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Joeyquism: Okay! Looks like I got to everything. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Everything looks great! Glad to give my support. joeyquism (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review by IntentionallyDense

I will be doing a source review for this article. I do this in a table format to keep things organized. I will update the table as I go and ping the nominator when done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Source Review

Section	Status	Sources I couldn't access	Comments
Early life and career	Done	None	"On March 1, 1828, John Gould Stephenson was born in Lancaster, New Hampshire, to Reuben and Mary King Stephenson (née Baker), the fourth of eight children." Not seeing "née Baker" on page 77 of the source but I may be missing something. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC) "née" means her maiden name is Baker, which was provided on p. 77. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC) "Reuben Stephenson was a merchant who operated a general store in Lancaster" Not seeing the general store part in either sources. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC) "dry goods and variety store" - alternate name for a general store. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC) "where he was described as an "efficient speaker" by Indiana politician William P. Dole" I do see the quote in both sources but not that it was said by William P. Dole. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC) Its in the footnote (tho I guess I should also list the page the footnotes are on)
Librarian of Congress	Done	None	The first paragraph under "Appointment" is sourced by Carter 1976, pp. 79–80. I don't think anything in this paragraph comes from page 79 so I think you could change this to just p. 80. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Done. - G Same thing with the first half of the second paragraph in this section. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Done. - G "The incumbent librarian, John Silva Meehan, had held the position since 1829." Not seeing the 1829 part in the two pages you listed here. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Expanded page range. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Later life and death	Done	None	Is there a reason why ref33 does not have a page number? IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Cause it's a link to a page on the Library of Congress website. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: I have finished my source review. Overall sourcing is great but I like to nitpick so I've brought up some tiny things that I noticed. Of course, there are things I could have missed, and I'll be honest I was a bit less thorough with the second half of the article because my source checks were coming back clean every time. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• @IntentionallyDense: Responded! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good! As I kind of guessed some of my comments came from the perspective of me not knowing things (such as the maidan name thing). Thanks for adjusting those page ranges and the library of congress website thing makes sense I just got a bit confused since there is 3 sources with the name "Cole". IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support: I did the source review for this article and didn't find any major issues which led me to support this article for FA status. All text is put into the writer's own words. Sources are properly cited in an organized and consistent way. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Dugan Murphy

I'll read the article and write something here soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Why include "practiced physic & surgery for ten years" as a quotation and who said it?
  • I don't know why I included the quote; removed that. - G
• he became involved with the temperance movement, becoming a patriarch: I recommend rewording to avoid having "became" and "becoming" together like that in the same sentence.
  • Reworded. - G
• he became involved with the temperance movement, becoming a patriarch: How is "patriarch" being used here?
  • It's a rank within the chapter, but I realized that it doesn't need to be mentioned and is kinda confusing. -G
• where he was described: Since there are three men mentioned in the sentence, I think it is worth replacing this "he" with "stephenson".
  • Done. - G
• He actively campaigned: Is "actively" necessary?
  • Guess not. - G
• that he had spent: Removing "had" would change this from past perfecr tense to simple past tense, which sounds more appropriate to me.
  • fixed. - G
• political appointment as the librarian of Congress using connections: Seems like there should be a comma after "Congress".
  • Done. - G
• The Meehan image caption should have an uncapitalized "librarian", I think.
  • Fixed. - G
• Why are the ellipses in the block quote in brackets?
  • Quoting from the source, as I don't have access to the original document; presumably used to indicate that a section has been skipped. - G
    • According to MOS:ELLIPSIS, putting square brackets around an ellipsis is what you do to distinguish that ellipsis as a stand-in for omitted text versus another ellipsis in the same quote that is is part of the quote. In this quote, both ellipses are used in the standard omitted-text-way, so including the brackets is against the MOS. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
      • Interesting! Removed that then. - G
• Wikilink Union (American Civil War)?
  • Good idea. - G
• Meehan calmly accepted his dismissal, and left his duties at the end of May. I don't think that comma is necessary.
  • Fixed. - G
• deemed as low-quality books: The "as" doesn't seem necessary.
  • Removed. - G
• defended his actions against the Joint Committee: I think "against" should be "to", if I'm reading this sentence correctly.
  • Fixed. - G
• I think was "[because] his conviction would make more sense as was because "his conviction
  • Fixed. - G

I'll read more and leave more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Dugan Murphy: Thank you very much for your comments; I got to everything so far! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. It looks like all my above comments were addressed, though there is one that warrants further discussion. See my new comment above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Here are some more comments, having read through the rest of the article:

• The first time Spofford is mentioned, he is named without anything saying who he is. The second time he comes up he is introduced to the reader as a journalist. I think it should be the other way around.
  • Spofford is a good source on Meehan here because he was a librarian of congress, but it's important to note that he was a journalist to explain why he was in Washington and met Stephenson; so I gave context to the first instance. - G
• Who said "intimated an offer"?
  • I don't know why I quoted this, paraphrased. - G
• Do we know why Stephenson left Washington for 2 months in 1861?
  • To care for soldiers; elaborated. -G
• Resignation section: I had to read the 2nd and 3rd sentences a few times. I now have the impression that Spofford and Lanman were both vying for Stephenson's position, but I think this could be reworded to make that more clear. At first reading, I was asking, "Spofford was soliciting endorsements for what?".
  • Reworded. - G
• Charles Lanman, the former librarian: Not a big deal, but "the" doesn't seem necessary here.
  • Fixed. - G
• Stephenson announced his resignation from his post as Librarian of Congress on December 22, 1864,: I don't think you need to include "from his post as Librarian of Congress". That's already clear.
  • Good point, clarified. - G
• Can you find any more detail on what war speculations that Stephenson was allegedly up to? If not, is there a general contextual sentence you could add about the kind of war speculation that was common at the time or that people were being accused of at the time?
  • Sadly, there's just no further information in any of the sources, and I feel it'd be getting too far off track to bring in sources about civil war speculation that don't mention him. - G
    • Understood. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Librarian Keyes Metcalf described him ... describing his appointment: That's one too many described/describing.
  • Fixed. - G
• Because we're mostly talking about Stephenson's librarian contemporaries, I would like to see Metcalf introduced as "Twentieth-century librarian Keyes Metcalf" or something like that so it is clear we're talking about an expert opinion with historical perspective.
  • Done. - G
    • MOS:NUMNOTES says to avoid starting sentences with numbers, so I recommend spelling out 20th century. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Dugan Murphy Ope! Forgot about that one. Resolved. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• I find two instances in which "Library" is capitalized as a standalone word and many more times when it is not capitalized. I think you could go either way, but you need to go either way consistently. I think uncapitalized seems more appropriate to me.
  • Lower-cased it, except in one point where its in a quote.
• in a 1871 edition of Boyd's Directory, as well as in two: The "as well as" would read better as "and".
  • Done. - G
• where he was discharged without a given cause: I think "where" should be "when"; and how about "stated cause" instead of "given cause"?
  • Done. - G
• he approached a physician due to persistent insomnia: "Approached" seems an odd word choice. How about: "he saw a physician for persistent insomnia"?
  • Good idea. - G
• How did Stephenson serve as a naval surgeon in an army unit?
  • No clue, but that's his own words. Probably while the unit was being transported? - G
    • Curious. I guess if that's what the source says, we'll go with it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• attended college at Dartmouth Medical College and Castleton Medical College: "college at" seems extraneous.
  • Fixed. - G
• Why not Wikilink Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, and colonel in the lead?
  • Done. - G
• The sentence in the lead that starts "He campaigned for Abraham Lincoln" is a bit unwieldy. I recommend rewording, possibly splitting.
  • Done. - G
• Believing that the library: "that" is extraneous.
  • Fixed. - G
• several months of illness: This statement in the lead is not sufficiently supported by the body. You should reword one or the other, making sure to stay true to what the sources say.
  • Oops, my bad there. - G
• I don't suppose there are any other images of Stephenson you can add to the article?
  • Sadly not. - G
• The Library of Congress would occupy: That would read better if you replaced "would occupy" with "occupied".
  • Done. - G
• Why does the gravestone pic need citations?
  • No clue, removed. - G
• This article is included in the "American abolitionists" category, but I don't see anything in the article to support that.
  • Removed, no clue how that got there. - G

In summary: This looks like a great article and is generally well-written. The coverage seems reasonably comprehensive, acknowledging where scholarship cannot confirm parts of Stephenson's life, but also not going into too much detail on any one aspect of his life. The language is neutral and the article seems stable. Earwig thinks plagiarism is unlikely. The lead does a good job of summarizing the body. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Dugan Murphy: Okay, I think that's all! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Rad. I see only one lingering issue, per my new comment above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • That last issue being resolved now, I see nothing else keeping this from being FA-worthy. I support this nomination. I have an FAC nomination of my own that doesn't have any reviews yet beyond an image review. If you're able to take a look, I would appreciate the effort. You'll find it here. Thanks in advance! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Shushugah

• Replace the hyphen in 1800-1864 with en-dash 1800–1864
  • Done. - G
• was buried is grammatically correct, but implies that his body was relocated elsewhere later on. He is still buried there right?
  • It's describing the physical act of the funeral burying him, not just stating that he's underground. - G
• Considering the Secretary of War does not exist anymore, it would be interesting to wiki-link it. A way to ensure it isn't continuous sea of blue would be to phrase it as Alexander Ramsey, the Secretary of War
• Good idea, done. - G
• influence the Kentucky delegation -> who are they and why is this not elaborated?
  • This isn't elaborated on much in the source, sadly; sorta based off what a couple politicians said in later accounts. It's just the Kentucky delegation to the RNC, but it'd be redundant to state that again. - G
• This alarmed the... -> clarify that the change of staff, not specifically retention of Meehan's son triggered alarm
  • Done. - G
• as a flue for the baking operation had been built into the flue of the library's furnace. -> awkwardly phrased, remove redundancy of flue
  • Hard to describe a flue being built into another one without saying it twice, but I tried to make the sentence scan better. - G
• Rep. should be lengthened to Representative
  • Good idea, fixed. - G
• wiki links representative and senator in congressional representative and senator
  • Done. - G
• had indicated an intention to resign -> indicated his intention to resign
• have stayed in Washington, -> Washington D.C.,
  • Fixed both of these. - G

Thank you for a delightful and wonderful historical biography on an obscure librarian of congress! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Shushugah: Thank you very much! Responded. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Shushugah, hi. How is this coming along? Are you finished with your review? FrB.TG (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Shushugah Second courtesy ping^ Arconning (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• No identifier for Salamanca, 1942?
  • Fixed. - G
• "He briefly served as an acting naval surgeon to the 19th Indiana Infantry in 1861", Why would he serve as a naval surgeon to an infantry unit
  • I have no clue whatsoever; the source directly quotes him stating that he was a "naval surgeon". - G
• "he briefly served as acting naval surgeon of the 19th Indiana in 1861." "19th Indiana", could the name of the unit be given in full.
  • Fixed. - G

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild Responded. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 October 2024 [42].

---

Jochi

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Jochi was, and remains, the most mysterious of the sons of Genghis Khan (I haven't got around to his sisters yet). The disputed circumstances of his birth, his conflicts with his brothers, his growing independence and estrangement from his father, his early death... all have contributed to a murky image of the man. Hopefully, this article will bring some clarity. If successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:Batu_Khan_on_the_Throne_by_Rashid_al-Din.jpg needs a US tag

• File:Khwarezmian_Empire_1190_-_1220_(AD).PNG needs a source for the data presented

• File:Dzhuchi_khan_mausoleum.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • All fixed Nikkimaria except the last, which I don't really know what's being asked for. The building itself wasn't ever copyrighted? Could you please explain? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
    • It will be in the public domain due to age, but just needs a tag for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
      • Can you please specify what type of tag is applicable Nikkimaria? I'm a bit stuck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
        • Would this align with what is known about the building? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
          • It does. Many thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

HF - support

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 23:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Religion of Tengrism seems only to be mentioned in the infobox
  • Removed as not fitting MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE
• I don't think the 1227 deaths category is strictly appropriate, Category:1220s deaths seems preferable given the uncertainty over the date of his death
  • Adjusted
• Check the page range on Dafeng & Jianyi - the short citation is to p. 190 but this page is outside of the range given in the long citation
  • Ah, a typo.

I am very much not familiar with the subject matter, so the review is more surface-level than I prefer my reviews to be, but this appears to be an excellent article. From a nonexpert look, the sourcing all appears to be reputable. Hog Farm _Talk 00:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments Hog Farm—any and all improvements are always helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi AirshipJungleman29, my comments:

• "one of their number": "members" instead of number?
  • I believe they mean the same thing; what's the improvement?
• "excluded from succession": prefix a "the" before "succession"?
  • Adjusted.
• In the infobox, can we list the campaigns Jochi participated in?
  • {{Infobox royalty}} is used, not {{Infobox military person}}. If you have a way to fit the parameters of the latter into the former, much appreciated.
    • Is there any reason you can't fit it into the module? I've gotten the military infobox to work as a module for {{Infobox scientist}} on this article. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• "badly contradictory": "highly" instead of "badly"?
• "named Qutlugh Khatun...": "namely" instead of "named"?
• "reorder his new nation, dividing the nation": "it" instead of "the nation"? The latter is repetitive.
• "in the expectation": "with" instead of "in"?
• Link to Christopher Atwood in the body?
  • All done.
• "triumphant return from battle": do we know which battle this was? Does the SHM reveal this?
  • Clarified.
• "captured Otrar": link to Otrar Catastrophe?
• "Upon the city's eventual fall": "after" instead of "upon"? Idk why but the latter seems grammatically incorrect.
• "take his time hunting": "spend" instead of "take"?
• "greatly fond of": "very" instead of "greatly"?
  • All done.
• "Sources for 1225:[46]

Sources for 1227:[47]" -> Add spaces after 1225 and 1227?

• • I don't think that's necessary, but done.
• "Ulytau Region, Kazakhstan, has...": rephrase to "Ulytau Region in Kazakhstan has..."?
  • Done.
• Could we add images of the Siege of Gurganj/Gurganj Fort, and the courses of the Irtysh and Angara rivers? I believe these will better illustrate their respective text.
  • We don't have high-quality depictions of the siege. Added a map of the Irtysh.

I'll have to check for comprehensiveness, because I somehow feel something is missing in the article. I don't know what though. Matarisvan (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

A support from me on the general text then. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, I got infobox military person to work as a module so I added it myself to the article. Lmk if you're ok with this addition. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That is quite helpful Matarisvan, really appreciate it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• All sources are from reliable publishers and authors.
• Thinking of doing spot checks for 10 refs, about 20% of total refs. Will try to get these done within this week. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Spot checks:

  • #5, #51, #45, #38, #37, #32, #28, #21, #9: ok.
  • #41: Source doesn't explicitly say "designed to buttress Ögedei's rule as khan of the empire", it just says "harmonization between the "standard narrative"".
    • Adjusted page numbers.

  On comprehensivess, why don't we have these details:

  • "Jochi also accompanied SÜBE’ETEI BA’TUR’s first campaign against the Qipchaqs (1218–19)", the dates from "Jochi campaigned with Cha’adai and Ögedei in southwest Inner Mongolia (November 1211) and in Hebei and Shanxi (autumn 1213)", and "Chinggis Khan assigned to Jochi KHORAZM and the steppes from the river Chu on west, intending them as a base for the conquest of the Qipchaqs" from Atwood 2004.
    • Added the dates for the Chinese campaigns. The other details are in the article.
  • Dunnell 2023 also confirms: "Discord among Chaghadai, Jochi, and Ögödei prolonged the siege (it lasted at least five months), causing a high Mongol casualty rate. When Urgench finally fell in spring of 1221 after great slaughter, the survivors were driven out, divided up, and dispatched in the usual fashion. Jochi parted ways with his brothers and moved north into the steppes, ostensibly to subdue the Qipchaq tribes."
    • All of this is in the article.
  • Also, we should list the probable Mongol casualties at Gurganj to give context on why Genghis considered it a failure. Matarisvan (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    • I don't believe I am aware of any estimates. Thanks for the comments Matarisvan; much appreciated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

      I had not seen that the Qangli are considered to be of Kipchak origin. That makes the latter part of the following sentence included: "Chinggis Khan assigned to Jochi KHORAZM and the steppes from the river Chu on west, intending them as a base for the conquest of the Qipchaqs". But we haven't included in the article the details that Jochi was assigned Khwarazm and the river Chu's western steppes, even though we say Jochi preferred a less destructive approach during the siege of Gurganj, we don't say who eventually got control of the territories conquered. I believe this is the only detail left to be included. Matarisvan (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

      • Added Matarisvan. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

        The source review is a pass then. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from PMC

Within the week hopefully. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos gentle poke ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Technically I'm only a day out :P

• "However, during" - ditch however
• "had begun to" - "began to"
  • Done both.
• "were considered highly controversial" - were, past tense, as in not anymore?
  • Not really—you won't find any academics arguing passionately for or against Genghis's paternity, and the whole matter is marked down under "we will never know". Back then however ...
• I think you can ditch both uses of "highly" in this sentence as well
  • Good call.
• You've told us that the events are controversial and contradictory, but then provided one straight narrative. Whose narrative are we using, and why do we trust that one?
  • That is the accepted narrative, containing elements from both the SHM and Rashid al-Din. I have specified that in text.
• "this proposal was taken as insulting" I assume because of Mr Jochi's messy parentage?
  • Not entirely—there was also the question of whether Temüjin was important enough to propose that in the first place; included both in text.
• "He also began" think you can ditch "also" here
  • Done.
• insert here my usual complaint about breaking the left header with images
  • insert my usual rejoinder that I don't mind it in moderation.
• "requested him to decide" not sure the grammar works here. "asked him to" would work, or "requested that he decide", but I don't think you can use "requested him"
  • Done the latter.
• "After the brawling brothers were pulled apart" you've gone from shouting one insult to breaking up a brawl with no intervening mention of the actual brawl occurring.
  • It was a fairly short one, but done.
• " Jochi's failure to give him his rightful share of the loot" did we establish earlier that Jochi did this? Feels like it comes out of nowhere
  • We did not, but it happened (or didn't, I suppose) following the siege, so it fits better afterwards I think. Rewritten anyway, let me know what you think.
• "One account states...this account" I know you've got the semi-colon, but you still have "account" twice in one sentence
  • Removed.
• Suggest subbing in File:Dzhuchi khan mausoleum (cropped).jpg (which I've just made), which trims out a lot of the empty space and the random family to close in on the building
  • Done, and thanks muchly for the crop.

That's all I have. A nice tightly-written little article, great work as usual. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

thanks very much for the comments Premeditated Chaos, responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking good to me, I'm a support. (As a side note, if you have any interest in commenting, I have another McQueen collection at FAC) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from Aza24

• Will do shortly – Aza24 (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Probably will not get to this until the weekend, so if the coordinators see the nomination fit to promote before then, no need to wait for me. – Aza24 (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

• In my mind, it's a bit odd to not include the birth date, c. 1182, in the actual article content. We wouldn't want to send readers back to the lead/infobox :)
  • I think I removed that while editing and forgot to put it back in. Anyway, it's there now.
• "turbulent adolescence" is a bit vague—maybe "violent" or "warfare-ridden"?
  • Done.
• Is there any geographical clarifier that could be used for the Merkits? e.g. the northwestern Merkits (not sure where they were)
  • You're correct!—northwest is probably the best estimate. Added.
• "while the two that did" – to my eyes, makes it sound like they also omitted the events, with the "while" being extranaeous. Maybe "that did include them..." Ignore this if it seems nonsensical
  • No, I think that's perfectly clear and the article lacked the clarity. Good spot.
• Might be worth restating Jochi's birthplace in the 3rd para of "Birth and paternity". I'm not exactly sure where in the world we are at this point
  • Sorry, "in Jamukha's camp" is all the sources (historical or modern) provide. Somewhere in the Mongol heartland.
• I'm assuming nothing is known between 1182 and 1203? If there is a source that says this, it would seem worth clarifying, so the reader doesn't think the article is just missing information
  • You're in luck! Added.
• "After Toghrul's defeat"—do we know when this is?
  • We do.
• Any dates for the marriages or births? Assuming not for the former, at least
  • Sadly not.
• Your Genghis Khan article doesn't seem to refer to the title in quotes, like here: "Genghis Khan"
  • It was supposed to; added it there.
• "After the city's eventual fall"... in ?
  • Added year; estimates for the month do not agree.
• "Whichever narrative is preferred" — not sure about this phrasing, perhaps "Regardless of the narrative discrepancies". Not a huge deal
  • I prefer your formulation.
• Nice work overall, the above are small details and nothing essential. My main complaint is an occasional lack of specific dates and locations, but I understand many of these are likely unavailable. Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much Aza24; responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Excellent. Happy to support this nomination – Aza24 (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: could I nominate another article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 October 2024 [43].

---

Battle of Lake Providence

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I have a long-term goal to get all of the articles related to the Vicksburg campaign to featured article status, in the manner of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Guadalcanal Campaign. Hopefully this will become the fourth FA of the direct project, after Battle of Grand Gulf, Battle of Raymond, and Battle of Helena, with Grant's Canal and Duckport Canal as supporting FAs. This isn't the meatiest article of the group, but I believe it is as comprehensive as can be. This winter, when I have more time on my hands, I hope to tackle some of the bigger ones. Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I have attempted to add alt text, and have also added File:Map of Plantations in Carroll Parish, Louisiana and Issaquena County, Mississippi (cropped).jpg. I think the licensing is pretty airtight on the new addition. Hog Farm _Talk 16:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from CMD

Thanks for the read. The comments below are part clarificatory questions, rather than being a point by point list of needed actions.

• Is there a pattern behind the name abbreviations of Hugh T. Reid, Paul O. Hébert, and E. Kirby Smith? Just convention among historians?
  • This is how the individuals are named in the sources Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Bartlett's force crossed Bayou Macon two days late" does not come with context as to what the expected time was. Coordination with the other prongs? Same in the body.
  • This is addressed in the body - "Major General John George Walker's troops reached Richmond on June 6, and Taylor planned a three-pronged strike for the next day: Confederate troops were to attack Milliken's Bend, Young's Point, and Lake Providence". I've added to the lead a statement that the attacks were scheduled to take place on June 7. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• "The Confederate were forced to halt" in the lead doesn't seem to align with "Bartlett halted his cavalry at the bridge in order to allow the infantry to catch up" in the body, with the latter implying it was a choice rather than something forced.
  • Rephrased. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Without going into a huge amount of detail, could Background provide a bit more context as to the situation in Louisiana at this time? The Union forces are described as attacking Vicksburg from Louisiana, which is to the west, and Confederate forces also come from the west, including apparently taking over Richmond.
  • @Chipmunkdavis: - I've added several sentences for greater context of the operations - is that an improvement? Hog Farm _Talk 23:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Yes, that's helpful geographical context. CMD (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• What sort of place is "Caledonia"? The article seems to append ", STATE" to towns and cities, which made me curious what Caledonia was, and I was unable to find it in a quick search (outside of this unhelpful mention in civil war coverage).
  • After quite a bit of searching, I turned up this which calls it a "post-hamlet" as of 1902, but there's no way of knowing if this was a post-hamlet in 1863. The only detail I can find about Caledonia in the various sources related to this battle are references that it had a brick kiln and "Negro quarters". I've delinked it, as there's essentially no chance that an article on this place could be developed. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• The map in "Battle" is not too helpful, but perhaps better than nothing. The caption could use some expansion, "Walker's operations in support of Vicksburg" makes me assume it would show Milliken's Bend and Young's Point, which are described as the three operational prongs, but instead it shows Richmond (and Vicksburg of course).
  • Would File:Map of Plantations in Carroll Parish, Louisiana and Issaquena County, Mississippi (cropped).jpg be better? It shows Bunch's Bend, Bayou Baxter, and Bayou Tensas, along with Lake Providence. I can't find a period map of the western portion of Carroll Parish showing Floyd and Caledonia (which is surprising to me because Floyd was the county seat at the time) and the first USGS topographic map of the Floyd area I can find is from the 1950s. Hog Farm _Talk 21:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  • It would be a helpful addition, if only for confirming the location of a couple of places I was guessing on google maps. CMD (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  • @Chipmunkdavis: - this has been added now, although I'm not entirely happy with how it breaks over into the section heading below. Hog Farm _Talk 16:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

    • It doesn't break over when I look in Vector2022. To make sure, why not move the Louisiana map to background where Richmond is mentioned? CMD (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

    • On my screen, that would cause MOS:SANDWICH issues with the infobox and campaign navbox. Hog Farm _Talk 19:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      • Hmm, I wonder why. I see the campaign navbox ending within the first paragraph of Background, or I wouldn't have suggested it. CMD (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• What was the "Union outpost at Bunch's Bend", just a few troops smaller than a picket?
  • Winters has "Bartlett crossed Bayou Macon and moved over to Bunch's Bend on the Mississippi, capturing the Federal outpost at that point". Bearss does not mention this, nor does Reid or the NPS source. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• "The Confederates reached the wrecked bridge", does this mean the infantry, given Bartlett was already there?
  • I have heavily rewritten this sentence. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Would it be possible to explicitly mention the shooting engagement was across the Bayou Tensas?
  • Done. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Best, CMD (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Are "The Confederate did..." and "The Confederate finally crossed..." structures correct?
  • No, those are not correct. I have made corrections. Hog Farm _Talk 00:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Aside from that, on a fresh reread, I think the article meets the FACR. It certainly more comprehensive than Grabau 2000. Best, CMD (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

FM

• I'll have a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Period map showing" Add the exact year instead? Commons say 1860.
  • I've corrected that - there's no date on the map, and the LOC page this came from has [1860?] Hog Farm _Talk 02:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• Nowhere is Vicksburg, Mississippi itself linked in the article.
  • Oops - linked in the lead and body now. Hog Farm _Talk 02:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Vicksburg, Richmond, and Lake Providence" Link places mentioned in caption?
  • All linked now. Hog Farm _Talk 02:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Link Milliken's Bend, Louisiana in intro and article body?
  • Linked. The Milliken's Bend article didn't exist until recently. Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Grant still kept minor supply points at there, Young's Point, and Lake Providence in Louisiana" The placement of "at" seems a bit off, perhaps before Young's Point would be better?
  • This was a suggestion by Zawed in their review. The "there" here is referring to Milliken's Bend. I don't know that there's a way to get around the awkward phrasing here without the frequent use of Milliken's Bend in this section. Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Actually, the presence of the "at" in my suggested change was a typo on my part. It isn't meant to be there and I have removed it. Sorry HF, that was my bad. Zawed (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• "take some of the pressure off of Vicksburg" is the "of" needed?
  • Remove the second "of" Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Link Slave rebellion?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Link bayou?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Anything to link Caledonia to?
  • Not that I'm aware of. All I've been able to find about this was that it was a "post-hamlet" in 1902 and that it had a brick kiln and "negro quarters" in 1863. Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - looks good, not much to nitpick anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Support by Zawed

Background

• ...but by the time of the siege, Grant had...: perhaps "he had" since Grant is already named earlier in the sentence?
  • done Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Milikin's Bend is named a few times in close succession. Perhaps rephrase, e.g. "During the early part of the campaign, Grant had operated a supply depot at Milliken's Bend in Louisiana,[3] but this decreased in importance due to his establishment of a different supply line. Grant still kept minor supply points at there, and at Young's Point and... "
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• link infantry division to [Division (military)]?
  • Linked Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Taylor's reinforced command was...: how was it reinforced?
  • That would be Walker - I've rephrased this to be clearer. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Confederates viewed the training of USCT at Lake Providence...: to avoid repetition, suggest "Confederates viewed the training of USCT at there..."
• I've gone with the broader and more accurate "Confederates viewed the training of USCT to be the fomenting of a slave rebellion" Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• The Major General link on Walker should be moved to first mention of Taylor, since that usage is the first time the CSA rank is used.
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• link Brigadier General
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Battle

• Link Caledonia, even if it is a redlink?
  • I really don't think Caledonia is a possible future article topic (see some notes in a review above about attempted research into the nature of Caledonia), so I don't think this would meet WP:REDYES. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• The Union unit fired several volleys into the Confederates...: for greater specificity suggest "the Confederate rearguard"
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• did not attempt to cross Bayou Tensas at any points downstream: seems to me that "at any points" is redundant?
  • Removed Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That's about it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zawed: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks good so have added my support. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Sammi Brie

Pulling up a chair...

• Probably worth spelling out "six" in the convert template for "six miles".
  • done Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Taylor preferred a strike against New Orleans, Louisiana, and" do we really need to specify in what state New Orleans is?
  • I think so. From an American perspective this is well-known, but I don't know that New Orleans is well-known as being in Louisiana elsewhere). Maybe Gog the Mild has thoughts from a British perspective on this? Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Just for myself, I would think that if a reader has no clue as to where New Orleans is, adding "Louisiana" is (highly) unlikely to help them, so you should feel free to skip it. Others may disagree. @Sammi Brie: for info. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Confederate cavalry occupied Richmond, Louisiana, on June 3, Major General John George Walker's troops reached Richmond on June 6, and Taylor planned a three-pronged strike for the next day" The complexity of this sentence and the GEOCOMMA demand semicolons between list items.
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• "The regiment had no prior combat experience, and had been dismounted in early 1863." Classic CINS remove comma
  • Removed. Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Bartlett struck a Union outpost at Bunch's Bend on the Mississippi River, and then continued" another CINS
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Outnumbered, the Kansans withdrew and a messenger informed Brigadier General Hugh T. Reid, the Union commander at Lake Providence, of the Confederate advance." add comma after "withdrew"
  • Added Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Link "lodgment"
  • Done. I was not aware that this was a technical term. Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Bartlett believed that Reid had more men than he actually had, and did" remove comma
  • Removed Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• "the Confederates lost two men killed and five wounded" is this "lost two men killed" phrasing typical in military history?
  • Yes. Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Confederate troops captured a small Union camp in the area in the Battle of Goodrich's Landing on June 29, but were driven off the next day." remove comma
  • Removed Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Mostly comma fixes and one or two copy flow items. Ping when done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: - Thanks for your review! I'm not very good with comma usage - I blame the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education somewhat. Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Not going to quibble on the New Orleans location item — it's just a question, less a thing needing fixing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

750h

Will leave comments. 750h+ 10:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC) Feel free to refuse the suggestions with justification.

lead

• Taylor, primarily utilizing Walker's ==> "Taylor, primarily using Walker's": i learnt this from SC: per an essay by Orwell, it's worse to use a long word where a short one would do
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 21:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• and Lake Providence which was scheduled i'd add a comma before "which" (but this is personal preference)
  • Added Hog Farm _Talk 21:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

background

• No problems here. 750h+ 11:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

battle

• at the bridge in order to allow ==> "at the bridge to allow"
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 21:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• of an oxbow lake also known as Lake Providence. add a comma after after the first "lake"
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 21:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

aftermath

• the field by a different ==> "the field in a different"
  • I prefer this as it is. At least in my mind, "by a different way" would generally be referring to a different route back, while "in a different way" could more naturally refer to getting back by a different method. Hog Farm _Talk 21:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

That's all i got. fine work. 750h+ 11:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@750h+: - Thanks for the review! My replies are above. Hog Farm _Talk 21:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support. 750h+ 00:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Shelby Foote seems to be a somewhat questionable source; was this accounted for when the article was written? John D. Winters raises similar doubts but to a lesser degree. "The Civil War Battlefield Guide" is being cited in two different formats. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - as to the Battlefield Guide matter, are you talking about Bearss 1998 and Winschel 1998 vs Kennedy 1998, this is due to a peculiarity of this work. The more important battles receive longer writeups from established and recognized historians like Bearss and Winschel, while the smaller battles have no byline and I guess were written by Kennedy? The smaller ones sometimes are pretty similar to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission battle summaries. I agree that Foote should probably go; his work is still respected as probably the single best piece of pure writing about the war, but is non-scholarly and is getting dated. I'm aware from my books right now, but once I get back I'll find replacements for the two citations to Foote. I will defend the usage of Winters, though. Winters is very heavily cited, even and is still being cited in post-2019 works. The main factual problem that I'm aware of is that his estimate of free blacks that served in the Confederacy is rejected by modern scholarship, but that error does not have any bearing on the topic at hand. Winters' views on certain subjects are not politically correct, but I've intentionally avoided using Winters for anything directly involving the USCT. As much as Winters is cited in the late 20th and 21st century literature on the war in Louisiana, I'm worried that it would be a WP:FACR #1c issue to not use Winters. Hog Farm _Talk 02:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I think, but am not positive, that INTEXT attribution should be used or perhaps additional sources to corroborate Winters' claims if they are both questionable and yet necessary for completeness. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm unaware of anyone who has questioned Winters' combat descriptions. I think this is more of a circumstance where Winters is only FA-usable for certain classes of statements, and the material Winters is cited for falls into those classifications. Hog Farm _Talk 03:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus - both citations to Shelby Foote have been replaced - one by a citation to Miller, and another to a book written by Timothy B. Smith (one of the leading experts on the campaign) and published by the University of Kansas. Hog Farm _Talk 22:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Hog Farm, my comments:

• "minor supply points there, Young's Point, ...": prefix "Young's Point" with "and also at" so the grammar is better?
  • Have gone with "Grant still kept minor supply points there and also at Young's Point and Lake Providence". Hog Farm _Talk 22:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• "The withdrawal crossed Bayou Tensas, where the Union forces destroyed the bridge over the bayou": Would "The withdrawing Union forces crossed Bayou Tensas, where they destroyed the bridge over it" be better?
  • How about "The withdrawing Union forces crossed Bayou Tensas and destroyed the bridge over it", which is even more concise? Hog Farm _Talk 22:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Consider running the InternetArchive Bot through the page once, so that archive URLs for refs #18, #24 and #32 will be automatically added?
  • Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Google Books web archive links and IABot contains some statements that indicate this is a controversial practice, so I would prefer not to. Hog Farm _Talk 22:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well @Hog Farm you may have to add the archive URLs manually then. Matarisvan (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Matarisvan: - While I will note that archiving live URLs is not something necessary for FAs, after thinking about this further, I've gone ahead and run the bot. The NPS frequently changes up its website, so it's probably best to be proactive here as it's sometimes hard to find where the NPS moves stuff. Hog Farm _Talk 22:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Adding my support then. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Consider linking to UTenn Press and LSU Press as done for other publishers?
  • I've linked all of the publishers in the citations except for the Morningside Bookshop, which doesn't have an article. Hog Farm _Talk 22:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan: - Thanks for the review! My replies are above. Hog Farm _Talk 22:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 October 2024 [44].

---

330 West 42nd Street

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is about another skyscraper in New York City. This one was constructed as an office building for the McGraw-Hill Companies in 1931. Because of its distinctive color, 330 West 42nd has been called the "green monster", though it has also been held up as an early example of the International Style of architecture. After going through some ownership changes over the years, it was extensively renovated a few years ago, and the building's owners recently started converting the upper stories to apartments.

This page became a Good Article three years ago after a Good Article review by Filmgoer, for which I am very grateful. After some more recent copyedits, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

HF - support

I'll review this one - please ping me in a week if I haven't started. Hog Farm _Talk 23:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• "The terracotta panels were built to the minimum thickness required by city building codes" - source has "the important architectural elements formed by the smooth bands of colored terra cotta spandrels are nothing more than the strict minimum requirement of the building regulations-namely masonry filling between window heads and sills". When I first read the sentence in the article, I understood this as a reference as to how thick the panels were from outer surface to the back of the panel, but the source seems to be referring to the amount of paneling between each window (so the thickness of the terracotta panels in a different sense). Is there a way that this can be clarified?
  • I've changed "minimum thickness" to "minimum dimensions", but I still have to think on this, as the wording in the source is a bit convoluted. The source implies that some terracotta had to be included and Hood wanted to include the smallest possible pieces, but it could also be interpreted to mean that Hood used as few pieces of terracotta as possible. Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• "They were painted white with orange stripes, but that color was removed when McGraw-Hill sold the building" - is "removed" really the right word? Per the NPS source, instead of the color being taken away, it was covered up
  • I reworded the sentence to reflect that the color was hidden. Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• "were rented out as office space at a rate of $0.90 per square foot ($9.7/m2)." - do any of the sources compare this price to that charged by other skyscrapers in the area at the time?
  • I'll try to look for some sources. Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, I can't find sources for contemporary rental rates in the area. I've moved the price to a hidden comment, in case I end up finding a source. Epicgenius (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• "There was a reception area to the left and a large seating area to the right. Gerard Nocera, a managing partner for the asset manager that controlled the building, said at the time:" - the location of this sentence implie that this is referring to features of the modern lobby, while the use of "was" suggests this is referring to the old lobby.
  • Oops, I've changed the tense. Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• "Industrial uses were placed on the second through tenth floors," - I don't think "industrial uses" works as a noun when used like this
  • I've reworded this to "industrial tenants occupied...". Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• "These stories were converted to standard office space by 1933" - the source just says that the printing equipment was removed in 1933 and that by the end of the decade, the McGraw-Hill space had gone from 75% to 34%, with the remainder attempting to be filled by tenants. I don't think we can really say that it was all standard office space by 1933 using this source
  • I have changed the sentence to more accurately reflect that the equipment was removed. Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• "With the onset of the Great Depression, the industrial equipment on the lower floors became obsolete and was sold in January 1931" - two gripes on this one. First, based on the source this should be 1933 not 1931. And also, I don't think "obsolete" is the right word here. That suggests that the equipment became outdated, when what the source is saying is that McGraw-Hill just didn't have enough business to justify the continued ownership and use of the machines
  • Good point. I think I typed the wrong year, so I've changed that. The sentence now reads, "With the onset of the Great Depression, the industrial equipment on the lower floors was sold in January 1933" Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• "These tenants included a trading floor of Paine Webber[132] as well as the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs" - this is referring to the agency as one of Gural's large tenants in the 1980s, but then we get "The New York City Department of Cultural Affairs (DCLA) moved to a 13,000-square-foot (1,200 m2) space at 330 West 42nd Street in 1998,". So did the DCLA move to the site in the 1980s, move out, and then move back in in '98, or are these two sentences referring to the same event?
  • Nope, I apparently listed the DCLA twice by accident. These are referring to the same event. I've removed the duplicate. Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• "and the building's owner, Resolution Real Estate, started leasing office space" - I thought the building was owned by Deco Towers?
  • Yeah. Resolution Real Estate is actually the asset manager for Deco Towers, so I've fixed that as well. Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• " Pitts, Carolyn. (February 9, 1989) National Register of Historic Places Registration: McGraw Hill Building, National Park Service and Template:NHLS Url" - something has gone wrong with the citation formatting
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm _Talk 21:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments HF. I'll take a look at these by Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm, thanks for the review. I've now addressed everything that you raised. Epicgenius (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

• File:Mcgraw-hill-42nd-st 1.jpg: CC-BY-SA
• File:Mcgraw-hill-42nd-st.jpg: CC-BY-SA
• File:The_old_McGraw-Hill_Art_Deco_building._(48162190537).jpg: CC-BY
• File:McGraw_Hill_Building,_from_42nd_Street_and_Ninth_Avenue_looking_east,_Manhattan_(NYPL_b13668355-482670).jpg: PD, correct license
• File:McGraw-Hill_building,_Manhattan.jpg: CC-BY-SA
• File:The_Orion_and_330_West_42nd_Street_Oct_2011.jpg: CC-BY-SA

All images are appropriate to the article. They're laid out correctly, captioned well, and have alt-text. Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

750h

Will review after Hog Farm finishes his. 750h+ 02:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

lead

• link the first instance of facade
• green metal-framed windows, with a strongly remove comma
• in floor plan, except for remove the comma
• The building subsequently served as the headquarters of Group Health Insurance (GHI). ==> "The building subsequently became the headquarters of Group Health Insurance (GHI)." (WP:SERVEDAS)

site

• Tower's upper stories would have been so small as to be economically infeasible, and critics also disapproved of what was then an extreme height, leading to its cancellation in 1930. because these sentences ta;l about two different things i'd split this to "Tower's upper stories would have been so small as to be economically infeasible. Critics also disapproved of what was then an extreme height, leading to its cancellation in 1930." (or something like that.

architecture

• and J. André Fouilhoux, of the firm Hood remove the comma
• "The requirements peculiar to a publishing business have formed the basis for the entire structure—in plan, section and elevation." even though this is a quote, i think you'd still change this to "in plan, section[,] and elevation."
• link the first instance of facade
• Nash likened the massing to that of an ocean liner. i'd remove "that of"
• contains what were originally a pair of three-bay-wide change "were" to "was". If you said "contains what were originally two three-bay-wide" then you'd keep "were" but because you say "pair" that's a singular noun, so it should be "was"
• doorway with five doors, recessed within remove the comma
• considered several different colors for remove "different"
• There were doorways that led to the bookstore on the left ==> "Some doorways led to the bookstore on the left"
• on the left (east) wall and to the bank on the remove "to"

history

• The LPC had declined to preserve the lobby i'd find a synonym for preserve since it's used in the previous sentence.

reception

• nothing here

No other problems. Fine work, @Epicgenius:. 750h+ 09:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I might get to these by Wednesday or Thursday. Epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, @750h+, I was just able to fix all of the issues you raised above. Thanks again for the comments. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Support 750h+ 16:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Incoming. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Refs formatted consistently
• Sources are of high and reliable quality
• Searches show no additional sources that are either stronger than those used, or that show anything missing
• Pass source review - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Dugan Murphy: support

I'll read through the article and write out some comments soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Here they are:

• The first paragraph of the Architecture section has two quotes that MOS:QUOTEPUNCT recommends but does not require are preceded by a colon instead of a comma, as the article has it. I would also recommend this unless you feel attached to the commas. Same for the North quote and the Architecture Plus quote and the Koolhaas quote in the Reception section.
  • I have rephrased some of the quotes to use colons rather than commas. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• MOS:NUMNOTES says to avoid starting sentences with numbers. That happens 6 times in this article. I recommend giving another look and deciding if that 6 number can be reduced. Otherwise, I would judge 6 is not egregious given the topic. Perhaps you could replace some of those 6 instances with "The McGraw-Hill Building"? I say that used in the article.
  • You would be right in almost all cases. However, MOS:NUMNOTES does include an exception ("Proper names, technical terms, and the like are never altered"), giving 10 Downing Street, which is also an address, as an example. In this case, 330 West 42nd Street can be treated as a proper name as well. Although it is historically also referred to as the McGraw-Hill Building, this name also refers to 1221 Avenue of the Americas, so I used the address to avoid confusion. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• The building was largely designed with a plain facade, except for the original ground level and the upper stories. I'm not sure how to interpret this sentence. It seems to be telling me that the design was plain, except for on every story. Maybe it means that it was plain in the middle? If so, maybe changing "upper" to "uppermost" or "top" would clarify.
  • I've changed this to "The building was largely designed with a plain facade; the original ground level and the topmost stories are more elaborately decorated than the middle stories." Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• MOS:SMALLCAPS says: "Reduce names of companies or other trademarks from all caps to sentence case, unless they are acronyms or initialisms, even if the company normally writes them in all caps." That tells me to remove the use of small caps for describing the McGraw-Hill signage. Do you have an overriding reason for using small caps here?
  • Nope. I've removed the small caps. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Reading the description of the storefront level and lobby, I'm wondering what they look like. Can you add photos of wither? As well-illustrated as this article is, none of these photos show the first floor or interior.
  • Unfortunately, the first floor is physically closed to the public right now (which is ironic, given that I go past there every day). I could probably take pictures of the exterior storefronts, though. I also realized that there is a serious dearth of pictures of this building on Commons, which is very weird, since I usually take dozens of pictures for buildings that I write about. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Having "appalled" raises the question of whether this is WP:SCAREQUOTES (especially when paired with "supposedly") or a James H. McGraw Jr. quote or the quote of a scholar or contemporary. I'm guessing you could replace with "reportedly appalled" without quotation marks, which would nix all of these questions.
  • Good point. I've removed the quotes and changed this to "reportedly appalled"; this was meant to be a direct quote. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Who came up with the building's nicknames? Can they be attributed to journalists or others?
  • These nicknames were given by members of the public. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• contains a frame: I think "includes" would be a better word choice.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Wikilink Mullion?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• The building is sometimes described as the "McGraw-Hill Building". Has there been much thought or discussion already paid to whether it is more appropriate for this article to bear that name?
  • The current title does function as a WP:NATURALDIS, since there are two McGraw-Hill Buildings in Manhattan. If the common name were "McGraw-Hill Building", then perhaps the article could be moved to McGraw-Hill Building (42nd Street) (which is substantially longer than the current name but is the shortest one that's not ambiguous). However, from what I can tell, more-recent sources tend to refer to the building both by its address and by its name. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Who came up with and/or uses the term "Raymond Hood Colonial"?
  • I've added a mention of the magazine that used this term. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• the natural light: I think "the" is extraneous.
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Furthermore, there are several tenant lounges,: "Furthermore" doesn't look right here. I think the paragraph would work better without it.
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Early on in the Architecture section, the article says the building uses sash windows, but later on in the same section, it says that the windows were eventually replaced with windows that could open and close. Don't sash windows open and close?
  • I shortened this to "the windows were replaced". I don't know whether the original windows could open and close, but this detail seems unnecessary. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• The term "clockwise from the north" doesn't seem necessary for orienting the reader.
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• hoped that the building: "That" is unecessary.
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Who considered West 42nd Street tawdry?
  • This is a quote from the NY Times, which I've now added. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Is the period in "three times over in ten minutes." part of the quote? If not, it should be moved outside the quotation marks per MOS:INOROUT.
  • It is not. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• What are amenity spaces?
  • Basically, these are spaces with tenant amenities *e.g. outdoor terraces, fitness center, event rooms). I've now mentioned these specifically. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Rather than putting "nonhistorical windows" in quotation marks, I think maybe "windows they didn't consider historically significant" or something like that.
  • I have rephrased this. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• McGraw-Hill Companies is Wikilinked twice in the lead. The second instance should be removed per MOS:DUPLINK.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• GHI is spelled out as both Group Health Insurance and Group Health Inc. Which is it?
  • It is supposed to be Group Health Insurance. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• GHI is redlinked in the lead, so I think its first instance in the body should also be redlinked.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• My feeling is that the infobox should only pull from info that is already in the body, which would mean it doesn't need citations. Of the four significant dates, the first and fourth are already in the body, the second just needs the month and day added to the body, and the third doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere. What do you think about adding the missing info to the body and removing the infobox citations?
  • Good point. I've moved all the dates and their corresponding refs to the body. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Summary: This article is really well-written, neutral throughout, and very comprehensive, without undue attention to any one aspect of the topic, I think. The lead does a great job of summarizing the body. It also appears to be stable and well-illustrated. Earwig doesn't find anything that looks like plagiarism.

Thank you very much for the comments. I will get to these over the next few days. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Dugan Murphy, thanks again for the detailed review. I've actually been able to address all of your feedback now. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Well done. This article is in great shape, so I support this nomination. If you are willing to do some reviewing yourself, I have an active FAC nomination that hasn't received any reviews yet beyond an image review. You'll find that here. Thanks in advance if you decide to take a look! Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. And sure, I can take a look at your nomination soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 November 2024 [45].

---

Apocalypse of Peter

Nominator(s): SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you flip to the back of a Christian Bible these days, you'll find the Book of Revelation as the final book in the New Testament. But did you know that over in some rather plausible alternate timelines, there would be TWO books of Revelation in the back - the Revelation of John, and the Revelation of Peter? It took centuries to come up with a consensus New Testament; the contents weren't obvious. Our oldest surviving list that is close-ish to the New Testament, the Muratorian fragment, actually includes the Revelation of Peter as part of its canon! Some other early Christian writers seem to have thought it deserved canonical status, too. That didn't happen, of course, but it's interesting. (Although given some of the content, Christianity may have dodged a bullet here...)

This article includes the latest scholarship, as there's been decent interest lately - Eric Beck wrote a 2019 book on it (the thesis it's based on is open-access, link in the article), Bart Ehrman covered it pretty heavily in a 2022 book on katabases in general, and a monograph collection on the topic just dropped just a few months ago, also free & open-access (link in article). I ran the article past Beck over email and he didn't have any complaints, so hopefully a good sign. SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

HF

I don't know that I'll be able to do a full review here, but I do own and have read a copy of Edmon L. Gallagher's and John D. Meade's The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity, published by Oxford University Press (I own the 2019 paperback edition).

• "Two other short Greek fragments of the work have been discovered: a 5th-century fragment at the Bodleian library that had been discovered in Egypt in 1895, and the Rainer fragment at the Rainer collection in Vienna which perhaps comes from the 3rd or 4th century" - we're presenting these dates as a scholarly consensus (sourced to something from the 1960s?) but I don't know that this is actually the scholarly consensus. Gallagher & Meade refer to these as both fourth-century, and contains the following interesting footnote: These two fragments [Bodleian and Rainer] possibly (definitely, according to Van Minnen 2003: 35) derive from the same manuscript; see Bauckham 1998: 257. The Bauckham citation they are referring to is the Fate of the Dead book cited here and Van Minnen 2003 is "The Greek 'Apocalypse of Peter' which is apparently pp. 15-39 in the Bremmer and Czachesz 2003 source cited in this article.
• Gallagher and Meade also specificy that the Ethiopic versions are in Ge'ez
• "The Apocalypse of Peter is listed in the catalog of the 6th-century Codex Claromontanus, which was probably copying a 3rd- or 4th-century source" - this seems to be a bit misleading, per Gallagher & Meade p. 184 There are also some books beyond the traditional New Testament; the list concludes with mention of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Revelation of John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Revelation of Peter, but the first and last three of these titles are preceded by a horizontal stroke that appears to be an obelus, probably indicating their dubious status
• I do wonder if the text should contain an explicit reference to the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter being a separate work given the similar names and ages. At least in my opinion, there is a greater degree of potential confusion between these two things than what most subjects handled with a simple hatnote would be
• Is it worth noting that the Akhmim manuscript also contains the Gospel of Peter and I Enoch?
• A bit more detail on the reception by Eusebius - Eusebius of Caesarea (Hist. eccl. 3.3.2) claims that no ecclesiastical writer ever made use of the Petrine apocrypha, [elsewhere in the work Gallagher & Meade do mention that Eusebius actually attests to usage of the work by Clement] and in his canon list he classifies the Apocalype of Peter as a spurious antilegomenon, but not a heretical work (Hist. eccl. 3.25.4)
• Lastly (for now) Gallagher & Meade cite Elliott, J.K. 1993 The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation Based on M.R. James by OUP pp. 598-600 as collecting seven patristic citations. This article references all but one set of two citations: Theophilus of Antioch in Ad Autolycum 2.19

I'm not sure how helpful this might be, but that's what I can contribute to this. I've been considering acquiring and reading a copy of Metzger's work on the canon for awhile; I liked his work on the textual history. Hog Farm _Talk 01:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy feedback!

• The Maurer 1965 write-up is a good one IMO, but it's just there as a supporting chorus and more proof of what goes in the shorter write-ups (one problem that happens sometime when compressing 300 page books into Wikipedia articles is that it isn't obvious it is the "most important" stuff; citing some shorter articles helps cut against that). (Side note, on age of references... similarly, all of the citations to M. R. James generally are "extras" that are conveniently available online, except when citing opinions attributed to James, as a little too dated; there's a "real" current-scholarship citation next to all of them. But I figured he was good to throw in thanks to Wikisource scans for easy verifiability on a few, along with general historic flavor.) Van Minnen 2003 is definitely cited in the article (ref 3 in the version of Aug 29), although annoyingly enough I don't own a copy and my interlibrary loan long since expired for easily re-checking it - was a good article though. Yes, I've read the theory that Rainer & Bodleian are from the same manuscript, but my thought at the time was I didn't want to stick in every bit of scholarly speculation. That said, checking... it looks like both Beck 2019 and Dochhorn 2024 buy it, and so does Kraus/Nicklas 2004, the most recent full book-length treatment of just the Greek. So it seems you're right that most recent scholars have switched over - updated the phrasing. (A little annoying since various other sources refer to the Rainer fragment as the "oldest" which wouldn't be quite true if Rainer = Bodleian is accurate, but oh well.)
• Ethiopic and Ge'ez are the same thing (see Geʽez). For reasons that I do not know, scholarship on the Apocalypse of Peter calls the language of the d'Abaddie / Lake Tana manuscripts "Ethiopic" 99% of the time - perhaps there's some technical distinction that makes Ethiopic correct and Ge'ez incorrect? I figured I should honor that and just use Ethiopic everywhere as well. (And even if they're pure synonyms, it's one less term for a reader to keep track of.)
• Hmm, what's misleading here? That Gallagher & Meade sentence sounds like what is trying to be communicated. If you meant "in the codex itself" I'd argue that's already implicitly indicated by specifying that it was (only) in the "catalog" (if a copy of ApocPeter was in it, that'd have made the scholarship way easier!). If you meant the "dubious" part, the topic of that paragraph is "indications ApocPeter was used, but disputed", so that's keeping with the general sense of examples the paragraph is trying to provide. Open to suggestions for rephrasing if that isn't being communicated as well as it could be.
  • Side note: Now, there IS something that I'd like to go into more detail if this was really scholarly-paper certified... specifically, that the idea that the Catalog was copying a 3rd- or 4th- century document is circular. That is, we think that's true precisely because we think the Apoc Peter would still have been current at the time (and 2nd century is too early for such a full catalog of the New Testament), but would have been unlikely in the 5th century... basically it's scholarship on ApocPeter informing the dating of the Codex, not the other way around. But I figure that point is too minor for a general audience (and besides, this isn't the "Date of authorship" section so it's not being used as faux-evidence there).
• On the Gnostic Apocalypse: Hmm. I did include two sentences in Gnostic_Apocalypse_of_Peter#Literary_influences, because this text preceded that one and an obvious question is if the Gnostic Apoc. Peter author read "this" ApocPeter. But since most scholars think "no", it feels a little artificial to include here... "there's another work with the same title written later that has nothing to do with this?" Especially since the Gnostic work appears to have been obscure - until it was dug up, we had no idea it existed. I'd prefer not to add it, but can add a similar statement if really desired - I just have no idea where it won't stand out as irrelevant. ("Later influence"? Except about a work it didn't influence?)
• On Akhmim & Eusebius: Same answer here for both - I was just trying to keep the length of the article under control, and be a summary and not a total deep dive. The Akhmim manuscript including the Gospel of Peter is mentioned indirectly in "Manuscript History" when it's relevant for how the Akhmim version was probably rewritten, but I don't think including Enoch is that relevant (the Ethiopic manuscripts include a bunch of other stuff not mentioned here too - see [46] & [47]), just it feels off-topic to mention them. Eusebius is simply wrong when he says nobody else quotes Apoc Peter, but beating up on him for overstating the case seems petty. And I figure people interested in Eusebius dividing books into good; disputed; orthodox-but-spurious (our ApocPeter in this category); and heretical can hit the references for more. I can certainly expand it into a full sentence if desired, just that paragraph is already on the long side, and I thought "dubious" gets the gist of Eusebius's opinion across.
• On Theophilus: Buchholz deep dives all the patristic references and alleged references, and is rather skeptical of this one (and in the realm of side chatter, so am I, this is a total stretch). Both Theophilus's line and Akhmim Gr. 15 talk about a cool place with both light and beautiful plants, but to quote Buchholz p. 49, "The evidence is not convincing because it was normal at that time to describe paradise with much light and beautiful plants." It'd be an indirect reference at best that suggested Theophilus had read ApocPeter and was loosely quoting it. I suppose I can add it, but I'd rather kick it to a note, similar to the Acts of Paul and Thecla possible reference. (But even then, that one is more "interesting" because it's touching on a theological issue. This one is just vaguely similar flowery descriptions that could have easily happened by chance with no particular significance.)
• diff changes here. SnowFire (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree with your replies above except on two points - as to the mention in the Codex Claromontanus, for the other references here the article is indicating generally how the list or church father viewed the work. For instance, in the next sentence it doesn't just say that Stichometry of Nicephorus lists the work, it states the general classification that it gave it. I don't think much is needed to add here, but it's necessary I think to indicate how this was actually viewed, given that the early canon lists covered a fair bit of ground. Likewise, I think "Eusebius considered the work spurious but not heretical" is more informative and useful to the reader than just a simple statement that he found it dubious. I think there's a way to provide clarification in both of those cases without meaningfully adding to the length. Hog Farm _Talk 23:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Fair enough; expanded the Eusebius bit into two sentences, but I don't think the overall length was blown up. (I'll also try and get ahold of Gallagher & Meade myself and make sure I didn't miss anything in there.) SnowFire (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Unless I'm missing something, I think everything significant in Gallagher & Meade is currently being included. I still think we need a brief clarification for the Codex Claromontanus listing to indicate how exactly this canon list viewed the apocalypse. I'll try to complete a full review after UC finishes their review below. Hog Farm _Talk 19:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
        • I added another sentence on Claromontanus. (The ApocPeter-specific sources don't see fit to talk about it - my suspicion is that it's because they're interested in the hypothetical original 4th-century catalog that was being copied that we don't have, which probably had no such mark because why would you even bother including such a work if you already don't fully trust it. But still useful to note that the later scribe marked it up.) It's unfortunate that the sources don't seem to clarify which obelus, presumably because it was obvious to them - I presume the dagger version, but I linked it to the top-level Obelus page since I'm not fully sure. SnowFire (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
          • I'll try to do a full review soon. I'm probably not going to have time this weekend, though. Hog Farm _Talk 13:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• @Hog Farm: Do you think you'll be able to perform a fuller review? (No problem if not, just a reminder ping.) SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't have the time tonight. I'm hoping I'll be able to tomorrow or Wednesday, but I can't make promises. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The author also appears to be familiar with the Gospel of Matthew and no other;" - but yet this is stated to include an account of the ascension, which is not directly found in Matthew. Is the argument here that this reference to the ascension is drawing on independent Christian tradition from outside the Gospels? But how exactly does one confidently demonstrate this and not that the account of the ascension is being taken from another gospel? I'd be interested to see what Bauckham is using to draw this conclusion.
  • It's page 173 of Bauckham, where he's citing himself on 4723-4724 of this article (on Wikipedia library). Checking... "Dependence on Matthew is especially clear in E1-2 (cf. Mt. 24:3-33) and E15—17 (cf. Mt. 17:1—8), with possible further allusions in E3, E5—6, and E14=R" (the R is "Rainer" here, and the E#s are Ethiopic chapter numbers). It does seem to be something of an argument from silence though - that because there aren't direct Lukan literary references, it wasn't used, even if the author knew of some circulating stories that also ended up in Luke. It looks like Bauckham goes into more detail in "The Two Fig Tree Parables in the Apocalypse of Peter" (on Wikipedia library as well)... as mentioned, the author seems to be quoting specifically Matthew's version of the Little Apocalypse. On the Lukan Parable of the barren fig tree, Bauckham says that there are no direct quotes, and further the version quoted seems to have "considerable differences", which suggests knowing of the parable from independent tradition rather than reading Luke. (He doesn't discuss the ascension, but my understanding is that this was thought to be a common piece of Christian tradition in the era, and the literary dependence is clearly Matthew's transfiguration.)
  • I should add that there is at least one scholar who argues against this, but in the reverse direction... Beck brings up Robert C. Helmer arguing that the author wasn't familiar with Matthew, either, and was only working with "Tradition" and lost sources! This was for an unpublished dissertation, though, that is inexplicably listed as "withdrawn" on the website ([48] - maybe only from e-publication?). Considering the high-quality of sources elsewhere, I'm not sure an unpublished view is important enough to discuss. I've repeated Bauckham's Fig Tree journal article as a reference to this line though, since that seems relevant.
• Is the link to wheel of fire really useful? Besides the fact that that article is currently a mass of OR ranging from Ixion to Frodo, it seems bold to pick a specific link for a topic that the scholars are considering to be unclear
  • The reasoning behind a wheel of fire being involved is unclear, but the punishment being a wheel of fire is clear enough. As is, the link is kinda worthless since the article is worthless, but given that there is an "In mythology" section, it seems potentially relevant? It's not a big deal and I'm happy to remove it, but if hypothetically the wheel of fire article was improved and sourced and continued to have a myth / religion section, I think the wikilink would be fine.
• "Sinners who perished in the Great Flood are brought back as well: probably a reference to the Nephilim, the children of the Watchers (fallen angels) and mortal women described in the Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, and Genesis." - I don't know that there's an easy way to rephrase this, but I'm not sure that this is the best way to approach this. Yes, the Nephilim are described in Genesis, but they are not described as "children of the Watchers (fallen angels) and mortal women" in Genesis; yes this is how some traditions have interpreted "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them" but we can't say that this is what the Genesis narrative explicitly describes
  • Fair enough. I was worried that not including Genesis might imply that this was entirely an Enochian tradition with no basis in the Torah, but I suppose the Genesis connection is already in the footnote. Removed the mention of Genesis here.
• One last thought I have with this - from what I've read, there seems to be a fair number of scholars who take the stance that apostolic authorship was part of the criteria for determining the canon in the early church. Does any of the scholarship on the apocalypse bear on this idea? Another angle is whether or not the scholarship gives any thought to considerations of if this work was recognized as pseudepigrapha in the early church, or if there was belief that this was an authentic Petrine revelation.
  • Absolutely! The canonicity section was refactored recently to include " A common criticism of those who opposed the canonicity of these works was to accuse them of lacking apostolic authorship" - hopefully that's enough for casual readers, but can add another line to add the reverse that canonical works had apostolic authorship if you think it'd help. As best we can tell, the number one argument used to buttress the authority of a document was to claim apostolic authorship for it, and the number one argument used against the authority of a document that did claim apostolic authorship was that it wasn't really written by apostles. Eusebius calling the Apocalypse spurious-if-orthodox probably indicates he doubts Peter wrote it, yeah. However, while this was the argument used, few surviving ancient authors approached the question like a modern scholar would - i.e. examining grammar, word choice, attestation. Rather, it was the somewhat circular criterion of "if it speaks the Word of God, then an apostle might have written it, and if it spreads heresy, then an apostle couldn't possibly have written it." Or more cynically, if you disagree with the content, then that means Peter didn't write this. So Apostolic authorship is the criteria, but most writers used theological criteria to decide the matter, rather than literary criteria.
  • Ehrman cites Serapion of Antioch saying as much about the Gospel of Peter - Serapion directly argues that because the Gospel of Peter could be read docetically (not even necessarily advocating docetism outright!), obviously the real Peter couldn't have written it. Ehrman's argument in reasoning by analogy is that if "could be read as promoting heresy" = "no aposotolic authorship", and we have condemnations of Rainer Fragment-ish universal salvation, maybe there was some influential Church figure condemning the Apocalypse of Peter as not apostolically authored, a la the Serapion example.
  • Anyway, any ancient authors positively quoting the Apocalypse should be assumed to think Peter really wrote it (or dictated it, or had some Mark-esque secretary record the story, etc.), and anyone speaking poorly of it should be assumed to think it was pseudepigrapha.

SnowFire - I think that's all of my thoughts on this. I guess as full disclosure, I'm approaching this from an evangelical Christian perspective, although I think I've kept my personal religious beliefs out of this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Hog Farm: No worries. (And Bauckham is usually considered somewhat on the traditionalist side of scholarship FWIW, although not to the degree of the strongest and most traditional of apologist-scholars, i.e. the Talbot folks.) Thanks for the review; made a few changes and can easily make a few more if you think it'd help. SnowFire (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Great work, supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 02:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

UC

Resolved

A small issue throughout -- AD dates are given as e.g. AD 120 (AD before the number), while CE dates are given as e.g. 120 CE. We have quite a lot of 120 AD in the article. I used to enforce this myself, but I gave up that fight since English usage seems to have shifted here. MOS:ERA says "AD appears before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD)," i.e. both are valid. Since most Wikipedia uses seem to place it after, I figured I might as well do so as well. The Apocalypse of Peter is influenced by both Jewish apocalyptic literature and Hellenistic philosophy from Greek culture: Hellenistic philosophy from Greek culture doesn't quite sit right with me as a phrase -- Hellenistic, after all, means "Greek (with some asterisks)", and of course much of what we know as Hellenistic literature, philosophy etc was being done in places like Egypt and Syria by people whose cultural affiliation was complicated. Personally, I'd cut after philosophy, but I can see the argument for the current framing. To be clear, it means "Greek" culturally, not "from the place Greece." But yes, since this is the lead, this is really hinting at what "Hellenistic" is to casual readers, many of whom won't know that already means (mostly) "Greek". I agree with your phrasing if this was deeper in the article, but I figure giving a glossary clue here is important. Casual readers already have to deal with a blizzard of unfamiliar terms. The (pseudepigraphia) is a bit unclear -- how does that word fit into what preceded it, especially given that few readers will know it? I'd try to work it into the the text -- something like The text is pseudepigraphical; it purports to be written by the disciple Peter, but its real author is unknown. I agree few readers will know it; I was trying to make the lede accessible by avoiding scary, unfamiliar Greek words, explaining in simple English, and hiding the technical term in a gloss. That said... done, I'm just worried about keeping accessibility high in the lede, and think it needs to be the friendliest of all the sections. The article makes heavy use of false titles, such as French explorer Antoine d'Abbadie, English scholar M. R. James, and so on. These aren't considered wrong in AmE as they are in BrE, but they do strike a journalistic (rather than academic) tone, particularly when used so frequently. Would advise The French explorer... and so on. Yeah, obviously an American here, and adding "The" reads a touch "fancy" to me ("Look at me, I'm The Wikipedia Editor SnowFire!"). That said, done, changed (most? all?) of these, tell me if I missed any. I would advise swapping around the first two body sections, remembering that the body is meant to be able to stand apart from the lead. We currently start with From the medieval era to 1886, leaving us in the dark about the text's life before the medieval period until quite a lot further down. I might even be tempted to put "Manuscript history" quite a lot later -- down after "Debate over canonicity". Most readers, I imagine, will want to start with what the text is, then what it says, then why it matters, and only then to get into the weeds of manuscripts and philologists -- plus, this arrangement makes things a bit more chronological. On swapping the first two body sections: Done. There is a problem with doing so though, which is that now the "map" which is intended to go with the "Date of Authorship" section won't display next to it on desktop because the giant New Testament Apocrypha sidebar pushes it down. So if others feel strongly, happy to swap them back, but will presume that this is just a price to pay for the moment. On moving manuscript history even further down: In most articles, I would agree (I've hidden the boring "Manuscripts" section at the end of Arabic Apocalypse of Peter#Later_manuscript_history for example). Unfortunately, I believe we're stuck with doing it first for this topic, because Akhmim & Ethiopic & Rainer all differ, and readers will be totally confused if we're saying "Akhmim says X, Ethiopic says Y, Rainer says Z" before what that means is explained. Ah, of course -- that's fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Double quotes on "an eye for an eye" and similar. Done. (This one is a little odd because it's more setting off a phrase than being a true quote, but sure.) from Arabic, which itself was translated from the lost Greek original: we're missing a noun in the first clause here -- something like an Arabic version (or some other noun to avoid repetition). Done. Jesus, Moses, and Elijah: suggest explaining who these other two people were. I've added "the prophets", but I don't really want to add much more detail for something not really that relevant (these were sorta just name-drops that only appear in one version of the text). Explaining messianic expectations around Moses & Elijah would be an entire separate article - I think if readers are interested in more, they can find it in the Transfiguration article wikilink, or the links to them. Yes, I think that's the right level of detail here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) The Apocalypse of Peter fits snugly into the genre: MOS:IDIOM applies here, I think. Hmm, is this even an idiom? I guess "fit" is metaphorical, but that's not uncommon. Changed regardless, went with "is a predecessor of and has similarities with" instead. We should put a date on Eusebius. Done. The Apocalypse is quoted in Book 2 of the Sibylline Oracles (c. 150): how confident are we (and our sources) on that date? My limited understanding is that the dating of the Sibylline Oracles is extremely tricky. It is tricky, but my understanding is that the dating of just Book 2 is somewhat more secure. It looks like a recent work on this isn't on WP Library (JJ Lightfoot's "The Sibylline Oracles" is 335 dollars on Oxford Academic!), but JJ Collins in 1983 wrote "the Christian redaction should probably be dated no later than A.D. 150." As this is providing a later bound, using the latest reasonable time is valid. For an older source, Alfons Kurfess in NT Apocrypha (the same 1960s book the Christian Maurer writeup on ApocPeter is in) was apparently pretty confident in 150 too. Sources only on ApocPeter just seem to mention 150, footnote it to Kurfess or the like, and move on. "The Mystery of the Judgment of Sinners.": period outside quotes. Likewise, later, within "an eye for an eye." and a rare word meaning "care-taking [one]." (MOS:LQ) Switched. (I was thinking that these aren't, strictly speaking, quotes, and that LQ only applies to [Bob said "Oh no"] type deals, but no big deal either way.) In general, most scholars: this is tautology, unless those scholars frequently change their minds. Cut. Most famously, Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy would become extremely popular and celebrated in the 14th century and beyond: See above re. Most famously. Cut. Mirror Punishment: decapitalise, I think, per MOS:CAPS (Wikipedia generally errs on the side of few capitalisations, relative to other publications) Done. for both divine justice as well as divine mercy: a tautology -- either both .. and or just justice as well as ... I don't follow the concern here with the old phrasing, but your phrasing is fine too, so switched to "and". God's Commandments: decap commandments unless in a phrase like the Ten Commandments. Done. gives evil spirits that inhabited idols and led people astray physical bodies: I found the object here a bit unclear: suggest gives physical bodies to evil spirits that... Switched. "Nephilim" is capitalised. Done. a rare word meaning "care-taking [one]." : see MOS:LQ point above, but also -- which language? Greek. (As for why it was romanized "Temelouchus" in sources on ApocPeter yet our Wikipedia article on the named angel is at "Temeluchus", I don't know. Probably just random chance. Not a fan at how it's probably suggesting a phantom distinction, but that's what the sources seem to use...) I've looked it up: the former is correct. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) involving going up to a high fiery place (perhaps a volcano?): the last bit of this reads as an editorial note, which isn't right for an article -- could do a high fiery place, perhaps a volcano, or even attribute this: a high fiery place, which Smith conjectures to be a volcano. Switched. a popular 4th-century work: if popular here means "widely beloved", it's a tautology -- we've established that in the preceding clause. I don't think we have? We established that ApocPaul became more popular than ApocPeter, but eclipsing #28,742 on the Amazon "religious apocalypses" bestseller list could mean you're #27,458, or it could mean you were #2. ApocPaul was absolutely a top 3 apocalypse for centuries, and indicating that is important IMO (since unlike Dante, most people aren't familiar with ApocPaul now). This is backed by the sources which call out this special prominence: "very popular and widespread" (p. 66 of Buchholz), "the most popular medieval apocryphal Apocalypse" (p. 302 of Bremmer 2009), etc. There are a decent number of other Christian works name-dropped in this article that might have been a Random Book in the library of one monastery that lucked out and happened to be preserved, but Apoc Paul is qualitatively different from them. The Apocalypse of Peter is an early example of the same genre as the famous Divine Comedy of Dante: two things here -- one, we've established earlier that it might be a relatively early katabasis, but there are/were also plenty of earlier examples, usually inset into longer works like the Odyssey and the Aeneid. Secondly, famous is WP:PUFFERY and should be consigned to Limbo, at the very least. Well, many readers probably already know Dante at least, but for those who don't, I think it's relevant to indicate that Dante is a Big Deal. This isn't being included to puff up Dante, but rather just to indicate that the Divine Comedy is a cultural touchstone, a work in the literary canon of vast influence. Open to suggestions here, but this is relevant IMO, and if anything "famous" is an understatement. As far as earlier examples, I would definitely say that Dante is way closer to ApocPeter than he is to Odysseus, most obviously in the vibes of Inferno which aren't really that close to "shades attracted by blood who want to dump some backstory". So don't think it's unreasonable to call it out as a forerunner. I would strongly advocate for cutting famous -- I can't see a reading of the relevant PAGs (WP:V, WP:PUFFERY and WP:WEASELWORDS in particular) that allows it. if you want to demonstrate that Dante is a Big Deal, do so in a way that is verifiable -- "Dante's Inferno, described as "the most important work of Christian poetry ever" by Scholar McScholarson". However, even then I'm not sure it's important to do that here -- readers will, I think, naturally infer from the prominent presence given to the work in the lead that it's particularly important, even if they've never heard of it, and can of course click on the link to find out precisely how important it is. On the other comment -- I don't see that naming it as a forerunner (which is fine) requires the specific phrasing of "an early example" -- why not do precisely what you've suggested and call it an important influence upon/forerunner of the poem? I think my issue is with the word "early", which has slippage between "earlier than Dante" and "early in absolute terms, relative to other examples of the same genre". UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Changed to "is a forerunner" if you prefer that over "early example" if it's not worth qualifying exactly how early in comparison to what. I guess the dispute here is that I don't see "famous" as puffery, but rather as simply factual in this case. Calling it the "greatest" would be puffery, to me, but "famous" is the equivalent of writing that a blockbuster film sold many tickets at the box office - a measurable and relevant item to discuss, and exactly the kind of thing WP:PUFFERY suggests as a better alternative. For example, Jaws (novel) (a GA) writes "[The film] Jaws is credited as the first summer blockbuster movie and was the highest grossing film in motion picture history up to that time". The fact that the film was a mega-smash is relevant as far as "this novel was the basis of something that's a big deal," and there's no need to qualify this as an opinion because it's measurable. (Presumably you could count quotes, references, book sales, etc. to "prove" that the Divine Comedy was indeed "famous" to a hardcore skeptic). Basically, if it's supported and relevant (i.e. not "an Indie magazine said my garage band was popular"), it's not necessarily puffery to make claims about popularity and influence, especially for works of towering influence. (Side note: not a GA/FA, but our article Divine Comedy writes it is "the pre-eminent work in Italian literature and one of the greatest works of Western literature" as a general consensus opinion in the very first paragraph. That one might be pushing it! But... not wrong, either.) You also write on readers "naturally infer"ing from placement - maybe I'm just swayed from working on some articles on other old works of literature, but many of them also have statements like "X influenced Y" but sotto voce the "Y" is obscure, so a reader assuming that Y was particularly important would be incorrect in so doing. This topic is a rare case where, even if the original work became obscure, its influence resonated indirectly via something raised to the Western canon. I don't think WP:WEASEL is violated here either. All of the sources in the section in the body on the topic support the weak claim that the Divine Comedy was famous. It's WEASEL if you claim people say it but it's never referenced who is saying it, but that's checkable in the sources. You can make very bold claims as long as they're backed - checking other literature FAs, Uncle Tom's Cabin writes it "had a profound effect on attitudes toward African Americans and slavery", not as a quote or attribution to one scholar. Which is true! Similarly, I think it's true and verifiable that The Divine Comedy was famous. Of course, this is an article on an entirely different work, so I don't want to sidetrack with an attributed quote about The Divine Comedy: was it important or not. The word "famous" is there for a reason though: it's explaining why we're bringing this centuries-later connection up at all. We haven't discussed The Divine Comedy at all before here, and we're suddenly bringing it up: why? Because it's famous. I could obviously rephrase a number of ways, but presumably they'd have the same issue if merely acknowledging its influence is inherently puffery. A circular problem here because that influence is exactly what needs to be raised. That was a lot of verbiage on one word. I strongly disagree here per the above valid examples of discussing fame, but I'll remove it anyway, for now. If my above comments convinced UC, or anyone else out there reading this wants to offer a third opinion though, happy to hear it though, whether in favor or against. There has to be some way to differentiate a mega-popular work from an obscure work, and this is a factual enough question that it shouldn't be regarded as mere opinion.... but I've already written way too much on this and don't want to trap people in "DEBATE ME!" loops more than I already have. In Greek (note 1), Πέτρου is a proper noun, so is capitalised. Generally, so too are the first letters of titles, so Ἀποκάλυψει. Are you absolutely certain that Ἀποκάλυψει is intended, however, rather than Ἀποκάλυψις? The latter is the usual form in Ancient Greek; in modern Greek, it's Αποκάλυψη, but that's very much a post-1453 spelling. In the Romanisation, we've given the stress on Petrou, but not on the Apocalypse word. The tricky thing is that Akhmim, which is in Greek, doesn't ever call itself the Apocalypse of Peter, so we're stuck with old Greek quotations. I picked one from Macarius Magnes - p. 30 of Buchholz indeed uses "ει". I double-checked this wasn't a transcription error, and it wasn't - 4,6 of Magnes is in a 2013 edition on De Gruyter on the Wikipedia library (link), and has "1. Περιουσίας δ’ ἕνεκεν λελέχθω κἀκεῖνο τὸ λελεγμένον ἐν τῇ Ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ Πέτρου." (I suspect the capitals & accents are from brushing up the raw version - those aren't in Buchholz's which uses lowercase alpha, lowercase pi, etc.) But I'm not a Greek expert so I'm flying blind here. If this was a modified form or just a scribe being bad at spelling, happy to switch to the "usual" version; otherwise switched to the 2013 transcription. (Also threw that into G Translate and grabbed a transliteration there, which threw an accent on the y, added it in - but I will defer to you over trusting the machine if that's incorrect. Or just flat removing all the accent marks.) Ah -- your quotation has it in the dative case -- that writer would have put it as Ἀποκάλυψις if writing it in the context you have. We should do likewise (there's a grammatical explanation here, which I'm happy to go into if you want, but we can think of it as a routine calculation as described by WP:OR) UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Done. Thanks! that the punishment may fit the crime: is may fit the right word here -- should fit, surely? This isn't exactly the lex talionis, which is much more about reciprocation/compensation (that the perpetrator should experience the same suffering that they have inflicted upon others, and no more), but I think the framing here is fine. Switched. parchment leaves claimed to be deposited in the grave of a Christian monk: claimed by whom? A chain of two claims I believe - Maspero claimed that the unnamed Egyptian guy he got it from told him this. It's... possible... but also what Maspero would have wanted to hear. Also some archaeologists of this era just lied all the time to disguise when they stole stuff or dressed up the provenance as more compelling than it really was - "found in a tomb of a monk" sounds more valuable than "bought from a shady guy". The methodology was awful by modern standards - they basically told the local Egyptian population to go grab what they could as document mercenaries, and then lots of it ended up on the antiques market. But I think going into the weeds loses focus here - "claimed" is a hint that we aren't really confident that this story is true, which is enough. See p. 25-27 from Nicklas/Kraus 2004 for more - features words like "Unfortunately" and "everyone keeps citing Bouraint as if it were given facts, but..." and "used with caution" as far as the "tomb of a monk" story. Do you think it's worth adding a Note on this? I'm a little worried about the number of side notes creeping up, but happy to add it the source of the skepticism there. I think we need to be clear about whether Maspero claimed this, or whether (as it sounds) he claimed that someone else claimed it -- personally, I'd include a footnote, but I'm not shy about including silly numbers of efns and quite like a good archaeological story. It does sound like this is a particularly dubious claim, and I think readers should be given a sense of that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Added. (And yes, he claimed someone else claimed it, so there's two places where someone could have possibly made stuff up.) In a bulleted list, the MoS (MOS:CITE?) would like each citation no later than the end of the corresponding bullet. This would be crazy overkill, though? I picked three lists of the punishments and they're the same references for each line in the list. I'm happy to ask for clarification on the talk page of Wikipedia:Citing sources if desired, but my presumption is that if there's a Wikipedia list but there's a single cite for every entry, it's okay to throw the citations at the end of the list. If nothing else, IAR suggests that 21 copies of the same 3 citations in a row is off, and an IAR case. Personally, I find it weirder to come to the end of a sentence/paragraph and not see a little blue number (if you're using SFN templates, those would all link to a single footnote). I think the MoS is pretty clear here -- it's not a huge matter, as readers can tell where the material comes from with the current framing, but I do think it would be more bomb-proof for WP:TSI (imagine, for example, that a future editor adds another bullet point) if done by the book. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) If another bullet point is added, either it's getting reverted, or we've found another manuscript and need to re-source the whole thing anyway! I went ahead and replicated the citations, but still suspect this is a case of citation overkill. I'll bring it up on the Citing Sources talk page later but not tie it to this particular article and we'll see if anyone bites on an opinion, as this is a general issue not specific to this article that probably just needs a standard. the Apocalypse of Peter was the parent and grandparent of these influential visions of the afterlife: I think this whole sentence can be cut, but if it stays, we need to do away with the metaphor and probably the word influential. See above - I think this is a "summing up" statement on what is the other half of why people still write / care about ApocPeter (half are interested in the theology of salvation, half are interested in depictions of hell that would lead to Dante). This is another case where it might be a metaphor, but it's a metaphor used all the time, even in academia - Himmelfarb has got a bunch of fancy graphs & maps of parent works that influenced other daughter works that went on to influence yet other works. I now wonder if changing "important" to "influential" even helped above if you object to influential as well, but this is one of those "writing for a general audience" matters IMO - this is where I'm trying to say "this is the part that mattered!" And per above, "influential" is already a vast understatement on Dante. I do sympathise with "this is how it is done in academia", but Wikipedia isn't an academic chapter -- for one thing, it's written for people with a whole range of linguistic abilities and educational backgrounds, whereas academic works are invariably written for people with an extremely strong command of English and an almost excessive level of erudition. There are quite a few PAGs (e.g. WP:MTAU) to the effect that our articles should not always look like our sources, and I think this is one case where that applies -- an academic journal article has different aims to a Wikipedia article, and we should expect the writing style to diverge accordingly (in this case, because catering for non-experts and second-language speakers is far more important to us than it is to them). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) In this I fully agree! I just think that second-language speakers are exactly who I have in mind (similar to the above discussion on who would need to be told that Dante was "popular"), hence the recap sentence at all (for an academic audience, I would consider cutting the sentence entirely, as you suggest, as mildly redundant). I just don't think these general audience folk will be at all confused by "parent" here - to the extent it's a metaphor, it's an obvious, helpful one. That said, I cut it and went with attributed quotes to Fiori / Bremmer instead. (Which make the passage slightly longer, so maybe we're going in the wrong direction here since you suggested an outright cut of the entire sentence, but hopefully won't have the other issues at least.) Anyway, changes so far are here. SnowFire (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Looks good, just remember to attribute the Fiori quote. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Done. one of the borderline works that came closest to being included: does borderline add anything here -- surely a work that came close to being included is, by definition, borderline? It could be removed, but I'd argue it reads better with it? i.e. imagine a sentence like "TITLE is an apocalypse, an (insert description of apocalypse here)." You could technically either just say "it's an apocalypse" or "it's (description of what an apocalypse is)" but combining them makes a little definition for a casual reader so they know to connect the two, and can now use one word to think of many. Or it wouldn't be odd to read "[SPORTS TEAM] was on the cusp, the highest-ranked team to still be relegated" even though "on the cusp" could be similarly cut. That said, removed anyway since we don't really discuss other 'borderline' works, but eh, I still think it made it a slightly easier read. More generally, I don't understand the relationship between the bibliography and the references section -- what's the logic as to what makes it into the bibliography, and what is only cited as a reference? Given how long the references section is, the overall effect is confusing -- it is very difficult to get a sense of how this article's sourcing is constructed. The citation style I use is that sources that are cited a lot over multiple page ranges go in the Bibliography, and everything else is a normal reference. There is a method to the madness here - when seeing the reference previews from hover (desktop) or press (mobile), the strict page ranges are a little less helpful than a full reference. So if everything can fit in a single reference (say JK Elliot's Apocryphal New Testament writeup, or Maurer / Mueller's, or random journal articles), I stick it there. I personally consider it an antipattern that if there's a source only used in one spot, a strict "everything in the bibliography, short references only" style forces a secondary lookup / hover to track it down when it could have just been connected at the start. This also has the benefit of the Bibliography being a genuine "read these 6 books to learn about ApocPeter" bibliography that cuts to the core, most-used sources recommended to read, rather than a grab-bag. Now, there is one quirk with this article, which is that there's two heavily cited monograph collections in the Bibliography (the 2003 Apocalypse of Peter edited by Bremmer, and the 2024 collection edited by Maier et al). For those, I stuck them there anyway due to their importance, but all of the references are separated out as citations to individual chapters, since the chapters have different authors. And those are usual full citations.

Some impressive scholarship on display here. I think my comments will mostly have to stick with Wikipedia minutiae rather than really getting to grips with the subject matter, but I hope they are useful. If you wouldn't mind, could you answer the points below each one, rather than in a list at the end -- I can see this review getting even longer and more confusing otherwise!

• • Thank you so much for the prompt and detailed review! I wouldn't disclaim your subject matter knowledge too much - you clearly know plenty here, and more than me on the matters of Koine Greek itself. (There are a few points I have some pushback, but don't take my whining too seriously - if you feel strongly on it, I'm happy to adjust anyway. Just figured I'd just raise the "other side" first on the ones I disagree on.) SnowFire (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• be pierced by sharp fiery stones as would beggars: not sure what as would beggars means in this context -- do beggars get the same punishment, or is this (apparently) what happens to beggars in the real world?
  • What happens to beggars in the real world, yes. i.e. "clothed in filthy rags and having calloused feet from stones cutting through their bad shoes". The burning part maybe not as much, but that's kinda the standard hell addition in ApocPeter. (Although who knows, the ground can get pretty hot in the Middle East...) Fun fact on the side: I forget where exactly, but someone wrote an article with a long analogy about how this was fore-runner of the medieval Danse Macabre, i.e. in the sense that noble & commoner alike do the dance, and maybe the rich people are being forced to dance into the stones? I didn't really buy the connection, but it was cool anyway.
    • I think that could do with a little bit of clarification -- at the moment, what is written isn't quite compatible with that (very good) explanation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
      • I've expanded this to make the analogy more clear.
        • I'm afraid I still found it a bit unclear in the lead; I've made a tentative edit there to assist. I now don't see anything about mirroring the existence of beggars in the body? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
          • Added a sentence in the "lex talionis" section. I also switched "beggars" to "poor"... I personally think beggars are fine, but the text uses "widows and orphans" which seems to be synecdoche for the poor in general. So beggars might be over-specific.
• Two other short Greek fragments of the work have been discovered: a 5th-century fragment at the Bodleian library that had been discovered in Egypt in 1895, and the Rainer fragment at the Rainer collection in Vienna: as phrased, this sounds as though the second fragment was discovered in Vienna. Suggest adding "held by..." or similar to the institutions.
  • Rephrased the sentence; take a look.
• The Rainer fragment was originally dated to the 3rd or 4th century; later analysis: can we put dates on these?
  • For the first, yes, and done. For the second, I'm not so sure there's a clean date when this becomes accepted (there are still recent-ish publications that use the old date), nor do I think it's that relevant - it seems like it started as a hypothesis that got better backing with later close analysis.
    • Right, but are we talking (more or less) about the early medieval period, or more or less about modern academia? I'm not suggesting that we need to pin it down to the 24th of March, 1893, but giving the reader an idea of vaguely what sort of timescale they're imagining would be helpful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Went with "2003" as when Van Minnen published his chapter in "The Apocalypse of Peter," although see disclaimer above. (I'd rather go for either pure hand-waving in this case or one specific event, as I don't think I have a source that says "over the course of the 2000s decade and 2010s...", although that's my personal guess).
• the Stichometry of Nicephorus: can we explain what this is and why it matters? We sort of introduce it right at the end of the article.
  • I feel that this is off-topic. I agree most readers won't have a clue what this is, but context provides everything that the reader needs to know - there was a source saying the Apoc Peter should have X lines, and the Ethiopic version is pretty close to that, and here's a wikilink to the source if you want to learn what a Stichometry is.
• Note 2 is long and generally well formed, but I think we should put in the body the fact that Bauckham's views have been challenged.
  • Open to suggestions, but the fact that this is attributed in-line to a specific scholar and uses "argues" (rather than just stating as a fact it's from Palestine) hopefully communicates it's not a scholarly consensus already (along with "Other scholars suggest [something else]"). I feel like that might also make the Egypt theory seem stronger than it really is - Bauckham's views have been challenged because a lot of people buy them, while the Egypt origin view doesn't seem as popular and thus people don't bother to swat it down. (The main competing view, as best I can tell, is flat "we don't know." But I'm not sure we need to write that one out.)
    • I'm not sure I agree -- it sounds like there's a debate with two sides, both of which have equal levels of scholarly acceptance, so WP:DUEWEIGHT says we should present both equally. Putting one in the body text and relegating the other to a footnote places greater weight on the first, which we should not do unless it is clearly the majority position (WP:FRINGE). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • But both are in the body text? Both the possibility of a Egyptian and a Palestinian origin are discussed in the body. Unless you mean the "we don't know" option? That's just some OR from me, nobody publishes a paper arguing "I've unsolved the problem, we have no idea." I've added a brief sentence cited to Bremmer acknowledging that provenance is still a matter of scholarly debate and uncertainty, with Palestine & Egypt the lead two options - does that work? (p. 153 here if curious)
• File:Near East 0100AD.svg -- political maps like this are a very tricky business. I can't find any sign of the source data for this one, and we definitely need some reliable source to be making claims about territorial boundaries and levels of effective control in this period. A smaller thing, but I'm very unconvinced by some of their Latinisations (like Myos Hormus for Myos Hormos), and they've used a frustrating variety of fonts.
  • I was just doing some basic translation of German from a map and leaving the Latin alone. @Enyavar: who created this series. From looking at the upload, a list of sources are at File:Ancient_Orient_History_Map_basis.de.svg#Beschreibung - anything else to be aware of in using the map?
    • That list seems to be specifically about the Bronze Age -- wherever a page is cited, it's specifically BA material. It does cite books that we would expect to have maps of the Roman period in them, but I don't see a definitive statement that those maps were used in the map we have. Of course, if you can find other sources which verify the information and append them to the Commons page, it doesn't particularly matter whether they were originally consulted, but we do need something for the included claims like, for example, "the Roman Empire had only weak influence over Nabataea in 100 CE". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
      • I asked Enyavar directly - stay tuned. As for Nabatea itself, it looks like Rome only took over in 106 CE (Nabataean_Kingdom#Roman_annexation), so to the extent the map is "exactly 100 AD", it seems sorta justified as a heavily Roman-influenced but client-y state.
        • I'm not disputing any of the ideas in the map (except possibly that anyone ever called it Myos Hormus), only that we need to cite those claims, just as we would in text. We couldn't write "Nabataea was a Roman client state in 100 CE" without a citation, and it's the same to do so with an image. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
          • Sorry about that! My own maps I try to carefully document (File:BattleofTordesillas.PNG for an old example), but this one was pre-existing, hence it being tricky for me to do directly. Enyavar replied at Benutzer_Diskussion:Enyavar#Question_on_Ancient_Near_East_maps, and I used that to add this addition to the file description. Is that enough information, do you think?
            • As I read it, it's (slightly harshly put) a vague handwave towards "go check the bibliography in the relevant Wikipedia article?" I don't think that's enough, really: one, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, two, that bibliography isn't necessarily stable, three, "it's somewhere in at least some of this huge list of books" isn't really precise enough. Really, we need something at the level of "For the geographical information, see maps on [these pages] of [these books]; see also a discussion of toponyms in [this gazetteer], and I've followed the view of [this book chapter] on the matter of [whatever]". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (de-indent) Haven't forgotten about this, just was traveling over the weekend and am back at work now. I put in requests at the library for atlases & maps; we'll see what they turn up. Unfortunately the easy-to-access batch was mostly not showing much detail, or was dated like the 1923 Shepherd map. (Side fun fact: did you know that the 2023 Atlas of the Classical World has a "Rome under Trajan" map advertised in its Table of Contents? It's a map of... the city of Rome, specifically, during the reign of Trajan. Sad trombone noises go here.) SnowFire (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Okay. Attempting to make an entirely new map at the level of detail of the original map is way, way too much work, so there's no way that's going to finish "in time" here. I've elected to just use a less detailed map instead. I've uploaded File:Eastern Mediterranean 125 political map eastern med.svg which has the original sources in the original map, and I've adjusted some of the city names to follow Talbert (2023) and verified a few others with other recent atlases. The Arabia Petraea region also follows the more conservative territory seen in most maps of the Roman Empire after 106 than the old 100 AD map. Hopefully this is considered sufficient enough sourcing. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• a Greek katabasis or nekyia: how come only the second gets italicised? I don't think katabasis is quite naturalised in English, at least among those who aren't Greek scholars. Smaller, but is a nekyia the right comparison here -- that usually involves, as Odysseus's does, standing more-or-less in the "real" world, being approached by the dead and asking questions of them?
  • I'm mostly mimicking Ehrman 2022 here. He leaves "katabasis" unitalicized (except on the very first introduction of the Greek term) but italicizes nekuia (with a u) everywhere. Bauckham 1998 does italicize katabasis though, and a quick search through the 2024 "In Context" shows two italicizations by Bremmer. I suppose I can switch it over, it's not a big deal. And I don't think there's a firm distinction, it's borderline, but to the extent that Peter & the disciples are tripping on a spiritual vision but while on Earth, you can argue it's a nekyia if your criteria is "happens on Earth" and if your criteria it that a true katabasis would involve actually VISITING a la Dante / ApocPaul, which is of course impossible in this case as it'd involve time travel.
• The link to Jewish Christians shouldn't cover "and achieve martyrdom", since being a martyr is, thankfully, not necessarily part of being a Jewish Christian.
  • Done, although now I'm a little worried it looks like the shoots are achieving martyrdom (when in the text, it's definitely the Jewish Christians).
• One theological issue of note: I would rephrase this sentence -- we generally avoid saying that things are notable, or should be noted -- it's taken as read that everything in a Wikipedia article is notable, and we do well to minimise the volume of our editorial voice.
  • I think this is a good general rule of Wikipedia writing, but similar to the concerns on "popular" above, this one I think needs some sort of callout. This is the theological issue and half the reason people are still writing about the Apoc Peter still today. It consumes a huge amount of what Beck, Ehrman, Bauckham, etc. have to say on the work; Ilaria Ramelli wrote a whole book on early Christian universalism that cites ApocPeter as an example for her thesis. Open to suggestions, but I think the importance of this passage needs to be emphasized in some way that makes it distinct from comparatively piddly stuff also discussed, like the names of angels.
    • OK, so let's say as much -- Beck writes that "the central theological issue of the text" is.... If we can't find anyone actually willing to put it in writing that it's so important, it's WP:SYNTH to infer it simply from the volume of scholarly writing on it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • We can, it's just that qualifying it in-text makes it sound like it's just one scholar's take, and it's broader in this case. It also calls even more attention to the matter up front before even describing it, rather than a brief side comment that's promising "read on and you'll find out why." Hence me preferring to simply state it as a fact - it's proven by all the referenced stuff later on to the pages and pages written on it.
      • I've removed it for now, though - the proper person to cite, if anyone, is Ilaria Ramelli here (for all that others think she overstates her case), and the Brill access for the Wikipedia Library is still down. :( If it comes back up, I'll re-check her $405 book to see if there's a suitably saucy quote to use, in the reference if nothing else.
• The Greek word "apocalypse": technically speaking, apocalypse is not a Greek word: I would transliterate apokalypsis here (and see note above on Greek words).
  • Done. Good idea, agree we should use the raw Romanized Greek here rather than the Latinized version.
• the work is pseudepigrapha: pseudepigrapha is plural, so I think you're on safer grammatical grounds to make this an adjective: pseudepigraphical.
  • Done.
• Christian-Jewish: this should be an endash, but I'm not sure what the join is meant to be here. Are we saying that it belongs to Jewish Christianity -- in which case, Jewish-Christian (with hyphen) would be better?
  • Switched to an ndash. And it wasn't restricted to Jewish Christianity, so that wasn't the intent... it's more like it belongs to Christianity, but had major Jewish influences.
    • Generally speaking, these kind of doublets are better written out with a full explanation. (I think MOS:DASH or MOS:HYPHEN says something to that effect. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • I just cut "Jewish" - it's probably accurate, but it can be covered in the section on Himmelfarb's opinions.
• Plato's Phaedo is often held as a major example of the forerunning Hellenistic beliefs: this needs a bit more supporting material -- Plato's Phaedo is not Hellenistic.
  • It could be misread, but I feel that anyone capable of that misreading also knows enough to know what is "really" meant, that Plato was still current in the Hellenistic era and there were people called Platonists etc.? I switched it to the simple "Greek" though to avoid confusion.
    • Oh, yes, and Neoplatonism is a huge deal that might well need some sort of mention here. Switching to "Greek" solves the problem, I think. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Later scholarship by Martha Himmelfarb and others: as before, can we be more specific as to the date?
  • Himmelfarb's book was published in 1983, but "others" is harder to pin down. I suspect picking a date would be problematic though - it's not like everyone instantly agreed Himmelfarb was right (in fact, just as Dieterich was a maximalist "everything was Greek with minor Jewish flavor" that was probably wrong, Himmelfarb's maximalist "this is all based on lost Jewish stuff" hasn't actually found much support at the other end of the spectrum), and the process was probably somewhat gradual as people filtered in the parts of Himmelfarb's argument that were the best supported in the 1980s & 90s. (And I'm sure there were some scholars in the 1960s arguing for more Jewish influence who are annoyed if Himmelfarb took all the credit.) I think this one is best left for "click the wikilink on Himmelfarb, or hit the references, for more."
    • As above -- would "twentieth-century" of similar work? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Rephrased to include that.
• Some scholars get introductions, others don't -- who was Albrecht Dieterich, for example? There are arguments on either side, but I think it's best to pick a lane -- either introduce everyone, or only those who aren't what you'd expect. This essay puts forward one common and very sensible approach -- essentially, if it's (e.g.) a classicist doing a work of classical scholarship, leave out the introduction as obvious, but do introduce them if they aren't' a conventional subject-matter expert -- for example, if a poet or mystic commented on the text.
  • I've usually used the "no intro" style except for very early in the article. I removed "The scholar" before Bauckham - if I missed any others, happy to remove them. The one intro I believe remains is for M. R. James, and that's because I want to mention he was English (but reading French translations of Ethiopic documents for fun, and connecting them to German translations of Greek he read & translated earlier. Just normal stuff).
• I struggled to get my head around the layout of the Predecessors section -- the chronology and provenance of texts involved seems very mixed, there's a lot of "probably" and "maybe" going on, and a few very short paragraphs. What's the logic at work here?
  • Unfortunately, there isn't really a "story" to tell here past the Greek vs. Jewish influence debate. It's more like "Scholar A detected a claimed influence here. Scholar B detected a claimed influence over here. Scholar C..." And some of these claimed influences really do need a "probable" disclaimer, because it's not like the passage says "As Ezra said in that one Greek book of his work..." Beck writes "It is important to acknowledge the uncertainty of source critical discussions". I've done my best to have something of a "narrative" here, but also want to avoid SYNTH.
  • On short paragraphs, here and elsewhere: My stance favors the "paragraphs should have a topic" writing style. Sometimes this leads to long paragraphs (as in the Canonicity section), but sometimes it leads to short paragraphs if there's just one person making one claim or the like. I'd rather avoid glomming together unrelated thoughts that suggests the Psalm 24 quote is linked with the postmortem baptism or the like. (And looking back, including Matthew in the "Greek katabasis vs. Jewish apocalypses" section is a little loose as is... Matthew does have an apocalyptic section but I don't go into that here.)
• the Apocalypse of Peter is distinct among extant literature of the period, and may well have been unique at the time: aren't all works of literature unique in some respect? I'm not a fan of the distinction between "being unique" and "adapting earlier writings" -- leaving aside people like Virgil, Dante and so on, we have things like the Cento Vergilianus de laudibus Christi, which is entirely original and unique despite not containing a single original line. Suggest getting to the meaty material as to what's distinctive about it sooner, and ideally offering more than one example.
  • I think Beck would agree with you! ("It is important to recognise the originality of the Apoc Pet"). The reason he's bringing up this seemingly anodyne point is... well, a lot of earlier scholarly literature is obsessed with proving X copied from Y and Y was stealing from Z and the like. He was agreeing with this sentiment, that let the work stand on its own (and implicitly criticizing all of the previous paragraphs of claimed sources).
  • As far as offering more examples - that's a little fraught. Honestly the example that's there is not great, because Beck himself is very much on the "ApocPeter is 80% mercy and 20% judgment" side of the debate, yet I've included an example on the judgment side (it's not sourced to Beck, but it is placed right after his statement). Beck's example is, of course, the extent of post-mortem salvation, that ApocPeter is a unique early proponent of universal-ish salvation. But that's already covered in detail elsewhere, so bringing it up in "Predecessors" too would feel a little odd.
• it is not known when the Clementine sections of the Ethiopic manuscripts containing the Apocalypse of Peter were originally written. Daniel Maier proposes an Egyptian origin in the 6th–10th centuries as an estimate, while Richard Bauckham suggests the author was familiar with the Arabic Apocalypse of Peter and proposes an origin in the 8th century or later.: this seems like it belongs in the section on manuscripts -- I don't really see its relevance in a section on the work's influence.
  • I'd say it counts. This isn't about the manuscript so much as the content of "The Second Coming of Christ and the Resurrection of the Dead" and "The Mystery of the Judgment of Sinners" - i.e. when were they written (probably before the manuscript itself) and what were they based on? Since it's right next to the ApocPeter and seems to mention it, it seems clear ApocPeter was a huge influence, in the same way that a 2024 sequel to a Shakespeare play is influenced by, well, the Shakespeare play itself it's adding to. That said, this section was called out as a bit confusing in the GAN review too, so maybe there's clearly an issue. Perhaps it could be demoted to a footnote? That feels a little Western-centric though, these Ethiopic additions were the only attention ApocPeter was getting for centuries, even if the Ethiopian church of the 8th-18th centuries isn't well covered in English.
• Later apocalyptic works inspired by it include the Apocalypse of Thomas in the 2nd–4th century, and more importantly, the Apocalypse of Paul in the 4th century: more importantly reads as pretty strong editorialising to me.
  • See above comments on the lead. I've changed it to "more influentially" to perhaps make less bold claims about Importance with a capital I, but make no mistake, the Apoc Paul was the important one here. It's really hard to understate how weirdly popular ApocPaul was - while most surviving apocrypha involve scholars poring over just 1 or 2 manuscripts carefully, we've got hundreds of surviving ApocPaul manuscripts in a variety of languages. It'd be like writing "The noodle incident inspired a number of early 20th century authors, including Fergus MacForgotten, Bob Irrelevant, and Agatha Christie." For the reader not familiar, there should be some call out that one member of this list is way, way more important the others.
• One notable tweak that the Apocalypse of Paul makes; see above re. notable, and MOS:IDIOM -- I would just axe this perambulatory clause.
  • While the origin might be as an origin to real-life things, I think a "tweak" as a term for any "small change" is fine? I checked Merriam-Webster, and it has "a small change or adjustment" and its first example is to tweaking a menu (which clearly is more metaphorical than a radio dial). I removed "notable". Can switch "tweak" to "change" if desired, but since this is on ApocPeter's influence on ApocPaul, I think "tweak" hints that ApocPaul was modifying an already-existing framework better, while a change could simply be a difference.
    • To me, "tweak" reads as more informal than we're going for: I think "change" would work. On the other hand, a more direct sentence structure might be even better -- something like The Apocalypse of Paul diverges from that of Peter in describing personal judgments to bliss or torment as happening immediately after death (the bold bit is I think a necessary change for clarity, in any case). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• medieval monks that copied and preserved manuscripts in the turbulent centuries following the fall of the Western Roman Empire: I would do without turbulent centuries -- the third, fourth and fifth centuries were hardly serene and peaceful by comparison with the sixth, seventh and eighth.
  • Hmm, from the perspective of my armchair, I'm more convinced by the "the Roman Empire's fall was followed by a substantial crash in living conditions and economic disaster" camp. Not trying to imply that the 4th-5th century Western Roman Empire was particularly peaceful (3rd is too early for ApocPaul) of course, but they probably were substantially better for book preservation? My understanding is that these early centuries post-Fall were indeed very rough for manuscript preservation in the West by non-monks, since there were fewer rich nobles, scribes working for government officials, etc. that might have done it otherwise. And even if we take it as accepted that the 4th & 5th centuries were bad, that just means they were also turbulent. Despite the above, I'm happy to cut it if you feel strongly, just don't see the issue with a little bit of context that seems non-controversially true. (Really the best fix would be if we had a term that meant "late antique and Medieval" and we could just apply that modifier to the monks and then say "ever since it was published", but I can't think of any. And my vague understanding is that knowledge of ApocPaul in its first centuries is real vague anyway.)
    • It's really not non-controversially true, though -- it's not that the Early Medieval period was rosy, it's that the Late Roman period was pretty chaotic too. As I've said a few times, if you have a concrete statement in mind, like the idea that this was a particularly bad time for book preservation, it would be a good idea to say and cite that directly -- what we have at the moment is vague and fluffy, so it gives the reader an impression without actually presenting anything that could be falsified, and therefore without saying anything that could really be verified either. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • What I mean is that this statement, strictly speaking, doesn't say anything about the late Roman period at all, just the periods afterward (and thus does not take a stand on exactly how bad the late Roman period was). It doesn't seem that vague and fluffy to me (it is bringing up the role of monks / monasteries in book preservation, yes), but as this is on a side topic anyway, I'm happy to kick it to the Apoc Paul article and let people click the wikilink. Cut to just "medieval monks".
        • Improved, I think. Now we have Despite this, it would go on to be popular and influential for centuries, possibly due to its popularity: firstly, this is a tautology (it was popular because it was popular -- what attracted monks to it in the first place?); secondly, can we adjust the repetition? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
          • Rephrased to avoid the close repetition.
          • On why it was popular: I was happy to spend some text on explaining why monks mattered more than you'd expect (book copying / preservation), but going into why exactly the monks liked it is getting off-topic IMO. It's in the Apoc Paul article, but the short version is that it's very flattering to monks and spends time on monk interests - like, if you finish your vow of fasting, you will get a super-awesome apartment in the City of God near the center, but if you screw it up, you will be super-punished and thrown in a hole. Clergy & ascetics are the stars and get different fates than vanilla Christians - either much worse if they screw it up because expectations were higher, or much better if they do it well. But I don't think that's the relevant part for a section on ApocPeter's influence. I've tried to focus on the parts of ApocPaul that were clearly modifying existing Peter frameworks, but this aspect was just kinda new. (See Beck's comment elsewhere on Peter perceiving the righteous as a unified group - it's definitely a difference between Peter & Paul, as Paul thinks there's winners & losers even among the saved.)
          • On if it's a tautology: The current passage is describing who the "base" of support was (e.g. the equivalent of the Rocky Horror Picture Show superfans who kept would could have been an obscure commercial failure of a movie alive). Something like "Roger Ebert's strong advocacy of Hoop Dreams helped win the work wider popularity and acclaim." If you have a better suggestion on how to phrase that kind of message, happy to hear it, but as is I think it gets the point across?

More to follow -- greatly enjoying it so far, having just dipped my toe into apocalyptic literature for another (much less impressive) article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• The damned themselves admit from their own lips: from their own lips is tautological here, and a bit flowery for an encyclopaedia. This sentence might also be clearer if in a dialogue with the angel Tatirokos, the keeper of Tartarus were moved to the front.
  • Switched the order. And while flowery (in an evil flower kinda way), it's definitely a powerful rhetorical technique still used today (in the same way that, say, political parties love to quote whenever a rival agrees with them, or just make up a quote on Twitter of the other side confessing to being super evil). See? They admitted it themselves, therefore we're right and it's okay.
    • I don't disagree, but powerful rhetorical techniques aren't our wheelhouse: neither the purpose of the website nor the (zero) authority claimed by its authors suits them, unfortunately. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Cut.
• It is possible that where there is no logical correspondence, the punishment has come from the Orphic tradition and has simply been clumsily attached to a vice by a Jewish redactor.: can we give some examples? I also think we could perhaps have done more to introduce Orphism further up.
  • We could, but the problem is that for every example, there will be someone else arguing that no, this one totally makes sense. Fiensy offers "unchaste maidens are clad in darkness and have their flesh torn and sorcerers are tormented on wheels of fire" but we actually introduce proposed explanations for these later (i.e. bodily correspondence in that the skin/flesh that sinned is torn, and mirror punishment for sorcerers). I've seen elsewhere that the punishment for usurers is weirdly lenient compared to the others (up to the... knees in excrement? That's not fun, but it's not nearly as horrible as some of the other stuff.) and is also rather disconnected, but it'd be weird to offer that as an example when Fiensy doesn't. Maybe I just need a better reference for this than Fiensy - will look for one, stay tuned.
  • As for introducing Orphism, I'm not even sure where to start. I'm not sure there's even a consistent canonical Orphism to go over - it'd be like introducing 1st century Judaism, there are entire books written on it. I think we may be stuck with "click on the wikilink for more".
  • SF from the future: I added in a line in Callon's paragraph clarifying that the sorcerers example is one of the ones Fiensy thought made no sense. Still trying to figure out if there's any way to sneak in a better descriptive bit for Orphism that doesn't side-track, but I feel like I'd need to read a book to turn that into a non-contentious, non-distracting adjective other than the existing "er it was Greek-philosophy influenced tradition."
• contests classifying the ethics of the Apocalypse as being that of lex talionis: those of, since ethics is plural. A short paragraph: can we close it up with something else?
  • I guess we could combine with the Callon paragraph as an "alternative non-lex-talionis views" but I don't think Ehrman and Callon actually agree. Would rather let them stand on their own, but I'm willing to do the merge if you feel strongly.
• often more symbolic in nature: more symbolic than what?
  • Than simple eye-for-an-eye. In Callon's example, eye-for-an-eye would be sorcerers suffering whatever harm their spells inflicted on others to themselves, while a poetic justice approach is more like the tool they used to gain power is now used to torture them, isn't that ironic.
    • So "more symbolic than reciprocal" or similar, or perhaps "determined more by symbolism than by the lex talionis? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Went with your second suggestion.
• The text also specifies "ten" girls are punished: better to lose the quotes her per MOS:QUOTEPOV.
  • These aren't scare quotes though; it has the number "ten" in the text, it's an actual quote. I'd read it without the quotes as potentially implying that the actual text lists 10 specific women (a la Dante calling out specific people for punishment) but the Wikipedia article isn't bothering to list them. Normally I would fix this by making the quote longer and thus more obviously a quote, but the problem is the text literally says "10 virgins" or "10 maidens" are having premarital sex which I presume reads fine in Ethiopic, but will read confusingly in English where it'll sound illogical/impossible.
    • Well, yes, but "John states that he ate ten apples" also implies that John said the word "ten". If you want to make clear that it's ten fungible women, "a total of ten" would do well. The quotes don't strike the right tone -- they read as scare quotes, even if they aren't (this is the point of MOS:QUOTEPOV). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • I just went with dropping the quotes - "a total of" seems to draw even more attention to it and raise questions.
• {{Green|The Apocalypse of Peter is one of the earliest pieces of Christian literature to feature an anti-abortion message}: another very short paragraph.
  • Attaching this to another "thought" seems unwise; it's not really that connected. I'd rather keep it separate.
• The "Christology" section is very short indeed. Is that really the sum of all that has been written on the topic? If so, suggest rolling it in with another section. Ditto the "Literary merits" section, which could perhaps be repurposed as a sort of introduction to the "Analysis" section, without the subhead, unless there is more to say. Per MOS:FIGURES, don't start a sentence with a numeral.
  • Switched the sentence order.
  • I think placing the Literary Analysis section up front would give too much prominence to James' poison pen, IMO (The Ehrman reference discusses James opinion here only to criticize it as overly the-right-canon-prevailed triumphalist). I used the pre-section bit as an "intro" in Contents / Influences, but there isn't really much of an overall "Analysis" to be had which is already something of a grab-bag for "other stuff scholars talk about." I don't think these are that linked so would rather just have short, one-paragraph sections.
• which might have partially explained a lack of elite enthusiasm for canonizing it later: we haven't actually talked about this yet, so it comes across as vague and confusing.
  • A bit, but I don't think this is THAT confusing. We did mention already in the lede that it wasn't in the canon, so it's a minor flash-forward. More generally, I think this section is mostly on the "do scholars think this is actually well-written, coherent, etc." with the canonicity bit more a side comment. I think the article has a strong ending currently with the canonicity debate - moving this afterward would add a side "eh and here's another thought" afterward would dull the impact.
• One of the theological messages of the Apocalypse of Peter is generally considered clear enough: there are a couple of perambulatory phrases and sentences in the article like this one -- as in previous notes, I would advise simply cutting them and getting to the point of what we want to say. If you mean to indicate that most of the other theological points are unclear, state that explicitly.
  • I think you're reading this a bit more harshly than intended. I do describe a scholarly debate later in this paragraph on the "real" intent of the ApocPeter (both in its author and its early readers), but just wanted to set up that there do exist some baseline grounds scholars do agree on. And there's a subtle difference between "unclear" and "there is a scholarly debate" - the scholars on side A say it's very clear and obvious, just side B is wrong, and vice versa. I think it'd be a little bit editorializing to throw my hands up and declare that the problem is the text is unclear. (But yes, there is internal-to-the-text dissension on many of the messages, but the "monitory" message is clear. I'm citing Beck here because he is very much on the "ApocPeter as a scary morality play is overrated, it's not just about scaring people into compliance with the threat of hellfire" 'side', but even he grants that there's something of that in the story, just not the main thrust to him.)
• how can God allow persecution of the righteous on Earth and still be both sovereign and just?: similarly, in an encyclopaedia article (rather than an essay or an academic book chapter), we generally avoid direct/rhetorical questions in Wikivoice.
  • It's definitely not a rhetorical question, but a very hard one! Open to suggestions, but I cannot think of any other way to explain theodicy that doesn't introduce theology in Wikivoice, which is presumably worse. The article on the problem of evil even introduces the topic as a "question", and older theodicies were often explanations for major practical questions like "Why did God allow (disaster to happen)? Because...". Presumably atheists & Christians alike can agree that this is an issue that the author was trying to address, but elevating it from a question to a statement seems like it'd inherently annoy one side (e.g. simply stating the problem as a fact would annoy atheists as assuming a God did indeed allow anything, while including qualifiers like "so-called" would annoy theists).
    • We should make it an indirect question: "the problem of how God can allow...", to quieten down the authorial voice and make it clear that it isn't a rhetorical question. I'm sure the theodicy article does it a few times. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Rephrased as you suggested - take a look.
• and contains elements of both messages: similarly, this is simply a rephrasing of what was said before -- best cut.
  • Strong disagree here. Your wording is certainly more concise, but concision isn't everything; this one is intentional, for emphasis and clarity, and does indeed add something IMO. It's not as if there's a mercy-o-meter that there's a single setting for consistent across the work; the extra comment is hinting that while passage A might strongly indicate a preference for justice, passage B might do so for mercy, and passage C for both simultaneously. I think it's better writing to include this, and makes the sentence read much better to my eyes. (Side note: I'm not an expert here, but while on the topic of old religious writings, a theme seen in old Hebrew is repetition-for-emphasis as well - random Psalms will say something like "God is [X] and [CLOSE SYNONYM FOR X]". I don't think it's a mistake, and it can read rather well in English too.) I dunno, this might be a weird one to plant my flag on, but this one I feel significantly stronger about than the others - this passage is my writing style and I'd rather keep it like this unless there's an outright error here. We're allowed a few spare words to dress things up, and this particular issue is one of the top most useful places to spend them IMO. (Apologies in advance if I come across as an eccentric on this!)
• may not have fit the mood: I think this is a bit too informal, and perhaps on the wrong side of MOS:IDIOM.
  • You say "informal", I say "accessible to a general audience." ;-) But more seriously, I could replace with "intellectual milieu" or "zeitgeist" or the like but those seems both less accessible and less accurate, so I'm not super keen on doing so. Do you have any suggestions? It's tricky because Christianity was hardly a monolith in that era, so it needs to be a word indicating a similarly vague current-of-thought.
• three tabernacles here on Earth: here is best cut for concision -- those few people who read this article on the International Space Station can complain on the Talk page if needed.
  • In a vacuum, I agree, but there's an issue here. The text actually just says "My Lord, do you wish that I make three tabernacles here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah?" In other words, "here" is the word original to the text, and "on Earth" is an in-sentence gloss. I think we'd need to cut "on Earth" first if we wanted to shorten this, but then Jesus's objections would come across as somewhat nonsensical, hence clarifying Peter's proposed tabernacles were in the mortal realm and Jesus's tabernacle was heavenly.
• Make sure that Latin titles, such as Hypotyposes, are in lang templates.
  • Done.
• Quite a few of the citation templates used in footnotes are throwing Harvard errors -- use this script to catch them, then add |ref=none to fix them.
  • (I saw this, but will hold off, since it involves installing scripts. To be edited later.)
  • Well, these were warnings not errors, and they're acceptable warnings in this case IMO. Still, I fixed this in the "Bibliography" section. Elsewhere, I'm more inclined to "blame" the script - User_talk:Trappist_the_monk/HarvErrors#Citation_bundles indicates that this is a known quirk, where the script doesn't get that citation bundles shouldn't have such a warning. I can still change it if truly desired, but per above, it doesn't appear to actually be an error in the citation.
    • Adding |ref=none solves the "problem" in either case, and improves readability for those regular editors who use that script with no real loss for anyone else. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
      • I've added ref=None for the remaining warnings.

That's my lot on a first pass -- quite a few comments, but please don't take the quantity as a reflection of the quality of the article -- most are very small and will be quickly resolved. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for the extensive review! Here's a diff of changes so far (no section swap), and the section order swap separate diff. Will investigate the other comments as well. SnowFire (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt replies -- I haven't got to all of them; most are absolutely find and need no reply, and I've put a few responses above where I think one is needed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I haven't forgotten about this - just had an unexpectedly busy Labor Day weekend & travel + not wanting to do some of these fixes before I could hit the books again. Will hopefully respond soon-ish now that I have a tad more free time. SnowFire (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Not at all -- I still have a few of your replies that I need to get my head around. If they're still below the "Resolved" collapse box, I'm meaning to get to them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies! Did another pass - see diff. SnowFire (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'm working my way through; it's going a bit slowly but hopefully steadily. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• A small one, but we're inconsistent about whether scholarship should be related in the present or past tense. I was taught to use the present for "live" views and the past when discussing the history of scholarship (with the implication that views related in the past tense were no longer considered mainstream), but as ever with these things any consistent system is fine. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I did a tense pass. Here's the tentative rules I applied: Dead scholars get past tense. Scholars who argued a position notably but later changed their mind also get past tense (don't think that ever comes up - maybe Bauckham softening some on 2 Peter vs. ApocPeter timing? That's hidden in a reference anyway.). Living scholars get present tense. Scholarly summations - your system sounds good, so went with past tense for when the vibes are this position is dated, but kept present tense if there are notable scholars still propounding the position. Some constructions not directly about scholarly views remained as is (i.e. "the fragment is dated" where it's talking about something else).
  • Anyway, most recent diff. Also feel free to speak up if I said I did something but then didn't do it - that's probably just an error (I seem to find myself responding to these at 3-4 AM while unable to sleep...). SnowFire (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

    Just gone through looking to close this off -- I've made some copyedit suggestions, including one to the "fit the mood" problem above. One remaining issue: I see considering the reservations various church authors had on the Apocalypse of John (the Book of Revelation), it is possible similar considerations were in play. -- do we ever say what those considerations were? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

    Your changes look fine to me.

    On Revelation: Unfortunately, I don't think either set of considerations / objections are known (hence the "it is possible" wording). That said, that line was added very early in my expansion and it looks like I was a little loose on sourcing it at the time. I do think it's true but should probably get a direct attribution to scholar XYZ - I've commented it out for now. If I find a good source to restore it, I'll see what it says and if it includes any hypotheses. (Just it's often speculating at gaps - why did writer XYZ not mention it? and why did writer ABC just call it disputed? Very vague.) . SnowFire (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

    • Has nobody taken a stab at it -- or said that it's unknown? I think one or the other would help: as we've phrased it, it sounds like there are known reasons about Revelation, which might apply to ApocPeter. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
      • @UndercoverClassicist: I've reorganized the section and placed in a reference to "The Oxford Handbook of Revelation." It's still mildly sketchy since it's tying together a thought spread across two sources, but I think it's fine given that Nicklas does directly raise the matter of the Apocalypse of Peter's status as being comparable to Revelation.
      • Also, on an earlier note, I've snuck in a reference outside the Hatnote to the Gnostic & Arabic Apocalypses of Peter - in the name footnote, of all places. Added in another 2022 source as well (Batovici) - it's nothing new, but useful as another layer of verification. Also, see above, but I've uploaded a new map and verified it against recent Atlases, and have more pictures of scholarly Atlases if really required. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

        Support: almost all of this article is well outside my area of expertise, but it certainly has the look, feel and flavour of an FA, and I'm satisfied with all the amendments and fixes made during this (lengthy!) review. Credit to SnowFire for their patience and good humour with the process, and I hope they feel it has been of benefit to the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka

• The citation style of the article is inconsistent. Several sources referred to in the "Reference" section, are not listed in section "Bibliography" (for instance, Metzger). Some references are rather notes (I refer to, for example, references 16 and 43). Do not verify a statement with a note (for instance, this is the case in the two last sentences in section "Date of authorship").
  • I explained my citation style above in discussion with UC, and it's consistent and keeping with WP:CITEVAR. I'll copy-paste what I wrote there:
    • The citation style I use is that sources that are cited a lot over multiple page ranges go in the Bibliography, and everything else is a normal reference. There is a method to the madness here - when seeing the reference previews from hover (desktop) or press (mobile), the strict page ranges are a little less helpful than a full reference. So if everything can fit in a single reference (say JK Elliot's Apocryphal New Testament writeup, or Maurer / Mueller's, or random journal articles), I stick it there. I personally consider it an antipattern that if there's a source only used in one spot, a strict "everything in the bibliography, short references only" style forces a secondary lookup / hover to track it down when it could have just been connected at the start. This also has the benefit of the Bibliography being a genuine "read these 6 books to learn about ApocPeter" bibliography that cuts to the core, most-used sources recommended to read, rather than a grab-bag.
    • Now, there is one quirk with this article, which is that there's two heavily cited monograph collections in the Bibliography (the 2003 Apocalypse of Peter edited by Bremmer, and the 2024 collection edited by Maier et al). For those, I stuck them there anyway due to their importance, but all of the references are separated out as citations to individual chapters, since the chapters have different authors. And those are usual full citations.
  • Metzger is used in more than one spot but it's not mostly on the Apocalypse of Peter, while the sources listed in Bibliography are. I'd rather keep it as is unless you feel this is truly a problem, but I'd be curious why it's a problem - clicking a Metzger page range will show the Metzger book just fine.
  • On long references: 16 isn't really appropriate as a note, IMO. It's a "see these original sources for more" which is exactly what a reference is. I've reserved notes for "prose that a reader might be interested in, but keeping it in the main article would distract the flow on a minor point and it isn't strictly required." A bunch of links to old journal articles is useful IMO, hence including it, but it's clearly a reference. 43 is more borderline, but that is again a reference IMO. I'm trying to avoid the antipattern many articles use of, when there's scholarly dissension, just citing both and letting the reader figure things out by saying up front that you can see different slants at different references. I could see a reverse complaint where if I only had the scholarly references, someone might complain about text-source integrity that actually, this other reference says something slightly different than what the text does. A more fully explained reference fixes the problem IMO. I believe my style is valid per CITEVAR where explaining some references does not automatically qualify something for footnote status. WP:EXPLNOTESECT explicitly says that having a notes section at all is optional, and there are FAs that entirely eschew a notes section and stick everything in references, including detailed note-like references. Given that, I have to assume that there is discretion on the article author to choose what qualifies for a note and what qualifies as a reference.

• • I would not expect explanations in references. I think the present method is not fully in line with WP:CITEHOW
    • A simple "Lastname Year p. 100" is the basic case, sure, but I would say that WP:FOOTQUOTE covers this - "Sometimes, however, it is useful to include additional annotation in the footnote, for example to indicate precisely which information the source is supporting." For ref 43, say, I don't think Lapham's view on the transfiguration parallel is so significant that it merits discussion in a full reader-facing footnote, but that including Lapham as a reference unadorned could create a complaint that it's missing subtleties in the position. There's no perfect fix here, but having a somewhat fuller citation is basically harmless and not at all unusual, and makes a lot of sense for articles with strong references yet sometimes contrasting results.

• • The notes in "Date of Authorship" all have detailed references (5 refs in the Bar-Kokhba note, say). I suppose I can replicate all of them again in-prose, but I really don't see the point, and it makes it harder for a well-meaning reader to actually get sent to the note of approachable prose I want them to read, rather than the reference that they probably don't care about. I checked 3 FAs at random, and all 3 of them were using notes-with-references-in-the-note as well, suggesting this isn't an unknown style (and not just "middle of the paragraph" stuff - I'm talking notes at the end of the paragraph, with the ref in the note).
• Introduce people when they are first mentioned in the text: Richard Bauckham > the theologian/Biblical scholar Richard Bauckham; Gaston Maspéro > the Egyptologist Gaston Maspéro, etc.
  • Unfortunately, if you read Undercover Classicist above, he recommended doing precisely the reverse of this in his review and not introducing anyone unless it's surprising or out-of-field, and so I just went around removing some of these recently. I can't comply with both requests. If someone wants to offer a third opinion, I'll vary it up with whatever the majority says, as I think this is purely a stylistic preference where both ways can work.

• • @UndercoverClassicist: your thoughts? I would like to know who Richar Bauckham, Gaston Maspéro, etc in the article because their name provides no information about their relevance. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

There are a few schools of thought on this -- to me, the overarching principle here would be the FAC mantra that "if it's consistent and it works, it's fine". Personally, I used to be in the school of "introduce everyone", but discussions at some FACs here (from memory, this was prominent at Beulé Gate) have pushed me more towards not generally introducing people where that introduction would be "this person is the sort of expert you'd expect to see quoted here). Some of the reasons for this are:

• False distinctions -- particularly in a field like this one, there aren't bright lines between e.g. "theologian/religious historian/scholar of Judaism", and choosing one epithet over the other can give a misleading impression that two people are coming at this from very different angles, or else misrepresent the field. Even worse, titles like "scholar" or "writer" sometimes disguise the fact that the person isn't really an expert in this topic at all.
• False precision -- if we implicitly endorse someone as "the historian X...", we give readers the sense that they are all equally qualified and worth listening to, which isn't often the case. The oft-cited user essay on this point uses the example of David Irving, who would need a lot more context than that.
• Repetition -- readers will generally assume that we don't quote people who aren't worth listening to, so if the introduction does nothing more than say "this person is worth listening to", it's tautological and adds needless words (and so takes away from the article's clarity). This is a similar argument to why we don't write things like "a notable fact is..." or "it is important that...".

With that said, if the person being quoted is not a run-of-the-mill current expert, there are good arguments for introducing them -- particularly if:

• The article is very interdisciplinary, and people are coming at it from very different perspectives (see Ove Jørgensen, where I had to introduce practically everyone to be clear if they were a classicist, a ballet scholar or a personal acquaintance of the subject).
• The view is particularly dated, or otherwise considered obsolete.
• They are being used as something other than an academic expert: this came up a lot in Homeric Hymns, where classicists/philologists/literary scholars were generally not given epithets, but people like Ezra Pound, who passed judgement on the topic from a different perspective, were introduced to make clear that their expertise was different from that of the (many) academics mentioned elsewhere.

That's quite a lot of verbiage to say "it's really a moot point", but I hope it helps. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I still think that introducing the scholars mentioned in the article is the best method: if a scholar is to be named in an article for whatever reason we should not be forced to make a research for them and a scholar's name itself is not informative. Encyclopedic approach itself leads to simplifications: we are summarising the content of lengthy scholarly studies. I would ignore the "oft-cited user essay" for it has only been visited 41 times this year (5 times on the same day indicating that somebody referred to it in a discussion [49]). Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Why are not the titles of works/texts italicised?
  • See MOS:NEITHER, where "religious texts" aren't italicized. e.g. Revelation, not Revelation.
• The first section's title does not reflect the text.
  • I've switched the title to "Authorship and date" if that helps better make clear the scope.
• The Apocalypse of Peter seems to have been written between 100 AD and 150 AD. 1. Another cited source writes of a different timeframe (Metzger (1987), p. 184). 2. None of the two years mentioned in the sentence are certain. 3. Rephrase to avoid PoV language.
  • For 1, I wasn't citing Metzger there? He's writing a 3-page short summary. I'm trying to use the highest quality sources for the main topic, which means scholars who have dedicated a bit more space to ApocPeter. There is already some dissension here that is already discussed (i.e. Bauckham arguing for a more specific dating); I didn't feel Metzger's narrower range was worth going into because he doesn't explain why at all and he's not an ApocPeter expert. It's just a difference, that happens all the time, it'd blow the article up to 5x the length if every small scholarly difference was discussed. (Metzger is a fantastic source overall on the topic of the formation of the canon, but the scholarly estimates of when precisely ApocPeter was written? Probably not. More sources say 100 as the start date, or even earlier if the 4 Esdras reference is discarded as too weak.)
  • For 2, I absolutely agree, but that's why I wrote "Seems". I guess you're arguing for a "circa"? But having both "seems" and "Circa" would be essentially repeating, and including only "circa" would be too subtle for some casual readers who might not catch the abbreviation.
  • For 3, I don't see anything POV here at all. If this means "seems" again, to be clear, the authors themselves acknowledge a range of possibilities. Text-source integrity requires communicating this uncertainty in text.
• These Ethiopic versions appear to have been translated from an Arabic version, which itself was translated from the lost Greek original. Who says this and why?
  • First off - I refactored this section during the FAC, and I think the ref to this got shuffled around. I've replaced it; Bauckham p. 162 covers it (as well as p.254, but that's just repeating it). I also threw in a ref to Müller 1991 (Which is a bit more acknowledging of the possibility of it not being accurate.)
  • As for who says it: Everyone, pretty much. Beck writes "if the Ethiopic text of the Apoc Pet was translated from Arabic, as many have suggested" (p. 161 of his thesis) and then cites 7 full sources. While it's not proven (no Arabic manuscript exists; Müller writes "That the Ethiopic translation could be very old, and made directly from the Greek, remains a possibility"), most scholars seem to accept it as the most likely, and it's not controversial to my knowledge. As to why: well most of the scholars don't go into this, just pass by as accepted knowledge. Since I haven't seen any scholars argue against it, I didn't go into detail, but used the weaker verb "Appears" to indicate it wasn't conclusively shown.
  • As for why: This is a frustrating question! Lots of scholars said this as already noted, but the references often go to just other scholars saying it too (and one to a very bum reference... the 2010 paper on Z'RL cites Bratke 1893, who was fruitlessly searching for an Arabic-Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter via mishmash of quotes before d'Abbadie was publicized, i.e. worthless). Well, from SnowFire, Buchholz talks about how essentially many works in Ethiopic came from Arabic translations, so it wouldn't be weird. And the Ezreal thing already mentioned in-article seems like it'd fit with coming from Arabic / Islam. But I'm not seeing a lot here. The best I can say is that C. D. G. Müller was specifically an Ethiopanist and linguist of languages of the region, not a scholar of religion who happened to be interested in an Ethiopic document, and if he thinks that the document was probably a translation from Arabic, I'm fine with deferring to him. (And he's a recent-ish source, writing in the 1980s.)

• • I think the sentence could be rephrased to avoid PoV language: "According to scholarly consensus/Most specialists think that/.... these Ethiopic versions were translated from Arabic rather than from the original Greek text."

• • • • Done, but I'm not a fan of this as a general principle. Most of the article is an attempt at describing scholarly consensus, and I don't want to imply other sections aren't - that should be the default on Wikipedia when not attributing a fact.
        • As a general principle I am not a fan of this either but if reliable sources verifies the statement we should inform our reader that they are reading a well established theory, not only the assumptions of one single scholar or an editor. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• The d'Abbadie manuscript is estimated to have been created ... By whom and why?
• ...the Lake Tana manuscript is from perhaps the 18th century According to whom?
  • These are both in the reference already given for the sentence. Buchholz cites Carlo Conti Rossini for dating the d'Abbadie manuscript (a 1912 article just ~2 years after Grebaut's publication), and Ernst Hammerschmidt for dating the Lake Tana manuscript (the same 1973 Hammerschmidt paper already mentioned in another reference, actually). I can add these details to the reference if desired but I figured that as an overview article rather than a book, these details are too much in the weeds. In general, the style I've gone for is to only cite people who are arguing for controversial positions, and state uncontroversial stuff as fact with "who said this" in the reference. (The dating of Akhmim was attributed in prose only because there are a wide range of estimates there, so those more specific estimates had to be attributed.)

• I do not want to read references to have basic info. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. That said, in side chatter, there's already quite a lot of "scholar X said this" in the article (and if you check the page history of the cited scholars, you'll see that I created the Wikipedia articles on them). So it's something I personally am interested in, but my impression is that general readers are only interested if there's actually a nerd fight to be had (e.g. Martha Himmelfarb criticizing the ghost of Albrecht Dietrich), not just simple attributions of who said something noncontroversial first.

• Mention that the Bodleian library is in Oxford. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Done.
• Despite some pushback above, thanks for taking a look and doing a review! Happy to answer any questions or discuss the above further. SnowFire (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • @Borsoka: Made some changes (diff). SnowFire (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @Borsoka: Ping again - any other feedback? I think I've answered most of the above, just tell me if I missed something. (And some sort of cautious approval with the disapproval of the "Context Considered Harmful" essay / style is fine too - if there's ever a wider consensus shift there, I'm sure the article will update as well to put back the word "scholar" in front of various people's names.) SnowFire (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I doubt that the word "scholar" is missing in front of various scholar's name. I would surely be more specific. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Borsoka, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay but I was uncertain. By now I concluded that I support the promotion of this excellent article. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks now without a single support for promotion. I'm afraid it's at the risk of archival if there's no significant progress over the next three days or so. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Johnbod

• Pretty clearly there, after a good going over by others. Just a few nitpicks:
• Is there a convention that we don't italicize the titles of even apocryphal New Testament texts? New Testament apocrypha is a mess in this respect. Things like The Shepherd of Hermas should certainly have italics.
  • I'm mostly going off MOS:NEITHER which seems to recommend no italics as a Wikipedia convention. As for what the sources do, it's a mess - some italicize, some don't. In general, I think the Wikipedia standard is attempting to draw the line at "did people take this seriously as scripture" vs. works that might have had religious opinions, but nobody took as even an attempt to be "apostolic" (e.g. Dialogue with Trypho for a contemporary example). And if that is indeed the line, than ApocPeter and Shephard of Hermas both don't qualify, as they were indeed taken as scripture. (Even stuff like 1 Clement was in old copies of scriptures!) The expansion under "religious texts" says that "relatively obscure" religious texts can be italicized, but then also talks about books published in modern times - e.g. stuff like The Urantia Book. On balance, I think the current guideline suggests no italics, but happy to discuss a sharper standard on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works if desired?
    • I don't really agree with this, though clearly the area is messy. I think the style used at our articles should probably be followed, so The Shepherd of Hermas. Johnbod (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Well, chose our poison, consistency within this article or consistency with other Wikipedia articles. I'd rather have what's within one article consistent and not italicize, it seems jarring - especially in areas like the lists of works when nobody was sure what later centuries would deem apocryphal and what wasn't yet (e.g. Eusebius does not know that Jude will become canonical but Barnabas won't, so he certainly isn't setting out such a distinction). That said, I have switched it over anyway, but I think it reads weirdly. SnowFire (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• "and Hellenistic philosophy from Greek culture" also sounds very odd to me. There are links for the appropriate "Greek culture", but a reword is also needed, or a cut.
  • On adding a link: Hmm, I'm not so sure! We aren't sure where this was written, so the kind of Greek culture would vary between Egypt, Judea, Christian Rome, etc. I'm open to suggestions - as mentioned to UC above, the idea was to hint to casual readers what "Hellenistic" means (since casuals read the lede but nothing else), but I give up for now and just cut it. Happy to hear any suggestions for alternative ways to sneak in what Hellenistic means.
    • Well, Hellenistic period is the obvious one, but repeats the H word. Maybe "and later Greek philosophy from the Hellenistic period"? Johnbod (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Done, although I cut "later" as that might make it sound like the work was inspired by "later" philosophy in the sense of after the work's creation.
• the link from "extant" to Ancient literature seems pretty useless. "Surviving" is often a better word choice than "extant".
  • Removed link (I don't think I was the one who added it). And while I agree in general, I think "surviving" reads a little oddly here - it's used in the next paragraph but with "earliest surviving" which I think provides more context, so I think "extant" hopefully works. (But can still change it if you really feel strongly.)
• "After inquiring for signs of the Second Coming of Jesus" - is "inquiring" the right word here? Or explain who is inquiring.
  • Expanded to "the disciples." And yeah, they inquire ("And we asked him..."). My only worry is that now we're suddenly introducing the disciples in the lead when they barely matter (they appear as just background flavor as an entourage for Peter), but oh well.
• "and details both heavenly bliss for the righteous and infernal punishments for the damned" odding phrasing - participles needed and "sets out" or something.
  • Usual "I'm an American" comment goes here, but it sounds fine to me? I ran your comment past a person who once was a professional copyeditor I know and he wasn't sure what the complaint was either. "Details" is an unusual verb but not unheard of.
• ridiculous imo to object to the Divine Comedy being described as "famous", but whatever.
• Personally I'd put all or most of notes 2 & 3 into the main text. Maybe n. 4 too
  • Hmm. I'm tempted, but there is a reason I did it this way... for the somewhat-casual reader reading sequentially, the part they're interested in is "Contents". But as mentioned above, the manuscript history is unfortunately necessary to cover first, so that "Ethiopic vs. Akhmim vs. Rainer" debates make sense. As such, I've tried to have those sections be written tightly and concisely so that the general gist is acquired, and why I stuck the deeper scholarly debates in footnotes. It's extra tricky because the scholarly debates on the specifics of authorship require knowing something about the contents, which we haven't read yet if we're a hypothetical reader reading sequentially! If this was a book, it'd be something like "Intro -> Contents -> More about Authorship" but I don't think Wikipedia style is to have an "Authorship, part II" in analysis. As such, moving it into a footnote (I'm using the noisier, longer "Note 1" as well to signify this isn't just a citation) lets the content be in the article in the expected section, but without disrupting the flow. Well, that's my argument at least. Do you think that's good enough reason here, or would you still rather have more info moved out and into prose?
• link "risen Christ"? Also "Moses and Elijah", "Elysian field" at first mention, "Sibylline Oracles" at 2nd rather than 3rd mention, Clementine literature at 1st, Alexandria,
  • I was trying to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE, but don't feel too strongly about it, so added the Risen Christ & Alexandria link. Moses and Elijah are already linked? Unless you meant them together, but that's just the Transfiguration which is also already linked. Elysian field is linked at first mention in the prose (rather than in the quote, since it's in both the quotes). Sibylline Oracles are linked at first mention in "Authorship and date". They aren't linked in "Prayers for those in hell", but I think you're referring to the link in the quote - but I don't think such links in a quote attribution "count" per usual standards on say image caption links not counting either. Clementine literature is linked at first appearance in "Manuscript history", then linked again in a separate section (in compliance with the updated WP:DUPLINK guidelines) in "Later influence" but again first appearance in that section.
• "the Apocalypse of Peter is classed as part of apocalyptic literature in genre" reads a bit oddly - "the Apocalypse of Peter is classed as part of the genre of apocalyptic literature" perhaps?
  • Those read identically to me, but I don't feel strongly, so sure, switched.
• "was on determining its predecessor influences" reads awkwardly imo
  • I'm not a huge fan of the existing phrasing myself, but it's a relevant point - a works "influences" can mean both forward & backward, and I want to specify it was specifically the earlier influences that this scholarship was interested in. But they can't be called "predecessors" directly as that's highly contested and probably not accurate, they're just influences. Open to suggestions, but I think the somewhat awkward "predecessor influences" is at least precise to what is being meant.
• "possibly a loose callback" - too slangy
  • It's an overloaded word that has other problems, but if you dislike callback, I've switched to "reference" instead. (But I'm somewhat worried about it being misread as the encyclopedia sense rather than the literary/traditional sense.)
• "with a high Christology" - is this a term often used? Perhaps needs explaining. I doubt the link will help much.
  • This one we're stuck with - it's an academic term, but it's definitely the one used. Both Beck ("The use of such titles in these chapters reveals a high Christology") and Buchholz ("These titles are evidence of a high christology") specifically use the term, so not much to do other than wikilink it for people to look it up. I think the context and the term itself gives a pretty good guess to what it means.
    • Ok Johnbod (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• "is generally dated to the last quarter of the 2nd century (c. 170–200 AD)" slightly jarring maths failure here. Just use the dates?
  • It's historical guesstimate ranges in this case, was not intended to imply a precise 25-year period nor a precise 30-year period. That said, changed, went with "late 2nd century".
    • Ok Johnbod (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• You are right not to be pressured to change your citation method.

Btw, if we can get this finished by Thursday it would be good, as then I'm away for 10 days. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• • @Johnbod: Thanks for the review! Made some changes (diff). (Sorry about the delay, got absolutely slammed at work yesterday.) SnowFire (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @Johnbod: Some more edits - diff. SnowFire (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Ok, thanks, moving to Support. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "It is the earliest-written extant document depicting a Christian version of heaven and hell in detail." This is clumsy and misleading. I thought at first it meant an original 2C document. Why not " It is the earliest detailed depiction of a Christian version of heaven and hell."
  • Including "extant" is important because at least some scholars think that there indeed might have been preceding versions (Himmelfarb) that have been lost to time.
  • It isn't misleading either, although I will grant that it is a somewhat complex situation (but that's the fault of the situation, not the sentence). All of our most ancient manuscripts of this period long postdate when they were originally written. That said, scholarship is usually more interested in the original date of writing of such works, not the date of the oldest surviving manuscript that happens to include them. Saying "earliest-written extant" is correct because it means that of extant works, it was authored the earliest (regardless of the 5th & 6th century fragments we have from later). Leading with this information is correct and offers due weight to what the sources are most interested in, the date of authorship. I've substituted "document" for "work" if this will make this interpretation less likely, although we have a close repetition of "work" now, so it's not ideal.
  • As for "clumsy", I don't see a significant difference between "depicting" and "depiction". It reads fine to me as is. Switching "in detail" to "detailed" can subtly change the sense, too... "in detail" is a sop that there are some brief depictions of hell elsewhere that are earlier (e.g. in the Revelation of John), but this work goes into detail (i.e. full chapters devoted to it). "Detailed" doesn't portray this as strongly; to me, something can be called "detailed" but only be one or two sentences long, if it's just evocative or the sentences are crowded.
• "The text is extant in two diverging versions". "diverging" is the wrong word. It means moving apart. Maybe "different"?
  • That's the intended word. If you read further, scholarly speculation is that there was an original ApocPeter (perhaps partially preserved in the Rainer / Bodleian fragments), and it diverged into different "editions" by editor, the Ethiopic version (which made some changes to the hypothesized original) and the Akhmim version (which made a lot of changes to the hypothesized original). So yes, the editions did indeed split and become further apart literarily.
• "The Apocalypse of Peter is a forerunner of the same genre as the Divine Comedy of Dante". This does not seem fully supported in the main text. You say there that the Apocalypse of Peter influenced the Apocalypse of Paul, which influenced the Divine Comedy, but "forerunner of the same genre as the Divine Comedy of Dante" implies a larger set of medieval works.
  • The body writes that ApocPeter is a "Christian katabasis, a genre of explicit depictions of the realms and fates of the dead", which the Divine Comedy is also. When the word "forerunner" is used, it's mostly as a sop that later journeys to the afterlife would make some significant revisions, but they're both still broadly a katabasis. It's including the full range of later katabases in that statement (e.g. ApocPaul), not just the ones of Dante's day. (Although, as a side note, even if a reader somehow did interpret it as about medieval katabases specifically, then it's still accurate - there were indeed medieval examples, albeit more obscure than Dante - the Legend of the Purgatory of St. Patrick for one. I agree the body doesn't go into detail on specifically medieval katabases, but that would seem off-topic.)
• "After reading the French translations, the English scholar M. R. James realized in 1910 that there was a strong correspondence with the Akhmim Greek Apocalypse of Peter, and that an Ethiopic version of the same work was within this cache." This needs clarification. What does a "strong correspondence" mean in this context? How could it have told him that there was a version of the Apocalypse in the cache?
  • It means that the passages were very similar, so similar as to suggest it was not a quote but a full translation of the same work. You can read James's 1910 article in the reference if you're interested in more - it's public domain / on Wikipedia library ( JSTOR link). He does a side-by-side of the Akhmim Greek with Grebaut's French translation. I don't think any clarification is required - this is just the normal meaning of correspondence, and James uses that word exactly (e.g. "Here begins the equivalent of the description of Hell which we possess in Greek. The opening words are corrupt in the Ethiopic, but the correspondence is unmistakeable.") James had previously argued in journal articles that he thought it was likely there were some fuller copies of the Apocalypse of Peter (which he'd already studied via patristic quotations & Akhmim), and here's a source that matches patristic quotations very well and Akhmim tolerably, so maybe we've found a translated version of the original Greek Apocalypse of Peter.
• "the Lake Tana manuscript is estimated by Ernst Hammerschmidt to be from perhaps the 18th century". "from perhaps" is clumsy and ambiguous. Does is mean around 18C or maybe 18C but maybe from a very different period?
  • It sounds ambiguous because it is ambiguous. I'm just reflecting the source here. Here's a fuller quote from Buchholz: "The manuscript is not dated, but its style of letter formation is quite different from that in T (the d'Abaddie manuscript). Hammerschmidt ventures to guess the eighteenth century but follows this with a question mark to indicate how uncertain is the date." Hammerschmidt himself isn't certain, so "perhaps" is required to accurately represent his position.
• More to follow. Done to end of Later influence. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look! Replies above. SnowFire (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• In my opinion, your use of language is sometimes clumsy and confusing, but other editors obviously disagree, so I will discontinue this review and leave it to them. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

• Apocalypse of Peter Akhmim Plate vii.png - PD
• Eastern Mediterranean 125 political map eastern med.svg - CC BY SA
• File:Bodleian fragment Apocalypse of Peter MS. Gr. th. f. 4 (P).jpg - PD
• File:Eugène Delacroix - The Barque of Dante.jpg - PD
• File:Ethiopic Prologue Apocalypse of Peter.jpg - PD
• File:Rainer fragment Apocalypse Peter 1 and 4 color.png and File:Rainer fragment Apocalypse Peter 2 and 3 color.png - PD

All images are appropriate and captioned. They have alt-text and are formatted correclty. Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review by IntentionallyDense

I will be doing the source review for this article. I usually do this by filling out a table as I go. I will ping the nominator when I'm done but anyone is welcome to make comments as I work. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Section	Status	Sources I couldn't access	Comments
Authorship and date	Done	None	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Manuscript history	Done	Skipped the ones I couldn't access	I spotchecked this section and found no issues. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Contents	Done	None	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
The Second Coming	Done	Your eyes will be opened : a study of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter	I wasn't able to access the one source but otherwise everything was verified. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Punishments and rewards	Done	I just used the Bauckham 1998 ref and that verified everything	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Prayers for those in hell	Done	Spotchecked with sources I had	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Influences, genre, and related works	Done	none	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Predecessors	Not done
Contemporary work	Done	None	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Later influence	Not done
The punishments and lex talionis	Not done
Christology	Done	Your Eyes Will Be Opened: A Study of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter	I was only able to verify about half the sentence because I couldn't access the other source but I'm going to assume in good faith that the other half is verified by the other source. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Angels and demons	Not done
Literary merits	Done	"The Recovery of the Apocalypse of Peter".	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Theology	Not done
Debate over canonicity	Not done

• I'm going to take a bit of a break with this source review till the IA is back online since quite a few of the sources appear to be accessible through the archive. If this is a problem or if the IA doesn't come back online in a timely manner I can continue to just download pdfs of the books but that is very time-consuming. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Seeing as archived books still are not back up I am going to go ahead and vote Support for the source review. While I didn't source review each section I found absolutely zero issues in any of the other sections which leads me to believe that I would not find issues if I continued to look. If anyone feels my vote is premature let me know but it is very rare that I don't find a single issue when doing source reviews. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Srnec

The following are suggestions after a quick read:

• Like Johnbod, I disagree with MOS:NEITHER and would prefer italics for the titles of works. I don't think extending a convention usually applied to the books of the bible beyond that is clarifying. (Obviously, this won't hold the article back.)
• From note 1: it is sometimes referred to as the "Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter". Does this mean that it is sometimes referred to as either the Greek Apocalypse of Peter or the Ethiopica Apocalypse of Peter
  • It means exactly what's inside the quotes, parentheses included - so literally "Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter". I think it's weird too.
• The first line links apocalyptic literature, but shouldn't it be the more specific apocalypse?
  • It could really be either - I think the current distinction between those two articles isn't how I'd distinguish them and they both seem to be talking on the same topic at the moment. But sure, switched to apocalypse, although it's a bit of an easter egg link now.
• Congratulations on earliest-written extant work. Concise and clear. I'm baffled by the criticism above. Should "version" perhaps be "vision"? Or perhaps "account"?
  • "Account" works - seems mostly synonymous, I think any of version / vision / account are accurate.
• No link for Jewish apocalyptic literature, but we do have Jewish eschatology.
  • Noted, but not quite the link I'd prefer - ApocPeter is a bit on the "end times", but I wouldn't call it the major focus, while the eschatology article seems to have that be the main concern. It'd be another link to apocalypse or apocalyptic literature.
• [[Hellenistic philosophy|Greek philosophy]] of the [[Hellenistic period]] looks like it should just be a link to Hellenistic philosophy.
  • This one's changed around a lot in the above back-and-forths, and I would agree with the suggestion deeper into the article. However, it's the lead, the section that casual non-scholarly readers read, and I think it's important to include the word "Greek" somewhere here as a clue for a casual audience who won't recognize "Hellenistic" or know that Greece is "Hellas". I'm fine with other suggestions, but that's the reason for the current longer phrasing.
• by Peter through Christ. After the disciples inquire about signs of the Second Coming of Jesus I don't think we should switch betwen Christ and Jesus like this in the lead.
  • Was just trying to avoid close repetitions. Changed to spell it out as "risen Jesus Christ".
• a forerunner of the same genre Somewhat awkward to have a nameless genre.
  • Do you think it's worth repeating "katabasis" here? My assumption was that we should reduce the number of technical Greek words in the lede, as the scholarly name for the genre isn't really the important thing and readers probably know Dante more than they know katabases.
• No need to use the technical term terminus post quem and then avoid the corresponding terminus ante quem.
  • Wasn't avoided, just the sentence " All of this implies it must have been in existence by around 150 AD." was clear and sufficient already IMO. That said, went and added it.
• Where there are multiple footnotes, they are not always in numerical order.
  • This one I'll push back on. WP:CITEORDER specifically says that numerical order of references isn't important and there's no consensus that numeric order is even desirable.
    • I was unaware of this.
• Other scholars suggest Roman Egypt as a possible origin. Redundant to the first sentence in the paragraph. Consider incorporating some of the two long notes in this paragraph into the main text.
  • This section was adjusted some after some back-and-forth above where I put in a direct, substantive statement on the state of scholarly opinions of origin rather than implicit DUEWEIGHT. It is a bit repetitive as a result. I moved a sentence from each of the notes into the main to flesh things out a bit more.
• when the manuscript was compiled Should this not just say 'copied'?
  • Hard to say! IMO, "compiled" is more vague. At some point, someone made the modifications to the Akhmim ApocPeter, and maybe it was the scribe who created this manuscript, rendering it not exactly a simple "copy." I think being vague is a little better here.
    • To me, "compiled" means "put together", as in when the manuscript came to be bound. This could be long before a particular text was written in it if the text was added to a blank page. Or it could be long after a text was written, if the manuscript is a composite. So to me, the date of compilation is only relevant here if it is the same date as the "copying" of the text. Unless we are dealing with a manuscript that can be called an autograph, I think "copy" is correct.
      • I don't think either of those scenarios are very likely. As the article notes, the Apocalypse is right next to a fragment of the Gospel of Peter, implying the whole manuscript was created as a set, rather than pages being filled in later. I get the impression that for liturgical books, a practice of leaving blank pages to fill in later like a diary or a ledger would be rare. Even if something weird did happen - so what? I don't think very much is lost if it turns out that the papers were written in the 6th century, but they were bound into a new manuscript in the 8th century. The "written" part is the interesting one and what's being referred to from context.
      • As another example, take 2 Maccabees, which openly says it's an epitome of another work. It's not an autograph, but some passages seem to have been copied verbatim from the original, lost history. Yet calling it a "copy" of Jason of Cyrene's history would seem to be more misleading than helpful - the writer of 2 Maccabees was sometimes an author themselves, and sometimes an epitomist compressing other text. Even if we presume that people really into old manuscript creation would agree that there is a sense of "copy" that still applies to heavily modified documents, I think this is where writing for a general audience comes in. The casual reading of "copy" in 2024 for many will assume something a lot closer to "faithful reproduction, perhaps with occasional scribal error" like a copy machine. So why use a word that at least could be read as implying something else when we have a word that doesn't have that implication?
        • I agree that the "written" part is the interesting one, but "compiled" is not a word that implies writing.
          It's not an autograph So it's a copy and "copy" is the right word. Not a copy of Jason of Cyrene, but of 2 Maccabees! It is not works that are copies, but manuscripts.
          • I think we may have gotten side-tracked somewhere here. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm still not sure we're on the same page here. Let me throw the long reply on the word "compiled" and its definition and implications I wrote I had in the trash and offer this: I really, really don't want to use the word "copied" here as I don't think it's necessarily accurate, and might be misleading to casual readers even if it is accurate. And you clearly don't want to use the word "compiled". Is there any other word you'd accept? "Created"? "Written"? "Produced"? (I temporarily threw in "written" as copying is also writing, but am flexible.)
            • "Written" works.. Personally, I am rather zealous about distinguishing between works ('the Bible') and physical objects ('this Bible in my hand'). An alternate rewording acceptable to me would be There are a wide range of estimates for the date of the writing.
          • (Okay that's not quite accurate. The one part of the long reply I'm tossing I'll still include - in the case of 2 Maccabees, it's guaranteed the 1st/2nd century BCE author/epitomist was long dead by the time we have a 5th century CE Septuagint copy. In the case of the Akhmim manuscript, we simply do not know who wrote the combined [Gospel of Peter + Apoc Peter] or when, ergo it is at least possible that the Akhmim manuscript was in fact written by the creator/compiler/author, albeit one duplicating existing sources.)
• In the form of a Greek katabasis or nekyia I don't like asking the reader to pick a link. Also I'm a little confused. The work as described does not seem to me to fit either category. Specifically, both katabasis and nekyia seem to conflict with a discourse of Jesus to his faithful, unless Jesus is regarded as similar to a spirit in a nekyia.
  • It's less about Jesus and more about the vision / visit to the land of the dead - i.e. it's the people in heaven / hell who are the nekyia equivalents. As far as making a choice, Beck writes "The terms nekyia, katabasis/descent, and tour of hell all apply to different and, at times, overlapping texts that share common features." Maybe I should add that the genres are overlapping to clarify why we're mentioning two to the reference? Would that be enough? Just don't want to side-track too much.
• hypothesized by many scholars to be later additions In light of what has been said, this clause is redundant. Perhaps it should be stated explicitly in the Most scholars believe that the Ethiopic... paragraph if the Rainer and Bodleian texts are superior to the Ethiopic where they diverge.
  • I think talking about it above in the Manuscripts section with the "Most scholars believe that..." sentence would be a little premature. The Rainer & Bodleian fragments are pretty short, so the ability to compare them only comes up for a few passages, and we might as well discuss those passages in one place rather than flash-forward to it IMO. By discussing it in "Prayers for those in hell", there's context for why these fragments are considered a better fit.
  • As far as redundant, I agree that an attentive reader should be able to take a good guess that this is the case from context, but I don't think we've confirmed it or stated it outright. As in, hypothetically this sentence could have been followed up with "but while the manuscripts differ here, scholars think the Ethiopic is actually original and Akhmim removed these lines". Which would be surprising, but not strictly contradicted by anything above. So it isn't redundant to clarify that isn't the case and it's considered not in the original IMO.
    • I raised this issue because it forced me to go back and check what's what, since I clearly remembered the Ethiopic text be called superior yet here it was being trumped by a Greek text. I think we need to qualify the comment about the Ethiopic text where it is made, is what I'm saying. Not that we have to flesh out the details at that spot.
      • I think it already is qualified, though. The manuscripts section writes Ethiopic is "closer to the original text" - closer doesn't mean "perfect". That said, I've changed it to "usually closer", but think this is double-qualifying.
        • The point is that we have different witnesses of the Greek text that are not treated the same, yet the passage in question ignores one of the Greek texts, leaving its status unclear (until later).
          • I have added a further brief sentence on the matter in the Manuscript history section.
            • Excellent.

That brings me to the influences section. So far so good. Srnec (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look! Replies in-line above. diff with some of the changes. SnowFire (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Srnec, is there more to come here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Concluding...

• You really like semicolons.
  • I saw you removed more in your copyedits. To be sure, I too argue for short, simple sentences myself (including above - e.g. I was arguing against some of the extra detail in expansions that have happened) and have split up over-long sentences in other articles, but these semicolons weren't just used randomly. There were a lot of "linked thoughts", and using separate sentences without a "continuing on..." connector can make it read abruptly or unclearly for why we're bringing something up. Neither version is strictly wrong but this comes down to stylistic preferences rather than mistakes, and I'd prefer to keep at least some of it as is. (For example, if we don't use a semicolon, then in the two fragments on the Matthew influence, it can read as a bare assertion followed by randomly talking about a Beatitude quote from Matthew. If we get rid of the semicolon, we'd need a new intro to the split sentence like "As evidence, blah blah Beatitude quote.")
• Personally, I do not like the mixed citation formats.
• I think In the form of a Greek katabasis or nekyia should be nixed where it is and dealt with under "Influences, genre, and related works", where katabasis is linked again. I still find the piling up of genre terms a little disconcerting.
  • While this is mostly discussed in the Genre section, I think this is relevant as a summary overview of "Contents" as well. If a novel is both a murder mystery and a spy thriller, I think it's fine to open with that in an overview of the plot as well as discuss it again if reviewers had more detailed opinions on genre. Or for more contemporary examples, articles on epistles in the New Testament will generally state that yes, they're an epistle when summarizing their contents. I don't really see why this is disconcerting, at least to most readers.
• emphasizes the strong Jewish roots of the Apocalypse of Peter as well I wonder if this is really an "as well" or an "on the other hand"
  • There's nothing contradictory about it deriving from both. Apparently some older scholarship did believe there was a sharp divide where a work was either one or the other, and never-the-twain shall they meet (and by older I mean like "19th century" level older, so applicable to Dietrich but not really others)... i.e. there was some sort of "pure" Judaism untouched by Greek beliefs out there. But the consensus is that this wasn't really true - all Judaism in the era was touched by various Hellenistic beliefs. (And interestingly, there are some who argue that Greeks were influenced by Judaism a bit, too.)
• cosmological interpretation as a prophecy of Jesus's entry into heaven I do not understand the word "cosmological" in this context
  • I can cut it if desired. It just means "metaphysical"/"spiritual" in this sense, i.e. that it's talking about heavenly gates rather than say Jerusalem's earthly gates.
    • Would cut.
      • Done.
• predecessor influences reads awkwardly to me, yet is used twice
  • Do you have another suggestion? The problem is "influences" unadorned could mean things that the author was influenced by, or later works that were influenced by it, so some sort of qualifier is necessary.
• I don't think the link at lost earlier writings is needed.
  • Removed.
• Why say eternal destruction and link to annihilationism? I would just say "annihilation". I think it's clearer.
  • Jost, the source, uses both "annihilation" and "eternal destruction" in his article, so I think both are fine. To me, "Annihilation" more strongly signifies the scientific meaning, i.e. matter colliding with antimatter, than a theological one. Meanwhile, "eternal" and "destruction" are both common words, so they seem clear enough to me and preferred.
    • It was not clear to me that "eternal destruction" meant annihilation until I saw the link. To me "eternal" implies ongoing, so eternal destruction could refer to the torments of Hell rather than their end.
      • Thanks for the feedback, but I'm hoping / assuming this is a style preference suggestion, not a problem. The two are synonyms. Annihilation isn't "wrong" of course but neither is eternal destruction. (Jost, the source, writes: [Exemplary for this stands the Apocalypse of Peter. This no longer speaks of "eternal destruction" but now explicitly of "eternal punishment"].) It is a valid phrasing. If you found it unclear but were cleared up by the wikilink, then it worked out? Some amount of this is to be expected, I have to click terminology links myself too even in topics I know a lot about. If we changed it the other way around, then someone else could say that they weren't sure what annihilation meant in a theological context and had to click the link to find out, and we'd have endless synonym-swaps. I don't think "eternal destruction" ("they will be destroyed, and the destruction will last forever") is any less clear than "annihilation".
        • Is "annihilation" clear-er?
• At footnote 65, is Beck the one refuting Adamik? Should be made clear.
  • Correct, Beck says this. Beck is approvingly citing Kraus & Nicklas. I expanded the footnote a tad.
• One change that the Apocalypse of Paul makes is describing personal judgments to bliss or torment that happen immediately after death, rather than the Apocalypse of Peter being a vision of a future destiny that will take place after the Second Coming of Jesus. I do no think this sentence is grammatical. One does not make "judgements to".
  • I am open to alternative suggestions, but do not agree that the current form isn't grammatical. "The court monitor described judicial sentences to parole or prison that happened immediately after the trial" reads fine to me. "Sentence" and "judgment" are synonymous enough here, so if "a sentence to prison" is grammatical, so is "a judgment to prison."
    • They are not comparable. And is suspect most uses of "sentence to" are verbal.
      • That ngram is conflating "sentence" as a verb with "sentence" as a noun (note the "a" in my examples). Change it to "a sentence to prison" and ngrams still pops up usage. Which suggests that this form is grammatically valid (a valid form should still be valid if we swap in some synonyms).
      • That said, I'm not tied to the current wording either. I've rephrased it to spell it out; take a look.
• The Apocalypse of Peter thus was the forerunner of these influential visions of the afterlife: Emiliano Fiori wrote that it contains the "embryonic forms" of the heaven and hell of the Apocalypse of Paul, and Jan Bremmer wrote that the Apocalypse of Paul was "the most important step in the direction that would find its apogee in Dante". As written, this sentence has a synth-y feel.
  • I guess, but it isn't actually SYNTH - Fiori writes "just as Dante's divine comedy" and Bremmer's article is titled "From the Apocalypse of Peter to the Apocalypse of Paul", so both Fiori and Bremmer agree that there's something to a Peter->Paul->Dante train and mention all three. The reason why two separate scholars are cited for each half is just to show this isn't a controversial connection and multiple scholars think there's a connection there, not to chain together some SYNTH.
  • (As a side note, this used to say "Directly or indirectly, the Apocalypse of Peter was the parent and grandparent of these influential visions of the afterlife." as I feel that was an accurate summation of scholarly thoughts on the matter. UC's review above felt that this was too opinionated to state in Wikivoice, hence switching to two cited quotations instead, which also works IMO.)
• The article does not tell us where the chapter and verse numbers come from. Are the chapters original or at least Ethiopic?
  • The chapters and verses are not original, but are constructs of the modern era (same as the normal Bible, actually). Different scholars have used subtly different chapter & versifications of the Ethiopic ApocPeter as well, starting from Grebaut's base. As best I can tell, most later scholars (e.g. Bauckham, Beck) use Buchholz's 1988 versification, but I don't think anyone talks about this directly, not even to state "By the way these verses are not original", perhaps because it's considered obvious to scholars.
• while girls who do not maintain their virginity before marriage (implicitly also a violation of parental expectations) have their flesh torn apart. This is possibly an instance of mirror punishment or bodily correspondence, where the skin which sinned is itself punished. The text also specifies ten girls are punished – possibly a loose reference to the Parable of the Ten Virgins in the Gospel of Matthew, although not a very accurate one if so, as only five virgins are reprimanded in the parable, and for unrelated reasons. This passage raised more questions than answers for me. Why the shift from "flesh" to "skin"? Why imply inaccuracy in the text on the basis of a parallel drawn by scholars? What does specifies ten girls even mean?
  • On flesh vs. skin: it's just reducing close repetitions.
  • On ten girls: See conversation with UC above. Originally that said The text also specifies "ten" girls are punished with quotation marks to emphasize that the word "ten" is in the actual passage, but UC argued that this will be read as scare quotes even if they aren't scare quotes. I'm not a fan of the current phrasing either and would be happy to put back the quotes if you think that would help clarify the intent.
  • On inaccuracy: To back up a moment - busted references exist, e.g. someone trying to reference Shakespeare or Homer but messing it up and/or changing things. If an author has a notable novel where two characters named Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are sent on a mission to England, an analysis might write "This is a reference to Hamlet, although unlike Hamlet the two are given cushy government jobs and not executed in this story." Also, busted references happen all the time in classical literature from people trying to recall quotes from memory or just vaguely making allusions. So what's going on here is that scholars are puzzled at why the passage says "ten" when other sinners are generally unnumbered, and the best guess they have is that it's a bad reference to the Parable of the Ten Virgins since we think the author knew the Gospel of Matthew. But if I just write "it's a parallel to the Parable of the Ten Virgins" in the Wikipedia article with no further qualification, that will make it sound like an accurate reference, and it really isn't. So that's what the passage is trying to express. Given that, do you think the current wording works?
    • My problem is that we don't know if the author was trying to be accurate and messed up or if he was doing something else. I don't think an author "vaguely making allusions" intentionally can be accused of inaccuracy. I'm wondering if this passage is too much detail for the article to handle, but I leave it to your judgement.
• M. R. James is linked three times in the text. There are quite a few multiple links but I don't know what the standard is.

MOS:BTW says "Consider including links where readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, at the openings of new sections, in the cells of tables, and in file captions. But as a rule of thumb, link only the first occurrence of a term in the text of the article." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

James is a central figure in all three of those references, so I would prefer to keep those links- he was truly the main English-language scholar of the work for its formative decades. I'm very much on the side of the reform to MOS:DUPLINK that allowed more repeat linking - especially on mobile, people can read whatever section they like first, and aren't guaranteed to read section-by-section in order or to scroll back up. I'd actually repeat link more if I was solely going off my own preferences. (But regardless, think this is within the letter of "once per section".)

• The last paragraph, Although these references..., is a little long.
  • Hmm, I think that might be an unlucky line-break making two paragraphs blend together? That's the second-to-last paragraph for me - should be a break before "One hypothesis..."
• It would be nice to replace the Ethiopic transcription with an actual photo of an Ethiopic manuscript.
  • I had similar thoughts myself a few months ago, and you can see I uploaded File:Ethiopien DAbbadie 51 131 recto.png in August. https://www.nasscal.com/manuscripta-apocryphorum/paris-bibliotheque-nationale-de-france-ethiopien-dabbadie-51/ says that ApocPeter starts on "131r" and you can see that the page is clearly marked with "131" in the upper right. However, I don't actually read Ethiopic and can't verify that the Apocalypse of Peter actually starts here. I looked for similar words by sheer shape-matching to what's in Buchholz and couldn't find it either. Whether I'm just really bad at the Ge'ez script, or there's some kind of prologue before it gets to the actual ApocPeter, I don't know, but I'm not comfortable with using it unless I'm sure it's actually right. (Side comment: This article before I took a look at it linked an image of the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, i.e. completely the wrong document, back in 2021 [50] , and this incorrect image had spread to other language wikis. So there's something to the idea of "Don't use an original in a language you don't speak unless you're sure." )
    • I did this at Legend of Hilaria. I sought confirmation from the WikiProject Ethiopia, but to no avail. I think my reading of the Ge'ez is correct...
      • Yours looks fine, although that's a much clearer photograph. FWIW, I do suspect it's just the top left of 131r but that some of the characters were different and taken from the Tannasee 35 manuscript instead, which threw me off. But I'm even worse at reading the Tannasee 35 manuscript and can't find the start of the ApocPeter there either, even when told which page to look. Ugh.
• Please vet my copyedits and see some replies above.
  • Most of them looked fine - I put back two semicolons per above though. If you feel strongly, I'm happy to separate the sentences again but then would prefer to include a linking introduction per above.
    • Maxim of relevance. I think people understand that two consecutive sentences in a paragraph are linked. How 'bout them Yankees?
      • Grice is another set of things that work better in conversation than in textual form IMO! (I put one of your splits back.)
        • Not knowing whether you are a Yankees fan or watch baseball or are an American, I did not know if my Yankees joke would go over well considering a recent fifth inning...

That's a complete read-through. Srnec (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Srnec: Thanks for the latest batch of comments. I made some changes at diff. For some of your comments above, I'm flexible and happy to change things, but wasn't 100% sure if there was a change that would actually improve things - happy to discuss on any concrete proposals, as firing off a random rephrasing didn't seem like it'd necessarily help. SnowFire (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I noticed you restored original scholarship where I had "early". My reasoning was that there is really only going to be one particular work of scholarship that is the original one, all the rest are just "early".
    • Hmm, while I'd argue "early" is a relative time term that is a bit vague. I think this is too strict a reading of "original" (it's modifying an implicit era that covers the time after the Akhmim discovery) but don't feel deeply about this, so switched back to "early".
  • The author also appears to be familiar with the Gospel of Matthew but no other Other what? This is only clear if you know the gospels situation.
    • "Bob appears to be familiar with the Bondink of Carpaz but no other" means Bob knows no other Bondinks, even though I-the-reader don't know what Bondinks are and will have to click the wikilink to find out. That said since you feel strongly, I put the link to gospels back in even if it makes for a slightly less punchy line.
      • I think the difference is that "[foreign word] of [foreign word]" clearly indicates that "of" is a functional English word, but "[familiar English title of a well known work that happens to include 'of']" doesn't read the same. If I had written the article, I'd have thrown the MOS to the wind and italicized Gospel of Matthew, so perhaps I just read it differently.
  • While both the Apocalypse of Peter and the Apocalypse of John (the Book of Revelation) are apocalypses in genre, the Revelation of Peter puts far more stress on the afterlife and divine rewards and punishments, while the Revelation of John focuses on a cosmic battle between good and evil. Odd switching from "Apocalypse" to "Revelation". Why? Srnec (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
    • I am trying to really drive home the point that {Apocalypse of John = "Revelation"} as most people don't know this. Calling it the "Revelation of John" here reinforces the parenthetical gloss earlier and clarifies it. It also more subtly lets us emphasize the alternate "Revelation of Peter" title when appropriate - in Greek, these two works have the same title, while due to linguistic happenstance they have different common names in English. I want to make it unlikely someone reads the article and thinks "Huh, the Apocalypse of Peter is kinda like the Apocalypse of John, which is some obscure work I haven't heard of before."
      • I think this is rather subtle...
• @Srnec: Thanks for the feedback. Some more edits here. SnowFire (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to this being promoted. Srnec (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 October 2024 [51].

---

Gedling Town F.C.

Nominator(s): Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is about... Gedling Town Football Club, a small Nottinghamshire team that last competed at the tenth tier of the English football pyramid before disbanding in 2011. The article passed GA requirements in June and has since featured on DYK. I now think the article is ready for FAC comments. Just a few preliminary points arising from the imperfect and fragmentary nature of sources covering smaller football clubs:

• You will see mentions of "at least" etc. when I have been unable to find the exact start and/or end of something being implemented at the club. This is the best I can do, unfortunately.
• I cannot say for sure why Gedling was denied promotion in 2001–02. The British Newspaper Archive only runs sources up to 1999 and online reporting on the Northern Counties East Football League (NCEL) only started in 2002.
• In some of the older archived NCEL pages, there's no separate URL to take you to the info on Gedling Town specifically. You will first need to click on "Clubs" and then "Div One".

If all of that has failed to scare you off (or torpedo my bid from the start), I look forward to receiving your feedback. Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. Done. Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Sammi Brie

I wanted to figure out the 2002 failure to promote. The only possible clue I have is in this article in NewsBank: "Pikes drop points to finish in fourth place". North Yorkshire County Publications. 9 May 2002.

The promoted sides from the first division will the champions Gedling Town and runners-up Bridlington Town, provided both grounds meet the relevant criteria.

Given that ground issues had dogged the club before, that would be a prime candidate for the promotion blocker.

With that piece of business out of the way, let's give this a look:

• The team were nicknamed "The Ferrymen" and their colours were primarily yellow and blue. Needs a comma after Ferrymen. WP:CINS
• Gedling Town was founded as R & R Scaffolding in 1985, the works team of a construction firm from Netherfield. Flip to Gedling Town was founded in 1985 as R & R Scaffolding, the works team of a construction firm from Netherfield. so the appositive properly connects.
• In the 1988–89 season, R & R Scaffolding contested the final of the league's Senior Cup, but lost 1–0 Remove comma after Cup (one subject, not two)
• The team led the league for much of the season before finishing runners-up to Slack & Parr, but were still promoted to the CML Supreme Division Remove unneeded comma
• Hyphenate "biggest-ever"
• This season marked the arrival of full-back Gary Ball from Arnold Town, a player... Arnold Town is not a player. Reorganize: This season marked the arrival from Arnold Town of full-back Gary Ball, a player...
• the team was eliminated from title contention by January and manager Dave Sands was sacked to be replaced by Ray Sully Comma after January
• Floodlights were installed by 1993 and accidental damage to these in 1997 Needs a comma after 1993

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Sammi Brie. Everything done. If you're happy with putting the failed promotion down to ground issues, then so am I. I'll write it up if you could kindly provide the full citation. Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Curlymanjaro The full citation has been included above (there's a Cite news template if you edit source). No byline or page number is given for this article by NewsBank. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie. Thanks - it's in. Do you have a URL perchance? Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Curlymanjaro Not with NewsBank. It does not produce nice URLs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sammi Brie- sorry to nudge. Any final verdict on the nom? Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I was waiting for you to reply all this time... I'm a Support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Although the use of "it"/"they" to refer to a football club/team in UK English can be" a bit nebulous, I feel there are some cases where the wrong one is being used in terms of how football people would speak......

• "Gedling played its first four seasons" => "Gedling played their first four seasons"
• "the club competed in the Northern Counties East Football League (NCEL) Division One and three Central Midlands Football League (CML) divisions before that" - last two words are redundant as you already used "before" at the start of the sentence
• "Promoted to Division Two, 1986–87 saw" - it wasn't 1986-87 that got promoted. Suggest "After being promoted to Division Two, R & R Scaffolding reached the final of the league's Junior Cup in the 1986–87 season"
• Netherfield image caption needs a full stop
• " the team delivered on its own slim promotion hopes" => " the team delivered on their slim promotion hopes"
• "Becoming champions on the first attempt" => "Becoming champions at the first attempt"
• " later led it in the new year" - what's "it"?
• "the team was eliminated from title contention by January" => "the team were eliminated from title contention by January"
• "by his assistant, player-manager Jamie Brodie" - he wasn't player-manager when he was his assistant. Suggest "by his assistant, Jamie Brodie, who became player-manager "
• Watnall Road image caption needs a full stop
• "While aiming for back-to-back championships, 1998–99 saw Gedling" - it wasn't 1998-99 that was doing the aiming. Suggest "Although the club was aiming for back-to-back championships, 1998–99 saw Gedling"
• Devon White image caption needs a full stop
• "Much of the team departed also" => "Much of the team also departed"
• "a move that, joined by assistant Tony Cox, saw John Humphries return to management for the rest of the season" - this is a bit hard to follow. Suggest "a move that saw John Humphries return to management for the rest of the season, joined by assistant Tony Cox, "
• "Gedling was a founder member of the tenth-tier East Midlands Counties Football League (EMCFL) and its sole Premier Division, transferring to it for 2008–09." => "Gedling was a founder member of the tenth-tier East Midlands Counties Football League (EMCFL) and its sole Premier Division for 2008–09."
• Lee Wilson image caption needs a full stop
• "Inclusion in the 2010–11 season was jeopardised in October " - I think simply "The club's future was jeopardised in October 2010" would read better
• "The club's previous badge, used from 1997 at least" - "previous" doesn't work here because you haven't mentioned any other badge for it to be previous to
• "The estimated cost had risen to £1 million" - the sums in the last sentence of the previous paragraph add up to £1M, so saying it had risen to £1M is odd
• NCEFL is massively overlinked in the notes
• That's what I got. Nice to see such dedication put into an article on a non-League team! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, ChrisTheDude. Everything done - and thanks for your kind words. Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - sorry for forgetting to come back sooner..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Sources are of high and reliable quality
• Searches show no additional sources that are either stronger than those used, or that show anything missing
• There is a bit of an issue with the formatting of the refs. Some refs are in sentence case, others have each word capitalised (sometimes in the same citation!), and these should be made consistent – ensuring that prepositions are lower case, (which they aren't in a couple of places). – SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @SchroCat! I just wrote the titles out verbatim. Anyway, they should all be standardised now. :) Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• All good now: pass the source review. - SchroCat (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• I think it would be worth that Gedling is a village and borough near Stoke Bardolph. Is there any information on why the team changed its name? And I think it would be worth giving the date of the name change in the lead.
  • Sorry, somehow missed this the first time. No info on the change but I've explained the geography and put the date in the lead.
• "SSR" is an odd name for a team -- do we know what it stands for? Was it a works-based team?
  • Sadly, the Football Post doesn't seem to provide any details on SSR's name or origin. Apparently they were still going in the Notts Amateur League in 1999.
• No change necessary, but I'm curious: why were their first two seasons in the CML "technically separate" from the nationwide league system, as note c says? Our article on the CML says it's part of the NLS.
  • The two non-NLS divisions perceivably joined it in 2011 as per the FCHDB link. I don't know why they were excluded before.
• Are Clifton Town worth a redlink?
  • Could do, although they're not listed on FCHDB and Clifton All Whites are the predominant team there.
• "was not promoted consecutively": since they were in fact promoted the two previous consecutive seasons, I think this would be less ambiguous as something like "was not promoted in their first season in the division".
  • Done.
• "Staged in November "under gruelling conditions", Notts won the match 2–1": needs rephrasing; as it stands this says Notts were staged in November, not the match.
  • Done.
• "the team had found form by the following month": why "had"? We've been in simple past for most of this. Since the sentence ends with a statement of their finishing position, I can see there's a "looking back" from that point, but it doesn't parse well because the reader doesn't find that out till the end of the sentence.
  • Done.
• "Gedling was one of four non-League clubs served by former England international Chris Waddle during this season": he played for them? The source isn't very specific, I see. Is there any other evidence of this? I had a look in our article on him and didn't find any mention of these teams. I would have thought local papers would mention this if he actually went out on the pitch for them.
  • According to this book, Waddle was dual-registered with Gedling and South Normanton Athletic in March 2003 before moving on to Stocksbridge Park Steels in April. Looks to be a self-published source though.

    I see you've used "served", which is how the other source phrases it, but if we don't know more than that about Waddle's involvement with the club I think we should drop the mention of him. He might have been involved with non-playing aspects of the club, or registered but never actually shown up to train or play. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

    • Done. An interesting factoid; it will be sorely missed!
• "Division dropped by default due to creation of Conference North at level six": this refers to the 2004-05 season? The tier doesn't drop to 10 till after the season on which this note is placed; perhaps make it "Division dropped to 10 after this season as Conference North was created at level six" or something similar.
  • Hence the "Post-season notes" header. The drop takes place between the seasons, so to speak.

    Fair enough; I missed that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• "In August 2012, the ground was taken over by Real United, a Nottingham-based football team aiming to keep young people away from drugs and gang culture. Real United in-turn renamed it as the Inspire Stadium." Suggest "In August 2012, Real United, a Nottingham-based football team aiming to keep young people away from drugs and gang culture, took over the ground and renamed it the Inspire Stadium."
  • Done.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your feedback, @Mike Christie. Some really useful comments. Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Not an issue, just a suggestion: you might consider bolding R & R Scaffolding in the lead and making a redirect for it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 October 2024 [52].

---

Meurig ab Arthfael

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Meurig ab Arthfael was a king in south-east Wales in the ninth century, but the extent of his territory is disputed by historians. Although little is known of him, he is mentioned in Asser's life of Alfred the Great, and he is described as one of the few kings who tried to protect the church against lawlessness and abuse of power. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed, though the second could have a better alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki. Expanded alt text a bit. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Llewee

The article appears to be in a good condition. It is a little short but I assume not much information is available about this individual's life. I would suggest adding a Template:Subject bar at the end with links to Portal:Middle Ages, Portal:Wales and Portal:Monarchy.--Llewee (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Llewee. I think I will leave this pending comments from other editors. I have never added portal bars and it has never previously been suggested to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

UC

I'm not totally sold on the prose, as yet. I appreciate there's not masses of information about Meurig and much is unsound, but there are a few bits where the grammar isn't quite right, and/or the flow doesn't quite, well, flow as neatly as I would like -- it's slightly tough going to get through and I'm not sure I fully understand what's being said.

The usual pointers and nitpicks below:

• Note 1: I would advise adding that ab/ap are both contractions of mab ('son'), and that the consonant/vowel rule is only mostly true -- see here p. 8, with note).

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hywel ap Rhys, King of Glywysing: this came up in previous FACs -- the MoS is tricky here, but I'd advise decapitalising for consistency.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think "Book of Llandaff" is generally italicised -- neither Sims-Williams nor the National Library of Wales do this.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Two charters state that he ordered all churches were to be free from obligations to laymen: I found this difficult to parse -- better as "he freed all churches from their obligations..."?

• Done, but not the word "their". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• in the view of the historian Wendy Davies, he was one of the few kings who attempted to guarantee ecclesiastical immunity: "kings" is a big crowd -- can we narrow this down to Welsh kings, medieval kings, British kings...?

• Specified king mentioned in the charters. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• from widespread lawlessness and arbitrary use of power: this implies that his kingdom had widespread lawlessness and arbitrary use of power; is that correct?

• Covered by edit above. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Historians disagree about his death date. Some ... think that the Meurig whose death is recorded in 849 is also possible: the grammar has gone a bit wonky here.

• Revised for clarity. OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• later Morgannwg and then Glamorgan: when is later here -- are these terms that postdate the subject of this article by a long way?

• I should have written "or", not "and then". Morgannwg is a term which has been used as a post-Roman name for the area, but it is not recorded before the eleventh century and historians now think that it is named after a late tenth century king. Glamorgan appears to be an anglicisation of the Welsh name, although I cannot find this spelled out specifically. It is used by historians for all periods, even though it is also based on the late tenth century king. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• However, they are undated, and it is not always clear which Meurig is being referred to.: does they refer to all the charters, or just the possibly-genuine ones? I think the second/third clause might be clearer if it stepped back and said more explicitly that there are several people called Meurig named in the charters.

• Revised for clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• The n of e.g. n. 27 needs a space after it, just like the p. when it stands for "page".

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• two independent sources: independent of what? Not of the Book of Llandaff, since one of them is a charter from it, though we only indirectly say that.

• Independent of each other - Asser and a charter. This seems clear to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• We need a date for Asser, I think.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Almost nothing is known of history in south-east Wales immediately before his time as his reign follows a gap in the Llandaff charters of some fifty years: so the Llandaff charters are the only way we know anything about Welsh history? That sounds surprising, put mildly, and I'm sure would put some archaeologists' noses out of joint.

• Changed "history" to "kings". I am not sure that archaeologists' noses would be put out of joint - they probably would not be able to say anything specific about south-east Wales between 800 and 850. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• cording to a Harleian genealogy: I think we need to give the reader some idea of what they're working with here.

• Added. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Charles-Edwards suggests that he and his brother Rhys ab Arthfael probably ruled Glywysing successively: as written, it sounds as though C-E has been moonlighting as an early medieval warlord.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• You could consider dropping the patronymic from names where the sentence explicitly sets them up as the son of someone, such as Meurig ab Arthfael and his sons, Brochfael ap Meurig and Ffernfael ap Meurig,.

• I think it is helpful to spell out the full names. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Patronymics are, strictly, disambiguators rather than part of a full name (they're not surnames in the modern sense), so wouldn't routinely be included in contexts where there's no ambiguity. It's not wrong to do so, it's just redundant -- though this is hardly a major issue. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• OED defines patronymic as "A name derived from that of a father or male ancestor, esp. by addition of an affix indicating such descent; a family name. Also: an affix used to form such a name." I take this to mean that it is part of the full name, and it is correct to give the full name at first mention of a person. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• When we mean "the Church" as in the big institution headquartered in Rome, I would capitalise, to distinguish from when we're talking about the stone building in the village.

• I do not mean the church in Rome. The grants are to bishops, and I thought of saying so, but this could mean to them personally, whereas they are ot them as representatives of their dioceses. "church" seems to me to convey the grants' nature, but I am open to suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If we're not thinking of "the church" as a single institution (though I must admit I'm not sure I see the distinction you're drawing here), we shouldn't use a singular noun for it -- "to bishops" works, or alternatively you could do some other phrasing to the effect that he placed lands under ecclesiastical control? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: did you see this one? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry I missed this. Davies refers to grants to church (without "the"), but this reads awkwardly to me, so I have revised to say grants to bishops. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  That makes sense (and sounds like a typo on Davies's part). Good solution. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Why are the names in the "Charters" section italicised?

• They are italicised in the sources, presumably as foreign language. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Right, but we haven't done that for any other non-English names in the article. Nor do we routinely italicise other names where the non-English name is their common name in English, like Marcus Aurelius, Ibn Sina or Kongzi. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• OK. So we don't italicise foreign personal names. How about place names? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  The question isn't what sort of word it is, but whether it's the same word in English. In most of these cases, the toponym isn't specifically English or Welsh -- it's just the name of the place. Compare:

  • Paris is the capital city of France
  • El Dorado is a mythical place in South America.
  • Corpus Christi is a city in Texas
  • In front of Wellington's line was the farmhouse of La Haye Sainte

  Barring an exception where MOS:WORDSASWORDS applies, in general, we don't italicise any of these. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Removed italics. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm a little wary of how hard we dive into charters after the warning that most of them might be fraudulent. Do we have a particular reason to trust the authenticity of the ones mentioned here?

• Davies, who is the chief authority, labels ones that she considers fraudulent or dubious. I have left out any which are dubious, and also cited other sources on them. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• From the "Charters" section, the tone gets a bit more insiderish than I think we want here -- it's the sort of writing you would expect from an academic in the field to other academics, but not really the right stuff for a general encyclopaedia whose writers claim no scholarly authority. For instance, (Little Dewchurch?) -- we would do better to replace the question mark with an explanation of what it's doing there -- maybe "conjectured to be the village of..."? Similarly the Annales Cambriae for 873, recte 874): recte isn't quite right here, as we normally use it when correcting scribal errors -- do we mean the entry for 874, which is written under the number 873? If so, I'd give it in text as 874, and footnote the detail -- most readers won't be very interested in it, quite frankly, and we lose less by relegating it to the notes than we do by making them all read Latin.

• Fixed. recte is the term used in the sources, but I agree that it is not needed here. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• "the claims of the relative chronology of the witness sequence are such as to suggest that Meurig ab Arthfael, the King Meurig of grants 169b-171b, 199bii (214?), 216b, 225 died in 874 rather than 849": not sure I see the reason for a long quote here -- why not just "Davies argues that Meurig died in 874, rather than 849, on the basis of [a slightly clearer explanation of what he claims to have seen in the charters]"?

• I think it is worth spelling out with the quote that Davies provides a detailed explanation for her view, unlike other historians who give no reason. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• The royal line descended from Meurig appears to have ended with Brochfael: remind the reader of when he died?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Check the abbreviation of AD in the title of Bartrum 1993.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• What's the need for the Lloyd citation -- it seems to appear only once, and to be triple-cited with two much more recent works?

• Lloyd's book is the source of the map. It is the only suitable one I could find which is not copyright. The other citations are for points in the explanatory note. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks UndercoverClassicist. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• UndercoverClassicist do you have any further comments? Dudley Miles (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Pinged you on one comment; in general I think I still have the same worries I wrote about in the preamble about prose and clarity. I'm sure this will improve as more reviewers come in and are able to give more specific advice on improvement. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Just one thing I've noticed on a second read: is Cum Mouric definitely that, and not Cwm Mouric (Mouric's Valley)? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• It is Cum Mouric in Davies 1978 and Davies 1979. Sims-Williams refers to Cum Barruc in the Dore Valley. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Great stuff. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Moving over to support: I think we're there on the prose, and it's undoubtedly a meticulous piece of research. Very nicely done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

FM

• Will review soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Folio from the Book of Llandaff" Give more context for its relation to the story in the caption?

• "it was divided between Glywysing (Glamorgan)" It's unclear at this point what the parenthesis means in this context. A bit clearer in the article body, but not much.

• " (later Morgannwg or Glamorgan[4])" Later what? Renamed? A successor kingdom?

• Many thanks FunkMonk. All fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Link ecclesiastical?

• There is no article with that title. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• "may be the Meurig whose died" Who died?

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• "and in the view of the historian Wendy Davies". You present one modern historian in the intro, could be nice for context if this was done for the people mentioned in the article body too.

• I do not think this is necessary. In the lead I only mention Davies. In main text I say that historians disagree and then list them. I think that covers it. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Link Welsh and Wales in article body too?

• Changed link in lead to Wales in the early Middle Ages and linked to the same article in the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• Thanks FunkMonk. Further replies. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• I don't understand what Sims-Williams means by "amount to the same thing"; the two theories seem different to me.
  • He does not explain, but I take him to mean that in his view there is no real difference between a kingdom with a king and sub-kings and two kingdoms with one king having superior status. The problem seems to be that Davies says that there was only one kingdom, but she also refers to the rulers of the (later small) Gwent as kings, so she must see them as sub-kings, but she does not spell this out. I could clarify that Davies sees the eastern kings as sub-kings, though this verges on SYNTH as she does not say so. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's best to leave it as is if you can't find text in source that lets you clarify it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Mike Christie I think I have clarified with "Wendy Davies argues that it is more likely that the old Gwent remained a single kingdom now called Glywysing, but she also mentions junior kings whose territory was confined to the smaller ninth-century Gwent." Dudley Miles (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

    That's definitely helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• The fact that Brochfael and Ffernfael are Meurig's sons is mentioned three times in two sentences at the end of the first paragraph of "Kingship"; this could be compressed.
  • I think it is worth spelling out the nature of the confirmation and this cannot be done without repetition, but I can delete this information if editors think it is excessive. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Could we do something like this: "Confirmation that Meurig and his sons, Brochfael and Ffernfael, ruled in the ninth century is provided by their notice in two independent sources. Asser in his biography of Alfred the Great of 893 mentions "Brochfael and Ffernfael (sons of Meurig and kings of Gwent)", and charter 199bii[b] is a grant by King Meurig ab Arthfael, giving his sons' names as witnesses"? I agree the material needs to be there -- I just think we could phrase it in a way that sounds less repetitive. We've given Meurig's patronymic at the start of the paragraph, and the quote from Asser gives it again; and it's not needed for the sons because we explicitly say they are his sons. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• "According to a Harleian genealogy (Old Welsh genealogy preserved": suggest either "(Old Welsh genealogy ..." or "(an Old Welsh genealogy ...".

  Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• "his cousins, Meurig's sons, had an inferior status as kings of Gwent": it seems this interpretation requires us to follow Charles-Edwards' argument that old Gwent was divided; presumably Davies would not agree with this description? If so, shouldn't the conditionality be apparent to the reader?
  • See above. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• "he cannot have been wholly successful as charters continued to grant churches in the tenth and eleventh centuries": looks like a word is missing? Or else I don't understand the intended meaning. He granted land to the churches, perhaps? And I don't really see how this is connected to the previous sentence.
  • Changed to "kings continued to grant churches". Does this clarify? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

    From my (passing) familiarity with AS charters, I thought that typically the grant would be of land for the church, and that's how I recall the sources talking about them. If these were in fact grants of land I would make that clearer; if not, what exactly did they grant? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

    • Welsh practice was different. The grants were of churches and attached land to bishops. In at least some cases they were restoration of churches previously misappropriated by kings. I have dropped Davies's comment that Meurig protected ecclesiastical immunity and replaced it with one where she expressed herself more clearly, saying he attempted to free all ecclesiastical property from lay control. Does this work? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

      So a charter granting a church might take a church from one owner and give it to another? I was assuming these were grants that enabled the creation of new churches, but I now see why these grants would be evidence of continued interference in ecclesiastical affairs. Could we make the second part of the sentences something like "kings continued to make grants that assigned churches to new owners ..." or whatever the sources will support? That was what I wasn't clear on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

      • This is a difficult one. The charters are all transfers of churches from laymen to bishops, either because they were restoration of property which had been seized from the church, or because only charters in favour of the church have been preserved. I have not found this spelled out, although I have not read right through all the sources. Maybe "continued to make grants transferring the ownership of churches"? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

        I think that would work well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• No change necessarily needed, but I'd be curious to know how Charles-Edwards argues that Meurig died in 849 given the existence of the charters with later dates.
  • This puzzles me. He does not query Davies's dating of Meurig's charters. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Any reason not to promote note [c] to the body of the article? It seems relevant enough.
  • It is very speculative and not mentioned by later historians. It depends on someone mentioned in an early genealogy really being someone who lived later and was son of one king and father of another, with no evidence but the names. Promoting it to the main text would seem to me UNDUE. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

    I'm going to strike my point here, since I think it's a stylistic choice, but I disagree. I think the choice of whether to put material in a footnote or the body is about whether it directly addresses the topic of the article, or is off-topic (as the explanation of a technical term might be). This seems very relevant to Meurig. If it's UNDUE, it shouldn't be in the article; or at least if it's speculative we should qualify it as something like "One historian suggests ..." or give the historian's name. I hadn't followed the link to our article on Bartrum, but I see he's a genealogist. Do we have support for this being work respected by the academics in this field? Genealogy is rife with unreliable sources, but I know there are some good sources amongst the chaff. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

    • Bartrum was a respected scholar who is cited by historians. I have added the description of him in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography as a "scholar of Welsh genealogy". I moved his comment to a note as I was concerned that in the main text it would appear to be a mainstream theory, and I have moved it back and added historians views on Nowy's ancestry to make clear that Bartrum is not accepted on this point. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

    That works well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks Mike. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Short but sweet! - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I wonder why "The Book of Llandaff as a Historical Source. " has no citations on Google Scholar, and does Dictionary of Welsh Biography. need an ISBN or OCLC? Otherwise, nothing that jumps out to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Google Scholar at [53] states that The Book of Llandaff as a Historical Source was awarded the Francis Jones Prize in Welsh History 2019 by Jesus College Oxford and shows 15 citations. The Dictionary of Welsh Biography is now online only, and like the online version of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does not have an isbn. Thanks for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

In general, Google Scholar is not a good measure of impact and citation in the humanities: it's particularly poor in Classics, for example. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a better measure of impact and citations, for the humanities? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Not really, unfortunately. I struggled a lot with this when writing Journal of Roman Archaeology: it's a really major publication in its field, as the name would suggest, but it was quite tricky to find actual proof of that. You could search its title in Google Books, JSTOR etc to find it in bibliographies of other works -- from memory, it comes up a lot when you look into this area. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Late to the table, I'm afraid. Didn't spot the listing in the FAC queue. But an advantage of turning up late is that the heavy lifting has all been done by those imprudent enough to turn up early. I have no comments to make on the article as it now stands: it's a good read and the content – as far as my non-existent expertise goes – seems thorough and well documented. Meets all the FA criteria as far as I can see. My spell-check will recover from the ordeal fairly quickly, I hope. Tim riley talk 13:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. Luckily the government has not yet brought in a law against cruelty to spellchecks. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Older nominations

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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 10 October 2024 [54].

---

Starship Troopers (film)

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is about 1997 science fiction film Starship Troopers, one of director Paul Verhoeven's last works in the western studio system and the unofficial third and final installment in his anti-authority trilogy including RoboCop and Total Recall. The film was widely derided on its release as a pro-fascist film despite its intention to satirize fascism, which was blamed both on poor marketing and contemporary cultural leanings. It's reputation has grown over time once the satire became evident and is now considered a cult classic. Last nomination had no participation, pinging Bneu2013 who expressed an interest in reviewing prior to its closure. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

ThaesOfereode

I can't believe no one reviewed it last time given the love this movie has accrued over the years, especially compared to its negative release. I've never seen this movie, nor read the book, so feel free to push back on anything I misunderstand or critique improperly. Beginning with prose:

Lede

• science fiction action film – WP:SEAOFBLUE. Recommend de-linking action film.
• Johnny Rico and his friends – More comrades than friends, no?
• an alien species of Arachnids – Consider an alien species called Arachnids, since they aren't arachnids. Optional, link alien species?
• Despite these efforts development was slow, with studios hesitant [...] – Comma after efforts.

Plot

• highly evolved – Hyphen
• mobile infantryman – Is this somehow different than a regular infantryman?
• Carl Jenkins joins Military Intelligence – Why "military intelligence" capitalized here but not anywhere else in the whole article?
• while Isabelle "Dizzy" Flores, who is in love with Rico, deliberately transfers to his squad – Consider endashes here to break up the commas.
• Carmen eventually ends her relationship with Rico
• for fellow pilot Zander Barcalow → for a fellow pilot, Zander Barcalow
• Rico impresses drill sergeant Zim → Rico impresses the drill sergeant, Zim or Rico impresses his drill sergeant, Zim – If this is a rank, capitalize. But don't mix caps as drill Sergeant.
• However, a mistake during – A mistake or Rico's mistake?
• Rico quits but – Comma after quits.
• leading to thousands of casualties – Human casualties? Both sides?
• lieutenant Jean Rasczak – Capitalize lieutenant.
• "Roughnecks" – I don't think this needs quotations, unless they have another official name in the movie (e.g., 151st Armed Batallion, etc.).
• Rico's valor in battle earns him the rank of Corporal, particularly after he defeats a gigantic "Tanker Bug" on Tango Urilla, and he develops a romantic relationship with Dizzy. → After Rico defeats a gigantic "Tanker Bug" on Tango Urilla, he is elevated to the rank of corporal for his valor and begins a romantic relationship with Dizzy. – In its current form, it is structurally ambiguous (i.e., that he earned his rank both from his valor on the battlefield and from his relationship with Dizzy). Perhaps a goofy rationale, but I think this sentence flows better anyway.
• rank of Corporal – Decapitalize Corporal.
• distress signal on Planet P – What is Planet P? Human-owned? Unclaimed?
• but not before Dizzy is mortally wounded and Rico mercy kills the mutilated Rasczak. – How is Dizzy wounded? Surely, if Rico kills Rasczak (as a mercy), he is mortally wounded too, no? Consider Dizzy and Rasczak are mortally wounded and, after Dizzy succumbs to her wounds, Rico mercy kills a mutilated Rasczak. instead.
  • Reviewer comment - IIRC, Rico kills Rasczak before Dizzy is both mortally wounded and dies. Both are fatally wounded by two separate arachnids. Rico is not wounded, and shoots Rasczak after Rasczak asks him to do so. The best I remember, there is a scene earlier in the film where Rasczak mercy kills another character, and explains that he would expect others to do the same to him. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• The group returns to the fleet assembled in orbit above P, where Dizzy is eulogized. – But Rasczak isn't? Odd.
• an intelligent Arachnid strategically directing the others – If this is a hive-mind, consider saying so and linking as appropriate.
• Arachnids, and the escape – Change and the to but an.
• the Brain Bug, and the – Remove comma.

Cast

• I'd do away with the colon structure here and replace it with a comma. If you keep the colon or not, all those a's and an's should be lowercase.
• Not much else to critique here, but you're missing Timothy Omundson's role as a psychic in the movie. It may be worth mentioning since he later played Carlton Lassiter in the show Psych, who is a curmudgeonly detective who doubts the psychic ability of the show's lead, and the show poked fun at Omundson's role reversal a few times IIRC.

Production

• Link jingoistic. Consider linking xenophobia and war film.
• TriStar executives determined that to move forward – Soft recommendation to put a comma after that.
• comic-book–style – I think it's just comic book–style
• filming locations but rejected – Comma before but.
• Link Hell's Half Acre (Wyoming) as first mention. Link buttes.
• an hours drive → an hour's drive or an hour drive
• the Nazi propaganda films Triumph of the Will – WP:SEAOFBLUE. Consider removing "films" from the pipe to fix.
• for the adience → for the audience
• like a Vietnam war veteran → like a Vietnam War veteran – Odd piping choice bordering on an Easter egg.
• Clancy Brown portrays Sgt. Zim – Spell out Sergeant like you've done with the rest of the ranks.
• twelve days of military training from Dale Dye – Last name only here.
• not in the Infantry cast – Decapitalize. Comm after cast.
• Link heatstroke.
• On the crew's flight to Los Angeles on June 29 – Comma after the date.
• stunts for the scene apart – Either comma after apart or delete the comma in somersaults,.
• A separate nude scene was written for Richards but she refused to take part – Comma after Richards.
• The fight between Rico and Zander was mainly performed by their actors – What does this mean? Their stunt doubles? If so, clarify and link as appropriate.
• Soft push, but back of a gigantic, moving, fiberglass doesn't really need any commas, does it?
• his ribs over the 3 1⁄2 days of filming → his ribs over the three and a half days of filming
• Only one take was done, and they were told that if someone tripped to pick them up and keep moving. – Grammatically fine (if you remove the comma after done), but I had to double-take to get the meaning. Consider Only one take was done and they were told that if someone tripped, they should pick them up and keep moving.
• only slightly over schedule – Any idea by how much?
• Davison wanted to use other studios but it was – Comma after studios.
• Poledouris' → Poledouris's, per MOS:'S

Release

• Everything looks good here.

Reception

• Turan and Berardinelli – Who? You link Kenneth Turan later in the paragraph. Flip the link/full name usage. Same with Berardinelli.
• Berardinelli said that at its best – Comma after that.
• Starship Troopers' → Starship Troopers's, per MOS:'S and use {{'s}} after the italics.
• others, such as Jonathan Rosenbaum and Ebert, wrote – Strongly encourage endashes here.

Post-release

• Starship Troopers' – Ut supra, passim.
• connect with either both critics or and audiences
• science-fiction adventure – Dehyphenate.
• Link neo-Nazism.

Themes and analysis

• Period needed at the end of the photos' caption.
• director's own war experiences – I don't believe Verhoeven was a combatant, so director's own wartime experiences is better, I think.
• Mobile Infantry – Hasn't been capitalized, probably shouldn't be capitalized here either. Two instances.
• Perhaps link Aryan ideal of beauty to Aryanism or something similar.
• seduce the audience into joining [Starship Troopers'] society ... but then ask, 'What are you really joining up for?'" – Starship Troopers's, per MOS:'S and use {{'s}}; use {{'"}} for the quotation.
• Link progressive politics and gender norms.
• asking "would you like to know more?" → asking: "Would you like to know more?"
• many rights are reserved only for citizens, those who have served in the military → many rights are reserved only for citizens comprising only those who have served in the military
• Voting is presented as an act of force, of supreme authority, a right that must be taken instead of given → Voting is presented as an act of force and supreme authority, a right that must be taken instead of given
• As Rasczak tells his students, "violence → As Rasczak tells his students: "Violence
• Strzelczyk – Who? You only cite her full name in the next paragraph, so that should be switched up. Also, when she is introduced, the academic.
• Author Leighton Grist → The author Leighton Grist
• Soft suggestion to link "full-scale war" with total war.
• inhuman, and strategic – No comma.
• Writer Lloyd Farley → The writer Lloyd Farley
• Arachnids are not significantly different to, and are justified in exterminating humanity – No comma.

Legacy

• science-fiction action – Dehyphenate.
• its critiques of right-wing militarism, the military–industrial complex, reactionary violence and American jingoism, made it seem ahead of its time – Move the comma from after jingoism to after violence.
• Link police brutality. Soft suggestion to link dehumanization.
• someone going 'Rico!'" – Use {{'"}}
• as a strong female → as a strong female character

Sequels and remake

• Nothing to critique here.

And that's about all I got. Overall, this is a monster page full of excellent information that I thoroughly enjoyed reading. The biggest issues are comma usage and pretty obvious examples of moving parts of the page around, but both are simple fixes. Hopefully someone with more love for this movie (or the book) will be able to step in for any gaps, if there are any. I learned a lot about the movie and virtually everything on the page was either interesting to me or will be interesting to someone else. I look forward to seeing this on the main page sometime in the near future. A few fixes (mostly commas!) and I'll be happy to throw my support behind the article based on prose. You've done excellent work on this page, I'm sorry this didn't get the review it should have on its first volley here, and I hope you will bring this kind of quality work to FAC again. Cheers, ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi ThaesOfereode, thanks for your kind words, yes I think no reviews at all is probably worse than bad reviews as it just wastes time and takes time before you can try again, so I appreciate your early involvement.

I have done most of the notes above minus the following which I've provided some explanations for, so let me know if my answers suffice or you need more clarity.

• mobile infantryman – Is this somehow different than a regular infantryman? Not as far as I'm aware, it's just the in-universe term for them
• but not before Dizzy is mortally wounded and Rico mercy kills the mutilated Rasczak. – How is Dizzy wounded? Surely, if Rico kills Rasczak (as a mercy), he is mortally wounded too, no? Consider Dizzy and Rasczak are mortally wounded and, after Dizzy succumbs to her wounds, Rico mercy kills a mutilated Rasczak. instead. - So I have changed this around a bit to "but not before Dizzy is fatally impaled by an Arachnid and Rico mercy kills the mutilated Rasczak." That might just sound the same tbh. In the context of the film I don't believe the implication is that Racszak is mortally wounded, he's heavily disfigured and basically incapacitated with no legs in the middle of a battle so Rico follows his earlier advice and puts him out of his misery before the bugs can get to him since there's no option to extract him at that point and he's almost literally dead weight. Dizzy on the other hand is impaled through the torso and dies on the shuttle while professing her love for Rico.
• The group returns to the fleet assembled in orbit above P, where Dizzy is eulogized. – But Rasczak isn't? Odd. - Rico gives the eulogy so I think it's just more personal, plus they have her body so they can hold a funeral while Racszak is still on Planet P. To this day!
• an intelligent Arachnid strategically directing the others – If this is a hive-mind, consider saying so and linking as appropriate. - Unless this is established in later films I don't believe it's a hive mind, there's no discussion for how the bugs communicate, they screech for example, but the Brain Bug is just like a human commander but smarter as far as I'm aware from the in-film context.
• only slightly over schedule – Any idea by how much? - Sadly, no

Thanks again ThaesOfereode. Oh, remembered, I linked "xenophobic" but not "war film" since it would fall into the seaofblue trap. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading through your replies, all of them seem defensible to me. All other critiques were addressed adequately in the article (or I fixed myself after realizing what I had wrote was a little ambiguous or I should have caught it on the first volley). Support on prose. Best of luck with other reviews! ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much ThaesOfereode! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

FM

• I missed this the first time around, but also a favourite of mine. Marking my spot for now, but in the meantime, I see a bunch of seemingly unnecessary duplinks that can be highlighted with this script:[55] FunkMonk (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk, are you waiting for Bneu to complete his review before starting yours or just been busy? Thanks Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I had limited time until now, will try to start today. FunkMonk (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• "and the Brain Bug consumes Zander's brain, absorbing his knowledge" Perhaps I just don't remember, but when is this implied?

• "firing of many of its studios executives." Studio? Studio's?

• "decided to produce test footage to demonstrate their intended visual style and tone" Who made the effects for this? You mention many other details about it, and later you state two different companies did the effects for the movie itself, so could be good to be specific.

• "Preliminary designs were madefor the capsules" Made for?

• "removal of the Bounce and "the Drop"" Why is only the latter in quotation marks? You do use quotation marks for the former earlier. Check for consistency throughout, seems to jump around.

• "who visually embodied the caucasian, blonde, blue-eyed" The sources used don't seem to say "Caucasian", but "Aryan", the two terms are not synonyms (the former is much less specific), so it should use something like "Aryan race" instead.

• "Brown based his performance on archetypical drill instructors from older American films such as The D.I. (1957) and Full Metal Jacket (1987)" Sounds a bit odd calling a film released ten years earlier as "older", what does the source say?

• "military training from Dye from April 17, 1996" the from from is repetitive, "under Dye/led by Dye" or similar?

Done all these FunkMonk. Re: the Brain Bug, it's in the scene on...Planet P I believe, they find that general hiding in the cupboard, they talk about how the brain of that one soldier was eaten and the general is freaking out because he knows all kinds of vital information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• "SPI would lead to production problems" Using/choosing SPI would?

• "Realizing the wide variety of effects for the spaceship scenes required the efforts of SPI, Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), and Boss Film Studios." This seems to be disjointed from the earlier text that said only SPI was used, but now you mention more companies. If this was due to SPI's problems, that should be mentioned explicitly.

• "and severely injuring Rachel Campos, a crew member's girlfriend" I wondered if that crewmember was one of the dead ones, turns out it was, could be mentioned ("a dead crew member's").

• Could we get years for all the retrospective critical opinions as you do for the first one listed?

• While the article mentions that the film is recognised more today as a warning against fascism, it appears that the opposite is also true, and that some people, at least online, are actually identifying with those values as presented in the film (thereby also misunderstanding it)? Any sources on this?

Done except for the last one. Did you have a particular example in mind? There are several sections in the article noting it's fascist themes are taken literally but I'm not aware of any major examples of people identifying with it? I tried googling but without success so I'm not 100% what I need to search for. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I may have been mixing up a few things, but it at least seems that the game Helldivers 2 has renewed interest in the film[56][57][58], perhaps worth a mention? FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - looking good to me. Added one comment above. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much FunkMonk, I've incorporated your references as well. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Review by Bneu2013

I also missed this my first time around, and will have my first comments later today. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Link "action film" in first sentence for consistency with other film FAs.

• • Update - didn't see the other comment above. However, all of your other film FAs link both. Personally I don't think linking both violates SEAOFBLUE. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Earth world government" sounds kind of redundant, although I realize it's not. Maybe "a world government based on Earth that is engaged in interstellar war..." would work better.

• I would suggest linking "computer-generated" instead of "(CGI)" unless this is a common practice and/or there is consensus for the current form.

• Link first use of "fascism" in lead.

Plot

• Citizenship is exclusively earned through federal service, - does anything other than military service constitute "federal service"?

• "social scientists" is kind of vague, although I'd say leave as is if this is all that the sources infer.

• Humans, who are now spacefaring, conduct colonization missions throughout the galaxy, bringing them into conflict with a race of highly-evolved insectoid creatures dubbed "Arachnids" or, derisively, "bugs". - humans have been "spacefaring" since the 1950s; I think what you mean is capable of interstellar travel.

• I don't think "high-school" needs to be hyphenated. I've never seen it hyphenated in the U.S., and since this is an American film, we should use American English conventions, per MOS:S.

• Since it is specified that Planet P is Arachnid-controlled, you might consider clarifying the same for Tango Urilla.

• Is it ever explained what the Brain Bug is afraid of?

Cast

• Military infantry characters include Katrina (Blake Lindsley), Djana'd (Tami-Adrian George),[8][9] Eric Bruskotter as Breckinridge, Matt Levin as Kitten Smith, and Anthony Ruivivar as Shujumi. - is there a reason for the inconsistent use of parentheses in this sentence? I would recommend using the same convention for each actor and character in this sentence.

Thanks for your comments Bneu2013, I have actioned all the above minus your queries:

No, I believe military service is the only way to earn citizenship. There's some implication that Rico's family is rich and can kind of buy their way into certain things under the table, but officially only military service gives you important rights like voting and breeding.

"Social scientists" is how Rasczak refers to them, I assume the inference is socialists. There is an article, Social science which I arrived at after searching "social scientist" so I could maybe add that link. It's not expressly detailed in the film what they did wrong but given the film is a satire of fascism, I believe it means socialism failed.

The Brain Bug is just afraid because it's been caught, it's like any prisoner of war, I guess the twist is it's smart enough to be afraid when the humans treat them like large cockroaches. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Bneu2013 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I'm extremely busy right now, but I will have additional comments tomorrow. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Production

• Change "Ed Neumeier" to "Edward Neumeier", for consistency and the fact that this appears to be the name he most commonly goes by. Also, since it is linked in the previous paragraph, linking here could be perceived as overlink, but since it is a different section you could probably leave as is. I might get a second opinion on this before changing.

• Wording of Since RoboCop, Neumeier and his co-writer Michael Miner struggled to develop new story ideas is kind of repetitive, since previous sentence starts with Since the release of RoboCop (1987),.

• It sounds like Neumeier was more effective at developing new ideas on his own than with Davison, Tippett, Miner, etc. You might want to clarify this.

• Change "Neumeier's treatment" to "His treatment".

• Remove comma after "head of production,"

• Is a date available for when the rights to Starship Troopers were purchased? I'm guessing it was in late 1992 or shortly thereafter.

• Progress was slow as TriStar regularly replaced executives, including Medavoy, and high cost or risk projects were more closely scrutinized. - I'm guessing this film was considered a high cost and risky project, considering the following paragraph. It wouldn't hurt to specify that here, however, but no need to go into detail here, since that is what the second paragraph is for.

• By 1994, Tristar remained reluctant to move Starship Troopers into pre-production - was this because of the (then-expected) high budget or some other reason? Did Verhoeven's unrealized projects and the mixed reviews of Basic Instinct also play a factor here?

Done all these Bneu2013 apart from the last one. The source doesn't really specify, it's easy to assume it's for the same reasons as the previous paragraph given it's only a year later but as the source isn't specific I'd just be making an educated guess. As for the rights purchase, again I believe the sources suggest 1992, as per the opening of it's paragraph "By late 1992" and the Sammon source says in the fall of 1992 they approached the studio with the Outpost 7 treatment, then later on says by early 1993 he'd been working on the starship troopers script for 3-4 months, but it depends how you interpet "early". For me that'd be the first 3 months of the year so it would seem the rights were bought in Fall/December 1992, but it's not specific. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll try to finish my review today.

Production (cntd.)

• He identified elements he considered essential, including the high school opening, boot camp, battles, and the underlying philosophy and sociopolitics, and compensated for the novel's second act by expanding on concepts such as the teenage romance, based on his own experiences of pursuing women with no interest in him. - run-on sentence, suggest splitting in two. Preceding sentence is also borderline run-on.

• Consider elaborating on what the "Bounce" is; it's not clear if this is for personal mobility or something used by vehicles.

• Link "romantic triangles" to love triangle".

• Does "Neo-dogs" need to be capitalized?

• Neumeier completed his third and final draft by early 1995 - no direct mention of the second draft, but I'm guessing the changes described in the previous paragraphs were part of it? When was it finished?

• I'm guessing it was Neumeier who said The characters of Starship Troopers were "fascists who don't know they're fascists"?

• Many key crew members were hired in 1996, including Verhoeven's long-time cinematographer Jost Vacano,[58][59] as well as Vic Armstrong (second unit director and stunt coordinator), Mark Goldblatt (editor), John Richardson (special effects supervisor), Basil Poledouris (music composer), Stacey McIntosh (construction coordinator), Karen Higgins (construction foreman), Gregg Goldstone (first assistant director), Kenneth Silverstein (second assistant director), John Blake (makeup artist), Kathy Blondell (hair stylist), William Petrotta (prop master), Robert Galotti (weapons coordinator),[60] production manager Robert Latham Brown, production coordinator Daren Hicks, and assistant production coordinators Janet Campolito and Lisa Hackler. - inconsistent use of parentheses for descriptors; I prefer not using them. Ditto the succeeding sentence.

• The location was remote, about 45 mi (72 km) or an hour's drive from the Astaire Building or hotels for the cast and crew. It offered other logistical challenges as it was generally undeveloped land, requiring the production to build roads for the trucks carrying necessary gear into the canyons for filming. - a previous sentence says the Astaire Building is in California. Wyoming is not 45 miles from California.

• Change "which could portray Tango Urilla" to "which was chosen to portray Tango Urilla" or something similar.

• Apostrophe in "TriStars".

• but he realized that many of the contemporary stars...

• Link "screen testing" to "screen test"

• Part of she thought she could convey the character's "heart" and vulnerability at being overlooked by Rico because her toughness makes her seem like just another guy sounds like it could be a quote.

• Comma after "harsh conditions".

• Did Rupkalvis have a background in the military that made her qualified to help with the training?

• but she chose to anyway, later remarking

• The crew returned two weeks later to find that miles of electrical cables, some equipment, and even cars had sunk into the mud. Alternatively, The crew returned two weeks later to find miles of electrical cables, some equipment, and even cars had sunken into the mud.

• The conditions also caused respiratory and exhaustion issues among the crew, and many were treated for heatstroke after wearing heavy costumes in the 115 °F (46 °C) heat, including Busey, resulting in production pausing for a week—costing $1.5 million a day—while he recovered. - run-on sentence.

• Suggest adding "television personality" in front of "Rachel Campos".

• The exam results scene and the prom were both filmed at Kaiser Permanente - I'm guessing this was at Kaiser Permanente's headquarters or another one of their office buildings. Suggest elaborating, since most people probably aren't going to know where this is located.

• Additional scenes were filmed during this period, including the FedNet propaganda sequences - were these considered pick-up shots?

• I read somewhere that this film was initially given an NC-17 rating. Since you mention this for Robocop and Total Recall, I would suggest a sentence or two about this in the first post-production paragraph.

• but Verhoeven wanted the music to offer a realistic background for the character's experiences. - Change to "characters'", since this appears to refer to all of the film's characters.

• Hey Bneu2013, I have done the above apart from the following:
• Neumeier completed his third and final draft by early 1995 - no direct mention of the second draft, but I'm guessing the changes described in the previous paragraphs were part of it? When was it finished?

• The second draft is mentioned ("His contributions to Neumeier's second draft included...") although the sources for the 4th paragraph under writing aren't specific about what is in the 2nd or 3rd drafts. Though I wouldn't expect someone to be going THAT wild in their final draft, you'd expect that to be the clean and refine what you did in your last draft phase. But that's just me guessing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  If you can't find anything, then leave as is. Although it would be nice if you could find a date for when the second draft was finished, since we have this for 1 and 3. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Additional scenes were filmed during this period, including the FedNet propaganda sequences - were these considered pick-up shots?

• Reading the description of pick-ups, I don't believe so, but I may be wrong. It describes pick ups as additional filming to correct existing scenes, while the Fed Net filming was original content they did not have time to film during the main photography Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Multiple sources I've read state that pick-up shots are scenes filmed after principal photography has ended, meaning these could be considered such by that definition. But unless any reliable sources refer to these shots as such, describing them as such would constitute original research. However, I'd recommend wording them to explicitly state that they were less important scenes that were not part of principal photography. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Many key crew members were hired in 1996, including Verhoeven's long-time cinematographer Jost Vacano,[58][59] as well as Vic Armstrong (second unit director and stunt coordinator), Mark Goldblatt (editor), John Richardson (special effects supervisor), Basil Poledouris (music composer), Stacey McIntosh (construction coordinator), Karen Higgins (construction foreman), Gregg Goldstone (first assistant director), Kenneth Silverstein (second assistant director), John Blake (makeup artist), Kathy Blondell (hair stylist), William Petrotta (prop master), Robert Galotti (weapons coordinator),[60] production manager Robert Latham Brown, production coordinator Daren Hicks, and assistant production coordinators Janet Campolito and Lisa Hackler. - inconsistent use of parentheses for descriptors; I prefer not using them. Ditto the succeeding sentence.

• I get where you're coming from, I have switched them all to parentheses (for now) just because I am concerned of creating a SEAOFBLUE issue with things like second unit director and stunt director Vic Armstrong. Let me know your thoughts. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That should work. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Part of she thought she could convey the character's "heart" and vulnerability at being overlooked by Rico because her toughness makes her seem like just another guy sounds like it could be a quote.

• No it's not a quote, it's about two paragraphs of content I've boiled down to the main point Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• I read somewhere that this film was initially given an NC-17 rating. Since you mention this for Robocop and Total Recall, I would suggest a sentence or two about this in the first post-production paragraph.

• So I don't believe this was given an NC-17 rating, the times had changed a bit since the days of RoboCop and Total Recall. The only mention I can find at all is a 4 second decapitation scene was removed to avoid receiving an NC-17 rating but that this was pre-emptive and it's from a listicle article so not super reliable. I've googled for NC-17, deleted scenes, censorship, etc, relating to the film but not had any results. I can add mention of the scene's removal though. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, what you're saying is it wasn't actually submitted to the MPAA and given an NC-17 rating; they just cut a scene out of suspicion that it would likely get it an NC-17 rating. This was not the case with RoboCop and Total Recall, if I understand. This article actually does seem to imply that it was given an NC-17 rating, although I don't get the impression the authors know that for certain. As such, I would recommend mentioning this, but wording it something like "x scene was removed to avoid an NC-17 rating". On a related note, I do remember two decapitation scenes towards the end of the film, but I'm not sure which version I saw. Was that by any chance a different version than the theatrical with the cut scene? Note that I haven't gotten to the post release section, and am aware this may be discussed there. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I would've been too young to see this in cinemas, I think, I can only assume the decapitation refers to the Planet P battle while Rasczak is still alive because one of the flying bugs does outright decapitate someone and it only lasts a few seconds, but I can't find any real discussion about it, even in the books I've got, outside of forum and reddit posts. There's this comparison between the theatrical and Workprint (not a reliable source) which does not show any differences in terms of violent content, but you can see how much they had to change regarding Carmen because the test audiences hated her guts. They basically cut her whole Zander romance.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Since it does not appear the film was ever given an NC-17 rating, I guess my recommendation stands. Also multiple clips of the scene you are referring to are available on YouTube, and are consistent with what I remember seeing. I doubt these, and what I first saw years ago, are any different than what was shown in the theaters in 1997. So I guess just word it as "scene... was trimmed to avoid an NC-17 rating". Note that I would recommend "trimmed" as opposed to removed, as it is unclear whether or not this was a complete removal of a decapitation scene or a trimming of a decapitation that made it into the final cut (there are indeed two in the scene in question). Bneu2013 (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: - thought I might go ahead and let you know I've responded to a few of your replies since my last comments. I'm also working on the release section, and will have comments shortly. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be looking at these tomorrow now, bed time! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Release

• Not a requirement, but I recommend flipping refs 122 and 21 into their sequential order. Ditto anywhere else.

• Alan Marshall stated that no one involved in Starship Troopers was happy about delaying an anticipated blockbuster to after the peak theatrical season. - was this widely expected to be a blockbuster?

• The first trailer for Starship Troopers was released in November 1996, - is a more precise date available, and was this first shown with any specific movie(s) like the second one?

• grossing approximately $22.1 million from 2,971 theaters, an average of $7,424 per theater. - was this just on the opening day, or weekend?

• with a total box office gross of about $54.8 million, making it the 33rd highest-grossing film of the year. - based on the following paragraph, this ranking appears to be just for the United States.

• Was this film considered a box office bomb?

Reception

• Again, not a requirement, but I suggest ordering refs 138, 137, and 139 and 140, 139, and 142, respectively.

• While Berardinelli and Maslin praised the tension, scale, and impressive visuals of the action sequences, in which Verhoeven revels in the contrast between his characters' earnestness and the violent and gorey imagery,[138][140][143] others—such as Jonathan Rosenbaum and Ebert—wrote that the scenes grew tiresome because the alien creatures had no personality, lacking any culture or discernible language, which rendered them idelogically "boring ciphers" inhabiting uninteresting planets. - run-on sentence.

• Responses to above

• So I've done all the above bar:

• Alan Marshall stated that no one involved in Starship Troopers was happy about delaying an anticipated blockbuster to after the peak theatrical season. - was this widely expected to be a blockbuster?

• According to the LA times and the book yes, although they refer to it as "hit", and in the post production section it discusses how the studio was already looking at a sequel. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Was this film considered a box office bomb?

• I have had a look around and not found many sources saying so and I'm not sure I'd trust them, for instance, Screen Rant calls it a bomb but also compares it's US gross only (about $50 million) to it's $100 million budget. Starship Troopers might have not met expectations but it did make more than its budget, even if that may mean it lost money on marketing or whatever, it'd be hard to say since the distribution costs were shared between Tristar and Touchstone. The only 3 other sources I've found that use the term "box office bomb" are Collider, which mentions it briefly in a listicle and includes a quote from a "user" so I'm not sure how reliable that is, MovieWeb, which unequivocably calls it a box office bomb but doesn't mention any figures so I don't know if it's doing the same as Screen Rant, and The Washington Blade which is a speciality newspaper, I can't say I've heard of it before so I'm not 100% on its reliability, and it doesn't call Starship Troopers a bomb, just a flop. Cutthroat Island is usually something I would describe as an easy bomb, $100 milly budget, $11 milly box office. They also went on to develop multiple sequels to Starship Troopers which isn't usually what happens with a flop. So I'm open to your opinion on this, I'm not sure the sourcing I can find is strong enough to make a bold claim like it being a bomb, it definitely didn't do gangbusters but I'm not sure it'd be considered a bomb.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

If the sources don't describe it as a bomb, then leave as is. Since it sounds like a film is considered a bomb if it's theatrical revenues do not exceed its production cost, then this film would not meet that definition. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Post-release

• Cut comma after compact disc (CD) in 1997

Themes and analysis

• including patriotism, authoritarianism, militarism, colonialism, and xenophobia - shouldn't these be linked?

• Change comma after "Nazi coat of arms" to a semicolon.

• a right that must be taken instead of given. - what does "taken" mean here? I'm guessing it doesn't mean "taken away", although someone could mistake it for this.

Legacy

• Suggest changing The Atlantic and The Verge (2020) to "The Atlantic and The Verge in 2020".

• Remove comma after "2020 retrospective".

• Suggest Starship Troopers is now considered a cult classic. Not sure this was true initially.

• Starship Troopers has continued to generate interest in the decades since its release because of elements which came to reflect future events such as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and the subsequent actions of the U.S. government and president George W. Bush to convince the American people to surrender certain liberties to enable a war and defeat their enemies. - comma after "events, MOS:DATECOMMA after "2001", and link "George W. Bush. Also suggest changing war to "the subsequent War on Terror".

Sequels and remake

• Consider adding a sentence at the end of the sequels paragraph summarizing the reception and relative success of the sequels compared to the original.

• Was the proposed reboot in the early 2010s a film or television series?

@Darkwarriorblake: - I've finished my review. I should be able to support once all of my remaining comments are addressed and I see no other remaining issues. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Bneu2013 Hi, I've done most of these. Xenophobia and GW Bush are already linked earlier in the article. I did look when writing up the article, and I've had another look just now, for information about the sequels. The difficulty is that because they are all straight to video there's no real financials to review, and the most recent two films don't even have enough reviews on Rotten Tomatoes to generate a percentage score. Box Office Mojo doesn't cover the franchise at all, and The Numbers DOES but only has figures for Starship Troopers, not for all the sequels and the figures are so low they can't possibly be accurate. There's no real discussion as far as I can find about the films post Starship Troopers. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, all I have left to do now should be to just skim over the article to make sure there are no remaining issues. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Friendly pingminder for Bneu2013, have you had any more thoughts or been busy? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I've been extremely busy. Unfortunate I'm not as active as I once was. But I've finished my review, and don't see any remaining issues, and am ready to support. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support pending completion of source review. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review Bneu2013 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review

Images seem all well-placed. Regarding File:Starship Troopers 1997 film - Klendathu Drop.ogg, is the track of outstanding significance to the film as a whole, instead of just being part of the film? File:Emblem of Italian Blackshirts.svg and File:Heer - decal for helmet 1942.svg need a licence for the symbol. ALT text is OK. Source-wise: What makes #29, #220 and #168 a reliable source? #216 is a bare URL. Some URLs like https://www.denofgeek.com/games/starship-troopers-strategy-game-release-date/, https://www.avclub.com/content/node/24776, https://www.avclub.com/article/a-decade-of-underrated-movies-1486, https://theasc.com/articles/needs-pics-starship-maneuvers, https://theasc.com/articles/pest-control-on-starship-troopers, https://ascmag.com/articles/starship-troopers-interstellar-exterminators, https://www.cbr.com/starship-troopers-unknown/, https://deadspin.com/the-grisly-goofy-starship-troopers-played-dumb-to-make-1741600229 and https://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/11532-8-Avalon-Hill-Board-Games-That-Deserve-New-Life.5 should be marked as broken. There are a fair amount of reviewers being cited like Den of Geek, SyFy (not sure here) and Deadspin that don't seem to be that prominent, which makes me wonder about their qualification as "high-quality reliable sources" - there is probably more but that source list is so long that I might have missed some. The books and stuff are reliable sources, however. Formatting seems consistent too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• The Klendathu Drop track is the basis for the entire rest of the score, so that one piece provides context of tone and theme for the entire film, and it is also discussed in the body text.
• So I have added public domain tag to the Heer one but the Blackshirt one appears to be a vector image based on the original logo, but it obviously wasn't vector based and clean back then, so I believe the creator owns the copyright. I believe the original design should fall in the public domain and what the editor has created is unique but derivative of the original design. The editor has added their own free-use tag with attribution, so I'm honestly unclear if I am allowed to add a public domain tag to it for the design basis. I've asked for help on the mediawiki village pump but had no luck so far.
• The CBR, ASC, and Deadspin links all work for me, dunno if there was a temporary issue when you tried. I've marked the other ones and ran the bot to try and tag any dead links.
• Fixed the bare URL
• SyFy is what used to be the Sci-Fi Channel, it's been around for 32 years, and Tim Grierson is currently a senior critic for Screen Daily so I believe it's a reliable source. Deadspin is by the same people behind The A.V. Club and, I believe, Kotaku, so I don't believe there should be any concerns relating to it and Tom Breihan is the senior editor of Stereogum. It's another long-lived news source. On a previous FA nomination (I can go find it but please don't make me), it was agreed that Den of Geek is fine when written by site staff only, not contributors. Ryan Lambie was deputy editor of the site, and Matthew Byrd is their games editor with the article he authored being focused on that speciality theme (board game in this case). It does also have a staff and hierarchy page.
• If those answers are satisfactory, I could just use some feedback regarding the Blackshirts emblem based on my above comments. Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  The issue with the images is that it's not clear by which right the uploader holds the copyright. Is this a coats of arms like situation where one distinguishes between blazon and emblazon (sp?)? Regarding the sources, I sometimes feel like I have been overly lenient when reviewing certain kinds of sources. I'll ask Ealdgyth's input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you have any luck Jo-Jo Eumerus Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

No, doesn't seem like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

What would you like to do then Jo-Jo Eumerus? I can understand your viewpoint but I don't think you're being lenient in this situation, I have learned from previous nominations to be pretty strict on my sourcing even if it means sacrificing interesting information so I do believe the references are solid. I do take some personal pride in elevating these articles so I do try to avoid shortcuts as I want them to stand as reliable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

We'll see how the coordinators handle this. I know it's buck-passing but I don't feel certain enough on these sources to say yes or no explicitly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from Draken Bowser

I'm doing my part! Very interesting, I have been wondering how the differences between the book and the film came to be. I think the article reads well and there are only two sections which break the flow. With "Box office" it's expected, but the other one is the second paragraph below "Pre-production" listing various crew members. Since more than a dozen of these are never mentioned again it makes me wonder whether they are all due for a mention. With no other concerns for me across these 16 pages I'm happy to pledge right away. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Draken Bowser, Bneu mentioned something similar above so I have removed crew members who don't have an article and moved them to the Special Effects sub-article. This trims the section down considerably. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from Paleface Jack

I have decided to emerge from my little abode to offer my support on this current nomination. As per usual, the writing and sourcing here is very strong as mentioned above by other reviewers. I do not see any errors or nitpicks to point out. I did alittle looking around and found an additional source though it is not necessary that contains some interviews with Verhoeven called Paul Verhoeven: Interviews editied by Margaret Barton-Fumo. Again, it is not needed but might be useful if you ever need another source to back up what you already have. Cheers!--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Paleface Jack, found the book and implemented it where I could Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2024 [59].

---

Tesla and unions

Nominator(s): ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is about unionization efforts at Tesla in different countries and Tesla's relation to trade unions more broadly. A lot of attention is brought to Elon Musk's commentary, but this Wikipedia article authoritatively brings attention to older campaigns and countries in order to WP:GLOBALIZE coverage. It is a GA and has continued to be expanded since. This is my first WP:FAC so I am appreciative of any assistance/guidance along the way. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

Hello Shushugah and welcome to FAC. I'll do the image review. The article contains the following images:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IG_Metall_brochures_for_Tesla_employees.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tesla_IG_Metall_building.jpg

They are own works published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. They are relevant and placed at appropriate locations. Both images are from Germany. Since Tesla is an American company, it would be good to have America also represented image-wise. The images lack alt-texts, see MOS:ALT. The captions are fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

📸 Done! I agree more photos would be nice. I have contacted United Auto Workers and IndustriALL Global Union to WP:DONATE some photos because there are nice ones that show diversity and breadth of Tesla workers movement. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the alt text. It would be great if it works out with the photos from the unions. If not, alternatives would be to use a picture of a Tesla factory where workers tried to unionize, like Gigafactory New York, or to have a multiple image of the logos of the different unions that made attempts. The article is relatively short so we don't need many images. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 using logos of unions would violate WP:NFCC rationale. I do not think the differing logos add contextual understanding to the differences between the unions, their efforts. The logo usages would need to be minimal, and this article is akin to a list of different union efforts (me thinks). I did also consider whether creating a geographic map with different union logos would be possible, but I believe that would be improper WP:Derivative work. Generally I think the File:IG Metall brochures for Tesla employees.jpg is the best image for the moment, being prominent in both English/German and representing the largest/most active union campaign. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

What about adding an image of Gigafactory New York (like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tesla_sign_2.jpg) to the subsection "Giga New York"? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I added it with captions and accessibility text. I note in Giga New York image caption, this is months before first union effort there. I opted to leave Fremont without a photo as the Tesla Fremont Factory and NUMMMI have numerous photos, and immediately above it I added a dynamic photo from 2023 United Auto Workers strike using File:United Auto Workers Strike 2023.jpg which plays an important role in overall enthusiasm for UAW union revitalization at non-union automobile manufacturers. Images are CC-BY-SA 4.0 and PD respectively. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for including the images, they help add variety. I think it would it be better to move the image of the 2023 strike to the last paragraph of the section "Fremont Factory", where it is discussed. Otherwise, looks fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 ✅ Done! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

That solves the remaining problem. I moved the image a little down so that it is closer to the paragraph discussing the strike but feel free to revert if you prefer the original placement. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Femke

Lovely article. My initial comments:

• Do we have any information about China? With 20,000 Tesla workers, it would be interesting to know if they are part of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions.

  Does not seem like it. Formally speaking, every mid-sized company in China should have representation on ACFTU, but in practice this does not always happen The PwC report summarizes inconsistent enforcement. Walmart did not get a union until 2006, despite being in the country since 1990s. I have asked 2 China Labor scholars, who both indicated it is unlike that Tesla has a union at this stage and they're not aware of any such efforts.

Further more, I checked the both the US-based China Labor Watch and the Hong Kong based China Labour Bulletin for any related news about Tesla. There are several articles about employee dissatisfaction at Tesla, but nothing about collective action (strikes -- which are formally illegal anyways in China) or worker representation. I will contact CLB and CLW for any hints to the contrary as well, but as far as I can tell to best of my research, no there is not. I have written Volkswagen_and_unions#China and Apple Inc. and unions#China where there was more to write/say. I am also keeping an eye, if anything changes/appears in terms of sourcing from the Netherlands. This paragraph was rightfully so removed. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Do we know why the New York case was withdrawn?

  No idea. I cannot find any further mention or context. I can remove it if it is WP:UNDUE. The union effort (and its fizzling) are notable, but withdrawn NLRB complaints are quite common. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• This article about the strikes in Sweden talks about Tesla's intimidation tactics. Should that be included?

  Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• In the description of Sweden, you give the reader some background (such as sympathy strikes being legal in the country). I think the article would benefit with the same amount of background in the US and Germany.

  Excellent suggestion. I have added backgrounds for Germany and USA. I aimed to avoid WP:SYNTH or getting overly WP:Technical. I hope I struck a decent balance. Will re-read it a few times. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  Looks better. I think mentioning the detail of "codified in the Works Constitution Act" is unnecessary. Do we need to use jargon like "protected concerted activity", or can that jargon be hidden in a wikilink? It seems like you forgot to add a source to describe the US situation? The LAT source doesn't go into the details of the general situation with unions in the US. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's now gone too much in the opposite direction (too much background for the US). Can you limit it to one paragraph? The first paragraph seems a bit too detailed in particular. I'm pretty sure the main template (labor unions in the US), should not be in the middle of the section. I think it's best to delete it, but you can also change it into a further at the top of the paragraph. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Like, how is it possible that with 400,000 dollars, no union is formed? Do you need a certain percentage of the workers to vote in favour? Are there other barriers?

  I cannot explain (with available sourcing) whether $400,000 is a lot or not (my personal feeling is it not) but I added a contrast to it with the $40 million UAW announced in 2023 for 13 non-union workplaces over 2 years. That won't all go to Tesla, but it's a marked increase and change in UAW organizing philosophy (Shawn Fain makes that very clear). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  • What is a Works Council in Germany?

  Explained in the background added for Germany. (Note: while I am a central works council and works council chair myself and also a member of IG Metall, I exclusively rely on what sourcing explain about them, do share if the prose/clarity can be further improved. The distinction between works council/union and works agreement/collective agreement are key imho to understanding Tesla dispute and structural tensions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  • Are non-disclosure agreements legal in Germany for work conditions?

  Basically no...but I cannot easily find sourcing for that, and more importantly what legal consequences that has. Depends on very particular/archaic court rulings. What's clear in any case is culture of fear/intimidation, and overall pattern of Tesla willing to bend the law. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• Prose quabbles:
  • In October 2017, Tesla fired Richard Ortiz who was organizing (alongside Moran, one of the union organizers), which the NLRB later ruled to be illegal retaliation. --> do we need the parenthesis here. Not quite clear if both were fired.

  I removed paragraphed quote, Moran was not fired as far as I can tell. His experience was very much part of NLRB's 2021 ruling about unfair labor practices. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  • and discussing with workers their opinion on unions --> this text is not quite clear.

  Expanded, basically Captive audience meetings where employer grills workers about their views of unions and discourages unionization. Which previously had legally ambiguous status, but was cemented as illegal by current NLRB general counsel ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  • I'm not sure I follow the connection between the two sentences here: " Electric vehicle production requires 30 percent fewer workers than traditional combustion-engine vehicles. As a result, a non-unionized Tesla weakens IG Metall's bargaining power in the overall automotive sector in Germany due to fewer union members and a higher labor supply."

  Expanded in the background explanation. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  • In January 2023, IG Metall called for an investigation after stating that workers had called the organization to report that they were being made to work longer hours, with less time between shifts. --> I think we can be closer to WP:Wikivoice here for conciseness (called for an investigation after workers had called).

  Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  • The Berlin-Brandenburg State Labor Court [de] overruled the lower court, keeping the original Works Council election date. --> The text is not saying what the lower court decided —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Thank you for my first FAC prose review! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  • I dislike the new first sentence, with the addition of "(half in the United States)". You're trying too put too much in, making readability worse. Try to be more conservative with parentheses too, they can impede flow. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

    @Femke I've slimmed it down by half. A good background should provide necessary context to understand the Tesla union specific challenges which are different in each country. In the case of US me thinks it is about challenges of unsuccessful unionization, renewed momentum of UAW organising non-union shops in 2023 which is further contextualized in the body. I have slimmed usage of parentheses as well and rewritten them to flow with sentence structure. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Formatting & sourcing squibbles:
  • I've removed some fullstops per MOS:PERIOD.
  • Make sure you use the right parameters in your cite news/web. A newspaper should be in italics. An organisation (like the Finnish Transport Workers' Union or National Labor Relations Board should not be italics. Typically, if the Wikipedia article about something is in italics, that's how it needs to be formatted. You can change the formatting by moving it from work to publisher.
• The union dues are not exactly 1%, but typically 1%. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you and addressed all of the above squibbles! It appears both website/work= parameters italicize, while publisher= does not. It does not feel very semantic, but I have formatted all of them accordingly. Medium.com, SEC, NLRB and Finnish Transport Workers' Union were the 4 instances where I kept Template:Cite web instead of Template:Cite newsso I formatted them accordingly along with publisher parameter. I also removed language=en-* which is a default. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• In terms of consistent source formatting:
  • Be consistent in omitting ISSNs (or including them all)
  • Source 7 doesn't have an archive yet.
  • Use pp. for source 15. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Archives added everywhere including external links, ISSN added for NYTimes, pluralized pages used. I have rephrases sentences where parenthesis was impeding, and kept them where they did not impede. I have expanded a larger section about US background of labor. The sources are high quality, but it's still a challenge to summarize them in a meaningful and succinct manner. Will get some rest myself and re-read them for clarity.

Support. With Mike's comments addressed, I'm happy to support. I would still remove at least one of the Tweets from Musk as it's given undue attention to this framing. Instead, incorporate it into the text? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Greetings @Gog the Mild, would a time extension be possible as this is my first FAC and I've only had the chance to receive and respond to generous feedback from Femke in the past 4 days. As you can see above, we have been collaborating extensively since. My hope is that some more editors will opine now that the ice has been broken. Kind regards ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If a further review or two are started, then I and my fellow coordinators will certainly consider extending the time scale, we have no wish to close any nomination down prematurely. But do note the "if". Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild this is moving along. There are currently 3 supports and an image pass. One thing I was wondering about is source review. I've seen several source reviews, where people mainly comment on the formatting of source review, rather than in-depth review of text verification/source integrity. In my opinion, Mike Christie generously and thoroughly reviewed the content of the sourcing, and there have been numerous discussions back and forth with all the reviewers either about presence/absence of certain sources. Do I need to explicitly solicit a source review, in addition other reviews? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mike, could you confirm or otherwise as to whether you consider your review to include a source review and/or a first-timer's source to text spot check and/or a plagiarism check? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I did ask about the use of some of the sourcing, but did not do a full review of all the sources as I would for a FAC source review, nor did I look at the formatting of the sources. I did a spotcheck at the GAN, but of course that doesn't count as the spotcheck for a first FAC. I have more confidence about the sources than I would have for an article I hadn't reviewed, but I think it would be best to have someone else do a normal source review and spotcheck. If nobody gets to it by the end of the week I can probably do it -- I'm travelling from Wednesday through Sunday but would probably have time next Monday. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Noting that I was the GA reviewer for this.

• The first paragraph of the "United States" section is repeated as the second paragraph of the lead. There's occasionally call for repeating sentences from the body exactly in the lead, but a whole paragraph is too much, particularly when only a handful of sentences separate the first occurrence from the second. I would compress and rephrase this (and there's no need for the citations in the lead).

  Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "Union busting is common": I think we should use more neutral language -- "union busting" brings to my mind some of the bloody and brutal violence from the US's history, and our own article on it says it's the term used by the workers, not the corporations. Perhaps "US corporations often oppose unions, sometimes using methods outlawed by the NLRA, but there are no criminal consequences if they are found to have done so." Assuming you can source something like that?

  Done. I switched to civil enforcement (ability to impose fines), since that is what existing and newly added EPI articles emphasis, which is unique compared to other federal agencies. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  The text used to say there are no criminal penalties, and now it says there are no civil penalties -- is that correct? And I think "in the US" is necessary after "is common". I know we're in a section about the US but as written the statement seems more general than that. And can we make it "Opposition to unions" rather than "Union oppositions", which could be read as unions opposing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  I initially read enforcement to be criminal in other source, since it is true NLRB has no criminal enforcement capability as well. Some federal agencies do, like the Environmental Protection Agency, but to lack even civil enforcement is quite unique. The EPI source laments how NLRB is one of the weakest federal agencies period. Even the adjacent Occupational Safety and Health Administration has ability to impose fines. So emphasizing even the weaker enforcement shows how little enforcement power NLRB has. Out of the scope here, but when a company does not comply with NLRB order, they need to seek enforcement from another court or agency with criminal enforcement capability, e.g US Marshals. See example here. I will change to opposition to unions in the United States. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• Per WP:PULLQUOTE, you should not repeat the tweet from Musk in a quote box.

  I retain the full tweet in a quote box, but removed it from the body and managed to condense as a result, including removing parenthesis. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "Tesla appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the original NLRB order, in 2023": I think that last comma needs to go -- if I understand correctly the appeal was in 2021 and the affirmed decision was in 2023.

  Your understanding is correct. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "UAW president Ray Curry responded that if Tesla was serious about supporting organizing, Tesla would acknowledge it broke the law": can we say what Curry is referring to?

  Added Ortiz and unlawful tweet, which is mentioned earlier so brevity should be ok. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "Later, in June 2022": "later" is redundant since the date is given and it's later than the previous date.

  Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "The new UAW president Shawn Fain attributes": needs "as of" or "in <date>" and past tense.

  Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "attributes past unionizing failures due to".

  Changed to attributed previous unionizing failures to ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "alleging that Tesla illegally surveilled and fired 6 workers in retaliation": this says the illegal surveillance was only of the six workers they fired; is that the case? And MOS:NUMERAL recommends words rather than numerals for numbers under ten.

  Changed to illegally surveilled workers and fired six in retaliation ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "employees who participated with Workers United": what does "participated" mean here?

  Changed to 18 employees involved with the Workers United campaign ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "and captive audience meetings where the employer discuss with employees their opinions on unions and persuade them against it": the last few words of this are just a definition for readers who don't know the term. I think this might be better as a footnote.

  I simply deleted everything past captive audience meetings. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• In the discussion of Grohmann Engineering, was Herzig saying that the salaries went down by 25‒30% under Tesla's management, or that they were already that low under Grohmann?

  Source does not specify. My personal hunch is a bit of Grohmann being below the pay-bands and also with renewed annual IG Metall bargaining raises (5-10% each year) Tesla Automation would have fell behind regardless. We cannot speculate why, but only present relevant info, that the pay disparity was there, whether as inherited or newly introduced. Would not change anything ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  I had a look at the source; I think it should be clearer to the reader that Herzig's statement is only three months after the acquisition since that makes it unlikely that the whole gap was caused by Tesla falling behind -- there hadn't been time to miss more than at most one collective bargaining raise. Can we add "In April" to that sentence? It would be good to find a way to introduce the "5-10% each year" that you mention. Can you sources that, for this time period? I assume that "matched employee salaries with the regional Metal Industry collective agreements" means that the salary increases were expected to continue year-to-year? If so, that would be a reason to quote the expected increases. And I've just noticed the two mentions of "Metal Industry"; should this be "IG Metall"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  I can clarify that this is in April and shortly after the acquisition so not an effect of Tesla directly so much. The analysis re IG Metall is way too much synthesis and complex. These sectoral agreements in the Electronics and Metal Industry differ state to state, with various exceptions/expansion/deviation clauses, and the salary increases are assuming a certain pay-bracket that each employee matches in. This is way too much original research to do, without having sufficient analysis of Grohmann employee salaries. My assumption would be they are referring to the Entgeltrahmentarifvertrag (Wage Framework Agreement) that is common in IG Metall. In case you are curious, this salary estimator in English can give you a feel, for select jobs in the tech sector. Re Metal industry, no it refers to the defined sector that both IG Metall and the employer association Gesammtmetal sign collective agreements for, as opposed to say textile workers which IG Metall also represents, or individual company agreements like Volkswagen which are too powerful to be part of the Metal Industry. I can try expand/clarify this, since it is confusing. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  I think it's fine as is if you just remove the initial capitals from "Metal and Electronics Industry"; the caps make it look like we're talking about a specific organization. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Employees expressed concern after former CEO Klaus Grohmann was ousted and business contracts with clients were cancelled": why is this relevant to this article? It's not clear what they were expressing concern about. Did these actions imply anti-union attitudes in some way?

  Removed, it's speculative and employee fear/dissatisfaction is common after any restructuring. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "seven non-union employees of Giga Berlin initiated the works council process": does this mean "started organizing a works council for the factory"?

  I welcome feedback on improving vernacular clarity. Here, initiate has special legal meaning and title. It is the precursor to forming an electoral board (works council), which is precursor to running actual election. Similar to Wikipedia elections in some ways. The German phrase is Initiator eines Betriebsrats and I've rephrased it as initiated the legal process to form a works council which is more wordy but maybe more clear.

• The Giga Berlin material feels a bit out of sequence. We don't find out Tesla is hiring 12,000 new employees until after we've mentioned "the first 1,800 hires". I realize you say "new" Gigafactory, but perhaps we could move the statement about the 12,000 hires to the first paragraph?

  Rephrased chronologically. I am much happier with An employee is eligible to run as a works council candidate if they have at least six-months tenure. Tesla eventually planned to hire 12,000 employees in total. In the first six months, Tesla hired 1,800 employees, mostly middle–management personnel. IG Metall expressed concern about the future works council being dominated by management, because only those with six-months tenure would be eligible to run. Also switch to MOS:NUMERAL ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  I think that's much improved, but now I'm curious as to why it's relevant that the next works council election might be in two years instead of four -- why does the reader care about this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  If management dominates the works council because they are the only eligible ones, then the possibility of an election happening sooner is relevant to workers having another chance. Given that the actual works council election did indeed happen 2 years later and is mentioned in lawsuit (for other reasons too of depriving candidates time) it can be removed here to reduce undue emphasis. So will move it to next section (see subsequent discussion). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• "employees voted their first works council": should be "elected", surely?

  Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "with fewer rest-time between shifts": "less", not "fewer", or else "fewer breaks"; "fewer" is only used for things that can be enumerated, not for things with different sizes or durations.

  Done and emphasized rephrase with less resting time ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "Strikes are incredibly rare": not encyclopedic tone; suggest just "very rare".

  Done, though I think could have been kept here given it's Sweden. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "At some point, unidentified individuals suspected to be strikebreakers arrived at Tesla service centers, prompting concerns about their impact on the labor dispute." This is a bit vague -- do we know what actually happened?

  Rephrased to Strikebreakers arrived at Tesla service centers, prompting concerns about their impact on the labor dispute. Their exact identity is unknown, but reused existing source to confirm strikebreakers and trimmed down language using WEASELWORDS of unknown etc.. The negative impact of strike breakers on strike is the key point. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "and some strikers were contacted by Tesla after Tesla found photos uploaded by the strikers' families, contributing to a climate of fear of reprisal": again, "contacted" is vague -- it could be anything from "We're watching you, strikers" to "Merry Christmas"; I assume it felt like surveillance to the strikers but we should be as specific as we can be.

  Photos was incorrect sourcing. Specifically had chilling effect on non-union members from participating. I can attribute quote as well. According to union leader Gabriel Kuhn, individual strikers were contacted by Tesla after company found social media posts by the strikers' families, which had a chilling effect on non-union members in particular.

• "only a third of the 130 Tesla mechanics in Sweden had joined the strike": I assume this refers to the strike mentioned in the previous sentence; if so can we make this "joined this strike" to be clear?

  Moved this higher to the top, and also expand that about half of them were union members. I refrain from calling it a single strike, since none of the sources do, but it's a continuous period and I tie them closer together in paragraph.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice to see you again Mike, and thank you for your in-depth reviews both times round! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Have struck most of the above, and left a couple of replies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Responded to all of them now! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

One minor point left. I will read through the article again, probably later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie Done! Guess I will need to write Metal and Electronics Industry article right? For consistency all wiki links ought to be blue or red (WP:HUMOR). Looking forward to your final review and appreciative of all the time you, Femke and Phlsph7 put in.~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Second read-through

• "There were three unsuccessful unionization efforts in Fremont Factory and Gigafactory New York": I was going to suggest that we give the year range for these three in the lead, but when I look down at the body I only see two that are in the past: the fall 2016 campaign at Fremont, and the 2018 drive at Giga NY. The third seems to be the the early 2023 campaign implying that that's in the past, but the subsection on Giga doesn't give the results. Presumably that's still underway? In which case I don't think it should be past tense; it seems from the body that there are active campaigns at both Fremont and Giga, and only two past campaigns that have concluded (with failure). Or have I missed one?

  😝 I suppose the two phrasings none were succesfull and were unsuccesfull are not equivalent tautologies. I rephrased text with None of the unionization efforts in Fremont Factory and Gigafactory New York were succesfull which can ambiguously incorporate campaigns regardless of whether they fizzled/failed or not.

Extended content

The ambiguity arises from differing understandings of whether there were 2 failed and 2 active campaigns versus 3 failed and 1 active campaigns, with the Workers United and UAW campaigns in 2023 leading to this confusion. Inside the body I use None of the unionization efforts since 2017 were succesfull. This keeps the language flexible, regardless of both the number of union campaigns and whether they are successful or not. I initially counted the Tesla Autopilot as unsuccessful for the following reasons: They launched in February 2023 and immediately afterwards, a number of workers involved in the campaign were fired. Several months later after little news, the NLRB affirmed that they were not fired unlawfully, meaning none of the workers will be reinstated. It doesn't mean the campaign can never revive. However, requiring an explicit source that says a union campaign is officially over almost never happens. The fact that the 2023 campaign is more recent compared to the 2017 Fremont or 2018 Giga NY still does not mean it is ongoing necessarily. Separately, I note that the website for Tesla Workers United is down, and their social media has not since May 2023, which means there is no easy way for workers to contact Workers United if they want to. Because of the sensitivity of this topic, we will likely not find out for a long time whether it is fizzled out or active underground.

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

OK -- I think the language you now have works, given that as you say it probably won't quickly become clear whether the most recent campaign can be said to have failed or ceased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Tesla poses a structural challenge to IG Metall in the automotive sector, because electric vehicle production requires 30 percent fewer workers than traditional combustion-engine vehicles. As a result, the electrification of vehicles and a non-unionized Tesla weakens IG Metall's bargaining power in the overall automotive sector in Germany due to overall shrinking union membership base and lower union density, resulting in reduced bargaining leverage." The source cites electric vehicle production in general, not just by Tesla, as reducing the "labor density", and I don't understand the point it makes. Surely IG Metall's influence depends on percentage of unionization, not the absolute number of members? Wouldn't IG Metall rather have 90% unionization of half-a-million workers generating the same revenue for their employees than 50% of a million workers? Wouldn't they get more leverage in the former case? That's the point of "Every plant that opens that's not unionized hurts [IG Metall's] power." I see the source says "It's especially crucial that IG Metall preserve all the sway it can at a time when carmakers are pivoting to EV production, which, Wheaton said, requires roughly 30% fewer workers than traditional auto manufacturing" so you're certainly following the source, but why does that matter?

  🤓 You are asking tough but good questions here. How to phrase this in a meaningful way in the article remains a challenge it seems. In short address by removing this misleading/reductive line , resulting in reduced bargaining leverage. I do not wish to reduce the challenges to any one factor when it is least seven different factors as shown above. Ultimately reduced membership/lower union density are two most important ones. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

Extended content

I could give you my opinion of your hypothetical question, of which situation is preferable, but I believe the situation is closer to something like Ottomotive and Tesla Germany each hypothetically produce same amount of cars/value capture for sake of simpler comparison. Suppose there is 70% union density among 100,000 workers at Ottomotive at traditional combustion-engine plant versus a lower 20% union density among 70,000 workers at Tesla Germany (with electrification requiring 30% fewer workers). (The union density at each company is unknown, but Tesla is almost certainly lower than say Volkswagen or BMW or Daimler where there are collective agreements, history of union activity etc..) This means 70,000 union members versus 14,000 union members. Suppose each individual worker at Ottomotive makes 100,000€ per year, and at Tesla Germany they make 80,000€ per year (based on sourcing about 20% lower salaries at Tesla) which translates into collective union member's wages of 7€ billion at Ottomotive and at Tesla 1.12€ billion. With union dues being 1% of each, that would be 70€ million and 11.2€ million respectively. No matter how you look at it in terms of absolute members or percentage, this is a major challenge for IG Metall. All of this would also means there is less money for organizing or credibly striking (dependent on size of strike fund and duration of strikes). Some other parameters for analysis would be the value capture created by workers at each of these locations which determines both how valuable or productive each worker is, and also how dangerous a strike would be for the company. In the case of Sweden, while the strike is disruptive, its value capture is relatively small compared to say if Fremont or a China factory struck. On the other hand, the Swedish unions have a massive strike fund that can last several decades given how few workers are involved here, and how rare strikes are in Sweden, so they're able and willing to do it. Clearly Germany is invested in unionizing, and whether this will pay off or not, the economic and ideological challenges are hopefully evident. We cannot provide original analysis here (like I did just now above), but some of these points are hinted or explicitly mentioned in the case of the Nordic countries, in terms of the interdependencies of the global supply chain, and also challenges in sustaining a disruptive strike. In summary there are many variables including: Absolute membership at IG Metall Union density of members in relation to non members Wages of workers (higher wages of union members means more union funds) Strike capacity (depends on strike fund of union, but also how disruptive a strike is) Elon's hard-bent ideological opposition is apparent, even if not every single source repeats it explicitly. Labour market share in a local area Market share of product both locally and globally 🤯 And so many other variables.

Thanks for the detailed thoughts; the union dues point is a very good one that I hadn't thought of. I think you're right that removing "resulting in reduced bargaining leverage" is a good idea -- it's still in the article at the moment but it sounds like you intended to remove it? I would also remove "As a result", since it's already clear to the reader that that sentence follows naturally from the previous one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie replaced with shorter sentence (removing also a second overall) of The electrification of vehicles and a non-unionized Tesla weakens IG Metall's bargaining power in the overall automotive sector in Germany due to shrinking union membership and lower union density. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• "crediting the threat of strikes and internal pressure to bolster the signed works agreements": is "bolster" the right word here? It means "reinforce", but I think what is meant is that the threats and pressure helped get the signature; once the agreements were signed no bolstering was needed. How about "crediting the threat of strikes and internal pressure as having helped influence Tesla to sign the works agreements"? Although I'm also not clear what "internal pressure" means beyond "threat of strikes"; looking at the source no other pressure seems to be mentioned.

  ✅ Agreed. I rephrased as IG Metall acknowledged that there were "good negotiation results" and credited the threat of strikes with pressuring Tesla to sign the works agreements. which also has same grammar tense throughout ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "The initial headcount of 1,800 employees surpassed more than two fold since the first works council election": assuming I understand the rule correctly, suggest rephrasing as "The initial headcount of 1,800 employees doubled quickly enough to trigger a rule requiring another works council election two years after the first election, rather than after the usual four years".

  ✅ Much clearer. I finalized with Giga Berlin's initial workforce of 1,800 employees doubled quickly enough to trigger a rule requiring another works council election two years after the first one, instead of the usual four years.~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "234 candidates from nine lists ran": per MOS:NUMNOTES we should avoid starting sentences with a figure.

  ✅ Combined sentences for On March 20, the election concluded with 234 candidates from nine lists.

• "Michaela Schmitz, the incumbent works council chair": needs an "as of" date. And I take it from this paragraph that Schmitz was the chair from the 2022 election onwards? If so I'd change the description of her from "incumbent" to something like "who had been elected as works council chair in 2022". Then I don't think we need "incumbent" at all because we mention her election on April 4 after that.

  ✅ I changed it to Schmitz, the current works council chair. It is most likely she was the chair from day one of the works council in 2022, but the sources don't verify that. The chair of the works council is customarily one person, but it can rotate either by vote, or when someone steps down, e.g Daniela Cavallo replacing Berthold Huber in middle of a term. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• We have "as of May 2024" for the Swedish strike; is it still ongoing? If the point is that May is when it became the longest in Sweden for 80 years, then I would suggest making it "In May 2024, the ongoing strike became the longest ..."

  ✅ Removed dated claim. Not exactly clear nor important when exactly it became the longest strike within 80 years. I have removed the "as of" claims, and replaced it with a more recent update, including a delegation that visited the strike in September. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "prompting concerns about their impact on the labor dispute": suggest "prompting concerns among the strikers about their impact on the labor dispute".

  ✅ Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• turningpointmag.org has an editorial board, and I don't see any reason to distrust its factual reporting, but I see it's used to support "which had a chilling effect on non-union members in particular". The source has "This created a climate of fear that few non-union members were willing to bear". Turning Point says in its about page that it supports radical change, so it's a leftist source. I don't see how they could know about the climate of fear among non-union members without having spoken to some of them, and I suspect this is speculation on their part, since there's nothing in the article about having spoken to individual workers, union or otherwise. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  I could imagine they'd speak with workers, given how historic and rare strikes are in Sweden. But I've rephrased with the following According to union leader Gabriel Kuhn, individual strikers were contacted by Tesla after the company found social media posts made by the strikers' families, which also hampered non-union participation in the strike. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

One point left above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I've struck the last point above. That takes care of everything with regard to the content. Looking through again, I see quite a few consecutive paragraphs starting with "In <date> ..." which isn't the most engaging prose style. I think this could be improved. I can take a crack at it, probably later today, if you like? Or if you want to, go ahead before I get there. I'm asking for a bit more variety in presentation of the sequence of events, to avoid WP:PROSELINE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie I will take a crack at it. Something like Modifiers "Later in X" as well as moving dates to end/middle of sentences to help with variation and removing dates when not absolutely essential altogether? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, generally that sounds right. Sometimes joining short paragraphs can help, since you can then say things like "the following year", or "eighteen months later". I think this is my last complaint and I feel confident of supporting once we've addressed this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie Done! I removed two mentions of date, since they were not crucial/could be reasonably re-summarized as "three years later" or in other cases, moved it to the back/middle of paragraph. Curious for your feedback. Also found gnarly American/British inconsistency with successful and succesfull. My current text editor shows both as correct. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. I've done a copyedit which you're free to revert if you want to; I did put back in one instance of "In <date>" to avoid starting a sentence with a figure. Looks good; thanks for your patience with my nitpicks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Misc. comments

No comment besides commending Shushugah for their excellent work in preparing this article for its inevitable FA status! QRep2020 (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Serial

Article looks in good overall shape. A few (good faith) suggestions.

This version of the article reviewed, no previous reviews read.

• Link "high injury rates" to Occupational injury, or perhaps Occupational safety and health.

  Done

• Likewise Labor dispute.

  Done

• Labor unions in the United States should probably be linked somewhere, possibly at "not represented by a union".

  Done

• Unionization.

  Done

• The sentence "In cases where there is..." could be clearer. I know unfair labor practice is linked, but a quick gloss (e.g., "In cases where there is illegal interference such as ULPs, the National Labor Relations Act—codifying worker rights—is unenforceable in civil law". (The "which" changes the meaning, disadvantageously).

  Replaced with Employer opposition to unions is common in the United States. In cases where there is illegal interference such as unfair labor practices, the National Labor Relations Act, which codifies worker rights—is not enforceable by civil law, such as penalties

• After Ortiz's firing was legally reversed, did Tesla obey? Did Ortiz or anyone comment on the NLRB decision?

  Existing source mentioned his statement, so included In a published response, Ortiz stated "I look forward to returning to work at Tesla and working with my co-workers to finish the job of forming a union"

  Solid attitude!

• "coziness with management" sounds a little... informal?

  I wrapped "coziness" in quotes to make it clear it's Fain's words.

• "In contrast in 2017, UAW spent $422,000" > "In contrast, in 2017 UAW had spent $422,000".

  Done

• Suggest the line about UAW winning 30% payrises should come before Fain's attribution remarks, as it keeps it chronologic, moving as it does on to the later organizing drive.

  Done

• Any ideas why the USW case was withdrawn in NY?

  No idea. I've checked carefully since a reviewer above asked same question

  Of course, no problem.

• Absorb the run on sentence: "Workers United is affiliated to Service Employees International Union, and had previously led the first successful unionization drive at Starbucks, also in Buffalo..." or something.

  Done. Also removed SEIU mention altogether, not crucial to understanding anything.

• Since Works Council is alsready a page, is Establishment (works council) a viable relink per WP:REDYES? What is the difference?

  I replaced red link with workplace. Any worker under a specific works council is part of its "works" or Betrieb. It's basically a German bargaining unit. It is usually is a workplace, but can be more complex/custom. It is unnecessarily complex, so no need for red link.

• "IG Metall pushed... IG Metall acknowledged..." remove duplication, perhaps with "IG Metall pushed for formal ratification, while acknowledging..."

  Done

• I'd also make the strike threat a new sentence: "It also credited..."

  Done

• "Nearly half of the employee" > "Nearly half the employees"

  Shouldn't the be removed instead of of? I adjusted elsewhere, Nearly half of the employee voted for the manager

  It's totally up to you. To my ears, they both sound fine, so it could be a Br/Eng thing.

• Curiosity, but would a Frankfurt (Oder) article say much more than the overarching Federal Labour Court does already?

  I kept the Template:ill but created redirects so that both the German article is clickable, but also an English link (Federal Labour Court) is available. Did same thing for the Berlin-Brandenburg State Labourt court too.

  The redirects are a good idea.

• What was the net effect of teh March 2024 election? On the one hand, a union seems to have won most seats, but on the other, an anti-unionist (and presumably mangement?) runs the Works Council? Suggest a sentence clarifying the result: at the moment a short sentence identifies IGM as having a majority, but then most of the remaining paragraph is about their opponent.

  We cannot stray into original research. How close are the non-union lists with each other? Unclear. We can only speculate with Schmitz being re-elected, that no other lists considered supporting IG Metall.

  Indeed!

• Link "banned from the company premises" to Lockout (industry).

  Done

• When Tesla contacted individual strikers, do we know what they said? Threats or bribes normally!

  Not done. Sources don't say, I checked.

• Did Tesla successfully recruit their Swedish lobbyist?

  No confirmation found. Can leave it or remove it, if undue.

  It's not doing any harm, and the information might become available in the future.

• There's an abundance of information in the Sweden section, but dates are sparse, and it covers almost a year. A date per paragraph should suffice to form a narrative.

  Done

• "as the strike continued more than 10 months": Well, it's now 11 months; suggest rephrasing this so as to avoid haveing to update it every month. Or maybe just removing it.

  It would be accurate regardless because it's about time between strike and past Ford visit, but I removed to avoid ambiguity.

If nothing else, the article succeeds in telling us everything we need to know about Mr Musk's concern for those who make him his profits. It's a good read, and maintains an absolute neutrality—an achievement in this kind of topic! Cheers, SerialNumber54129 15:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Serial Number 54129 for kind words and review! I have addressed the above feedback and also took liberty to add some other grammar rewrites. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem Shushugah, your changes are all well-thought out. I'm happy to support this article's promotion: it casts an important light on the underbelly of supposedly modern industrial relations. SerialNumber54129 11:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way—and not part of the review—you might consider a page move to e.g. Tesla and trades unions, as just 'unions' could refer to other kinds of union. In any case, leave it until after promotion. SerialNumber54129 15:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 labor unions, labour unions, trade unions are all possible expanded variants of unions. I think creating redirects in case people search for it is pragmatic solution, while keeping the article target as succinct as possible. And given all the other similar articles, I'd prefer to keep it consistent if possible and have a wider RfC on that (Microsoft and unions, SAP and unions etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I keep forgetting the AmEng usage; you're absolutely correct, of course, Tesla and labor unions would be best. SerialNumber54129 18:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass

The New York Times and The Guardian do not need an ISSN. What makes turningpointmag.org/ a high-quality reliable source? I kinda wonder if there are think tanks or research papers discussing the topic, rather than just news media and NLRB rulings. Spot-check wise, going by this version:

• 3 2016 in the source, not 2017.

  Jose Moran contacted UAW in fall of 2016, but the effort first went public in early 2017 and is when we can definitively say unionization efforts happened. Better to err on side of conservative interpretation of claim, than potentially introduce a made-up claim. Either way, I don't have a strong opinion.

• 10 OK
• 11 OK
• 14 Need a copy of this source.

  I can access it via Archive.is. If that doesn't work for you, I'll email you a PDF copy.

  It supports most of the content, but some of it relies on #13 which doesn't seem like a good source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Mercury News source was an opinion-editorial was used to state verify claim that NUMMI was a unionized plant. I have removed it and replaced it with an NPR news article instead, which is in any case a stronger source. Elsewhere, the same Mercury source claimed $420,000 was raised, while Fox Business article has more exact figure of $422,000 so it was removed without replacement.

• 15 Need a copy of this source.

  I can access it via Archive.is. If that doesn't work for you, I'll email you a PDF copy.

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• 18 OK
• 24 Not sure what this supports?

  I removed it. It is a redundant (primary) source that supports fact Tesla appealed in 2021 and was used earlier in sentence. The NYT source summarizes the 2021 appeal and upholding in 2023, as well as the written response by Ortiz. I removed the NLRB source and confirm that rest of claims are verified by New York Times source #25.

• 25 Need a copy of this source.

  I can access it via Archive.is. If that doesn't work for you, I'll email you a PDF copy.

  OK, except that the source says co-workers not coworkers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Good catch! I have returned it to exact quote, and for consistency, changed other instance of coworker to be co-worker as well.

• 27 That sum is only for the Tesla campaign and it's the sum UAW claims it spend on the campaign.

  Agreed. I wish there was a more direct Apples to Apples comparison to make. I do think the amounts of money here and broader expansion of UAW organizing are important, and contextualized with other quotes/claims with change UAW leadership. I will rephrase wording to be UAW subsequently launched organizing drives at 13 non-union auto manufacturers, including Tesla, with a combined organizing budget of US$40 million through 2026. In contrast, in 2017 UAW had spent $422,000 on Tesla alone

• 29 OK
• 31 Where does it speak about the first Starbucks unionization?

  Common Dreams source says Its initial Starbucks victory was in Buffalo roughly six miles from the Tesla factory (and I have separately confirmed this claim elsewhere, with other sourcing but did not see it as necessary to add here)

• 33 Need a copy of this source.

  I can access it via Archive.is. If that doesn't work for you, I'll email you a PDF copy.

  It doesn't say that the firings were of workers in the WU campaign. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  You are right. There's a much weaker claim in both sources. The charges are that they fired people for allegedly being involved in union activity (whatever that means) and more broadly Tesla discouraged unionization. Given that the retaliatory firing charges were not substantiated, I have tweaked accordingly. Also number of firings was expanded to 37.

• 38 Need a copy of this source.

  I can access it via Archive.is. If that doesn't work for you, I'll email you a PDF copy.

  Where does it speak of shrinking union membership? The text isn't clear if it's talking about an ongoing development or something that Tesla's presence would trigger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  The source does not directly say shrinking union membership, so I will remove it from this claim. It is implied from shrinking union density and declining workforce in automotive industry, but I don't need to explicitly spell that conclusion. I had a longer discussion with Mike Christie above (see hat-noted discussion if curious) about the different factors. I added additional line about union membership IG Metall membership (2005–2021) has declined by 9%, while the automotive labor market has grown, especially in companies without regional collective agreements supported by this academic source on declining union membership. I have read through some other sources, which are interesting but do not immediately address the points here or [60]. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• 40 I don't see "good negotiation results" in the source.

  The German phrase in quotes is „das sehr gute Verhandlungsergebnis“ which literally means "good negotiation results". The larger rough English translation of whole sentence is Although a genuine collective agreement remains the goal of IG Metall, the "good negotiation result" of the works council must be acknowledged.

  That phrase actually means "very good negotiation result". Quotes generally are literal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Vielen Dank! I will defer to your native-language expertise. I have modified the quote and surrounding grammar accordingly. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• 52 OK
• 53 OK
• 54 "The company also contacted the strikers when they found strikers’ family members posting about the strike on social media" in the source is a bit too similar to the article.

  Rephrased already (see comment below)

• 59 OK
• 60 Need a copy of this source.
• 65 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) for your source review! I am able to access the New York Times, Business Insider and USA Today sources you requested access directly via Archive.is, but if that does not work for you, I'd be happy to send you a PDF copy of all of the sources you requested and any other.

If and when there are any think tank or other institutional reports on Tesla unionization, I would be happy to attach them in the article. Regarding efforts mentioned in the article, but also possible efforts not mentioned, e.g on China or Netherlands. I have accessed a private, non-published report for example, claiming that Netherlands workers were covered by FNV Metaal (Dutch union) collective agreement, but I haven't found any published (offline nor online) reports confirming this, so it's not mentioned in the article since verification isn't possible. Of course, I may have missed valid sources; I have reached out to a number of academics, as well as union officials in relevant departments for any tips on reports, photos they're willing to donate etc.. and will continue to remain vigilant for future sources. The wide variety of languages these sources might exist in, is one hurdle.

Regarding turningpointmag.org, I do not think it is the highest quality source ever, but it has an editorial board and even if it did not, I would consider Gabriel Kuhn the author, to be a relevant WP:EXPERTSPS who provides unique perspective and specifics on union/non-union member participation within the IF Metall led strikes as a non-member himself. Still, I have weighted his claims in his voice, instead of wiki-voice. I have rephrased bit about families being contacted with According to union leader Gabriel Kuhn, Tesla contacted individual strikers after family members shared news of the strikes on social media, which discouraged non-union participation in the strike. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus I believe I have addressed all the open points. Let me know if you find any more issues. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I think #60 is the only thing still pending. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I am able to gift NYT links (do not open this unless you are @Jo-Jo Eumerus). I moved #60 NYT source to the sentence ahead, and switched the API source with existing Reuter source that actually verifies claim about electrician and other port workers. The edit change is visible here. Thank you for your time reviewing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Seen it, but it seems to say that the union only stopped unloading - and only when it's them who unloaded? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Shushugah and Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've added a couple of RS that both support the claim of "loading and unloading"; format them as necessary. I don't understand what and only when it's them who unloaded? actually means, so am unable to help with that. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 20:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If I understand the question correctly, it’s whether a complete stoppage of unloading happened or whether there are non-union/non-striking workers who still continue? In the case of Tesla workers, this statistic is importantly but for secondary strikes it becomes borderline trivia either way. The wider impact has not been successful, in part because trains/truck deliveries of Tesla vehicles. In some cases (my hunch) it’s more about symbolic solidarity. The distinction between loading/unloading is not clear to me. The port strikes are directed at Tesla vehicles headed to the Swedish market. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The source only mentioned unloading, that doesn't imply that loading was affected too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

(watching) @Jo-Jo Eumerus: (@FAC coordinators: ) What? There are three sources, two of which explicitly reference loading as well as unloading. (Footnotes numbered 60 & 61 in this version.) SerialNumber54129 11:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

60 doesn't mention loading and 61 is paywalled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: 60: Dockworkers are refusing to load or unload Teslas at this port and all others across the country; 61: For six weeks, dockworkers at Swedish ports have refused to load or unload the electric cars made by billionaire Elon Musk. Also see WP:OFFLINE and WP:PAYWALL. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 14:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

OFFLINE and PAYWALL are policies about non-online or you-have-to-pay-for-it sources being acceptable, they don't mandate that a spot-check should pass sources that the reviewer cannot see for themselves. In these cases, I ask for a quote, screenshot or emailed copy. But OK then, not sure why I didn't see it before. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Well, one's policy; is policy primate, I ask? I hope quotes suffice, because the articles are on the Wayback Machine, and IA has gopt itself completely caned over the last couple of weeks with DDOS attacks. They're still not back online from the latest. They reckon it's down to Brazillian script kiddies, but my money's on some COINTELPRO-style operation by the black bag departments of Hachette and Penguin. SerialNumber54129 15:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The policy does not say that folks have to accept offline sources uncritically (hence the If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf). But I found a way to verify this sentence, so I guess that the source review now passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• The article should be consistent in using either title case or sentence case in sources titles regardless of how they appear in the original. FrB.TG (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have been taken care of by SN so I'm promoting this. FrB.TG (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2024 [61].

---

You Only Live Twice (novel)

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The Bond novel You Only Live Twice was written when Fleming was at a low point in his life - court cases, health issues and ongoing unhappiness in his marriage - and he was running out of energy and enthusiasm for writing more stories. The novel itself is largely taken up with travelogue descriptions of Japan and its culture, and the main element within it – Bond v Blofeld – only takes up around 30 pages at the end. This has been through a re-write recently and all constructive comments from good faith editors are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Support from Alavense

• It was the last novel published Fleming in his lifetime
• Eon Productions James Bond film series - Can a way be found to avoid the sea of blue?

  It's only two together, and avoiding it would mean either a lot of pointless words or semantic twisting; both would leave it reading awkwardly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• In note b): On Her Majesty's Secret Service continues the story from On Her Majesty's Secret Service
• Bond exacts revenge on Blofeld in a duel, Blofeld armed with a sword and Bond with a wooden staff - Can "the former" and "the latter" be used to avoid repeating the names?
• Why does Books and Bookmen link to Hansom Books if there's an article for it?

  When I first wrote this article, there wasn't a page for B&B - thanks for spotting the page. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Fleming wrote to his friend, Richard Hughes, the Far Eastern correspondent of The Sunday Times - I feel the first comma is not needed.
• Fleming's biographer Matthew Parker, considers the novel - No need for that comma either.
• Charmian was the forename of Fleming's cousin who married his brother Richard - If there are more cousins, maybe "the Fleming's cousin who married his brother Richard"; if that was the only one, then "Fleming's cousin, who married his brother Richard", with the comma.

  I think this is probably okay as it is. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blofeld's name is taken from comes from Tom Blofeld
• So much of the book is taken up with the description that the literary analyst LeRoy L. Panek describes the work as a "semi-exotic travelogue" - Given that we have "description" already there, can a verb different to "describes" be used? Deems, maybe?
• Fleming's two companions on his trip, Richard Hughes and Tiger Saito became - A comma is missing.

  All done down to here, except where I've commented otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

More to follow. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

A few more things:

• The theme of Britain's declining position in the world is also dealt with in conversations between Bond and Tanaka, Tanaka voices Fleming's own concerns about the state of Britain in the 1950s and early 60s - I feel there's something missing after the comma. Maybe an "in which"?
• Duval Smith believed that "the background is excellent ... Mr. Fleming has caught the exact 'feel' of Japan", - It should end with a full stop rather than with a comma.
• Maggie Ross, in The Listener, was also a little dissatisfied - That reads a bit weirdly, given that the previous critic was not dissatisfied.
• I think it's a bit odd how Maurice Richardson's opinion is cut in half by another paragraph.

  There are a few people who have their reviews in more than one place - I've tried to deal with the reviews more or less by themes, rather than grouping by individual reviewer. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Alavense. All done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses. It was a nice read and I think the article meets the criteria. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:You_Only_Live_Twice-Ian_Fleming.jpg: source link is dead

• File:Samurai.png needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria; all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I commented at some length at the peer review, with, on the whole, minor quibbles. All my comments were thoroughly attended to, and after another read-through now I have no further comments, and am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria. Tim riley talk 14:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Support from PMC

Incoming! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• It feels strange to describe the book as the "concluding chapter of the "Blofeld Trilogy"" before we establish who Blofeld is, all the way at the end of the paragraph
• "critics were more muted in their reactions, generally delivering mixed reviews of the novel" feels somewhat redundant
• I really do treasure the names in Bond novels, they just don't make 'em like that anymore
• "You Only Live Twice giving Bond" - I think a comma between Twice and giving
• "Fleming based his novel in Japan..." the sentence has "visit" twice. The last clause is a little redundant - you could safely open with "after a three-day visit to Japan in 1959" or something similar
  • Alternately, you could leave the first two clauses alone and split the third into a new sentence where you also introduce the journalists earlier: "He was accompanied on his three-day trip by two journalists: Hughes and Torao "Tiger" Saito"".
• not sure you need both "accompanied and guided" either way
• "The Anglicist Christoph Lindner notes that Fleming, through Bond, parallels Blofeld with Caligula, Nero and Hitler" - how does he do this through Bond?
• "hat this exemplifies Blofeld's actions as being on "a titanic scale", as was much of the criminal action throughout the Bond series.[42] Lindner continues that the crimes perpetrated are not against individuals per se, but entire nations or continents." - this might flow better if it were together, since the "titanic scale" is the fact that his crimes are against entire nations. I might split the sentence after "Hitler" and then combine the titanic scale bit with this bit
• "and only meets threat when" - could be tightened to "except when...", which also loses the second use of "threat" in one sentence
• "western viewpoint" but "Western tropes"? capitalisation should be consistent. MOS says you're allowed to make minor typographical fixes to quotes, so you should be safe to de-cap it here
• "on episodes, that are" lose the comma here
• Did anyone comment on the fact that Howard asked for en "epicanthic eye" - presumably an Asian person's eye - and got a toad instead?

  Not in the sources, if they did. (The Man with the Golden Typewriter has much of his correspondence, but the change is not mentioned in there, for example). - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• It feels odd to mention the page count under "Style" but not under "Publication history"

  Slightly odd, but I think we need to show how much of the book is taken up with travelogue. I would have put the figure in the Publication history (as I have with the US printing), but it seems redundant to repeat the information. - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Done down to here with these edits. Happy to hear if you have any more. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Wait, is it 260 pages or 212? Iles and the infobox say 260, but Style section says 212

  I think that's the edition he was using at the time. The first edition was 256 pages (I've corrected the IB), and as it's different to the Style number, I've now added it to the Publication section too. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure the link to The Bookman (London) is correct - it says it ceased publication in 1943, but this book came out in the 60s

  Tweaked - it was Bookman (the journal of the Book Society), rather than The Bookman, the standalone magazine. - SchroCat (talk)

Actually, that's all I have for the rest of it. The other changes look solid to me. I'm a support, the remaining two comments are minor. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks PMC: I've made some tweaks for the last couple of points too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll try to review this over the next few days. Hog Farm _Talk 21:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• " but also managed to fit in a trip to a geisha house" - why "also", since this seems to have been part of his original plans?
• Blofeld's actions—like many of the criminal activities in the Bond series—were on "a titanic scale.[42] - missing a closing quotation mark
• There's the above statement and also " Lindner continues that the crimes perpetrated are not against individuals per se, but entire nations or continents", but this doesn't seem to square with Blofeld's primary nefarious activity in this novel being running an assisted suicide operation

  I've tweaked this slightly to remove one of the quotes, but it's the 'mass market' death I think he is getting at here, although it's not spelled out in a nice bite-size, ready-to-use quote that can be dropped in. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The first 112 pages—in a book of 212 pages—" - the book is elsewhere stated to be 256 pages long. I wonder if this would be better presented as a rough proportion, given the variation in book length with editions

  I've reworded to stress it was an edition held by that source. Does that work? (I think it's better than saying 'over half', but I'm happy to go with that if you prefer). - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Stopping for now; will resume with the Themes section. Hog Farm _Talk 23:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• "co-operative relationship between Bond and Leiter in the earlier books" - who is Leiter?
• "as at 2024, has never been out of print." - I'm unconvinceed that the cited source of Worldcat search results really supports this

I think that's all my comments. Hog Farm _Talk 01:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm. All dealt with in these edits. Happy to go over anything you disagree with, or anything new you have to comment on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Still not a huge fan of the handling of the "never been out of print", but I'm not going to quibble over something that minor very much. I'll go ahead and support. Hog Farm _Talk 23:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco 1492

Let's have a looksie.

• He based his book in Japan after a stay in 1959 as part of a trip around the world; his experience was published as Thrilling Cities. - Is Thrilling Cities important enough for the lede mention?

  I think so. It's only a brief reference and omitting it seems a bit wrong, somehow. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• critics were more muted in their reactions, with many critical - any chance of using a synonym for "critical", given critic is only a few words ahead of it?
• Instead, Tanaka asks Bond to kill Dr. Guntram Shatterhand, who operates a politically embarrassing "Garden of Death" of poisonous plants in a rebuilt ancient castle on the island of Kyushu; people visit the grounds to commit suicide - Feels a bit awkward. What about "Instead, Tanaka asks Bond to kill Dr. Guntram Shatterhand, who operates a politically embarrassing "Garden of Death" in a rebuilt ancient castle on the island of Kyushu; people visit the grounds, replete with poisonous plants, to commit suicide."
• the matter was complicated by the presence of the royal arms - Worth having a footnote as to why?
• It was written in January and February 1963 in Jamaica at Fleming's Goldeneye estate. - You detailed his time in Goldeneye two paragraphs previously. Is it worth moving the pertinent information up there?
• The original manuscript was 170 pages long and of all Fleming's works, it was the one that had least revisions prior to publication. - This feels like it might be more at home in paragraph immediately preceding.
• Who was Monique Panchaud de Bottens?

  It's covered in the first para of the Inspirations section - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hughes was also the model for "Old Craw" in John le Carré's The Honourable Schoolboy. - Would this be better in a footnote?
• They managed to undertake all the events, except the sumo match, but they managed to fit in a trip to a geisha house, where Fleming's attendant geisha, Masami, served as the inspiration for Trembling Leaf, a geisha in the novel. - This is a preponderance of subclauses. Perhaps split the sentence a bit?
• In writing from his western viewpoint for a western audience, Hatcher considers that the novel "is a comprehensive anthology of western tropes and stereotypes about Japan". - Perhaps "Being written from a western viewpoint ..."? "In writing" might be read as Hatcher taking the western viewpoint. Or maybe even "He considers the novel, having been written from a western viewpoint for a western audience, to be "comprehensive anthology of western tropes and stereotypes about Japan".
• Benson sees an increased use of imagery to reinforce this approach, to give an effect which is "horrific, dreamlike and surrealistic". - Does he provide any specific examples?

  Unfortunately not. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning that Irma Bunt escapes?

  She doesn't (or at least her death is left unsaid). Bond knocks her out in the castle, which subsequently explodes. She is a sort of 'Schrodinger's villain' at that point, as she could potentially both have escaped, or died - the latter being more likely in Fleming's world, but not in the mind of a continuation writer. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Aki hasn't been introduced at the time of her first mention; was she created for the film?

  Yes - now clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• seeking revenge on the person who killed his partner by strangling him and defeating the main villain of the story and destroying his "garden of death" on a private island between Russia and Japan - This feels a bit like a run-on sentence. Is it possible to rework the summary a bit? For example, this implies that the person who killed his partner and the main villain are different; that may be worth making more explicit.

Overall, your usual splendid work.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chris, great to see your name pop up on my watchlist again. I've covered all these (except where commented on) in this edit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk)

• Glad to see you're still producing great content! Might end up here myself, as I ease into things. Support – another excellent article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  Many thanks indeed - and it would be great to see you back here with something new! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• One minor nitpick: Rubin 2003 doesn't go to any reference. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  Oops - I knew there was something I still had to do! Now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from HAL

All of my comments surround superifical prose nitpicks, most of which you can take as non-crucial suggestions:

• Maybe change "ten books of the Bond series" to the more concise "ten Bond series books" or "ten Bond books"

  It’s slightly wordier, but I think the current version is the stronger one. - SchroCat (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The original manuscript was 170 pages long" - "long" is redundant
• Could the circuitous "undertook some further work on" be replaced with something like "further revised" or "further polished"?
• I am not sure if it can be improved but the sentence starting "Fleming's biographer Matthew Parker..." is very choppy, being separated by five commas.
• Maybe revise "Fleming took the elements... and added them to" to the more concise ""Fleming added the elements... to"
• If it's not too ungainly, could you specify when Thrilling Cities was written or published?
• For clarity, could you specify that Boodle's is a gentleman's club?
• Maybe wikilink Ginza
• Should "Sybilline" be lowercase?

  I don’t think so, as it relates to a connection to one of the Sibyls. - SchroCat (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  It looks like either way is correct. I'll yield. ~ HAL333 12:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of using present tense to describe the analysis of deceased critics/historians, as with "Umberto Eco considers the character...". It's especially inconsistent as you use the past tense for critics later on (e.g. In The Guardian, Francis Iles wrote).
• "The critic for The Spectator" — why not mention his/her name?

  Like the review in The Times, the name of the reviewer isn’t given. - SchroCat (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That's all. Nice work. ~ HAL333 19:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks HAL333, all done, except where commented on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Happy to support. ~ HAL333 12:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review

You know, I am pretty sure I've seen these sources in a different source review. Jon Gilbert can probably be linked in some of the sources. Is "Macintyre, Ben (2008). For Your Eyes Only" the title of the book or of a review or something? Because some of the stuff sourced to it is analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. I would probably specify what The Times we are talking about. Save for using ISBN and OCLC alternatively, it seems like the source formatting is consistent and the sources used reliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Jo-Jo. I'll go over the other articles and link Gilbert. Macintyre is a book (it's in the book section and has an ISBN). There is only one The Times of any note, so I think we're safe as is. The ISBNs are used when the book is published with one (post-1967(ish) publications); anything older that wasn't published with an ISBN has an OCLC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated to the sourcing (I spot-checked a few quotes too), I kinda wonder if the "critical reception" section is a bit too reliant on quotes. I've seen other "reception" sections in other FACses that led to the nominations failing for not meeting prose requirements and the nominator being pointed to Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections, but I don't normally review reception sections so I wouldn't know if this one has problems. Mike Christie, I recall you noting such problems on other FAC nominations; what say you? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I just read through the reception section and I see what you mean. SchroCat, would it be possible to extract some summarizing statements for each paragraph and use that to reduce the direct quotes a bit? From eyeballing it I think it's over fifty percent quotes at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I will trim some of them slightly, but as they all say different things, or focus on slightly different aspects in different ways, I don't want to remove too much or rely solely on one or two per para - that starts putting too much emphasis on my personal choice of what I think is a 'nice' quote, and not enough on what the reviewers themselves have said. - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There are a few that I think could be easily combined via some variation of "several reviewers said" -- the first three quotes in the last para are all positive, for example. But it sounds like we have different ideas of what a reception section should do -- I think it should function as a summary of the reception, so that the reader comes away with a general idea such as "most critics didn't like it and several thought it was one of the weakest Bond novels, with criticism focusing on the implausible threats and ... Those who did like it commented on ...". The reception section as you have it does give a reader the information, but the reader has to assemble the overall picture themselves. I think we provide the reader better service if we do that work and use quotes as illustration of those points. I also think that doing it that way pushes the paragraphs towards a more thematic organization, which I think is beneficial -- for example the third paragraph starts with positives but finishes with negatives again. That makes for a less coherent reading experience. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It is already (broadly) thematically organised and it already functions as a summary of the reception. I don't have an issue with having a paragraph which contains both positive and negative reactions and I disagree that it's not a coherent reading experience: this work divided critics and the reviews show that. I'm not going to group paragraphs by whether a review is positive or negative on a specific point, but cover all the views on a particular aspect. I've already said that I'm going to do some trimming, and will do so shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this is done. - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I had to think about this for a bit before responding. I've opposed in the past over reception sections that have this many quotes, but I'm not going to oppose here, for a couple of reasons. One is that other than the quotes, I think this is a well-written section; we disagree about the right way to structure these sections but I can't say your way is badly written. In addition, I trust your writing judgement; you're one of the nominators at FAC whose judgement of prose is good enough to give me pause when we disagree. (And I can't support because I haven't read the whole article.)

When I wrote WP:RECEPTION, I asked at FAC if it would be fair for me to oppose an article, citing it. What I think I'll do now is wait till this FAC is over (to avoid unfairly targetting it) and then post a note at WT:FAC asking others to comment on RECEPTION's recommendation to cut down quotes, and cite this article as a possible counter-example. I don't think a general principle is likely to emerge from such a discussion, but I'd like to hear other opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from MSincccc

• SchroCat I had previously commented at the article's peer review and I am fine with the present state of the article. Hence, support. MSincccc (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from Ian

Recusing coord duties to review, I'm glad I finally found a bit of time to check the article on my fave Bond novel. If it's in large part a travelogue, so be it, it was the first work that made me long to visit Japan, and I wasn't disappointed. Plus Bond's humour and cynicism make it easily his best characterisation IMO. Anyway, to the main stuff:

• Copyedited a bit but most of the heavy lifting has been done, let me know any concerns.
• I note the above comments re. the reception section but evidently some trimming has occurred because I didn't find it terribly overburdened with quotes, those remaining generally seem useful enough to justify their presence.

  To be fair, I did cut some of the quotes out to reduce it down to what there is there now, but I’m heartened to hear you say I’ve stopped at about the right point. - SchroCat (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• The only thing I thought you might alter is to merge the Times reviews, which occur at the top of the section and towards the end. I assume we're talking about the same review after all?

Well done as usual, looking forward to TMWTGG. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks Ian. several reviews are slit across different paragraphs (as well as The Times, The FT and The Observer are also split), but that’s because the section is divided roughly thematically, and different bits of the reviews are used for different themes. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 September 2024 [62].

---

Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 12:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh was a BBC radio comedy starring Kenneth Horne and Richard Murdoch; it was one of the shows that built up Horne's reputation prior to his great successes with Beyond Our Ken and Round the Horne. This has been through a re-write in 2022 and a recent brush-up and all constructive comments from good faith editors are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk - 12:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:Much-Binding-Sketch-1948-small.jpg: the unique historic images tag is generally only used where the image itself, rather than what is being depicted, is the subject of commentary.

• File:Much_binding_4-4_dotted.png: the tagging here doesn't make sense - it cannot be the uploader's own work. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems entirely pukka to me: DBaK has transcribed a tune into the Western musical stave. I had a go earlier, but DBak as a professional musician has polished my attempt into proper musical notation. Tim riley talk 14:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The rest of the points all addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

A transcription would at the least be a derivative work - it's copying a creative work that already existed, rather than creating something entirely novel. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions for tag invited. Tim riley talk 16:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

What do we know about the circumstances of composition? Would it have been considered a work for hire? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn’t have been considered as such by the writers or the BBC, as WFH is an American concept, not a British one. - SchroCat (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, I'm a bit stumped on what to do about this one: any suggestions? - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If nothing else, you'd be able to make a fair-use claim since it's such a short excerpt. But I don't have enough information to say much of use beyond that. Is anything more known about the history beyond what's in the article? It's mentioned Short wrote it down in score - was this published at some point? Do we know to what extent Torch "polished" Horne's original idea? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat, the Fair Use route seems to me the way to go. We don't know how much Torch altered Horne's original hummed tune (probably at most the note values, rather than the actual notes, I imagine, but I don't know) and I've never seen it in print (or I wouldn't have got it wrong when I had first go at transcribing it), and it isn't listed as published in WorldCat. Tim riley talk 09:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It was published at some point and still comes up for sale on the second hand market (see this by way of example, but I’ve never seen it either. It lists Torch on the front, so we know he was somehow involved, but no idea on the extent - it doesn’t come up on any of the sources I’ve read. As DBaK was the one who recreated it from ear, he will have to be the one to upload the local copy. - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're going that route, you could simply use a score and treat it like a quotation. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Nikkimaria. Lilypad is miles beyond my competence and I've sought help with it here. Tim riley talk 14:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

And help was rapidly given, by Cremastra, to whom grateful thanks. Tim riley talk 15:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Noting that Michael Bednarek has adjusted the Lilypad score; I have no idea which version is considered "better" in this context. Cremastra (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Nor I, but I'm indebted to Cremastra and Michael Bednarek who are both miles and miles ahead of me with this program. Bless you both! Tim riley talk 16:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from Wehwalt

Support. I had heard of the show because it's mentioned in one of Nevil Shute's books. Happy to review.

• Is there a reason not to spell out ITMA in the lede?
• "Princess Elizabeth (later Queen Elizabeth II) who was on her first public appearance since the birth of her first son—Prince Charles" I understand the need to say that she later received a promotion, but if one, why not the other?
• Images: I'm dubious that a candy bar is really relevant to this, especially since I suspect the bar is of considerably later vintage.

• It's really only tangentially relevant, but it's the only image in the body of the article, apart from the music. I wouldn't be too sorry if we had to remove it, but it's nicer to break up the text a little if possible. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• "The 1947 billing reads "Richard Murdoch in 'Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh', with Kenneth Horne, Sam Costa and Marilyn Williams"; by 1954 the billing was "Richard Murdoch, Kenneth Horne and Sam Costa in 'Much-Binding'".[25]" I guess the question is why no italicisation?

That's it. Most interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt; all done, bar the image - although I'm open to being pushed on that one too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel that strongly on the image having been in similar situations. Just thought I'd point it out. Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Support from Alavense

• oh, my word ! - Is that space present in the original?
• "Flight Officer Flannel"—played by Binnie Hale, Dorothy Carless or Doris Hare—according to availability, would sing, as would Costa - I'm a bit lost here. Isn't a comma missing before "according"?
• the characters had been demobilised and, and shook hands
• was on its way to overtaking ITMA as the most popular British radio comedy - How's popularity measured in this regard? Number of listeners or anything like that?

  Number of listeners - it's the only way (I think) that popularity of a radio show could be assessed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• greeted by Murdoch with, "Good morning - Is that comma needed?
• You have The cast comprised Murdoch, Horne, Costa, Denham and Bryan but also Denham's other roles included Luigi the Italian, Winston the dog, Gregory the sparrow, Group Captain Funnybone, Lieutenant-General Sir Harold Tansley-Parkinson, and the receptionist at Much-Binding. I think there ought to be consistency as to the use of the Oxford comma. There are other instances of this.
• There's nothing about why the show returned to the BBC.

  It's not discussed in sources. They had a one-year contract with Radio Lux, which they fulfilled, but there's nothing more about it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Costa played Prudence Gush, the radio critic and Denham added more roles to his repertoire - A comma is missing after "critic".
• He managed to travel to Australia - I think "Horne" better than "He", because otherwise it gets a bit confusing.
• − "Oh, jolly D!" − - I would go for the same dashes for consistency.
• His mother - Uppercase after a semicolon.
• Fifi de la Bon-Bon, known as Mademoiselle Fifi was - A comma is missing.
• played by the singer Dorothy Carless. was one

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, Alavense: all sorted, except where commented above, where the sources just don't cover the ground enough. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits and the responses. I'm happy with that and I think the article (a nice read) meets the criteria, so I'll support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

750h

lead

• BBC Radio and in 1950–51 by does the hyphen mean somewhere between the two dates?

  No, it was the dates of the series, so it covered both years. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• radio comedy, and was succeeded remove the comma

background

• broadcast the show Merry-go-Round,[a] originally a musical show to which remove "the show", "a musical show" does the job

broadcasts

• second for orchestra with singer. "singer" needs an article ("a" or "the") before it

  This is common use when dealing with music ("a tune for piano and trumpet", etc) - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Barker or Robb Wilton, and moving remove the comma
• By the mid-1950s, tastes in comedy had changed for consistency with the rest of the article i'd remove the comma

characters

• played their usual characters, under their remove the comma
• under their own real names remove "own"
• laugh (spelled in the script ==> "laugh (spelt in the script" is more common in BrEng

  I think both are now common in BrEng - they have both been accepted for years, and it seems as if the longer version overtook use in BrEng use at some point in the 70s. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• many a coquettish "Ooh la-la!". maybe a hyphen between "ooh" and "la"

music

No comments here.

legacy

• the corporation were concerned ==> "the corporation was concerned". "the corporation" would be referring BBC itself, not the people who run it

  Both are accepted - BrEng commonly treats collective nouns as plural - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

No other problems. feel free to decline any suggestions with justification. well done, and thank you for the article! 750h+ 09:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, 750h+. All done, except where commented on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Seen. Happy to support. 750h+ 01:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Source formatting seems consistent, but sometimes BBC Genome is mentioned and sometimes the reference doesn't say so. I wonder, are Barry Johnston (writer) and Norman Hackforth reliable as biographers? Is "Forgotten Heroes of Comedy: An Encyclopedia of the Comedy Underdog" a prominent source? Everything else seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've tweaked one of the Genome references to Radio Times, leaving only one mention of Genome - this is a search across multiple editions of the RT, so. can't be narrowed down to a single edition. I think Hackforth and Johnston are both acceptable as sources (they've been accepted on several FAs before), unless you know of any reason why they wouldn't be? I wouldn't say Forgotten Heroes of Comedy is a prominent source - it's used only once in the article, and the author, Robert Ross, is recognised as a historian of film and television comedy. - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

They have fine credentials in general, but I wonder about biographies specifically. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think they're fine. As I said, both have been used in FAs before without any problems. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco 1492

• Do any of the other shows mentioned in Background warrant a redlink? Were they prominent enough to potentially get articles?

  I'm not sure they are (although only based on a very quick search). Most of them disappeared with the end of the war, and it was only Much Binding that had any legs to it. - SchroCat (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• other shows, including the Overseas Recorded Broadcasting Service (ORBS) - was ORBS a show? Or is this missing "those of" or something similar?
• Is it worth including the "guests" section in the characters section? As it is only a few sentences, it seems a bit short.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  I've moved it up as a sub-section. Tim, what think you? - SchroCat (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Fine with me. Tim riley talk 08:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Cheers Chris; all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Excellent work as always! Glad to support.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Chris, and how good to see you back here! Tim riley talk 14:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 30 September 2024 [63].

---

Mario Party: The Top 100

Nominator(s): ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Mario Party: The Top 100 is a 2017 party video game developed by NDcube and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 3DS; it is the fifth handheld game in the Mario Party series, as well as the third and final Mario Party game for the Nintendo 3DS family of systems. I previously successfully nominated this article for GA status just over a week ago for initial suggestions. I tried to model this article after FA Mario Party DS, and although it isn't as long as that for MPDS, I feel that it is well-written and covers all necessary information about the subject. As always, I am willing to hear any feedback and implement it as needed. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Mario_Party_The_Top_100.png needs a better FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I have added alt text for the infobox image and revised the other file's justification to the best of my ability. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Vacant0

As the GA reviewer, I believe that some improvement can be made to fit the FA criteria. I will leave comments during this week and perform spotchecks. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• The genre in the infobox is already sourced in the prose, and no one disputes this, so I'd recommend removing the reference from the infobox. The same goes for release dates.
• "Mario Party: The Top 100 is a party video game that mainly serves as a compilation of 100 minigames that were introduced in earlier games in the Mario Party series, namely the home console entries" → "Mario Party: The Top 100 is a party video game that is a compilation of 100 minigames that were introduced in the first ten home console Mario Party games." The reference mentions that the minigames are from the first ten numbered games.
• The first paragraph already begins with "Mario Party: The Top 100", so you could change the second paragraph to begin with "The game".
• Link "game modes" to game modes.
• Ref 9 also mentions that Toad and Toadette guide the player in minigames. This is a primary reference, so try finding a non-primary one. Also not everything in the sentence is backed up by the reference (there are no mentions of rules and the "most of which" part). I'd recommend changing the whole sentence to just "The game offers several game modes, in most of which Toad or Toadette guide the player." if you find a better source. In the other case, cut the sentence to just "The game also features game modes, in which Toad or Toadette guide the player".
• "In Minigame Match" → "In the Minigame Match game mode"
• Ref 1 (Nintendo World Report) calls Minigame Match the game's "biggest disappointment". You could possibly add this to the reception.
• "hold the most coins and Stars" → "collect the most coins and Stars".
• Specify the last sentence in the second paragraph occurs within the Minigame Match game mode.
• I don't see "four worlds" being mentioned in Ref 5 (Nintendo Life).
• "Playing through Minigame Island is required to unlock 45 of the game's 100 minigames" Fails verification.
• "Championship Battles involves playing three or five minigames from a selected pack, with the player(s) winning the most minigames being declared the winner(s)" Fails verification, though the game mode itself is mentioned in the ref.
• "Decathlon consists of playing five or ten minigames to earn the most points" Only mentions "number of minigames", not "five or "ten". Please look through other sources and see whether they back up any of these three bullet points.
• Are four sources really needed for the multiplayer sentence, Ref 1 (Nintendo World Report) and Ref 6 (Destructoid) back this up. Cut the other three refs.
• What can the user do with the Amiibo compatibility?
• I've spotchecked the gameplay section. I've listed parts that I could not verify above, but besides that, the majority of the section can be verified.
• Again, why have 5 references for a simple announcement? Are there any other details from the Nintendo Direct, besides a simple announcement?
• Were there any reactions on the game's trailer?
• Primary Ref 4 is not needed, the release date is already backed up by Ref 1.
• The development and release section is fully verifiable. It's up to you to rename the section to just "Release" because the section, for now, only mentions the announcement, trailer, and release dates. Very little info on the actual game development. If its possible, expand this section pls.
• Do we need two people agreeing that the game has elements of nostalgia? The Polygon ref itself does not mention the word directly, Destructoid does.
• Jordan Biordi of Computer Games Magazine is already described in the third paragraph. Change his mention in the fifth paragraph to just Biordi.

Vacant0, I have looked at all of your suggestions, and I believe that I was able to implement all of them. Although I was unable to find a significant amount of information pertaining to the game's development, I was able to find several additional references, including one that verifies the information about the game modes that was previously unsupported by the Hardcore Gamer citation. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll take another look at the article in a few days. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• There are still FIVE references for a simple sentence: "The game was first announced in September 2017 during a Nintendo Direct". One is enough for the announcement. I do not see any other issues with the article. All of my comments have been addressed (besides the one I just mentioned), so I'll support. Issues with verifiability have also been addressed. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

As always, thank you for your feedback and support. I have also condensed the five citations to one. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The article has definitely been improved. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

LunaEclipse

Source review coming in a few days. lunaeclipse ⚧ ^(talk) 11:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• As Vacant0 said in his review, there are some inconsistencies with this article's sourcing and verifiability. Ref formatting is ok though. Apologies, but I'll have to oppose for now. lunaeclipse ⚧ ^(talk) 00:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, LunaEclipse. I have taken all of Vacant0's suggestions into account, including finding a source that verifies the previously unsupported information about the game modes. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ ^{【=◈︿◈=】} 12:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Skyshifter

• The first thing I've noticed is that many of the paragraphs in the lead, "Gameplay" and "Development" are very short and could be merged.
• "in November 2017, and was released in PAL regions and in Japan in December 2017." — why not include the exact date, or the Japanese release date?
• "However," — why "However"?
• In "Gameplay" it is not mentioned that the game is a compilation. The first sentence of that section should also mention that it is a party game.
• "visually and audibly updated" is strange, could be more direct with "received upgraded graphics and audio"?
• Include "(AI)" after "artificial intelligence", as you use the acronym AI later in the article
• "most of which are hosted by..." — what does hosting mean?
• "NPC" should be explained.
• Link "multiplayer"
• "3DS download play" should be a proper noun? ("3DS Download Play")
• "supports Amiibo compatibility" is redundant; should be either "has Amiibo compatibility" or "supports Amiibo".
• "Development" should be renamed to "Development and release"
• "in which it was revealed" through the end of the paragraph just repeats what already was in Gameplay, so it should be removed, except that "An overview trailer [was] released the following month".
• "Less than two months after it was announced" — I don't think this is relevant
• "The game succeeded Mario Party: Star Rush..." seems unnecessary
• "Like all Mario Party games from Mario Party 9 onwards" seems unnecessary
• "Mario Party: The Top 100 was developed by NDcube and published by Nintendo" should be the first sentence of that section, chronologically
• "(as well as five game boards)" seems unnecessary
• "though Matt West of Nintendo World Report suggested that the control schemes..." this is not related to "graphical and audio enhancements" and shouldn't be placed here
• "Even" doesn't seem like a neutral word to use here
• "As with most entries in the Mario Party series" — is this confirmed by the sources, or relevant?
• You went with two quotes for the last paragraph of "Critical response"; why give so much emphasis to these? Is it possible to merge them in other paragraphs or paraphrase?
• The Common Sense Media review should be used if it's in the article.

Skyshiftertalk 18:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions for improving the article. I have implemented most of them and will do my best to explain the rest here:

• The game was released in PAL regions and in Japan in the same month (December), but not on the same date (December 22 and 28, respectively). "November 2017" is used for the time of release in North America instead of "November 10, 2017" for consistency.
• "However" is intended to note the difference between the game being a minigame compilation and most games in the series being oriented on board game play. If it would suffice, "Mario Party: The Top 100 is primarily a compilation of 100 minigames from across the series, specifically ones from the home console installments." could be changed to "Mario Party: The Top 100 deviates from the classic Mario Party format in that it primarily serves as a compilation of 100 minigames from across the series, specifically ones from the home console installments." or something to that effect.
• Two months is a very short period of time between a Mario game's announcement and its release, and to my knowledge, it is one of the shortest spans for a game in the entire franchise, so I feel that this is worth including.
• Computer Games Magazine's Jordan Biordi does allude to frustration with games throughout the series relying on luck, stating: "It is pointlessly roundabout and in keeping with the series' progress, more reliant on dumb luck than anything you actually did." Additionally, Polygon's Allegra Frank writes: "Mario Party gets a bad rap. Yes, Nintendo's virtual board game can be aggravating — much of it is left up to chance, after all, and it's hard not to feel personally slighted by the random algorithm."

The two quotes at the end of the "Critical response" section are intended to summarize both the game and its impact on the future of the Mario Party series as a whole.

★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If I may ask, Skyshifter, are there any other ways in which I could further improve the article, or any suggestions you still want to see implemented? ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Skyshifter, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I forgot to state my Support. Skyshiftertalk 11:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from Bowser

Concise and to the point, which seems appropriate for a less prominent installment of a long-running series. There are a few instances where I'd like for the text to be just a lil' bit longer to get the relevant points across.

• Second paragraph of the lead: as a reader I experience a sort of reversal from getting told that it's about the compilation of a 100 minigames, and only then being told that it uses traditional board gameplay. Perhaps it's not even about the reversal but rather that the ensemble of other game modes is not mentioned? With this short of an article lead length is probably a balancing act, but at 172 words I think a few more would be fine.
• The player earns one Star for every ten coins collected - but how are coins collected/awarded?
• or a player pops a Minigame Balloon - where/how does the player encounter these?

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have rewritten the second paragraph of the lead slightly to focus more on the game modes, mentioning that one of them features traditional gameplay from the series. I also specified that coins are earned from playing minigames in the "Gameplay" section. Minigame Balloons are simply encountered on the game board players navigate in Minigame Match, though none of the sources I've come across appear to specify this, unfortunately. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Page 6 of the game's manual does state that "Landing on different spaces will trigger different minigames or events", so the sentence could be revised to communicate this. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose, I'll leave that up to you. No more concerns from me. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 October 2024 [64].

---

The Motherland Calls

Nominator(s): joeyquism (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The Motherland Calls is, without a doubt, the quintessential post-Soviet Russian statue. Dedicated to the Soviet soldiers that died in the Battle of Stalingrad, it depicts Mother Russia holding a sword aloft, calling out to the Soviet people to take up arms and fight against the enemy, and stands at a mammoth height of 85 meters (279 ft). Despite its cultural importance, it has faced its fair share of disrepair and poor maintenance in the many years following its dedication, and has been the subject of a number of incidents, some of which are, in my opinion, a bit funny (albeit unfortunate) to read about.

Took this to GA on July 30 - courtesy pings to Jaguarnik and Vacant0, who both assisted in the review. This is also my first non-music FAC!

Comments from Mike Christie

• "although post-renovation critiques and new structural issues have since persisted": "persisted" doesn't seem like the right word, since it implies the issues previously existed, but we say the structural issues are new and the critiques date from after the renovation.
  • Changed to "arisen".
• "was historicised as the turning point in the war": I don't know what "historicised" is intended to convey here.
  • Contextualized more in the given sentence. I more so meant to say that Soviet history textbooks were referring to the battle as the turning point in the war.
• "the first museum honoring the Great Patriotic War had been established as early as March 1943": I think "was established" would work better; we haven't got a later time frame from which we're looking back at this point in the paragraph.
  • Changed to "was established"
• "Vuchetich started petitioning for the commission to design the monument in the early 1950s": as written this says he wanted the commission to do the design. I suspect we want something like "Vuchetich started petitioning the commission for permission [or "authorization"] to design the monument in the early 1950s", depending on what the source will support.
  • The source states that "Vuchetich began actively lobbying to secure what was arguably the USSR's most prized commission: the appointment to design a monument commemorating the Battle of Stalingrad", so the way it's written seems correct to me. If I'm missing something, please let me know and I'll fix it.

    The problem is that it's easy to misread the current wording as saying that Vuchetich was petitioning the commission with a request "for the commission to design the monument", when the intended meaning is that he's petitioning the commision to appoint him to design it. Can we do "Vuchetich started petitioning the commission to appoint him design the monument in the early 1950s"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

    • Ah, I see what's going on here - my usage of the word "commission" is as in "order to do something" rather than "group of people". I get the confusion here; I've changed it to "petitioning high-ranking Soviet officials for permission" so as to disambiguate and condense the sentence. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "took heavy inspiration from": "heavy" doesn't seem like the right word here. Perhaps "much of their inspiration"?
  • Yeah, that sounds better. Done.
• Some of the details in the first paragraph of "Design and style" seem to belong in Mamayev Kurgan#Memorial Complex rather than here, as they're not about this statue. Obviously some summary is necessary, but there's quite a bit of detail here that doesn't seem necessary for this article.
  • I agree with you there, although I will say that I did try my best at cutting down the details when I was initially writing the article. If you have any suggestions as to what I should cut, please let me know - either way, I'll get to condensing this tonight.

    This is an example of what I was thinking, thought to be honest I think more could be cut. I self-reverted so take from that anything you want -- also I didn't check that I was preserving sourcing in the appropriate places so if you do use that edit please check. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

    • I was very fond of your revision, so I've mostly taken after that in my revision to this paragraph. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Vuchetich refused this proposition": not very natural phrasing; and did Vuchetich have the authority to refuse unilaterally? Or would it be more accurate to say he disagreed, or persuaded them otherwise?
  • I think it would be more accurate to say "objected to the proposition", as that would be more true to the source material. The degree of his authority is never explicitly mentioned in the Palmer source, but there are mentions of him being able to boss around the Volgograd oblast government executives and even some of the Politburo members, so I think it's safe to assume (in general, not for the purposes of this article) that Vuchetich was the big man in charge of the project.
• "the already-excessive budget": "excessive" is a value judgement we shouldn't make in Wikipedia's voice. Do you mean that the budget was large and it grew larger, or specifically that the budget had already been overrun and that this increased the overrun?
  • This is what the source says:

The project's expenses were spiraling out of control. In early October 1960 a revised estimate ordered by the Council of Ministers set the price of the memorial complex at 48.2 million rubles, nearly 9 million rubles (22 percent) over its initial budget... The matter did not end here. When a subsequent audit in mid-1961 produced an even higher figure, the Council of Ministers was forced to make a dramatic decision. All of the complex's sculptural elements would now be constructed entirely of concrete... the revised estimates to complete the project stood at 53.9 million rubles, a 30-percent increase over the amount originally budgeted in 1958. Resigned to this reality, on September 6, 1961, the Council of Ministers approved the new amount. Ironically, however, even as some state officials moved to curtail rapidly rising expenses a problematic and costly new requirement was imposed on the design. The height of the main monument was nearly doubled from its original 100 feet to just over 170 feet (30 meters to 52 meters).

From what I can discern, the budget had already been overrun multiple times, and the height increase had only served to exacerbate those costs. I'll come up with a better way to word/contextualize this if needed.

How about "a decision that further increased the project's cost, which had already substantially overrun its budget"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

That works. Done. joeyquism (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Might be worth mentioning the height of the Statue of Liberty since it's relevant at that point.
  • Done. I feel that the way I've worded it ("the Statue of Liberty, which stands at 46 metres (151 ft) tall") is a bit awkward; let me know your thoughts on this.

    How about "ordered it to be taller than the 46 m (151 ft) tall Statue of Liberty"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

    • Done. Apologies for taking forever to get back to you Mike Christie; I'm starting work soon and I've been quite stressed out recently. I'll get to the rest of your comments promptly. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "After rejections from the Sculptural Group of the Artistic Fund and the Volgogradgidrostroi": I don't understand this -- these two groups were approached to lead the construction, and they said no? And what is the Volgogradgidrostroi?
  • Your assumption here is mostly correct - the Sculptural Group was initially tasked with construction and later asked to be relieved of its construction duty and Volgogradgidrostroi was asked to take over. The latter then "expressed reservation" about the project, after which Nikitin was appointed to head construction. Volgogradgidrostroi is a construction firm. I've since revised to "After the Sculptural Group of the Artistic Fund requested to be relieved of their construction duties and the construction firm Volgogradgidrostroi expressed reservations about taking over the project, structural engineer Nikolai Nikitin was appointed to lead the construction efforts." A bit wordy, but a lot more accurate. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Throughout 1963, Nikitin's design team meticulously planned the construction process for the monument, finalizing their designs by August": if they were done by August the planning did not last throughout 1963. And I don't think you can say "meticulously planned" over a period of time; it's a statement about a completed process.
  • Revised to "In 1963, Nikitin's design team began planning..." Let me know if this still leaves a bad taste, and I can get to wording it differently. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of the "Construction" subsection seems to repeat itself a little -- we get "the need to ensure the foundation's ... soil stability", then "the hill could only support the structure if the moisture of its soil remained low" and then "was essential to prevent structural instability", within three sentences. The drainage is mentioned more than once too.
  • If I recall correctly, "the hill could only support the structure if the moisture of its soil remained low" was something that was not there prior to the GA review. That being said, I like its placement there, as not everyone would expect to know why mellite clays are something of concern. I'll remove "soil" before stability, and I've removed "Addressing these concerns was essential to prevent structural instability and ensure proper drainage on the hill", as the first part is redundant and the drainage issues are addressed later. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "The statue ... would utilize" and "The statue's structure would feature": why "would" rather than just "used" and "featured"? If this refers to plans that did not come to pass, I'd go with something like "was intended to". There are several other uses of "would" in the paragraph; I think they would all be better structured as statements of intention -- for example "A radio transmitter was installed in the statue's head in order to transmit data on ...".
  • Most instances of "would [verb]" have been fixed, with the exception of the last instance. The usage of "would" is just a stylistic fault of mine that I need to fix. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "that was previously developed": suggest "that had been developed".
  • Sounds a lot better. Done. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "between 25–60 centimetres (9.8–23.6 in)": see MOS:RANGE: "Do not mix en dashes with between or from".
  • Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "yet challenges persisted": I think this can be cut -- the following paragraph takes us back to May 1966, to describe the issues with the sword, so the reader doesn't know what this refers to.
  • Removed. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "and the Pantheon, which had replaced the Panorama due to issues with its own foundation": as written "its own foundation" refers to the Pantheon's foundation, but I think you mean the Panorama's foundation.
  • Revised to "the latter's foundation", which I'm still a bit iffy on. Apologies for creating all these possibilities for back-and-forth; I haven't been in my element as of late. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Why do we get the details of the problems with the Pantheon's glass? This seems like it belongs with in Mamayev Kurgan#Memorial Complex, though since it was a risk to the opening date I can see some mention is needed.
  • Removed "resulting in a checkerboard-like appearance of alternating light and dark sections. Under immense pressure to complete the project, workers had not pooled the tiles to ensure uniformity but had applied them as they arrived", as this seems to be more extraneous to me. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "describing its purpose as a tribute to the heroism of Stalingrad's defenders": I think this is imprecise. The statue's purpose is to act as a tribute; the tribute is the statue, not the statue's purpose.
  • I'll get back to this. Not sure how to word it right now, but I'll come up with something later. No need for assistance; I feel like I'd be asking too much of you if I requested it. Thank you for your prior help on wording! joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Revised to "describing the statue as a tribute to the heroism of Stalingrad's defenders". I'll admit, I'm still a bit confused by what you mean here, so if this isn't what you were looking for please let me know! joeyquism (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

      That looks fine. I wasn't very clear, I admit; what I meant to say was that there's a difference between the statue and the statue's purpose. The original wording was that the purpose was a tribute, but purposes aren't things, they're intentions. A purpose can't be a tribute; the statue can be a tribute, though. The statue's purpose is to be a tribute; the statue is a tribute. Anyway, it's fixed now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• "were to be treated with a waterproofing agent once a year": this describes an intention, but if this happened we should say so.
  • The source says that it did happen (though personally I don't believe that it did - that may have subconsciously influenced my decision to write it the way that it was). Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "its height had deviated an additional 60 millimetres (2.4 in) from its original axis": a height doesn't have an axis. Do you mean that the statue was tilting, enough so that the top of the statue presumably the tip of the sword) had moved 60 mm to one side?
  • The statue was tilting. I've changed it to "it had tilted an additional 60 millimetres (2.4 in) from its original vertical axis since its initial assessment in 1966". joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "was subsiding as a result of rising water levels": I don't know if the sources will let you say more, but this seems odd -- there can't be much hydrology at the top of a hill.
  • I was initially confused by this too, though unfortunately the source doesn't elaborate on it much at all. If I can find a way around this, I'll revise, though I feel like I have to leave it as it so as to stay true to the source. joeyquism (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Estimated costs to repair the structural issues required over 7 million USD": the estimated costs didn't require this much money; they were this much money; or say that the repairs required this much.
  • Changed "required" to "were". joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "previous attempts to allocate government funds for restoration had been undermined by misappropriation": does the source give any time period for this? It seems out of chronological order where it is now, because of the "had been".
  • Unfortunately, there isn't any given time period - the source states that funds that were allocated for repairs had been stolen "in the past", with no further elaboration on when that was. joeyquism (talk)
• I think "piezometric network" needs a few words of inline explanation; a typical reader of an article about a statue won't know what this is about.
  • This confused me too, as there seems to be very little on what this actually means. I'll do a bit more research and get back to this. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Okay, after a bit of admittedly original research, I've come to find that "piezometric network" should be in reference to a system for monitoring groundwater pressure. The used source doesn't explicitly state this other than a mention of monitoring the state of the groundwater; however, "piezometric" (or "piezometer", rather) seems to be defined by Merriam-Webster as "an instrument for measuring pressure or compressibility, especially one for measuring the change of pressure of a material subjected to hydrostatic pressure" - could "Initial steps included replacing the piezometric network for measuring groundwater pressure and allowing hydrogeological monitoring" be apt here? joeyquism (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

      I share your reluctance to add anything not in the source. The existing wording is just "piezometric network to allow for hydrogeological monitoring"; I'll assume that's supported by the source. Then maybe just inserting "(a system for measuring pressure)" after "piezometric network" would be enough? Sourced to the MW def you found? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

      I'm personally not a fan of citing the dictionary, but I feel as if enabling others' understanding of the concept of a piezometric network trumps that sense of distaste. I've included both the parenthetical description and the MW source. joeyquism (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• "after the end of the 2018 FIFA World Cup": suggest "which was held in Russia" to make it clear to the reader why this is relevant.
  • Done. joeyquism (talk)
• Is the article in British English or American English? I see "mythologised" and "historicised", but several instances of "meter" rather than "metre".
  • It's supposed to be in British English; I am not British, so this is an oversight. Only chose British English because I didn't think American English would have been appropriate given the current tension between the US and Russia - a bit of a silly decision on my part. Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "the pedestal's slabs permanently excluded": I don't understand this.
  • The scaffolding was removed along with the pedestal's slabs. Revised to "In November, the scaffolding and the pedestal's slabs were removed". joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "his comments received backlash": I don't think you can use "backlash" as a mass noun in this way.
  • Revised to "his comments were criticised". joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Can we get a word or two to explain who Navalny is?
  • Changed to "Russian opposition leader" as that's what the source labels him. Still not entirely sure of the rules about corroboration of titles and other defining information about people and events - for example, does labelling him as a "political activist" require sourcing? joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Why was Cruz criticized for including a picture of the sculpture? What was the basis for the criticism?
  • Cruz was criticized for including an image of a statue commemorating Soviet victory on the cover of a book about "how the US legal system isn't right wing enough yet". It's redundant and not succinct by any means, but "United States Senator Ted Cruz faced criticism for featuring an image of the sculpture, which commemorates Soviet victory in the Battle of Stalingrad, on the cover of his book Justice Corrupted: How the Left Weaponized Our Legal System, which critiques the perceived lack of right-wing influence in the U.S. legal system" is what I have written right now. Let me know if this works, or if it needs more work. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not sure the video games are worth mentioning, unless a source about the statue (not primarily about the video games) mentions the connection.
  • Removed the video game content. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Mike Christie. I'll get to these in the next few days or so - I've addressed a few of them already. joeyquism (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Most points struck; a couple left -- and no worries about being slow to respond; real life usually has to take priority. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I believe I've addressed the rest of the points now. Seems like there should just a few more replies left as I've left some comments open for queries. joeyquism (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

One more question: I just noticed that there's an exclamation point in the Russian title. Can I just confirm that it is definitely not in the English version? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The Russian sources overwhelmingly include the exclamation mark, whereas most English sources including Palmer 2009 - the most cited English source in the article - omit it. The Scotsman, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Newsweek, The Independent, and the New York Times also omit the exclamation mark; the only exception to this seems to be UNESCO. Granted, this means that the English name formatting on wiki will be solely based on the frequency of a certain stylization, though I am personally comfortable with this. Let me know your thoughts on the matter. joeyquism (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, that seems fine to me.

Support. Happy to support; I think this is worth the star. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your wonderful review and your support! joeyquism (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

• File:The Motherland Calls detail - Volgograd, October 2018.jpg: Fair use with quality rationale.
• File:Berlin Treptow Ehrenmal 07.jpg: Good to use with attribution.
• File:Victoire de Samothrace - Musee du Louvre - 20190812.jpg: CC0
• File:Héroes de la batalla de Stalingrado.jpg: CC attribution 4.0 (the russian military CC-licenses its photos? fascinating)
• File:The Motherland Calls, 2019.jpg: CC attribution 4.0
• File:Родина Мать в городе Маньчжурия.jpg: CC-BY-SA-4.0
• File:Coat of Arms of Volgograd oblast small.svg: PD
• File:1973 CPA 4208.jpg: PD
• File:RR5217-0042R.jpg: PD

@Joeyquism: All images seem high quality and useful for the article. However, many lack alt-text. Once that is resolved, I'm all good to support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Generalissima, just sticking my nose in to say that alt text isn't actually part of the FAC criteria -- it's come up a couple of times and there's never been consensus to add it. Not to say you shouldn't suggest it -- I always add it when an image reviewer reminds me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh! I am so used to Nikkimaria's suggestions to add it I forgot those are just suggestions. Support on image review then. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Regardless, I'll get to adding alt text sometime soon. joeyquism (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah heck, looks like you need another prose review; I'll give it a lookover.

• Lede is very solid.
• Is there any estimate on how old the Mamayev Kurgan? It might be good to add "ancient" or some other adjective to note that it wasn't a burial mound from the battle.
• I think the sentence ending with Stand To the Death! doesn't need the period after the exclamation point.
• The second paragraph in Design and Construction is massive, I think you might want to split it down the middle.
• Ditto with the third paragraph of Construction, the second paragraph of Work and Completion, and the third and fourth paragraphs of Post-dedication; this will make it easier to read.

@Joeyquism: Otherwise, don't see any outstanding issues. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed everything here! Thank you so much for the prose review :) let me know if anything else comes to your attention! joeyquism (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Support on the prose review too. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Vacant0

Will leave a review in the following days. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 25 is missing pages.
• Ref 62 and 63 (Riabov et al.) are missing pages.
• The lede already mentions twice the fact that it was completed in October 1967. I think that it's better to mention the fact only once, it's up to you to change it however you want. If you end up keeping the latter sentence, then I have a recommendation: "Despite these obstacles, the memorial was completed in October 1967 for the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution" – I think that it's enough just to mention the year, because the latter part already implies that it was completed during the 50th anniversary.
• The article has certainly been improved since the last time I took a look at it. These are the issues that I've stumbled up on. I'm positive that it meets the FA criteria now, so you have my support. Good job! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed all of these. Thank you for the review and support! joeyquism (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll additionally perform a source review, considering that the article already received an image review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• No issues with reference formatting.
• Listed references are reliable.
• Missing pages were already addressed in my review above.
• Spotcheck
  • Background: Ref 1, 4, 8, 9–all verify the cited content.
  • Design and construction: Ref 11, 18, 19, 22, 28, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39–all verify the cited content.
  • Post-dedication: Ref 41, 45, 46, 51, 54, 61, 65, 68–all verify the cited content.
  • Depictions: Ref 71, 73–all verify the cited content.
• Looks good to me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your source review :) joeyquism (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Vacant0, from an abundance of caution can I have confirmation that this is a pass for the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes it is! Sorry if I did not make it obvious. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Dugan Murphy

I will read the article and leave some comments here soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Dugan Murphy, thanks for taking a look! Very much looking forward to your review. joeyquism (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read very much yet, but here's what I got so far:

• I see "honor" twice in the article, but the tag at the top says the article is in British English, so those should both be "honour".
  • Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• honoring the Great Patriotic War: I think it's worth including a short phrase to define that term in that sentence so readers unfamiliar with it don't have to click on it to understand what it refers to. Something like "honoring what they refer to as the Great Patriotic War" or something like that. Mind you, that may make the sentence unwieldy enough to necessitate splitting it into two.
  • After coming back to this article, I found that this moniker doesn't seem all that necessary contextually. Do you think that just substituting it with "the war" would suffice? joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I think defining and using the term "Great Patriotic War" helps non-Russian readers understand the context a little better, but I also think the article is fine just referring to the war as WWII. If you remove the term here, either remove the second use of that term or define it there. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Removed the term. I'm not sure how to introduce the term without it sounding awkward or non-sequitur. joeyquism (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
        • Now there's a reference to "the first Soviet museum honouring World War II", which doesn't seem right. Does the museum honor the war or commemorate it? Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

          Yeah, that does read strangely. I was quite tired when I edited that, so apologies for my negligence there. I've since changed "honouring" to "commemorating". joeyquism (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• whom he had previously collaborated with should be "with whom he had previously collaborated".
  • Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Maybe it's because I'm from Maine, but Wikilinking granite doesn't seem necessary.
  • I've left the wikilink in the lead, but I've removed the other instance. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• The entrance to the monument was planned to feature a triumphal arch that led: This needs to be reworded in one of two ways. One: "The entrance to the monument was planned to feature a triumphal arch that would have led". Two: "The original plan for the monument featured a triumphal arch that led". Then you would need to follow either format for the rest of the paragraph.
  • Opted for the second variation. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "need to follow either format for the rest of the paragraph", but I've replaced the "would lead"s with just "led", as it ties back to the original plan. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I think the wording as I'm reading it now makes sense. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• into a granite staircase should be "to a granite staircase".
  • Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• that Vuchetich specialised in should be "in which Vuchetich specialised".
  • Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll read more and leave more comments soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Here are some more:

• Why is "international event" in quotation marks?
  • Not sure - it's taken from a quote from the original source, but I think that the phrase is short enough to where quotation marks do not seem necessary. Removed the quotation marks. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Izotova's restaurant was in Stalingrad, right? If not, "local" is misleading. Even if so, maybe consider replacing "local" with the city name to clarify.
  • The source simply states "local restaurant"; I think I should leave it to avoid any undue assumptions about the location of the restaurant. If this is a bonehead decision, please let me know. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
    • If the source isn't clear, then you should remove what isn't clear. I recommend "Valentina Izotova, a 26-year-old waitress, was chosen". Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Done. joeyquism (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• asserting that the monument: "that" is extraneous. Same for claimed that the monument and insisted that these studies.
  • Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• The planned sculpture also attracted criticism from Soviet writers, including author Viktor Nekrasov: "author" isn't needed given how the sentence starts.
  • Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• December of 1962: For consistency with the rest of the article, remove "of".
  • Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Per MOS:OVERLINK, I don't think these words need Wikilinks: blueprint, transmitter, humidity, Welding, rebar, groundwater, stainless steel, mosaic.
  • Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Almost immediately following his report, the Ministry sent a team to Volgograd to thoroughly investigate the issues. Shouldn't the article use "Stalingrad" here given the era? If so, you should apply that to the rest of the article.
  • For context, Stalingrad was renamed to Volgograd in November 1961. Not really sure how to go about this, as writing "Stalingrad" for events occuring past that date seems inappropriate. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Got it. Knowing that, the use of Stalingrad versus Volgograd in the article looks appropriate. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Is the sword 14 tonnes, short tons, or long tons?
  • Unfortunately, I can't find any information on the specific ton measurement used; the source says only "14-ton". joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
    • That's too bad. The units of measurement are close enough together that I think "14-ton" is still very helpful for the reader, so I would leave it in as is. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Why are the "Construction" and "Work and completion" sections separate?
  • "Work and completion" is a subsection of the "Construction" section. The paragraphs before Work and Completion should provide more general context to the following subsection. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• 7 million USD: Why not "$7 million USD"?
  • Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll write more soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are the rest of my comments:

• I don't think these words need a Wikilink: scaffolding, bankruptcy, image editing, video game developer, Islam, Eastern Orthodoxy, nipple, coat of arms, postage stamp, postcard, sculpture, concrete, plaza/town square, pedestal, shawl, wing, sword, granite.
  • Not sure why I wikilinked most of these - rookie mistake perhaps? Most of these have since been removed, with some exceptions being sculpture (I feel as if the lead should have important defining terms wikilinked), concrete (following same idea here), plaza, and pedestal. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• I think Bastrykin should be introduced as "investigative committee chairman Bastrykin" or something like that.
  • Works for me. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• The sentence that starts The statue was originally planned is too long and should be split up.
  • Broken up into two. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• The construction of The Motherland Calls: The first "the" is extraneous.
  • Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• I think the only thing that's missing from the lead section is a summary of the "Depictions" section. This could be one sentence at the end that doesn't need to mention any specific depiction examples, but summarizes the breadth of depictions the statue has inspired.
  • A bit of a quick write, but how does "The sculpture has been featured on various Russian symbols, commemorative coins, stamps, and postcards" sound? joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I think that's a fair summary. I would only add "official" before "Russian" to get reflect the coat of arms and flag that phrase refers to. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• The infobox doesn't say much. Are there parameters to include the statue's main material and height? Those seem to be crucial, basic facts that a reader may want to access at a glance at the top of the article.
  • I'm using Template:Infobox military memorial here, and unfortunately there aren't any parameters to include those attributes. I'll try to substitute with a template that seems appropriate and does include those parameters, if I can find one.
    • I see. In that case, I recommend using the "commemorates" parameter for something like "Casualties of the Battle of Stalingrad". That's the only parameter you're not using that seems useful. Otherwise, you might consider switching to Template:Infobox artwork, which has dimensional parameters. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
      • I do have this parameter filled out - the "For the heroes of the Battle of Stalingrad" section of the infobox is how the "commemorates" parameter is displayed. joeyquism (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Labor" should be "labour", per British English.
  • Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Overall, I'd say this is a well-written, neutral-sounding article that appears to comprehensively cover the topic without going into undue detail about any one aspect. With the one exception I mentioned above, I think the lead does a great job of summarizing the body. The most persistent issue with the article is overlinking, which I consider a pretty minor issue. Earwig indicates plagiarism is unlikely. Given the American/British English discrepancies this American found, I wonder if a native speaker of British English would find more. Not that I'm so concerned about that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Dugan Murphy - thanks so much for your review (and for pointing out my inconsistency in adhering to British English convention - I am also an American). I've been quite busy with work lately, so I'll begin addressing your comments on Friday night; should be finished by the weekend. joeyquism (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, @Dugan Murphy; I should have addressed all your comments above, with some minor tweaks to be done soon. Thank you for the review, and hope you've been having a wonderful weekend! joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Nice improvements! Note my responses above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy: Thank you for the quick response! Replies are above. joeyquism (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I see only one minor lingering issue. See my comment above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment has been addressed! joeyquism (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Splendid. I don't see any other issues with this article worth raising here, so I would like to add my support to this nomination for the reasons I stated in my summary above. In other news, I have my own FAC nomination here that needs more comments from reviewers. Do you have time to look it over? Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the support! I'll give your FAC a look in the next week or so; I've been rather busy as of late. joeyquism (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by query

• "by 1986, it had tilted significantly from its original axis." The sword or the statue? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  The entire statue had tilted. I've since clarified this in the sentence, though this required some repetition. joeyquism (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

SC

• Comments coming shortly - SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• I see the article is tagged as "Use British English"—and it mostly is—but the text has a lot of AmEng spellings: romanized (romanised), Defense (Defence), molds (moulds), valor (valour), analyzing (analysing) and rubles (roubles) are all in there (some of them more than once).
  • Apologies for this - I'm an American, so these things just tend to slip through the cracks for me. Perhaps a poor decision on my part, though strangely enough I felt as if it'd be more appropriate to write this article in a European variation of English. These have since been fixed. joeyquism (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• "was later changed in 1961": you don't need both later and 1961, so either "was later changed" or "was changed in 1961" would work.
  • Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• "The project faced numerous challenges, including the assembly of the statue's framework and its intricate features, which were compounded by the statue's size": this doesn't quite work grammatically. Maybe something along the lines of "The project faced numerous challenges, including with the assembly of the statue's framework and its intricate features; these problems were compounded by the statue's size" (or similar) would work?
  • Went with your rewording, albeit with "issues" instead of "problems" and the addition of "further" before "compounded". joeyquism (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• "taller than the 46 metres (151 ft) tall Statue of Liberty" -> taller than the 46 metre (151 ft) Statue of Liberty"
  • Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• "thorough investigation ... thoroughly investigate": maybe a little tweak to avid the close repetition?
  • Changed "thorough investigation" to "required an investigation". joeyquism (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• "it remains the tallest statue in Europe": this needs an "as at 2024"
  • Done. joeyquism (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• "structural integrity of the structure": repetition
  • Changed to "However, by 2009, concerns had been raised about its structural integrity", with "its" being the antecedent for the statue, as it had been mentioned in the previous sentence. Let me know if this works. joeyquism (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

These are just me nit-picking in what is otherwise a commendable article and a highly enjoyable read. - SchroCat (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, SchroCat - comments have been addressed above. joeyquism (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Happy to support this - an excellent piece of work. - SchroCat (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you so much for the support! If you have anything at FAC for me to go over, I'd be glad to return the favor. joeyquism (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2024 [65].

---

Tesla Model S

Nominator(s): 750h+ 12:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This is my fifth featured article nomination, after doing four successful nominations on Aston Martin cars. This article is about one of the most important and influential electric vehicles of the 21st century. This is a 6,000-word article with c. 300 references, meaning it is the longest and most-referenced article (second-longest article i've written) I've brought here. I believe this article, however, is well-written, well-referenced, and comprehensive. I plan to win the half-million award with this one, so any comments I receive i'll appreciate; and thanks for reviewing! 750h+ 12:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

UC

Lots of comments

The Daily Telegraph described the Model S as a "car that changed the world", but Road & Track called it "perhaps one of the worst [cars in the world]: unfortunately, this doesn't quite hold -- the Road & Track review is specifically about the "Plaid" version, and it's from ten years later -- it's pretty clear in context that they're talking about a) a decline in quality over successive versions of the Model S and b) the fact that its competitors have gotten better. Fine for the body, with proper context, but badly misleading as presented in the lead. fixed. hope this is better It is, but now I have WP:DUEWEIGHT concerns about giving such a prominent position in the lead to a review in a single, not particularly authoritative, publication. I'd be happier if we could show that there was a broader trend whereby critics had reviewed the Model S very positively on debut but increasingly become harder on it. We're still slightly misrepresenting R&T, who do after all acknowledge the car as one of the most important ever made a sentence or so previously. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC) i think this is better Sorry to keep poking this one, but I still don't think we have WP:TSI between what the source is actually saying and how we have presented it. At the same time, we do need some measure of the negative reaction to the vehicle in the lead. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I removed "initially", but i don't think i can see any other problems with TSI (it's nearly exactly what the source says). 750h+ 16:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC) The words exist in that source, but R&T are pretty clearly a) talking exclusively about the Plaid version, which we don't make clear, and b) making a relative statement that largely depends on how good other EVs have become. For them, it's largely about Tesla failing to keep pace with its competitors, whereas we've presented it as a story of the Model S becoming objectively worse. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Oh. Okay i think that's fixed (hope this is the last one) 750h+ 09:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC) The recent edits need a good proof-read -- a few errors have slipped in through the cutting/pasting process. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Fixed. 750h+ 09:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC) in c. 2007: abbreviations are generally a bad idea in flowing text. Why not just "around 2007"? done after a dispute with Elon Musk, the company's chief executive officer: Tesla's or Aston Martin's CEO? done Tesla acquired a facility in Fremont, California, from Toyota, which had previously been used by both Toyota and General Motors: a run-on sentence which has ended up somewhere strange: had Toyota previously been used by both Toyota and GM? fixed Constructed mostly of the aluminum: no the, but things are generally constructed from materials in English. my bad, fixed These updates typically include modifications to the motor: should maintain the past (or past perfect) tense, as in the previous sentence: either included or have typically included. done priced from $50,000 to $70,000: recommend an inflation template here, as this will increasingly be out of sync with readers' intuition as time goes on done The the in "the Fisker Karma" shouldn't be linked. fixed More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I hope the article’s been a good read so far. 750h+ 16:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC) It has, though I'll admit to knowing very little about cars or Tesla. A few more: Musk subsequently filed a lawsuit against Fisker, accusing him of stealing Tesla's design ideas and using the $875,000 to launch his own company.: Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see where this $875,000 is meant to have come from? fixed Fisker ultimately won the lawsuit: can we say when this happened? Was it all ongoing while the later development events happened? done Dispute between Musk and Fisker arose after the latter started his own company and began producing the Karma (pictured).: we need either a dispute or disputes here. done Both cars shared a chassis, and the engineers assessed every part of the vehicles, evaluating their positives and negatives.: this seems a bit verbose, and possibly hyperbolic: did they really evaluate every part of the vehicles (down to the cup holders?) Suggest something like evaluated different aspects of the two vehicles. done Tesla engineers initiated a project to construct another electric CLS: at this point, are we talking about "another electric car based on the CLS"? Was it really {'exactly the same thing they used a different CLS early Model S specifications: strictly speaking, Model-S should be hyphenated here as a compound modifier. done the decision to construct it entirely from aluminum was clear: not quite idiomatic English, and it's not clear in context whether the decision was obvious (a dubious statement in Wikivoice) or whether Musk said that it was. fixed To accelerate the development of the Model S, one group of engineers worked during the day, while another arrived at 9 p.m. and worked through the night, : I don't totally understand how this is necessarily faster than having two groups working at the same time on civilised hours, but that may be a problem for Musk rather than for you However, a month after the last car—a Corolla—rolled off the manufacturing line in April 2010: not sure the make of this car is really relevant in this article. "Rolled off the line" is a MOS:CLICHE. See, later, the first production Model S roll off the manufacturing line fixed US$42 million, while Toyota invested US$50 million : as above, I would inflate these currency amounts. We don't generally add the US before $ unless there's some reasonable chance of confusion (for example, if the article also includes Canadian or Australian dollars). done completed in the basement of an office: there are quite a few possible cases of MOS:OVERLINK throughout, but I think this one is pretty undeniable -- it's the everyday meaning of an everyday word. fixed The car's launch event occurred in a section of the facility where the cars are completed: perhaps I'm missing something, but that seems obvious from the preceding sentence -- they could hardly have watched it be finished anywhere else? this is the launch event. Usually launch events take place at motor shows like Geneva Motor Show for example, but this one took place at the fac Ah, so this isn't the same as the event on 22 June 2012? Can we put a date on it, then? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) this is the same date. the launch event just took place at the facility 750h+ 15:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Lots of multi-cites in the Design section, and later, make reading tough going. I would suggest that some of these can probably be removed, but if we must have three citations for a sentence, can you bundle them for readability? The method used in note 3 is a bit clumsy: you could use the Refn template for a smoother way. fixed the drag coefficient as Cd=0.24: simply as 0.24, surely? that's the general layout (it's a template Template:Cd) Right, but I don't think that template is appropriate for this use-case. We wouldn't say {{{1}}} or {{{1}}}. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) done a graphite/silicon anode, and a nickel-cobalt-aluminum cathode: I know nothing about these, but just checking that the slash and the hyphens are meant to be different here? yep In the caption of the Model S and Model X, suggest italicising (left) and (right), as you did for (pictured) further up with the Karma vehicle. Ditto in the dashboard picture further down. done. i don't think the dashboard picture requires it extending the range by an additional 40 miles (64 km) of range.: no need for of range. my bad, done The former produces 235 kilowatts (315 hp) and 325 newton-meters (240 lb⋅ft),: would add of power and of force (torque?) as appropriate. done rear-wheel drive: either rear-wheel-drive or rear wheel–drive. I suspect there are other examples. done Intel Atom-based: endash here, not hyphen. done The 2021 Model S also introduced the "yoke" steering wheel: this makes it sound like it was the first vehicle to have one of these, which of course it wasn't, though it might have been one of the first mass-market cars to do so. done "Radar" isn't capitalised in mid-sentence. done Autopilot uses cameras, Radar and ultrasound to detect road signs: at least since 2021, Tesla doesn't actually use the radar: our article on Tesla Autopilot has A tear down of a HW4 Model S and Model X car in 2023 revealed that they have high definition radar hardware, but the software did not use radar. Likewise, it hasn't used ultrasound for at least a year. Teslas currently drive entirely by camera, which is widely considered a problem -- it would be worth mentioning this, and the many issues that Autopilot has had, at least briefly. It's a little misleading to state all of these supposed capabilities without mentioning that they, quite famously, don't exactly work. fixed I still think we have a DUEWEIGHT problem here -- almost nothing is mentioned in this section of the many reviews/reports saying that Autopilot doesn't work as advertised and is dangerous. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I've added some information about some of its problems, with a footnote leading to the article about all of its problems Better, though we still are missing the demise of ultrasound, and have misrepresented what Tesla Vision is -- it's a branding name for only using cameras, not (as we imply) a new type of camera. I'm also not sure we've really got the point across here -- we've talked about misleading advertising, but slightly glossed over the fact that the features which are definitely promised don't always work very well. The first paragraph of Tesla Autopilot#Dangerous and unexpected behavior, with biblio, is relevant here. A very boring formatting thing, but we should use a section symbol (§) in the footnoted link text. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I've added the discontinuation of ultrasound and fixed Tesla Vision name. I've added information from the third point. And i actually was to add the "§", i forgot (thanks for that). 750h+ 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I still don't think this is right, unfortunately: we now have Tesla began using cameras known as "Tesla Vision". As I understand it, Tesla never claimed to be newly using cameras or adding more cameras, only to be removing the other types of sensor and tweaking the software algorithm in vaguely-defined ways. We've presented this as adding something, when that isn't really what happened. Tesla Autopilot hardware has useful material on what happened, its consequences, and the regulatory response, which I think needs some mention in this article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: so i've changed "From 2021, Tesla began using cameras known as "Tesla Vision", which replaced the radar system." to "From 2021, Tesla began using a system known as "Tesla Vision", which relies solely on cameras, replacing the previous radar-based sensors." 750h+ 09:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC) For charging outside the home, Tesla has partnered with businesses to install Tesla Wall Connectors to provide a charging network called Tesla Destination: the tone of this reads a bit like a press release to me. fixed the battery swap program hyphen on battery-swap. added We've given Tesla's case that nobody was interested in battery swapping, but there's a WP:DUEWEIGHT problem here -- most people don't take that excuse remotely seriously; it's more that actually doing that at scale is a stupid idea, and just about everyone knew that from the beginning. it was reported however, and that is what a good amount of sources say [66] [67] Right, but other explanations were also put forward -- see for instance that swapping batteries would make less money than charging, that battery-swapping isn't practical when you have to swap a huge part of the vehicle, that battery swapping is capital intensive and creates economic issues when the batteries lose value, that maintaining the necessary reserve stock of bulky, expensive batteries is economically and environmentally unwise. It was also reported that Musk wasn't being entirely ingenuous about the low demand, given that they set up their trial of battery swapping in a way that you would expect to generate little demand. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I have added two parts from there, i don't think the rest are necessary though, since three of sources did mention the little demand. Tesla claims to recycle all returned battery packs and states that Gigafactory 1 is able to recycle a significant portion of the elements from old batteries, moving towards a "closed loop" system where old batteries are turned into new ones: likewise, I think we need to mention what other people think of this claim. "A significant proportion" is WP:WEASELWORDS -- what counts a significant? done In February 2014, the Automotive Science Group published a study: who are these people, and why do they get a whole paragraph for a single study? Again, I worry about DUEWEIGHT, with a side effect that primary studies are always tricky things and we should be careful about reporting them directly, before they hit the secondary literature (not a perfect analogy, but lots of the points in WP:MEDRS apply). Likewise with the UCS studies in the following paragraph, with the additional caveat that these people are a pressure group, and are not pretending to be neutral. i've removed this, i was actually questioning this source before as it doesn't seem very notable The Nissan Leaf had the smallest life-cycle environmental footprint of any 2014 model year automobile available in North America.: why is that relevant in an article on the Model S? removed the paragraph CO2: should be formatted with the 2 in subscript. done its CO2 emissions in the United States, similar to the Model S, are equivalent to a gasoline-powered car : something has gone wrong here. oops fixed Why does MPG get capitalised but mph -- and practically all other units -- don't? fixed Stopping here for now; more to follow, I hope. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Tesla initially projected it would produce 1,000 units per month, aiming for a total of 5,000 units by the end of 2012. For 2013, Tesla anticipated quadrupling that. The company also expected to deliver around 500 vehicles to customers in the third quarter, with the remaining units scheduled for delivery in the fourth quarter. Tesla built its 1,000th Model S by October 31, 2012, and delivered 2,650 units by the end of the year. In the first half of the subsequent year, 10,050 units were delivered to customers.: this bit is a little hard to parse: I would suggest another run for clarity. Anticipated is a tricky word: here, as often, better as expected to quadruple... Do I read rightly that they missed by a lot -- they aimed for about 4,000 per month, and ended up with something like 1,700? so i've rephrased this. the latter sentence is correct The Model S was the first vehicle produced at the Fremont facility: by Tesla, as GM and Toyota had produced vehicles there earlier. done Deliveries to the Chinese market began on April 22, 2014, followed by Hong Kong in July 2014.: we could upset a lot of people here: suggest specifying mainland Chinese. done It is one of the world's largest producers of electric motors, energy storage products, vehicle powertrains, and batteries, manufacturing billions of cells annually.: it might be, but is this really due weight in an article about the car, not the factory? this does include what it manufactures, so the "electric motors, energy storage products, vehicle powertrains, and batteries, manufacturing billions of cells" would be parts the Model S has What's the meaning of the 5.7% at the bottom of the second review table? 5.7% chance of a rollover accident occurring Can we footnote that? It looks like they "scored" 5.7/100, which doesn't sound very good. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) done Per MOS:CAN'TREMEMBERBUTI'MSUREICANFINDITLATER, we should really rewrite the bulleted recalls section in prose -- in particular, I would look to draw out common threads between the recalls, the issues they highlighted with the cars and the processes behind them, and their consequences with Tesla, regulators, consumers etc. i have written it out in prose, but i don't think the background behind them is too important I think WP:PROSELINE now applies in this section -- would advise giving it a rework, and trying to make it more of a distillation/explanation than an annalistic retelling of events in sequence. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC) i have added some background to the vehicle affected by the recalls. as both an influential and significant electric car: what distinction between influential and significant are we drawing here? removed one mentioned that "the introduction of certain features, such as a yoke-style steering wheel, has distracted from the flagship sedan's underlying brilliance, as has Musk's public image: MOS:SAID applies here: this is a statement of opinion. I think we need something here about what he was going on about re. Musk's public image. i added a footnote, i don't think any more about his controversies is necessary (if that's what you're referring to) and mainstream automakers [...] [struggled] to catch up": cut the and, surely? done Samuel Gibbs from The Guardian: I don't have a strong opinion either way, but elsewhere we've introduced major publications as "the newspaper [name]", and here we don't. We should pick a lane. done We have very little in the way of critical coverage of the Model S. Has any of the widespread criticism of Tesla regarding safety, sloppy manufacture and misselling of the self-driving functions been related to this car? i've added another review, which i think should be better White 2014 is throwing a Harvard error: I can't immediately see any citation to it. removed Personally, I would avoid redlinks, such as Automotive Science Group, in the bibliography: there, the attention they grab, in my view, outweighs their benefits. i think i've removed them Over their lifecycle, electric vehicles emit about half as much CO2 as comparable fossil fuel cars. However, the report assumes that electric materials are recycled at rates similar to other cars and excludes the issue of battery disposal due to limited data on current recycling practices and future intentions.: I have some worries about the generalised nature of this comment. This takes EVs as a class -- how do we know where the Model S, with all its various Tesla-isms around how it is manufactured, maintained and so on, sits in relation to other EVs? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC) i did remove a large part of the paragraph that didn't relate to the Model S and added "like the Model S" to specify that it was referring to the Model S. I don't think comparing the Model S to other vehicles that a reader may not have heard of is helpful For 2013, Tesla wanted to quadruple that. : "Wanted" is pretty vague -- I want to win the lottery and move to Hawaii. Did they make any sort of formal statement that they would do this, set it as a target, or so on? fixed, changed to "aimed". The source used is CNET, which (at the time) was reliable Tesla claims to recycle all returned battery packs and states that Gigafactory 1 is able to recycle around 92 percent of the elements from old batteries, moving towards a "closed loop" system where old batteries are turned into new ones: the million-dollar question here -- is that a credible claim? Tesla is, after all, famous for making bold statements that prove to be completely untrue. There are also some possible fault lines here -- how many batteries get returned? How much waste do you end up with when you recycle 92% of the elements? How bad is it not to recycle the other 8% -- are those the ones that cause problems? there have been no critics addressing whether this is true or not so i think it's best to leave it, as there are many reliable sources that address this. Just from a quick Google, I found quite a few sources putting caveats on it, most notably that Tesla doesn't really recycle post-consumer batteries, and that the process of recycling itself is made less effective by the way that Tesla design their batteries. See for example here, here, comments on the impact report here, and on recycling more generally here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: I added some of the criticism from the Vice magazine (which was already used a source in the article, though others weren't reliable 750h+ 12:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC) I think that would surprise the writers of Science (unless the website is someone different?). However, I wasn't trying to find all the available sources for you -- merely to point out that a very quick Google search flagged up that there is definitely a discussion here. I'd suggest following up the angles identified in the sources I mentioned into more scholarly and scientific work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: added two sources. 750h+ 01:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: just in case ping. i hope the three criticisms are enough because the paragraph was getting a bit big 750h+ 08:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: i think i've addressed your comments. any more? 750h+ 08:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC) A couple of replies above, both new and from before -- probably not a complete set yet. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: in case ping 750h+ 08:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC) I have a number of comments and replies above that are still "live", as far as I can tell. The recalls section is better than a list, but I would still look to reduce the number of sentences beginning with "On [date], Tesla [verbed]" to improve the prose quality. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: i hope this is better 750h+ 09:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: fixed the spelling/grammatical errors 750h+ 09:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Oops, didn't see those new ones. Will address those now 750h+ 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• @UndercoverClassicist: okay i think that should be it 750h+ 15:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • A few replies above. Honestly, my feeling from reading this is that, like all of our articles, it has been written by people who are interested in the topic, and -- like most such articles -- generally like the thing they are writing about. I still think that it's a little too quick to downplay or excuse the negative side of its subject, and to take what (particularly) Tesla say about it on trust.
    • I have added all the possible background to the vehicles affected by the recalls, but didn't go too into detail (I think). Thoughts, @UndercoverClassicist:? 750h+ 18:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
      • @UndercoverClassicist: do you have anymore comments? 750h+ 03:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I've just given the article another read, and made some minor copyedits. I think I am probably now at the limit of my competence -- the grammar and formatting are better, though there are still a few minor things to look at (particularly full stops after footnotes and MOS:SAID throughout). However, I still have the same impression about POV and coverage, but don't have enough expertise in the subject matter to put my name to it that the article does or doesn't accurately cover all that has been written on the topic. As such, I'll leave this one as comments and wait to see what reviewers with more grounding in Tesla have to say -- may well come back later on and cast a vote. Apologies to leave it "open" after so much work on both sides, but hopefully it feels that this has still been a useful exercise thus far. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

    Okay, thanks for the thorough review. 750h+ 08:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

    @UndercoverClassicist: now that one reviewer has finished their review (and one is hopefully-near conclusion), the article has been largely expanded in size, and i'd like to get your current opinion 750h+ 13:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

    I think I'm still pretty much in the same place: it's unquestionably a very good article, but I don't really feel any more reassured on my (minor) worries about prose and (more serious) concerns about promotional language, tone and weighting. I'm not sure I'm quite worried enough to cast an oppose vote, but I'm not ready to shift over to a support either. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I am going to review this article. This is a long article, so it might take a while. I should note that, while 750h+ alerted me to this nomination on my user talk page, these observations and opinions are entirely my own. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: just making sure you still want to review? 750h+ 23:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@750h+, sorry about that. I've had very limited access to my computer over the last 3 days. I'll leave some comments on Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

okay, thanks 750h+ 00:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

• Para 1: "the Model S is frequently regarded as one of the most significant and influential electric cars in the industry." - I'd hesitate to say that it has been "frequently" regarded as such, at least without a source specifically saying so, but it would be appropriate to say that it "has been regarded by many critics" as such.
• Para 2: "To produce the Model S, Tesla acquired a facility in Fremont, California, from Toyota, which had previously been used by Toyota and General Motors." - Do we need to include this detail about the facility's previous owners in the lead? I feel like this may not be an important detail.
• Para 3: Might it be worth mentioning the car's other features, e.g. Autopilot and supercharging? The paragraph does a good job of describing the design/technical features of the Model S, but the consumer features aren't mentioned as prominently. (Actually, the "Technology" section isn't really summarized at all in the lead.)
• Para 4: "In 2015, the Model S was the world's best-selling plug-in electric vehicle" - I think readers might be expecting a sales figure after a sentence like this. Probably not in the lead, but maybe in the "Production and initial deliveries" section.
• Para 4: The last quote mentions the Plaid, but the lead doesn't quite explain what the Plaid is.

Development:

• Para 1: "In January 2007, the American automaker Tesla, Inc. opened a facility in Michigan" - If you're including a background section, you might also want to consider mentioning the fact that they weren't even producing cars at that point (and that the Model S was actually only Tesla's second-ever vehicle model).
• Para 1: "The second was to be a range-extending vehicle" - So a hybrid-electric car basically?

no, range-extenders are different

Oh, okay. I thought this was referring to a hybrid-electric design. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "He signed an $875,000 contract to design the car." - I'd change "He" to "Fisker" for the avoidance of doubt.
• Para 2: "Fisker ultimately won the lawsuit in November 2008" - Is the word "ultimately" necessary here?
• Para 3: "Tesla frequently tested the car on public roads; it had 120 miles (190 km) of all-electric range per charge and weighed more than the Roadster." - These should probably be two separate sentences, since the two ideas are completely separate.
• Para 4: "stating that the non-battery-pack portion of the vehicle must be lighter than equivalent gasoline vehicles" - To clarify, did Musk say the non-battery-pack portion had to be lighter than the entire gasoline vehicle?

yes, so everything excluding the battery pack had to be lighter than the vehicles themselves

I see. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Para 4: "while another arrived at 9 p.m." - The arrival time of the night shift seems like a rather trivial detail to include.
• Para 5: "later withdrew from both plans" - Do the sources mention why?

i added a bit

• Para 6: "The car's launch event occurred in a section of the facility where the cars are completed" - This detail also seems quite trivial.

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Addressed all, and if i haven't then i left some comments left. Thanks! 750h+ 05:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Design:

• Para 1: "The Model S shares its platform and thirty percent of its parts with the Model X" - Not really an issue per se, but I feel like this isn't unexpected since both the S and the X are by the same manufacturers.

it would be. Different car manufacturers sell different cars that use completely different components. For example the Tesla Model 3 and the Tesla Model Y share 76 percent of their parts yet would share less than 10 percent with the Model S and the Model X

Oh, I see. Yeah, if the 3/Y are very different from the S/X, then it might be noteworthy that the S/X share 30% of their parts. (What I meant to say was that I would expect car models from a single manufacturer to use similar components, such as the 3/S/X/Y sharing many of their components, but since the 3/Y share very few components with the S/X, this goes against my assumption.) Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Para 1: "The vehicle's drag coefficient was improved by a solid front fascia instead of a grille, " - Would the black nose cone in the image right next to this paragraph count as a fascia? As mentioned later on in the article, the sealed-off fascia wasn't added until 2016; before that, the S had the nose cone.

i guess, i mean the image has its front fascia but there are better ones below

• Para 1: "The Model S has a center of gravity height of 18 inches (460 mm),[73][74] reducing the risk of rollovers." - Is this reduced risk because of the lower center-of-gravity height?

yes

• Para 2: "The car's rear trunk possesses 26.6 cubic feet (750 L) of storage with the rear seats upright and 58.1 cubic feet (1,650 L) when the seats are folded down." - Some Model Ss contain backward-facing jump seats in the trunk for young children, which can also be folded down (giving the car 7 seats rather than the standard 5). Is this talking about the children's seats in the trunk, or the seats in the second row?

i added some info on that

• Para 2: "Initially, the seats and steering wheel of the Model S were made exclusively of leather." - I'm not sure about this. If I recall correctly, early buyers could choose between synthetic leather or actual leather. (The real leather option was more expensive than the synthetic leather option, but they had a distinctively different feel.)
• Also, I'm pretty sure there were other add-ons you could buy, like children's jump seats and sunroofs.

i don't think these are very necessary

Fair enough - these are fairly minor details. Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, I think some of the features mentioned in "Technology", like Tesla Autopilot and supercharging, used to be add-ons that didn't come with the car by default. The oldest Model Ss (specifically the 40 kWh and some of the 60 kWh from ~2013) didn't even have the ability to supercharge. Not sure if that's worth mentioning, or if there's even a source for these, though.

the initial 40kwh model never came to production actually. supercharging was available from late 2012, so only 6 months after Model S production began. Added more on the charging methods.

According to TechCrunch and Wired, there was a 40 kWh model produced in 2013, but it was a software-limited version of the 60 kWh model. It seems like the software-limited 40 kWh model did have the ability to supercharge (it just wasn't enabled by default), so my bad. Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Addressed 750h+ 03:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

2012–2016: Initial years:

• Para 2: "Instead, a more powerful model with a 60 kWh model, was introduced to substitute the 40 kWh model." - I think you could still mention that, even though the hardware-limited 40 kWh model was never built, a few 60 kWh vehicles were software-limited to 40 kWh. (I say this because, in the next section, you mention the fact that some of the 75 kWh models were software-limited to 60 kWh.)
• Para 4: "Tesla launched the standard 90D and the performance P90D" - What model year?
• I notice that the article says "all-electric range", even though the Model S is all electric. Would this be redundant (i.e. could it just be "range"), or do you need to specify that this is in fact all-electric range?

2016–2019: First major update:

• Para 1: "the previous contrasting-colored grille" - The original grille wasn't contrasting-colored so much as black. If you had a black Model S, the original grille would be the same color as the rest of the car, like this.

i don't think this is worth mentioning; i feel like the customer would know

What I meant to say was that the grille should be described as "dark" or "black", not "contrasting-colored", which seems factually incorrect when referring to dark Model Ss. Epicgenius (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "Customers also had the option to upgrade the battery capacity to 75 kWh through an over-the-air update," - Strictly speaking, you could get the update only if you had a newer 60 kWh model (and only if you paid for it, but I think that goes without saying). Pre-2015 60 kWh models are hardware-limited, and if you owned one of these, you'd have to buy a whole new battery if you wanted to upgrade.
• Para 3: "In 2019, Tesla also phased out the 75D, 100D, and P100D variants as part of the company's shift towards a revamped model range.[150][151]" - I feel like this belongs in the next section, because that section talks about what the 75D, 100D, and P100D were replaced with.

i think this is ok, since it's still referring to the pre-simplified naming scheme

In that case, I would recommend mentioning that the 75D/100D/P100D were replaced with other models, rather than merely phased out. The way it's currently worded, it sounds like the models were phased out without replacement (at least, for people who don't read on to the next section). Unfortunately, readers these days sometimes tend to not read the full article, instead only reading a particular subsection and skipping the rest, so it might be helpful to mention that they were not just phased out but replaced. Epicgenius (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. 750h+ 03:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

2019–present: Simplified naming scheme:

• Para 1: "For 2020, the Long Range model was replaced with the Long Range Plus" - Also 100 kWh?

yep

• Para 2: "In 2024, the Model S received restyled taillights." - The note says "As of July 2024, there are no reliably sourced reports explicitly regarding the updated taillights", implying a bit of uncertainty. Therefore, shouldn't this be "By 2024, the Model S had received restyled taillights"?

More to come. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

All done (with responses) 750h+ 23:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Technology:

• Para 1: The source is from 2012, and as a result, several parts of the section are outdated. This source might be more up-to-date, but it's still talking about an old version of the software. The screen currently looks more like this (YouTube link), which is substantially different from the 2012 version of the software.
  • "Below that, the second section provides access to various apps, such as Media, Navigation, Energy, Web, Camera, and Phone." - This was the case when the S came out. However, the apps are currently near the bottom. I'll try to find a source for this, but it sounds like the article is describing how the apps were originally arranged. If there's no source, we can leave out where exactly the second section is (e.g. you can just say that the interface also provides access to various apps, such as Media, Navigation, Energy, Web, Camera, and Phone.)
  • "with most apps expandable to fill the entire screen." - Similarly, I'm not too sure about this. This was true in 2012, but may not be true now. Currently, several apps (like music and camera) can't be expanded to fit the full screen; you'll still see the navigation app in the background even when expanding these apps as much as possible. The full-screen thing could probably be left out, given that it's not necessarily true anymore.
  • "The bottom section contains controls and settings for the vehicle, including doors, locks, lights, temperature settings, and a secondary volume control." - Whew, at least that hasn't changed.
• Para 2: "Also for 2021 refresh" - Should this be "Also for the 2021 refresh"?
• Para 3: "Released in October 2015 as a software update" - Although this is only for cars that actually have AP equipment. The oldest Model Ss don't have the ability to use Autopilot, regardless of whether they were updated.

i think every Model S has autopilot equipment

Tesla says this functionality isn't available for cars built before September 2014. At least one old Model S was retrofitted with it, but I don't know if this is a service Tesla offers. Epicgenius (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I meant that after October 2015 it was a software update but later became standard 750h+ 12:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I was trying to say, it may be helpful to mention that the first Model S's with AP were manufactured in September 2014. The current phrasing might give the impression that AP equipment exists on all Model S's made since 2012 (which isn't true). Epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Done (i think) 750h+ 23:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Also, since the last two paragraphs talk about Autopilot, it may be worth considering splitting this into a subsection. Though I won't mind if you don't.

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Done with comments 750h+ 09:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll have further comments on Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Charging:

• Para 1: "The units are provided to the businesses by Tesla for free or at a discounted price." - Discounted compared to what?

i changed that to "cheap"

• Para 1: "Not all destination chargers are available to the public, as some businesses limit them to customers, employees, or residents only." - That first bit is redundant. If some businesses limit them to customers, employees, or residents only, then these specific chargers are not open to the public.
• Para 2: "In 2020, Tesla announced plans to integrate the batteries into the vehicle's body to enhance strength and reduce weight and cost" - A person unfamiliar with the topic might ask whether the previous batteries were not integrated into the vehicle's body before. Also, I think this change might've effectively doomed the battery swap program for good, though the article doesn't say as much.

i don't think so, can you explain how?

Environmental impact:

• Para 1: "In 2020, the company recycled 1,300 tons of nickel, 400 tons of copper, and 80 tons of cobalt" - US short tons, I presume?

yep

• Para 1: "According to Thompson, if a Tesla cell is punctured too deeply or at an inappropriate location, it risks short-circuiting, potentially leading to combustion and the release of toxic fumes." - Unrelated to this section in particular, but Tesla Model S owners are given special instructions on what to do if the battery catches fire. Which leads me to the point that there should probably be some mention of Model S battery fires somewhere in the article. Even though these are exceedingly rare, it might still be helpful to mention, because the article already describes some of the other safety concerns with the Model S. Currently, the article doesn't say anything about battery fires; it only mentions punctured cells in the context of recycling the batteries.
• Para 1: "approximately 99 percent or more of these metals" - Isn't "99 percent or more" already approximate? Alternatively, could you say "nearly all of these metals..."?
• Para 2: "Over their lifecycle" - It might be helpful to mention what that lifecycle is. Five years? A decade?

over the time they operate

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Addressed all, with comments 750h+ 08:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: just an in-case ping 750h+ 08:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I have not forgotten about this. I will leave some comments soon, maybe by tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Production and initial deliveries:

• Para 1: " but, from August 2013, for European countries, final assembly was carried out at Tesla's facilities in Tilburg, the Netherlands." - By "for European countries", I presume you mean Model Ss sold in Europe. yes - 750h+ (Also, do the sources say why European Model Ss were manufactured at a different location than Model Ss sold in the rest of the world?) no, even if i don't think that's worth mentioning - 750h+

Fair enough, I was wondering why you mentioned that the final assembly for European Model Ss was in the Netherlands, but that's a minor detail. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Para 1: "The production of both the Model S and Model X at the Tilburg facility ceased in early 2021." - So is the final assembly for the European cars being carried out at Fremont again?

yep

• Para 2: "Since January 2017, the car's batteries have been produced at Gigafactory Nevada." - Were they made at Fremont beforehand?

actually they've been produced in both japan and the US, specified

• Para 3: It seems strange that you mention only a few countries. Are Model Ss only being sold in Canada, the US, Europe, and East Asia?

i added some other countries, but i definitely can't list every country it's sold in. the ones i've listed are the most reported on

I see. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Addressed 750h+ 15:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Recalls:

• Para 2: "Tesla recalled Model S vehicles On January 20, 2017, " - I don't think "on" should be capitalized. Also, you should mention whether this recall affected all vehicles manufactured to that date. Otherwise, it just sounds like Tesla recalled some unspecified number of vehicles.
• Para 2: "In February 2024, Tesla recalled over two million Tesla vehicles in the United States due the compact size of the warning lights on the instrument panel." - Something is up with the grammar here.
• Para 2: "Tesla Inc. shares, which experienced a downward trend from July 2023 and declined following the company's fourth quarter earnings report last week, fell an additional 2.7 percent in early trading on Friday, reaching levels not seen since May 2023." - I'm not seeing the relevance of the share prices to the recalls.
• Para 2: The last few sentences could probably be summarized. These sentences seem like they were closely paraphrased for some reason:
  • This article: "Documents indicated that the update was to enhance warnings and alerts for drivers. The NHTSA reported that the font size of the brake, park, and antilock brake warning lights was smaller than mandated by federal safety standards. This improper font size may render crucial safety information difficult to read, thereby increasing the risk of a collision."
  • The source: "Documents said the update will increase warnings and alerts to drivers. The agency says that the brake, park and antilock brake warning lights have a smaller font size than required by federal safety standards. That can make critical safety information hard to read, increasing the risk of a crash."

First fire:

• Para 1: "The first widely reported fire involving a Tesla Model S occurred on October 1, 2013," - While I am pretty sure it was the first widely reported fire, the source doesn't specifically say that it was the first.
• Para 2: "25 tons" - Since you included conversions for the other two measurements in this sentence, there should probably be a conversion here too (this is likely referring to short tons).
• Para 3: "NHTSA stating that the addition of a titanium underbody shield, aluminum deflector plates, and increased ground clearance "should reduce both the frequency of underbody strikes and the resultant fire risk"" - Did Tesla end up making these changes?

Subsequent fires:

• Para 1: "The cause of the fire remains undetermined." - Even ten years later? In any case, I think this can be removed, since this exact fact is repeated in the very next sentence.

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

All done except the last one. It's one of the lesser-known fires so they didn't go any more into the case (the most recent reliable cases are primary). 750h+ 05:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: ! 750h+ 23:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I have very limited access to my computer on Tuesdays through Thursdays. I'll leave my final comments tomorrow, as there doesn't seem to be that much left to comment on. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. 750h+ 01:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Reception and legacy:

• Para 1: "The Model S has been recognized as an influential electric car" - Personally I'd say "The Model S has been recognized by several critics as an influential electric car", or "Several critics have recognized the Model S as an influential electric car".
• Para 1: "The magazine Car and Driver noted" - I was going to recommend saying that this commentary is retrospective (since it's from 2019). However, since the Consumer Reports and Top Gear reviews are also retrospective, it may be better to move these to the end of the paragraph, and put the reviews from 2013-2014 first.
• Para 2: " Chris Perkins of the magazine Road & Track argued that Tesla managed to turn the "most important car of the century into a bad joke", describing the Model S Plaid as "perhaps one of the worst [cars in the world]"" - Does the review include more specific details as to why Perkins felt this way?

i moved that into a black quote since he had many reasons

That's it for me. Overall, this article is pretty good. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: All addressed. Much thanks for the review. 750h+ 23:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Oops, I forgot to do this earlier. Everything looks good to me from a prose and comprehensiveness standpoint. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Much thanks for the support Epicgenius! 750h+ 01:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Shushugah

Hello, I am looking forward to reviewing this FAC.

• The last mentioned recalls are from 2021. However it is missing several in between, particularly major and very recent recalls from 2024

  added

• I am searching for better sourcing, but would be worthwhile to mention Tilburg re-assembly was done for voucher/discounts within European market

  no RS say that, but i did add a reason

• The NUMMI plant should be wiki-linked within the body. Interesting history when Tesla Fremont Factory took over

  it already is

• In 2020, the company recycled 1,300 tons of nickel, 400 tons of copper, and 80 tons of cobalt. -> Is this a lot or very little? The numbers don't convey anything in proportion.

  done

  I should have been more clear. I am keeping an eye out for green washing and vanity metrics. Article should substantiate whether this amount of recycling is a lot or not. Different metrics exist for making comparisons, e.g costs of recycling the battery pack. Disassembling the electric batteries inside the Tesla Model S was cheaper than Nissan Leaf or Porsche Taycan according to this scientific research article.

  the most i can find is a Reddit post saying that they recycled the equivalent of 26,200 cars' batteries

  Please make use of the above mentioned source scientific research article which makes scholarly comparison of recycling amongst 2 comparable competitors. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Shushugah: i'm confused here. There's no mention of the "1,300 tons of nickel, 400 tons of copper, and 80 tons of cobalt" in the research article. Comparing one car to other car the reader may not have heard of is pointless. 750h+ 13:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Inside this passage is able to recycle around 92 percent of the elements from old batteries, moving towards a "closed loop" system where old batteries are turned into new ones. In 2020, the company recycled significant amounts of metals: 1,300 tons of nickel, 400 tons of copper, and 80 tons of cobalt. the numbers don't quite match, 400 versus 300 tons mentioned in the Science Engineering article, up to 92% of parts can be recycled and more importantly, it defers solely to Tesla's claim about its recycling efficacy without expert analysis. The excellent Vice magazine source is linked as a source, but it is not used to verify any of the claims. Information from this article could be used to expand body with more critical analysis of Tesla's claims, for example that 100% of batteries are recycled in some way and note that Tesla does not specify what percentage of each battery is recycled. More generally, it is quite complex/expensive process. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  the numbers do match. The Vice source verifies the claims in the previous sentence. i don't believe it requires any expansion; most of the from that article is incorporated here, including the criticisms

• Wikilinks to technical terms relevant in each section,
• The European New Car Assessment Programme and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ratings, particularly the table feel promotional and more specifically, lacking context especially the with seemingly contradictory sections about about product recalls. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  these are just tests by official government agencies, I don't see how they're promotional, or the need to add context

  The perfect score of 5 can be explained/contextualised, in terms of other vehicles that have received same score. Tesla has falsely claimed this was proof the Tesla Model S was the safest (lowest injuries) of all competitors, a characterization disputed by the NHTSA. There are further critical ratings inside Criticism_of_Tesla,_Inc.#Misleading_safety_ratings which delve into analysis I would expect. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  added some

• Layout related feedback
• Remove "won" column, all the awards listed already won awards.

  done

  • Would remove sub-section First fire and Subsequent fires

  i don't think so since the first fire was the largest reported Model S fire and has three paragraphs

  • Autopilot should be a subheading-1 instead of subheading-2

  it's a subsubsection of the Features subsection

@Shushugah: addressed. 750h+ 05:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Given your familiarity/expertise with Tesla, I would be grateful for any feedback/commentary you have for my FAC Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tesla_and_unions/archive1. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

All responded to. Will try to review in a bit. 750h+ 03:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Tesla substituted them for permanent magnet synchronous reluctance units -> substituted it with a permanent magnet synchronous reluctance motor? The grammar/plurality alternation is confusing
• the car shares about 30% -> the model shares 30%
• First mention of the Plaid should be the Model S Plaid
• range-extending vehicle -> (uses a more direct comparison of vehicle types) a hybrid electric vehicle with a range extender
• First use of currency should specify US$123 per MOS:CURRENCY, given that Tesla Model S is not unambiguously about one country context (with mentions of China, Netherlands)
• drive a CLS-Class -> Class is an adjective here, and it should either say CLS-Class vehicle or drove a CLS (as subsequent sentences do correctly)
• within the SpaceX factory. -> Specify that Musk owned this, otherwise it seems random.
• another electric CLS -> another electric version of a CLS. (They did not design CLS vehicles for their competitor).
• The passage about history of GM/Toyota is unnecessary trivia. The only necessary bit is that Tesla took over NUMMI and partnered with Toyota and rebranding NUMMI to Fremont Factory (with wiki link please)
• This claim was independently verified by the magazine Car and Driver in the middle of 2014, confirming the drag coefficient as 0.24. -> This claim was independently verified by Car and Driver magazine in 2014.
• First mentions of 270 kW (362 hp) should wiki link to Kilowatt, same for other technical terms mentioned for first time. See WP:TECHNICAL and MOS:REPEATLINK for guidance.
• ("D" stands for "dual") -> move this closer to first mention of P85D for P85D (P85 "dual")
• 652,000 other vehicles -> 652,000 other vehicles including from 12 competitors (I first thought other Tesla models)
• should reduce both the frequency of should reduce both the frequency of -> duplicate words
• The Model S has received mixed reviews. should be higher up in the section after being mentioned as influential.

  the first paragraph is dedicated to critics calling the car influential, whilst the second and third para is dedicated to critics reviewing the Model S

• Comparisons with other vehicles. The article makes frequent comparisons to other Tesla models, e.g Tesla Model Y and Tesla Model X, but neglects to mention competitors such as Nissan Leaf even though multiple sourcing do make the comparisons as mentioned above in two sources I pointed out. I get that it's subjective and weight-debatable.
• Inside this unused source a direct comparison is made for how cost-intensive disassembling batteries components are. This could go in section about environmental impact. I apologise for my earlier reviews which misstated incorrect source integrity.
• around 92% -> up to 92%

Thematically I would like to rely less on Tesla claims, even if they're sourced/weighed accordingly. There are challenges with focus in the article, some of which I've made suggestions for. All in all, I think it's on its way to FA status. Ping me when you have addressed the above points. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Shushugah: all addressed. 750h+ 09:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@750h: I went through my feedback one by one, to see which one you implemented or didn't, since you claimed all were addressed, without expanding. Some of the concerns have not been addressed at all. In a few cases, I think new issues were brought in, which I expand on below.

@750h: For sake of ease, I grouped the open issues below this line because I note you're editing on mobile, where it's hard to navigate these talk pages. I also saw that some of the issues I raised on 20 September were raised by Epicgenius a few days prior, even though you said they were all addressed. Can you double check that there are no outstanding requests or make it explicit? Some examples of requests that Epicgenius made that I also made several days later are why Road & Track calls the Plaid model the worst, removing excessive detail about Toyota/GM history at NUMMI. The latter is now addressed, but the former remains not responded to despite being raised. Other common requests include expansion of Autopilot software, which is crucial to this product. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Expand why Road and Track says that Plaid Model S is the worst car produced. For example that it underbraked and turned the positive legacy of Model S into a joke.

  i gave one reason, i don't see the need to go into detail in the lead when the reader can just go to the reception section

  I missed the quote box inside the reception, which certainly expands on the different reasons for why the Plaid was the worst car. I believe this is an appropriate/weighted quote as it is unique, and not easily summarized by other receptions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• Tesla also stated that the battery pack's energy content is about ten percent of a gasoline tank's, meaning the combustion potential of a single module is approximately one percent of that in a conventional vehicle. -> unclear methodology used and possibly promo without verification. Would remove or expand with independent assessment.

  i literally already removed that

  I missed that, thanks! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• exhaust pipe and underbelly -> I was confused, because I thought pure electric battery vehicles don't have exhaust pipes, so perhaps this is a hybrid version. In any case, the linked citation makes no mention of exhaust pipes. I read sourcing, but missed it if it's phrased in other technical terms. It does compare it to Nissan Leaf (later on that)

  it says "no exhaust pipes to disrupt the airflow."

  Can you quote the exact passage you are using? I searched and read both the source source and archive and could not find the word exhaust or pipe anywhere. Your inline wiki text says no exhaust pipes to disrupt the airflow. so what passage from the sourcing is backing this up? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  done

  It is now verified with addition of Ars Technica source. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• The passage almond-shaped headlights and prominent nosecone conjure images of Maserati, while the rear half has a distinct Aston Martin DBS flavor comparing to Maserati and Aston Martin DB is better moved to the reception section, since it does not actually explain the design in a neutral manner, but rather relates to both design and also "luxury/mood" of other high-end brands.

  This was completely removed, but I think it should stay, just in a different section. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• American automaker Tesla, Inc. opened a facility in Michigan. -> It was called Tesla Motors until 2017, see source here. Something like (then Tesla Motors) would be acceptable, with source.

  Text changed to Tesla Motors, but without any verification from current source, making it unverified. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Improper introduction of MOS:DASH as a grammatical pause. It should have spacing preceding the pause: spacing -for example not spacing-for example. Two examples (there are more) are "trunk"—which and model—with
  • (Unsolicited butt-in) That's only true for endashes (–): the longer emdash (—), which you've used here, is used unspaced on both sides. MOS:DASH sets out this principle and that either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes are fine, though articles should choose one or the other. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  per UC. @Shushugah: 750h+ 01:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Retracted and thank you both for teaching me something new! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Open issues (will be moved to above when done)

• What do the Autopilot apps run on? The hardware is mentioned, but nothing about the software the apps are part of. It seems to be called Tesla Operating System, but I don't know enough about the history. Is Autopilot software a core part of Autopilot hardware? i can't find anything about this Later in article, it's mentioned "over the air software updates", so would be interesting for understanding.

  all has been addressed, but the green text i added

  Perhaps QRep2020 could chime in, as author of Autopilot hardware. From what I've read, the Tesla infotainment system is based off Ubuntu, a flavor of Linux OS, whereas Tesla OS is something else, but I am not finding reliable sources easily. There's a ton of cruft/blogs out there adding to the noise when searching. Better to leave it out for now, and save it for a task for the future. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know offhand. I'll see what I can find, but tabling it for now makes the most sense. QRep2020 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• After purchasing a CLS, they disassembled it, modified the Roadster's battery pack, cut out the CLS's floor, and integrated it with the battery pack. -> Make it grammatically more explicit that they mixed/match or incorporated a Tesla Roaster battery pack into the CLS. Also good to introduce earlier here that the CLS were gasoline vehicles, instead of later down the paragraph. The way it reads right now, the Roaster is part of every CLS vehicle, when it is actually mixing two different company and battery types together.

  Now the grammar in your edit response is incorrect and repetitive CLS—a gasoline-powered vehicle—they disassembled it, modified the battery pack of a Tesla Roadster's battery pack, cut out the CLS's floor, and integrated the CLS with the battery pack.

i think "After purchasing a CLS, they disassembled it, modified the battery pack of a Tesla Roadster's battery pack, cut out the CLS's floor, and integrated it with the battery pack." was perfectly understandable. i'm going to leave it as this

• Revisit current usage of about/approximate and other percentages throughout article. Sometimes approximations are used for trivial matters like "approximately three months", yet with high degree of specificity Holzhausen designed 95% of... which can be replaced with Holzhausen designed the..

  There are nine mentions of about and six mentions of approximately. Could use more variation and or be removed completely in many cases. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  okay, every case of the two words is used correctly 750h+ 13:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Shushugah: 750h+ 13:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Weak support I am new to reviewing FACs so my feedback with a pinch of salt. I very much believe that the nominator has generally tried to address every feedback I gave. However, there were multiple requests I made that have been simply declined without effort to meet mid-way or done with the bare minimum, for example simply removing interesting claims instead of searching for further sourcing. I have tried to ensure that sourcing and verification remain. The example of exhaust pipe were I asked repeatedly where it was verified, only for it to be added on third inquiry was concerning. I am willing to assume good faith, that this is not an issue elsewhere, as I have not found that to be the case in the sources I checked. I am sorry this is not fully a cheery note, but I am in good faith trying to support with constructive feedback and AGF on my part, by giving a support, albeit a weaker one. All in all, a big congratulations on significantly improving an article on one of the most important vehicles in the 21st century! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Further comments

Sorry for longer comment here, but I want to indicate it is not a matter of one or two examples, but an in-depth review by you would be helpful. Without going into the more technical claims, I looked at some of the business/simpler claims.

It should be immediately obvious to the reader, what source is being used to verify what claim. When a passage has 3 sources, it either indicates that all three sources verify exact same thing, in which case the best source is preferred (especially for non controversial claims), or that there are contradicting claims, or mix-matching claims. In the case of mix-matching claims, that can be appropriate, but better to then directly place the inline text closer to the claim, instead of the end of a sentence/paragraph.

I will not read each/every pair of sourcing because that is a big ask of the reviewer before a nominator says it is ready, but an explanation why two or three sources are needed for each and every one of the following claims would help. Sometimes it's justified, but I am surprised in the following cases 13 cases:

• In 2007, Musk appointed Henrik Fisker, known for his work with Aston Martin (2 sources)
• as the lead designer of the WhiteStar project (3 sources)
• and debuted the Fisker Karma in 2008, at the North American International Auto Show. (2 sources)
• Musk subsequently filed a lawsuit against Fisker, accusing him of stealing Tesla's design ideas and using the $875,000 to launch his own company. (2 sources)
• Fisker won the lawsuit in November 2008, and an arbitrator ordered Tesla to reimburse Fisker's legal fees and declared Tesla's claims to be without merit. (2 sources)
• In August 2008, Musk appointed Franz von Holzhausen as the project's lead designer. (2 sources)
• Tesla debuted a prototype version of the Model S in Hawthorne, California, on March 26, 2009 (3 sources)
• Tesla initially intended to manufacture the Model S in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and later in San Jose, California, but later withdrew from both plans mainly due to financial problems (2 sources)
• After the Great Recession, GM found itself trying to recover from bankruptcy. It decided to abandon the facility in 2009, with Toyota soon following. (2 sources)
• However, a month after the last car was produced at the manufacturing line in April 2010, Toyota and Tesla announced a partnership and the transfer of the factory. Tesla agreed to purchase a significant portion of the facility for $42 million (equivalent to $58,683,351 in 2023), while Toyota invested $50 million (equivalent to $69,861,132 in 2023) in Tesla for a 2.5 percent stake in the company (2 sources)
• On June 22, 2012, Tesla invited its employees, select customers, and the press to watch the first production Model S roll off the manufacturing line in Fremont. (3 sources)
• Initially, the seats and steering wheel of the Model S were offered in both synthetic and non-synthetic leather options. However, in 2017, following a request from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to become the first cruelty-free automaker, Tesla switched exclusively to synthetic leather. (3 sources)
• In 2014, Tesla discontinued the P85, replacing it with the P85D ("D" stands for "dual"). (3 sources)

• @Shushugah: what really stood out to me was "It should be immediately obvious to the reader, what source is being used to verify what claim.". Is this a policy, because i don't remember it being one? I have fixed your three-overcite issues, since I have already fixed a good number of them prior with Femke's. Two successive cites isn't overciting.

  WP:FACRITERIA 1C: well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; (emphasis mine). It does not cite a hard and fast rule, since it's contextual. Sometimes it is appropriate for a paragraph to be supported by one source and in other cases multiple sources is valid. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The claims are verified by the sources at the end. I don't need to verify every single claim. 750h+ 12:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing

• Wiki link authors when they exist e.g Lora Kolodny

  done

• Vance 2016, p. 273. is used twice in a consecutive sentence

  done

• Vance 2016, p. 274. and Vance 2016, p. 273-274. are used afterwards as well. It is a longer paragraph that could also use Vance 2016, p. 273-274. (and special care must be taken that it is paraphrased appropriately
• 2014 Tesla Model S interior, cargo space & seating". U.S. News and World Report. is duplicated twice

  no it isn't

  Trout me,

• 2020 Tesla Model S prices, reviews, and photos is duplicated twice

  no it isn't

  WP:TROUT me. I misread the two different years 2020/2021 as being the same. What partly threw me off, is the 2021 version was published in Brady, Duncan (November 20, 2020) while 2020 was published in Brady, Duncan (June 20, 2020)

• Linked sources, for example Kwanten, Alex (February 20, 2024). "2024 Tesla Model S Review, Pricing, & Pictures and 2024 Tesla Model S interior, cargo space & seating are written by same author. One is a sub-page of the other. Keeping them as separate sources isn't bad but then copy over same author/published date and title to reflect this. Open to other ideas to show it's same review.

Speeds This is excessively detailed and not necessarily interesting for readers. The speeds of the first and latest models would be sufficient, but we don't need a year by year update of every single speed range of each model. Wikipedia should be prose friendly, not an indiscriminate database for technical specs. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll address this tomorrow or later today 750h+ 01:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's excessively detailed. Unlike other articles like this which include weight, 0-60, top speed, consumption and battery cell type alongside the power and torque specs, this one only includes the power, torque, speed and 0-60, making less excessively detailed in the form of prose. I also don't see how a few paragraphs makes it excessively detailed, but might just be me. 750h+ 06:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not find that engaging to read either. It's difficult as a reader to know what actually changed with that much information. Did the car become more dangerous with a faster accelleration? Or did it significantly reduce range anxiety with a larger battery? Etc. What are the highlights of the upgrade? (P.S. for accessibility, avoid linking words like "here"). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

OK. If that's an actual problem then I will remove it. 750h+ 07:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. 750h+ 08:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Review by Femke

• There are some issues with overcitation. For instance, "The Model S is the company's second vehicle and is, as of 2022, its longest-produced model" only requires two sources, the 2020 source adds nothing.

fixed

That was just one example. Please have another look over the article, to see whether you need three citations for uncontroversial statements elsewhere too. Was it controversial that Holzhausen was the lead designer, that the body is made mostly out of aluminium? The range is controversial, as the rated range is typically higher than the actual range. Is the range you give the actual or rated range, and what is the approximate real range? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: i've fixed most cases of overcitation, not extensively in the "Models" section because there could be three or more specs needed (horsepower, torque, introduction/discontinuation, etc) 750h+ 10:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Britain and Europe. Did you mean Britain and the EU? UK is still part of Europe.

fixed

• The numbers in the production section come over as a bit boring. Do we need Tesla's own quarterly expectations? "The company also expected to deliver around 500 vehicles to customers in the third quarter, with the remaining units scheduled for delivery in the fourth quarter." If we remove that sentence, the reader can more easily compare Tesla's projections with actual deliveries.

removed

• "It is one of the world's largest producers of electric motors, energy storage products, vehicle powertrains, and batteries, manufacturing billions of cells annually" sounds promotional (people have no idea if billions of cells is a lot or "normal"), and it's quote from Tesla, unattributed. This is a copyvio concern, so please double check you've not done this elsewhere. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Femke: any more comments? 750h+ 00:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not planning to do a full review here, but it's too easy to find issues and nitpicking still.

• The claim that the battery had small amounts of cobalt and nickel is not verified by the source, as the source does not mention Tesla. My understanding is that NCA batteries have substantial nickel and cobalt shares.

  what it did verify was the which has been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as having a high environmental impact due to the toxicity of their extraction and refining processes. I've also minorly changed that to verify what is said in the source.

  And you've introduced another issue with the new sourcing. The source about cobalt is fair, as it applies to all Tesla cars. The CNN article does not mention model S, and also says these batteries are used in most of their standard range cars, not all. It also contradicts the design section, which says "and a nickel-cobalt-aluminum cathode", without noting that there has been a possible switch to LFP batteries. NCA batteries have a lot of nickel, so I think this is false for at least a subset of model S.

  seems like this one's causing issues so I'll remove it.

  This still contradicts the source. BNEF says: "Tesla currently uses the nickel rich nickel-cobalt-aluminum cathode chemistry, which has a low cobalt content of about 5%". So it's untrue that nickel content was low in their NCA batteries. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Furthermore, the new source you added supporting "However, since January 2021, Tesla has completely stopped using nickel and cobalt in its lithium-ion batteries" fails verification in two ways. One: it's a future-looking source, stating the intention to stop using cobalt. And 2) it doesn't say it's going to stop nickel, only cobalt. This could be via a new type of NCA battery with nickel. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  OK. I added the CNN source back but to verify this statement. 750h+ 08:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Which I objected to before, as it does not verify the statement either. Quote from CNN source: "Tesla .. said in April [2022] that nearly half of its vehicles sold in the first three months of the year do not include nickel or cobalt.", which is very different from the statement that they succeeded already in January 2021. I'll make some direct edits to the text, as this article is read too much to wait for the FAC process to sort this out. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  whoops, my mistake 750h+ 16:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• It's not clear from the text that the MIT magazine article is written by Tesla's former TCO. It's not the opinion or editorial of the magazine, but of an individual closely related to Tesla. Language as "indefinitely" sounds a bit promotional from that source. The text here is again too closely paraphrased. It is also not a criticism, but a rhetorical tool to call it unintuitive.

  The article was not written by Tesla's CTO, it was written by Casey Crownhart, and it gives JB Straubel's (Tesla's CTO) opinion on battery recycling

  Fair. Still, the key point for our readers is that you take a quote by Straubel as truth, without letting the readers know there is a COI here. Better to find another source on this. Close paraphrasing is also unresolved. The sentence order is similar, most of what you've done is switching out synonyms and removing the first person.

  The magazine MIT Technology Review criticized the lack of intuitiveness in the discussion surrounding the high level of reusability associated with the metals within the batteries. All of the materials incorporated into a battery and an electric vehicle remain present and intact throughout their lifecycle. These materials do not undergo degradation or compromise; approximately all of these metals can be recycled and reused an indefinitely high number of times—potentially hundreds or even thousands of cycles

  I'll fixe this soon.

  But something that isn’t intuitive is just what a high level of reusability the metals inside of a battery have. All of those materials we put into a battery and into an EV don’t go anywhere. They’re all still there. They don’t get degraded, they don’t get compromised—99% of those metals, or perhaps more, can be reused again and again and again. Literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of times.

  I'm confused what you want me to do here, that's what the source says. I also fixed the copyvio writing.

  There are three POV issues remaining. The first one is that you attribute wrong. There is a difference between the opinion of MIT Magazine and the person they interview. You make it sound like this is MIT's opinion (independent), rather than Straubel's. The second one is that point out is a slightly a non-neutral synonym of said. WP:UNDUE weight on a primary source is the last one. Preferable, you find a different source that's independent. If you want to use this source, the following is less bad:

  "According to Tesla's former CTO JB Straubel, Tesla's batteries can be recycled hundreds of times or even more." Just that single sentence, which is arguably too much already. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve implemented your suggestions. I prefer to use this source, if that’s fine. 750h+ 16:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  You've implemented 25% of my suggestions, and seemingly reintroduced an error. I don't see Straubel criticising recyling in that source. The volume of text is still too much: there is undue attention to a primary source, and it's better to have either 0 or 1 sentence from it. It still sounds like corporate fluff unfortunately. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Okay Femke, I have

  • removed the “criticised” part
  • have removed two sentences just so there’s one sentence

  What do we think? 750h+ 16:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• The statement that production emissions are 68% higher needs a page number. A quick search in that document seems to imply it's a more generic number than the text implies for EVs.

done

• However, the report assumes that electric materials are recycled at rates similar to other cars and excludes the issue of battery disposal due to limited data on current recycling practices and future intentions --> It now implies you're talking about the IEA results, rather than the older UCS results.

fixed

• Throughout, do we need exact dates (On April 20, 2017 rather than "in April 2017"). To me, this is unnecessary details which make it tough to read the article.

i'm a bit confused how it'll make it tough to read. if it's something like "May 10, 2013, and June 8, 2013, one might think that their vehicle manufactured on May 8 was part of the recall.

• The currency conversions have false precision. Please use the same precision as the original (42 million --> 59 million).

  how do I do this? i've been trying using instructions from the Template:Inflation page but can't seem to figure out how.

  Template:Inflation#Very_large_results. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Done, if this looks fine. 750h+ 08:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Overall, without doing a full review, I regretfully leaning oppose as issues with neutrality and copyright are difficult to address at FAC stage. For next time, it would be good to slow down, nominate for GA first (I also nommed too fast when I started in 2014). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: with responses 750h+ 00:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

(A small accessibility issue: when you indent, please continue the same style as before. So * is followed by *:, rather than ::. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Will do. I've addressed one of your response, but I'll address the others tomorrow or in the coming days. 750h+ 14:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Coord note

I think Femke has hit the nail on the head. FAC -- and WP as a whole -- is not a race, and the level of commentary above indicates the article is undercooked. We don't have consensus for promotion over a month after the nomination opened, and we're unlikely to achieve that soon. Some of our most experienced editors put articles through GAN or PR or both before FAC, and I'd strongly recommend that (as I have previously) before any future nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2024 [68].

---

Godzilla Minus One

Nominator(s): Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Godzilla Minus One is a 2023 monster movie by Takashi Yamazaki that won the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects this year. I've put so much effort into improving this article, which was recently promoted to GA, and I believe that it is now viable for FA status. Thanks to anyone who offers any feedback. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been three weeks since I posted this, and I am very disappointed that it has been ignored entirely while every other FA nom has received some attention from reviewers. I am curious as to why this is. Is it because the article has almost 200 references? Is it because it is on a Japanese topic? Is it because it is of something fairly recently released? Is it because I've only ever nominated one article to FA previously? Or is there something I've missed, and you believe is not worth it? Whatever the reason, I am extremely disappointed and a bit frustrated. I will leave this nomination open for one more week and if it hasn't had any attention by then, I will probably revoke it. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I can understand being frustrated and disappointed by this, but I would encourage you to not take it personally. Sometimes, an FAC just does not attract reviewers. Sometimes it is because editors are too busy to do a review or the nomination just gets lost in the shuffle. I would advise either reaching out to editors on their talk page or reviewing other FACs as that would help to get your name out there (and would help other editors who are in a similar position). Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Nineteen-Ninety Four guy

• Creature design is wanting and could be fleshed out a bit more into something akin to that in The Thing (1982 film), another FA
• On themes and analysis (which should be retitled to "Thematic analysis"), check to see if there are books/dissertations that have already been published about the movie's themes. You can start by searching the The Wikipedia Library, which you should be able to access with your WP account
• The coverage on both the Japanese and international receptions are relatively thin and lack unifying themes. All I am discerning as a reader from the international reception section alone is that critics found the film to be the best Godzilla movie yet and essentially better than previous/contemporary works. Okay, but is this really all that is evident? There are 34 reviews indexed on Metacritic alone, but only about 15 individual reviews are cited in the prose. I don't think 41% is good enough. You should cite all 34 reviews and find what critics have largely agreed on besides the fact it's the best Godzilla movie ever; see the Critical reception on The Thing article. Overall this section still does not feel like "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" as per criterion 1c.

It's pointless to support or oppose this nomination, as it didn't get the necessary amount of comments to arrive at either consensus in the first place. In any case, I hope these comments help you somehow in getting you that much-coveted FA status. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully butting in on this a little late. I think some of these pointers are decent. One of the major problems with films of lager scope is keeping the length down to fit Wikipiedia's guidelines. The creature design only needs subtle expansion but not too much. Review section is good and there is no need to cite every single one as that would be excessive. Clearer citations on critics citing it as the best Godzilla film ever would be a little better. Literary sources are tricky as this is a very recent film so I don't see a problem there only if its in reverence to older topics. My suggestion is to make sure the words line up with what the sources say and minor expansion. After that, some copy editing. This is a really good article and not far off from a successful FA review. Much regards and don't give up. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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

German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the second largest Nazi mass killing, also one of the least known. I'm not a fan of the title, but I think the article is now ready for FAC after going through GAN and GOCE, for which I thank Catlemur and Miniapolis (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Joeyquism

There was a good point brought up on this article's talk page about its title. What I'm primarily concerned about is WP:NPOV with regards to the word "atrocities" - while anyone with a working conscience would, of course, label these acts as atrocities, I'm not sure if this is neutral phrasing. There's mention of using the term "war crimes" instead; perhaps this would be a better descriptor? If that term is incorrect due to sources saying otherwise/definitions imposed by authoritative bodies or simply just not to your taste (it would make the title longer and introduce another instance of the word "war"), let me know. joeyquism (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Buidhe: I might add that I should be able to commit to a full review soon, and I will likely start after my move in a couple of days (though moving efforts will ultimately take precedence). If I don't get anything down here within the next one-and-a-half to two weeks, you are welcome to ping me liberally. joeyquism (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. My main objection to the title is that the article's scope is more broad—it covers the totality of experiences of prisoners of war, which were not necessarily atrocities or war crimes. In a lot of cases, the sources don't specify whether something is a war crime, although they are clear that many violations of the Geneva conventions occurred. (t · c) buidhe 03:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This reasoning seems fair enough. I will not press on the title any further. joeyquism (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

UC

I will try to come back for a "proper" review, but two small points for now:

• As we only have the one map in the article, I worry that it gives the impression of representing the total scale of German advances into the USSR, when of course it shows only quite a small fraction of it. Two options, I think -- either add another one later on, to show advances up to Moscow/Stalingrad, or replace it with one that shows the whole campaign, perhaps phased by year.
• If we're going to use a German noun, like Blitzkrieg, as a native word in italics, we need to capitalise it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The map was chosen to show the quick advances at the beginning of the camp which enabled the Germans to capture so many prisoners. I'm not attached to that map in particular, but I didn't see any others that made the speed of the advance as clear. I wonder if any confusion could be alleviated by explicitly pointing it out in the caption. Fixed the capitalization issue. (t · c) buidhe 22:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm imagining one with nice labelled lines, or coloured waves, showing the frontline at the end of each year, but I'm not sure if Commons has one of those. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

this map exists but I thought it was harder for readers to take in than the one I used. (t · c) buidhe 12:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, pros and cons to each. Two maps might be the way to go? I might have a look on Commons and see if I can suggest anything sensible. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

buidhe and UndercoverClassicist, Here's a map that might work as an addition or replacement to address the concerns raised above. Its based on the [[this map|unused map]] buidhe mentioned above that has conquered areas colored by date, such as UC suggested (if I'm understanding colored waves correctly). It has the Soviet army pockets, whose placement is based the two West Point maps (one used in this article) on the Eastern Front (both linked in the map description). It varies from the base map in that some of the schematic advance lines were adjusted to make the formation of the pockets more clear, and it has some minor cosmetic changes. I think it helps cover the bases implied in the above discussion:

• It highlights the Soviet army pockets, which play a major role in this article, whereas they are somewhat hidden in the West Point map.
• Almost all the schematic arrows correspond to an actual line of advance, but avoid all the military designations, which aren't germane to the article.
• This map extends beyond August, going to the Battle of Moscow in December.
• It shows the later pockets, such as Kiev, Vyazma, and Bryansk.

This is just a suggestion on an issue already discussed. If it doesn't serve the article's needs, its construction was an interesting way to think a bit more deeply about the article. Wtfiv (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a great piece of work: certainly looks clear and that it would do the job well, though I'm not really qualified to pronounce as to its accuracy or whether it fits the purpose needed in this article: I will leave that to buidhe. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks wftiv! Your map looks great :) (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad it was useful! Since you used it, I rebuilt the entire map as an .svg, making it more consistent, easier to edit, and more scaleable. Wtfiv (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Captured Red Army soldiers (in infobox): is this quite complete -- wouldn't some prisoners have come from e.g. NKVD formations or the naval infantry? Suggest "Captured Soviet troops".
  • Ok
• The Nazi leadership believed that war with its ideological enemy was inevitable: consider expanding this a little -- I know it's a long story, but it's somewhat germane to the point why the Nazis thought of the USSR as such an inevitable and hated enemy.
  • Clarified the reasons the source gives for this belief
• preventative killings: sounds a little euphemistic: is this the term used in the literature?
  • Yes, well, the source says "preemptive killings"
    • Even worse, perhaps! But the point is clear enough, and perhaps "murders intended to terrorise the population into compliance" is a little mealy-mouthed: what we've got here works fine. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• War aims included securing natural resources, including agricultural land to feed Germany, metals and mineral oil for German industry: cadence is better if you either lose the first comma or add one before the final and: at the moment, it's a little loose as to how each part flows together.
  • I shortened the sentence by removing the last clause
• The vast majority of German military manpower and materiel was devoted to the invasion, which was carried out as a war of extermination with complete disregard for the laws and customs of war.: changing tone a little, can I just put on record my approval of this kind of phrasing -- it would be easy to shy away from being so straightforward about it out of mistaken NPOV concerns, but you do an excellent job of being absolutely explicit about what we are talking about while keeping everything well within what can be supported from the evidence.
• Informed by Nazi racial theory and Germany's experience during World War I,: I understand the first bit, but what does Germany's experience in WWI have to do with the idea that Muslims are "better" than Ukrainians?
  • This factor was separate from Nazi racial theory (according to the source), which doesn't elaborate much but cites another highly reliable source that I can't check. During WWI the Germans recruited some nationalities into the war effort, but faced problems with "unreliability". (t · c) buidhe 13:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• by killing communist functionaries and Soviet Jews, it was expected that resistance would quickly collapse: the passive voice is tricky here ("by whom?"): suggest "they expected".
  • Done
• Soviet prisoners of war were held under tighter control, and had a higher death rate: as this is a comparative statement, I would make it an explicit comparison: "than those of other nations"; "than those of western European ethnicity"? I'd be interested to know what the Nazis made of e.g. African and Asian troops fighting for the western Allies.
  • Compared to those mentioned in the last couple of sentences : Soviet urbanites and ghettoised Jews. Made it more clear
• generally adhered to it with prisoners of other nationalities: perhaps not totally to the point here, but did this apply to e.g. black American soldiers, those believed to be gay, or Jews?
  • Violations of the Geneva Convention with regard to other nationalities besides Soviet and Italian were the exception. Even yugoslav Jewish soldiers were not mistreated. It's true that there were some homosexuality cases involving pows but it was rare and probably not violating the Geneva Convention.
    • That's ... good, I suppose? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• there were no legal gray areas: consider ambiguities per MOS:CLICHE?
  • done
• Helmuth James Graf von Moltke was one of the few high-ranking officials: can we say what his position was?
  • As the article says he supported treating all prisoners according to the Geneva Convention, is there a way to make this more clear?
    • Sorry, I meant “position” as in his rank, job etc — we’ve said he was important, but can we be more specific? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
      • he was in the Abwehr (t · c) buidhe 20:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

        Just looking at his Wikipedia page -- was he really all that high ranking? His job seems to have been fairly ordinary: when I hear "high-ranking", I think senior government ministers, generals, heads of agencies and so on: was he anything close to that? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

        Pohl says that "hardly anyone" (presumably on the German side) supported treating POWs according to the Geneva Convention. Revised (t · c) buidhe 13:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

        • As we've presented it, we've claimed to know that almost all people in Germany supported war crimes against Soviets. That's a big claim -- is that something Pohl a) alleges and b) could reasonably be able to prove? Otherwise, something like "Nazi officials", "figures within the regime", or similar might help. I don't think the point is wrong at all, but that makes it all the more important to be ironclad on the details. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

          @Buidhe: I think this is the last unresolved issue here? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

          Sorry I missed this. The reason I wrote it the way I did originally was that I thought he was referring to officials with some influence on the actual policy, but technically there isn't explicit support for this in the text. After looking at the context I think it's clear that he is referring to views within the Wehrmacht, but it's unclear exactly which group of Wehrmacht personnel he is referring to. "The murder of Soviet prisoners of war was undoubtedly controversial within the Wehrmacht... Hardly anyone, however, advocated treatment of Soviet prisoners of war that was fully in line with international law; one of the few who did so was Helmut James Graf von Moltke." (t · c) buidhe 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

          Current phrasing is good, I think. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• the rapid encirclement actions that the German commanders expected in the blitzkrieg: you will know more about this than me, but I gather that military historians are increasingly sceptical of the idea that Blitzkrieg was a coherent doctrine, rather than a post-facto myth that conveniently explained the rather inadequate Allied response to the invasion of France.
  • I don't have any knowledge of this, actually, so I rewrote not to use the word blitzkrieg.

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Mark Edele gets the microphone for practically all of the section on why Soviet soldiers surrendered. Does this represent WP:DUEWEIGHT -- are there other voices of equal/greater weight that could/should be brought in here?
  • None of the other books really address this topic.
• The Waffen part of Waffen-SS needs to be italicised (really, the whole thing should be in a lang template, but I'm not sure how well that plays with links plus regular italicisation).
  • When Oxford, cambridge, Taylor&Francis and Elsevier don't italicize, I think Wikipedia should follow the more common usage.
• Red Army soldiers overtaken by the German advance without being captured were ordered to present themselves to the Wehrmacht: we've usually avoided gratuitously Germanising perfectly normal terms, which I think is the right way to go (I think this reddit thread puts the case quite well), but this seems to be an exception: why not "German Army" (or "German armed forces" vel sim), as we have used elsewhere? If we are desperate to use a German word, we should italicise and use lang templates.
  • I've taken out all mentions of Wehrmacht in the article
• The number of Soviet soldiers captured fell dramatically after the Battle of Moscow in late 1941: is it worth being explicit that this was because the Germans started losing at this point?
  • Pohl doesn't make this connection, I searched through the relevant chapter in Hartmann and he doesn't either. I will check if it's in the Quinkert book.
• Why does Dulag get an explanation but stalag not? The latter also needs a capital letter.
  • Rewrote
• , when the Commissar Order was rescinded: I would rework this section a little, to initially explain what the Commissar Order was, then what happened under it, then what happened after it was rescinded. At the moment, we rely on the reader knowing or being able to infer what the order demanded.
  • Done
• Contradictory orders were issued for the execution of female combatants in the Soviet army, who defied German gender expectations, but the orders were not always followed: can we be a little clearer as to what some of these orders were -- presumably, as with the commissars, a spectrum between "kill them all" and "treat them with particular respect"?
  • Rewrite
• the OKW's Allgemeines Wehrmachtsamt.: see comment earlier about German terms -- if this one is really untranslatable, we should at least explain what it was in English.
• the Korücks,: likewise -- can we explain who these people were?
  • To be honest, I don't really understand. I may do more research, or it may be that the intricacies of the chain of command are not WP:DUE (given that they aren't even mentioned in most of the sources). Update: I decided take out these couple sentences. (t · c) buidhe 13:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• A figure of 200,000 to 250,000 deaths in transit is provided in Russian estimates: we imply here that other estimates are available, or that these might not be above suspicion -- can we expand on either side?
  • I only put it this way because both of the cited sources state explicitly that it is a "Russian estimate" (apparently from Rossija i SSSR ν vojnach XX veka. Statisticeskoe issledovanie. Red. G. F. Krivoseev. Moskva 2001)
• Make sure that date ranges, including in work titles, have endashes (I noticed Moore 2022).
  • Fixed
• "barbed-wire fences" should have a hyphen, as a compound modifier.
  • Done
• the encirclements of Vyazma and Bryansk: can we put an explicit date on this?
  • Done
• The vast majority of prisoners (ethnic Russians) : I think this would be more grammatical as "Ethnic Russians, the vast majority of the prisoners, were not..."
  • Done
• prisoners were released so they could volunteer for the Wehrmacht or the police: see my point earlier about the word Wehrmacht.
• About one-third became Hiwis: suggest explaining what Hiwis were.
  • Reworded
• Wehrmacht soldiers often conducted the executions: as above.
• a stereotypically-Jewish appearance: MOS:HYPHEN says not to use a hyphen when the compound modifier is formed by a regular -ly adverb.
  • done
• With Wehrmacht cooperation, Einsatzgruppen units: I think Einsatzgruppen may have to stay as untranslatable, but see earlier comments about Wehrmacht and lang templates.
  • As with Waffen-SS, the majority of scholarly English language sources don't italicize.
    • Very well, but we should then use lang templates (with |italic=no) to ensure that screen readers handle them correctly. Apologies if you've already done that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• five to 25 percent escaped detection: MOS:NUM would like consistency.
  • Done
• Invalid soldiers were in particular danger when the front approached. invalid meaning "sick" is only usually a noun: suggest "disabled", "soldiers too sick to work", or similar.
  • Done
• if their responses were unsatisfactory, they were discharged from prisoner-of-war status: I think we should be a little more explicit as to what this means -- "discharged" often means "released", especially in a military context.
  • Done
• Suggest knocking the "were" out of the "killed at Mauthausen" link to break the sea of blue.
  • Done
• Hitler opposed recruiting Soviet collaborators for military and police functions, blaming non-German recruits for defeat in World War I.: would this point be useful further up to explain what we meant about Germany's WWI experience causing animosity to certain eastern European ethnicities?
  • I could move it up but then it wouldn't explain in this section why Hitler opposed their recruitment, but his underlings disagreed.
• some having living conditions similar to Wehrmacht soldiers: another beat on the same drum, I'm afraid.
• 14 in the Turkestan Legion, nine in the Armenian Legion, eight each in the Azerbaijani and Georgian Legions, and seven in the North Caucasian and Idel-Ural Legions.: MOS:FIGURES again.
  • Fixed
• Employers paid RM0.54 per day per man This and similar values a little later -- it seems intuitive that these are small amounts, but can we contextualise them vs. the price of something worth buying, or the wages of someone like a soldier?
  • Add currency conversion, although I'm not sure how meaningful it is.
• the Channel Islands, where many died: my impression is that Jersey, at least, was a fairly 'tame' (by Nazi standards!) place to be, both for the soldiers and for the prisoners, at least until Germany started losing badly and food became more scarce. Is the conflation of Norway and the CI justified here?
  • Maybe not for Soviet POWs because the cited source says "They also suffered the same privations and treatment as other Soviet prisoners". And according to another source hundreds or thousands of Soviet citizens died there.
    • I stand enlightened. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Unlike the Holocaust, where killings occurred far from Germany's borders : we need a mostly in here -- Dachau and Ravensbrück, for example, were certainly in Germany.
  • The vast, vast majority of Jewish holocaust victims were killed east of Germany's 1937 borders. None of the death camps, ghettos, or mass execution sites were located in Germany's prewar territory. Unless they were in the army, a German could well have seen their Jewish neighbors rounded up but would not have witnessed anyone being killed, except perhaps at the very end of the war. Dachau and Ravensbrück, and other concentration camps (except Auschwitz and Majdanek which were located in Poland) were not used for mass executions of Jews.
    • No, but Jews died in Dachau and Ravensbrück, didn't they? I agree there's a difference of degree, but we still surely need something like "almost all", unless we mean to exclude someone who starved or was beaten to death there from the victims of the Holocaust. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
      • What the cited source says is: "After 1945, many Germans claimed that they had not known about the murder of Jews, which had happened far away... Soviet POWs were dying in huge numbers in camps inside Germany by 1941 – a fact that was widely known and was occurring before most of the Jews had been deported and killed"
        • I'm only going on what you have quoted here, but the word claimed is doing a lot of work there. I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that most Germans must at least have had a very strong inkling of what was happening to Jews (see e.g. here), even if they hadn't physically seen a death camp. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
          • We have an entire article on the subject, but I have rephrased the text. (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• The caption on the Hess at Minsk photo has a lot of links on common terms that were linked much earlier -- and, I'm afraid, I must ask about "Wehrmacht" again...
  • It's often recommended to repeat links in captions
• About 500,000 prisoners had been freed by Allied armies by February 1945: is this just on the Eastern Front, or in the West as well?
  • Only the Red Army, clarified
• German Army scorched-earth tactics: I would cut Army, as the air force played its role too. One might even consider cutting German too -- didn't the Soviets carry out scorched earth tactics as they withdrew?
  • Source says German Army. I don't know if the Red Army used scorched earth tactics but the vast majority of war destruction seems to be attributed to the German occupiers.
• who fell into enemy hands or was encircled without capture: this seems rather harsh! Am I reading correctly that being surrounded made you a traitor if you didn't surrender?
  • While Moore states, "Servicemen who had been captured and escaped, or who had been encircled but not captured—something that may have applied to up to a million men in the first weeks of the conflict—had been dealt with under the Soviet criminal code as though they had committed high treason and were therefore subject to execution and the confiscation of their property." I was curious about this and tracked down the source he cited (Pavel Polian, ‘The Internment of Returning Soviet Prisoners-of-War after 1945’, in Bob Moore and Barbara Hately-Broad (eds), Prisoners of War, Prisoners of Peace (Oxford: Berg, 2005) p. 127.) Polian does not say that this class of people was considered universally traitors, only that they were screened after the war to find traitors. I rewrote the sentence based on Edele and Polian; it seems like in theory you were not a traitor if you surrendered due to the impossibility of continuing resistance, but in practice you would fall under suspicion.
    • That makes more sense: I suppose the (twisted) Soviet logic would have been that getting yourself encircled might show a less-than-stellar desire to fight and win: perhaps you only got into that situation because you weren't aggressive enough, or were hoping to be captured. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• classified all surrendering commanders and political officers culpable deserters : better as as culpable deserters, or culpable as deserters. If the former, could cut culpable -- you can't be a not-culpable deserter.
  • Done
• Trawniki men were typically sentenced : I would explain who these people were.
  • It's explained in the military collaboration section. Should I repeat it here?
    • I must admit that I missed it, so take from that what you will. It is quite a way up, even for more attentive readers. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• According to official statistics, "57.8 per cent were sent home, 19.1 per cent were remobilized into the army, 14.5 per cent were transferred to labour battalions of the People's Commissariat for Defence, 6.5 per cent were transferred to the NKVD 'for disposal', and 2.1 per cent were deployed in Soviet military offices abroad".: an odd place to quote -- this is just bare facts, so better as a paraphrase. It's minor, but the WP:NONFREE case here is not strong.
  • Rewrote
• Different figures appear in the book Dimensions of a Crime. Soviet Prisoners of War in World War II: better as a colon, not a full stop, between title and subtitle -- but why give the title at all, rather than the author, as we've normally done with scholars' opinions?
  • Non-notable authors, rephrased
• They were excluded from the Foundation Remembrance, Responsibility and Future fund: this could do with a bit of explanation -- it sounds from the article as though this was a Soviet thing.
  • Done
• others belonged to the NKVD, People's Militia, were from uniformed civilian services: not grammatical: "to the NKVD or People's Militia, were from..."
  • Done
• Christian Streit's landmark Keine Kameraden : landmark is a bit WP:PROMO, and I would translate the title for Anglophone readers.
  • Rewrote

That's a first pass -- my admiration continues. Clear and authoritative throughout: purely on prose, I found the "death toll" section slightly less sparkling than the rest, but that may be a reflection of the difficulty of conveying what is essentially a long list of (rather harrowing) statistics. As ever, my respect for taking on such a challenging and important topic and conveying it so well. I hope these comments are helpful, and please do take them as the beginning rather than the end of a conversation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Support -- apologies for a long and no doubt torturous review, but I hope it's been to the article's benefit. Once again, huge respect for doing an excellent job with such a challenging subject. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Commentary from fifelfoo on all of 1, 1c (inflation specific), all of 2, 3 (textual quotation), 4, including plagiarism samplings

I appear to be liable to assist, for various reasons of past personal reading. And in that matter, if people believe my past editing in historiography of state murders would bias me or cause the appearance of bias, please ask me to cease my contributions immediately? I haven't done one of these in a while, so this may take some time, and my standards may be out of alignment with current standards (I did check back on customs and practices last year). If I can have 4 days to get through the major headings? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• General query: Why skip MILHIST-A? Not enough review contributors? Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

1a: reviewed: oppose

• I am aware that I'm reviewing a GA
• Now that is a lede sentence. That's a masterful lede sentence. It is also a masterful lede.
• "Among the criminal orders issued before the invasion was the execution of captured Soviet commissars." => "Among the criminal orders issued before the invasion was the order for the execution of captured Soviet commissars." Otherwise it appears that the executions happened before the war due to verb chaining issues across comparative verbal clauses.
• "military planners decided to breach it with the Soviet prisoners" => "with Soviet prisoners" the collective noun doesn't need an article
• "Soviet Jews, political commissars, and some officers, communists, intellectuals, Asians, and female combatants" => ", some officers," unnecessary "and" within a comma separated noun list.
  • Unsolicited advice, but the point has been missed here: the and is needed to clarify that the some applies to officers, communists etc, but that all Jews and commissars are included. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • That is correct. (t · c) buidhe 01:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Completely agree with decision to exclude historiography from lede: article isn't "Historiography of…". The implicit historiographical summary of "but far less studied" is an appropriate historical conclusion of interest to the general reader. Really well handled here. Historiography is often too danke for the general reader, but necessary in body. Picked the right lede point in complex terrain.
• "To increase the speed of conquest, the Germans" do note that I'm reading for stuff like this. The correct noun choices based on the historiographical arguments around "Ordinary men" are observed by readers like me, and I have read for these observations of "avoidance of Clean Wehrmacht" type myths. Correctly handled here, as a note, will observe if ever incorrectly handled (do not expect it to be.) I note that merely a paragraph later Nazi is used correctly to typify a view not universally held, compared to standard German myths of the East. This reinforces my belief that tonal choices of collective agent nouns will be correct.
• "World War I led to increased antisemitism" => "World War I had lead to increased antisemitism" consider? My en_AU_scholarly views of which English past tense to use may be atypical though. The point being that WWI didn't simply produce a result, but was an active process producing a result in the past.
• "and recognition of the need to secure food supplies" whose need? Unnamed noun. Suggest "recognition of Germany's need" as this dolchstosselegende myth isn't Nazi specific.
• "they were less effective than expected because of flight" whose flight? "because of civilian flight" missing noun. Alternately civilian and military flight if more representative of HQRS scholarly judgement? Scholars may have generalised all kinds of flight, regardless of STAVKA's hopes.
  • The source says : "Many managed to flee other large Soviet cities that were under German occupation" so I cannot explicitly say civilian if the source doesn't.
• "Although the mass deaths of prisoners in 1941 were controversial within the military, Abwehr officer Helmuth James Graf von Moltke was one of the few who favored treating Soviet prisoners according to the law." This is a bit of a mess. Complex multivalued expression with subtle nods to variations. "Although the virtue of mass deaths of prisoners…was controversial… [for purely instrumental reasons of policy?], Abwehr…according to law." I'm not sure what I'm meant to read here as a reader? Sure von Moltke might be admirable because he likes law of war, but what's the controversy about then?: Shoot them now or shoot them later?; Oh we don't want to starve slaves to death, we want to work them to death, work them in conditions of life unworthy of life, demonstratively punish them indefinitely, while your racial views are admirable they are of military detriment to defeating our enemy? Dangling an implicit controversy without explaining it in the sentence leads me unable to read von Moltke's legalism appropriately. Was he legalist in comparison to now/later policy views; was he legalist in comparison to military efficacy is death/ military efficacy is preservation of surrender as possible? This one is really troubling for me as I can't read it to an adequate conclusion of what kind of barbarism OKW/OKH policy level leaders were controverting over.
  • The source does not allow me to elaborate on Moltke's views, which would probably be WP:UNDUE because the article is not about Moltke.
• "Little planning was made for housing and feeding the millions of soldiers to be captured as part of the rapid encirclement actions that German generals were planning." I've read enough mass human death studies to understand what "little planning" indicates. The general reader may not have? "were planning, the absence of plans implied necessarily deficient ad hoc solutions regardless of intention."? I'm reading here for language, not for OR/HQRS representation obviously. The follow on sentence implies the hermeneutic gap: absence of planning results in deficient outcomes regardless of intention. (With the intentions I'd anticipate supplied below during implementation).
  • I'm not sure what you want me to add here. Some sources highlight the lack of planning and suggest that the mass death was driven by logistical factors rather than malice. Others imply the lack of planning is indicative of malice, or at best depraved, callous, and criminal disregard for human life. But there is one point on which they agree and that's what is encyclopedically included as an undisputed fact; my inclination is to WP:Let the reader decide on the rest.
• I love the section headings. I hate that I love the section headings (appropriate for the article). They are perfectly chosen, encyclopaedic, representative, NPOV.
• "In 1941, three or four Soviet soldiers were captured for each one killed in action;" comma unnecessary for clause, "In 1941 three or four Soviet…"
• "the ratio of prisoners was reduced later in the war" agents "reduce" ratios. Which agent decided to kill more prisoners? Passive voice here is an enemy to good writing in an agentic situation. "German forces reduced the number of captures later in the war." "Soviet operational and strategic art reduced the capacity for German forces to capture more POWs later in…". Do you see what I'm getting at here? Dangling an unspecified agent might be "safe" but it isn't "safe" for a history encyclopaedia article in an area of history where agents ordered people not to surrender or invited people out for a nice clean "partisan" hunt to be off the front lines?
  • Edele's argument isn't that more captured soldiers were killed—but that fewer defected and others were more inclined to put up a fight rather than surrender. (t · c) buidhe 14:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC) I have clarified this point (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• "By mid-December 1941, 79 percent of prisoners (more than two million) had been captured". 79% of what period? All of the GPW? Of 1941? Of the period of rout and retreat to the turning point? And which prisoners? I know it is implied by the article title but it's a dangling absent noun. "in thirteen major cauldron battles."? 79% of prisoners to mid-December 1941 were captured in cauldron battles specifically?
• "military factors such as poor leadership, lack of arms and ammunition, and being completely overwhelmed by" "and [who] being completely". Soviet soldiers? Soviet commands?
  • I could add another couple "Soviet" modifiers here but that would be repetitive and I believe that the intended meaning is 100% clear from context.
• "The [] Error: [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help): no text (help) " lmftfy. Why is there a de link against Waffen-SS? What editorial decision led to this? does this indicate cross-wiki porting? I'd appreciate an answer as it would go to another section (plagiarism detailed detection). Not a threat by the way, but a request for explanation of the editorial decision.
  • No, the article is entirely original (not translated); this template was suggested by UndercoverClassicist above. (t · c) buidhe 14:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• "The Red Army shot prisoners [less often]", German aligned combatant prisoners? Soviet or formerly soviet-aligned prisoners?
  • Clarified
• "this contributed to a mutual escalation of violence" how did the Red Army shooting fewer prisoners contribute to escalation? It violates the conceptual structure of the initial verbal comparative. Try breaking into separate sentences?
• "Killings before reaching the collection point [de] are not counted as part of the figures for Soviet prisoner deaths." Okay… so why is there a trailing de link? Whose figures for Soviet deaths? Where has this content come from? Seriously, from a plagiarism basis where has this come from? Stranded sentences that are incoherent in the paragraphs' argument that reference cross-wiki content make me really bloody worried about copyvio/closepara. Separate from cv/cp issues, whose figures, and why do we care? "OKH compiled figures ignored deaths prior to concentration at collection points." "Post-war Soviet figures neglected as POW deaths deaths prior to collection by OKH POW authorities." See the issue with a lack of a collective noun?
  • The link is a result of trying to avoid jargon (see some of UC's comments above), not copyvio from a foreign language source. The death statistics referred to are the German ones, since Soviet collection of information naturally cannot distinguish between missing and prisoners. Nevertheless, I have clarified. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• "overtaken by the German advance without being captured were ordered to present themselves to the German authorities under the threat of summary execution" were ordered by whom? STAVKA? OKH? Kinda matters there. One's a lawful order, the other is an order given to unsurrendered combatants by OPFOR. The collapsed nouns are causing real problems in reading. I know what you're saying because I'm already aware of which institutional authority is responsible for which abhorrent preventable killings, but "average reader" won't be.
  • The interpretation that Soviet authorities would order their soldiers to surrender hadn't occurred to me, but I rewrote to clarify. (t · c) buidhe 14:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• "Despite the Supreme Command of Ground Forces (OKH) order, prisoners were often taken under such circumstances;[57][54] thousands of Red Army soldiers were executed on the spot as "partisans" or "irregulars"". So we have a comparative between "Despite X: prisoners were taken; thousands of Soldiers were shot." That's not a good construction. Break into sentences to avoid spanning comparatives. "OKH ordered shootings. Prisoners were often taken by Heer units despite OKH commands. Yet thousands of Red Army soldiers were executed." Breaking into sentences prevents OKH orders spanning opposed comparatives.
• "Others evaded capture " which others? OKH, Heer, Soviet soldiers? There are three major nouns in the prior multi clause sentence, you need to reestablish the central noun.
• I have reached "Processing." I believe this is a sufficient basis to oppose on 1a. Failed noun targets, verbal clauses which avoid comparatives correctly, and passive voice avoiding assigning agentic power to responsible state authorities is sufficient. The clarity of the lede isn't present in the body where implied subjects and objects have to be read for aggressively exist. I will of course continue the review in other areas I identified I'd review, and expect good results there. (rest of 1, 2, plagiarism). Generalised editing on the points above throughout the article would be required for reassessment of this criteria (which I'd be happy to do.) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I've rephrased in most of the above cases, while there are a few where I felt the suggestion was not an improvement. While I appreciate your feedback helping to improve the article and reduce the potential for misunderstanding, other editors seem to feel there is sufficient clarity from context. Some vagueness is inevitable, indeed appropriate, when dealing with many agencies issuing conflicting orders and people on the ground not necessarily following any of them. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

1c Well-researched inflation specific: improvement needed

I am not attacking the sources selected, or the choice to make a calculation for the purposes of the readers' benefit. Nor am I attacking the choice of calculation for comparison (USCPI). But there are two problems with the inflations: US cents are not specified (a wide variety of nations use cents); Current footnote 190abc Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 2019. doesn't indicate that the calculation was a triviality performed by editorial staff. Consider "Approximately 13 cents in contemporary US dollars,[189] or $2 today." and "Calculated using Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 2019." Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Sure, I'm not attached to this way of indicating inflation, but I used it because it was already in other featured articles, including the Holocaust in Slovakia. I did add "United States" for clarification. (t · c) buidhe 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm not troubled by the editorial decision to use a post-war interstate arbitration of values between RM and USD, or your choice of CPI as appropriate inflator: these are good editorial decisions in inflation. Wages of unskilled workers (as Soviet POWS were forced to labour) is an appropriate CPI inflation use. I'm concerned about attribution of the calculation, and indication that the "modern comparator" is in USD. I think many people across the world can readily recognise USD values in beer and skittles, rent and hours of labour. Please see this edit: attempted indication of calculation for me indicating a fix. If you like the fix, please incorporate it. I am going to indicate that I'd 1c Inflation Only oppose over attribution of calculation, by I understand FAC moderators know who I am, and what bee I have in my bonnet over inflation calculation and the potential for original research in this domain, and that in my oppose they would read that I do not consider the underlying choice of inter-state value transformation or CPI as incorrect. They would weight my oppose on 1c inflation only appropriately. (compared to my expectation that every other category of my review would be support / resolved). Do you see what I'm getting at with the sample edit? We're showing that the calculation is Wikipedia's because the calculation is trivial here. Trivial equalling "not OR". Thank you for indicating the reference cents are USD cents.
  • Additionally in relation to other FAs: "Other stuff exists." I'm reviewing the high quality article that your editorial community has put time into on its merits in front of my eyes: FAC coordinators know how to value my opinion and would not overweight it. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

1e Stability: support

I'm convinced the article is stable, I noted a series of 3K additions, and removals, the talk page appears to have been functioning when these emerged and raised them, and editors on the talk page sought as editors to reach a proper editorial resolution including asking for external assistance without prompting or conflict requiring such. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

3 Media: query (resolved)

Have you considered using blockquotes drawn from primary sources which are themselves used in secondary sources as "typifying" of individual experiences? Text can act as media. It is useful for blending "colour" with "personal experience" and "voice from the era"? This is a query only, not a decline. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that the encyclopedia's goals include capturing "colour", "personal experience" and "voice from the era". Furthermore, you don't find many similar quotations in a lot of related articles, including FAs. I'm not opposed to quotations but I only add them if I feel that it increases the reader's encyclopedic understanding more than paraphrasing/rewriting, per MOS:QUOTE. (t · c) buidhe 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for responding to this query. I was following MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE's concept of media as "an important illustrative aid to understanding." While I've got the reading to experience the illustrative affect (emotional reaction) to the image files presented. From your MOS:QUOTE: "Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice, but never to present cultural norms as simply opinional." My personal editorial opinion is that History articles can benefit from illustrative blockquotes from primary sources acting "as Media," for the purposes we use other media for. I must admit that I contributed significantly to the essay, which includes the observation at WP:HISTIP, "A fact qualifies for illustration when a major scholarly text explicitly demonstrates a point by reference to a primary source, or quotes a primary source in demonstration of a major (as weighted) fact." Text causes me to react in ways illustrative image media doesn't. I'm not suggesting quoting Idi i smotri. As the sponsoring editor you may have read the most reputable scholarly sources who themselves cannot avoid quoting primary sources to illustrate the impact on humans that encamped starvation or sub-survival calorie slave labour do not have when referred to technically. I trust your judgement entirely here, but was suggesting a category of historical media that is sometimes neglected. If a more versed editor than I could recommend an example of a recent historical FA that quotes a primary source in terms of WP:HISTIP's suggestions I would value their example of style, as I've been on an extended wikibreak. Thank you again for considering this query, I've noted it as resolved based on your consideration. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• Statistical graphic "Soviet prisoners of war by year of capture" almost certainly requires sourcing for its stats. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  The data is cited in the Commons image description as recommended, which you get to by clicking on the image. (t · c) buidhe 14:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

4 Length: support

I am satisfied the length suits the topic, and the section lengths suit the importance of the sections to the encyclopaedic presentation. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• I appreciate your review. (t · c) buidhe 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Fifelfoo, can I just confirm that your oppose still stands, on the basis of criteria 1a and 1c? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Support by Shushugah

• Specify USD$ in the footnotes
  • Done
• Consistently italicize and capitalize the German words used, e.g Abwher -> Abwher and lebensraum -> Lebensraum
  • I capitalized lebensraum but I don't agree with italicizing when most English sources don't (Abwehr, Waffen-SS, etc.)
• Use Umlaut consistently or not (ä replaced with ae etc..) e.g Flossenbürg becomes Flossenbuerg
  • where is it not used?
    • Militaergeschichtliche Zeitschrift, Wuelfel, (note: Neuengamme is correct)
  • Fixed both thx (t · c) buidhe 19:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• I understood the comparison of Polish/Russian prisons of war, but given it mentions other civilians of Russian citizenry, I am surprised by lack of mention of World War II casualties of Poland which is one of the highest in WW2.
  • why is this relevant to include? It's certainly not true in absolute terms, where the Soviet losses dwarfed everyone else's. Losses were proportionally higher in the western Soviet union as well
• I was confused by the racial hierarchy paragraph; Nazi racial theories § Slavs left me more confused what is meant by Asians, and what is meant by Russian, particularly with counter-examples of Georgians being consider Aryan potentially on one hand, and Ukrainians being called "Untermentsch" on the other.
  • Where Soviet citizens were concerned there was a clear hierarchy of treatment in practice, which was only partly based on Nazi racial theories." Asian does not mean Georgian but Central Asians, Siberians who looked" Mongoloid ". I can try to source more explanation on that point
• @Buidhe and Shushugah: is there more to come from either of you here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild @Buidhe thanks for the ping! The link to Mongoloids for Asians helped me better understand what is being referred within local racial hierarchies. I am happy to give my suppport and wanted to mention some small nitpicks (not blockers for my support)

  • Wikilink military or police collaboration and recruiting Soviet collaborators for military and police functions with link Collaboration in the German-occupied Soviet Union
  • Remove MOS:FULLSTOP from images captions. Some have them, some don't. Better to be consistent and remove all of them.

  ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Shushugah. Without actually checking the captions, I assume that the perceived problem is because they adhere to MOS:CAPFRAG ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild exactly. I see that consistency between sentence and caption fragment is not explicitly required. Some of the captions could easily be converted into sentences, but not required nor beneficial. So strike my feedback on MOS:CAPFRAG. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the wikilink, appreciate feedback and your support :) (t · c) buidhe 03:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

It's great to see a high quality article on this very important topic. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• I agree that the article seems miss-titled given it covers all aspects of how the Germans treated Soviet POWs. The current title could give readers the impression that only some Soviet POWs were subjected to atrocities or that this was a sub-set of the German policies.
• There's a fair bit of over-linking. I'd suggest using one of the tools to identify duplicate links.
  • Guidance on MOS:REPEATLINK has changed and I believe the article fulfills the new standards (it's now recommended to repeat links each section where that aids reader understanding): many readers don't go in order.
• "To increase the speed of conquest, the German invaders planned to feed their army by looting" - from memory, Adam Tooze argues in The Wages of Destruction that this was also due to the weakness of the German war economy
  • I'm not sure if that is worth mentioning in this article, it's not mainly about pillage.
    • The statement that this was done only to "increase the speed of conquest" is an oversimplification. The strain that the German war economy was under is relevant to the topic of this article, so it seems a good idea to get details like this right. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
      • Great, thanks for the tip. I mined the Tooze source for information and revised the sentence in the article. (t · c) buidhe 12:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Because prisoners of war were held under tighter control than urban or Jewish civilians, they had a higher death rate from starvation" - this seems out of place
  • How so? It is intended to build on the previous sentences and explain similarities and differences between Nazi policies
    • This looks fine on second reading Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• The text starting with "It is disputed if the German command" doesn't really cover the differing views and who holds them
  • OK, I have attempted to rewrite. I think sources agree that as time went on the labor of prisoners was prioritized, but where they differ is emphasizing logistical vs ideological factors, and whether it is a "mass killing" or only "mass death".
• "Especially in 1941, the German Army often refused to take prisoners on the Eastern Front and shot Soviet soldiers who tried to surrender." - this sentence seems far too categorical. It would also be good to explain whether this was the actions of individual soldiers or whether they were directed to not take prisoners (or a bit of both)
  • clarified that these do not seem to be ordered from above, but tacitly tolerated by the military leadership
• "Red Army soldiers overtaken by the German advance without being captured were ordered by the Supreme Command of Ground Forces (OKH) to present themselves to the German authorities under the threat of summary execution" - how could and did the German high command order Soviet soldiers to do this?
  • "Schon am 25. Juli 1941 befahl das OKH, versprengte Rotarmisten hätten „sich sofort bei der nächsten deutschen Wehrmachtsdienststelle zu melden. Geschieht das nicht, sind sie von einem gebietsweise festzusetzenden Zeitpunkt ab als Freischärler anzusehen und entsprechend zu behandeln."" and what was the result? "Im Rahmen der Partisanenbekämpfung wurde nicht nur in Zivil untergetauchten Soldaten, sondern sogar aufgegriffenen Uniformierten die Erschießung angedroht." Yes, the order was actually directed at Red Army soldiers, although the extent to which it reached them was debatable: "Mit Hilfe von Fristen sollte das deutsche Besatzungsgebiet „von Versprengten gereinigt" werden53. Aber war es realistisch und vor allem fair, die in den Wäldern und Sümpfen vagabundierenden Uberlebenskünstler mittels Plakaten und Flugblättern erreichen zu wollen?"
• "An estimated 20 percent or more" - what is this a proportion of? The total POWs taken during this period or something else?
  • Clarified
• "Shooting prisoners was encouraged." - by whom, and who were they encouraging to do this?
  • Clarified
• "about half were recaptured,[92] and around 10,000 reached Switzerland." - surely far more would have returned home to German occupied territory, cross the front line to Soviet territory or become partisans?
  • that's true but we have no figures for that.
• "Due to its clear-cut criminality, the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war was mentioned in the International Military Tribunal's indictment" - can you say why?
  • It was particularly illegal because the Geneva Convention was very clear, in contrast to other crimes some of which were less well defined and others that were invented almost from whole cloth at Nuremberg
    • Sorry, I miss-read the text here to include a 'not' between 'was' and 'mentioned'. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Viktor Zemskov says" - I'd suggest identifying who this person is (e.g. is he a historian?)
  • Done
• "Thousands of books have been published about the Holocaust, but in 2016 there were no books in English about the fate of Soviet prisoners of war." - this seems over-simplistic given that the topic is routinely covered in English language works on the Soviet-German war, sometimes in quite a bit of detail.
  • While it's not a perfect metric, I've seen it in multiple sources. It's clear to me that the topic is vastly under studied compared to the number of deaths, even in comparison to other atrocities that killed large numbers of Soviet citizens - such as anti-partisan warfare. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Surely something can be said that acknowledges that there is in fact a sizable English language literature on this topic while also noting the lack of dedicated books? (the English language literature on the Soviet Union's war experiences continues to be very patchy across the board). The topic is usually covered as part of popular works on the war, so English language people with an interest in the conflict should be aware of it as a result. For instance, I first became aware of his issue in the 1990s through Anthony Beevor's enormously popular book Stalingrad, which includes a focus on the experiances of the Soviet prisoners who ended up fighting with the Germans at Stalingrad. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

      While that's true, I don't think it's verifiable to make such a claim about the English language literature specifically. Quinkert et al. discuss Russian and German literatures but not publications in English. (t · c) buidhe 01:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

      • I've had a poke around academic journal databases, and haven't hard any luck here either. I really don't like this text as it misrepresents the literature, but I guess it's technically accurate. I'd suggest continuing to look for sources here, perhaps in PhD thesis literature review sections and the like. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'd suggest briefly noting the far right narrative that has attempted to present the way in which the western Allies held German POWs in 1945 as being directly comparable to the treatment of Soviet POWs. Nick-D (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Seems UNDUE given that I didn't see this anywhere in the sources and even the crank stuff like Other Losses doesn't focus on this comparison. (t · c) buidhe 02:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I needed to weed a lot of it out of Wikipedia articles a few years ago, and some sources on Holocaust denial note that this comparison gets made. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your review (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Nick-D, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I've posted some replies above. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed, though I've left a further response above. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review

I am surprised that there has not been an image review so far. Here goes my attempt at one, Buidhe:

• All images have appropriate sources and licenses. Only the link in the German advances map is no longer online, you will have to add an archive URL. Matarisvan (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Suggest adding an alt for the infobox image. All other images have appropriate alts. Matarisvan (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Added archive link (t · c) buidhe 12:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

    The image review is a pass then. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Text review:

• "Although more than a million": "Although" is not necessary here, consider removing?
• "mass death of prisoners, with": prefix "along" before "with", since we have a conjuctive here?
• "Little planning was made": "done" instead of "made"?
• "that was fewer": "the actual number" instead of "that"?
• "ordered from above": "by the high command" instead of "from above"?
• "while escaped": "after their escape" would be better grammatically?
• Link to Gestapo on first use instead of second?
• "1,487 calories": consider providing the required calories per day for an adult male as a comparable?
  • This is a bit difficult. Many were required to perform hard labor which increases calorie requirements. I did mention that it's a starvation amount even if the POWs received it, which they didn't.
• "and by the end of the war around a million were": "and the total number released was around a million by the end of the war" would be grammatically better, wdyt?
• "With the army's cooperation, [] Error: [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help): no text (help) units": Fix the lang template?
• "Soviet Muslims mistaken for Jews were sometimes killed": are any numbers available? If so, consider adding?
  • No
• "when the front approached": what does "front" mean here? Frontline? Do we intend to say "when the frontline was closer to the camps"?
  • Linked Front (military)
• "advocating the transfer": add "for" after "advocating"?
• "under the control of the SS": "to" instead of under?
• "Officers were over-represented": are any percentages known?
  • Not in any of the sources consulted
• Link to Hanover-Wülfel?
  • There isn't a good link, even on de wikipedia the closest is de:Döhren-Wülfel, no en wiki article for that
• Is the 2015 reparations amount known? If so, consider adding along with an inflation adjusted figure?
  • Done (still recent enough that I'm not sure inflation is helpful to include)
• "Hartmann's 3 million": Introduce and link to Hartmann here instead of in the legacy section?

Source formatting review:

• Would you consider adding DOIs and JSTOR IDs for books? If so, I can provide them. Many sources are from OUP, CUP or other university presses which allow access through The Wikipedia Library that is easier than accessing through ISBNs.
  • I have no objection if you want to do it.
• For Quinkert, Keller, Kozlova, Meier & Winkel and Latyschew 2021, I don't think the following text is necessary if you're using harvc: "Dimensionen eines Verbrechens: Sowjetische Kriegsgefangene im Zweiten Weltkrieg | Dimensions of a Crime. Soviet Prisoners of War in World War II (in German and English). Metropol Verlag. ISBN 978-3-86331-582-5." Just using in1, in2 and year parameters would be enough.
  • I don't understand in1 and the documentation doesn't explain it, as far as I can tell. Could you reformat one of the refs so I can see what you mean?
• Add archive URLs for "Consumer Price Index, 1800–", Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 1968, Otto & Keller 2019?
  • I don't have the script or bot that does this, but I don't have any objection to it.
• Remove the links to USGPO, Cambridge University Press, Yale University Press, Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift and Russian History? Otherwise you will have to link to all other publishers and journals to maintain consistency.
  • I should now have bluelinked everything that has an enwiki article.
• Consider adding series and volume numbers for sources which provide these? For example, Pohl 2012, Otto & Keller 2019 etc.
  • I guess I'm not convinced that this is particularly helpful (it isn't needed to find the book) and I try to keep the info in bibliographies to what is actually going to be useful.
• Is there any material in Keller 2011 which we could add here? Otherwise, if it is similar to the works cited here, then you may have to remove it.
  • It goes into a lot of detail on a particular group of Soviet POWs that are a minority of the total, thus WP:UNDUE to add. We already cite a bunch of info from his summary of his research in Keller 2021. The full book is listed for readers desiring more information on that specifically. If there was a separate article for Soviet prisoners of war in Germany I would remove it and list in there instead.

I'll try to do a source review with spot checks soon. Overall, I found the article impressive and well written, congratulations to you on writing such a great article. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review, I have actioned everything except some of what I mentioned above. (t · c) buidhe 13:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, I have done the biblio formatting, please let me know if my format is ok with you. On the text and source formatting, a support from me. Will try to get the spotchecks done in 1-2 days. Matarisvan (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! All the formatting looks good. Note: I added a source, Westermann 2023, in response to comments above (t · c) buidhe 01:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I should be able to get you pdfs of almost all the sources if you can't access them (t · c) buidhe 14:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not a problem, I had noticed that addition during my edit and formatted it too. For the spot checks, I will be going through 15 refs which is roughly 6% of the total refs. For generating the ref numbers I will use a random number generator to get as random numbers as possible. Here goes the source review, @Buidhe:

  • All sources are from reliable publishers and authors.
  • #9, #14, #39, #43, #47, #49, #80, #93, #106, #117, #134, #156, #190: all ok
  • #28: mostly ok but I couldn't find the supporting text for "several weeks after the start of the war", since no date is given for Hitler's rejection of POW terms.
  • #254: The second sentence is ok, but the first is not. The source says "Post-war German rationalizations and apologia for the Soviet mortality even included claims that it was the long-term undernourishment of Soviet soldiers by their own Government that had led to their widespread deaths in German captivity" while the article says "After the war, some Germans made apologetic statements about the 1941 causes of mass death". I think you misunderstood what apologia means here, the Germans were not apologizing for the Soviet deaths but trying to defend themselves, one definition of apologia can be "a formal written defence of one's opinions or conduct". So you will have to change the first sentence to some variant of "After the war, there were some German attempts to deflect the blame for the 1941 mass deaths".

  Matarisvan (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  For #28, based on the text it occurred before another Soviet order that was dated in August. I'm looking for another source that gives the time frame more explicitly. It is supposed to be in Streim's chapter of this book, but I cannot access it :(

  For #254, I mean apologetic in the second sense listed in the dictionary, but evidently that's not clear so I rewrote it. (t · c) buidhe 20:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I can't find anything else for #28, but I could remove it if you want. (t · c) buidhe 20:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, let me check by using Streim's book's DOI and JSTOR, I'll wikimail you the page or page range. Matarisvan (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Buidhe, Google Books has the access to the relevant pages, namely 295-296, but these also do not have any dates. I think you will have to remove the phrase "several weeks after the start of the war". Matarisvan (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  If you look at page 296, these diplomatic communication are dated to July and August 1941—aka within the first several weeks of the war. (t · c) buidhe 13:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  The source review a pass then, @Buidhe. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Graham Beards

There are redundancies in the prose. I have made some edits to the Lead as examples [69]. The main problem is the excessive use of "numbers" as in "numbers of" and so forth. Can we check that these are needed and for variations where possible? Graham Beards (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the copyedits. I went through the body and reduced the use of the word "numbers", but I cannot think of a better rephrasing in the remaining cases. Although some could be replaced by "amount", I don't think it would be an improvement. (t · c) buidhe 16:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I am pleased to add my Support. Well done. Graham Beards (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "The German military did not record Soviet prisoner deaths that occurred prior to arriving at the collection points." Slightly clumsy. Perhaps a slight rephrase? Eg 'The German military did not record Soviet deaths that occurred prior to prisoners arriving at the collection points' or similar.
• Only one work has a publisher location (Foreign Claims Settlement Commission). Could we have consistency?
• "Two-thirds of them died from starvation, exposure, and disease by early 1942". Perhaps 'Two-thirds of them had died from starvation, exposure, and disease by early 1942'.
• "ranking as one of the highest death rates from mass atrocity in history." Really! Surely there were plenty with a 100% death rate? I note that the same phrase is used in the main article, but the greater context makes it more reasonable to take "rate" as meaning 'number'. I suggest tweaking the wording in both cases, certainly in the lead.
  • "Death rate" doesn't refer to the percentage of people who died, but the ratio of deaths per unit of time, in this case deaths per month: "one of the highest rates of human destruction in history". Is there a way to rephrase it so it's clearer what the source means? (t · c) buidhe 03:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so currently you have "Two-thirds of them had died from starvation, exposure, and disease by early 1942—ranking as one of the highest death rates from mass atrocity in history." I think that if you are going to go with this it needs to be based on a number rather than a fraction. Eg 'By early 1942 over two-thirds of the more than three million Soviet military personal taken prisoner had died.' Then, perhaps in a separate sentence, 'This is one of the highest sustained rates of killing for any mass atrocity in history.' How does this or something like it sound? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Done (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• "More prisoners were shot for being wounded, ill, or unable to keep up with forced marches." Optional, → 'More prisoners were shot because they were wounded, ill, or unable to keep up with forced marches.'

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Actioned everything else besides that raised above. Thank you. (t · c) buidhe 03:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe. I keep coming across niggly issues in the main article, so I am going to recuse and review in full. I anticipate that much of it will be copy editing. I will do some of it straight into the article. If you disagree with or don't understand any changes, could we discuss that here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Foreign language words, eg Lebensraum, should be in lang templates, not just italics.
  • Done
• "the German military's High Command (OKW) ... The OKW said ..." OKW only needs introducing once, similarly linking the short form.
  • Previously this was the case, but the guidance on overlinking changed because we can't assume readers are viewing the article sections in order. (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Abwehr officer Helmuth James Graf von Moltke was one of the few who favored treating Soviet prisoners according to the law." This seems a bit odd. Why cherry pick this one German soldier to have his opinion detailed?
  • Not cherry picking by me, but he is the only dissenter mentioned in RS (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• "intent to use the prisoners as a labor reserve before and during the war." Use as labor before the war? (Ie, before they were captured.)
  • There is a better way to phrase this, but the controversy is over whether, before the war and during its first months, Wehrmacht planners intended to feed their prisoners so that they could be deployed in large scale forced labor projects (which would occur once the war started and prisoners were captured) (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• "During the invasion of France in 1940, 1.9 million prisoners of war". Just the invasion of France or the whole Western Campaign?
  • Source says France. EC&G gives a total of 1.8 million French POWs and significantly more than 2 million for the Western campaign as a whole. (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• "In 1941, three or four Soviet soldiers were captured for each one killed, indicating widespread surrender". This is a tautology. I mean, a PoW pretty much assumes a prior surrender.
  • Removed as the later sentences in the paragraph state Edele's conclusion from these numbers. (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• "thirteen major cauldron battles". Rather than going with the (unexplained) technical term, how about 'thirteen battles where large Soviet forces were surrounded' or similar?
  • Done
• "a collection point at the division or army level." There were no corps level collection points?
  • Not mentioned by the source; EC&G is silent on this point so I took it out as unimportant. (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild do you have further input? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 10:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

David, I do, I do. Apologies, I am fighting my way out of a nasty, six-day dose of Covid. (Unless I go radio silent again, in which case keep counting.) I shall get onto it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Some prisoners had to live in the open for the entire winter, in unheated rooms." Living in even "unheated rooms" is not living "in the open for the entire winter",
• "Following setbacks in the military campaign, Hitler ordered on 31 October". What military setbacks occurred prior to 31 October?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The first 200,000 Soviet prisoners of war were deported to Germany in July and August 1941". The first 200,000 to be captured or the first 200,000 to be deported?
  • The latter, clarified (t · c) buidhe 20:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Everything looks good with just "Following setbacks in the military campaign, Hitler ordered on 31 October". What military setbacks occurred prior to 31 October? left to be addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Buidhe ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus

I was negatively surprised some minor (but I believe DUE) content was removed since I added it last year. I've readded it and I was immediately reverted by Buidhe. Discussion (started by me few minutes ago) ongoing at artcle's talk: (Talk:German_atrocities_committed_against_Soviet_prisoners_of_war#Relevance_of_the_mention_of_German_atrocities_committed_against_Polish_prisoners_of_war); I'll update this when it is finished, but from my perspective, the article is not comprehensive (and not neutral per WP:DUE) without mentioning this topic in at least a sentence or two (and I am flabbergasted that even a see also mention that was present before was removed...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Your sources aren't about the article topic so they don't show wp:due. That is why the content has been removed multiple times. If the article is supposed to include allied soldiers fighting alongside the Soviet army (it doesn't), it is cherry picking to shoe horn in polish soldiers without mentioning those from Czechoslovakia and other countries. (t · c) buidhe 18:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Like Buidhe I fail to see the relevance, or at least the pressing importance, of this information to this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild The article should briefly mention that Germans committed similar atrocities to other groups of POWs, and link to relevant articles. To me, this seems quite relevant in the context of comprehensive coverage. In addition, we should also (briefly) mention that Soviet themselves committed similar atrocities on POWs they captured (Germans and others), although right now we don't seem to have a relevant article to link to (I'll try to remedy this shortly). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

PS. Remedied: Soviet atrocities committed against prisoners of war during World War II and added as a 'see also' to the nominated article. Wonder if this will also be removed? Ideally, of course, this should be incorporated into the article in a relevant place as a blue link, as it is an obvious topic. I will also note that the nominated article is linked from that article as well as from the mentioned Polish article, and nobody is suggesting to remove those links, as the topics are obviously closely related and should be linked from corresponding articles. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The topic is discussed in various sources. For example, it is misleading to discuss the fate of Jewish Red Army soldiers without noting that the same fate befell (often, earlier) Jewish Polish Army soldiers. See ex. Shmuel Krakowski, "The Fate of the Jewish POWs of the Soviet and Polish Armies," in The Shoah and the War, ed. Asher Cohen, Yehoyakim Cochavi, and Yoav Gelber (New York: Peter Lang, 1992), 217–30. Krakowski's work was called, btw, "groundbreaking work on Soviet-Jewish prisoners of war" ([70]) - I am surprised it is not cited at all. Linked article by Polian could also be used to expand the article; I think it needs a section dedicated to the Jewish Soviet POWs. This is how it is done in the German_atrocities_committed_against_Polish_prisoners_of_war#Fate_of_the_Jewish_POWs. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Echoing Gog and Buidhe above, I don't think there should be a detailed treatment of Polish PoWs in this article: it is about German atrocities against Soviet prisoners of war. The article certainly doesn't claim, imply or even allow the reading that the Germans only committed atrocities against Soviet PoWs: detailed discussion of the Germans' treatment of e.g. American, Belgian or Polish PoWs would not be WP:DUE except where it is clearly relevant to the Soviet story. For example, at one point the article and its sources use the relatively good treatment of prisoners taken in the Fall of France to demonstrate that the Germans' treatment of Soviet PoWs cannot simply be explained through incompetence or impoverishment. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist FYI there is no detailed treatment of Polish PoWs in the article. After discussion on talk, the mention has been further reduced to short two sentences, and it is primarily used to demonstrate that Soviet POWs were treated much more harshly then Poles (I've just added a precise estimate to back up an imprecise claim made by an article). What puzzles me is Buidhe's repeated insistence of removing even the blue link to a relevant article (i.e. German atrocities committed against Polish prisoners of war). Please take a look at the current version and discussion on article's talk. One sentence and a single link is hardly a "detailed treatment"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Edit: It looks like I may have to withdraw the FAC because in my opinion the content added fails the FA criteria (specifically 1c, 1d, and 4) as there is no reliable source that connects the added content to the issue of Soviet prisoners of war. Unless User:UndercoverClassicist, User:Gog the Mild, or others wish to weigh in on the article talk page, Piotrus is claiming that the content he added has consensus and needs to be kept. (t · c) buidhe 02:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Krakowski's source is not a HQRS, nor is one of the sources that Piotrus cited. (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree on them not being HQRS. Krakowski's work has been influential and should be mentioned, at least in historiography; without that I don't think 1c would be met. If his claims have been replaced by more modern research, we don't need to cite him, but we should mention his work in the context of bridging Holocaust and POW discourse. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  PS. Regarding the other source you recently criticized, Piotrowski, while I also disagree on him not being HQRS, as I said elsewhere, it is not necessary and can be removed, go ahead. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  PPS. Copying from another discussion: "Oh, and on 1c, you should consult Polish and Soviet/Russian historiography on this topic. [2] for example ("The article concerns the motif and theme of Soviet prisoners of war in Russian literature"), [3] ("Crime, Politics, Humanitarism. Tragedy of the Soviet Captives on the Polish Land during the World War II") seem quite relevant, for example. I expect 'Legacy and historiography' section could be expanded much more than its current three short paragraphs with German, Russian and Polish studies." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  There's a lot more that could be cited on legacy from the sources I cited, however, I think the article already goes into the right amount of detail.

  Jewish POWs were a tiny percentage of the total. They are already discussed adequately, to discuss them any more would probably be disproportionate, leaving aside HQRS issues. (t · c) buidhe 03:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  While I am not opposing based on that, since to some degree this is just a matter of structuring content, and not comprehensivity (well-researchedness...) I find is strange that we (I...) could find room to have a section on Jewish POWs in the articles on Polish POWs, but that cannot be done here. IMHO having a section dedicated to discussion of Soviet Jewish POWs would be a good idea and due, and supported by RS. This topic has been covered in dedicated academic articles and likely needs its own subarticle. In addition to Krakowski: [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Of the Polish POWs who were targeted by "atrocities", a large percentage were Jewish so it makes sense that the other article would lend significant coverage to it. Of the Soviet POWs that were mistreated, only a tiny percentage were Jewish. The subject is already adequately covered in the "selective killings" section. It may be a notable subject for its own article, as are other subjects related to this one, such as Soviet prisoners of war in Nazi concentration camps (there is an entire book on this)... (t · c) buidhe 03:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  PPPS. " there is no reliable source that connects the added content to the issue of Soviet prisoners of war". This is not correct. First, I did not add the mention of Polish POWs; I just added a clarification and a blue link to the content already present there, added presumably by Buidhe and cited to a source that makes exactly this connection (Gerlach 2016:165). That source states “The treatment and death rates of Polish and Soviet POW differed in the extreme, although in ‘racial’ terms there was not much of a difference between them"; and our article stated that "Polish prisoners of war were considered racially similar to Soviet prisoners, but their conditions differed greatly and death rate was an order of magnitude lower". All that was added was a precise estimate (similar to the precise estimate already present in the article for Italian POWs) and a short sentence (~15 words) mentioning that Germans also committed atrocities against Polish POWs and linking to a dedicated article; that sentence contains a further estimate of Polish fatalities, serving to clarify and reinforce the previously imprecise (but roughly correct) claim of "magnitudes". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  The 2-3 percent figure is already in Gerlach and if you think including it is so important, I could be persuaded on that. I just don't find the added content about Polish prisoners helpful or informative. War crimes were also committed against some Allied prisoners of different nationalities (US, UK, France, etc.), but the overall point that these were exceptions continues to to be true. I also think it is misleading to include this sentence about Polish prisoners but not cover other Allied nationalities, as it might lead the reader to conclude that more atrocities were committed against Polish prisoners when it was not necessarily the case. Indeed, after Soviet and Italian prisoners, it was not Poles but Yugoslav nationals who faced the worst treatment and highest death rates. Yet another reason not to shoehorn in content about Poland. (t · c) buidhe 03:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  As per discussion on talk, I've rewritten the sentence to remove the focus on Polish POWs. It now refers to Allied POWs. I fully agree that the magnitude of crimes and treatment of Soviet POWs was different; but I think we need to briefly mention that (as you did) and link to other related articles which contain detailed information. I'd support adding information that Yugoslav nationals were the third group instead, it seems relevant - do we have any article covering their situation that we could link to? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

While the issue above (about Polish POWs) is hopefully being resolved through discussions on talk (and the article is stable), I remain concerned about whether this article is comprehensive. As I noted above, the legacy section is rather short. I have added a sentence and ref, as well as a link, to Soviet repressions against former prisoners of war (the title is not very clear - this is about Soviet repressions against the Soviet survivors of German camps, i.e. the very group discussed here), a highly relevant topic that was totally absent (despite one sentence of the legacy covering a related debate in the later years). The mentioned topic of Soviet atrocities committed against prisoners of war during World War II is still just a generic see also at the end of the article, although a while ago Buidhe mentioned that "it could be linked from the text". A week has passed since, and no link from the text to this has been made (is there even a relevant part of the text?). I have noticed some sources discuss the relation between German and Soviet treatments of POWs; a very good source is [76] (a paper about comparative treatment of POWs in WW2, including the ones discussed here). It mentions a number of interesting facts that seem to be absent from our article, such as how Red Cross and other organizations were denied entry to German and Soviet camps for their respective prisoners, and how information about large numbers of prisoners in those countries were suppressed by those who feared that this may lead to more humane treatment due the fear of revenge. Another interesting fact mentioned by MacKenzie (but not in our article) is that Canaris argued for more humane treatment of Russian POWs (using the same logic), to no avail. IMHO the topic of how German treatment of Soviet POWs was on some level similar, and on others, different, to the Soviet treatment of German POWs should merit its own paragraph. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

IMHO the topic of how German treatment of Soviet POWs was on some level similar, and on others, different, to the Soviet treatment of German POWs should merit its own paragraph: I would strongly disagree here. When we're talking about atrocities, crimes against humanity etc, such comparisons serve as whataboutism and have the effect of minimising or excusing the atrocity at hand. This article should be about its title: other, related topics, can be linked in See Also. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The literature, or at least some of it, discusses the relation of those topics. That merits more than just a see also. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

And Buidhe keeps edit warring, removing all changes by those she disagrees with, up to and including a see also section (that is needed for a GA; I believe a see also should be converted into a link in text for a FA). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I proposed another compromise version (this time with no link to Polish POWs, as a problematic sentence with racial comparison was removed after a discussion on talk, thank you @Dreamcatcher25). But links to the two other articles IMHO should be in article body (those two are Soviet repressions against former prisoners of war and Soviet atrocities committed against prisoners of war during World War II). Right now the link to the former has been removed even from see also. I started a new discussion on talk about it; everyone is welcome there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Btw, the article already cites: Edele, Mark (2016). "Take (No) Prisoners! The Red Army and German POWs, 1941–1943". The Journal of Modern History. 88 (2): 342–379. I'll note that Edele even has an entire section on comparisons, where he writes "there are thus both similarities and differences between the way the Red Army and the Wehrmacht treated their POWs". Comparing those two topics is hardly whataboutism, this is done in the reliable sources, and at length (for example, one of the pertinent dimensions is to what degree the brutal treatment of POWs on the Eastern front was because of the concept of revenge). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

wtfiv

It's good to see an article on an this: As you mentioned, western coverage of the suffering and atrocities that Russian soldiers suffered at the hands of the Nazi regimes seems sparse. This carefully written article fills that gap.

You've been going through a rigorous review process already, but I wanted to provide suggestions too, waiting until my Featured Article Candidate had cleared. Most of my comments and observations are structural and stylistic as much of the content has been addressed.

Note: I've provided alternate examples illustrating the points I made on the this talk page. They're not meant as suggested rewrites, but just samples that hopefully clarify the points made in the review below.

Background

• Paragraph 1
  • Consider changing to terrorize to "terrorizing" to stay parallel with preceding gerund "looting".

• Paragraph 2
  • Consider putting The vast majority...invasion in the first paragraph, which is about the resources and effort dedicated to the war. Maybe a clause at the end of the first sentence "..., devoting the vast majority of their military manpower and materiel." This would keep focus of the second paragraph on the ideology.
    • Then begin something like "The invasion was carried out....
  • Is the "with" in with Ukranians needed? The sentence is a list, the other elements following the commas don't use a preposition. Perhaps reword colon followed by list: "ranked according to a racial hierarchy: Soviet Germans...at the top, Ukrainians in the middle, Russians toward...lowest." This also has the advantage that it doesn't lead to an initial misreading(quickly corrected) that Soviet Germans, Balts and Muslims are leading the categorization effort.

• Trying to separate the ideological from the pragmatic decisions would create the false impression that some were ideologically motivated while others were pragmatic. For example, the military decision to invade the Soviet union was heavily based on anti communist ideological factors. The decision to shoot Jews and communists was because of the belief that this would curb resistance to the invasion. That said, these paragraphs were separated for length reasons, there may be a better way to organize them. (t · c) buidhe 18:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I suggested an alternative minor edit of these three paragraphs that keeps all the ideas and paragraphing but thematically organizes them, but addresses the points made. It doesn't remove any of the points nor include major rewrites, except the racial hierarchy sentence, was slightly modified. (If you think it is an improvement, I kept the citations in place to make using it easier with a cut and paste. Of course, if you like the original organization better, that works too. The changes are fairly minor.) Wtfiv (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 3
  • This paragraph is about food supply. Consider moving ...suspicion of Jews...defeat to Paragraph 2, as that is the ideology paragraph. It seems an edited version of this would go well before The Nazis believed...conspiracy. This would put the two aspects: The Jews being blamed for German defeat and the perception of a Jewish concpiracy together as an ideological whole, with its focuse on race prejudice.
  • Would making the second half of the first sentence in para 3 and recognition of the need..., somewhat modified, be a better start for paragraph 3, as the focus of this paragraph is control of the food supply.
• Side by side of current and alternative example for all three paragraphs provided here. (All three provided to illustrate that suggested changes are interlinked across paragraphs.)
  • Mostly done, thanks for the suggestions! (t · c) buidhe 07:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  The way you reworked it comes together. In particular, think the new order you created for the paragraph works well to emphasize the article's point. The way you put the ending provides the rationale for seeing what is coming in the following sections as an atrocity. Wtfiv (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Planning and legal basis

• Paragraph 1
  • The last sentence states that there was controversy about the treatment of prisoners, but only Moltke favored the law (assuming the law refers both to the Hague and Geneva conventions?) If there was no other advocate for following the law, it's unclear what other sources of controversy may be. It's particularly unclear because in the previous sentence, it stated that no one objected to a war of extermination. So a reader might see this: There was no objection, there was controversy, only Moltke- who favored the law- was the source of controversy. Consider rewording. My understanding is that the military went along with the policy, and it sounds like Moltke was the exception. But if something else is meant, I think it needs clarification.

• Paragraph 2
  • Consider reworking this paragraph a bit. Current order seems to mix issues: .(a) Controversy- logistics vs. ideology. (b) little planning by Germans and many prisoners captured, (c) less captured than expected (d) Still disagreement on controversy, (e) treatment of prisoners in France 40 cited that its not just logistics.
  • Suggested order: (a) Controversy- logistics vs. ideology. (b) evidence against it being just logistics- intentional lack of planning for prisoners, less than expected captured, ability to care for France 40 prisoners. (d) Sums to evidence in favor of ideology. Here's more details.
    • Consider reworking to put the ideas of two sentences Anti-Bolshevisim, antisemitism...labor and There is still disagreement...labor reserve together, as they are addressing the lead point of this paragraph. The details on planning and number of prisoners would seem to go better as they are addressing the controversy.
    • Related to the previous point. The last sentence in Paragraph 3 of Background implies that the overall starvation was due to the German policy on food supplies. It seems the paragraph should open with food supply or logistics, as it has been established in the narrative. Consider something like. "The regime's demands for food...contributed to the mass death of prisoners, but anti-Bolshevisim...are often cited as the main reason."
    • Consider ending the paragraph with the marshalled evidence- lack of planning, less prisoners, treatment of Western European prisoners- and an overall conclusion for ideological evidence.
    • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.
    • (Minor suggestion) Does Kay's name have to intrude in the narrative here? Aren't there more than one historian who state that supply and logistics cannot explain the mass deaths that could be cited. Three lines of evidence are given.
      • I definitely do not think this can be said in wiki voice, because there are others (especially Hartmann) who argue that the logistical situation was fundamentally different due to the lack of railways, roads and other infrastructure in the Soviet Union. (t · c) buidhe 13:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

        Sounds good. (Read Hartmann's arguments.) Thanks for the reply to my minor comment, which was more of an indirect query. Wtfiv (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  • (Minor suggestion) Consider deleting military setbacks. The original numbers were based on optimistic planning, which rarely bears out. Many prisoners, such as at Kiev, were captured opportunistically in situations not initially anticipated in the first plans.
  • (Comment only) I see why security and labor needs are mentioned here, but it is a bit awkward because these concepts were not introduced early and just pop up here. They are addressed later, but their introduction assumes a reader is already aware of German labor needs and partisan security issues. I'm not sure much can be done about this.

Capture

• Paragraph 1
  • Consider reorganizing paragraph.
    • Currently it is organized as such: (a) high ratio of capture in 1941 that declines but remains lower than German, (b) Russians capture in encirclement, (c) Number of soviet soldiers decline after 1941. This starts by comparing 1941 capture rates, then describes overall capture rates with caveat that they declined, then gives way they were captured, then repeats that rates fell after 1941. Combining would merge points about decline, starting with 1941 and then explaining the change in capture rates later in the war.
    • Consider: starting (a) By mid-December 1941...surrounded, (b) "Three or four Soviet...killed" as the encirclements explain the high capture rate, (c) Ratio declines after the Battle of Moscow, but (d) remains higher than the German side.
    • (Minor comment) Consider reducing mention of 1941 in the paragraph, where it show up three times.
    • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.
• Paragraph 2
  • Consider deleting the sentence The behavior of Soviet soldiers...defect. Does this tell us something unique about Soviet soldiers? Isn't this true for soldiers in any army anywhere? If this is deleted, consider beginning the following sentence with "Soviet soldiers opposition to their government...defections., which"

• Paragraph 3
  • Consider reorganizing paragraph
    • Currently two sentences of front-line troops (also whose troops need mentioned, the focus has been on Soviets for this section.) are separated by interlude on camps: (a) Soviets captured by frontline (b) sent to collection point (c) transit camp (d) transit camp closed (e) permanent camp (f) frontline takes their clothes, (g) wounded sometimes got care.
    • Consider starting: "Soviet soldiers in encirclements were usually captured by Axis front-line troops, who took them to a collection point. Sometimes, the prisoners were stripped of their winter clothing..." This would result in (a) Capture by frontline troops (b) Discussion of collection point to transit camp and permanent camp. (c) treatment of the wounded and sick.
  • (Minor comment) Consider rewording final sentence. "Most often" already implies "sometime", so why not just state: "Most often wounded and sick Red Army soldiers did not receive medical care."
    • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.

Summary executions

• Paragraph 1
  • Consider moving the final sentence The German military...points right after first sentence. The first sentence gives numbers, this sentence qualifies those numbers, as they weren't recorded. It also allows the paragraph to end with the idea that the shootings escalated violence.

• Paragraph 2
  • On the first read, I found this paragraph a bit confusing.
    • Current structure: (a) Germans order encircled, captured Soviets to turn themselves in. (b) Prisoners not taken in these circumstance (c) Some soviet soldiers executed as partisans. (d) Some Soviet soldiers evade capture. This structure feels like it is almost contradicting itself because it deals with two issues, prisoners ordered to turn themselves in and soldiers evading capture. It can be read that the German orders weren't successful as few turned themselves in, yet soldiers were shot as partisans, some evaded capture even though in the paragraph they aren't being captured by asked to turn themselves in.
    • Consider how this rearrangement sounds: (a) Soldiers shot as partisans. (b) Soldiers ordered to turn themselves in. (c) Few did.
    • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.
      • (a) Consider a variation of last sentence as first, topic sentence: "Thousands or ten of thousands ...as partisans"
      • (b) Followed by a merge of the last clause of sentence two with sentence one: "To prevent the growth...movement, the Supreme Command...(OKH)...ordered Red Army soldiers overtaken to present themselves...execution.".
      • (c) The third sentence Despite the order...circumstances strikes me as confusing. "Despite the order" implies few soldiers turned themselves in, "More often than not" implies soldiers were were more likely to turn themselves in, "circumstances" is plural, but the situation- being overtaken- is singular, prisoners is the subject-but the actual subject is bypassed soldiers who were ordered to become prisoners, but usually refused. Consider reworking this. Here's one suggestion: merging this with the last clause of the last sentence to something like: Despite this order, few soldiers turned themselves in; some evaded capture and returned to their families."

• Paragraph 3
  • consider deleting as expected, isn't it implied? Remove the comma after expected as the following is not an independent clause.
  • Consider editing the section of female combatants to make it a bit clearer and to follow more seamlessly.
    • At first read, the lead "although" on the sentence on female soldiers initially reads as a qualification of the previous point on commissars, but it's a new topic.
    • Here's where the section may need clarity. It seems to read like this: (a) OKH says they defy gender expectation so treat them as prisoners of war. (b)other orders- whose?- called for them to be shot on sight. (c) Some units did not execute female combatants, but most died. Here's the issue I see: Most units shouldn't have based on the OKH directive, but some may have taken their own initiative unless "other orders" came from a higher level than OKH. This needs clarification.
    • (in Germany not needed, as there were camps in other countries like Poland).
    • Here's a possible suggestion addressing these points: "The OKH ordered female combatants in the Soviet army be treated as prisoners of war; but these female soldiers, who defied German gender expectations, were often shot on sight. few survived to reach prisoner-of-war camps."

Prisoner-of-war-camps

Paragraph 1- No comments

Death marches

• Paragraph 1
  • Consider reordering structure.
    • Current structure: (a) no rail cars (b) death marches, being shot and escaping (c) rail transport in open cattle wagons (d) additional death marches (e) total killed.
    • Here are the issues I see: The paragraph starts assuming the reader knows the topic and talks about train transport not being usually available, the marches, then back to train transport using open cattle cars when earlier it said train transport usually wasn't done, then it returns to death marches.
    • Consider (a) Start with description of the death marches, which is the topic. Maybe mention there were additional ones (b) Note that rail transportation wasn't usually available but when it was it was in open cattle cars that killed 20%. (c) total killed.
    • consider deleting typically on foot...areas, as "death march" implies "on foot"
    • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.

Housing conditions

• Paragraph 1
  • Consider reordering structure for clarity.
    • Here's the current structure I see: (a) lack of facilities and starvation (b) Germans systematically roll out housing (c) through winter, soldiers in open, unheated rooms, or burrows (c) poor housing and cold cause mass deaths (d) mass death eases situation. The idea that housing and barracks were systematically rolled out implies to the reader that housing was well done, but this is then contradicted in the following sentences that show it is inadequate.
    • Suggested reordering. (a) lack of facilities and starvation (b) Poor housing and cold cause of mass death: through winter, soldiers in open, unheated rooms, or burrows (d) Germans systematically roll out housing housing, but inadequate (e) math death eases situation. (f) death toll. This would start with the statements of the causes and the experience of Russian soldiers, then address the inadequacy of the German response that was only solved by mass death.
    • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.

• Paragraph 2
  • one minor suggestion: consider replacing "the" with "recaptured" in escape, the prisoners...camp as the previous sentence refers to prisoners that successfully made it to Switzerland.

Hunger and mass deaths

• No comments

Release

• No comments

Selective killings

• Paragraph 1- No comments
• Paragraph 2
  • Consider this reordering. Follow Those unable...die. with Disabled soldiers...approached. End with "Sometimes mass executions were conducted without a clear rationale." This has the strength of putting "unable to work" and "disabled" together, allowing unstated method of execution to be more easily inferred from the preceding "unable". It also ends the paragraph on the idea that many of the mass executions were senseless.
    • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.
• Paragraph 3
  • Consider swapping the order of these sentences: As the war progressed...executions and After March 1944...escape this would put the Mauthausen killing next to the other camp systems, and make the issue of curtailment a kind of final statement before the tally statement.
  • Consider rewording After March 1944...escape. If the prisoners escaped, how were they killed? If they escaped, what does an attempted escape have to do with them. So based on context, I'd suggest one of the two rewordings: "Around 5,000 Soviet officers and non-commissioned officers recaptured after an attempted mass escape in March 1944 were killed at Mauthausen." or "Around 5,000 Soviet officers and non-commissioned officers implicated in a mass escape attempt in March 1944 were killed at Mauthausen.", depending on whether only the escapees were killed or everyone suspected of taking part in the escape.
    • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.

Auxiliaries in German service

• No comments

Forced Labor

In the Soviet Union

• Paragraph 1
  • Consider detaching and others died from the sentence Many prisoners ran away... and shifting it to the next sentence by semi-colon or colon to the following sentence, which illustrates the modes of death of forced-laborers.

Transfer to Nazi concentration camps

No comment

Deportation elsewhere

• Paragraph 1- No comment
• Paragraph 2
  • Consider deleting the "any" from any significant improvement. Then consider shortening Not all prisoners....disease to "Prisoners remained vulnerable to malnutrition and disease." The reason for these suggestions is as mentioned, real improvement is politically impossible. Thus, there's no reason to talk about benefits, which according to the previous sentence were nil.
  • (Comment) The clause at the end of the last sentence where many died seems to raise unneeded questions. Norway and the Channel Islands were relatively low conflict zones. Did they die by starvation working at these locations, were they executed by the Germans, the population, or Allied occupation forces? Maybe its best to just remove the clause?

Public perception

• Paragraph 1
  • Consider moving According to Secrity Service...reason. right after the first paragraph. The sentence ends for this reason", but the preceding sentence mentions Holocaust ignorance and the murder of prisoners first. Moving the sentence would make the paragraph progression clearer: (a) Soviets portrayed as monsters, (b) Many Germans wanted them killed because of this (c) Russians were being murdered early on.
  • Can the sentence Although many Germans claimed ignorance...deported be reworked? It seems out of context here. I do think a link to the German alleged ignorance of the Holocaust is important to put in this article, it doesn't seem to go here. The topic of the paragraph is the dehumanization and approved destruction of Soviet prisoners.
  • This sentence begins with mention of Holocaust denial, which is not a topic here, and follows up with the claim that many Soviet prisoners died before German Jews had been deported. This sentence would be more contextually appropriate if it were the last in the paragraph, and the clause Although...war, is deleted.
  • (Additional comment) If the above suggestion makes sense. I'm not sure I'd want to lose the Claimed German ignorance of the holocaust link. Could it go elsewhere in the article, or reworked so that it makes more contextual sense?
    • (later thought- brainstorming) Perhaps a final sentence to the effect that "Just as much of the German population claimed ignorance of the holocaust, they also claimed to be unaware of the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war." would work? Though something like this would need a citation.
• Paragraph 2
  • This is fine as is, but consider rewording the first sentence to begin "Soviet propaganda ...as early as July 1941." This would make a cleaner contrast with the structure of the proceeding paragraph: Nazi propaganda and Soviet propaganda both being their own initial topic. As written, the initial flow, makes the reader think they are reading a continuation of the previous paragraph until they arrive at "Soviet propaganda" at the end.

End of the war

• Paragraph 1
  • Maybe the redundancy is a good thing in an article of this length, but weren't the deaths caused by late death marches already covered in Death marches? Could the information be consolidated? (Personally, I think removing the late death marches from Death marches and leaving it here.
• Paragraphs 2, 3, & 4- No comments

Death toll

No comments

• (observation) Deaths in Norway is mentioned here where it seems to make more sense than in the end of forced labor, which put Norway together with the Channel islands. This seems to support that the clause where many died at the very end of Force labor isn't needed.

Legacy

No comments

I'm done for now. This article represents an incredible amount of work. After having combed through this article, I very much appreciate the service it is doing in raising the awareness of further atrocities during WWII. Wtfiv (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Buidhe, what's the state of play re responding to wtfiv's comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I am still trying to find time to do the needed prose improvement (t · c) buidhe 17:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Support by Biruitorul

From what I can see, this is a great article on a neglected topic. Nice variety of recent, quality sources, good use of images, clear layout. If I see any issues as I continue to work through the text, I will note them, but at a first pass, this looks like a worthy FAC candidate. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

One afterthought, given an ongoing controversy: given its contextual relevance, I’d like to see a brief mention of German atrocities committed against Polish prisoners of war retained here. — Biruitorul ^Talk 07:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 31 October 2024 [77].

---

History of infant schools

Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

People who grew up in the UK might remember attending an infant school or the "infants" of their primary school. What they might not be aware of is that the concept has a long and complicated history; stretching from New York to New Zealand.

This is my second featured nomination. The article has recently been promoted to good status (See:Talk:Infant school/GA1). Thank you to anyone who decides to review it.Llewee (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• Since the movement began in Scotland, could some lead mention be done as to whether infant schools flourished in Scotland?

• Frustratingly, I haven't been able to find much information about Scotland. Charitable infant schools certainly existed there in the early part of the movement but Scotland seems to drop out of the story at the middle of the 19th century. Presumably infant schools weren't adopted into the state system there to the same extent.--Llewee (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's not a complete picture but I have added more information about the history in Scotland into the body of the article.--Llewee (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• According to David Salmon and Winifred Hindshaw," What is their profession?

• The source says they were as senior staff at a teacher training college. I have described them as "educationalists in the early 20th century".--Llewee (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "manager Robert Owen". Is manager the proper term or was the the owner or some such?

• The source says manager. I have added some additional detail and dealt with the false title issue.--Llewee (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "He saw child labour as damaging and forbid children under the age of ten from working in his factory." Should forbid be forbade.

• done--Llewee (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Various other figures — including Robert Pole, David Goyder, William Wilson, William Allen and Thomas Bilby — also established infant schools and wrote books about the subject." Given that these are apparently not notable, though I did not check, are they worth naming?

• Taken them out, Goyder comes up in the US section but mentioning him here doesn't really add much additional info.--Llewee (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Academic David Turner" this and also Owen above, I thought false titles were disfavoured in British English?

• tweaked wording--Llewee (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "T.B Stephens" Is this properly punctuated?

• Changed to "T.B."--Llewee (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "making it easier for them to pay infant schools relatively low fees.[47]" An apostrophe somewhere, likely after schools

• reworded sentence--Llewee (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• "The number of children under seven in schools for older children also rose." I'm not a fan of having "also rose" refer back to a previous section. Perhaps begin, "Like workers' wages, the number of ..."

• I've changed "also rose" to "increased".--Llewee (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "it would be sometime" some time?

• done--Llewee (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Some teachers failed to teach reading to poorer pupils, with no reason to develop an interest in the subject outside of school. " This sentence doesn't read as complete.

• Combined with previous sentence.--Llewee (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• "For instance, an employee of the Board of Education, Lord Eustace Percy later wrote in his memoirs:" He appears to have been president of the Board of Education (and earlier, parliamentary secretary), which are political positions held by members of Parliament. He was not an employee.

• Sorry I missed this one, changed to "political appointment".--Llewee (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Infant-stage children solving puzzles at a school in Dominion of New Zealand (c. 1900 – c. 1947)" I would omit "Dominion of".

• done--Llewee (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• "In order to encourage the freed workers to remain working there and spread Christianity among their children." Not a sentence.

• Combined with previous sentence.--Llewee (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• the owners power: missing apostrophe

• reworded--Llewee (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• "a system of state funded schooling in Ireland " redirects to Stanley letter. WP:EASTEREGG would seem to have some relevance.

• I've changed the link to "establish a system" to try to make clearer what the linked article is about.--Llewee (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm surprised throughout the Ireland section, there is no mention of religion.

• The Catholic Church is mentioned a lot in the book. I've added more information about its influence into the article but I'm trying to keep the focus on topics that are specifically relevant to infant schools/classes.--Llewee (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• "skepticism". I thought this was "scepticism" in BrEng.

• Yes, changed--Llewee (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Overtime maybe over time

• done--Llewee (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

That's it for now. I guess what strikes me at first glance is that this seems mostly about the past, the history, without much discussion of what present-day infant schools are like. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Wehwalt I think less information specific to infant schools exists for more recent times because they have gradually lost some of their separate identity. I have tried to flesh out the "part of primary education" section with more information.--Llewee (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Support certainly on prose. I'm hedging some on comprehensiveness for the reasons stated above, but hope to be able to enter a full support following additional reviews. Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review by Generalissima

Some general notes:

• I'm not sure thefreedictionary.com is the best source to use for the first ref; also, Collins and Merriam-Webster both state that its simply in use "in the UK". Since these have at least some history in Scotland, I think that'll be better to use.

• I have tidied up the terminology section and added a few dictionary sources.--Llewee (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 98 has an error that needs fixing.

• done--Llewee (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Grimshaw (1931) and Morgan (1936) needs the publisher put in title case.

• done--Llewee (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Capitalise Co in Longmans, Green, and Co.

• done--Llewee (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• You wikilink RTE News in bibliography, but not BBC News. Try for consistency one way or another here.

• done--Llewee (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Some of your sources aren't in title case and need to be converted to such; Garland, Keane et al, Lehane, Lewis, Pence, and Salmon.

• done--Llewee (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• University of Wales Press needs a location (Cardiff), as does Palgrave Macmillan (London), Routledge (Abingdon), Peter Lang (Laussane), and Taylor & Francis (Milton Park). Alternatively, remove location from all the cites that have it.

• Taken out the existing locations.--Llewee (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• You need to wikilink either all publishers or none of them.

• I think I have got all the ones that have articles now.--Llewee (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Take "others=Internet Archive" out of the Pence cite. They didn't make the book. Also take out the via, since you (rightfully) Yaren't saying Via Jstor for the JSTOR cites.

• done--Llewee (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Add a space between the initials T.B Turner.

• done--Llewee (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• May et al Doesn't have an ISBN.

• added--Llewee (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• This is a very broad article in a field thats well-studied, so obviously we can't use all sourcing. I do feel like you're underusing modern educational journal articles though, and there might be some good ones we can find. Some sources that came up from a search which might be useful:
  • Shannon, R. L., & Shannon, D. M. (1992). The British Infant School: A Reconsideration. The Educational Forum, 56(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131729109335177 - Good sourcing for its influence outside of the UK.
  • Monks, Claire P., and Sarah O’Toole. "Bullying in preschool and infant school." The Wiley Blackwell handbook of bullying: A comprehensive and international review of research and intervention 2 (2021): 2-19.
  • Burger, Kaspar. "Entanglement and transnational transfer in the history of infant schools in Great Britain and salles d’asile in France, 1816–1881." History of Education 43, no. 3 (2014): 304-333.
  • Luc, Jean-Noël. "The spread of infant school models in Europe during the first half of the nineteenth century." In The Development of Early Childhood Education in Europe and North America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, pp. 31-50. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015.
  • Raveaud, Maroussia. "Assessment in French and English infant schools: assessing the work, the child or the culture?." Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 11, no. 2 (2004): 193-211.
  • Blatchford, Peter, Viv Moriarty, Suzanne Edmonds, and Clare Martin. "Relationships between class size and teaching: A multimethod analysis of English infant schools." American Educational Research Journal 39, no. 1 (2002): 101-132.

That's about it for now. Let me know when you want me to take a second look, @Llewee:. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima, I have responded to each of your points now and expanded the article with information from journals. I hope you will be able to have another look when you have time.--Llewee (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Took a look back over - apologies that this took a while - but I think it's in a lot better spot now! Happy to support on source review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:British_Central_School_Borough_Road.png: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Infant_gallery.png, File:Beckside_Infants_c.1900s_(archive_ref_DDPD-2-2-8)_(25384528296).jpg, File:First_Infant_School_in_Green_Street,_New_York_MET_MM82866.jpg

• The second image is from a book published in 1840 (See:https://archive.org/details/asystemforeduca00wildgoog/page/n130/mode/1up). I will have a look for the other ones in a moment.--Llewee (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• I found this which says the first image was published in 1834 in London.--Llewee (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• I don't know about the third. I'm not sure if it was ever published before it was released on Flickr.--Llewee (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've replaced this image with File:St Marys Infants School children in Saturday Market, Beverley for Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee 1899 (archive ref DDPD-2-2-8) (25381071806).jpg. It was taken in 1897 and does not appear to have been published until it was released on Flickr in 2016.--Llewee (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I assumed the fourth one was 1828 in New York based on the information in the Wikicommons page and source.--Llewee (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• File:Which_is_your_Right_Hand%3F_A_study_in_an_Infant_School._(Graphic,_1898).jpg: copyright terms turn over on the new year, so life+100 tagging won't be correct until 1 January 2025.

• Changed to 95--Llewee (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• File:The_dog_(BM_1846,1219.12).jpg: the permission field and the licensing tags are contradictory here - NC images are considered non-free for our purposes

• The British museum gives this information on how to use it which links to CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 does that mean it's not available to use?--Llewee (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• I have just taken this image out.--Llewee (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• File:The_Infant_Model_School,_with_Owen's_Original_clocktower.png: what is the specific source?

• This museum website says it was from The Teacher's Manual for Infant Schools and Preparatory Classes but I can't find the image in this copy of the book.--Llewee (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, not an image issue, but I would suggest a thorough review of the article for style. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria and thanks for the review. How are things looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Infants_of_the_British_school,_Llanymddyfri_NLW3363470.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing whinges about links and size

• There are 9,279 words, which will take half an hour to read. That's 0.3 tomats, so a third of a short novel. This is pushing the upper end of WP:SIZE, and reduces the odds that the whole article will get read.

• I have split of Spread of infant schools outside Britain and Ireland into its own article. The original article is now 7778 words. Is that short enough or do I need to split it further?--Llewee (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• It is missing obvious links to articles such as Moral education, Physical exercise, and Playground. I've looked at a sample of 188 randomly selected articles over 5,000 words in length, and they typically have between 200 and 500 links to other articles (median of 312, mean of 376). Infant school is at the low end, so it could be a case of needing more links, or it could be a case of not choosing the right links. I think that the former is more likely than the latter.

• I have a number of additional links to the article, including the ones you suggested.--Llewee (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing. Any further comments or thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Pessimistic drive-by from UC

I'm not sure that this article really is what it says on the tin -- there is comparatively little, indeed almost nothing as far as I can see, about what an infant school actually is in the modern day, how they work, what it's like inside them, how important they are, the problems facing them, and so on. What we currently have, I think, is closer to an article like History of primary education in the United Kingdom.

Similarly, I think the section on Ireland would be better re-thought: as the scope of the article is currently conceived, we need one, and yet it really doesn't have the substance to do what it needs to do -- we have barely anything there after the 1960s, which clearly won't do for an article that purports to be the port of call for infant schools in Ireland as they exist right now.

Unfortunately, I am not sure that these issues can be easily remedied, at least not within the scope of an FAC. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist I have added more information on present day infant schools in the UK and will do more research into them in Ireland. I think the overall structure of the article is inevitable as they are mainly notable for their historic role. There aren't that many separate infant schools left and the term doesn't seem to be used much officially.--Llewee (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Our article says that 10% of children of the relevant age attended one in 2018, and there are 1,700 of them -- that's not a small number, though it is obviously much smaller than the figure for primary schools. More generally, throughout the article, I think the distinction between those two things often gets muddy: as alluded above, I don't get the sense that the article really knows how it defines its scope between "infant schools" and "the education of children under about 8". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

For the most part, with the exception of the earliest infant schools, I don't think there is much distinction between the two. The article says the term infant school "might refer to a separate school or a department within a larger school". The UK government uses the term infant classes for all children in the relevant age group.--Llewee (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Right, but we have this article (Infant school), a separate article for primary education (Primary school), a specific article for primary education in Wales and a lengthy article on education in England with relevant sections that don't fully overlap any of those categorisations. We then have History of education in Ireland and Education in the Republic of Ireland on the Irish material.

In my view, this is a scope-of-article problem, not a scope-of-subject one -- I think it would help for you to have a look at that set of articles, work out how they do (or should) fit together, and then think about where the material you want to write about would be best located. As it stands, I think this article is quite a comprehensive history of how young children have been educated in Britain, but it wouldn't be enough for the article about cars to be primarily a history of how cars used to be built. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

My view is that infant schools were a distinctive institution and phase of schooling in the past but have merged into primary education over time. "Infant school" is only really a notable topic for a Wikipedia article because of the history. The balance of the sources available seems to support that. In any case, I've updated the information about Ireland.--Llewee (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

In response to a request to comment: There seems to be agreement that the article is heavily focused on the historic dimension. The disagreement seems to be about whether this is good or bad. One important factor in this regard is probably whether this topic is primarily of historic interest compared to its contemporary relevance. Given that there are infant schools currently in operation, there is at least some contemporary relevance.

This point probably wouldn't be an issue if the name of our article was "History of infant schools". Would it be feasible to rename this article to "History of infant schools" without any radical content changes? If not: how would an article on the topic "History of infant schools" fundamentally differ from this article? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

To me, that rename would be the best option: the article would then need some trimming for focus and relevancy, but that would be a much smaller job than adding enough present-day material to make this one match its title. However, I think it would also be important to carve out a smaller article to go in the Infant school slot: having an article for "History of X" but not for "X" seems undesirable to me. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Phlsph7 thank you for attempted to move this discussion forward, I'm happy to support a name change. Would that create any problems with the FAC nomination?

UndercoverClassicist, I could create a separate article but it might be quite short. I wonder if a better option might be to integrate the terminology section into the current infant schools section and make it a redirect to there.--Llewee (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It might confuse bots if the name of the FAC page does not match the article name, but I don't think it should be a problem for the FAC nomination itself. I agree that it would be a good idea to have an article called "Infant school" in addition to an article called "History of infant schools". Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, the article "Infant school" could have one section called "History" that provides a concise summary of the article "History of infant schools". The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Education has an article "Infant Schools in England" that has some information on current practices and the history that might be useful. It is available online here. But creating a new full article is not a priority in regard to this nomination and a short article or a redirect might be fine for the time being.

In regard to the scope of our current article, it would probably be best to focus on the more narrow topic of the history of infant schools rather than the wider topic of the history of infant education/early childhood education. I'm not an expert here, but this might affect the section "Ireland". As a sidenote: this section is exclusively based on a single source (O'Connor 2011) except for the last paragraph. I don't know how many sources there are on this topic, but this might collide with the FA criterion 1c. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi UndercoverClassicist. Any further thoughts? And/or reinforcement of your comments above? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I notice the article has just been renamed, and so re-scoped -- honestly, I think I would have to start again with a review to have anything educated to say on the new one. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Coord note

This has been open for over six weeks and hasn't garnered a consensus to promote, and comments seem to have stalled. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so I am afraid that it is going to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

I was invited and am willing to take a look, but have no idea of the topic, being familiar only with German and US varieties of Kindergarten and preschool. But sometimes the view of someone from outside might help ;) I'll write as I read, turning to the lead last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much Gerda, I will answer some of the later comments first and then circle back to deal with the more complicated issues in the early sections.--Llewee (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead image

• The image of just some building tells me nothing. How about the one about "right hand" further below. I want to see an infant ;)

  done, I have added that 1898 drawing which is a nice image--Llewee (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Intro

• "An infant school is a type of school or school department for young children. Today, it is mainly used in England and Wales." It is unclear to me what "it" means in the second sentence, the type, or perhaps rather that specific name for it.

  clarified--Llewee (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Terminology

• I suggest not to start with infant school (lower case, not expected at the beginning), but perhaps say: The term "infant school" ...*

  done--Llewee (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• "age ranges for the group they cater to" - why "they"? So far it was singular.

  changed to "age ranges for this phase of education"

• I never need more than three refs for on fact.

  I have moved the dictionary definitions from a note into the body of the article.--Llewee (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• For someone completely unfamiliar, Reception, even with a link, comes as too much of a surprise, - perhaps turn the sentence around to prepare it?

  reworked this sentence--Llewee (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Similarly, Early Years Foundation Stage is a pompous term, - stage means podium for me ;) - perhaps pipe to early childhood education which makes more sense to me?

  I've changed the working to "integrated into preschool education" to try and use less jargon.--Llewee (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'd make 3 paras for UK, Wales and Ireland, or one.

  I have two paragraphs one covering the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and another for Ireland or more precisely the republic. I'd like to keep the Republic of Ireland in its own paragraph in order to not give the impression its in the same category to the various parts of the UK.--Llewee (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Background

• I think that for me it would be easier to first read Background, then Terminology.

  I think that would be a bit disjointed. As the terminology section is about the present day, it would effectively be setting the scene in circa-1800 then returning to the present before going back to the 1810s.--Llewee (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• I wonder if - after saying it's new, and I don't know if we have to mention the two people without an article - we can tell the story chronologically: first the common situation in the 19th century of one classroom schools, then take it from there.

  Do you mean moving the terminology section lower down the article?

  That was my point further up but I understand if not, as you explained. No, I meant, I wouldn't begin with the idea, then say what was previously and even later say what was before the 19th century. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have reorganised the first paragraph of the background section along the lines you suggested.--Llewee (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

First establishments

• no need to link to London

  unlinked--Llewee (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• "This was followed" - unclear what "This" means.

  Changed to "The London Society was followed" to try and clarify.--Llewee (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Theory ...

• "Some figures opposed the infant schools" - unsure what "figures" means here.

  Changed to "people"--Llewee (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Evolution

• I notice names of scholars who - without article - should get a little introduction about when they wrote these things and why it seems significant.

  I think I have dealt with all instances of this. Please tell me if I have missed any.--Llewee (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think you introduced them, it's just that my memory fails to recognise easily that a name was already mentioned in the previous section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Worldwide spread

• I don't understand "an Infant School" - why caps?
• "planation"? - plantation?

  fixed both of these--Llewee (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Teaching methods

• "During this period" - someone who comes via headers doesn't know which.

  Clarified "In the mid-19th century,"--Llewee (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Infant departments

• "in the middle of century" - which?

  Clarified "in the middle of the 19th century"--Llewee (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Need a break, read until header "Shift to child-centered approach". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I read now - without problems - until Ireland. I will take a look at headers and there levels because I don't recall any similar England - Scptland that would have prepared me for Ireland being a different topic. I'll be out tomorrow, patience please. Thank you for changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

19th century

• "Attempts were made to introduce kindergarten methods into infant classes during the 1880s and 1890s. The method was treated as a separate subject within an academically focused curriculum." - methods, - what does "the method" mean then?

  Changed to plural.--Llewee (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

20th century

• "Wider society was sceptical of the changes." - what's wider society?

  relevant text on page 152 - "...parents and the wider community were ill-informed about the rationale for the content and methodologies promoted in the programme of 1900 and began to question the educational value of handwork. There were requests for a return to the all important study of Reading, Writing and Arithmetic by parents, the wider community, the Catholic Church and not least the teachers (O’Connell, 1968: 336–7)."

  page 175 - "...it would appear that parents remained unconvinced of the educational value of the reform. As early as 1901, Mr Downing, the Chief Inspector, indicated that there was a ‘grievous lack of public interest in the National Schools’. He questioned how this attitude ‘of indifference, is to be met, and their interest enlisted’ (Sixty-eighth Report of the CNEI for 1901, Appendix, Section I: 72). By 1912–1913 Miss Austin could report that while the attitude of the public towards the education of infants was of a negative nature, it was improving (Seventy-ninth Report of the CNEI for 1912–1913, Appendix, Section I: 137). In relation to the context of the time, although many parents were not educated, nevertheless, they did not seem to value handwork. For them, schoolwork involved analysis and conceptualisation with less stress on manual instruction."--Llewee (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think if you don't want more detail from those sources, it might help to say "parents and the wider society". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've added some detail to that section which should make it clearer.--Llewee (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• "teaching in infant classes in the Irish Free State was made solely Irish-medium" - "teaching was made"

  I'm not quite sure what you mean here, it was a reform by the new Irish government.--Llewee (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  I just wondered about the verb "made" which sounds kind of weak, but I'm no native speaker of English which may explain some questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• "more varied teacher methods" - what are teacher methods?

  corrected to "teaching methods"--Llewee (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll turn to the lead after sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• I recommend to make Ireland an extra paragraph, matching a level-2 header.
• For my taste, the lead could be a bit longer to reflect the structure of the article. In old style, the TOC gave an overview, but now we get only the most important headers if we don't dig deeper. If you want to leave it as it as, fine. - I am pretty busy (Rohan de Saram + 3 Bach cantatas + two more who recently died + RL), so will look at your replies later, perhaps later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure about these changes. I think the pre-independence Irish history broadly mirrors England and Wales. So if you added another paragraph it would add a degree of repetition. The heading already feels quite long to me. It's 372 works which is at the upper end of the usual length for featured articles.--Llewee (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Understand. What you might do for distinction at a glance is: place "In Ireland" first in the third sentence. I am ready to support the article for featured quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  done--Llewee (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco 1492

Reserving a space. Hopefully I'm not too late! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• The Graphic should be in italics per MOS:NAMESANDTITLES (normally I'd do this myself, but as you indicated that this is your second FAC, I wanted to flag it for future reference)
• to convert - Feels like "to convert" or "to convert the empire's non-Christian subjects" would work better
• rote-learning - why the hyphen? It does not seem to be used as a compound adjective, and the article on rote learning does not indicate that it's used as a compound noun in BrE
• The term Infant school - Capitalization correct here?
• Cambridge and other dictionaries - should be in italics per MOS:NAMESANDTITLES
• reasonably common - "reasonably" feels like a judgement call. Perhaps "somewhat" if you are using reasonable to temper "common"
• The concept of a school for very young children is a relatively modern phenomenon as the idea that formal education can be tailored to the specific needs of young children is relatively new. - Is "relatively modern" in the source? I don't think I would have assumed that a concept of a school for young children is an ancient one, simply because formal education has historically been the purview of the wealthy (helps today too), and the early 19th century is 200 years ago at this point.
• climbing boys, climbing - climbing ... climbing
• The British and Foreign School Society (founded 1808) and the National Society for Promoting Religious Education (founded 1811) were established to found new "voluntary schools". - "found" and derivatives thrice in one sentence. Is it reasonable to cut "founded" from the years of establishment?
• Information about this infant school is quite limited, accounts often focus more on the uniqueness of the experiment rather than the activities that took place in the school. - Run on sentence; feels like it should be a semi-colon or have a conjunction
• "singing, dancing, and marching" - I doubt that MOS:QUOTE would require quotations here, as this is not attributing a value judgement, and the content has limited means of expression.
• Laura Novo, an academic, - Anything more specific?
• an Infant School run by the Home and Colonial Infant School Society - as this is used as a generic noun, I'd nix the caps on "Infant School"
• Glasgow Herald - Another MOS:NAMESANDTITLES tag
• steam-power - Same question as rote-learning; is the hyphen correct in BrE?

Down to #Integration into state system and rote learning. I've been making minor adjustments while reading. I don't think anything is controversial, but please review.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for making those changes, there do not seem to be any issues. I've done most of this first batch. I can't access the source for the newness thing at the moment because wayback machine is being a pain. If I remember correctly it said it's modern or words to that effect but it's an extremely old book.--Llewee (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, Archive being attacked has put a damper on a few of my writing efforts as well. Please let me know when you're done going through the comments.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• The use of words vs. numerals for ages is not consistent. I believe the MOS prefers smaller numbers as words

  Done--Llewee (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• three Rs - Worth a link?

  It's linked and explained in the "curriculum and facilities" section.--Llewee (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Please check alt text; anything that is not a full sentence should not have a full-stop
• Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration - Worth a redlink?

  I have added a red link as it seems to meet the criteria.--Llewee (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• the post-war housing programme - Do we have a link for this?

  Added a link to Housing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Post_War which gives a general gist.--Llewee (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Per MOS:DASH, I have removed the spaces around the mdashes
• previous child-centred practises - referring to Oxford, practises is exclusively a verb, while practices is the noun. That being said, I'm Canadian, so if practises is also a noun in BrE, let me know.

  No, it was a mistake which I've corrected.--Llewee (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Synthetic phonics - referring to the article, "synthetic" isn't normally capitalized

  Changed--Llewee (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Revised Programme of Instruction in National Schools - You don't italicize the curricula above; which is correct?

  Removed for consistency--Llewee (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• I see that you prefer "which" over "that". I've used "that" in a few places, where it seemed appropriate, but it may help break up some repetitiveness.

• I've tried to cut down on the use of "which" throughout the article.--Llewee (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• There is a tonal shift in the discussion of Ireland. I'm seeing a lot more simple sentences than were above. Might be worth revisiting

  I have tried to cut down on the number of short sentences in the Ireland section.--Llewee (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

As above, I've made some edits. Please review.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chris Woodrich, those changes are also fine. I have changed "such students" to "these pupils". The term pupils is generally used for schoolchildren in the UK. That appears to also be the case in Ireland (See:Student#Ireland). I have responded to all your comments now.--Llewee (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks, Llewee. I've reviewed your edits, and I believe my concerns are addressed. I cannot speak to comprehensiveness, nor to UC's concern about scope, but I am happy to support on prose.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppopse per 1b. This isn't a history of infant schools, it's a history of infant schools in the UK, a little bit in Ireland and nothing from any where else. And certainly stretching from neither New York or New Zealand. Unfortunately merely tightening the title sometimes isn't enough. SerialNumber54129 14:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Given the nature of the title change and the implications it may have on the article's focus, I believe it would be prudent to archive this nomination. Since the support declarations were made before the article move, there's uncertainty about whether they still apply. The usual two-week waiting period before re-nomination is waived in this case, so you are free to immediately renominate it under the new title and ping the reviewers above for re-evaluation. FrB.TG (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: The bot cannot archive this article. The coordinator will have to carry it out manually. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 4 November 2024 [78].

---

It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water

Nominator(s): — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

At the turn of the century, Phil Elverum of the Microphones released the folk album It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water. Although frequently overlooked in the following years (overshadowed by its younger sibling), the album still received critical acclaim, going on to be "widely regarded as [an] indie pop classic" and inspire "weirdo singer/songwriter[s]" everywhere. Thanks to @Gen. Quon: for mentorship on this nomination. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support I worked with PerfectSoundWhatever to punch up the article prior to this nom, and I think it's in a solid spot. The references are good, the prose (imho) reads nicely, and the topic is comprehensive without being unnecessarily exhaustive.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 00:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

750h

Will review. 750h+ 14:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

lead

• make the lead two paragraphs (per MOS:LEADLENGTH)
• The album was recorded on analogue tape ==> "The album was recorded on analog tape" (AmEng)
• The album was recorded on analog tape, and Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections. ==> "Recorded on analog tape, Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections"

background and recording

• came to increasingly trust his musical abilities. ==> "came to trust his musical abilities increasingly."
• Prior to It Was Hot's release ==> "Before It Was Hot's release" (conciseness)
• between September 24, 1999, and March 6, 2000 at Dub add a comma after "2000"
• on analogue tape, which ==> "on analog tape, which"

music and themes

• merge the first paragraph and second paragraph (single-sentence paragraphs are generally unfavorable)

release and reception

• droning, distorted guitars and organs" ==> "droning, distorted guitars[,] and organs"

That's all i got. Fine work on the article! 750h+ 08:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@750h+: Thank you for the review! All comments implemented. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. 750h+ 00:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• ""The Glow" acts as the album's climax and introduces the concept of the "glow", which was explored in more depth on 2001's The Glow Pt. 2." - this reads a tiny bit oddly, as you refer to this album in the present tense but then a later album in past tense. Maybe this could be dodged by saying "which would be explored".......?
• "as well as the extended play Window:." - is that colon part of the title, rather than a typo.....?
• Check for overlinking - drones is linked multiple times, as are K Records, Phil Elverum, the Microphones, PopMatters, and more....
• That's all I got. Great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments! "was" changed to "would be". The colon is intentional.

  Per MOS:REPEATLINK, repeat links are allowed if in different sections. I don't think removing many of the links you mentioned would be beneficial to the reader, although I removed some. Let me know your thoughts. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review and spotcheck

Images seem well-placed. File:ItWasHotWeStayedInTheWaterCover.jpg has a broken source URL. Where on the source for File:Will Oldham 2017.jpg is the licence? File:The Pull - The Microphones.ogg's rationale probably needs to describe a bit more why a sample is needed. File:Eric'striplive.jpg from which one file is derived has a broken source. I don't see ALT text anywhere. Source-wise (spot-check contained therein):

Thanks for the review: will reply to each point in order. Source URL fixed; per diario.madrid.es website, "With few exceptions expressly indicated, the contents of the daily website.madrid.es are published under Creative Commons CC by 4.0 license" (google translate); file rationale expanded; can't find the Eric's trip file anywhere else, not sure what else I can do, deadlinked content doesnt necessitate removal; alt text added. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• #1 doesn't mention "The Pull" anywhere. It also doesn't say that "The Glow" is the climax or that it has segments.
  • It Was Hot opens with lightly-strummed acoustic guitar switching rhythmically from the right to left channel of your speaker. Don't need to cite that the opener is "The Pull".
  • leading up perfectly to the album's climax, the laid-back yet riveting charms of the Microphones' otherworldly cover of Eric's Trip's "Sand," and the epic "The Glow." [...] The latter [...] weaves several loosely connected segments together into a disjointed, yet brilliantly self-referential epic.— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• Where does #2 speak of liner notes?
  • It's kind of a WP:BLUE. The liner notes not giving individual contributions is an obvious fact and is used to introduce the following quote. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• In #3, the article text resembles the source's "It was his first LP in a streak to revolve around an element of nature – here, of course, water — before 2001’s The Glow pt. II captured fire and air and 2003’s Mount Eerie did rock. " a bit much. Is the "B" in the sidebar supposed to source the 4 out of 5 star thing?
  • 4/5 changed to B. For the wording, honestly, I disagree. The parts that are similar are mostly the parts that are facts and have to be kept— the albums, the element names, use of the word "element". I don't see ways to reword without making the sentence less clear but open to ideas. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
    • Let's see if anyone else has input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
      • I would be more than happy to provide an additional opinion on this as I have worked on several music-related FACs in the past. Apologies for being dense, but @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, could you please clarify the question for me? I just want to make sure that I am looking at and providing an opinion about the right thing. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

        The question is whether the text in the source is too similar to that in the article, to be a problem per WP:CLOP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

        Thank you for the clarification. I can understand the WP:CLOP concern as the sentence structure in the article is quite similar to the one used in the citation. I agree that with certain word choices being kept, (i.e. the albums, the element names, the word "element"), but I wonder if there is a way to structure this differently. Maybe start with saying that It Was Hot's central theme is water and then go into saying that this would become a continuing theme for the next two albums, and then end with The Glow, Pt. 2 and Mount Eerie being themed around fire and rock respectively. This is of course just a suggestion. Jo-Jo Eumerus may have (and likely has) better ideas. Again, I think it is more about the structure, and less about the word choice, which I do agree will be similar as those words would need to be carried over into the article. I hope that this helps, and apologies in advance if it does not. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

        Thanks for your insight, and sorry for the delayed response. I've taken your suggestion to introduce It Was Hot's theme first. See this [79]. Pinging @Aoba47 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: what do you think? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

        Thank you for the response and the ping. No need to apologize. I think that the edit addresses the concern with close paraphrasing, but that is my opinion and I would of course respect what Jo-Jo Eumerus has to say about it. For me, I would say that the current wording is appropriate. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

        This edit seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• #4's "because even though he collaborated with other musicians on the project throughout the years, the Microphones name is really synonymous with Elverum himself. " might resemble "Although the project has involved many collaborations with other musicians, it is considered synonymous with Elverum" too much.
  • Reworded. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
    • OKish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• #6 Again sentence structure very similar to source. What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Reworded. Considered reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Generally, print music magazines that have been around for a while can be trusted. It's oft-cited on wiki. [80] — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• #8 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
• #9 Does Johnson still own the studio?
  • Yes, assuming this page is up to date. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
    • That might actually be a better source for this claim. I know, company About Us webpages will be inappropriate 99% of the time but they are ideal to specify the owners and staff of a company. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
• #10 What makes this podcast a reliable source?
  • I'd argue that interviews can be treated as primary sources, making this fall under WP:ABOUTSELF and therefore reliable. Some discussion is at Wikipedia:Interviews (essay): Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
    • My understanding is that the interviewer still has to be reliable. The world is full of fake quotes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• #11 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
• #12 What makes this website a reliable source?
  • Print regional newspaper. Author has written for Pitchfork, Seattle Weekly.
• #13 Archive is broken.
  • So, that's odd. I keep trying to archive this and it isn't going through. I'll remove the broken link for now. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• #15 says "chaos", not "noise"
  • No, “Ice” starts in chaos, [...] ending in vinyl hang-up noise — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
    • OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• #16 What makes Heather Phares a reliable source? "presents delicate, almost folky melodies wrapped up in and surrounded by waves of droning, distorted guitars" isn't there, either.
  • Allmusic is generally considered reliable for opinion. WP:ALLMUSIC. Adjusted quote to be accurate. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• #17 where does it say that The Breeze has experimental bits?
  • #13 describes that, this source places it as an interlude. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
    • OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• #18 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
• #20 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
• #21 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented, but the URL may not be working.
  • It is working: it's ProQuest, so you need to sign into TWL. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
    • That doesn't work, either. The problem seems to be that the URL isn't valid in the first place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
      • It works just fine for me. I log into TWL and click ProQuest. After it redirects, I click the link and it goes through. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

        OK, now it works, and it checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I adjusted the formatting of the bullet points, hope you don't mind. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for taking the time to review! All comments have received replies — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Could you confirm if this is a pass on the reviews you've conducted here or are there any outstanding issues? FrB.TG (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Only the question under #3 needs input. And if someone can access #18-#21 that would be great. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

So #3 is resolved. I am still AGFing on #18-#21 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Are you able to provide support, given the outstanding 2 sources are 00s magazines and don't exist anywhere online (as far as I can tell)? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

"Support", no, but a "Pass", yes, that I can do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco 1492

• Given the brevity of the article, is the K Records link in the release and reception section necessary?
• shipped alongside extras - I was going to ask if this was worth linking to feelies (to use the term at TV Tropes), but apparently we don't have an article on the concept of physical goods shipped alongside media releases. :/ I may need to rectify that at some point.
• from four publications - feels a bit overly specific, given that there could have been zines or other media that covered the release but have never been digitized.
• [,] - I believe MOS:PMC would allow the Oxford comma to be added without the square brackets.
• None of the listed personnel are discussed in the article. Have they never gone on record to discuss it?
• I've made a few edits, almost exclusively commas. Please review

Overall, this is a tight little article that I'm basically already ready to support, aside from the personnel question and the "four publications". Most of this is nitpicks.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the review! Your comma edits look good. I've removed the first K Records link but feel like the release section is far down enough that readers may miss the lead link. Let me know thoughts. Re: personnel, I couldn't find really anything just on google. I did find a description of Mirah's contributions to "Ice", which have been added. I also found that Karl Blau re-recorded the album in 2004 [81] however I can't find reliable sources talking about it, and not sure how it fits into the scope of this article. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Excellent! I'm happy to support this for FA status.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "frontman Phil Elverum recorded It Was Hot at Dub Narcotic Studio in Olympia, Washington". What do you mean by "recorded"? I took the opening sentence of the lead to mean that it was "recorded" by the Microphones.
  • Per a lower footnote, "Despite involvement with many collaborators, the project is considered synonymous with Elverum". Maybe the explanatory footnote could be also placed there, would that help? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)

No, but the change to the opening sentence does. :-)

Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. Your original comment doesn't suggest a specific change. I can't see a good way to clear this up without adding clunky text; I feel like a footnote would work the best here. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)

"No, but the change to the opening sentence does. :-)" means that you have already fixed it; the smiley means I am happy with your fix. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections>" What does this mean? (If it is meant literally, why did he?)
  • I'm not sure what the non-literal interpretation is— he embraced the lo-fidelty of analogue tape rather than trying to avoid it. For the reasons why, I think it was a necessity due to the recording studio, but later became part of his musical style. From Don't Wake Me Up (album): " The studios in which Don't Wake Me Up was recorded lacked high-fidelity recording equipment. Johnson said, [Elverum] didn't have the attitude that this wasn't a real studio. He was more like, 'Hey, this is fun.'" I've added a sentence to help clarify this, sourced from the book: The equipment at Dub Narcotic was modest and relatively primitive compared to what was housed in the Northwest studios that had emerged during the grunge boom of the previous ten years, but it was far beyond what was available to Phil in Anacortes. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "which would be explored in more depth on 2001's The Glow Pt. 2." Which is what?

  Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. What does "what" refer to? Thanks — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)

Introduce "2001's The Glow Pt. 2" properly. Tell a reader what it is, else they won't know.

Intro added — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)

• Lead: "It was released by K Records on September 26, 2000."; main article: "Microphones frontman Phil Elverum released Don't Wake Me Up in 1999." Which?

  Clarified that Don't Wake Me Up was released under K as well. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)

• Note a "Despite involvement with many collaborators, the project is considered synonymous with Elverum." This does not make grammatical sense. Who had "involvement with many collaborators"?
  • The project/band (Microphones). Reworded to make more sense — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "The review was published prior to the album's 2013 reissue, per this archive; Phares has been writing for AllMusic since before the album's release, per here." It is not necessary to cite in line. Just write in Wikipedia's voice and cite normally.
  • Changed — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "setting "a new precedent" for K Records". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named '''in article text''' if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
  • Attributed quote — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "was also used for Elverum's previous albums." Assuming you mean 'was also used to record Elverum's previous albums' could you say so.
  • Changed — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "Elverum's previous albums." Albums plural, although only one has been mentioned so far. Have I miscounted or are there other unmentioned albums?
  • There are other albums, like the 3 demo tapes at The Microphones discography and Tests (album). However, the tests were only partially recorded at Dub Narcotic, so I've changed "albums" -> "album" — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "Initially, when Elverum began working". I would suggest that one of "Initially" or "when Elverum began" is redundant.
  • Sure — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• "the album's lyrics were inspired by the poetic nature and mysteriousness of Will Oldham's work." Cold Oldhan and/or their work be briefly introduced.
  • Added — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "The Gleam" and "(Something)" use drones similar to "The Glow", and the two-minute interlude "The Breeze" uses experimental elements. "Between Your Ear and the Other Ear" uses elements of freak folk and audio feedback. The album's closer, "Organs", uses a swell of guitars and keyboards". Could we cut the four uses of "use" or "uses" by using a synonym or two?
  • Changed 2 — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "Sputnikmusic's joshuatree reviewed the album in 2008, praising the "unpredictable nature of the album", and called it Phil Elverum's second-best album". A synonym for the first use of "album"? (And, ideally, the third.)
  • Trimmed quote and reworded. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• "Douglas wrote, "Not many artists can say they wrote their masterpiece". Can we avoid using "wrote" twice in eight words?
  • Reworded — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• Baumgarten, book titles should be in title case.
  • Done — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• References: article titles should consistently be in title case, regardless of how they appear in their original.
  • Done — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi PerfectSoundWhatever, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reminder, will go through these now. Didn't realize this is the oldest active FAC haha ! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild: Everything's been replied to, have a few things that need clarification, thanks. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)

Looking good. Some come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

PerfectSoundWhatever, nudge. You want to get back to me on these? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry life (sickness!) got in the way. 1 fixed; 1 needs clarification. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)

Sorry to hear that. Hopefully my support will go some way towards cheering you up. Nice article, good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the well wishes, I appreciate the support — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 September 2024 [82].

---

2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning

Nominator(s): Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Just before Christmas in 2016, dozens of people in the Russian city of Irkutsk woke up to discover that they could no longer see. Others never woke at all.

It quickly became clear that these people were suffering from methanol poisoning after drinking a contaminated batch of unregulated surrogate alcohol. In the end, 74 people died—a toll that the Associated Press called "unprecedented in its scale"—and the Russian government took a few actions to try to prevent it from happening again.

I wrote the original draft of this article in 2016 after I read this New York Times article. I successfully nominated it for ITN in the same month and GA in mid-2017. I'm looking forward to any comments you might share. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Sodium

• Shouldn't the first section be named something like "Background"
  • Done
• Nikishin, thea vodka historian -- Also define a "vodka historian", that's not a phrase most people associate with a profession
  • "The" is meant to refer to the earlier mention of Nikishin. I adopted that phrasing from news articles because I liked how it split the difference between repeating full names and professions vs. hoping people remembered the first reference. Would refactoring "vodka historian" as "historian of vodka" make things more clear?
    • I ended up cutting one of the two quotes after I wrote the answer above, so I struck that part. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not really sure about the fact that the concept of methanol poisoning is defined in the article after two or three references to methanol poisoning itself.
  • I struggled with this one. I definitely see where you're coming from, but the background section is discussing the issues related to alcoholism and surrogate alcohols in Russia—not necessarily methanol poisoning. I did remove one sentence that improperly conflated the two, and I'm open to removing the rest of the info given about alcohol poisoning. That's different from methanol poisoning and may be confusing to readers in this context.
• The two alcohols are similar in many respects and cannot readily be distinguished, and their contents differed from the labels on the bottles, which indicated that they contained ethanol. An investigation later revealed that the methanol was usually used in the local production of windshield washer fluid, known locally as antifreeze. I'm confused here, were the bottles mislabelled or was it that windshield washer fluid was used because it was cheaper (as you mention in paragraphs before) ?
  • Both. The bad batch was placed into the standard bath oil bottles, which were labeled as containing ethanol.
• Who conducted said investigation ?
  • Fixed. It was the government.
• A picture of ethanol v/s methanol bottles would drive the point home for the first paragraph of the "Events" section
  • If I'm understanding this ask correctly, we unfortunately don't have freely licensed photos of these bottles. That's why I used {{external media}} near the top. The ethanol and methanol bottles were the same per above. Never mind. I assume you mean a photo of ethanol vs. methanol to drive home how similar they are. There isn't anything on Commons in one photo, but I've reached out to WP:CHEMISTRY.
    • A member there has offered to get a picture of the two substances side-by-side. Thanks for the idea, Sohom Datta! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• drinking too much non-fraudulent ethanol-based bath oil Whether or not this incident was caused by actual fraud is explicitly never addressed in the article, I would advise you to figure that out and tweak the wording of this sentence or add more context accordingly.
  • Fixed. This was a really good flag, and I can't believe I didn't see this myself!
• Of the remainder, a problem in attempting to treat them was that fomepizole, a methanol antidote, is not certified for use in Russia and is therefore not available in the country's hospitals. This sentence feels stilted
  • Fixed, I hope.
• Overall, the victims included teachers, nurses, and drivers; The New York Times described the majority as holding "steady if low-paying jobs".
  • Fixed.
• What is "counterfeit oil" in About 500 liters (130 U.S. gal) of remaining counterfeit oil were seized from the underground facility where it had been produced, does it refer to the methanol laced oil or the bath oil which turned into vodka in general ?
  • The former. I hope this is now fixed; I discovered that I had read the reference wrong and that the 500 liters were seized from local shops in addition to authorities discovering the underground facility.
  • Hello Sohom Datta and thanks so much for giving this a read. I've left comments inline above. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 14:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Support per above, this is some really good work, I think my concerns have been addressed. Can't find anything else to criticize. Sohom (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review from Nikkimaria

• Suggest scaling up the map. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Done and thanks, Nikkimaria. I'd thought I'd done so before but typo'd the |upright=. I also updated the map to one from the same place but better sourcing. It's explicitly CC BY 4.0. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • FYI Nikkimaria, I've added a new image courtesy of DMacks over at WP:CHEM. It was taken by DMacks, so I don't expect it to cause a copyright issue. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

• Instead of "the Associated Press news agency" statement, we should have our own Wikipedia statement on whether this was the biggest mass poisoning in (Russia). THough it could be used as a reference.
  • I have not seen a reference that compares mass poisonings in Russia, unfortunately, and for methanol specifically List of methanol poisoning incidents#Russia only shows several other incidents from 2021 and 2023. The full quote is: "Poisonings caused by cheap surrogate alcohol are a regular occurrence, but the Irkutsk case was unprecedented in its scale." I've expanded the lead and better clarified what the quote is referring to?
    • Never mind. Thanks to the Russian Wikipedia, I've now added that this was the worst mass poisoning by surrogate alcohol in Russia's post-Soviet history. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• We could explain that "Боярышник" means hawthorn.
  • Done.
• A quote from Alexander Nikishin should probably be reworded in Wikipedia voice.
  • Done.
• 4 deaths → four deaths MOS:NUM
  • Done.
• Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Graeme Bartlett: Thank you—I really appreciate the thorough review and time you spent reading the article. I've responded inline above. I also would love to confirm with you that this newly added/tweaked sentence is accurate: "The human body breaks down methanol into formaldehyde and formic acid, both of which act as nerve toxins and damage the optic nerve." 'Nerve toxins' is the phrase used by DW, but I wanted to make sure it wasn't being used improperly. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Penitentes

• The number of affected people could go in the lead.
  • Done.
• According to early reports on 19 December, a total of 57 people were hospitalized - Is this the earliest known point at which people fell ill? It's not entirely clear over what kind of time span the poisonings unfolded.
  • Thanks for pushing me on this. Previously, all the sources I'd seen didn't give an exact date... or so I thought, as this journal article did give a start date. I've added it.
• In the immediate aftermath of the poisoning, a state of emergency was declared. - Who declared the state of emergency? Was it municipal authorities, the Siberian regional government, or a higher power? That would eliminate the passive voice, too. I would also include the date.
  • It was the mayor of Irkutsk! Good catch.
• The article defines Rospotrebnadzor as the federal consumer rights protection agency in both the Background section and the Aftermath section. The latter definition can probably be removed!
  • I'm split on this. There's a big gap between mention #1 and #2, and I don't like to assume that readers go through articles in order from top to bottom.
    • Never mind that last. Per the comments below, I removed the first mention of Rospotrebnadzor. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Overall, a solid article! — Penitentes (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Penitentes: Thanks so much for the review! I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I've responded to your comments inline. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Penitentes, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. Given the progress made on the article, I would support promotion. — Penitentes (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments from BorgQueen

• It was the worst mass poisoning by surrogate alcohol in Russia's post-Soviet history, – By worst, don't you mean deadliest? BorgQueen (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Yup. And so that's now changed. Thanks, BorgQueen. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Support from UC

An interesting story -- maybe short of a full review, but some things that stuck out to me as I read:

• Make sure that Russian and transliterated text are in the appropriate templates, for the benefit of screen readers.
  • Done.
• Russia's government agency devoted to consumer protection, Rospotrebnadzor, recorded about 36,000 such poisonings in the first nine months of 2016, resulting in over 9,000 deaths.: we need to put this figure in context -- how did that compare with previous figures? How much confidence do we have that Putin's government would report this accurately?
  • I included this as a way of showing the scale of the problem, and not to prove the preceding statement around increasing deaths over time. I'm open to removing it. To your second question, in several areas of the article I've tried to be very specific when the information's source is either the state or state-owned media.
    • Even just to show the scale, it needs some kind of context -- it's obviously a big number, and a single death is a tragedy, but 9,000 deaths a year in Wales would be a different proposition to 9,000 deaths in China. I think showing change over time would be one good way to do this: otherwise, was this the largest in the world? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
      • I decided to remove this in place of a note around alcohol poisonings being generally high in Russia prior to the increase. I went looking for additional sources to contexualize it, but then I found that the WHO said in 2018 that "The measurement of alcohol poisoning deaths may be affected by the miscoding of alcohol poisonings as cardiovascular diseases [...] however, the miscoding of alcohol poisonings appears to be limited to the former Soviet Union". So the direct-from-government stats I was quoting are likely to be quite wrong anyway. (The new addition cites the study the WHO cited.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• bath oil named boyaryshnik or Боярышник, after its hawthorn scent: I think we need to spell out that Боярышник is the Russian for 'hawthorn'.
  • I believe this is fixed. I was trying to avoid repeating "hawthorn", but you were right to question the phrasing and I'm struggling to find a better solution.
• Everybody knew that it was not bath oil", one individual later told the US newspaper The New York Times. "That label was just meant to fend off the inspectors": who is this individual? What gives them the authority to make such a sweeping pronouncement?
  • The quote is from a local that does not have any authority on their own, so I omitted the name. I decided to include it in relying on the editorial judgement of Neil MacFarquhar, who was The New York Times' Moscow bureau chief at the time and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer in 2017 for reports about Russia. I don't believe MacFarquhar would have included the quote if it wasn't effectively true.
    • I'm not happy here, I'm afraid. Journalists include sometimes quotations because they're authoritative, sure, but they also include them to add flavour, to be seen to be presenting the views of local people, or even to distance themselves from the views put forward -- it may be significant, for example, that MacFarquhar chose not to write, in his own voice, "everyone in Russia knows that the bath oil is meant to be drunk". However, I imagine it would be fairly trivial to find another source which does say that people were selling drinking alcohol as other plausibly-deniable products in Russia at this time, and that this was widely known? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
      • MacFarquhar did write that in his own voice. :-p Specifically, he said: "[...] it was common knowledge that bootleggers produced the rotgut specifically as poor man's vodka". I've removed the quote and left the citation intact, as the other part of the article's preceding sentence is covered by another part of the NYT piece: "They felt they were being scapegoated for the illicit vodka trade, which the police had long tolerated, if not controlled". Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Footnotes need citations.
  • I can easily find some, but my suspicion is that simple chemical formulas and common names are WP:SKYISBLUE territory.
    • Maybe, but WP:SKYBLUE is an essay, and personally I'm much more of a fan of WP:DOCITEBLUE -- if it's really so obvious, it should be easy enough to find somewhere in print. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
      • I've added Britannica to the two footnotes because it was already being used in the article, and if a topic-specific source is preferred we could swap them for PubChem at Methanol and Ethanol. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• As days went by, subsequent reports increased the number of impacted people: I notice that each of these reports comes from a different source, so it's not easy to differentiate change over time versus different sources/counting methods/reliability/whatever of different news organisations.
  • I've rewritten this paragraph to use only sources that explicitly cited the local health ministry in their articles. I feel pretty confident that's the source the previous sources were using too, as none of them said they were counting in other ways, but WP:V is better satisfied in the new formulation. Thanks for calling this out!
• We have a couple of figures given in roubles: it would help to give a sense to non-Russian readers of how much money these represent.
  • Done. {{To USD}} is a great template, or I've filled in conversions directly from the sources. If you were actually hoping to see inflation-adjusted figures, I don't think {{inflation}} can handle cross-currency conversions. I might be able to use something like Measuring Worth with citations?
• Lots here relies on news sources from inside the news cycle, which have their concerns. Can we pull some of that information from more retrospective studies instead?
  • Solid portions rely on things published outside the news cycle. The two most significant sources used in the article are the retrospective New York Times MacFarquhar piece (15 calls) and an academic piece to give this significant attention (9 calls, +1 more with info from its appendix; I could add more citations to a table that provides a bullet list of Russian government actions during/after the poisoning, but in most cases the news articles provided more detail.). I'd also call out the Deutsche Welle article, which was published a week after the poisonings began and deliberately takes a step back to give a wide view of the incident.
  • Overall, I would argue that the in-cycle news sources are appropriately used. Many are in the incident section, as you might expect, and in the aftermath section for things like legal cases and politician pronouncements. Others have been mined for the background info they provided, thereby acting as a secondary source in that context. I'd also note that I've dropped sources that made errors while trying to catch the cycle (NPR and the now-defunct Siberian Times). That said, I've gone through to trim unnecessary references, most of which were news cycle-specific.
    • An update here a day later: I did additional digging for retrospective resources and came across a Siberian Medical Journal article in the references of another article. That hadn't shown up in my prior searching, but I've now integrated it into the article. Of note, it gives two numbers for the death toll, so I've explained the source discrepancy in a new footnote. I've also added two academic articles from 2018. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• What is the Lachenmeier article doing in Further Reading? What does it add that hasn't been incorporated into the article?
  • I don't seem to have access to this article any more. My memory is that while it was a research synthesis follow-up on unrecorded alcohol use in Russia by the same authors as the main academic source on this poisoning, it did not have any info that I wanted to add to the article proper. I don't mind removing it if you feel strongly.
    • No, I think that's a very good use of Further Reading -- an article which isn't mission-critical, but which would add value if a future editor can access it and incorporate it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Similarly, why the link to Khodorkovsky's blog?
  • My thinking was it met WP:ELMAYBE #4. It's not a reliable source, but a then-prominent opposition politician's voice felt worthy of inclusion somewhere. That said, I have even less attachment to this link than the further reading one, so I'm happy to remove it if you feel strongly.
    • We might do well to incorporate it into the text -- to say "Khodorkovsky, a prominent opposition politician, said...", and link it as a source. Even better if someone else has got there first and reported the remarks at second hand, so we can then cite it to that reliable source and say "K. made his remarks on his blog, at [this place]" UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Y'know, the note around secondary sourcing got me thinking. As far as I can tell, Khodorkovsky's article had effectively no impact. I searched and found exactly one public post on Facebook and zero on the website formerly known as Twitter. There may have been mentions in Russian opposition reporting or social media that I can't easily search for without knowing the language, but without evidence of that I removed the link. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, UndercoverClassicist! You said that this wasn't a full review, but you nevertheless hit on some great points that I'm grateful for. You can find inline replies above. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again, UndercoverClassicist. I dropped more replies above. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice one -- a small issue, but the map in the infobox currently looks very odd indeed with the frame-within-a-frame, at least on my screen. I did have a go at fixing, but no success. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: I'd noticed that too and couldn't address it. Thankfully, it appears to only be a desktop issue—I'm not seeing it on the mobile version or the Android app. Even on desktop, though, I think it still looks better and gives better context (through interactivity) than a location map. I'll ask Module talk:Mapframe and see if there's a solution we're missing. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't claim to actually understand all the inscrutable maplink attributes, but I cargo-culted what has worked for me in the past and that seems to have fixed it. RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, RoySmith! I can't believe I missed the |plain= parameter that is almost at the top of Template:Maplink#Usage... sigh. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think we're almost there, but looking at the "incident" section, I see a lot of choppy, short paragraphs and a couple of prose infelicities (repetition of death toll, MOS:CLICHE of pegged the number of deaths at, a break of MOS:LQ with the AP quotation). Could you give that section a look with this in mind?
  • UndercoverClassicist, I've made the changes you requested and did some copyediting for flow. [83] Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• A smaller point, but does uncovered an underground facility mean "beneath the earth" as well as "illicit and hidden"? If so, no problem; if not, suggest another word.
  • Ah, interesting thought. The AP called it an "underground facility", and I echoed that language. I haven't seen other sources give detail on it. I tweaked the sentence clause to say "uncovered a bath oil production facility". Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Another small one, sorry -- to keep drinkable medicinal tinctures, antiseptics, and Eau de Cologne on retail shelves: MOS:CLICHE again -- they wanted to keep them available for sale, not literally on shelves (in fact, they were meant to move off the shelves into people's homes). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @UndercoverClassicist: I've reworded that sentence! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from RoySmith

Just a few things I see quickly. I may or may not come back for a full review.

• Paychecks totaling around 15,000 rubles (about US$246 in 2016) were common is that per week?
  • The source doesn't specify. Indulging in a little OR, Russian law specifies that you have to be paid at least every two weeks, and this old article revision at List of Russian federal subjects by average wage says that the average monthly wage in the region was $652 as of 2020. So I'm thinking it's biweekly, but I don't think I can add that.
• Russia remained as one of the highest consumers per capita in the world that should say "highest consumers of alcohol ...". Also that's immediately followed by "an average yearly consumption of 11.7 liters". The first sentence is talking about the country, the next sentence switches to per-person, so you should say that.
  • Fixed.
• even amidst the declining economic situation I'm not sure "even" adds anything.
  • Fixed.
• Experts estimated ... Other experts estimated we've got a lot of anonymous experts. Would it be possible to specify who, specifically, is doing the estimating?
  • The New York Times doesn't attribute their expert figure, while RBC attributes Federal Service for Alcohol Market Regulation numbers on surrogate alcohols consumed, then compares them to Federal State Statistics Service (Russia) on overall alcohol retail sales. For the second sentence, The Long Hangover doesn't attribute their expert, and The Moscow Times attributes "Vadim Drobiz, the head of the Center for Federal and Regional Alcohol Market Studies, an independent think tank." That's why I left it all generalized, but I'm open to reworking these sentences to get more specific if you'd like.
• I'd move File:Total alcohol consumption per capita - litres of pure alcohol - 2015.png down so it lines up with the start of the paragraph At the same time, Russia remained ...
  • Done.
• caused by a fraudulently produced batch fraudulently produced or fraudulently lableled?
  • Both, really. I've removed "produced".
• nerve toxins -> neurotoxins?
  • The source says "nerve toxins", and I've left a question for Graeme above on whether that's an appropriate phrase to use.
• and 500 liters (130 U.S. gal) of remaining fraudulent bath oil from around 100 retailers in the Irkutsk area there's no verb here.
  • Ah! Whoops. Thanks and fixed.
• Twenty-three people involved in the production of the oil ... including ... police officers, and a senior regional government official this makes it sound like the police officers and the government official were involved in the production. Or maybe that was indeed the case?
  • Not the case. I've copyedited the sentence.
• Thanks for your comments, RoySmith! I've left inline replies above and hope you decide to come back to review the whole thing. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, coming back for another pass...

• over 70 people died[A] in a mass methanol poisoning I don't know if there's any grammatical reasoning to back this up, but to me this makes it sound like an intentional attack, similar to "in a mass shooting". I'd rephrase it as "died of methanol poisoning" or perhaps even be more explicit with "died of accidental methanol poisoning". Same logic for the following sentence, "the incident was the deadliest methanol poisoning".
  • Done. Please take a look at the new wording, as you may have additional thoughts on the second sentence in particular.
• available from supermarkets, strategically placed vending machines, and other shops. I'd drop the "strategically placed"; you do explain in Background why you call them strategically placed, but I don't think you need that in the lead. Also, "other shops" goes with supermarkets, but a vending machine isn't a shop, so that's an odd construction.
  • Fair points! I removed the two words and changed "and other shops" to "and more".
• I'd zoom the infobox map out a couple of steps; the context you get now is where Irkutsk is relative to Mongolia and China, but you want to show where it is relative to Russia.
  • I wish I had more choices, but AFAIK we're limited to zoom=1 or the current zoom=2. I love the interactivity mapframe brings, but its display inflexibility is unfortunate in this case.
• other restrictions introduced in recent years to curb alcohol consumption in the country. Recent relative to when?
  • Fixed.
• symptoms of methanol toxicity include central nervous system depression the source says "it destroys the central nervous system". You might want to get an opinion from a medical SME on whether "central nervous system depression" is an accurate way to say that.
  • I'll drop a question over at WP:MED. Stand by.
• They delivered the bodies straight to a morgue Who is "they"? "Irkutsk authorities"? "city residents"? "homeless individuals"? "numerous people"?
  • Second on that list. Fixed!
• She consumed two shots, which was enough to kill her How much is two shots? Maybe just link to "Shot glass".
  • Fixed.
• about US$199 I'd make that "about $200" ({{To USD}}'s resolution should do the trick).
  • Done! Took a bit while I figured out that the |r= parameter allows for negative integers.
• Russian authorities ... detained twenty-three people ... the last of 19 individuals jailed or fined Be consistent in your use of figures vs spelling out numbers.
  • Huh, I don't know why I used different formats there. Fixed.
• Alexei Navalny, an opposition politician, opined ... I'm not sure this counts as an "opinion", so I'd use "said". MOS:SAID.
  • @RoySmith: I did change this, but I went with "alleged" because I worry that was said for dramatic effect vs. factually. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
    • OK, I'll call this a support. When you get an answer from WP:MED, just do what they say makes sense; no need to hold up the review over that. RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
      • Thanks RoySmith! I got an answer from Doc James over on their talk page, and they + I made some tweaks in the article itself. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

HF - support

I'll review this; the topic seems interesting. As full disclosure, I know very little about alcohol firsthand due to being a Southern Baptist. Hog Farm _Talk 03:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Link Irkutsk at the first mention in the body
• "At the same time, Russia remained one of the highest consumers per capita in the world" - alcohol has yet to be mentioned in the body as of this point, so I would specify that this is consumption of alcohol
• "which is poisonous: symptoms of methanol toxicity also include central nervous system depression" - I would drop the "also" - there's no other symptoms that the central nervous system depression is being listed in addition to.
• "By the end of the next day, a total of 57 people were hospitalized and 49 were dead" - I think "had been hospitalized" would be better based on the source, as the source does not state that all were in the hospital simultaneously. This phrasing also better leaves open the possiblity that some of those who had been hospitalized had passed on
• "According to state-owned media, Irkutsk's government gave 13,325 rubles to families of the dead to pay for funerals (about US$199 in 2016)" - is this figure per family, or a total split across all of the families?

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm _Talk 22:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate the time spent on this, Hog Farm! I've addressed all of your comments along the lines you suggested. To the last point, that sum was given to various families; it was not the sum total of compensation that was then divided among them all. I've added the word "individual" to "individual families of the dead", if that works for you. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

SC

Lead

• "fraudulent surrogate alcohol": is "fraudulent" the right word? Often surrogate alcohol is used as an adulterant (and is therefore, by definition, fraudulent). It may be more correct to say "toxic" instead here?
  • I've wrestled with that particular word. The surrogate alcohol was a legitimate and technically legal product, but it was being used in supposedly unintended ways, and this particular batch was made with methanol for reasons that secondary sources don't name (other than it doesn't seem to have been a mistake, as they deliberately acquired the methanol). Fraudulent seemed to be a middle ground amid that uncertainty. Using "toxic" there makes it sound a bit mass suicide-y to me... Thoughts?
    • I don't see the possibility for misunderstanding it as suicide, but maybe others will, I guess. "Fraudulent" isn't the right word though, as it was - as you say - a legitimate and technically legal product. Would "adulterated" (piped to Adulterant) work instead? - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
      • @SchroCat: That works, and I've made the change. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Background

• "Paychecks totaling around 15,000 rubles": just for clarity this needs to state whether this was daily, weekly, monthly, etc
  • There's a chat about this with RoySmith above. The source does not specify the timing here. So although per Russian law and average wage statistics it's likely it's biweekly. I was worried about engaging in OR.
    • Fair enough. It's a bad bit of journalism in the source not to clarify, bu there's not much we can do about it, unless there are other sources, possibly unconnected to the tragedy, that deal with average wages in the region at the time. - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
      • Well isn't that an elegant solution. I've added a citation to the journal article "Economic Growth and the Standard of Living in Irkutsk Oblast: A Case of Study of Regional Imbalance" and updated the article. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Symptoms

• As this whole section is about methanol, rather than the symptoms, you could rename the section as such?
  • The second half of that section discusses the symptoms. Maybe "Methanol description and symptoms"?
    • Or maybe just "Methanol"? Your suggestion would do at a push, but I'm not sure you actually need the last three words. - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
      • Hmm. To me, that feels too vague, but the new thought I had feels worse somehow: "About methanol". Perhaps "Methanol and its symptoms"? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
        • "Methanol and its symptoms" would work, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Incident

• "Because a number of residents": best to swap this out for 'numerous' or 'several': at some point someone will replace it and say that zero is a number. (I'm not entirely convinced on their arguments as it's clear from the context, but you may as well future proof if possible)
  • Done.
• "Irkutsk authorities resorted to looking for deceased individuals on their properties": I'm not sure "resorted to" is entirely right (it has a touch of editorialising to it too). Maybe "Irkutsk authorities searched for deceased individuals at their properties". I'm intrigued to know how they knew which properties the dead were at, or was it the case that they did door-to-door enquiries at every property?
  • I don't know if it was every property, but they at least wouldn't have had to check every property in the city as the poisonings were mostly confined to a specific neighborhood. The source does say that they were visiting people's apartments and another source added that they were checking places frequented by homeless individuals. I've copyedited this line.

Aftermath

• "(equivalent to about one pint, and US$3.06 in 2016)": This reads a little oddly: maybe "(equivalent to US$3.06 for about one pint in 2016)"?
  • Fixed and thanks. Obvious answer for a parenthetical that I stared at and gave up trying to make sound better.

Notes

• "The company head had themselves acquired the methanol illegally": -> "The company head had acquired the methanol illegally"

I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• • Fixed. That was a legacy of the sentence originally being in the article text vs. a footnote.
  • I appreciate the review, SchroCat! You can find my responses interspersed above. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I’ll leave the section name change up to you (but your last suggestion is a good one), but I’m happy to support this excellent piece for FA. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks SchroCat! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Four paragraphs in the lead is too many, see MOS:LEADLENGTH. Suggest running the last three paragraphs together. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Hello Gog the Mild! The lead's paragraphs are structured so that there's a statement of significance, background info, incident info, and aftermath info. Running them together would lose those distinctions. In addition, at 177 words the lead's length is shorter than what MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends for featured articles. Given that, I'd prefer to keep the lead at four paragraphs but can find a solution if you feel strongly. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that structuring, and I have no issue with either the length or the content. (MOS:LEADLENGTH doesn't make any recommendations re FA lead lengths; it notes an observation.) But 177 words split up into four paragraphs unnecessarily breaks up the flow, IMO. This is not helped by MOS:LEADLENGTH currently being under discussion, with changes to the MOS being made and unmade. Nevertheless, I would be unhappy with 177 words being broken into more than two paragraphs. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Fair enough. BorgQueen has been kind enough to make the change! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I kinda wonder about the reliability of this journal. It has little non-Russian citations and seems to have been founded pretty recently. Probably because of the 2022 war, the Russian researcher sphere has been shut out of western academica. Have the editors and the journal some reputation? Komsomolskaya Pravda can probably be linked, for once this is a case where a questionable source can probably be included even in a FA, but I think the use in #20 (for the percentage) is inappropriate. What makes https://www.irk.ru/news/articles/20161219/poisoning/ a reliable source? Source formatting seems largely consistent, keeping in mind that there is more than one kind of source being used here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for the comments! I'll take those on in order.

• Baikal Medical Journal: This particular journal was known as the Siberian Medical Journal (Irkutsk) in 2017, when the article used here was published. It claims a legacy that dates back to the 1920s, and its direct history dates to the mid-90s. It looks to have had an editorial board composed of regional academicians and accepted articles from various countries around the world. However, the journal was shuttered in 2019 and reformed in 2022 as a result of new legislation, probably the Russian fake news laws (see "In 2019, due to changes in legislation, the Siberian Medical Journal was forced to suspend its activities in its previous format. In 2022, after major transformations and changes in the composition of the founders, the journal was re-registered as the Baikal Medical Journal." [Google translated]). I would personally be skeptical of using this journal's post-2022 articles, as it sounds an awful lot like the existing property was usurped. For the places it's used in this Wikipedia article, primarily speaking to the history of a medical event located in the city the journal is published + at a time when it faced less political pressure, I believe that its use is appropriate.
• Komsomolskaya Pravda: I'm open to removing the percentage, as it's a minor point.
• Irk.ru is a local news source with a short masthead, a couple decades of publishing history, and what appears to have an established readership. I've thought of it as akin to a local US newspaper or US television station's news activities. Per WP:RSCONTEXT, I used it in the article only to source a line that specifically refers to when "local press reports" (my emphasis) were published about the poisoning. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Meh, OK. Percentage needs a better source if it's to stay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for not writing clearer, but I removed the percentage right after replying! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 October 2024 [84].

---

Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song)

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a little-known song by Taylor Swift, who is an indie artist. Any and all comments would be much appreciated :) Ippantekina (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

(i wouldn't say "little-known", it has 1.6 billion views on YouTube, but that's irrelevant) 750h+ 13:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that was sarcasm. AryKun (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Irony? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• The following sentence is not grammatically correct: (A pop song with hip hop beats and keyboards, the lyrics are about betrayal by a close friend.) It is describing the lyrics as "a pop song ..." and not the song itself so it would need to be revised.

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Since Taylor Swift and Kendrick Lamar are identified with their nationalities, shouldn't the same be done for Max Martin and Shellback (i.e. saying "the Swedish producers" as opposed to just "the producers"). It would be best to be consistent.

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Apologies in advance if I am just overlooking this, but I was curious about this part, (demonstrated a new aspect of Swift's artistry), and I could not really locate it in the "Critical reception" section. Could you clarify where this is supported? I see positive reviews describing "Bad Blood" as a 1989 highlight, but I do not see any larger consensus to support the "new aspect" discussed in the lead.

• I paraphrased that bit :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• I am uncertain about the following in the lead, (featured among the best songs of 2015 on lists by NME and PopMatters). Are these two specific lists notable enough to highlight in the lead?

• I think the lists provide a good counterpart to the fact that "Bad Blood" is often considered the worst song from 1989. Both NME and PopMatters are reliable sources as well. Ippantekina (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• That is understandable. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• For this part, (consisting of many singers, actresses, and fashion models), I would cut "many" as it comes across more as a filler word. I can understand that it is likely there to convey just how many people are crammed into the video, but I think that readers can understand that without the "some".

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the Ryan Adams cover be mentioned in the lead as it does have its own section?
• Apologies for not catching this in previous FACs, but I have a comment about this part, (Taylor Swift had identified as a country musician). The source describes Swift as "the country/pop star", but I do not see where it says that Swift herself identified as a country singer until releasing Red. I think a stronger source will be needed to support this information unless I am overlooking something in the current citation.

• I added a stronger ref to support the country artist claim. Ippantekina (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Why is Ilya used for the lead and infobox but Ilya Salmanzadeh used in the article?

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• It may be beneficial to cut back on some of the quotes in the "Critical reception" section. The information itself is very good, but certain parts feel quite quote-heavy. That being said, I could just be over-thinking this so feel free to disagree with me.

• I paraphrased here and there - hope it looks OK now. Ippantekina (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• I am a bit confused by the WP:FUR for File:Bad blood taylor video.png. The rationale points out that it is "a single look in a very fashion-oriented video", but is fashion really one of the main reason for its inclusion? While looking at the caption and the section, I'd think the screenshot is more so about the "squad" and action movie vibes.

• Tweaked to FUR. Ippantekina (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• For this part, (consisting of female singers and fashion models), shouldn't it include "actresses" to both match the lead and better represent the video (as people like Ellen Pompeo are neither a singer nor a model).

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• I remember that the video for "Bitch I'm Madonna" received a lot of comparisons to the one for "Bad Blood". I think that information would be beneficial here as it would show the impact that this particular video had.

• I think unless Madonna said it herself that "Bad Blood" did indeed influence "Bitch I'm Madonna", I'd leave that out as it might be a little out of scope for this song. Ippantekina (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• There have been other parody versions of this song (i.e." Good Blood", a tampon-related one, one from the show Great News, and another about motherhood). It is probably worth looking into this further to make sure it is comprehensive.

• I'm dubious if all of these warrant inclusion per WP:SONGTRIVIA but I'll look into them case-by-case to make sure notable versions are not missing. Ippantekina (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• The article currently includes a parody version from How It Should Have Ended , which is only supported by a single citation. Why is this cover more notable than the other ones that I mentioned above, which are all supported by reliable, third-party citations? WP:SONGTRIVIA states the use of a song can be mentioned if it "is discussed by a reliable source". For each of the citations that I included above, the cover versions are the main subject of the articles. What are you defining as "notable" in the context of this FAC? If a cover version needs to be covered by multiple citations or have further support to be deemed notable, then that would call into question the inclusion of the How It Should Have Ended parody version (which again is only supported by a single citation). The criteria for inclusion is unclear. Aoba47 (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes I'm not saying to not include them, I'm saying I'll look into them case by case to see what to include and what not. Ippantekina (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• For this part, (and that he wanted to sing the songs from his perspective), I would avoid sing / songs in the same sentence.

• Rephrased. Ippantekina (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• I am a bit uncertain about this sentence: (Swift expressed her attitude towards Lamar on social media and called the event "surreal and bewildering".) It seems a tad overly wordy and I am not sure about calling this an "event".

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• The article says that Taylor's Version has an identical arrangement to the original and then goes on to discuss the differences so it seems a bit contradictory.

• Arrangement means the backbone of the song so the production differences are the embellishments and not the backbone (I hope my explanation makes sense...) Ippantekina (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• This citation is missing the publication date: here.

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• These citations are missing the author: here, here, here, and here

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• This citation is no longer active: here

• Replaced with a new ref. Ippantekina (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, I am working from this version of the article. I hope that this review is helpful. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will read through the article more thoroughly to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC, and I hope that you are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thanks very much for your comments. I likewise hope that you are doing well :) Let me get back to you asap. Ippantekina (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, please let me know when you have addressed all of the comments. I also wanted to add that I agree with the below suggestion that the liner notes should be used as citations for the credits and personnel just to clarify to the reader where this information is being supported. Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Aoba, I've addressed all of your concerns :) Let me know if there are any points that I overlooked. Ippantekina (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I noticed one more thing, and I think that should be it for me. The infobox includes both pop and hip hop for the genres and the Category:American hip hop songs is used, but the lead says that the song has "hip hop beats", which is also later used in the article alongside "prominent hip hop styling". The article currently does not support "Bad Blood" being described as a hip hop song as there is not an instance where a critic explicitly says this (as using things like styling and beats is not the same). I would either remove the genre from the infobox and the category or revise the prose (with an appropriate citation) that explicitly refers to this song as hip hop. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aoba47, thanks for the comment. I concur with your explanation, and I've removed the Hip-hop categorisation from the Infobox and the Categories. Let me know if everything's ok now :) Ippantekina (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing that. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

I will take a look at this one but it's probably best if I wait till all of Aoba's comments are addressed so that I don't duplicate things they said..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: pinging because Aoba has finished their review :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Cool. A bit tied up today but will definitely take a look when I get a chance -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• "In its next five weeks, it charted at number two" - I can't read the source, so can you clarify what this means? That after a single week at number one it then spent five consecutive weeks at number two? For me the wording is unclear.
• That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comment! I've tweaked the wording, let me know if it's clearer now :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chris, just so you know this is here. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hurricanehink

I have an active FAC, so I figured I should review something. Why not thing song?

• "Critics have retrospectively considered "Bad Blood" one of Swift's worst songs." - I was lukewarm on reviewing this article because I wasn't a big fan of the song, with the repetitive lyrics, which I was pleasantly surprised to see mentioned. No note here, I'm just really glad the lead goes very well with my thoughts on the song. I'm a musician, not the biggest Taylor Swift fan but I think she has some solid bops (just not this one), just for reference of objectivity.
• "It incorporates surging keyboards" - as a musician I have no idea what a "surging keyboard" is

• Reworded. Ippantekina (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• "When Rolling Stone asked him in 2017 whether he was "taking sides in a pop beef", he responded that he was unaware of it." - what does this have to do this with this song?

• I think it adds some background info which is potentially useful to readers. After all the Katy Perry beef dominated the narrative of this song :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• "it marked one of the largest jumps to the top in Billboard chart history" - by the very Wikipedia article linked here, Swift herself had two other songs with bigger leaps, so I'm not sure if this is accurate.

• Removed this bit. Ippantekina (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• "It peaked within the top five on charts of South Africa (two),[48] Lebanon (four),[49] and the United Kingdom (four).[50] The song also reach the top ten in Hungary, Finland and Ireland." - the parenthesis take up just as much time as saying them individually, and #2 is nice, but there aren't any Wikipedia lists for "List of #2 singles". I suggest having the list here including all of the countries as top ten.

• Tweaked. Ippantekina (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• "the musicologist James E. Perone" - why the "the"?

• Per WP:FALSETITLE; I know this is not an official MOS but as this article follows the advice here throughout, this is for consistency. Ippantekina (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning that the Youtube video has more than 1 billion views? I mention this because the article talks about Vevo, but doesn't follow up with the platform that Vevo was probably on.

• Swift's videos routinely hit 1 billion views so I don't think it's worth mentioning. Ippantekina (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• " Judy L. Isaksen and Nahed Eltantawy—scholars in popular culture and journalism, and Hannelore Roth—a scholar in literature argued that Swift's idea of feminism was only applicable to famous and wealthy women. " - great point, but you might need another dash after Hannelore Roth - a scholar in literature.

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Roth added that by casting Lamar as the ringleader behind the female squad" - I didn't realize until this moment that Lamar was in the music video. Yes, I see his mention earlier in the long list of people, but that came after this: "The video features an ensemble cast consisting of female singers, actresses, and fashion models who were dubbed by the media as Swift's "squad".[79][80] Each member of the cast chose her character's name." So I thought it was a bunch of females who I weren't aware of. You might want to highlight this better, as opposed to it coming so late in the narrative.

• Adjusted, thanks for pointing this out. Ippantekina (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• " In 2016, "Bad Blood" was nominated for Best Pop Duo/Group Performance and won Best Music Video at the 58th Annual Grammy Awards,[103] and the single was recognized as one of the biggest songs of the year at both the ASCAP Pop Music Awards by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)[104] and the 64th Annual BMI Pop Awards by Broadcast Music, Inc." - this is a lot for one sentence.

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• A quick Google search suggests there have been a lot more covers. It even appeared in a TV show (or two).

• Replied above per WP:SONGTRIVIA, I'll make sure to only include ones that are notable. Ippantekina (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Could you add a source for the "Credits and personnel" section? If it's the liner notes, is there a ref for that? Same for remix.

• Any luck on this? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

All in all, a great read! There were only a few small spots where I wondered "huh what's up with that". Let me know if you have any questions Ippantekina (talk · contribs). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey Hurricane, thanks for the review. I've addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there's anything that I missed. Ippantekina (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Thanks, you got them all! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck from NegativeMP1

Forthcoming, will try to have this done over the weekend. λ NegativeMP1 16:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Still working on this. I've started it, though. λ NegativeMP1 17:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the long wait. I've Spotchecked specific uses of about a fifth of the article's references (46), plus a few extra in areas where I felt was needed. I did not check SFNs as I have no method of verifying those. Hopefully that’s satisfactory. Specific checks:

Spotcheck list

2 verifies the text. 6 ditto. 7 ditto. 10 ditto, though is there a reason why it’s marked as requiring a paywall when it does not? Or is there something I’m missing here? 12 doesn’t specifically say that Bad Blood is hip-hop, but discusses it in the context of a paragraph about the album’s hip-hop tracks. So verified. The second use of the source later in the section is also verified. 17 ditto. 18 ditto. 21 ditto. 22 ditto, and I assume good faith in 23 and 24 (which are used to cite the same statement) based on the article titles. But don’t count those towards the spotcheck. 25 ditto. 26 ditto, but as a similar case for 10, unless something weird is going on with my browser this source does not require a paid subscription. I can access it completely for free. 27 does not mention Kendrick Lamar’s remix in the source text. It also, once again, does not require a sub. 30 verified. 31 ditto. 34 ditto. 37 ditto. 43 ditto. 59 ditto. 60 ditto. 67 ditto. 68 ditto. 69 ditto. 74 ditto. 76 ditto. 77 ditto. 78 ditto. 82 ditto. 85 ditto. 92 ditto. 102 ditto. 123 ditto. 128 ditto. 132 ditto. 133 does verify the fact it was a track-by-track cover, but it doesn’t specifically name Bad Blood. I think that’s good enough, but someone else might disagree. The whole Bruce Springsteen thing is verified, though. 141 ditto 183 ditto 195 ditto. 201 ditto. 202 ditto. 203 ditto. 207 ditto. 205 ditto. 212 ditto. 216 ditto.

Generally the sourcing looks good, but there’s some areas that I think need to be addressed, primarily 27 as it failed verification. λ NegativeMP1 17:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the source review! I've addressed the issues and found a replacement ref for #27. Ippantekina (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, looks good. Support λ NegativeMP1 16:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Ippantekina, is this just a pass at spot check; or also a pass as a source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild: I think you ping'ed the wrong guy, should be NegativeMP1. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  @NegativeMP1: nudge, regarding Gog's inquiry above-- Ippantekina (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is a pass for a spotcheck. λ NegativeMP1 02:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild: would you conduct a separate source review? (I assume besides spotcheck, reliability is the only issue left?) Ippantekina (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies for the error and the silence. I will have made the post above just as I went down with a nasty case of Covid. You seem to have handled everything and Jo-Jo is on to the source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

Image placement seems OK. Does the sample File:Bad Blood.ogg discuss an aspect of the song that drew particular attention? Since this article is mainly about the song, I am not sure that File:Bad blood taylor video.png meets the "significantly enhances the understanding of the article topic" prong of WP:NFCC#8. The ogg file has no ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Do ogg files require ALT texts? The screenshot of the video provides context for the music video itself -- a significant portion of the article is devoted to that. Ippantekina (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: per {{Listen}} alt text is applicable to audio files that contain videos. In this case I don't think the ogg file requires alt text as it's not a visual file. I believe the music video screenshot adds to the understanding of the "squad" discussed in a prominent section of "Music video". Ippantekina (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if that is sufficient to meet the "significant" and "article topic" parts of the rules. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: You had the same issue with the music video screenshot for You Belong with Me. How would you interpret criterion #8 of NFCC? I'm assuming that you are not thinking of "Music video" (which is a section of the article) as significant enough to be an article topic? What if "Music video" is an important aspect of the article topic, which is true in this case; would that still not suffice? Ippantekina (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that at WP:FFD, significantly enhancing the understanding of an article section often isn't held to be sufficient for a non-free image. Personally I think it's borderline and potential such concerns need to be noted in the FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. I think the video screenshot in this case can be justified: the music video of this song attracted in-depth commentary (the lead does mention this as well) and had a significant impact on the attention/success this song received. Definitely a pass imo. Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

What makes The Quietus a reliable source? It seems like we are using mainstream sources and consistent formatting, otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a reliable source for Music articles, listed at WP:RSMUSIC. It was also selected by The Independent as one of the best music websites. Ippantekina (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: nudge. Ippantekina (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 September 2024 [85].

---

Hurricane Cindy (2005)

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Hurricane Cindy, the first of several hurricanes to hit the United States during the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Cindy caused a fair amount of damage, including to the Atlanta Motor Speedway from a tornado, as well as the largest power outage for Entergy, the energy company responsible for Louisiana/Mississippi region. Of course, this whole area would be devastated by Hurricane Katrina just a month and a half later. As a weird bit of foreshadowing, there were five parishes in Louisiana that were declared disaster areas on August 23... the same day that Hurricane Katrina formed. Cindy wasn't all that bad compared to the later storms, but it was still significant enough to warrant having an article.

Thanks to edits from Zzzs (talk · contribs) has helped make sure that the article is well-polished, so I'd like to invite that user to co-nominate this article for FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment that I accept the invitation. _ZZ^Z'S 23:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

  Done --_ZZ^Z'S 20:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• File:Hurricane_Cindy_2005-07-05.jpg: source link is dead.

  Repaired --_ZZ^Z'S 20:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Ditto File:Cindy_damage_at_Atlanta_Motor_Speedway.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Repaired --_ZZ^Z'S 22:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Support from Dylan620

Great to see another tropical cyclone at FAC! I have an active FLC on similar subject matter, so it only feels appropriate to review this. Ping me if I haven't added anything to this space within the next week. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Some comments:

• and was significant enough in five Louisiana parishes to be declared a federal disaster area → "and was significant enough for five Louisiana parishes to be declared federal disaster areas" (the current wording implies that the overall damage itself was a federal disaster area, which I'm fairly certain isn't what was intended)

• You're right, got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• the storm organized into an eye feature → "the storm developed an eye feature" (the current wording implies that the storm became a giant eye, and the emergence of an eye is itself an indicator of increased organization)

• Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• The extratropical storm restrengthened slightly – Isn't "extratropical storm", at least in the context of post-transition former TCs, reserved for systems of an intensity equivalent to at least TS force? Since Cindy's winds in its extratropical stage never went any higher than 30 kts, I would suggest replacing "storm" with "low" or "cyclone".

• Yup, got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• In the second sentence of §Preparations, I would recommend adding "later" after "NHC", to clarify that the US warnings were not issued simultaneously with the Mexico warnings.

• I like that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• In north Atlanta – My initial instinct was that "north" should be capitalized, but North Atlanta is a disambiguation page that provides a couple possibilities for what "North Atlanta" could be. Maybe either this should be clarified, or "north" rephrased as "northern"?

• I like "northern" ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• In Arlington in northern Virginia, floodwaters closed roads and businesses → "In northern Virginia, floodwaters closed roads and businesses in Arlington" (a blatant nitpick, but this reads more smoothly imo)

• Yea it works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• In Pennsylvania, rains from the storm led to flash floods in Lebanon and Lancaster counties – I would swap out "led to" for something like "generated" or "produced", since the phrase "leading to" is used later in this same sentence.

• I like "generated" ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• • Also, the piped link for Lancaster County leads to the town article instead of the county article.

• Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• In Lebanon, the floods forced 22 homes to evacuate. – The town or the county?

• Clarified the county. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• the large tornado caused heavy damage – I would remove mention of the twister's size from this sentence, since it's already mentioned in the sentence immediately prior.

• Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

That's about it, I think. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review Dylan620 (talk · contribs)! Lemme know what you think. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my comments so quickly Hurricanehink! I'm pleased with the changes and I'm happy to support now. This article is a great piece of work. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

BP!

I kinda figured it out I'd review this since I possibly need more detailed review somehow for my FAC also.

Upon first glance. Note: I'm not expert this topic, including its source reliability.

• Be consistent to the referencing. For example there was citation like "[15][1]", it should be arranged properly.

  Done --_ZZ^Z'S 22:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Pls bundle the referencing also if it was cited already 4 or more sources. It looks like you ended up ref bombing it.

• I bundled references together, which I think organizes the references a lot better. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

More to come 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)

*", injuring a man who was flung out of the building." I'm not quite sure about this, but could you perhaps reword this if you can?

• "As the remnants of the storm continued northeastward, it produced heavy rainfall, with statewide precipitation peaks of 5.52 in (140 mm) near Cleveland, South Carolina, 5.27 in (134 mm) at Tryon, North Carolina, and 5.18 in (132 mm) in Lenoir City, Tennessee." I feel like that is kinda too long for a single sentence.

  Split into two sentences --_ZZ^Z'S 03:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Since I'm not native in english, I had to search what does "Panhandle" means.

  Linked to the appropriate geographical area --_ZZ^Z'S 03:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• "One was rated an F1 which" I think its missing comma?

  Comma added --_ZZ^Z'S 03:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Some websites/magazines aren't linked yet like USA Today and Fox News?

  It took a while, but it's done --_ZZ^Z'S 08:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• I noticed that you already bundled the citations, but perhaps add the text? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Could you clarify what you mean Boneless Pizza! (talk · contribs)? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  For exanple this <ref name=comics>Sources that mentions Typhoon X: 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• What do you mean in context of Hurricane Cindy? Like in ref 22, saying "Sources for fatalities?" I'm not sure how that would work, since each URL needs its own reference (with different titles, dates, accessdates, whatnot). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• hmmm I guess so. Anyway, I'll Support this nomination since the article is written very well. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 00:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hurricanehink just letting you know that I renominated my FaC just incase you may be able to review it again. Thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments from wtfiv

Meteorological History

I very much enjoyed reading this article, and appreciated the opportunity to look over some of the sources too. My comments are mainly minor stylistic ones.

• Paragraph 1

• First sentence starts with plural "origins" but references the singular "tropical wave". Should it be origin, or are you pointing toward subcomponents within the "tropical wave"?

I believe it is referring to the subcomponents within the tropical wave, so I won't change it. --_ZZ^Z'S 22:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Jamaica, which Consider using a gerund, "becoming more" without the "which", as the "which" falsely looks like a descriptor of Jamaica.

Reworded. --_ZZ^Z'S 22:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 3

• NHC assessed, assessed looks like a verb at first, but "moved" is the verb. If NHC accessed is meant to be an adjective, it might need a hyphen. But is NHC assessed needed here? If it's a verb, it doesn't make sense in the context of "moved", which is an empirical action. If an adjective, the NHC is already implicated in the assessment. Or does this sentence mean something like, "As Cindy moved ashore the NHC assessed it as..., but the agency upgraded..."?

I believe assessed is related to the intensity of the tropical cyclone. I tried to rephrase it to make it clearer. Let me know what you think. --_ZZ^Z'S 03:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• (minor suggestion) Consider changing ...depression, and Cindy merged... "depression and merged..." as Cindy is already the topic from the previous sentence.

Done. --_ZZ^Z'S 22:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Preparations

• (minor suggestion) Consider moving the clause Offshore in the open Gulf of Mexico to follow "six oil rigs", as it is more a description of the rigs than the oil companies, which the clause is currently adjacent to.

Moved to the end of the sentence instead. Will that be alright? --_ZZ^Z'S 22:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Impact

• Paragraph 1

• The sentence starting The energy company is a little unclear. It says "largest ever", but then appears to negate this when discussing Katrina.

Clarified. --_ZZ^Z'S 03:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Consider adding "to date" after power outage. Perhaps end clause with a period, and begin a new sentence. Then the new sentence could focus on the previous high-outage hurricane, Georges, and the one to come, Katrina.

Done. --_ZZ^Z'S 03:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 2

• as strong winds caused roofing damage, consider replacing "as" with "and" or "while": (Though context quickly clarifies, in my first pass, "as" initially read like it was functioning in its explanatory role as a synonym of "because")

Replaced with "and." --_ZZ^Z'S 03:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm unclear on a point made here. Paragraph 1 made it sounds like George was second-place to Cindy. But this paragraph states that the second-most outage causing Hurricane was Betsy. Could this be clarified?

• The second-most outage was about the power company's history, which includes more than just Louisiana. That's why it was the state's largest blackout since Betsy, even further back than Georges in 1998, which makes sense since Georges didn't directly strike Louisiana. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Last sentences on declaration of emergency and Katrina

• (minor suggestion) The last two sentences- coincidence of Bush's declaration of state of emergency and the emergence of Katrina is fascinating, but the way it is written, it almost seems to imply that there may be a connection between the declaration and the development. Is there a way to soften this? Maybe something like rewording the last sentence to reading "During this time, another tropical depression was developing that would later become..."

Reworded it differently. What do you think? --_ZZ^Z'S 03:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Do these sentences fit here? I can see the logic. It emphasizes the extent of the damage to the five parishes. The narrative is taking place in July, then jumps to late August. Is there a place near the end where the aftermath can be discussed?

• Moved. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• OK, I split off the aftermath. I agree, that works well for flow purposes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• If this is moved, the mention of Katrina in Paragraph 1 as the larger cause of outages could be put in the same paragraph as the mention of Katrina here. Moving this later may help readers get a better context of how Cindy relates to Katrina. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 3

• Last sentence is related to previous point. Discussion of Dennis seems out of the timeline. It is a bit more confusing because the previous paragraph discusses Katrina, but now it sounds like Dennis will be intervening before Katrina. Can this possibly be clarified? (Again, maybe collecting aftermath issues into paragraphs near the end.)

• Moved and created aftermath section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 4- No suggestions

Tornado outbreak

• Paragraph 1- No suggestions
• Paragraph 2

• is the "already" in already measuring needed?

No. Removed. --_ZZ^Z'S 22:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 3-

• The use of Fuji nomenclature is a bit unclear. In paragraph 2, it is defined adjectivally, as a measure of tornado intensity, but here it is used as a noun. This can make Paragraph 3 a bit confusing for a reader, requiring a double take to find what F0 means in the previous paragraph. Here's two possible suggestions:

• Consider making all subsequent mentions of the Fujita number consistently adjectival. (e.g., F0 tornado, "F2 tornado") This would possibly be simpler. For example, paragraph 4 uses the Fuji number consistently as an adjective, which makes it clear.
• Alternatively, Start off by making F2 on the front side of the first description, saying that the tornado was an F2 on the Fujita scale and define it. That way, readers are ready for tornados to be called by their Fujita number alone.

• Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6-No suggestions, but comment: The use of Fuji numbers are clear in these, as they are used either as adjectives or as explicit descriptions of tornados or events.

• Good point. I changed it so it's always a descriptor, and not used as a noun. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• General comment: My own feeling is that it would be good to see the aftermath items, such as following storms and Cindy's place in them near the end, after the main narrative has been told. This is not critical, but would clear up the timeline slightly and clarify the various relations between Cindy, Dennis, and Katrina. Wtfiv (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• There wasn't much aftermath for Cindy specifically. It was more of a prologue to Dennis and Katrina, and the longest lasting aspect of the storm was the tornado damage to the Speedway. I took that note and added the mentioning of Denis and Katrina earlier in the narrative, saying that Cindy was the first of six storms in 2005 to produce hurricane force winds in the US. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good. I'll take another overall look when you are ready and all the comments have been addressed. Please ping me when you're done. I'll try to check in now and then, but I don't have this on my watchlist. Wtfiv (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Eh, after reading some of the earlier comments about the timeline, I agree, an aftermath section would be useful, and there is enough to put there. Please let me know what you think, Wtfiv (talk · contribs). Thanks again for the review! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think you could've definitely pulled it off if you didn't put an aftermath in, but I also think an aftermath would be even stronger. Cindy sounds like the prelude to a season of storms culminating in Katrina. My own feeling is that it would also help put the coincidence of the date Bush's call for a state of emergency for Cindy and the rise of Katrina in context and be a good ending for the article as it would define more clearly why Cindy is significant. Wtfiv (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yea, I like it more with the aftermath, thanks for that suggestion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Now that you decided to do it, I think the afterward really improves it and puts more emphasis on its notability. I feel this definitively address the 2005 discussion on the articles talk page that I just looked at, which debated whether the hurricane is notable. Though I think you make a good case in the text itself, the Aftermath section makes it explicit: it is important as the first hurricane of the season and the first to cause the cumulative damage resulting in the declaration of a state of emergency just before Katrina formed.

Support. Wtfiv (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Have sources here been consulted? #16 is broken. I am not sure that a thesis is a high-quality reliable source, they are often subject to a less deep review than a monograph or a paper. There is some inconsistency in source formatting, where #64 lumps multiple URLs together that e.g #45 keeps separate. Sources seem reliable and well-employed to me; some additional inconsistencies in formatting seem to be due to the diversity in source types. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• First, yes I looked through Google scholar, the article uses two different sources from. Many search results are about other Atlantic storms named Cindy, such as in 1963 or 1999. Here is an example of a source on there I didn't use, since it was about how Cindy didn't fit into a hurricane impact model.
• I'm not sure if I'm mistaken, but ref #16 works for me.
• I notice what you mean about the source formatting. I will get to that in a few hours (headed to rehearsal as soon as I finish this edit lol) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) - there were two more instances where I was able to lump the references together. Otherwise, the rest of them need to be separate due to refs being used multiple times. I don't believe any more can be merged, but please correct me if I'm mistaken. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• https://smn.conagua.gob.mx/tools/DATA/Ciclones%20Tropicales/Ciclones/2005-Cindy.pdf errors out for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  The pdf works for me. Maybe it's the browser you're opening it with? _ZZ^Z'S 11:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Also as a backup, I added an archiveurl for it, so that way it's viewable no matter the browser (hopefully). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

750h

Hi Hurricanehink, i'll review this. Comments coming shortly. 750h+ 10:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

lead

• Eventually, the remnants of Cindy moved into Atlantic Canada, eventually dissipating on July 13 over the Gulf of St. Lawrence. "Eventually" is used twice in this sentence. I'd remove one or find another word.
• US$70 million worth of damage ==> "US$70 million in damage"

meteorological history

• the NHC assessed as a strong tropical ==> " the NHC assessed it as a strong tropical"
• near Waveland, Mississippi with 50 mph per MOS:GEOCOMMA, add a comma after "Mississippi"

preparations

• between Intracoastal City, Louisiana and Destin, Florida. MOS:GEOCOMMA: add a comma after "Louisiana"
• filled sandbags which would personal preference but i'd add a comma before "which"

impact

• A driver in Tibbie, Alabama crashed GEOCOMMA
• A driver in Peachtree City, Georgia drowned in a ditch GEOCOMMA
• in Frederick County, Maryland when their vehicle GEOCOMMA
• A driver died in Crownsville, Maryland after crashing GEOCOMMA
• Over a three-day period ==> "Over three days"
• all of them short-lived and rated as an F0 i'd remove "of them"
• caused $150,000 worth of damage ==> "caused $150,000 in damage"

aftermath

• No problems here 750h+ 10:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That's all i got. fine work! 750h+ 10:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, I implemented them all! Lemme know what you think. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support. 750h+ 09:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 October 2024 [86].

---

Tomb of Kha and Merit

Nominator(s): Merytat3n (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the funerary monuments and burial of the ancient Egyptian official Kha and his wife, Merit. Their ruined funerary chapel in Deir el-Medina was known since the early 1800s but their tomb, hidden at the base of the cliffs opposite the chapel, was discovered in 1906, intact after more than 3000 years. The majority of the contents (over 440 items) were awarded to the Italian Archaeological Mission's director, Ernesto Schiaparelli, and are housed in the Museo Egizio in Turin, Italy. Being unrobbed, the tomb gives a glimpse of what a well-stocked middle class burial looked like during the height of the Eighteenth Dynasty, during the reign of Amenhotep III.

I took this article to GA last year, and through peer review earlier in the year. After picking at it a while, and with the kind mentorship of Iry-hor, I am nominating it for FAC. Merytat3n (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

This is a top-notch article and a delight to read (as I would expect from a protégée of Iry-Hor). These few comments are all I can come up with by way of criticism:

• The article is evidently in BrE, in which case "modeled" should be "modelled".
• The work "likely" occurs 19 times in the text, and a few variations such as "probably", "possibly", "may have been" etc would relieve the monotony.
• Similarly we have seven "due to"s. A few "because of"s or "owing to"s (both, on the whole better in formal English) would help the prose along.
• "Sem-priest" – a link or explanation would be welcome.
• "further restoration was carried out in 2002, before being placed on a new padded mount in 2004" – could do with a tweak – what was placed on a new mount was not further restoration, but that which was restored.
• "the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, France" – as opposed to the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, Peru? Paris, Outer Mongolia? Paris, Azerbaijan? And I'd be sparing, à la français, with the capital letters, here and in the Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale.
• "kiosk" – in the UK a kiosk is the booth where you buy your newspapers and cigarettes outside the railway station: a brief explanation of what the term meant to the Ancient Egyptians, as at Philae, would be helpful here.

I hope these few points are helpful, and apologies if my tone is a bit tetchy: it's beastly hot and sticky in London today. Tim riley talk 18:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments! I have addressed them as best I can ^_^ Merytat3n (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

All admirably addressed. I'm happy to support the elevation of this article to FA: it meets every criterion in my view, and I hope we shall be seeing more from the nominator in due course. Tim riley talk 11:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Airship

On first glance, seems a superb article. As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.

Kha and Merit

• "but this probably reflects the use of this king's name long after his reign" is this the general consensus of scholars or the view of one? if the latter, his/her view should be attributed.

Trapani (2012) says: "The prenomen of Thutmosis III (Men-kheper-Re) in effect was often used on scarabs or other objects much later than the Eighteenth Dynasty, signifying that his seal-name had acquired a protective power of its own." She cites C. Adriano, The Cretulae from the Tomb of Kha and their Administrative Signiicance in a Funeral Context, CRIPEL 22 (2001), 109–122, which I don't have access to. However, page 4 of Kathyln M. Cooney's "Scarab" chapter in the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology (2008) does back this up: "Even scarab inscriptions with royal names cannot necessarily be dated to the reigns of those rulers, because such names are often inscribed long after a ruler’s death—particularly those of the 4th-Dynasty king Sneferu, the 18th-Dynasty Thutmose III (Jaeger 1982), and the 19th-Dynasty Ramesses II." Added a citation to Cooney for academic robustness. I've also clarified why Kha is unlikely to have been working in Thutmose III's reign. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "obtained a bronze pan" couple of things: 1) by "pan", I assume of the cooking variety? 2) "obtained" normally means he asked, whereas the previous sentence indicates it was a gift.

1) swapped to "bowl" 2) swapped to "received" Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "a "gold of honour"" ... I'm not entirely sure what this means.

Oh OOPS! Defined (+ common alternative name and translit). Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Preparations for his tomb likely began in the reign of Thutmose IV, as his name occurs most frequently as a seal on vessels." The second "his" is made more ambiguous by the fact that we have referred to Kha only as he/his for a few sentences now. Would suggest changing "as his" to "whose".

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• • "on the style of his coffins" absolutely no clue whether this "his" refers to Kha or Amenhotep III.

Swapped sentence around to be "Based on the style of his coffins...Kha probably died in the third decade of Amenhotep III's rule" to make it clear. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "the juvenilising art style seen on the painted funerary chests" as we previously haven't discussed the funerary chests, we could remove the "the" and clearly define them as in the tomb?

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Merit (also transcribed as Meryt[1])" I believe it's normal practice for the citation to follow the parentheses, but I could be wrong.

It is but if the citation in question refers specifically to the contents of the parentheses, the citation goes inside. In this case, the [1] citation refers to her as Meryt not Merit as the main citation does (although technically Meryt is more correct to the hieros (mryt)). Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "She seems to have predeceased Kha. Her death was probably unexpected as she is buried in a coffin intended for him." these closely-linked sentences could be combined; if not, "she was buried" seems more natural than "she is buried", although the latter is technically correct...

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Chapel

• Might be worth adding a clarification for the unlearned, such as I, that the chapel and tomb are separate from each other.

I mention that they are separate in the last paragraph of that section, just before "Decoration" but I can mention it again, at the risk of duplication. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's see if other reviewers bring it up.

• "time of European interest in it, during" can be cut

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "the stele now in the Museo Egizio in Turin, Italy" should probably be "a stele"

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• The back wall being damaged during the stele's removal is mentioned twice.

Kept the "second" mention of damage in the decoration section and removed the "first" mention. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Would suggest linking Register (art).

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Tomb

• This section contains several long paragraphs; I would suggest they be split in half, especially those which comprise individual sections by themselves (MOS:OVERSECTION).

So far I have only split up the large first paragraph in "Discovery and clearance". Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• File:A TT8 Kha sírja Dejr-el-Medinében.jpeg is a very unhelpful picture+caption. First, are we to assume the yellow dot covers up the location of the tomb? Surely an arrow would be better?
  Second, the latter part of the caption (viz. "visible diagonally to the left of the tomb, partially obscured by the hill") is just confusing. After around five minutes of searching, I think I can see a flat-topped structure, next to some terrace-like walls, on a bearing of 250° from the yellow dot—is that the chapel?
  If so, note that readers will naturally see "obscured by hill" and assume you mean the big ones at the back of the photo, where I spent the first four minutes playing I spy. You could alleviate this problem by saying "closer to the camera" or something.

Yeah, it sucks. Honestly, I will probably just remove the image. I would love to use a simple plan view of the area, such as appears in the general plan of Deir el-Medina in Bruyère's 1925 publication (chapel labelled 8A and tomb 8B, upper centre of image) but alas I believe they are still in copyright as Bruyère only died in 1971. Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

That does seem to be the case. I ran into the same problem with Ai-Khanoum, but in that case others had uploaded their own renditions (presumably allowable per commons:COM:TOO France). If you are any good with a pen or with online software, you could probably do the same thing. If you can't, not a big deal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I will see what I can do this weekend : ) Merytat3n (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't satisfied with my weekend attempts but it's not strictly necessary, just a nice to have. I can always keep trying : ) Merytat3n (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• "the discoloured limestone fill was mixed with bone, pottery, and cloth" is this necessary information?

Nope. Removed.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• The fourth paragraph duplicates the contents of the ... "Contents" section below. Most of the middle bit could be removed.

Done.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• "published the discovery" as in he published an account of the discovery,?

Fixed (and expanded this section a little). Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• "of the discovery" is repeated twice within two phrases.

Reworded.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• "leading to confusion" resolved or unresolved?

Unresolved, but I have resolved the wording : )Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• "A cubit rod ... may have been an award from [Amenhotep II]" this uncertainty is at odds with the "Kha and Merit" section, which shows no such lack of surety.

Source checked and surety established.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Will continue. If you have time and the inclination, I have a current FAC I would appreciate comments on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you want to add anything, AJ? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Support nothing really worth quibbling about. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Ganesha811

• I think a note explaining the meaning of Ꜥ (from KhaꜤ) would be appropriate. In general, in the first section, a note at the first appearance of italicized transliterations linking to the system used or similar would be helpful.

I've addressed this in a roundabout way by adding translit for Kha and Merit's names, putting Kha's alt renderings in a note and adding the ayin link there. Let me know if this is ok. Merytat3n (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Kha presumably employed his own skilled workmen to execute the decoration - this is interesting and suggests that the chapel was completed or built during his life, which I don't think was mentioned before. Would that have been typical? I think a little more context would be valuable.

Yes, the chapel and tomb (and coffins, and other burial goods) were generally (ideally) completed during the owner's life. I will see if I can dig out anything from a more general source before I add context, but at the very least, Vassilika (2010 pp.8, 10) says that Kha started tomb prep during his life, and may have worked on the chapel and tomb with his own men, or perhaps his sons.Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Added : ) Merytat3n (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• It is a rare example of an intact middle class burial from the height of the Eighteenth Dynasty - what does the term middle class mean in context here? A note might be helpful - is anyone non-royal and non-peasant middle class?

Great question. Tentatively yes. The sources seem a little unsure on how exactly to categorise Kha and Merit, and TT8. Vassilika (2010) calls the tomb "the best surviving furnished, non royal tomb" (p.7) and says Kha is middle class and it has been suggested he was the lowest level of the elite (p.10), which Russo also follows, suggesting he integrated into the elite administration at the end of his life (Russo 2012 pp. 63, 78). Based on his coffins, he had access to royal workshops (Vassilika, Russo, Forbes, and Kozloff). Forbes calls Kha "upper-middle class" (pp.107, 113) and "high-status" (p.132). In light of this, I can change "middle class" to "non-royal", which is perhaps the easiest and safest wording : ) Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Since 2017, the tomb's contents have been the subject of the "TT8 Project", a multidisciplinary and non-invasive study of all the objects, the full publication of which is planned for 2024 - has this study been published?

Not as far as I am aware : ( (unless it refers to the trickle of publications on various classes of objects that have come out over the last few years, in which case, perhaps.) Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• half-full of fat with the wick burning when the tomb was closed - how was this determined? Do the sources say?

I think they just assume it. Schiaparelli says that (pp.17, 45) "The lamp was still two thirds full of grease. The relatives had left it lit when they closed the tomb and it illuminated the chamber while the wick lasted; it had gone out when this burnt down." Figure 127 of The Intact Tomb of Kha shows the lamp, with its wick and fat or oil. His account has its known flaws so perhaps he was being overly romantic. Weigall, who was also there (and can also exaggerate), says something similar in his 1911 account: "...was a small copper dish, in which were the ashes of incense, and the little stick used for stirring them. One asked oneself in bewilderment whether the ashes here, seemingly not cold, had truly ceased to glow at a time when Rome and Greece were undreamt of, when Assyiria did not exist..." (p.180) Sousa (2019 p.61) also repeats Schiaparelli, saying "...the last visitor, who swept [the floor] before closing the door leaving behind a papyrus-column lamp-stand burning". Vassilika simply says (p.108) that the lamp was found with the half-burnt wick in place.

Tl;dr: the lamp still has oil/fat in it and a burnt wick suggesting that, at the very least, it was used prior to burial, and assume it was left burning inside the tomb. Happy to reword to follow Vassilika (2010) more and Schiaparelli less, and just say lamp had oil/fat and the wick was burnt. Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that would make the most sense. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Done : ) Merytat3n (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• others were made into various shapes such as triangles, jars or trussed animals, or have grooves or holes that may suggest fertility this is a little grammatically awkward, suggest splitting the sentence.

Done! Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• There is one retrospective comment on Schiaparelli's handling of the discovery, but no detail about how it was received at publication in 1927 other than that it attracted attention. I see he died just the next year. How did this discovery fit into the context of what was known in the 1920s, and how was it viewed over time? The article describes that it was all given to the Museo Egizio, but doesn't mention (unless I missed it) that Schiaparelli was director of that museum, which seems relevant. Are there any modern discussions re: the split where a few items remained in Cairo?

I have added a 1928 review of Schiaparelli's publication and some more about his use of photography. (It is praised for the many images but generally is not up to the standard expected for Egyptological publications of the 1920s.) I have added that Schiaparelli was director in a couple of places. There don't seem to be many modern discussions of the split but I have tried to expand on what is there - general speculation about the type of tomb, the other recent finds, space in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, etc. Merytat3n (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Overall, a very interesting and generally well put-together article. I may have a few further comments on a second reading but nothing too dramatic. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• A second read-through produces no significant concerns. The issues I raised have been addressed by the nominator. Happy to support promotion to FA status. —Ganesha811 (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• You mention in the infobox that it is a Theban Tomb, but not in the lead. This should be in the lead and the explanation of "TT" (not just a link).

Added to lead as "Theban Tomb 8 or TT8". It is not often spelled out, like the KV numbers used for the Valley of the Kings tombs. Just clarifying here that the linked "Theban tomb" in the infobox is a product of the "theban=yes" field of the Infobox Egyptian tomb template. Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• "during the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty" It would be helpful also to mention here that it was the early New Kingdom.

Done. Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The texts of the chapel were defaced during the reign of Akhenaten and later restored, indicating it was one of the oldest chapels in the village cemetery." Why indication one of the oldest? This needs explanation.

It's a bit of a meh sentence anyway so I have tried to rework it to focus on the damage instead: "The decoration has been damaged over the millennia, deteriorating due to structural decay and human actions; the texts were defaced during the reign of Akhenaten, and scenes were later damaged by modern robbers." Merytat3n (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• It has been displayed in the Museo Egizio in Turin since its arrival and the exhibition has been reworked several times, most recently in 2015, where an entire gallery is dedicated to the tomb of Kha and Merit." This wording is confusing. Maybe "It has been displayed in the Museo Egizio in Turin since its arrival, and an entire gallery is devoted to it. This has been been redesigned several times."

Done Merytat3n (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Given Kha's estimated age at death, it is unlikely that he was a mature professional over 50 years earlier during the rule of Thutmose III." This is unclear. What was his age at death (not stated in the main text at this point) and why would he have had to have been a mature professional, not just a young man, in Thutmose III's reign?

Schiaparelli thought Kha was born in the early Eighteenth Dynasty, during the reign of Thutmose I, and that he spent most of his career (and reached the peak of it) under Thutmose III. As evidence, Schiaparelli points to a box sealed with "Menkheperre", Thutmose III's throne name, and the absence of a royal gift from that king. He thought one definitely existed but there is no evidence for it because it was too precious to be included in the burial. This would put Kha in his mid-80s by the time of his death, which Schiaparelli placed in the early part of Amenhotep III's reign. This, of course, doesn't mesh with examination of Kha's mummy, which estimates he died in his 60s.

To be honest the entire two sentences are kind of null information, Schiaparelli is the only one who thinks he's active this early. All the other sources say Amenhotep II-Amenhotep III, and only a few mention the seals (as an aside), or Schiaparelli's opinion. I've turned it into a note but its not crucial and can easily be deleted.Merytat3n (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• "juvenilising art style" What art style? Can it be linked?

After Amenhotep III's first jubilee festival in year 30 of his reign, the official art style changed, depicting figures in a "juvenilising" style. Faces were depicted with child-like features, such as over-large almond-shaped eyes, small mouths, and short, slightly upturned noses. As far as wiki is concerned, I don't think there is a page I can link to. It is not mentioned on Amenhotep III's page or art of Ancient Egypt. Instead of explaining, I will just remove "juvenilising" to leave only "art style". Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Heading 'Kha and Merit'. This heading is vague. Maybe "Kha's career and family'.

Done. Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• "after clearing two thirds of the valley". Presumably the whole valley was not covered - two thirds of the debris?

Tried to clarify as "after clearing debris along two thirds of the valley's length". Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Done to end of Contents. More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The two sarcophagi are nearly identical," They are not identical as you say below that they are different sizes, so you need to specify in what respect. Shape? Decoration?

Specified. "The two sarcophagi are nearly identical in form, both being shaped like..." Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Given their large size, they were brought into the tomb in sections and reassembled". "Given is an odd word here. Maybe "Due to their large size".

Done. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Below the collar and hands, a vulture goddess (identified as Nekhbet[139] or Nut[140]) spreads her wings over the torso above horizontal and vertical bands of text imitate the fabric bindings seen on mummy wrappings." This is ungrammatical.

Separated into two sentences. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Horizontal and vertical bands of text imitate the fabric bindings seen on mummy wrappings." "imitate" is a strange word here. Do you mean that the same text is on many mummy wrappings? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe "simulate" or "emulate" would be better. I'll try to explain. On mummies, the shroud is often secured by vertical bands of fabric running vertically down the centre of the body from head to foot (and along the sides of the body), and horizontal bands going across the body at the level of the chest, elbows, hips, knees and ankles. The coffin is shaped like a wrapped mummy and its decoration mimics its appearance, including the bands. On coffins, the bands are often filled with texts but on mummies themselves, they are most often plain (unless you are Tutankhamun and have gold bands with inlaid texts atop of the functional fabric ones). Merytat3n (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• I think you need to spell this out for clarity. E.g. "As with many other burials, the coffin has horizontal and vertical bands similar to the fabric bindings on mummy wrappings, but with text whereas mummy wrappings are usually plain." This is a bit clumsy and could probably be improved. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

How about something like "The coffin has vertical and horizontal bands of text whose positions, at centre front and sides, bicep, hip, knee and ankle, reference the plain fabric bindings on mummy wrappings." Merytat3n (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"reference" is not clear in this context. How about "are similar to those of". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, done :) Merytat3n (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Chemical analysis of textile samples from their mummies". This is unclear. Maybe "Chemical analysis of samples of textiles covering the mummies".

How about "Chemical analysis of samples of their mummy wrappings"? Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The 2005 CT examination identified that Kha fractured his first lumbar vertebra, an injury which left it flattened.[165] 2014 X-ray analysis considers this injury to have occurred after his death." This is confusing and ungrammatical. Maybe "The 2005 CT examination showed that the first lumbar vertebra is fractured, leaving it flattened.[165] An X-ray analysis in 2014 suggested that the damage occurred after his death."

Done! Merytat3n (talk)

• Who is Susanne Binder? You need to say. Ditto Susanne Töpfer and Dennis C. Forbes and Dimitri Laboury.

Specified. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Merit's coffin, intended for Kha, is much too large for her". You have said this above.

Removed. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• pectoral - what is this? You should wikilink.

Clarified as "pectoral necklace" and wikilinked pectoral. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "This item is not without parallel as there are occasional examples from other contemporary non-noble Theban tombs. However, given the number of similar wooden statuettes known, this practice was likely much more common." You appear to say in the first sentence that they are rare, and in the second that they are common.

They are rarely found in context but many are known, they just have no provenance. Hopefully clarified as "There are occasional examples of such figures found in other contemporary non-noble Theban tombs; their inclusion may have been more common than these finds suggest, as many unprovenanced statuettes are known from museum collections." Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Following the discovery, Gaston Maspero, director of the Antiquities Service". Presumably of the Egyptian service, but you should say so.

Stated. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review

Image seem to be well-placed. I wonder if the hieroglyphs can be sourced somehow. File:TT8 Plan.jpg needs a translation somewhere; is it explained in-text? File:TT8 Chapel exterior C02053.jpg, File:TT8 chapel interior.jpg, File:Forms of bread from TT8.jpg, File:TT8 burial chamber 01.jpg can probably be licenced as PD-1923 as well. File:Upper wall and ceiling motif MET 30.4.3.jpg, File:Funerary stela of Kha.jpg should give a licence (PD-old) for the motif too, and I am not sure I see the licence on the source page ... the metmuseum seems to be inconsistent in that regard. A fair many images have naked URLs on the file page, which makes it difficult to repair them if they break. File:Ay receiving the Gold of Honor.jpg also ought to have a licence for the motif (PD-old). Source-wise: Some ISBNs are with hyphens and others without; likewise, retrieval dates and accessibility icons are inconsistently applied. "Backdirt: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology" is not, to my knowledge, the name of the journal. Otherwise, the sources seem reliable and suitable to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for the source review. The nomination also needs a first timer's source to text spot check and a plagiarism review; do you fancy obliging? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The little [1] immediately below the hieroglyphs is the source for them but it is hard to see. I have moved it to the text at the bottom of the hiero box where is displays as "Kha and Merit[1] in hieroglyphs".

TT8 plan now translated in caption. I've also added what the numbers refer to (wall scenes).

PD-old licenses added to the images.

Adding hyphens to ISBNs that didn't have them and checked all ISBNs valid.

Removed all urls that weren't free access or free registration and added access dates to the ones that didn't have them.

Fixed journal name.

Thanks! Merytat3n (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check

Of this version: * 5 OK, wonder if we should source the "New Kingdom" bit too. Also pretty sure that Deir el-Medina isn't the contemporary name.

If we do source that the Eighteenth Dynasty is part of the New Kingdom, would Rice 1999 p. xivii, where he says Eighteenth D. is part of the New Kingdom, or p.I, where he lists the dynasties and their larger periods, be ok?

The contemporary name for Deir el-Medina was simply "The Village" (pA dmi) (citing UCLA Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt). (Wiki's Deir el-Medina page currently cites Lesko (1994) p.7 who says the ancient name was "the Place of Truth", but on p.119 that its inhabitants always called it "The Village"). I can change it to "the workmen's village known today as Deir el-Medina". Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd do that rename. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• 15 While this supports that Iuy is the father's name, I have to wonder if #14 explicitly says that nothing is known otherwise. A source not discussing a topic doesn't mean that said topic wasn't covered anywhere.

[15] (Russo 2012 p.67) says: "The name of Kha's father, Awy, is quoted four times on the papyrus with chapters of the Book of the Dead (Suppl. no. 8438 Fondazione Museo Antichità Egizie, Turin), with three different spellings. Nothing else is known about his title and position in the central administration and at Deir el-Medina."

This is also supported by Vassilika (2010 p.76) who says: "Schiaparelli noted the rare mention of Kha's father Aui (4 times), the absence of his mother, and deduced that Kha was a man of modest background, without inherited titles, who was perhaps self made." Biannuci et al (2015) say the same thing. In La Tomba di Kha e Merit (2018 pp. 85-86), Ferraris devotes only one line to Kha's father, saying the only other thing we know about Iuy - that he was dead when Kha's papyrus was written: "Il papiro è inoltre l’unica fonte a restituire il nome del padre di Kha, Auy/Iuy, che è indicato con il solo titolo di “giusto di voce”, intendendo che questi è già deceduto al momento della redazione del Libro dei Morti." Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• 21 It says that Schiaparelli assumed Kha was a centenarian, not in his 80es.

Fixed Merytat3n (talk)

• 23 OK
• 42 OK
• 43 Where does it say chapel?

I'm assuming I confused Meskell saying "However, in the Eighteenth Dynasty only a handful of tombs at Deir el Medina appear to have substantive superstructures [chapels]" for saying TT8 was one of a few surviving Eighteenth Dynasty chapels. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• 54 OK
• 56 Can I have a copy of this page?

Sure, it is short enough that I can also quote it here. Russo 2012 p.22: "It has yet to be established with certainty when Kha's chapel was decorated. The stylistic study undertaken by Cherpion of TT 340 and TT 354 suggests similarities between TT 354 (anonymous) and TT 8. In her view, some parts of TT 8 were decorated at the end of Thutmosis IV's reign, while others were completed early in the reign of Amenhotep III. Kozloff supposed that the decoration of Kha's chapel was most likely completed after the burial chambers of Nakht (TT 52), Menna (TT 69) and TT 226, probably in the second half of Amenhotep III's reign." Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• 64 Can I have a copy of this page?

  Got it, but I am not sure what this supports. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  It is basically an extra (English language) source for the back wall decoration, especially the jackals, bouquet, and priest in leopard skin offering to Neferhebef and Taiunes as Porter & Moss are very brief, and I'm machine translating Vandier d'Abbadie. The other English sources I have used don't mention it much as they are focused more on the tomb - Sousa (2019) only mentions the decoration very briefly, Forbes (1998) only shows photos of the decoration, and Vassilika (2010) doesn't mention the decoration at all. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• 68 Where is the grave robbing and stele removal mentioned?

Oh sorry, stele removal is actually mentioned on p.4. Robbery is describing the removal of the stele but may be too strong a word. Happy to delete that sentence and just leave the "The back wall was damaged..." Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably best to replace it, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Done : ) Merytat3n (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• 79 Supports some of the content, but can I have a copy of #78?

Sure. Looking at the source, I see it is only pp.16-17, not pp.15-17. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, but I must ask if #90 supports the sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

1. 90 Sousa 2019 pp.63, 89. Dunno why I'm citing p.63, which is talking about the form of the chapel, removed. But relevant part of p.89: "This circumstance became a most fortunate one, as a rock landslide eventually covered and sealed the burial shaft in antiquity, protecting it from tomb robbers until it was discovered in 1906." (Before this sentence, Sousa suggests Kha originally built his chapel where the tomb is situated and later rebuilt it in its current location. No other source that I have read suggests this so I haven't gone into it.) Merytat3n (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• 95 I was about to ask for a copy of this page, but it seems like #74 alone supports everything or am I missing anything?

It mostly does, and [94] and [95] say very similar things. I just wanted to have more than one source for a statement like that seeing as, when I checked #74's source (Smith 1992), I couldn't find it saying anything that specific about TT8. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• 105 Can I have a copy of this page?

Sure (2 pages). Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Where is "He worked on the western bank of Thebes, presumably the Deir el-Medina area, and the gift was in recognition of Kha's high status at the height of his career"? Also, it seems like there is disagreement about which Sitamun the finding refers to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Russo (2012) p.47, last sentence of third paragraph from the bottom and first sentence of second paragraph from the bottom: "It seems likely that Userhat practiced his priestly duties at Deir el-Medina or in the Ramesseum area. Userhat was a contemporary of Kha and presented him with the tribute as an acknowledgement of his importance, most likely when Kha was was at the top of his career."

With regards to Sitamun, although Russo goes on, on page 47, to discuss all the opinions by various scholars of which Sitamun it might be, I have followed Russo in what they say first, on p.46: "The most probable is that Sitamun was one of Ahmose's daughters, and a sister of Amenhotep I, known from other sources." Merytat3n (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably should qualify it in the article, if even Russo doesn't say "The only candidate is this Sitamun" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've couched it as "in this case most likely referring to the daughter of Ahmose I". Merytat3n (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• 114 Can I have a copy of this page? Might need #115 too.

Sure (2 pages each). Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

OK.

• 117 Can I have a copy of this page? Might need #116 too.

Sure, these are both multiple pages. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't mention inlay nor that multicoloured glass was rare. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

117 (Vassilika 2010) p.45, 48: "The front [continued on p.48] panel is decorated with black and white rectangles within a diamond patterned border imitating bone and ebony intarsia [inlay] work." (last 2 words on p.45 and first sentence of p.48)

P.50, top of the page: "...an alabastron, is actually of blue glass, which was a relatively new and rare material." The next sentence, which is about the kohl tube, and mentions both glass vessels are multicoloured ("also of blue glass and likewise with a zig-zagged yellow and white trailed decoration".) Merytat3n (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• 119 Can I have a copy of this page? Might need #51 too.

Sure. I can quote #51 in full here too (Vassilika 2010 p.10): "Given Kha's station as Director of the Royal Works, and given the amount of furniture in his tomb that was derived from life, it is unlikely that he had a permanent abode in the village of little houses at Deir el-Medina, where the tomb builders lived (perhaps only during specific projects in this period) at the expense of the royal purse, but that he lodged there only when he was working."

Relevant parts of #119 (Russo 2012 p.65): "At the present stage it is not possible to establish if Kha lived in one of the small residences in the settlement. The fact that he was buried in the western necropolis implies a strong link with the community area nearby... It is intriguing to consider the possibility that Kha had a residence outside the settlement." Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't discuss the function of furniture. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Because, in note G, [119] and [51] are primarily sourcing of the discussion of if Kha and Merit lived in the village full time or not. I assume by function you mean the types of furniture (stools, chair, beds, etc), which are all mentioned by [120] (Schiaparelli 2008 pp.37-40) and [121] (Forbes 1998 pp.88-92) at the bottom of the paragraph. Merytat3n (talk) Merytat3n (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• 121 Can I have a copy of this page? Might need #120 too.

Sure, these are multiple pages each. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, while bunching references up like that improves readability, it kinda makes verifying them hard. In particular I can't find the papyrus and senet thing. It doesn't say that the bed was outside the tomb for space reasons or that the sons gave offerings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, in that case, shall I return to my instincts and cite everything in this section (and food and drink) individually? (Take that uni lecturer who told me a decade ago that I used too many citations and listed every single one they thought was unnecessary XD)

Looks like "papyrus" is a mistake on my part - Forbes (1998) p.90 says they are made of rushwork and one has a papyrus tray. Schiaparelli says they are made of cane, as does Vassilika. Slatted table holding senet (game) board is Forbes (1998) p. 90, end of the third paragraph: "When found it was holding a game board (described below), which may have been its practical use, in any case." Bed outside tomb for space reasons is another mistake on my part, Forbes (1998) mentions it on p.144. Schiaparelli (2008) p.40, right column, about halfway down, mentions the depictions of the sons (well, children really but most often the son(s), Merit only appears once) giving offerings: "in one of the scenes, a daughter presents a libation jar and a son offers a flower, while only the son appears in the other two scenes, again in the act of offering a lotus". Merytat3n (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• 137 OK
• 170 It says the custom of earrings began around his time, not that he was one of the first Egyptian men to wear them.

He is one of the earliest known examples though, which is what the source says: "Kha is one of the earliest known examples of an Egyptian man wearing large ear-rings [35,42]." The earliest known depiction of ancient Egyptian men wearing earrings is from the tomb of Tekty, TT15, from the very start of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The next is Sennefer (TT96), who is approx contemporary with Kha. (Eaton-Krauss, M. (1998). Four Notes on the Early Eighteenth Dynasty. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 84(1), 205-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/030751339808400118)

• 177 Can I have a copy of this page?

Sure, I will also quote the relevant sentence here (Forbes 1998 p.75): "Despite all of this padding, the body sloped to its left, no doubt having shifted somewhat during transport to (or from) the tomb".

To be honest, I have been thinking about removing this line or altering it, even though 3 sources mention it. Schiaparelli says this about her position (p.22): "After raising the lid, Merit's mummy appeared like a vision, her head and part of the chest covered with a fine gilded mask and the head and body leaning slightly to the left, in the arms of the Goddess Nut, painted on the inside of the box". Vassilika says (p.38) "According to Schiaparelli, Merit was found lying on her left side (although early pictures show her flat on her back) as if embraced by the goddess [Nut]." Fig. 30 of Schiaparelli's publication indeed shows her flat on her back in the centre of her coffin, but her mask has fallen to her left. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I've decided to remove the sentence : ) Thanks for your patience! Merytat3n (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of (full) pages requested here so I have interpreted your request for copies of pages literally and photographed them (badly), named them all with their footnote number and source publication, and put them in a Google Drive. I hope this is what you wanted. I can email the link if this suits? Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

'fraid that the Google Drive file is protected in some fashion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Should work now : ) Merytat3n (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, any progress here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, which is why things are struck through right now. The only question is whether Merytat3n wants to remove the sentence I counted under 177. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks Jo-Jo. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Gardiner and Weigall needs an OCLC (458905002).
• As does Ranke (5339823).
• Sousa - no known publisher location?
• "Vandier d'Abbadie, Jeanne Marie Thérèse". Why are the author names not given in the usual format? And add the OCLC. (23426988).
• OCLC needed for Weigall, 1911. (656123535}
• "tomb of Kha and Merit". Should that not be an upper case T?

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Merytat3n? FrB.TG (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, FrB.TG, I missed this somehow.

• Thanks for letting me know about OCLCs and generously providing them. I've added them.
• I've resolved the publisher location for Sousa.
• For Vandier d'Abbadie, I'm not sure what you mean by the names not being given in the usual format. As far as I understand, Vandier d'Abbadie are her last names. (I have changed the citation style to be "cite book" instead of "cite journal" though, which I think may be the more correct format.)
• Sources seem to use a lower case t in "tomb of Kha and Merit" unless it is the title of the work so I have followed them. Merytat3n (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2024 [87].

---

Algebra

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Most people are familiar with algebra from their school days, where they learned to solve equations like $x^{2}-3x-10=0$. However, there is also a more abstract form of algebra, which is of particular interest to mathematicians because it provides a general framework for understanding operations on mathematical objects. Thanks to Bilorv for their in-depth GA review and to Mathwriter2718 and Chatul for their peer reviews. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith (Support)

• As an administrative note, I noticed this page had been semi-protected since 2008. 16 years of protection seemed excessive, so I unprotected it.
• I'm still looking at this, but I do want to say that it's a joy to see a math article which is so approachable. My training is in engineering; I'm a user of math, but not a mathematician. Most math articles (Lie algebra being a good example) make my eyes glaze ever before I get past the first sentence. In this article, I'm down to Linear algebra and I'm still following every detail. This is wonderful!

  Hello RoySmith and thanks for reviewing the article! The parts on abstract and universal algebra will get a little more challenging but this is not entirely avoidable and I hope they are still accessible enough to grasp the main ideas without feeling overwhelmed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm working on Abstract algebra now. Slower going than before, but I'm still hanging in there :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• The word algebra comes from the Arabic term الجبر (al-jabr), which originally referred to the surgical treatment of bonesetting You can't just leave the reader hanging without giving at least some explanation of how we got from bonesetting to a high-school math class. You link to Traditional bone-setting, but that doesn't say anything about it. I did a bit of searching. "The Origin of the Term "Algebra" on JSTOR". jstor.org. Retrieved 6 August 2024. talks about this a bit while "Simplifying equations in Arabic algebra". sciencedirect.com. Retrieved 6 August 2024. suggests the connection may be entirely accidental. Either way, I think it's worth a sentence or two.

  That's a good idea and the sources are helpful. I put it in a footnote since there is no consensus on the exact meaning. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• x-y-pair do you need both hyphens? I would think "x-y pair".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• An equation is linear if ... no operations like exponentiation, extraction of roots, and logarithm are applied to variables why the equivocation, i.e. "operations like"? Which operations are like those and which are unlike? My understanding is that an equation is linear if there's no power greater than 1, and things like logs and roots get included in that implicitly via their Taylor series. I think this would be better written as an explicit list of operations that are allowed, rather than a vague "stuff like this isn't allowed".

  Done: I added the general form and cut the "stuff like this isn't allowed" down to a short side remark. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• An operation[k] is associative if the order of several applications does not matter, i.e., if (a circle b) circle c ... This is the first time you use the circle notation. A little earlier when you introduce N for Natural Numbers, you do a good job of explaining what the notation means; you should do similarly here. My understanding is that it's just "an arbitrary binary operation", but that should be clarified.

  That explanation is given in a footnote, which was unfortunately positioned in a rather unintuitive place. I moved it right after the first use of the circle symbol so that the connection is clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• An operation admits inverse elements... explain what it means to "admit" an element.

  I reformulated the expression to make it simpler. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• The natural numbers ... contain only positive numbers Why not "positive integers"?

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Group theory is the subdiscipline of abstract algebra studying groups. studying -> which studies.

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how File:Magma to group4.svg relates to the rest of the article, or at least to the text it's near. It's near a section that talks about rings and fields, but the diagram only shows relationships for groups. Perhaps it should go with the following paragraph, where magmas et al are discussed?

  You are right, I moved it to the following paragraph. I expanded the caption to make it easier to see how it is relevant to the discussion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• They differ from each other in regard to the types of objects they describe and the requirements that their operations fulfill To me, this is the key sentence in this whole section. To go back to my comment about my eyes glazing over when I read articles like Lie algebra, this lays out the logical foundation that helps me read " a Lie algebra (pronounced /liː/ LEE) is a vector space ... together with an operation called the Lie bracket, an alternating bilinear map ... that satisfies the Jacobi identity}} and really start to get my head around what it's saying. By analogy, I have a rudimentary knowledge of Spanish, but I can usually read something well enough to say, "OK, that's a conjugated verb. I don't recognize the verb, and I'm not sure about the tense, but at least I can get past that and keep going with the sentence, knowing I can always go back and look up the verb later". The same thing here. I don't know what an "alternating bilinear map" is, but with your explanation in mind, I can say, "OK, I don't know what that is, but at least I recognize it's describing "the requirements the operation fulfills" and I can keep making progress, knowing I can come back later and dig deeper. The point of this rambling note is just to say that I think this sentence needs more prominent placement, perhaps in the first paragraph of this section. Then you can still conclude the section by saying that you've only described the three most basic structures, and lots of other ones exist, such as magmas, etc.

  I found a way to mention this characterization in the first paragraph. I very much agree with you about the accessibility problems of several math articles. Some of them read as if they were written primarily for mathematicians, which becomes a problem specifically for the lead if an educated non-expert reader can't figure out what the topic of the article is. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

(I'm done with Major Branches. I'll pick up with History another day)

I couldn't stay away, so I finished this up today. I really can't find anything else to complain about in the rest of the article. I'll just leave you with a couple of suggestions which you can take or leave at your pleasure. One is that in Other branches of mathematics where you talk about algebraic solutions to geometric problems, you might want to mention that origami has been used to solve algebraic problems using geometry, see for example https://sites.math.washington.edu/~morrow/336_09/papers/Sheri.pdf. The other is that I don't think you can talk about Gerolamo Cardano without at least mentioning that he has been credited with inventing (or at least accepting the existance of) imaginary numbers.

I added a short side remark about origami and mentioned imaginary numbers. Thanks a lot for all the helpful suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not qualified to review this for the quality of the research or comprehensiveness, but I'm happy to give my support for general structure and "prose is engaging and of a professional standard".

Image review

• File:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī.png: the fine print on the licensing tag suggests a cropped image like this might not be covered by the copyright exception

  I removed the image since there were also other concerns about it in the comments below. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• File:Rhind_Mathematical_Papyrus.jpg needs a US tag

  I added an US tag. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• File:Francois_Viete.jpg needs a US tag, and why is this linked to the article? Ditto File:Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_René_Descartes.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I added US tags and removed the links. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• On the former, the version that's actually in this article is File:Francois_Viete.jpeg - the one you changed is the version that's in the article that was previously linked (apologies for the confusion). The version in this article still needs tagging and also has a dead source link. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's confusing indeed, thanks for catching it. I added the US tag and replaced the dead link. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  There was a similar problem with Descartes's image. To avoid future confusion, the images currently linked in the article are https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Francois_Viete.jpeg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_Ren%C3%A9_Descartes_(cropped).jpg. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

UC

I know even less about this one than ethics, so a more sensible person would stay away -- a few comments regardless:

• Linear algebra is a closely related field investigating variables that appear in several linear equations, called a system of linear equations. It tries to discover the values that solve all equations at the same time.: "all equations in the system"? As phrased, it sounds like we mean all equations in existence.

  Good catch. Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Algebraic methods were first studied in the ancient period: as with ethics, I think we could do with being a little more precise. Are we happy, for instance, that the Rhind papyrus is the earliest document to concern algebra, and/or that none exists older than the 2nd millennium BCE, or that the oldest known studies are from Egypt?

  We could mention the example of the Rhind Papyrus with a date in this lead paragraph. But I'm not sure that we want to go into those details in the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• A matter of taste, maybe, but I'm not sure about a 1980s postage stamp (especially as the likeness is almost certainly totally fictitious) for al-Khwarizmi, especially if we're not going to tell the reader what the image is (some will, I'm sure, assume it's a contemporary portrait). Elsewhere, we have this, which is a page (I think the first page?) from the text we're discussing -- would that be a better illustration here?

  Good idea, I replaced the image, especially since there were also some copyright concerns above. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Transliterated Arabic should be in a transliteration template.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• A higher level of abstraction is achieved in abstract algebra: is is achieved the right phrase here -- it sounds like we're saying that abstract algebra is better than elementary algebra, when surely they're each trying to do slightly different things? "Abstract algebra uses/creates/allows a higher level of abstraction"?

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest linking countable noun.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Very pedantic, but the link on " a certain type of binary operation" covers the "a", while the one on "a specific type of algebraic structure" doesn't. Usual form is to include it, I think.

  I included the "a" in the wikilink scope. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's a little odd that note c mentions al-Khwarizmi before we've introduced him, and when we're talking about the use of the term prior to his work. I'd move it to the end of the following sentence.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• This changed in the course of the 19th century: why not, simply, in the nineteenth century?

  Simplified. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note e (definition of constants vs. variables) does strictly need a citation, even though it's not exactly controversial. There are a couple of others -- I noticed l and s.

  Done, I hope I got all. I reformulated footnote l to be only about this article. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not going to kick up a huge fuss on this point, but it would be reassuring to provide a citation to show that other people do this too (in other words, that it's not our own idea). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• The lowercase letters a and b are usually used for constants and coefficients. For example, the expression 5x+3 is an algebraic expression created by multiplying the number 5 with the variable and adding the number 3 to the result. I don't really understand the use of "for example" here -- I think we need to introduce this as a new thought.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• An equation is a statement formed by comparing two expressions with an equals sign ... Inequations are formed with symbols like the less-than sign (), the greater-than sign (), and the inequality sign (). : would it be better to explain this in terms of meaning rather than symbology? After all, the statement "the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the squares on the other two sides" was as much as passed for an equation for a large part of mathematical history, and we can imagine some other form of notation that expresses equations with a different sign or none at all.

  I reformulated it to take a middle path, covering both meaning and symbols. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Some algebraic expressions take the form of statements that relate two expressions to one another: two or more?

  Two is the typical format in algebra. Our formulation leaves it open whether there are other alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  It does. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• The main goal of elementary algebra is to determine for which values a statement is true: more idiomatic, to me, as "the values for which a statement is true".

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• In a similar way, if one knows the exact value of one variable one may be able to use it to determine the value of other variables.: do we lose anything important by cutting exact here?

  Not really. Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• It bothers me that the graph example uses the wrong symbol for subtraction (the dash is too short), but that's not really your problem. Do consider, however, MOS:COLOUR in describing the line as red (not everyone can see its colour) -- perhaps also add that it slopes upwards to the right? I appreciate that there's only one line that graph-literate readers could identify, but we're rightly pitching this article to complete beginners, and it's not impossible that some won't know what the axes are.

  I updated the image file to use a longer symbol for subtraction (I had to close and re-open my browser for it show the new version). I also followed your suggestion to identify the line not only by color but also by slope. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• This means that no variables are multiplied with each other and no powers of variables occur.: or that no variables are raised to a power greater than one?

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent. This is the case if the equations do not contradict each other: better as A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent if the equations do not contradict each other? At the moment, we state something, and then immediately seem to state that it isn't (always) true. If I've got it right, we're saying that it's impossible to be inconsistent and to have any solutions, so it might even be clearer to state that first -- something like If two or more equations contradict each other, the system of equations is called inconsistent and has no solutions. For example, the equations $x_{1}-3x_{2}=0$ and $x_{1}-3x_{2}=7$ contradict each other since no values of $x_{1}$ and $x_{2}$ exist that solve both equations at the same time. If two or more equations contradict each other, the system of equations is inconsistent and has no solutions. A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent.

  I implemented a similar reformulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• LU Decomposition: decap decomposition, and consider spelling out lower–upper?

  Decap done. I kept the "LU" since this is the more common way of referring to it and also the name of our article. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• On a geometric level, systems of equations can be interpreted as geometric figures: do we need the first bit? Seems repetitive, given the end of the sentence.

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• For systems with two variables, each equation represents a line in two-dimensional space. The point where the two lines intersect is the solution: can we briefly explain why this is so?

  I added a short explanation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• binary operations, which take two objects as input: as inputs, surely, or as their input?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• The date of the Rhind papyrus -- can we give an idea of the "error bars" on the debate -- does everyone agree it's C17th, for example, or do some people think it's much later, or a modern forgery?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• These developments happened in the ancient period in diverse regions such as Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, China, and India: our phrasing here implies that this list isn't exhaustive. Is that what's intended?

  Simplified. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• In ancient China: I know the date of The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art isn't totally straightforward, but we should give it one anyway, if the Greeks get them.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• On Vector 22, I have quite a lot of sandwiching between the Al-Khwarizmi manuscript and the double portrait. I realise I've earlier suggested using it in place of Al-Khwarizmi's face, so that would solve this problem as well.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• We get a lot of people described as "the nationality mathematician": you could consider dropping mathematician in these contexts, and take it as read that we're generally talking about mathematicians (see User:Caeciliusinhorto/Context considered harmful for an argument for this). Very much a matter of taste, though.
• the German mathematicians ... Emil Artin -- he was Austrian.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• to solve puzzles like Sudoku and Rubik's cube: we generally speak of a Rubik's cube, so I'd pluralise it here (especially as there are different variations on the form).

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Algebra education mostly focuses on elementary algebra, which is one of the reasons why it is also called school algebra. It is usually not introduced -- the series of its may not be totally clear -- we seem to be swapping antecedent here (the first one is elementary algebra, the second algebra education).

  I replaced the first "it". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• unlike arithmetic calculations, algebraic expressions often cannot be directly solved: you might add an easily in here -- you can solve most school problems by trial and error, or simply by spotting the answer, but it's much easier to do it "properly".

  I guess it depends on whether we read "often cannot" as "in many cases, there is no logical possibility" or as "in many cases, there is no reliable way to do so". I would add it but "easily directly solved" sounds a bit odd. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  To me, often cannot easily be directly solved is good English -- or perhaps "are often difficult to solve directly"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• On the education side -- how worldwide is the use of balance scales? We've cited a single school textbook here, which to me is verging on WP:PRIMARY -- I'd be more comfortable with a survey article on the use of the technique in (American?) mathematical education. I've never seen it in UK schools, outside isolated word problems -- function machines are more common over here as a basic introduction to the ideas of algebra. I'd be interested to know how things are done in places like Shanghai and Hong Kong, which generally seem to outperform both systems, at least as far as concerns producing students who can solve school-algebra problems.

  I added two more sources that that examine some research on this approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Both of these sources (particularly Kaput 2018) consider balance scales as one tool among many -- Kieran talks about other manipulatives (cups and sticks, for example), and Kaput talks about a whole bunch of visualisations (including function machines), particularly those which they feel to be appropriate for use with a computer. I think the discussion here needs to be broadened to reflect those sources -- there's a good point to be made that teaching algebra often involves using conceptual tools, often ones with which students can interact physically, before introducing abstract concepts such as variables, but we shouldn't frame that entirely through one of those tools (balance scales). There's an interesting booklet for teachers here, with extensive bibliography, which recommends the use of representations but also acknowledges that the evidence for their effectiveness (like everything else in education!) is minimal. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I added some additional context to the discussion by mentioning manipulatives and visualizations. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I've made a small and slightly pedantic fix (computers aren't visualisations), but I think this works well now. Feel free to counter-tweak. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Can I echo Roy's praise for the clarity and approachability of this article -- I'll admit that I skipped fairly lightly over the abstract algebra section, but the rest was absolutely clear and manageable, and I suspect I'm going to be one of the least qualified mathematicians to review this here. Excellent work once again. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for yet another detailed review and for taking a leap to provide a non-expert opinion on the article! Given that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, this is also an important perspective to consider. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Support: I am hugely impressed by the writing and clarity here, and while I am not qualified to vouch for the mathematics, everything within my expertise looks excellent. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

Although I am neither an expert in the field nor a native speaker, I have a few comments. Overall I very much appreciated the clarity and structure.

• Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic structures --> while I like overall how clearly topics are being described, there are a few cases where I get a sense of recursion. Is there a way to avoid using algebraic in the definition of algebra?

  You are right that this sounds circular, but I'm not sure that there is a good alternative. There was already a detailed discussion on this point in the GA review that resulted in consensus on the current formulation. It sounds circular but it isn't circular since the technical term "algebraic structure" is defined without reference to algebra. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• called a system of linear equations. --> why italics?

  This is per MOS:WORDSASWORDS since we talk about the term "system of linear equations". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• that appear in several linear equations --> a definition of linear would be good

  We could add a footnote but I'm not sure that we should get into this in the lead section. The first paragraph of the subsection "Linear algebra" provides a definition. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic operations[a] and algebraic structures --> too recursive for me. A question: do I understand it correctly that algebraic structures include lgebraic operations? If so, do we really need to say "algebraic operations[a] and algebraic structures" or can it just use structures?

  You are right, the operations are already included. I found a way to reformulate the sentence to take this into account while cutting down on the repetitive language. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Arithmetic studies arithmetic operations --> too recursive for me

  I removed the term "arithmetic" since we already list the main operations. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• first use of axiom in body is not linked. Perhaps do this: together with their underlying axioms, the laws they follow.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• The natural numbers, by contrast, do not form a group --> should the + operation not be mentioned?

  Correct, I added it. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• One of the earliest documents is the Rhind Papyrus --> One of the earliest mathematical documents is the Rhind Papyrus

  I implemented the idea in a slightly different way. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• several generations between the 10th century BCE and the 2nd century CE --> I don't think 1000+ years can be described as several generations

  Agreed, this is an understatement. I adjusted the text. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Thābit ibn Qurra in the 9th century --> I assume there is no more accurate estimate? Since 825 CE is also the 9th century, perhaps something like "also in the 9th century"?

  I think he made contributions in several works so we would have to list several dates. I added the "also". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• In 1247, the Chinese mathematician Qin Jiushao --> how come this is not with the other China info?

  For chronological reasons: roughly speaking, we have two paragraphs on ancient history, two paragraphs on post-classical history, and then modern history. It's not ideal but putting him into the ancient paragraph is not ideal either. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That's all I could see. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Edwininlondon, I appreciate you taking the time to review this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A bit more:

• x y c – variables/constants --> would be better to make 2 lines and separate the variables from the constant

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• forgive me if this has been agreed already, but is Encyclopedia of Mathematics as a wiki a reliable source?

  Thanks for raising this point. The website use wiki software to display the pages but it is not user-generated. The articles were originally published in book form by Kluwer Academic Publishers/Springer and only later made accessible online. We could cite the original books but the online version is much better accessible for readers. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• inconsistent date formats. Example: "from the original on 4 October 2009. Retrieved 23 October 2023" but also "from the original on 2024-01-12. Retrieved 2024-01-13"

  Done. I hope the script got all. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Walz, Guido (2016) needs a trans-title

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: 37 51 84 85 87 118 all check out
• 80 does indeed give 1550 but somehow I feel this source is not right to make the claim "The exact date is disputed and some historians suggest a later date around 1550 BCE" A more scientific source would be better.

  I replaced it with a better source. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• 87 is correct but the link unfortunately does not put me on page 31, nor is that page accessible to me. Perhaps this link is better: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11540/chapter/4

  I fixed the link, the page preview works for me now. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's it for this final round. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I hope I was able to address the main concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Almost all fine, except that there still is a lingering sadness in me regarding the opening sentence with its circularity. I don't think the argument that the technical term "algebraic structure" is defined without reference to algebra is particularly strong. But I lack the expertise to provide something useful. Perhaps it is something like "Algebra is ..., known as algebraic structures, ... I was thinking perhaps the part "manipulation of statements within those structures" can be dropped, as that surely is encompassed by the word "studies". But maybe the phrase "manipulation of statements" is rather critical, as it conveys the essence of the field. Sorry, I can't express what is better. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The current first sentence is: "Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic structures and the manipulation of statements within those structures". This definition is not circular since "algebraic structure" has a precise definition that does not refer to the field of algebra. So it's not a problem with the definition itself but only with the linguistic level since it is preferable to avoid repeating the words algebra-algebraic.

I'll brainstorm some alternatives:

1. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies abstract structures and the manipulation of statements within those structures

   The expression "abstract structures" does not have a precise definition and could mean all kinds of things, so this formulation sacrifices information for linguistic improvements

2. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies operations from a Cartesian power of a set into that set and the manipulation of statements using these operations.

   This is precise but most readers will have difficulties figuring out what "operations from a Cartesian power of a set into that set" means. Especially for the first sentence, this is not a good idea.

3. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies operations on mathematical objects and the manipulation of statements using these operations.

   This is a less detailed and more accessible version of (2). Instead of repeating algebra-algebraic, this formulation repeats mathematics-mathematical.

When compared to these alternatives, I prefer the current version, but I'm also open to other ideas. Option 3 would be my second choice.

Roughly speaking, the first clause on algebraic structures covers abstract/universal algebra while the second clause on the manipulation of statements covers elementary/linear algebra. If we removed the second clause, we would focus only on the more abstract side of algebra. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for generating alternatives, much appreciated. I'd be curious to hear what other FAC reviewers think. In my mini-sample of 2 non-maths people, both raised an eyebrow at "algebraic". Alternative 2 is too technical indeed. Number 3 would be my preferred option. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Any mileage in "certain abstract structures, known as algebraic structures", or similar? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

4. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract structures, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those structures.

5. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract systems, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those systems.

6. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract frameworks, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those frameworks.

All of them are a little bit longer than the original. Maybe they could work without the word "certain". In (4), the repeated use of the word "structure" might be a problem. Of these three, (5) would be my preference. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I like (5). Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

5 makes sense to me as a layman, though obviously I can't speak for its technical accuracy/completeness. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I implemented the suggestion. It's a little longer but should be more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I Support on prose. My uni algebra is too long ago to fully vouch for the technical aspect, but it looks very convincing. A nice piece of work. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments and the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Mathwriter2718's comments

I am here in my capacity as a mathematical expert. My goal is to review the mathematical content of this page and make sure it is accurate and clear. Others have already done more comprehensive reviews of other aspects.

I think this article is excellent. I have a few extremely minor concerns and one bigger concern, but none will take so long to address. For the big concern, Let us look at the descriptions of linear algebra, abstract algebra, and universal algebra in this article.

"Linear algebra is a closely related field investigating variables that appear in several linear equations, called a system of linear equations. It tries to discover the values that solve all equations in the system at the same time. Abstract algebra studies algebraic structures, which consist of a set of mathematical objects together with one or several binary operations defined on that set. It is a generalization of elementary and linear algebra since it allows mathematical objects other than numbers and non-arithmetic operations. ... Universal algebra constitutes a further level of generalization that is not limited to binary operations and investigates more abstract patterns that characterize different classes of algebraic structures."

"Abstract algebra usually restricts itself to binary operations that take any two objects from the underlying set as inputs and map them to another object from this set as output."

"Universal algebra is the study of algebraic structures in general. It is a generalization of abstract algebra that is not limited to binary operations and allows operations with more inputs as well, such as ternary operations."

I think many mathematicians define linear algebra as the study of finite-dimensional vector spaces. The description of linear algebra in this article is pretty different on the surface, but still a valid POV, and not actually as different as it may appear. Anyway, it would be nice to put in somewhere that the algebraic structure linear algebra studies is a finite-dimensional vector space. The bigger issue is that everyone thinks vector spaces are under the domain of abstract algebra, and scalar multiplication is not a binary operation on a single set, so the descriptions of abstract algebra and universal algebra are wrong. Even if you expanded abstract algebra to be about binary operations where the input sets can be different, this would still not be how mathematicians view abstract algebra.

I think the way mathematicians view abstract algebra vs universal algebra vs linear algebra is like this:

Abstract algebra is the broad field of math that studies algebraic structures.

Linear algebra is the study of a specific algebraic structure that is important in the study of systems of linear equations: finite-dimensional vector spaces.

Universal algebra is the study of a specific algebraic structure called a universal algebra. This structure is kind of unusual in that its instantiations include many of the most important algebraic structures.

I think we should just remove the offending content and not change things too much otherwise. I am merely arguing that we should avoid explicitly limiting "abstract algebra" to binary operations on a single set, and that we should avoid thinking of universal algebra as a generalization of abstract algebra, but rather as the study of a structure that encases many of the most important algebraic structures. If there are no objections, I can make these changes.

@Mathwriter2718: Thanks for taking a look at the article! I followed your suggestion to mention that linear algebra can also be defined in terms of vector spaces. I included the reference to linear maps in the definition so it is more focused. I put it in a footnote since I have the impression that it is difficult to understand for the average reader but we could try to work it into the main text if that is preferable.

Concerning abstract algebra, one problem is that some sources restrict abstract algebra to binary operations. In order to avoid taking sides, I softened this claim by saying that it is "primarily interested in binary operations".

The relation between abstract and universal algebra is tricky. Pratt 2022 says "Universal algebra is the next level of abstraction after abstract algebra". Other sources also emphasize the general nature of universal algebra but don't make the relation to abstract algebra this explicit. I reformulated some passages to emphasize the generality. I tried not to imply that universal algebra is distinct from and more general than abstract algebra. I also added a footnote covering the alternative definition of universal algebra as the study of universal algebras, as you suggested.

I hope these changes are roughly what you had in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a good compromise to me. Thanks. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Less important comments:

• Consider replacing

  For example, the expression 7x − 3x can be replaced with the expression 4x.

with

For example, the expression 7x − 3x can be replaced with the expression 4x, since 7x - 3x = (7-3)x = 4x by the distributive property.

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Consider replacing

  This technique is common for polynomials to determine for which values the expression is zero.

with

This technique is commonly used to determine the values of a polynomial that evaluate to zero.

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• The article uses the term "x-y pair". I don't think I've seen this before, but it perhaps isn't wrong? I would expect to see (x,y)-pair or (x,y) pair, I think.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe it could be good to put in some image of a symmetry group when the article is talking about symmetry groups, though I didn't find an image on dihedral group that really stood out to me.

Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

After a short look, I didn't find a good image either. This part of the article already has several images so we might have to remove an image to create space for a new one. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mathwriter2718: I appreciate the insightful suggestions. I hope I was able to address your main concerns. I was wondering whether, from the mathematical perspective, you would support the nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 I hope that I can read up more on universal algebra before giving an answer. This might take a bit. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look at the subsection "Universal algebra". The main challenge for this subsection is to make the abstract topic accessible to the reader without oversimplifying too much. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Phlsph7, is this ready for the reviewer to take another look at yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: The article is ready and, as far as I'm aware, there are no outstanding comments to be addressed. Mathwriter2718 said that they needed more time to familiarize themselves with the literature before wrapping up the review.

@Mathwriter2718: Just checking to see how things are progressing. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 I am very sorry for not getting back to you sooner!! I have recently become extremely busy and I have had trouble finding the time to review the mathematical literature and decide whether I support/don't support this nomination. I will give myself a deadline of tonight to finish this and if I can't get it done by then, then I think I can declare I just don't have enough time right now to do this. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mathwriter2718: Thanks for taking another look! If turns out that you don't have the time to review the part on universal algebra, you could explicitly exclude that part from your assessment. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 @Gog the Mild I have finished my review of the mathematical content of the article except for the "Universal algebra" section and I support the FA nomination based on the content that I have reviewed. Maybe there is someone else who can review that section but I am not sure if there are many Wikipedians familiar with universal algebra. Looking at the history of the page Universal algebra one can maybe find people who are familiar with the subject. @Jochen Burghardt has a decent number of edits there. Personally, I'm just not qualified to offer my perspective on that area and I am too busy at this time to really become familiar in the way I would like to before offering an opinion. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more assistance here. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and all the time and energy you have poured into this review! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review

So, this is one of these broad topics where it's hard to tell for an outsider whether the coverage is representative. So I'll qualify that I am not reviewing that aspect of a source review. I wonder why some page numbers have Google Books links and others don't. Google Books serves up different results to different people, so I am not sure that these links are very helpful at all. By the same principle, I don't think that Google Books needs archive links. Springer is referred to by various names, is there a need for consistency? Are Jones & Bartlett Publishers and Linus Learning a prominent publisher? What makes "Edwards, C. H. (2012). Advanced Calculus of Several Variables. Courier Corporation. ISBN 978-0-486-13195-5. Archived from the original on January 24, 2024. Retrieved January 24, 2024." a high-quality reliable source? "Majewski, Miroslaw (2004). MuPAD Pro Computing Essentials (2 ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-21943-9.", "Nicholson, W. Keith (2012). Introduction to Abstract Algebra. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-13535-8." and "Mishra, Sanjay (2016). Fundamentals of Mathematics: Algebra. Pearson India. ISBN 978-93-325-5891-5." don't have the retrieval dates where other sources have, although with books and papers I don't think we need these at all. Otherwise we are using prominent publishers and series, although I notice the overrepresentation of Western sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for taking care of the source review! I usually add links to google book pages that offer page previews if I'm aware of them. For some books, google books does not offer previews, in which case I can't add links. It could depend on the reader's geo-region whether a page preview is available. If it is available, it is a convenient way for the reader to verify the material without needing to buy the book. I removed all the google book webarchive links. The problem is that IABot adds them automatically when it runs, so they could be back soon. I implemented a more consistent approach for referring to Springer. I replaced the sources by Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Linus Learning, and Edwards 2012 with alternatives. I added an access/retrieval date for Nicholson 2012. Majewski 2004 and Mishra 2016 don't have access dates because they have no links to a website. The overrepresentation of sources by Western publishers in the article reflects the general prevalence of Western publishers regarding high-quality English-language sources on the subject.

Phlsph7 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me like we need some discussion somewhere about IAbot adding archives to Google Books. But not an issue for a FAC I figure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Right, this has already come up several times. I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Google_Books_web_archive_links_and_IABot. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo, sorry to drag you back to this again. Would I be correct in understanding this to be a source review pass so far as FAC is concerned? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but note the caveats "So I'll qualify that I am not reviewing [the thorough and representative survey] aspect of a source review." and "overrepresentation of Western sources." I am not sure that limiting oneself to English sources justifies incompleteness, although we can't expect editors to be polylingual. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

D.Lazard

I did not follow the changes of the article done by Phlsph7 since January 2023. My first impression is that the new vesion is much better. Nevertheless it is too much biased toward educational aspects of algebra. I'll discuss this in several items in order to makes improvements easier.

• Abstract algebra: Presently, this phrase is almost never used outside mathematical education. This must be said in the article, and in many occurences of this phrase the word "algebraabstract" must be removed.

  Hello D.Lazard and thanks for taking a look at the article! I found a source that talks about how the term "abstract algebra" is used in the educational context and added a sentence on it. I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind. If you know of a source that spells your point out in more detail, I would be happy to have a look at it. Most of the sources that I'm aware of define abstract algebra as a field of inquiry rather than a math course in undergraduate studies.

  Clearly, I have no source saying "I do not use abstract algebra because this is reserved to educational context", but, AFAIK, there is no recent sources (say, not older than 50 years) that use "abstract algebra" outside educational or historical context. D.Lazard (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  You seem to suggest the addition of a sentence like the following: "In the last 50 years, the term abstract algebra has only been used in educational and historical contexts." I'm not opposed in principle, but we would need to figure out how to source this sentence and how to deal with possible counterexamples like [88], [89] and [90]. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't get what you mean by in many occurences of this phrase the word "algebra" must be removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Of course, it was a typo, I meant "abstract". D.Lazard (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Depending on the context, the term algebra is sometimes used to refer only to elementary algebra or only to abstract algebra, as explained in our section "Definition and etymology". I think it's in the best interest of the readers to use the more specific names to avoid confusing them. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, reading the article again, I do not find any improper use of "abstract algebra", except in the last paragraph of section "abstract algebra", which is controversial for other reasons, for example, by asserting implicitly that, say, the the study of groups of geometric transformations belong to abstract algebra. D.Lazard (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Major branches: Presently, this section has only 4 subsections: "Elementary algebra", "Linear algebra", "Abstract algebra", "Universal algebra".
  For defining branches of algebra, the most authoritative source is the Mathematics Subject Classification. The previous version of the article referred to this source by writing: Today algebra includes section 08-General algebraic systems, 12-Field theory and polynomials, 13-Commutative algebra, 15-Linear and multilinear algebra; matrix theory, 16-Associative rings and algebras, 17-Nonassociative rings and algebras, 18-Category theory; homological algebra, 19-K-theory and 20-Group theory. Algebra is also used extensively in 11-Number theory and 14-Algebraic geometry.
  Three of the four major areas belong to 08-General algebraic systems, and very little is said about the seven other major areas of algebra. So, without sections on other major branches of areas, this article fails the second criterion of featured articles: comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context

  As far as I'm aware, the Mathematics Subject Classification does not provide a general definition or subdivision of algebra. The sentences you cited from an older version of our article were unsourced. If you know of a source that supports this subdivision of algebra, I would be interested to read it. The sources that I'm aware of do not divide it this way, but there may be different ways of dividing it.

  Most of the categories you mention are covered in one form or another in our article. For example, polynomials are covered by the section "Linear algebra", algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory are mentioned in the subsection "Other branches of mathematics", and the different rings, fields, and algebras would be belong to the section "Abstract algebra". The last paragraph of the section "Abstract algebra" gives various examples of different algebraic structures. We could add more if you feel that this would help comprehensiveness, but we probably shouldn't overdo it. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  As Mathematics Subject Classification was elaborated by the whole mathematical community, this is a reliable source for subdivision of mathematics; it is undoubtly much more reliable than any text written by a single author. So, it is wrong to say that the old paragraph was unsourced. Per WP:BLUE, no source is needed for asserting that field theory, polynomial theory, commutative algebra, associative rings and algebras, nonassociative rings, homological algebra, and group theory are branches of algebra. Nevertheless it suffices to open any textbook having these subjects in their title to see that these subjects belong to algebra. So, the present state of the article breaks policy WP:NPOV by giving much less place to all these subjects together than to universal algebra, a subject that is not really used outside itself (it has been replaced by the much more powerful category theory). D.Lazard (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I have my doubts that this is a WP:BLUE-statement. The Mathematics Subject Classification is a reliable source but does not support the claim about how algebra is divided into the main branches. Of the items you mentioned, our article provides a detailed explanation of the basics of groups, rings, fields, and polynomials. It also mentions some of the more specific algebras without going too much into detail. I think it's not the responsibility of this type of overview article to go into the more advanced details of these subjects.

  Universal algebra is usually given more weight in reliable sources than the other areas you mentioned so I don't think this violates WP:NPOV. For example, Pratt 2022 discusses it as one of the main branches, without characterizing any of the other areas you mentioned as main branches. Bronshtein's "Handbook of Mathematics" paints a similar picture: in its division "5 Algebra and Discrete Mathematics", universal algebra gets the main subdivision "5.3 Univeral algebra" but none of the other fields you mention get main subdivisions. But you are right that universal algebra is not as important as abstract algebra. I could try to reduce the length of the section "Univeral algebra" by boiling it down to 2 paragraphs. Would that address your main concern? I was thinking about adding a few sentences on homological algebra but this topic could be quite challenging to the average reader. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  The most influential graduate textbooks in algebra are probably Van der Waerden's Algebra and Lang's Algebra. They are probably the most reliable sources for this subjects. In particular, Lang has more than 10,000 citations. It is unbelievable that none of these books is cited in our article. Clearly, they do not contain everything that belongs to algebra, but they are certainly reliable sources for the important branches of algebra. I have not these books under hand, but the phrases abstract algebra and universal algebra do not appear in the table of content of Lang nor in the list of Van der Waerden's chapters. On the other hand, all the branches that are cited above appear, at least in Lang (which is more recent). So, the fact that the above cited branches belong to algebra is supported by reliable sources. They support also the fact that "abstact algebra" is not used outside educational level, and that universal algebra is not a major branch of algebra (Lang knew universal algebra, since he is an author of an article on this subject, and did not included the subkect in his book). D.Lazard (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Sections "Abstract algebra" and "Universal algebra" are both devoted to the general study of algebraic structures. So, there must be merged and shortened for making place to (presently lacking) other major branches that are much more active.
• Theorems: The article is misleading by suggesting wrongly that there are no important theorems in algebra. As an example, one thinks immediatly of Feit–Thompson theorem, which is the theorem of algebra with the longest proof (the complete proof of Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is probably longer, and contains much algebra, but is not limited to this area of mathematics). Other examples are Hilbert's basis theorem, Hilbert's Nullstellensatz and Hilbert's syzygy theorem. Beside their historical importance, they are interesting here, since they predate "abstract algebra", and are therefore difficult to classify in this branch of algebra.

  I responded to this and the two preceding points on the article talk page, which is probably a better place for this type of discussion. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@D.Lazard It seems to me like your overarching concern is that the article Algebra should be about exactly the thing mathematicians call "algebra". I think it makes more sense for this particular article to be a middle ground between what most people call algebra and what mathematicians mean when they say algebra. For example, you want to remove the use of the word "abstract algebra". Indeed, mathematicians don't use this word to talk to each other about research-level mathematics. But I think it makes a lot of sense to use this word for contrast with elementary algebra. The way I interpret the current state of this article, everything under the mathematics subject classification for algebra falls under what this article calls "abstract algebra".

I probably support your view that this article should be closer to the viewpoint of a modern mathematician than it is now, but I want to be very careful to not transform the intended readership of this article away from the most lay audience possible by going into things like K-theory and nonassociative rings that are certainly not necessary for a comprehensive description of "Algebra" for the lay reader. Math Wikipedia already has a bad reputation for being too technical and obscure, and only a vanishing fraction of those who search for the article Algebra on Wikipedia will have much background. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of the Mathematics Subject Classification is to be used by journals to organize research. I don't we should expect that purpose to align very well with what subfields an expository article about "Algebra" should cover. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedic article is not to adhere to the conception of some readers ("what most people call algebra"); it is to inform the reader on the whole subject implied by the title. Here, this includes "abstract algebra", and also all the content of the most influencal books entitled Algebra (in particular, Serge Lang's and Van der Waerden's ones). Since no way is given to the reader to accede to information on most of the content of these books, the article is far to respect the policy WP:NPOV, and thus should never to have been labeled as a WP:GA.

I never asked to not speak of "abstract algebra", but it must be given its WP:due weight, which is the name of the part of algebra that is taught at some level of mathematical education. D.Lazard (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Mathwriter2718 here. Writing an article that respects both the mathematicians' definition of algebra and the more vernacular meaning is an intrinsically difficult problem. Having no representation for the latter meaning would itself be a violation of NPOV, and would make the page far less useful for a large and important audience. Moreover, I agree that the Mathematics Subject Classification doesn't necessarily align very well with what subfields an expository article about "Algebra" should cover. The topics that it lists are important enough to include, but it doesn't dictate the organization of an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have opened a related discussion at WT:WPM#Should Algebra be reverted to the version of 21 Decembre 2023?. D.Lazard (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

D. Eppstein

A drive-by comment: the claim in the universal algebra section that "Two algebraic structures that share all their identities are said to belong to the same variety." and the examples that follow this claim do not match my understanding of the subject. As I understand it, and as Variety (universal algebra) describes, a variety is defined by any set of identities, and an algebra belongs to a variety when it obeys all those identities (even when it might also obey others). So a single algebra might belong to many varieties, not merely the single variety defined by all its identities. Two algebras might belong to one variety, and differ in their membership of another variety. In this same section, "the ring of polynomials" is ambiguous: polynomials over what domain? Footnote [74] appears off-topic; neither linked reference page is about membership of integers, polynomial rings, or rationals in varieties. (One of the two pages uses "variety" in a different sense, from algebraic geometry rather than universal algebra.) The claim that the integers and ring of polynomials (over whatever domain) obey the same identities is unsourced, and may be false depending on the domain of the polynomials. For instance polynomials over GF(2) obey the identity x+x=0 that the integers do not.

Hello David Eppstein and thanks for your comments! I had a look at a few sources and I think your interpretation of varieties is correct. I reformulated the passage to avoid the misleading formulation used earlier. I added the sources I consulted and replaced the example with another. It's a simplified version of the one found in Rosen 2012. If this is still controversial, we could either use the full example from Rosen 2012 or leave it out. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

There another issue in this section: it is not said explicitely that not all algebraic structure belong to a variety. For example, fields do not form a variety since division by zero is not defined. D.Lazard (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I added a footnote to mention this. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

XOR'easter

A drive-by comment: this article is well on its way to being very nice indeed. I am somewhat dissatisfied by the "Applications" section. Despite a recent reorganization for the better, it still suffers from the problem that the applications of algebra are so staggeringly vast that any selection of examples will look weird and arbitrary. Right now, it reads rather like, "Linear algebra is useful in optimizing the yield of pumpkin patches." It needs both to be augmented with further examples and to be phrased in a way that makes clear the choice of examples is illustrative, not exhaustive. The "Education" section is also a bit shallow. It makes sense to focus on "elementary" or "school" algebra, as the text currently does, but we should say at least a little about the teaching of "higher"/"modern"/"abstract" algebra at the university level.

The references need to be combed through for cruft. I have removed a couple that looked like someone just pulled the first item in a Google Books search that wasn't obvious crankery [91][92]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: Thanks for your comments. I added a short paragraph on tertiary education to the "Education" sections. I think it's a good idea to mention it but I don't want to delve too much into it given that most of the literature on algebra education focuses on secondary education. I reformulated some parts of the "Applications" section to make sure that the examples are not presented as an exhaustive account. I also expanded it by adding several new examples. If you have specific examples in mind that are not yet mentioned, I can also try to include them. I also replaced some sources with better alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from BorgQueen

@Phlsph7: Nice work, another comprehensive article on a core topic from you! Just one thing—as per MOS:SEEALSO, Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. I notice that you've got quite a few links in the See also section. Are they all really necessary? If so, I suggest you use {{annotated link}} for the links that aren't obviously self-explanatory. BorgQueen (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello BorgQueen and thanks for the comments. I'm not sure that all the see-also links are necessary. There were some disagreements about what the article should and shouldn't cover. As a result, many of the more specific topics were added as see-also links. I trimmed the links a little and followed your idea to use annotated links since it wouldn't be clear to the average reader what they all mean. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 October 2024 [93].

---

Battle of Saipan

Nominator(s): Wtfiv (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the Battle of Saipan in June 1944. Because it was underway at the same time as the Normandy landings in France, it is less well known. It was the first invasion of the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign. The invasion triggered the Battle of the Philippine Sea, which effectively destroyed the Japanese navy's airpower. The island's capture pierced the Japanese defense perimeter and provided the American forces with an island base that put the Japanese home islands in range of the B-29 bombers. The fall of the island led to the collapse of the Japanese cabinet with the resignation of Hideki Tōjō, the prime minister of Japan.

The article has passed an A-class review and the images have been reviewed by Hawkeye7. Wtfiv (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the maps

• Updated three maps of campaign progress to upright =1.2

• Some images are missing alt text

• Alt text added to 27th infantry moving inland, troops moving through Garapan in flames

• File:Garapan_Fire,_Saipan,_3_July_1944.jpg: the licensing here is contradictory - is this PD or CC? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Updated licensing to PD; it is part of the Marine archives.Wtfiv (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

I was one of the reviewers at A class and found this article to be a comprehensive review of the battle. I can happily support for promotion to A class on the general text quality. On source formatting, I would suggest adding archive URLs for the National Park Service source in the Online sources section, and also for Trefalt 2018, the only two sources we don't have archive URLs for. I will be doing a source review tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Matarisvan,

I added the archive link for the National Park Service. I couldn't archive the convenience link for Trefalt as it is behind academia.edu's server, but the doi is available for readers, who have access to the journal. Wtfiv (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The source formatting review is a pass then. Here goes the source review:

• All sources are from reliable publishers.
• #3, #8, #21, #68, #81, #172, #267, #287: all ok.
• #124: ok but only Shaw, Nalty and Turbladh 1989 has the required supporting text, I could not find any in Harmsen 2021. Perhaps you should remove the latter.
• #153: For this text, "Less than a half hour after the start of the amphibious invasion", p. 63 would be the correct one, not p. 64. For the other use of this ref number, p. 64 is correct. You will have to separate the two.

Matarisvan (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

For #124, The Harmsen citation and its associated convenience link were corrected to p. 62, which discusses the first night's assault; #153 was corrected to p. 63. Wtfiv (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The source review is a pass then. Also I'd really appreciate it if you could check out a PR I opened recently, linked here. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye 7

I reviewed this at A-class and looks good to me. But to prove I read it:

• "Nagumo" is misspelt as "Nagamo"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Hawkeye7! I fixed it. Wtfiv (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink

I figured I should review it since I have an FAC open too.

• "Organized resistance ended when at least 3,000 Japanese soldiers died in the final gyokusai attack" - eesh I had to look up what gyokusai was. I'm not sure what I expected, but I think a brief description here, either wave or swarming. I also noticed that gyokusai redirects to Banzai charge. Any reason for this particular wording here? I'm not familiar with the subject matter, just the first thing I've noticed.
• " and left Japan vulnerable to strategic bombing" - you mention this in the third lead paragraph, but it's also in the first. I'm not sure if the material in the first paragraph should be moved to the third, since that all kind of lumps together the aftermath of the battle.

• removed repeat of strategic bombing in lead, taking out mention of strategic bombing from the fourth paragraph, but left it in the first since it is important.

• Is it worth mentioning the brief history of Saipan being taken by Japan/Germany/US as part of the background? The US was kind of taking the island back, and it never gave it up after the war. Or furthermore, there isn't even much of a background to the Pacific campaign, just starting the narrative in 1944. I see you mention more history under "geography", but that kind of feels like "background" to me.

• Changed section name to "History and Geography". The US occupied Guam before the war, but not Saipan. The Saipan became a Japanese possession, part of the mandates, immediately after World War I.

• I notice that two times you use "nmi", without ever using the term "nautical mile". I was only familiar with the abbreviation because tropical cyclone articles (which I usually focus on) often have their units listed in nautical miles/knots, which we always convert since the average reader probably doesn't know what they are. Considering you mostly use imperial with metric units in parenthesis, I don't think you need the nmi, unless you think otherwise.
• " 81 and 91 inches" - convert to metric please. Ditto "seven miles"

• nmi removed, rainfall has cm conversions, seven miles now has kilometers.

• "The largest towns on the island–the administrative center of Garapan with its population of 10,000, Charan Kanoa, and Tanapag–were on the western coast of the island, which was where the best landing beaches for an invasion were. " clunky wording here

• reworded, breaking it into two sentences.

• "Nimitz assigned Admiral Raymond Spruance, " - I had to scroll up to remember who Nimitz was. Maybe remind the reader his significance, since it's the start of a section (Opposing forces). Kinda similarly when you say "the amphibious landings of Forager". I had to look up what Forager was again. Not a huge deal, but to a non-military expert, it might be helpful to have a few more reminders.

• added that Nimitz was commander of the Pacific Fleet. Replaced "Forager" with "Mariana Islands"

• Over 60,000 troops were assigned to the assault:[b] Approximately 22,000 were in each Marine division and 16,500 in the 27th Infantry Division. - I'm not sure the use of the colon after assault:

• Colon deleted

• "6 June 1944" - this stood out to me that your date format is European. Saipan is a US territory now, and most of the US uses Month and Day, not Day then Month. Is there a reason you chose this date format?

• I wanted to keep the format consistent with this article's companion article, Battle of Tinian. Tinian was the next island invaded a month after Saipan. (It's about three miles from Saipan.) I kept the format of that article because it passed both the A-class review and is a featured article using the DD Month Year format.

• "This made the defenses brittle." - is "brittle" the best word here? I'm not familiar with military terms here, and I'm not sure if "weak" is better, but maybe there's a better word out there than a word that makes me think of brittle candy.

• "brittle" changed to "weak"

Battle

• "On 11 June, over 200 F6F Hellcats from the Fast Carrier Task Force launched a surprise attack on Japanese airfields in Saipan and Tinian..." - we don't have an exact number?
• "which began around 08:40" - timezone? Is this local time? Washington time? Coordinated Universal Time?

  Here I followed MOS:TIMEZONE which states that event times should be given in the time zone in which the event occurred.

  That's fair, but anytime I deal with anything time specific, it's helpful to clarify with a note. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hurricanehink, I assume that for the American sources, time would be based on the WWII version of Military time zone (Zulu time) Saipan's military time zone falls within K time (or Kilo time), GMT+10. But none of the sources clarify this. Wtfiv (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a reason "8000 men" doesn't have a comma for 8,000? Also, is this exact or about?

• Added "around" before 8000. Followed MOS:DIGITS, which states that commas are optional for four digit numbers.(Added comma)

• I see "pillbox" is linked in the pic farther down in the article than when it's mentioned for the first time in prose.

• Linked first occurrence of pillbox in main text.

• "He proposed to indefinitely postpone the 18 June invasion of Guam." - I'm guessing that happened? There's nothing else of this

• Added footnote that the Invasion of Guam took place on 21 July.

• "Intelligence had estimated that there were no more than 300 Japanese soldiers in the area" - do we know what intelligence? It might be better saying "Advanced reconnaissance" or "Spies" or however they estimated that, than starting with "Intelligence", which is odd to me as a civilian.

• Replaced "Intelligence" with "Smith". This follow's Lacey's wording.

• Why does the "American firepower" section appear under "25-30 June: Central Saipan, breakthrough"? I noticed that the Sherman tanks were already mentioned previously, just not in as much detail. I wonder if the "American firepower" should appear under "Opposing forces" under the American section? I think I see the logic having it where it is now: the American firepower allowed for this turning point. Right now parts of the section feels like it disrupts the narrative, considering what came before it. All of that said, the tanks with flamethrowers sounds fucking badass, which is partly why I think that needs to be highlighted better in the article than where it is. This section is what caught my eye:

• "The Americans had other assets as well. Over 150 tanks–over 100 of which were M4 Sherman tanks–had been committed to the invasion.[204] The M4 Sherman tank was superior to the Japanese Type 97 tank.[205] It was primarily used to support infantry and was considered one of the most effective weapons for destroying enemy emplacements.[206] Flame throwers were extensively used. Smith had seen the need for motorized flamethrowers and had requested that the Army's Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) in Hawaii install them in M3 Stuart tanks. Seabees with the CWS had 24 tanks, nicknamed "Satans", converted to flamethrowing in time for the invasion. They were very effective for destroying pillboxes, cave defenses, buildings, canefields, and brush."

• Moved the section on the tanks to "Opposing Forces". Kept the sections on artillery and portable flame-throwers in this section, as this is when they were actively deployed.

• "But his army's cohesion was disintegrating. Some of the remaining forces moved north, others holed up in whatever caves they could find and put up sporadic, disorganized resistance." - I noticed a few times earlier where a sentence started with "But", which felt clunky. And then the second part felt like it was missing a word, or a semicolon. Maybe "while others holed up"?

• Reworded sentences. Removed initial "But". Removed some of the other lead "But's" too.

• "On 4 July, the 27th Infantry Division and 4th Marine Division headed northwest. The 27th division reached the east coast at Flores Point, south of Tanapag" - wait is the 27th the same for both sentences here? How did it go northwest and end up east? Going around the tip of the island, I'm guessing? If so, maybe clarify that?

• That should have read "west coast at Flores Point". Fixed

• "and inflicting 80% casualties" - the rest of the article used exact number of casualties, not percentages, so I suggest using an exact number if you can.

  Added "about 900 casualties". I left 80% as a clause to illustrate the magnitude of the loss.

• "who survived the last banzai charge" - see my earlier comment about gyokusai or banzai, as long as it's consistent.

• Changed to gyokusai.

• "Eventually 1700" - why no comma?

• Added comma. (MOS:DIGITS states that commas are optional for four digit numbers.)

• " It was the Americans' most costly battle in the Pacific up to that time." - seems to have been deadly, not costly, unless I'm mistaken

• Changed to "deadly"

• What is "ordnance "?

• replaced with "shells during the battle".

• "Hirohito only accepted Saipan's eventual fall on 25 June when his advisors told him all was lost" - in 1944 or 1945? The last year mentioned was 1945, so I have to ask

• added 1944

All in all an interesting read about a battle I knew nothing about! Well done all around. Most of my notes should be pretty easy to fix/address (I hope). Lemme know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Hurricanehink. I've responded. Do these address the issues you pointed out? Wtfiv (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, thanks so much for the quick responses! Happy to support now. Good work on this. I don't usually read military articles, but I found this fairly easy to follow. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Source formatting seems consistent. Are "free Press" and "Metro books" really lowercase? Is Samuel Eliot Morison a reliable source? Some of what it says raises questions. Is http://www.historytoday.com/ a high-quality reliable source? In terms of reliability, it seems like we are working with good sources ... but even with WP:NONENG the fact that English and US-affiliated sources are almost the entire source body raises some WP:UNDUE concerns. Are there really no Japanese sources on the battle? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Capitalization: "Free Press" and "Metro Books" have been fixed.
• Morison as a source: "New Guinea and the Marianas, March 1944–August 1944." is part of the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. It is not a perfect source, as that article points out. Unlike the United States Marines and the United States Army, the United States Navy never published an official history. Morison's is the closest it comes. The Navy stated that Morison's history was not its official history. His advantage however, is that the navy gave him access to its records, gave him an office office in the Navy Department under the Director of Naval Records and History while writing the book, and a staff of assistance. See the Naval Command and Heritage site for a review of Morison. Morison's strength is clearly one of the reference sources for later histories of the Pacific War, including Ian Toll's Pacific War Trilogy and Hornfischer. (see Hornfischer's review of Morison here.) In using Morison as a source, I did not use his analyses or assumptions of motivations. I used what he had access to, (e.g., ship number, troops, information about plans, and the like.)

• Just to add here, Morison continues to be widely used by professional historians so is clearly a reliable source. He shouldn't be used in isolation as the books can be dated at times (and sometimes can be slightly eccentric), but that's not the case here. I've referenced Morrison in several FAs that passed with no concerns being raised over the source. The series remains the most detailed account of the US Navy in World War II. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Japanese sources: My contributions tend to aim to a close adherence WP:NONENG when possible, though I will provide foreign language sources with a quote and translation when they make a critical point (see Frederick the Great or Joan of Arc). One of the major problems in most writing about the island warfare in the Pacific is that almost all the Japanese witnesses died. Testimony from Japanese survivors interrogated by the military is included in the article. I did include English-language works from Japanese-speaking scholars studying the Pacific War. These include Tanaka, Irokawa, Kawamura, and Hiroyuki. The former three have author links with their sources. They mainly focus on how the battle impacted Japanese decision making at the grand strategic level.

• Ironically, one of the major sources for the Japanese military perspective on the island-as cited in the English-language sources- was Takashi Hirakushi. Almost all contemporary histories still cite him as a source, but as a footnote in the article suggests, his first-person testimony may not be reliable. Much of his testimony was initially shared under the name of an officer who had actually died in the fighting, and his story changed over time (cf., Hoffman's version written in the 1950s and Toland's summary based his interviews with Hirakushi in World War II), and some statements are contradicted by interrogations of other survivors. Problems with the details can be found in footnote h in the article. The sources in the footnote provide more information. I've provided convenience links to the sources wherever possible so English-speaking readers can verify the information themselves.

Wtfiv (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• oops, forgot about the Hughes. Removed it and replaced with Atroth.
• Also,with respect to Japanese sources: Trefalt is an English-speaking source, but her article gives a critical treatment of civilians in Saipan in her analysis of civilian survivor's diaries. Wtfiv (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've replaced the Hughes from history today with the peer-reviewed article by him in the Journal of Military History. It's more in-depth and fully cited.
• Interestingly, Hughes on pg 102 (with a footnote with specific references) also points out that the Japanese sources remain thin, though they would be useful. Very little of the Senshi Sōsho, the Japanese multivolume official history of the war has been translated, and it doesn't include the sections on Saipan Most personal memoirs by Japanese people who were at Saipan have not been translated either. Hughes mentions two untranslated memoirs about Saipan.

Wtfiv (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Hughes also mentions Saburō Ienaga's work, which was translated into English, The Pacific War: World War II and the Japanese, 1931–45 (1968; New York: Pantheon, 1978). I had access to this book when writing the article. It gives an overview of a Japanese perspective, but Saipan is not discussed. The closest he comes is a passing mention of the Battle of the Philippine sea as part of the Japanese military being ground down by overwhelming American production. Wtfiv (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Good but I wonder if there are other sources (non-military ones) here that could be used. I'll also stress that I am less adept at analyzing military sources than academic ones, so if there is some subtle bias I won't necessarily spot it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo, I am moderately up to speed with the Pacific Campaign, so I will reread the article with this in mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gog, did you get a chance to do this yet? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for missing this Ian. There didn't seem to be any bias to me, nor any clearly relevant and unused sources. In brief, I am happy - in the light of my checks and Jo-Jo and Wtfiv's comments with the sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, I missed this until now. When working on the article, I looked for relevant articles in journals without a military focus when researching the article in the academic search engines of had access to, including Google Scholar. They were few. I used Trefalt (2018) in The Journal of Pacific History analyses Japanese civilian's experience using Japanese diaries and memoirs, Plung (2021) in the Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus discusses Saipan in the context of evacuation policies in Japan, Giangreco (2003) in the Pacific Historical Review discusses American casualties in terms of policy decisions in the war. The Tanaka (2023) chapter in the edited volume The Modern Japanese Nation and Empire c. 1868 to the Twenty-First Century described where Saipan fit into Japanese defense strategy at the governmental level. Though Astroth (2019), Mass Suicides on Saipan and Tinian, 1944: An Examination of the Civilian Deaths in Historical Context. is a book, not a journal, its is an in-depth about civilian casualties in a larger historical context. Wtfiv (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

I also reviewed this in its A-class review. I'd like to offer the following comments in regards to meeting the FA criteria:

• The article appears to have been considerably expanded and copy edited since the ACR. It is clearly of FA standard - I can't find much to comment on, though I've made a few minor tweaks to tidy up the article.
• The lead is excellent, and a model of how they should be structured.
• As a very minor suggestion, I'd suggest replacing "took out" with something more formal, liked "destroyed" Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

done! Thank you for the review Nick-D! Wtfiv (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Coord note

Saipan's loss had a greater impact in Japan than all its previous defeats. Could be read as "all of its previous defeats put together" or "any of its previous defeats". Could we clarify in the text? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Wtfiv who may not have seen this note. Matarisvan (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Matarisvan, I did miss this! I've updated it to any of its previous defeats as per Ian Rose's suggestion. Wtfiv (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 September 2024 [94].

---

Act of Accord

Nominator(s): SerialNumber54129 17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

One prince promised a throne, another prince denied a throne, a queen spurned, a king humiliated, and all because of an agreement that satisfied no one and angered most. Accord... it didn't.

Let me know what you think! Many thanks! Cheers! SerialNumber54129 17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• What's the benefit of the footers on the multi-images? They seem to duplicate captions

• File:EdwardPrinceOfWalesBeauchampPagaent.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria, I've linked to the original publication, all PD by now. I have also removed the duplicate footers. They was, as you say, not achieving much. SerialNumber54129 12:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

SC

"One prince promised a throne, another prince denied a throne, a queen spurned, a king humiliated, and all because of an agreement that satisfied no one and angered most: sounds like a slightly stretched metaphor for the Tories at the time of Brexit. Have a couple of other things on my plate at the moment, but will be along to look over this. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, great analogy! With the rest of the country all looking at em and wondering how much more they can completely balls things up! SerialNumber54129 12:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

General

• There are seven uses of "however" in the text, which is probably at least six too many! I've skipped the lead for now, but will finish off with it

Only one 'however' left, in a footnote.

Background

• Note one seems a bit out of place here. It starts off talking about 'The labels "York and Lancaster"' , when neither of the terms have yet been used in the body.

Indeed. Moved to 2nd para; now note 2.

• "when a York had won": again, the York-Lancs division hasn't been raised in the body yet, and the reader needs to pre-understand the situation before getting to this. I think a sentence or two explaining why the politics was "partisan and factional" and who was involved in the "intermittent rises in violence and local disorder". It's a background section, so you're allowed to give a bit of potted history for people to understand rest.

Expanded the recent history; always clearly of getting carried away on the old hobbyhorse.

• "Salisbury marched": A fleeting image of a whole town (houses and all), marching cross country popped into my mind here! Maybe full title and link (plus identification of what side he's on)

Clarified in discussion of Yorkists.

• "York went into exile": ditto

Ditto.

• "Warwick and Edward of March": Ditto

Ditto

• "in Calais": probably best to add that this is in France – not everyone will know it's in a different country to the rest of the action

Done.

• "In the nine months since the Yorkists' exile": I know the tense sits well with the subsequent quote, but the grammar is a little off. "In the nine months following the Yorkists' exile" would be more in line with expectations

Thanks, adjusted.

• "The Calais lords returned to England in May 1459": Just checking on the date: they returned before they were attainted by the Parliament of Devils?

H'mm Ludlow castle a time machine? Bigger on the inside that on the out?! but changed, just in case it wasn't  :)

More to follow - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

York's claim

• There's a bit of a mismatch between the text and the tree which jars a bit. The text refers to John of Gaunt who isn't named as such in the tree, but as John, Duke of Lancaster. It took a long moment for me to dredge that up from my memory, and others—particularly who haven't been through the British education system—won't be able to make the connection at all. Same problem for Richard of Conisburgh of the text, who is the tree's Richard, Earl of Cambridge.

Adjusted their titles; added ordinal numbers for York, Lancaster and March, added death dates. Mass complicated table tab

• " Anne's grandmother, Philippa of Clarence, was the daughter of Lionel of Antwerp": Do we need to know this? I can't see the relevance

No, removed.

• "argues Brondarbit": who he?

New York comedian and PhD Winchester. Nice bloke. Knows what to do with cold canapes and warm wine.

• "when he landed": who is the 'he' here? I'm a bit lost in this bit with a plethora of names and a lot of 'he's being used – may need just a bit of a brush up for clarity

Hopefully, some names have been clarified? Replacing 'he'.

• "says Ross": who?

Linked.

• "but having been unable to do so": grammar ever so slightly off here. Maybe "but had been unable to do so"?
• Excellent, thanks.

Next sections and more to come. I can only echo Tim's words that I think this would possibly have done better with a PR first to iron out some of the wrinkles. – SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Recommencing with some minor tweaks and a support. Once comment, however: you need to decide whether you use King or king, as you have, for example, "The King was weak-willed" and "the king's efforts at reconciliation" running throughout. Consistency would be best. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks SchroCat, and I appreciate the edits. Well caught! On K/kings, my personal preference—I think an increasingly popular one today—is king for a no name, but King when named. So, e.g., 'the king said', 'the king went', etc, but 'King Henry said' and 'King Henry went'. but do the MOS:HEADS preclude such simplicity in favour of something more esoteric that allows them all to argue for 5,000 words at a time?  ;) I'm not absolutely pro or con any style, just whatever either a) makes it easier for me, or b) what we can all agree on! But I totally agree about consistency. SerialNumber54129 12:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think user:UndercoverClassicist gave a most succinct and helpful summary of how to turn the precepts of MOS:CAPS into practice, in a comment at another recent FAC: "... if the title stands in for someone's name (so "I met the Pope last Thursday" -> "I met Francis last Thursday"), it's capitalised, so most cases like "the Prime Minister did such-and-such" should be". Tim riley talk 07:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment Support from Tim riley

This article is not yet of FA standard: there are too many things wrong with the prose. It would, in my view, have been helpful if the article had been taken to peer review before coming here.

• "he and Henry were both direct descendents of Edward III"–"descendants" (OED and Chambers recommended spelling).

Absolutely.

• "York possessed two claims, through both the male and female lines"– but later we say "Unlike the Lancastrian claim, the Yorkist claim on the throne was based upon the female line of descent" – I can't make these two statements square with each other

I've recast that whole paragraph, which hopefully clears things up but also simplifies the explanation?

Much clearer now. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• "broke out into open battle, when a York had won a skirmish"– can one have "a York" tout court?

Not that one would want to, certainly!

• "In the nine months since the Yorkists' exile, "the political situation in England had again been transformed" – needs an attribution inline.

Check.

• "And coming there he walked straight on ..." –unclear why this big quote is given in modern English but the other one – "At which parlement the commones of the reame..." – is in medieval English.

Fair point: it's literally the sources. One transliterated, the other... don't, I'm afraid. I could do it, but at some point, it stops being merely mechanical and starts being original work.

Fair enough. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• "York's claim and right to the throne had long been recognised by the Royal council and in law, although it was theoretical until Edward of Westminster had also died childless." –I find this impenetrable. We need either a family tree or a clearer exposition of where the likes of Edward of Westminster fit in to the scheme of things.

Family tree, check.

Excellent! Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• "the Nevilles knew of York's plan prior to his arrival" –"before"?

Done.

• "Warwick's keenness to disassociate himself with York's plan" – "dissociate" and "from"?

Yes. Odd one that dis/as/sociate, I probably use them synonymously.

• "the Lords requested that the royal justices examine the matter ...The lords next turned the matter over " – capital or lower case for Lords/lords?

UC for House of, lc for people.

• "the king's god-given " – the OED prescribes a capital for "God-given".

Done.

• "Having to achieve popular acclamation, York had to push his case on a strictly legal basis" – Is there a word, such as "failed", missing here?

Quite an important word!

• "the prince of Wales own patrimony" – possessive apostrophe required

Done.

• Caption: "Richard of York, a descendent of Edward III's" – spelling ;of "descendant" and do we need the apostrophe-ess?

Check x2.

• "removal by forceable means"– "forcible" (OED and Chambers)

done.

• "Having sworn to protect the king's life, York presumably expected the king to do likewise" – doesn't say what I think you mean: not that the king would swear to protect the king's own life, but that he would swear to protect York's.

Changed to "expected the king to reciprocate".

Fine. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• " Queen Margaret into York's implacable enemy ... became more implacable in their resistance to the Yorkist government" – two implacables in one paragraph? Perhaps "resolute" or some such the second time?

Good choice.

• "it could also have driven Yorkist loyalists away" – either a different stop before "it" or a capital letter needed.

Semi-c'd.

• "Margaret could not accept the disinheritance of her son and perhaps encouraged her and her supporters to see York's death as now the only chance of returning Edward" – seems to be a missing word such as "this" after the first "and". And is "could" rather than "would" the correct word?

Both good.

• "stymied " – jarringly inappropriate word, suitable for 20th-century golf but not for medieval history

Glad to say I've never set foot on a golf course in either century... except in anger perhaps. Changed to 'prevented', although it doesn't convey quite the sense of 'stalled in her tracks'...

"thwarted" perhaps? Just a suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thwarted is just right.

• "Henry's supporters who were behind this malcontent" – in modern English "malcontent" means a disgruntled person; the state of being discontented is "discontent".

Thanks.

• "Rutland was probably probably knifed by Lord Clifford on Wakefield Bridge" – very probably.

Check.

• "while Salisbury was captured and later executed at Pontefract Castle." – does "while" mean "simultaneously" or just "and"? Needs clarification.

How bout "and Salisbury was captured after the battle, to be later executed"?

Absolutely fine, though just "and" would be fine too, I think. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Wakefield was a decisive blow for the Yorkists" – "for"? "to", surely? And as they eventually won, in what sense can it be called "decisive"?

True, it wasn't. Rm 'decisive'. For the other, I went with 'a hard blow to the Yorkists...', but I'm not sure that sounds right either!

If it were my prose, which of course it isn't, I'd say "a severe blow", but as always it's just a suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Severe, also good thanks.

• "The Lancastrians' supposed breach of the Act of Accord, including York's death at Wakefield, and how made them responsible" – missing a word, by the look of it; perhaps "it" after "how".

Indeed.

• "He was both inept as a ruler – presumably "he" is Henry, but this needs to be clear.

Named Henry.

• "Refectory.[31]" – I cannot work out the point, if any, of this footnote.

I admit, that was completely bizarre. going back to the source, I realise it was to clarify that the room they were in was their refectory!

That's all for now. Tim riley talk 10:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks Tim riley and SchroCat, I have spent much of the last decade carefully fashioning a circle of enemies, rather than friends.
  What happened here was that I forgot about the final—basic, if fundamental—stage of my approach: leave it overnight and do a final copyedit with fresh eyes. Sometimes, the last c/e might be light—typos, dup links, etc.—and sometimes heavy, such as moving stuff around and rewriting for clarity. This had a little of both. Still, Mutandis Mutatis is the cry around the hillside, and both your (much appreciated) comments above, often acting as a springboard to further development, have improved the article on how you would have found it had I not forgotten the final stage. What a palaver, though. Thanks again! SerialNumber54129 16:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey! Order, order! I'm not an enemy and nor is our mutual friend Schrocat. We are on your side, but must do our duty as reviewers. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thanks for your word suggestions, just the ticket. Re the above. Apologies: I don't see you as enemies at all, I was just putting myself down so as to save anyone else the trouble  :) as you say, the duty of the reviewer is sacrosanct. Thanks for your help. SerialNumber54129 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Fine. I'll look in again for another read-through soon. Tim riley talk 17:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Second batch of comments from TR.

Coming on nicely. Nearly there, I think. A few odds and ends:

• Lead

• "They, in turn, were defeated three months later" – "They" presumably being the Lancastrians, but you could make that clear, I think.

• Done.

• Background

• "that it impacted national politics ... Less impactful nationally" – two impacts in close proximity: perhaps change one or the other?

• "began interfering in government business"?

• "By 1459 ... despite the king's efforts at reconciliation" – but earlier you tell us that the King had become mentally incapacitated, comatose and unable to recognise his companions. Had he recovered somewhat? If so is there a source for that?

• Right. Opened the 3rd para of the section explaining that the king recovered his health, and sacked York.

• York's claim to the throne

• "the fourth surviving son of Edward Gaunt's younger brother" – I wondered for a moment who Edward Gaunt was, but I think a comma will make your meaning clear.

• Good spot!

• "Warwick had met with York in Dublin" – I generally maintain that in BrE (unlike AmE) one meets with things – fate, success, trouble etc, but just meets people, but here I can see that the profusion of geographical labels might be a touch dizzying. I wonder if "Warwick and York had met while they were both in exile in Dublin" might be smoother, but I don't press the point.

• OK...thanks, firstly for a clear way of remembering that difference. The only thing here that makes me pause is that, while they were both in their exiles, they were exiled to different places—Warwick to Calais, York to Dublin. Thoughts?

Good point (ahem!). Your original wording will suffice, but I wonder if it is necessary to mention the location at all? ""Warwick and York had met while they were in exile..."? I leave the ball in your court. Tim riley talk 17:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Negotiations and the act of Parliament

• "he bore the Langley arms ... he had never worn the Langley arms" – if he had never worn them in what sense did he bear them? Does this just mean he claimed entitlement to them?

• Butting in here - this looks to have been a typo, as Ross says it was the Clarence arms he never bore; I've gone and corrected it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• That's dead right, and many thanks, PMC, for fielding that! Absolutely correct, of course. SerialNumber54129 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's my lot, I think. I'll look in again shortly. Tim riley talk 08:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Tim; all of your suggestions adopted; just the matter of their exiles that's tripping me up a little. SerialNumber54129 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

With the recent improvements to the article it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and I am happy to add my support. But peer review first next time, perhaps? (Speaking of which—hint). Tim riley talk 17:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from PMC

Forthcoming within the week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Caveat - my comments are made with fairly minimal knowledge of the entire War of the Roses, so if I ask something particularly stupid, forgive me (but feel free to say so)

Lead

• Why was the king absent?

• No idea; in Berkhampstead, IIRC, bt he'd only opened the blooming parliament three days earlier, and since it seemed a bit of extraneous detail, all mention of his or York's absence is now... absent.

• "The queen, Margaret of Anjou, refused to accept the disinheritance of her son, although her husband had publicly supported the act." I might swap the clauses here so we flow from king's support to queen's refusal to the next sentence's opener of "she was joined"

• Thanks, reads much better.

• I've never heard of Margaret before but I think I love her already.

She was more King than her husband could ever hope to be!

• What was Henry doing while his wife was raising hell? Might be worth mentioning in the lead

Well, he's still in London; he was still king, but York and the Nevilles were running the government. He was a catspaw.

• "was crowned King Edward IV" - when? Right then, or later?

Dated.

Background

• I recognize that the situation is complicated, but this article is ~3500 words and the background is ~1100. The section about York's claiming of the throne is another 500. That's just shy of half the article all together just to set the scene, before the Act even comes up. Is it possible to condense any of these details?

Aaghh :) would it be OK, and the comradely act of a fellow editor, to throw SchroCat under the bus at this point ("Miss! It was his fault! He made me do it!")... I may have taken his suggestion of expanding the background too literally. I guess some words probably can be cut; can I take a deeper look into this point.

We'll have to cut his catnip rations for sure. No worries though, I realize I'm kind of being a hypocrite here, complaining about the length and then asking for several clarifying points :P

• "heir to the throne until 1453" - what changed?

Hh and the queen did their duty  :)

It is embarrassing to admit that "queen had a baby" genuinely didn't come to mind.

• "the maintenance of God's Peace" is "God's Peace" a specific notion distinct from just "peace", or would "peace" suffice?

Of course, absolutely.

• Henry was utterly incapacitated in 1453, but in 1455, he's able to raise a great council. When did he recover?

I think my clarification to Tim above (his 2nd trance, 2nd point under 'Background') might cover this; he asked something similar. Can you see if it's satisfactory to you too?

Looks good to me

• "King Henry was captured by the Yorkists after the battle" later he's taken prisoner again. when did he get let go?

Clarified that it was only for a couple of months.

• Both pairs of images are so tiny, I think you could safely make them bigger

Done. Yes, much better.

• "Henry Bolingbroke" who

Glossed him in that sentence.

York claims the throne

• The lead mentions that the king is absent when York makes the claim, but the body doesn't establish this (was the king still a captive at this time?)

see above, re. absenting.

I can see it being removed in the lead, but in the body of the article, not addressing where the king was during this moment really begs the question of why he didn't object to someone else strolling up and calling dibs on his chair

• This whole second paragraph is giving me just the worst secondhand embarrassment for York, it's like a Blackadder bit

Totally. Thought of the theme song at the time! "His great grandfather was a king / if only for 30 seconds" :D

• "York appears to have had Henry removed from his lodgings" - was the king still a prisoner or how did he do this?

Not really, they were the royal apartments, which York threw henry out of so he could live there. Nice attitude!

Negotiations

• Double checked Ross and Ross says he never bore the Clarence arms, so I've corrected that

Thanks again.

• "The resulting compromise was modelled on the 1420 Treaty of Troyes, which it mirrored;" "modelled on" feels redundant to "mirrored", I think we could pick just one

"The resulting compromise mirrored the 1420..."

• "York's political opponents could now legally be classed as traitors" this is likely a question from ignorance, but how did the Act give him this power?

Not at all. Clarified, hopefully, that it had always been treason to attack the heir to the throne, and now that was York, it applied to him.

• "The Act of Accord neither stopped the civil war..." - the second half of this sentence feels redundant to the first (mainly "nor resolved anything"). I see what you're doing, stylistically, but I don't see what it adds to the reader's understanding

Duly cut.

• "If she had been looking" - this sentence feels a bit knotted up in itself

Yes, verbose. Have tweaked.

Aftermath

• Same question as in the lead - where is Henry while Margaret is raising hell?

Still in London 'supporting' York's government...

• "Henry was accused of breaching the act long before that date" - in what way?

point. Have clarified what Henry was now accused of in breach of the act (and, I imagine, his coronation oath).

Okay, that's what I've got on first read-through. Again, I apologize for any questions that arise out of ignorance of English history, although I hope an outsider's perspective is helpful in terms of spotting things that may feel obvious to a more knowledgeable person. No rush on responses, cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: That's a great review, really helpful. To be honest, an outsider's review can be the most useful because that's 99% of the readership, I guess. Also, you hit (annoyingly!) on broad themes along with prose. I think I've addressed your points—all improvements—except where I'm sharpening a penknife! Cheers! SerialNumber54129 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The changes look good to me, there's just the background section and the question of the king's status during York's throne-touching incident that remains. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the few days' grace, Premeditated Chaos. I had another look and reduced the backgound section by 25%. I've also added a couple of sentences on what Henry was (not!!!) doing or thinking while this was going on. It's very vague, unfortunately. With no thought at all for the 21st-century historian, contempories didn't seem interested in what people weren't doing, only in what they were doing  :) but this should help clarify things a bit. Thoughts? SerialNumber54129 13:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I've had a quick re-read and I think all of my concerns have been addressed. The top half of the background I think is much better in terms of setting the stage for someone with minimal knowledge. Happy to support this one! (Unbelievably rude of people to not have been thinking of Wikipedia editors when they were writing stuff down in the 1400s, we should put in a complaint)

By the by, unrelated to my support, I have another McQueen collection at FAC. I found your commentary on The Hunger very helpful; if you have the time and interest to have a look at this one, I'd be very grateful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review and support, PMC; I enjoy your McQueen articles and will be happy to look in! Cheers, SerialNumber54129 14:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

John

Lead

What does this sentence mean?

Following much discussion—in which the king's serjeants-at-law and justices claimed that under the act, Henry was to retain the crown for life, but York and his heirs were to succeed him.

Background

In Late Medieval England, strong kings were seen as essential to sound governance and the maintenance of God's Peace.[5] Likewise, weak government was perceived as encouraging the collapse of law and order, and contemporaries saw this as happening in the last years of Henry's reign.

"Likewise" isn't right here. I'd just make a longer sentence and use "and".

Done.

York's claim to the throne

Warwick had met with York in Dublin while in their respective exiles.

Would "...while they were both in exile" be better?

Done.

York claims the throne

"When York entered London, he had his sword, and the Arms of England, born aloft before him, rather than the traditional Mortimer quarterings, emblazoned on his trumpeters' banners, in the manner of a king." I'm lost by the end of that sentence. What does it mean?

It was rather turgid! I've turned it into a couple of shorter sentences now?

Parliament

"Forty years later, the Act of Accord similarly decreed that Henry would retain the throne for his life, but that on his death, instead of descending to his son, Edward, Prince of Wales, it would do to York or York's heirs." "Do to" sounds awkward. I would reword this.

Done.

Aftermath

"Elsewhere in the country, events necessitated urgent government intervention. In Scotland, James II had captured Roxburgh Castle and was poised to march on Berwick." Scotland and England are different countries and were all the more so in the 15th century.

Blush!

"The Lancastrians' supposed breach of the Act of Accord, including York's death at Wakefield, and how it made them responsible for the civil war, became a mantra of Yorkist propaganda until the end of the dynasty in 1485." A mantra is something else. Would "theme" be a better word here?

Absolutely.

John (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking in, John, and for the suggestions. I've actioned them all—with a guilt trip for doing to Scotland in a couple of keystrokes what Edward I couldn't do in 30 years... SerialNumber54129 13:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Any objections if I just take a general hack at the prose? As others have pointed out, it isn't quite there yet. John (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The encyclopedia anyone can hack at, John  :) SerialNumber54129 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'm owed that for spotting the England/Scotland thing. Still smarting from the Euros... John (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Done, and please carefully inspect my edits to ensure I have not inadvertently changed any meaning. There may be one or two other bits and pieces, but those were the issues that were jumping out at me. John (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No John, that all looks good to me and reads nicely. Can't believe I never even mentioned the Wars of the Roses! The Homer Simpson of FAC, after all... SerialNumber54129 17:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Huh, not at all, it's an excellent and well-written article, it just needed a little polish. Still ok? John (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

thanks John, appreciated. SerialNumber54129 12:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Hi John, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: you should not ask; it is an impossibility. John can neither support nor oppose and to ask is infamia. The important thing is, the article underwent solid improvements and, as a result, the project wins. Thanks to all who took part on this page. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 20:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review

The page range of #21 seems pretty large. Is Boardman, A. and Boardman, A.W. the same author? Is there a logic behind some sources having an ISBN and others an OCLC? Regarding "The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: The Fourteenth-Century Political Community." there seems to be a 1987 and a 2002 edition, or is that just Google Scholar acting up? A similar question about "Historical Writing in England: c. 1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century". "Shadow King: The Life and Death of Henry VI" seems to be seldom cited in the wider world. Does "The House of Lords in the Middle Ages: A History of the English House of Lords to 1540" have a publisher? Seems like we are using major publishers, although I can't speak much about completeness or the authors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, JJE, taking your queries in turn:

1. Ha! Especially as the book is <200 pages long in total. A couple of other numbers fell in there; now corrected.
2. Boardman: yes. I tend to go by what's on the actual book I'm using, so sometimes just Andrew, sometimes A. W. Consistency is good though, so changed to the latter.
3. ISBNs: Well, since they've only been in common use since the late 70s, WorldCat ascribes an OCLC number to works predating this, a form of digital object identifier for books and journals I guess, available from Worldcat (I pass no comment on the fact that Worldcat is owned by, err, OCLC inc; no COI there, then, even though Wikipedia treats Worldcat as gospel!). In this case, you'll see that only the pre-70s books (Armstrong, Bellamy, Brie) use OCLCs, the rest are journals.
   I'm sure this is pretty much standard practice at FAC these days, isn't it, using OCLCs to predate ISBN? Apologies @FAC coordinators: if I've been doing it wrong all this time.
   • Strictly speaking I'm answering from FA editing experience as opposed to FAC coord knowledge but I think in this case it amounts to the same thing. I’ve long employed OCLC for books that have no ISBN, and it's always met with everyone's approval. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

   That's a good reason, but when I see inconsistencies, I generally query them unless the reason for the inconsistency is obvious. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

4. Given-Wilson: Indeed, acc. Worldcat it's been reprinted several times, although not necessarily revised; I used the 1987 edition because it's the one that I bought when it came out, and I'm still lugging the tatty thing around since :)
5. Gransden vol. II: Pretty much ditto; although, per WorldCat again, there have been several printings between 1982 and the present day. I use the 1996 printing of vol. II.
6. Sacked Johnson; not sure what I was thinking of. There's a Winter King] by the highly reputable RS Thomas Penn, on Henry VII; could've been that. Anyway, I replaced it and tweaked the language accordingly.
7. Enoch: yes, both publisher and location now filled. It's odd that the script didn't highlight it for me, though.

Thanks for looking it over, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Hopefully, all your points are clarified/addressed. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 17:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey Jo-Jo Eumerus is this a pass for you now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• @FAC coordinators: For the record, I'm holding out for five supporting reviews. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 10:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Shushugah

Hello Serial_Number_54129, a delightful article on a topic I know very little about. And a very accessible rewad, despite all the number of people.

• Although her husband had publicly supported the act, the queen, Margaret of Anjou, refused to accept the disinheritance of her son. In this, she was joined by the majority of the English nobility, who also opposed York. -> explicitly state who her Husband is and change to their son unless there's a good reason.

  Agree with both—done.

• Wiki link Yorkist government with House_of_York

  Done.

• Wiki link the queen with Margaret of Anjou

  Done (sort of); I thought it was unfair that all the men were first-named (Henry, Richard etc) but she was just a noun! So linked her directly.

• Include pages where it's part of a larger book, e.g Horrox SFN

  I'm guessing this is her ODNB article (and so also Pollard and Watts). It has something to do with the template; even though the version used is online, it presents it like a book. So it appears to need a page range but actually doesn't have one. And I got bored some years ago—as I think others did!—of fighting the bot that would randomly come along and regularly change it  :)

• The diagram is incredibly helpful and I wish more articles had them. Relying on colors is not super accessible (for both screen-reader users and non users). That said, I still noticed color mismatches. I would replace the color maps {{Cyan|Light blue}} with {{color|#0eacf8}} and {{blue|Dark blue}} with {{color|#047cb6}}. See the corresponding color coded examples for matching dark blue light blue?. The red/black are matching as is. I need to think more what is best way to make them accessible. Perhaps also corresponding border styles (dotted, dashed, thickness) etc...

  Thanks for the kind words! the table was kind of fun but also a complete PITA considering I haven't got a technical bone in my body. I've replaced the light blue with Purple as a possibly temporary measure; but if you have any further suggestions along the lines you propose I'd appreciate hearing them! ACCESS hasn't, I'm afraid, embedded itself in the general FAC mindset yet.

• Is York Protector, Lord Protector and Protector all referring to same title? If so, use full name the first time instead of third time

  Done.

• Change Further readings to External links per MOS:LAYOUT

  The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away  :)

• Thanks very much for looking in, Shushugah, a very pleasant surprise. Thank you, too, for your comments, which are appreciated. I've actioned them, except where I've explained otherwise. And I'm interested in your suggestions re. the chart. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 12:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 giving this a final round of reviews. I always find a few days in between helps me catch stuff I missed the first time round.

• Replace This began systematically destroying York's and the Nevilles' Yorkshire estates with This began the systematic destruction of York's and the Nevilles' Yorkshire estates

  Done.

• Lede can be shortened from son Edward, Earl of March, who was crowned King Edward IV on 28 June 1461 to son was crowned King Edward IV on 28 June 1461. We don't need his original title in the lede.

  Done.

• Either italicize The Brut Chronicle in the quote, or remove The here

  Adjusted (although per the actual page name, not what I had previously guessed it to be).

• suggest replacing had not attended and so argued that they did not consent to the act and nor were they bound by it with had not been in attendance, and thus had not consented to the act, nor were they bound by it

  This is slightly more tricky: "nor were they bound by it" sounds a definitive statement being given in wikivoice, whereas the source is more ambiguous: "...and could not be regarded as bound by [the act]". Perhaps a direct quote would better represent the opinion of a single historian.

• I made accessibility adjustments to the graph. Still not exactly screen-reader accessible. Am thinking of ideas there

  Open to any improvements, of course.

• What is the sort logic for orders of certain pairs? e.g (Philippa/Edmund Mortimer), (Henry Bolingbroke/Earl of Derby) and (Henry VI/Margaret of Anjou)

  Could you clarify, please? Basically, the first listed is the the relevant descendant. So, regarding Philippa and Edmund, she was the daughter, he merely her husband; Henry VI likewise the son of his father and Margaret, his wife; and to be honest, I can't see how Henry IV (an only (surviving) son) is a pair at all unless you mean his titles?

• Haigh, P. A. and Haigh, P. not consistent in Works Cited

  Done.

• Lewis, K. J is out of order ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well spotted, she got lost amid the Laynesmiths.

• Thanks Shushugah, and no worries about waiting. If I were in a rush, I would have given up years ago  :) Thanks for these suggestions, I've got a couple of queries but nothing drastic. Thanks again, SerialNumber54129 20:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support this nomination, even though there is no deadline 🎉 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks very much Shushugah, I appreciate your comments and edits, especially around MOS:ACCESS. If you've got any suggestions for my replies above, I'd like to implement them, but it's up to you, of course. Cheers! 🍻 SerialNumber54129 00:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Coord notes

SN, can you add sourcing for the family tree? If everything was also in the text and sourced there I wouldn't ask but not every member/relationship is, e.g. Philippa of Hainault. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ian Rose, is this what you were thinking, or a footnote? (Apologies for miscapitalising your name there.) Thanks for the suggestion! SerialNumber54129 13:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, tks. FTR, this was part of my coord-y pre-promotion checks, which I'll continue later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Another thing... Most quotes are attributed, and some that aren't seem fine as is, but:

• "take the full part" with York -- perhaps just paraphrase?
• "find ... all such things as might be objected and laid against the claim" -- is this actually Henry, or the source?
• "through the sinister labours of persons intending the king's destruction" -- said who?
• "unrest, inward war and trouble, unrightwiseness, shedding and effusion of innocent blood, abusion of the laws, partiality, riot, extortion, murder, rape and vicious living" -- said who?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks Ian. Unless you're absolutely determined, well, I'm rather keen on the first quote, context etc. The second one is Henry, or more accurately, the parliamentary record of what he said, but obviously, that's more or less the same thing. (Here's a modern transcription). The third and fourth are also the parliamentary record (again, more accurately, the last is the record of a petition of the Commons presented to the King, but again, it's effectively the same thing as they all get recorded in the Rot Parl). I've added inline attribution for these three. Any good? SerialNumber54129 17:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yea verily, good enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Lol Ian Rose  :) by the way, I was holding out for five supporting reviews; a wise move, d'you think, or would we still be here next year  ;) SerialNumber54129 19:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Desperate fellow! I did note that and I think John's review amounts to support. In any case I don't think anyone can argue that critical comments have been resolved and there is consensus to promote... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2024 [95].

---

Weise's law

Nominator(s): ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Ever wonder why Greek and Sanskrit cognates involving gutturals don't always match up like you expect and usually before an /r/ sound? Yeah, me either. But in 1881, a German linguist commented on this oddity and proposed a sound law to explain it. "Largely forgotten by the scholarly world", the law developed newfound interest when Dutch linguist Alwin Kloekhorst gave the law a full defense in 2011, giving Dr. Weise a high honor: naming it after him. As of now, there are no Proto-Indo-European FAs and only one other GA, which is something I'm hoping to fix. This article may be of interest to you if you speak a language affected by the law, including a Balto-Slavic language, Albanian, Armenian, or any of the Indo-Iranian languages, such as Farsi or Hindi. I would like to extend my thanks, first and foremost, to UndercoverClassicist who beat this article into shape during its GA nomination, swung by to help out during PR, and overall just gave great feedback. Also thanks to RoySmith and Matarisvan, both of whom gave me great feedback at PR as well. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Good to see this here -- will pop in at some point. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Count me in for a review! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 10:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: Courtesy ping. Just wanted to see if you were still interested in reviewing this since it's been a few weeks. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "Presented at a conference in 2008". Who or what was presented?

• Rephrased.

• "several different sources on the topic, both referencing Weise and not". This would work better as 'several different sources on the topic, some referencing Weise and some not' or similar.

• Done.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Gog! Looking forward to your comments. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• "while the palatovelar stops generally were made into alveolar sibilants in most cases". You don't need to say both "generally" and "in most cases".

• Good catch. Fixed.

• "Sanskrit words contain many potential violations of the rule occurring". I am not sure this is grammatical. Try deleting "occurring".

• Fixed.

• "However, these are often the result of later sound changes particular to a language or language family such as in Sanskrit"> I am a little confused; "such as in Sanskrit", as opposed to what?

• In short, there appear to be violations of the law which are explainable by sound changes that took place after the law. In Sanskrit, as an example, /l/ becomes /r/ in many circumstances. Because of this, śr clusters appear to be violations of the law – since ś is largely, if not only, derived from PIE *ḱ – because *ḱ cannot precede *r according to the law. But because these words may be the result of a PIE *ḱl cluster, there is no violation. The examples serve to demonstrate such cases.

In which case I suggest that a bit much is being asked of this sentence. Perhaps something like 'However, these are often the result of later sound changes particular to a language or language family. Examples can be found in Sanskrit, where ...'

Fixed.

• Non-actionable comment: I like your two uses of "In other words". Is this deliberate minor humour?

• I'd love to say yes, but this is the template phrase of someone used to reading and writing technical jargon trying to make it more accessible. In other words, sadly no. :-)

• "The law must have occurred by". I know what you mean, but I am unsure that it works as prose. Perhaps unpack "The law" to say just what it was that "must have occurred by"? Similarly with references to "the law" in the last sentence of the paragraph.

• I've changed a few of these up; I think I'm understanding you right. If not, could you offer a suggestion?

Yep, that's fixed it.

• And in "there is positive evidence that the law never occurred in Armenian" and similar uses. I am not sure that "the law occurred" etc communicates well to a reader.

• Ibid. above

Likewise.

• "linguists suggest that this sound change occurred before the centum–satem split." All linguists, most, or some?

• Now that I'm looking at it again, I think it's really just Kloekhorst saying that. I've changed it to reflect that.

• "Although, because the results of Weise's law seem more extensive outside the Indo-Iranian languages, Kloekhorst notes that it is likely that a secondary wave of depalatalization law took place at a later date in each of those language families." ' Kloekhorst notes that it is likely that a secondary wave of depalatalization law took place at a later date in each of those language families, because the results of Weise's law seem more extensive outside the Indo-Iranian languages' seems easier to parse.

• Done.

• "See Centum and satem languages § Satem languages for more." Maybe '... for further information' [or 'detail', or discussion']?

• I like "further discussion". Fixed.

• "Larry Trask also categorizes both". Categorizes both as what?

• Clarified.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gog. Thanks for your feedback. I've responded accordingly. Let me know what you think. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Just one come back of note above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Everything should be addressed now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• I am leaning support, but as it is early days for a technical topic I am going to hold off formalising this until I see what other reviewers think. In particular their view of WP:TECHNICAL "Wikipedia articles should be written for the widest possible general audience." I think that it passes this, but only just, and would like to see others' opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Rereading, the article seems more accessible than I left it - thank you UndercoverClassicist and the nominator. And UC has explicitly approved of the level at which it is pitched. Who am I to disagree. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you for the comments and support. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Support by Borsoka

Before starting a detailed review, I think the article needs some expansion:

• the main text could explain that the sound change is assumed to have occurred in Proto-Indoeuropean;

• If I'm reading you correctly, discussion on this is found in the "Relative chronology" section, where I've written about the two competing views: Kortlandt (Proto-Indo-Iranian only) and Kloekhorst (late Proto-Indo-European, excluding the Anatolian languages).

• Proto-Indoeuropean could very shortly be introduced;

• Done.

• I assume that the three sounds mentioned in the article are not attested, but assumed - this should be clarified. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think this has been fixed with what I wrote for the above suggestion, since I talk about how PIE is hypothetical and no record of it exists. I go over that in the representational conventions in "Terminology", so I think all the bases are covered.

I have responded accordingly. Please let me know if I misunderstood anything or need to do anything else. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Gentle nudge to see if you're still planning on reviewing/giving support. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Consider mentiong in the first section that an asterisk (*) indicates a non-documented/constructed term or sound.

• Hard to think of a non-awkward way to jam this in, but I think I picked an okay spot. Let me know what you think.

• Although almost no attested language in the Indo-European language family distinguishes between these three sets of consonants,... Could the negative statement be replaced by a positive one? "Although only one/two/... atteste languages - X, Y, and Z - distinguishes ..."

• Sure can. Changed to Although only one branch of the Indo-European language family – the Anatolian languages – maintained a distinction between all three sets of consonants, [...] ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• I guess the map presents a PoV about the Proto-Indoeuropean homeland. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Presents POV" as in "is relevant to the discussion at hand" or as in "needs to be removed for WP:NPOV"? I think since this is an early PIE law, it makes sense to show PIE in its early Urheimat. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• I doubt that we know the exact borders of PIE's Urheimat. Furthermore, alternative location exists (such as Anatolia and Armenia) even in mainstream literature. We should mention who proposes this location. Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, fair enough. I did a source check for the image and have changed the caption to reflect that the the darker green reflects the estimated range of the Yamnaya culture specifically and added some contextual comments about the steppe hypothesis with appropriate sources. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Excellent article. Thank you for completing it. I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a ton. I appreciate your time and your comments. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

UC

I am struggling to find too much to say, though I know I have already stuck my oar in a great deal on this article. I hope the below is useful nonetheless. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for your help on this article. I've fixed most of what you've pointed out and responded to the rest accordingly. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Support -- I think I'm probably at the end of my expertise here, but I think we're in a much better place -- balancing technical detail and comprehensibility in an article like this is extremely tricky, and as far as I can see it's about as good as it can be. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

No doubt. Thank you for your tireless effort making this article more accessible and better quality. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• The biggest point throughout -- I still think we could do more to help non-linguists understand what is going on here, particularly in the lead. I admit that I was never particularly good at philology in undergrad, but I've got pretty good training in it and find causes the depalatalization of the palatovelar consonants *ḱ *ǵ *ǵʰ in certain contexts. In short, when *ḱ *ǵ *ǵʰ are followed by *r, they depalatalize and thereby merge with the plain velars *k *g *gʰ, respectively, unless the *r is followed by *i or the palatalized form is restored by analogy pretty tough to parse. I also found the penultimate paragraph of the "Overview" section a little tricky.

• I've been thinking about how to de-technicalize the lede for some time now. I think I've figured it out, but let me know if I'm still off the mark. As for the penultimate paragraph in "Overview", I've also rewritten part of that. Same goes.

• I wonder whether "merge with" is likely to be confusing for most readers -- I'm not sure many non-linguists will parse it as "become [indistinguishable from]". A bit later, with One such example of this is Sanskrit अज्र ájra 'field, plain', which is derived from h₂éǵ-ro- 'field, pasturage'; in this example, the reflex of the palatalized consonant has been restored: can we say what it would be if Weise's law were followed, or what's "wrong" with ájra under it? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Had to do a little source-digging and ended up clearing up a few things I thought could be further de-technicalized, but I added the expected reflex for ájra. As for the "merge with" issue, I asked a non-linguist whether that term was clear and they confirmed your concerns, so some thoughts: With respect to changing it to "become indistinguishable from" as an alternative, I'm concerned this may lead to the belief that they are still somehow distinct in some meaningful way; linguists do distinguish surface representation from deep structure. In other words, something may not be distinguishable in discourse, but may still be distinguishable in some other way. What I've done instead – since I cannot think of an sufficiently broad term that is correct in the linguistic sense – is link Phonological change#Merger. I think this will adequately address my technical concern about accurate terminology and the general concern about accessibility to non-linguists. Let me know what you think. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Would there be anything wrong with saying that one sound merging into another is, for all intents and purposes, that sound simply becoming the other one? I think the link helps, but as the tooltip doesn't give a definition (as it's linking to a section), it's not a perfect solution. Some sort of gloss on merge to explain that it includes taking on the same sound (even if it doesn't strictly mean that) might be possible? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason I am a bit wary of "become" in this context is that it doesn't convey that the plain velars were already in the language; I think it sounds like they became novel sounds in the language. Could I steal the terminology from Phonological change#Merger and say that the distinction between the palatovelars and the plain velars was lost? ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that would probably work? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think this has been adequately addressed now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• One thing that I think would help with this is a demonstration -- could we perhaps do a table with three columns -- PIE, [example centum language -- Latin?] and [example satem language -- Sanskrit?], with a few words that show the distinction written out in easily-parsed transcription?

• I'm not opposed to that, but I'm not sure what should be demonstrated with a table. There is a table on the Centum and satem languages page, which demonstrates the difference, which I suppose I could add with real examples (instead of just descriptions) to show the difference between the two fairly generally. The problem is, in the cases in which Weise's law applies, the difference between centum and satem languages can't be differentiated as a result of that depalatalization; Weise's law basically causes the "pseudo-centumization" of certain palatal sounds. I'm also concerned that using attested languages like Latin and Sanskrit may be unhelpful to the layperson because they will invariably show forms that are the result of later sound changes and may further confuse someone unfamiliar with historical linguistics.

• Similarly, some of the (entirely correct) technical notation could be written in plain language without sacrificing much: instead of (e.g., Sanskrit: श्रवस् śravas 'fame' < *ḱleu-es-; ह्राद् hrād 'to resound, to make a noise' < *ǵʰleh₃d-), try for example, the Sanskrit word for 'fame', śravas, derives from the Proto-Indo-European *ḱleu-es.

• Fair enough. Fixed.

• The law is named after German linguist Oskar Weise: a false title: this and similar are better as "the German linguist..."

• Done.

• According to Alwin Kloekhorst, Weise's original article has "been largely forgotten by the scholarly world",: is the tense quite right here, given that Kloekhorst was trying to bring it back to scholarly attention? Might be more accurate to do was largely forgotten as a paraphrase. I think we do need to put a date on K's work here.

• I'm not gonna push back too hard here, but I'd say it's still kind of forgotten. I think Kloekhorst did a good job reminding others that the law existed and sort of established the boundaries better than Weise did, but sound laws like Grimm's, Szemerényi's, and Verner's are commonly mentioned in the field's literature, whereas even narrow etymologies of Sanskrit don't mention it at all. Still, I'm willing to stand down on this if you think Kloekhorst successfully brought it back to scholarly attention, but I'm skeptical. That all said, I've dated the quote as requested.

• Note how the tongue's point of contact or constriction moves increasingly forward, from the palate to just behind the teeth. the MoS discourages editorial asides like "note how...", and takes the position that everything we write is notable. Better simply to start the sentence at The tongue's...

• Fixed.

• Another tough bit: since the metathesis of late Proto-Indo-European *u and *r occurs after both the divergence of Anatolian (e.g., Hittite: 𒍝𒈠𒀭𒆳 zama(n)kur 'beard' < *smóḱ-ur) and any depalatalization under Weise's law.

• Good call. I revamped this paragraph entirely.

• there is positive evidence that this kind of depalatalization never occurred in Armenian (սրունք srunkʿ 'leg' < *ḱrūs-ni-; մերձ merj 'near, close to' < *méǵʰsri).: as above, I think it might help to write out the bit in brackets in layman's terms.

• Yep. Done.

• Albanian and Armenian have a controversial placement in centum–satem taxonomy. See Centum and satem languages § Satem languages for further discussion: this currently seems a bit disjointed, since we then talk about this in the last paragraph of the article.

• Yeah, I originally put this in here to get in front of any head-scratching coming from someone with linguistics knowledge, especially since I originally wrote an extremely technical article (i.e., one in which a reader would only have gotten that far with some background in PIE linguistics). I think the discussion on the page is better (and better sourced), so would it be better to just {{slink}} the "Relative chronology" section of this article instead? Or should I just remove it outright?

• I think it mostly works: While the law does not affect most of the generally accepted centum languages, Kloekhorst considers Albanian and Armenian to be satem languages: is it worth sticking in the middle "it does affect Albanian and Armenian; most scholars categorise these as centum languages, but Kloekhorst..."? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

My take on the scholarship is that "Albanian and Armenian are satem languages" comprises a plurality – but not a majority – of opinions on the topic. I'd say "Albanian and Armenian exist outside the dichotomy/exist on a spectrum within the dichotomy" is a close second (usually in "inoffensive" contexts, such as intros to the field and papers in which Albanian and Armenian do not constitute a significant portion of the data). And I found this to remain the case as I developed the article, though scholarship is changing somewhat on what exactly the dichotomy is as a whole. That's why I simply put "have a controversial placement" rather than implying any sort of majority opinion because I don't think any polls or reviews of the literature would support an outright majority. And if they did, it might be outside the scope of this article; Weise's law affects these two languages, so for the purposes of most of scholarship on the law, they are categorized as such and that's really all the reader needs to know. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

In which case, we need to think about the phrasing of While the law does not affect most of the generally accepted centum languages..., since this implies that Albanian and Armenian are generally-accepted centum languages. I'm not sure you need to come down hard either way, but we should avoid giving the reader the wrong impression. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. It's fixed, but let me know if the verbiage is still off. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Make sure that footnotes always end in a full stop (the citation template adds one automatically, as does sfn; harvnb doesn't) -- see note 3 for instance.

• Good catch. I think I got all of them now.

SnowFire

Nice work.

I know that having some commentary or suggestions is common to sort of "prove" that the reviewer actually read the article, but I'm a little gunshy of making such on a highly technical topic, and when UC above has already massaged the prose pretty well. I did read Kloekhorst's paper for comparison and it seems summarized and fairly represented, but usual disclaimer goes that I'm not a linguist here, and some of the summations probably require someone who really knows the field for a 100% confidence review.

The main concern is the one that both Gog & UC alluded to above: that this topic is going to be a rough read for "casual" readers who aren't familiar with linguistics and the details of PIE theories. I agree with UC that some sort of table of sample words would be a nice-to-have as something, anything that casual readers can glom onto - even if what it's demonstrating is actually a similarity rather than a difference. But I read the examples in Kloekhorst's paper, which are all hypothetical old words and about as clear as mud, so... respect that this is hard to do, since modern languages have concealed the difference leaving us with Old Avestan and reconstructed PIE. Basically, some sort of "here's a reconstructed word with *ḱ, here's a word that should have a *ḱ but really has a *k because it's followed by *r, here's a word that has a *ḱ and is followed by *r*i" might be nice. While I think this would be helpful, it's not enough to block promotion - just something to strongly think about if there's a good example in the sources. (And if there are good examples in modern languages, that'd be even better.)

A cautious support - this is one of those topics I suspect isn't very main page friendly (only hardcore linguists stumble on this article by accident), but there's absolutely a place for that in FAs. SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

First, thank you for your kind words and support. I was concerned this page would languish in FAC limbo with only two supports, so thank you for voicing your support here as well.

With respect to the table, I took both yours and UC's table hopes to heart and I genuinely cannot think of a way to adequately tablify the concept without it descending into extreme theoretical historical linguistics. In effect, what Kloekhorst is arguing is that at an earlier date, the palatalized consonants may have been more widespread, but PIE is reconstructed through the comparative method and every daughter language appears to have depalatalized either all palatals (centum languages), all palatals before resonants (satem languages, except Indo-Iranian), or all palatals before *r alone (Indo-Iranian). This is why Kloekhorst doesn't give examples, only possible counterexamples. I gave the Avestan example from de Vaan as a helpful explanation, but both Kroonen (p. 244) and Matasović (p. 224) reconstruct the root as *krep- and I don't see any real reason to reconstruct the palatovelar except perhaps to posit a relationship with another root. All this to say, I made a table after UC's comments, but found myself realizing why Kloekhorst wrote the paper the way he did.

Again, thank you for supporting the article for FA. If you have any suggestions later or think of some way to further de-technicalize the article, feel free to let me know. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass; image review pending

File:Eisenberg Wohnhaus Oskar Weise Tafel.jpg needs a licence for the plate. I wonder if the information in the files of the "overview" section can be sourced. File:Centum Satem 2000BC.png is even tagged for such and should probably say where the underlying map comes from.

Is there a logic between the use of quotes in the references? Also, many inconsistent IDs in the sources section. "Kleiner, Kurt (19 February 2024). "New Linguistics Technique Could Reveal Who Spoke the First Indo-European Languages". Scientific American. Retrieved 1 August 2024." is a somewhat so-so source IMO.

Spotcheck:

• 5 Can I have a copy of this page?

  I must confess I don't know where this is stated on the page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• No worries. It's under dorso-palatal for the first instance and dorso-velar for the second. They are both at the top right of the page in question. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Seems like "The precise pronunciation of these sounds is not known," needs another source then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm just going to delete that bit. It's functionally covered by the fact that PIE is hypothetical anyhow. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• 6 The first part is supported. Can I have copies of the other pages?

  OK, but where is the tongue movement described? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, I removed that since spotcheck began; while it is true that the tongue moves, it's not pertinent to the process of assibilation (e.g., [c] → [ç] is still assibilation even though the place of articulation remains the same), so I removed it pursuant to WP:OFFTOPIC. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• To me the tongue movement is still there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I deleted it on the first of this month. Don't know why it's still coming up for you. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  "which are described as being articulated with the back part of the tongue and the soft palate" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I thought you were talking about the image captions. The tongue positioning can be found on that page at the top right two entries, dorso-palatal and dorso-velar. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• 8 OK
• 9 Can I have a copy of this page?

  Seems to support its content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• 10 Can I have a copy of this page?

  Supports part of the content, but I don't have 9. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. I've added Beekes 30 and 303 to the dropbox accordingly. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• OK, it now checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• 12 Can I have a copy of this page?

  Supports a bit of the content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• 14 Is this supported by the other source?

• Yes, per Beekes: "Assibilation, the development of a palatal or palatalized consonant into a °sibilant or (a cluster or) an °affricate with a s-sound as a second element; e.g. PIE *ḱmtom > Skt. śatám, Av. satəm; Latin centum > Ital. cento [č-]." (p. 302, where "°" signifies "defined elsewhere")

• AGFing on this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• 16 OK (I can read German and checked the translation)
• 19 I think this source might actually benefit from a quotation.

• Okay, I added a few. The two pages contain a lot of information to confirm Kortlandt's thoughts on the topic, but I tried to minimize the length to make the point.

• OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• 21 OK
• 23 OK
• 25 Can I have a copy of this page?

  I've seen this page, but I don't get "The effects of the law are commonly found in zero-grade stems – that is, stems without their typical vowel – which often receive inserted vowels in the daughter languages in order to ease pronunciation" from it nor "Although the original palatovelar *ḱ does not immediately precede *r in the Avestan reflex, it is still in accordance with the depalatalization described by Weise's law since *ḱ immediately precedes *r in the zero-grade form *ḱrp-os-". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Okay, I've cited the definition of zero-grade per Beekes and changed the wording for the first concern. For the second concern, *ḱ and r are separated in the reflex (see the romanization provided) and de Vaan says that the zero-grade is affected as a result of Weise's law and may go back to *ḱrp- on p. 138. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Gonna AGF here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• 26 Can I have a copy of this page?
• 27 Can I have a copy of this page?

  26 supports only part of the content and 27 seems to point to the wrong page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• 26 supports the whole claim: "PIE: *krep- [...] oblique case-stem of the PIE etymon, *krp-". Matasović uses "case-stem" instead of the term "zero-grade", but they refer to the same thing. As for 27, the page is correct (p. 244); Kroonen even gives the same Old Avestan example as de Vaan and shows both the full grade (*krép-es-) and the zero grade (*krp-). ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Gonna AGF here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Page 244 for me is the *h alphabetic point, not *k, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I see where the confusion is coming from. Kroonen 2013 is a Proto-Germanic dictionary; as a result of Grimm's law, PGmc *h is the typical reflex of PIE *k and *ḱ, so we should expect most PIE roots beginning with *k or *ḱ to appear in the *h section of PGmc dictionaries. If you read the *hrefiz- entry, you should see where Kroonen points to the *krep- root etymology. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• 29 Needs a page number.

• Already paginated: 266.

• Got this, but I am not sure that it supports " but in a context that would not subject it to the sound change" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• This should be fixed now. It looks like I wrote backwards a little bit; I've added a clear restoration model example and clarified that the ajra example should align with the morphemic boundary model. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• 32 Can I have a copy of this page?

  Got it, doesn't say it's unrelated to ajra. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, I've just given the appropriate etymologies without comment re: the relationship to ajra. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• 33 Needs a page number.

• Already paginated with quote: 268.

• OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• 36 Is there a transcript of the pertinent part of the video?

• Not that I'm aware of, but I'll see if I can't whittle down the ~10 min time frame/quote the appropriate parts of it. ETA: Added a quote from the slide.

• OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• 37 I am not sure that this actually says that Indo-Iranian languages had secondary depalatization.

• It doesn't. First usage is to discuss later depalatalizations in Albanian and Balto-Slavic only and the last usage explicitly carves out the Indo-Iranian languages from the statement.

• OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• 41 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC) @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the source/image review. I'm planning to fix these sometime in the next 24 hours or so, barring any unforeseen circumstances. I've responded to a few things above. As for getting copies of the pages, how should I go about doing that, given that the source is copyrighted? I've never done this through Wikipedia before. Re: quoting strategy, there isn't one. Mostly, if I thought the context were relevant or the quote particularly useful, I added it. I tended to exclude quotes that were particularly technical. Re: inconsistent IDs, I'm not sure what you mean. Could you give an example? Re: the plate, should any additional licensing be necessary, given that Germany has freedom of panorama? Thanks again for the review. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, got to more of these. A few questions/comments. For the articulation images, can just I cite Beekes's definition of assibilation (palatalized consonant → affricate or sibilant) or is there something else that should be cited? For the map, I've cited the general areas where these were. I can attempt to recreate the map without coloration if you insist. As for the SA article, I'm not sure what's objectionable about it; the author cites or interviews reputable linguists (Olander, Clackson, etc.) and Renfrew's claims are the minority, but well-known and have some support; I think he's wrong (see Goedegebuure source), but there are linguists who agree with his reasoning and he holds a high position at a reputable institution. It's a reputable source per WP:RSPSS for popular science, which is its only function here. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Beekes' definitions would work. With the maps, I mostly want to see where the background map comes from. The thing with SA is that such popular science things often have somewhat lower standards than journals and thus may not satisfy the "high-quality" requirement of WIAFA. Although I confess that such a source was allowed into 1257 Samalas eruption so I guess it's not an universally shared concern. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've cited Beekes as discussed. Re: the map, I have no idea where it comes from. Can I suggest replacing it with File:Indo-European migrations.gif or File:Indo-European steppe homeland map.svg and changing the caption accordingly? I think SA is fine for what it is here, but if you really feel strongly about it, say so and I will look for a different source. In any case, let me know how you would like me to transmit the copyrighted pages you requested above. I'm happy to type out the quotes if that's acceptable, but if there's an easier/better/more appropriate way, just let me know. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the Dropbox or Google method, but email is probably easier. Aye, the image should be replaced if its information can't be sourced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so I've found links for Adams et al. 1997, Monier-Williams 1899, and Beekes 2011 on the Internet Archive. Your user page also indicates that you have access to JSTOR; if that's true, you should have no problem getting Trask 2000 through the link provided. If not, just let me know and I can copy down some pages. Books for 25, 26, and 27 were already linked; are you having trouble accessing them for some reason? I think that should cover everything, but of course let me know if you need me to provide any more sources. ETA: I have also replaced the image as discussed. The citations are nested in the Commons, but present. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, Trask 2000 apparently isn't in the JSTOR package. IA seems to be occasionally flaky when it comes to which pages it shows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've addressed everything above. Pages not found in links provided in the article can be found in this Dropbox. Let me know if there are any more concerns, if IA keeps acting up for you, or if you have trouble getting access to DB for whatever reason. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

'fraid that this dropbox requires a login. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Try this link. I tested it logged out so hopefully it should work now, but let me know if it doesn't and I can just email it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It works now. Noting though that it doesn't have all the works that I need to check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Great, glad to hear it. I did a little spot check and it looks like everything requested has either been provided in the dropbox or have been linked in the current revision of the page. If IA continues to give you trouble, let me know and I can drop some more pages for you. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Now I think #32 is the only one missing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

In the dropbox now with the beginning part highlighted. Monier-Williams uses an older form of linguistic shorthand so you should read "fr. √aṅg" as "from [the] root aṅg" ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think I caught everything, but I've been wrong before. Let me know if you have any more concerns. Thanks for your patience and understanding. I know this is a seriously technical set of sources. 00:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC) ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like this review is done; you can deactivate the Dropbox. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks a ton for the review/support. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Added for the benefit of the coordinators: The sourcing in the captions of File:Voiceless palatal plosive.svg, File:Voiceless alveolar sibilant affricate.gif and File:Voiceless alveolar fricative articulation.svg needs additional page numbers, or a suggestion to look up the terms in the source via search. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this requiring action on my end? Happy to add more pages to the dropbox if need be. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily; an explanation of how to find it in Beekes, or additional pagenumbers, should suffice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Beekes gives the example of [c] (ḱ) → [s] on the page cited and [ts] is used to express "an affricate with a final s-sound as the second element". What needs to be explained further? Do I just need to add something like "p. 303 § Assibilation"? ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Um, the captions of the images. The file descriptions don't explain why the particular tongue movements should be palatal stops, alveolar fricatives or alveolar sibilant affricatives, so the caption needs a source. Beekes p 301 tells me what an alveolar is, the others need an explainer too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, everything should be squared away; everything was able to be cited in Beekes. Let me know if there's something else that needs to be defined or cited. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess it's OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Should be good on the image review then, right? ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, save for Borsoka's point with the borders of the PIE Urheimat but I'll let that conversation proceed without my input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Should be cleared up now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 October 2024 [96].

---

Edith Roosevelt

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Edith Roosevelt was a lifelong companion to President Theodore Roosevelt, from childhood until Theodore's death. Shying from the spotlight as her husband became increasingly famous, she found herself thrown into the role of first lady over a matter of days when Theodore unexpectedly became president of the United States. As first lady, she ruled Washington's social life with an iron fist, holding meetings with the wives of Theodore's cabinetmembers to determine when and how they were to hold events—and who they weren't allowed to invite. Edith took charge of the White House's first major renovation, and she was the first of the first ladies to hire her own employee.

This is the fourth article of my U.S. first ladies project that I'm submitting as a featured article candidate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Edith_Kermit_Carow_Roosevelt_by_Frances_Benjamin_Johnston.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Edith_Roosevelt.jpg, File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family,_1903.jpg, File:Edith_and_Ethel_Roosevelt_cph.3b42358.jpg

• File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family._"From_a_father_of_five_to_a_father_of_five"_-_Gilbert_Studios._LCCN2015650317.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631530_(cropped).jpg, File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631491_(cropped).jpg

• File:Mrs._Roosevelt,_Quentin.jpg: where is that licensing coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • File:Edith_Kermit_Carow_Roosevelt_by_Frances_Benjamin_Johnston.jpg, File:Edith_Roosevelt.jpg, File:Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt LCCN2009631491 (cropped).jpg – These are all from the same source, which doesn't provide that info, and a Google search for each image didn't turn anything up.
  • File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family._"From_a_father_of_five_to_a_father_of_five"_-_Gilbert_Studios._LCCN2015650317.jpg – Same as the others, but it's from Gilbert Studios, which was apparently owned by commons:Category:C. M. Gilbert. I don't know whether that's enough to call him the author though.
  • File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631530_(cropped).jpg – Figured out the author and added to the Commons page
  • File:Mrs._Roosevelt,_Quentin.jpg – Yeah, that wasn't ideal. I switched the description to the standard format used by the other images, and I swapped the CC tag with a standard PD tag. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
    • So for all the images with tagging indicating a publication date prior to 1929, is it actually possible to demonstrate that? Or should the tagging be changed? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

      Yeah, they're all from Library of Congress which doesn't provide the publication info, and I haven't been able to verify them separately. Is there an alternative tag to use in this case, or should I just remove the tags (and would the images need to be removed from the article in that case)? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

      • What's the earliest publication date that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

TBUA, just a reminder that Nikkimaria's outstanding comments need addressing. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said previously, I am unable to verify publication. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Nikki, TBUA, can you bring me up to speed on this? If publication can't be verified, have the image tags been altered, or the images removed? Or are we good to go with the image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

We still have several images present with unverified tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here from the Discord after TBUA asked on the #commons channel about the images. I'm not sure why it would need something to demonstrate that it's public domain or when it was first published, especially as it came from the Library of Congress IMO, I would assume that the LoC would know what they're doing, but some of the licenses can be changed.

• File:Theodore Roosevelt and family. "From a father of five to a father of five" - Gilbert Studios. LCCN2015650317.jpg – can use {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}; website directly states "No known restrictions on publication."
• File:Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpg – can use {{PD-Johnston}}; website directly states "No known restrictions on publication."
• File:Edith Roosevelt.jpg – Part of the Bain Collection, and can (and does uses) {{PD-Bain}}, or can use {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}; website directly states "No known restrictions on publication."
• File:Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt LCCN2009631491 (cropped).jpg – can use {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}; website directly states "No known restrictions on publication. No renewal in Copyright office."
• File:Mrs. Roosevelt, Quentin.jpg – can use {{PD-Johnston}}; website directly states "No known restrictions on publication."
• File:Edith and Ethel Roosevelt cph.3b42358.jpg – can use {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}; website directly states "No known restrictions on publication."
• File:Theodore Roosevelt and family, 1903.jpg – can use {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}; website directly states "No known restrictions on publication."
• File:Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt LCCN2009631530 (cropped).jpg – can use {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}; website directly states "No known restrictions on publication. No renewal in Copyright office."

According to this guide by the LoC, "No known restrictions on publication" generally means that a) there was copyright but it wasn't renewed or expired; b) no copyright markings or indications; c) no records or indications of any copyright registration; d) Acquisition paperwork for collection doesn't have evidence of restriction; and e) They were published extensively without any claimed rights by someone. It notes that these do not exclusively mean that it's public domain, but there's no evidence of restrictions in the first place. reppop^talk 20:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

reppop, thank you for the straightforward explanation of what changes might be needed. Since there's been no comment regarding these suggestions, I've implemented them. Also just letting you know that I've moved your comment to the bottom of the discussion because it intersected with the outdent. Pinging the reviewer: Nikkimaria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you've added the suggested tags to what was already present, rather than changing the tagging? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I asked you several weeks ago whether the tags would need to be removed/replaced, and you never responded. I am not active participant at Wikimedia Commons and I've basically had to feel my way around in the dark throughout this review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I was looking for more detail to answer your question about alternative tagging, but essentially if a tag can't be verified to be correct, it shouldn't be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I've now removed all of the publication date tags where only the date of the photo is known. I've also removed the author death tag where the studio is known but the specific author hasn't been proven. This is in addition to the tags I added per reppop's explanation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Nikkimaria. Does the removal of the publication tags work for you? FrB.TG (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by from Kavyansh

• link White House in the lead
• "came to be her most enduring legacies." — I feel we are stating a widespread scholarly opinion as a fact. I would have written it as "are considered by scholars/historians/authors<whatever deeps appropriate> to be her most enduring legacies."
• "Managing the family became a large responsibility, as she also considered her husband to be one of the children for his involvement in the children's trouble-making," — Interesting! But do we need this in an encyclopaedic article?

I might add a few more comments, but I won't be supporting or opposing the nomination, primarily because these are just drive-by comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, always appreciated! I've made the first two changes. For my part, I've always liked having a few more personal details to give a better picture of the subject's family life and personal thoughts, but I have no objection to changing how it's presented or just removing it if others agree that it doesn't work as it currently stands. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

MSinccc

• Placeholder for the time being. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  • She then became second lady of the United States when Theodore was elected Vice President, and she became first lady when the assassination of President William McKinley propelled Theodore to the presidency later that year. The specific year or month-year might be mentioned as it has not been done previously in the paragraph.

  Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Edith resented the press, so she used her influence to control its coverage of the family and had photographs taken of the Roosevelts so she could provide them to the press at her discretion. Can this sentence be reconstructed to make its meaning clearer?

  This sentence gave me a lot of grief when I was writing the lead. I've given it another try and split it into two sentences. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Nothing more for the lead. I will return with further suggestions later. MSincccc (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thebiguglyalien More comments below. Looking forward to hearing your response.

  Legacy

  • Historians have little information about Edith's own state of mind while studying her life,...

  Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  • The historian Stacy A. Cordery said that the White House renovations organized by Edith were one of her "most important legacies",... Grammatically correct, now.

  Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Edith has been ranked:... Can this sentence be rephrased into one sentence?

  Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  MSincccc (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thebiguglyalien Further travel and political involvement

  • Over 300 letters celebrating Franklin's nomination arrived as Sagamore Hill. The last phrase "...arrived as Sagamore Hill" is vague. Could you please explain it to me? The rest of the section is fine.

  Typo. Should have been "at Sagamore Hill". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  MSincccc (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Return to Sagamore Hill

  • She temporarily lost her taste and permanently lost her smell from the accident.

  Rephrased sentence. MSincccc (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  To me this makes it sound like she enjoyed kitsch art and her body odor was cured. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

MSincccc, I've replied to everything to this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

First lady of the United States

• Rather than hiring a housekeeper, she took personal responsibility for the care of the mansion. I suppose it should be "hiring" instead of "hire".
• Each Tuesday, Edith organized a meeting with wives of all the cabinet members to run concurrently with cabinet meetings.
• For two months beginning in April 1903, Theodore ventured off on a trip to the west, and Edith cared for the children on her own, first on a cruise aboard the USS Mayflower and then in the White House. What do you mean by the "White House" here? Was it a vehicle for him to travel to the West?
• Besides her own children, Edith also ensured to dedicate time to her stepdaughter Alice, who felt neglected by Theodore.

@Thebiguglyalien Till here for now. I will return with further suggestions later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"ensured to dedicate time" doesn't sound right to me, but I've made the other changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien Fine. I do not have any major suggestions for improvement at the time being. Keeping that in mind, I will not hold back my opinion for this article's FAC. Support. MSincccc (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Outstanding work as usual; as usual, this is nothing but a list of minor nitpicks and I expect to support once these are dealt with or argued away.

• "until after Theodore was engaged to Alice Hathaway Lee": suggest making this "until after Theodore was engaged to his first wife, Alice Hathaway Lee". I suspect I know more about Teddy than most Americans (I live near Sagamore Hill and have visited it several times) but I still had to click through to remind myself that he did marry Alice.
• "and got elected governor of New York": suggest "and was elected" as a little more formal in tone.
• "She then became second lady of the United States when Theodore was elected Vice President, and she became first lady when the assassination of President William McKinley propelled Theodore to the presidency later that year." A bit repetitive in structure, and I'm not keen on the "then". I also think it would help to have one or two dates in this paragraph. How about inverting the first half: "When Theodore was elected Vice President in March 1901 she became second lady of the United States for six months, and then became first lady when the assassination of President William McKinley propelled Theodore to the presidency in September of that year"? Mentioning a year once or twice earlier in that paragraph wouldn't hurt either.
• "she featured various musical artists at the White House": perhaps "invited to" rather than "featured"?
• "held a mutual animosity toward his wife Helen Herron Taft": I don't think there's a good verb that you can use in the form "she Xed animosity towards". If you want to keep "animosity", I would suggest "and there was mutual animosity between Edith and Taft's wife, Helen Herron Taft". If you'd rather avoid the passive, maybe "and she and his wife, Helen Herron Taft, strongly disliked each other".
• "She remained politically active, supporting Warren G. Harding in 1920 and Herbert Hoover in 1932—the latter being an effort to distance herself from Hoover's opponent ...": this doesn't work syntactically -- "the latter" refers to Hoover himself, not her support for him. Maybe "She remained politically active, supporting Warren G. Harding in 1920 and Herbert Hoover in 1932. Her support for the latter was an effort to distance herself from Hoover's opponent ...".
• "Edith's early schooling took place at the Roosevelt home": can we give the location?
  • It says in the previous paragraph that they were in Norwich, Connecticut. I don't want to be redundant, and this is how the source handles it.
• "Managing the family became a large responsibility, as she also considered her husband to be one of the children for his involvement in the children's trouble-making". I don't think "as" works unless the source is clear that it would not have been a large responsibility without Theodore's attitude, which seems unlikely given the number of children and the expectation of the day that mothers were responsible for day-to-day parenting. Suggest "Managing the family became an increasing responsibility, and she counted her husband as one of the children because of his involvement in the children's trouble-making".
  • I went with "in part because", does that work?
• "cared for their family friend Cecil Spring Rice during his visits": this makes it sound as if he was an invalid?
• "Fischer's antique shop": this is mentioned as if it's well-known. Is it a candidate for a redlink?
  • The source makes it seem this way, but I also can't find any sources with a surface level search.
• "Attending several receptions in 1890, Edith was received at the White House with her husband, now as a guest rather than a tourist": suggest "She attended several receptions in 1890, and was received at the White House with her husband, now as a guest rather than a tourist". I assume some of these receptions were not at the White House? If they all were at the White House then that could be made definite with "She attended several receptions at the White House in 1890 with her husband, and was now received as a guest rather than a tourist".
• "on February 1, 1894, by President Grover Cleveland, where Edith was sat directly next to the president": suggest "on February 1, 1894; Edith was seated directly next to the president, Grover Cleveland". I don't think we need to say Cleveland personally issued the invitation (and he probably didn't, anyway).

  Is "sat" formal AmEng usage? In BrEng it would have to be "seated"; "sat" sounds very odd to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• "The promise proved to be short-lived." This doesn't sound right to me; promises don't last -- they are kept for a long time or a short time. Perhaps "The promise was not kept for long"?
• Is the link for Friday Morning Club correct? That article is about a building in Los Angeles.
• "Edith was uncomfortable with the proposition of Theodore running for Vice President of the United States": I think it would be better to start with the vice presidential opportunity as context rather than assume the reader knows what's coming -- e.g. "In 1900 Theodore was urged by Henry Cabot Lodge and others to accept the vice-presidential role on the Republican national ticket" (stealing from our article on Theodore). Then we can say Edith was uncomfortable with the idea.
• Our article on Theodore says he actually did issue a public statement that he would not accept the nomination, but here you say he only drafted one -- is one of the articles wrong?
  • Schneider & Schneider (2010) and Morris (1980) both say they drafted it together and then skip straight to him accepting the nomination. Gould (2013) says "Yet, Theodore never went the final step of saying he would decline the vice presidency if it were offered to him."
• I don't doubt your adherence to the sources, but Cleveland's reassurance to Edith seems odd as it doesn't seem to address any of the concerns listed -- it's as if Cleveland was reassuring her that Theodore could cope.
  • It's possible that I didn't convey it very well, but it tracks in my mind. She was worried for his safety and about how much he was doing, and Cleveland assured her that he could handle all of it.

    But the list of her concerns doesn't include "how much he was doing", which is what Cleveland's reassurance seems to be mostly aimed at. Can we add that to her list of concerns? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• "For her sitting room, Edith used an oval library adjacent to the president's office". Was this the Yellow Oval Room?
  • It's possible, but I don't want to assume, especially since the White House has been redone a few times.
• "Edith seemed to regret how her role as first lady": suggest "that" rather than "how".
• "with new obligations that brought her displeasure: suggest simplifying, e.g. "that she disliked".
• "commenting on how it ruined the grass": suggest "saying that it". I think "how" in these constructions is more useful when the intended meaning is "the manner in which" rather than just "that".
• "Because of a lack of historical records": does this really add anything?
• I don't understand the account of her interactions with Frances Metcalfe Wolcott. If the Wolcotts were divorced and stayed so, in what way did she "help ... fix her marriage"?
• "the handkerchiefs were scrutinized and criticized": I don't know that more details are worth including, but I am curious as to what the criticisms were -- poor fashion choices?
  • The source doesn't give much. It quotes one person as saying they were "tacky" and mentions one women's group in Texas that liked Varina Davis's handkerchief better.
• "Edith featured the famous German composer Engelbert Humperdinck when he visited the United States": what does "featured" mean here?
• "She exerted her influence over journalists, such as occasions when she wore the same dress multiple times but convinced the reporters to describe it differently": suggest "She exerted her influence over journalists: for example, when she wore the same dress on multiple occasions, she convinced the reporters to describe it differently each time."
• "Edith and Helen had developed a rivalry over the years, both distrusting each other and the other's husband. This rivalry contributed to a rivalry between Theodore and William in the following years." Repetition of "rivalry"; can we eliminate at least one?
• Suggest linking Richard Derby Jr to Ethel Roosevelt Derby#Marriage and family, to satisfy the curiosity of readers who wonder via which child Richard was a grandchild.
• "Then in 1927, Edith ferried across the Paraná River in Argentina until she reached the Iguazu Falls in Brazil". I don't think "then" is necessary; and this phrasing makes it sound as if she piloted the ferry. Could we say "took a ferry" or even just "crossed"? I had to look at the linked article on the falls to understand why the sentence is constructed this way -- is the intended meaning something like "she took a ferry across the Paraná River in order to reach the Iguazu Falls"? If so I would suggest that phrasing, with "on the border between Argentina and Brazil" at the end to simplify the first half of the sentence.
• "By this time, Edith began having": either "had begun to have" or "was beginning to have", or cut "By this time".
• "Knowing that her health would not let her travel as frequently": suggest "Knowing that her health would no longer let her travel frequently".
• "as it had been thoroughly furnished": surely "refurnished"?
• "and her allowance of racist songs to be performed at the White House to suggest strong anti-black views": suggest "and the fact that she allowed racist songs to be performed".
• Steinmetz is in the list of references but does not appear to have been used.
• Not a FAC requirement but you might add "|ref=none" to the further reading citation templates to avoid harv errors for those who have them enabled.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Mike Christie I've made changes for each point except for the ones I've replied to above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Most points struck; a couple of minor queries above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Mike Christie, agree that "seated" makes more sense. And I went back to the source and looked to see what concern it raised immediately before Cleveland's comment, so that should be fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

A nice piece of work. Reads well and looks very comprehensive. I tried my best to nitpick and managed a few. Please ignore as you wish, especially since I am not a native speaker.

• Edith Carow began a romance with Theodore Roosevelt --> the body text is more neutral about who took the initiative
  • I don't read this as her taking initiative, just that he was the person she was with when it happened.
• she participated in New York social life --> just wondering if a 's would be better
• but she preserved only one of these letters --> the but makes it sound there is an intriguing story here
  • I'm not sure what you mean.
    • Sorry for not being clear. Let me try again: Why is the word "but" here? This to me hints at something of a controversy among historians whether they were or were not in contact. If there is some kind of controversy, this should be explained. If none such is the case, I wonder what the value of adding "but she preserved only one of these letters" is.
• because they could not count on a mayor's salary --> sorry I don't understand count: could it be that NYC's finances were shaky or something?
• in Albany --> link?
• incredibly thin --> not sure I would use incredibly, I think "very thin" sounds more like WP's tone
• subsequently had lunch with the McKinleys --> I had to look up who had won the 1900 election. Would be nice to tell the reader at some stage, so that this lunch is understood to be with the top cheeses
• he would experience as presidency --> president?
• former president Cleveland --> we have a P in President McKinley, which is definitely good, but is it former president Cleveland or former President. I'm not sure, I suspect you are.
  • In this case I'm not sure if "former president" is a common noun descriptor and "Cleveland" is the object, or if "former" is a modifier and "President Cleveland" is the object. MOS:JOBTITLE has never been intuitive to me.
    • MOS:JOBTITLE does not seem to help. If I had to guess, I'd go for former president Cleveland
• Edith was confident in Theodore's chances for his reelection --> when was this?
• moved back in to --> moved back into
• by Caroline Harrison --> by former first lady Caroline Harrison
  • Done, but the JOBTITLE issue might also be relevant here.
• Republican Party --> link?
• been granted the right to vote --> link perhaps to Women's suffrage in the United States
• Franklin D. Roosevelt --> should be linked. I realise this may generate a sea of blue, so perhaps a little rejigging of words is possible?
• "Everything she did was for the happiness of others". --> "Everything she did was for the happiness of others."
• nineteenth century --> earlier we have 19th

That looks to be it. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Edwininlondon I've replied to a few above, and I made the suggested changes for all of the others. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Support on prose. The only quibble I have left is the odd "but" in "but she preserved only one of these letters". However, that does not stop my support. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Carl Sferrazza Anthony isn't linked even though Betty Boyd Caroli is. Likewise, the two citations to scri.siena.edu are inconsistently formatted. With the exception of Morris, Sylvia it seems like we are using prominent authors and biographers as sources. I wonder if there are other sources (academic publications that aren't books etc) that could be used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus Thanks for the feedback! I believe I've fixed these issues. To get a quick sense of what else might exist, I did a Google Scholar search for "Edith Roosevelt" (with quotes) and nothing about her came up except sources already in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess that leaves only Morris, Sylvia - is she a high-quality reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I believe so. The publisher of the book appears reputable, and she's also published with Random House as a biographer. I found her Wikipedia article while checking this, so I linked it in the reference as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess this is OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, just to make sure everything is addressed, I'm good to go on sourcing? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Aye. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• The lead is too long. Could it be rewritten in summary style. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it was a little long. I've trimmed it by about one third. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Palo (religion)/archive1